Doubleclick Cofounder Responds to Patent Troll by Filing Extortion Lawsuit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doubleclick Cofounder Responds to Patent Troll by Filing Extortion Lawsuit

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @12:04AM from the sued-the-wrong-guy dept.

New submitter kintamanimatt writes with news that someone other than newegg is fighting back against patent trolls, despite the business case for settling. This time, however, one of the founders of the Doubleclick ad network has decided to use his personal money to not only fight a patent troll attacking his new startup, but to strike back at them under the RICO act. "'There's a lot of outrageous stories, but everyone's so damn afraid of coming forward — It's like going against the Mafia,' he [Kevin O'Connor] said. But the idea that trolls may retaliate against those who speak out is overblown, he thinks. 'If they want to try to teach me a lesson, go for it. This will be my retirement. I'll fight them.' The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately, apologized, and gave financial compensation to the troll. The offer was 'good until close of business that day.'"

225 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then again, I hate them both and if they beat the shit out of each other, all the better.
1. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by techprophet · 2013-09-17 00:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Easier to deal with ads than patent trolls. Oops, am I going to jail for hate speech now?
2. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Striikerr · 2013-09-17 00:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's apparent that the whole patent system is in dire need of an overhaul. The question is who will finally step up in the government to fix this mess.. It's something I hear of almost daily (patent trolls killing off innovation and screwing people out of money).
  The double-click ads never land on my systems. I use a hosts file to block their stuff along with other ads. I did some searching around and found a few places which provide hots files which you can use on your computers. Here's a great site which maintains a hosts file which you can use in your computers.. http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
3. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent'
  this should be the quote of the day, probably one of the most ridiculous statements I have read in awhile!! not only do they rip off anyone and everyone but they waste the courts time with absurd charges, or the courts are stupid enough to take on such cases.
  They need a think tank to create new laws or use current laws to put the hammer down on these trolls!!
4. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Z00L00K · 2013-09-17 00:30 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  AdBlock Plus is a great thing when it comes to ads, patent trolls needs a good gang rape instead.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
5. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  What we need is 'Patent-Troll Block Plus' - nips patent trolls in the bud.
6. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:34 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I don't know if it is a crime, but it is definately hate
7. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by techprophet · 2013-09-17 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It isn't hate. Rather, it is disrespectful and insulting - exactly as intended.
8. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  What we need is 'Patent-Troll Block Plus' - nips patent trolls in the bud.
  Isn't that called "China"?
9. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  It's even better if you read the article -- O'Conner is using that bullshit claim as part of the evidence of extortion in his RICO suit.
10. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by MiniMike · 2013-09-17 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, but you will soon be seeing many ads for defense attorneys...
11. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  That makes it free and protected speech under the First Amendment!!!
12. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by RaceProUK · 2013-09-17 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  That's not APK; his post is only five lines long.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
13. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's apparent that the whole patent system is in dire need of an overhaul. The question is who will finally step up in the government to fix this mess..
  Overhaul, like in "It's apparent that the whole slavery system is in dire need of an overhaul". The word you're looking for is "abolishment".
14. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by thaylin · 2013-09-17 01:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, a limited patent system is good for the economy, and does reward innovation, the problem is that the current system does neither.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
15. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by louic · 2013-09-17 01:49 · Score: 2
  
  Not only the patent system, it seems that the justice system is also in need of an overhaul.
16. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by RobertLTux · 2013-09-17 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  If everybody will forgive a bit of an advert here
  AdBlock Plus is free and works for
  Firefox
  Chrome
  Android
  and
  Microsoft Internet Explorer!!
  im just hoping they go completely MAD on each other
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
17. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by 91degrees · 2013-09-17 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also ads do at least fund websites that we like.
  
  If you're being really generous you might argue that it facilitates some people to find items aor providers of items that they weren't peviously aware of.
18. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by SecurityGuy · 2013-09-17 02:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As a lawyer buddy reminded me, we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. That explains a lot.
19. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by flimflammer · 2013-09-17 02:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't. Someone you don't like doing a good thing is still a good thing.
20. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by sheepe2004 · 2013-09-17 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  The patent troll's target isn't Doubleclick, it's a newer startup called FindTheBest which looks (from a quick glance at the site) much less "evil".
  
