Slashdot Mirror
Profiting From A Vague Patent HOWTO
tunabomber writes "IEEE Spectrum has an in-depth article about the rise of Acacia Research Corporation and its plan for enforcing its patent on 'Digital Media Technology' (which seems to lay claim to any technology that transmits audio or video digitally for entertainment purposes). You may recall that there was a story on Slashdot over a year ago about Acacia's threats and subsequent lawsuits against some small adult entertainment companies regarding their violation of the patent. There was also an Ask Slashdot posted a while back by the owner of one of these companies who had received a letter from Acacia Research demanding that they pay licensing fees. Both Slashdot stories asked how long it would be until Acacia went after the big media companies. Well, they finally did last week. It appears that Acacia just had to get enough companies (Disney and Virgin Radio, among others) to pay licensing fees before they could afford a legal adventure against the big guys. DirectTV, Comcast, Echostar, and Charter Communications are some of the defendents. Let the fireworks begin!"
In the age of digital cluelessness in the patent office, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. It's hard to even tell if it's a win/win situation, because if they really go all-out on something as general as "patent of a device that broadcast digital entertainment" (paraphrased), the amount of heads that will roll in the process will make the french revolution look like a cakewalk in comparison.
Meanwhile, the sharks are rubbing their collective fins at the prospect, and ironing their armani suits no doubt.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
I think that the reason they went after the online porn industry was to establish legal precedent.
After all, in court, isn't it simple enough to find bias against people who "harm society" to make judgements not based on the rule of law?
-PM
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
>1. Obtain vague patent
>2. Enforce vague patent
>3. ???
>4. Profit!!!
After all the articles we've read, there is clearly 1 superior way to profit. Everytime I've seen someone make one of these, this one applies. Same method. Everytime.
1. Become a lawyer
2. Profit
Talk about being in high demand? There will ALWAYS be some rich asshole who wants to sue another rich asshole.
is an effective deterrent against bogus patents. IE you have to pay the patent office a lofty fine if your patent gets overturned in court. However, I can't think of a system that would:
a) get through the special interest dominated congress and
b: Be effective at making huge companies afraid of the fine while at the same time not intimidating legitimate companies from applying for legitmate patents.
Scylla and Charybdis...
And yes, I do think there are legitimate software patents, for example if this company had developed it's own compression algorithm, and unique, and very specific, distribution method, then they probably deserve a patent for it, but if they just say they invented distributing entertainment digitally, then there is no basis for the patent and they should be punished accordingly.
Take for example IBM. They have patented everything related to object oriented operating systems under their Taligent/San Francisco project.
They could sue Sun (J2EE) or Microsoft (.NET), and just anybody using things like Object-oriented window area display system, pat. no. 6,750,858, Object-oriented event notification system with listener registration of both interests and methods, pat. no. 6,424,354 or Distributed object networking service, pat. no. 6,223,217, just to name a few.
Crazy. We have to figure out a better patent system which stills protect intelectual property but also protects us from this nonsense.
Patenting software is a bit like patenting unpublished novels. You get a patent for "well, the story goes sort of like this...", and get to sue anyone who has a story that is at all similar.
As you say, the source code goes unreleased and unpublished, so all you've got to go on is the vague description of how the "story sort of goes" to compare an potentially infringing story to.
Imagine if this was the standard for plaigarism (which is, admittedly, under copyright law, not patents, but that's mostly because you can't patent stories - if you could, believe me, plenty of people would). Madness.
Surely patents are for the implementation - didn't you have to provide actual design blueprints etc. if you were patenting a new kind of engine? If you have to patent it on that levl - that is, patent a particular set of source files (where obvious derivatives etc. would still be liable), then software patents might almost work. Then again, you'd largely be duplicating existing copyright law, and what would be the point?
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Really, this is GOOD. Let the big companies keep getting hosed by the patent system. Let them see how patenting IP and having closed source propietary software will constantly hose the ability to "do your work" and just keep costing money and money and money and money and be a serious PITA to actually DO anything. Eventually, doing anything even remotely fun, interesting, or productive will be so expensive that the system will crash and burn under it's own bloat. Let it become unprofitable to use patents and restrictive copyrights. Let them keepdoing what they are doing. The lawyers and licensing fees alone will start to make companies just stop being involved with it, eventually it might even get through to some legislators noggins that the patent and copyright system is completely broken and has been broken for a long time. It won't end until joe user all the way to joe big company needs to have a lawyer on a tether with them all the time, and just have their paychecks direct deposited to the lawyers account, and the lawyers cut you a small chump change allowance.
In other words, let it burn! I feel the same way about this as I do vulnerable windows machines. The quicker it gets to a ridiculous level of unusability level the quicker it can be fixed with a REAL fix which is a total replacement system, because sure as snot they won't fix it until then, just keep applying patches that just make it worse, because they refuse to address the core issue, which is intangible thoughts shouldn't be patented in the first place. It was an INSANE precedent to let the first intangible anything get patented.
Turns out one of the key objectives of this patent:
Seems to me that all current broadcasters I know of that are listed in the suit fail to meet this criteria of sending the signal in a fraction of real time, and hence, bye bye lawsuit. I wish they would, but I have to record only one show at a time, during the broadcast window, and cannot record anything else during that broadcast window, hence, I believe they fail to infringe upon this patent. of course, the obligatory: IANAL.The cesspool just got a check and balance.
The patent system is to provide a legal protection for inventions.
The problem is, it's been allowed to evolve in such a way that the whole system is now really only accessible to lawyers, not inventors or engineers.
If your friend was a lawyer - or had deep enough pockets to hire one - he'd have no problem getting a patent.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If you are reading this from any part of the world aside from the United States, you already know this history. Hell, you're living it. That's why you hate us. That's why you either shake your head in disbelief or merely point your finger and chuckle. You see the black muck that is the personification of the stereotypical American. From outside the bubble, man, that is one ugly sight.
No one can argue that it is sickening how members of a rich society are able to chuck their conscience and morality out the window and shamelessly take advantage of a hampered and flawed system. All this without a hint of concern on how their actions may be affecting the lives of millions of unwitting countrymen. But, what is often overlooked is the long term detrement these actions have on the American economy.
Based on this kind of crap, who in their right mind would ever consider basing a business, of any type or any size, in the United States anymore? Even the stallwarts of the ecomony are picking up and moving. Offshoring is a big a problem as most folks think it is, regardless of what the "industry insiders" have to say about it.
If asshole "business executives" and their brigades of lawyers are further allowed to get away with this type of behaviour, who is going to be left? Folks in the service industries, that's it. And they'll be catering to people from other countries who stopped by for a visit to see all the carnage. And where do you think these idiots who are causing all the problems will be? Not here, that's for damn sure. They'll be at their beach house on some remote island far, far away from the garbage they left on the curb.
This isn't about being conservative or liberal, black or white, rich or poor to us normal folks. This is about a few talentless nasty bottom feeders ruining the most powerful economy in modern history.
Well, gee, thanks. Maybe I can have a slice of apple pie with the dung heap you're feeding us. That should make it all better.
So, how long do you suppose it'll be before they go after RIAA and MPAA? Now, that's a fight I might enjoy seeing. :-) Maybe we'll see it on Pay Per View?!
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Lalala
Yes, they could either do that, knowing full well the jerk is gonna have their ass in court because the broken finger didn't heal straight and they want evidence they did it according to accepted procedure, or simply refuse to service him. Either way, he/she is a liability they simply cannot afford.
That day is coming, the medical profession really has no alternative. Most of them have no problem with the real part of the damages if they screw up, but the awarding of punitives that are often 100x the real, or more, by a court system that thinks medicine should be absolutely infallible, all neatly defined etc etc, is the real shame of our american justice system.