  --
  http://compsoc.man.ac.uk/~shep/
21. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Ehhh... it's a different kind of hate. One of them is a mild annoyance, and trivially dealt with. The other is a menace to society and should be crushed from existence.
22. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  and that's why we go to war so often
23. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  No, a limited patent system is good for the economy....
  For sewing machines, automobiles and cotton gins*, maybe. Not for software.
  *Yeah, same to you.
24. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by LifesABeach · 2013-09-17 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you could refine your generalization?
25. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by LifesABeach · 2013-09-17 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, I would suggest that Patent Troll Rapers use protection? You really don't know where these Trolls, have been.
26. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by pieterh · 2013-09-17 03:53 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  In what reality are private monopolies "good for the economy"?
  The notion that the patent system is decent and necessary but somewhat out of control is totally bogus. It's working precisely as intended. Patent law was built by patent trolls, run by patent trolls, and exists thanks to patent trolls. Aka patent attorneys and speculators and companies with no other way to make a profit.
  Mafia is right. Comparisons to slavery are right. "A limited slavery system is good for the economy". Hogwash. Abolition is the only cure for this parasite.
  
  --
  My blog
27. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by fast+turtle · 2013-09-17 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  and having a Linux/bsd router with a complete hosts file works for every fucking thing on your network unlike ABP since that only works in Firefox and Palemoon - based on the Gecko/Firefox Codebase. As to Google, do you really think they allow ABP to block Googles Ads and data collection? As to browsers, you forget to list IE (6/7/8/9/10/11), Safari, Opera, Konqureor, QTWeb, Dillo and a whole bunch of others, so to me, ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything that APK reminds us about.
  Why in hell do you think MS removed the Hosts file functionality from Win8? To prevent people from blocking ads/malware and such. They want people's computer to be infected so their Security partners (Symantect/McAffee/Others) can continue earning money while they earn sales. Sorry but MS could tighten things up sufficiently that you don't need a god damn AV on the desktop but they wont because it would kill lots of companies that depend on their crapware.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
28. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by fast+turtle · 2013-09-17 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the websites I visit with ads are commercial in origin (Extreme Tech/PC Mag/Others) that already sell advertising. They don't need the little bit of money my eyeball impressions make em because I never click on the ads anyhow and that's without ABP installed in Firefox. I do use Noscript and no it doesn't update automatically as it does exactly what I want "Deny All/Whitelist". Combine that with the Hosts file as APK reminds us (Yes he's an idiot for such long posts) but hey we all do it occasionally - some more then others don't we?
  As to finding products I wasn't aware of previously? That's what in hell Google is for. I don't look for products by name but by functionality and usually get plenty of links to check out. Or I get told about an interesting product by word of mouth (/. and other forums) or family like I was recently told about Lennox A/C systems now offering "Solar Ready" units by my brother. He'd caught the ad on TV (I don't watch/have one - trolling /. more important).
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
29. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by liamoohay · 2013-09-17 04:04 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Just because someone, through no fault of their own, is hideously disfigured, lives under a bridge, and collects levies from unsuspecting travelers on pain of dismemberment does not give us the right to call that individual a "troll". This is a clearly racist epithet.
30. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  They need a think tank to create new laws or use current laws to put the hammer down on these trolls!!
  Or better yet, eliminate the laws which these people troll.
31. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by kilodelta · 2013-09-17 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, I block a lot of ads too. But the whole patent troll issue needs to be resolved. It's not like it's not clearly visible at this point in the game. But it's ridiculous - in essence the trolls are putting additional meaning into the patents they hold. It shouldn't work like that.
32. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by ahem · 2013-09-17 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings disagrees to a US$50.00 charge
  FTFY. HTH. HAND. IANAL. FUBAR. LMNOP. HHGTTG. YOLO. and last but not least, WITCOHEIBNFOPTDTPBWHCTWAATAATPOTETSAESTWTLONAONGETADRTTOOMRTTSDTCWITTTS
  