Medicine, and its diagnosis and delivery are still more art, prior experience and instinct than hard fact, a situation thats slowly changeing with the ever less instrusive methods of seeing whats wrong inside the body coming online, but those methods generally cost money, lots of it. And they have to be paid for. If you are outputting 75% of the gross income in malpractice insurance, thats just that much less to spend on keeping uptodate, so its a self-defeating spiral.
If refusing service to a lawyer saves the potential of having the rates raised by another $100k next year, thats $100k that could be used as a downpayment on a cat scanner or similar gear. It makes perfect sense to me.
Cheers, Gene
Note however that the EPO is not an EU body, it lives completely outside the EU (there are countries who signed the EPC and which thus recognise the EPO, but which are not in the EU).
It's a bit more complex than that. First of all, when you go to the EPO and get a European patent, you can designate in which countries it should be valid. Since the EPO happily grants software patents, you can get software patents in all EU countries, regardless of the national patent office's practice.However, when you want to enforce a patent, you have to do so before a national court in the country where you want to enforce it. When you look at this, only in the UK software patents have been successfully enforced in the general case. In The Netherlands for example, no-one has ever even tried to enforce a software patent. In Germany, software patents have been generally unenforceable until now.
Given that all EU countries signed the EPC, there actually is already a European-wide agreement on what is patentable and what not: see article 52 of the EPC. An EU directive cannot change anything to the EPC or the EPO however, since that these fall outside the EU. It can change things to the laws of the member states however, which means they can influence the enforceability of patents (as these have to be contested in front of national courts).As you may have seen, article 52 EPC excludes computer programs, mathematical methods and business methods from being an invention (and thus from patentability). The catch is article 52(3), which states that those exclusions only pertain to the subject matter "as such". What this used to mean, is that you could never get a patent on something where the only contribution lied in one of those things (maths etc), but that otoh an patentable invention which also contains a computer program, does not suddenly become unpatentable
Since the EPO wanted to start granting software patents (their advisory board consists of corporate lawyers from IBM, Nokia etc, and they make money per granted patent), they changed that interpretation: now they say that this exlclusion means that e.g. computer programs not as such are patentable. Now what is a computer program not as such? A computer program executed by a computer, and to make it absolutely clear those are patentable, they call those "computer-implemented inventions" nowadays.
Donate free food here
Is it just me or do these issues only seem to happen when some no-name corporation "remembers" that they somehow invented a wide-sweeping technology?
Yeah, that seems about right. Patents are simply broken. Their intention was to promote innovation, yet I cannot think of an example recently (past 50-75 years) where innovation happens as a result of patenting something. If anything, it actually hinders innovation.
The infamous laser patent went on for almost 20 years. I don't know of the benefits Gould got by winning the patent, but lasers have become ubiquitous. Look at how many things we use every day that have lasers in them. Bar code scanners, CD players/burners, fiber optics, laser pointers, etc etc. How much innovation would have come from lasers if there were some large tax on the technology?
Also, it seems as though the stupid patents are also the most profitable. Like the "one click" thingy, or Symbol's patent on a "bar code reader with a trigger". Yes, the next time you are at a store and you see a barcode reader with a trigger, odds are its a Symbol product. If not, the "technology" is licensed from Symbol. I used to work with hand held barcode scanners, and I've only used one that was not a Symbol. I don't see too much innovation in the "one click" or "triggered barcode scanners".
Another problem with patents, is that they do nothing to the "little guy" who patents something. First, the little guy probably has no means to mass produce the patented item, so what the hell is he innovating? Thinking of something and doing something are two different things. Also, if the little guy has a patent on something, it is up to them to defend it. This costs big bucks and takes considerable amount of time, two things a little guy does not have to spare. I laugh at those comercials where the people say "If I had a patent I'd be rich!" I doubt it. Most "self made" rich people are those that start their own business, bust their ass, and make it work (independant of patents).