  --
  Not A Sig
33. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Then again, I hate them both and if they beat the shit out of each other, all the better.
  Without ads, there would be no internet career, and the internet as we know it would not exist.
34. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  In what reality are private monopolies "good for the economy"?
  The notion that the patent system is decent and necessary but somewhat out of control is totally bogus. It's working precisely as intended. Patent law was built by patent trolls, run by patent trolls, and exists thanks to patent trolls. Aka patent attorneys and speculators and companies with no other way to make a profit.
  Mafia is right. Comparisons to slavery are right. "A limited slavery system is good for the economy". Hogwash. Abolition is the only cure for this parasite.
  Software patents do not work the same way that traditional patents on physical products work. If they did, in order to get a software patent you'd have to submit the full source code for your implementation (blueprint) or an actual binary/executable (working prototype). If we made that one change, it would instantly eliminate the vast majority of software patents along with almost all the patent trolls. It would also allow companies to defend themselves effectively as it would be a much easier matter to show you are not infringing due to a substantial or significant difference in design. It would help eliminate 'catch-all' patents and endless derivative patents.
  Patents can server a very useful purpose- to protect a new innovation for a limited period of time so the author has a chance to make some money off of it. But as they exist right now in the software world, they serve only to allow for endless litigation.
35. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by sumdumass · 2013-09-17 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  You spelled it wrong. It is the " just us" system not justice system. Or at least that is what it appears like in practice.
36. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by sjames · 2013-09-17 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  THIS. In all caps!
  Our courts today are far too willing to act as a bludgeon for every two bit shake-down artist with a filing fee. It comes complete with armed goons.
37. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by RobertLTux · 2013-09-17 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  err you have missed an update since i did state that ABP works in Chrome and MSIE (and android) since google has no way of controlling the filter lists yes it does in fact block Google Ads.
  oh and since most folks will be using a browser from the Gecko/Chrome/IE families it does not matter that a bunch of browsers that may together be ?percent of the "market" are not supported (oh i forgot Opera is supported).
  its kind of hard to be mobile when you have to lug around another system to run your adblock filter
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
38. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  I think you overestimate the amount of documentation required for a physical device patent. And no, minor differences in a covered implementation have no bearing whatsoever on whether a patent covers the other party's implementation as long as the core concepts are in the claims.
39. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Tanktalus · 2013-09-17 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  You're proposing a technical solution to what is actually a social/legal problem. (Rest of form letter omitted.)
40. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by 91degrees · 2013-09-17 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the websites I visit with ads are commercial in origin (Extreme Tech/PC Mag/Others) that already sell advertising. They don't need the little bit of money my eyeball impressions make em because I never click on the ads anyhow and that's without ABP installed in Firefox.
  Do you never use a website that Doubleclick advertises on? If you do then you're indirectly benefiting from the people who do click on the ads, and therefore benefiting from Doubleclick's actions.
  
  As to finding products I wasn't aware of previously? That's what in hell Google is for.
  What do you search for to find things that you've never heard of? I'm not sure if I've ever bought anything that I've heard of through a doubleclick ad but I know I have learned of the existence of several things simply because I saw the advertising.
41. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  In what reality are private monopolies "good for the economy"?
  The alternative is everything is done under "trade secret" and inventions are intentionally obfuscated. Large companies will require contracts prohibit reverse engineering of their product when they sell and will actually enforce all those "non compeete agreements" they make you sign but never do anything with.
  That isn't a better situation.
42. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by theArtificial · 2013-09-17 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  They don't need the little bit of money my eyeball impressions make em because I never click on the ads anyhow and that's without ABP installed in Firefox. They don't need the little bit of money my eyeball impressions make em because I never click on the ads anyhow and that's without ABP installed in Firefox.
  The way most advertising works by selling eyeballs, not click throughs. So you not viewing the ads may not have a giant effect on the site, but it ads up. I think an interesting idea, for sites which subsist on advertising alone, is to simply have a pay option where you can pay to not see the ads and not be bothered by anything (something reasonable like) and you'll have the satisfaction of supporting something you value.
  
  As to finding products I wasn't aware of previously? That's what in hell Google is for.
  
  A product listing IS an advertisement and the fact that you came across it shows the effectiveness. How do other people find out about these products? Advertising. Having a "great" product alone isn't enough, for example let's say it's technically superior to the competitors', and nobody knows about it your businesses won't do very well.
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
43. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
  That being said :
  1) Patent times are FAR too long in many cases and should not be renewable.
  2) Minor minor changes to the original patent should not result in a new patent.
  3) Patents should only be issues where there is an actual product ... not a process.
  4) Software falls under copyright and trademark laws and therefore patents do not apply.
  5) If you have not created and sold a product to the public using said patent within 2 years of filing then you loose ALL rights to it.
44. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Why in hell do you think MS removed the Hosts file functionality from Win8? To prevent people from blocking ads/malware and such.
  A quick search shows that Windows 8 still has a host file. You do have to change a setting to keep your modifications from being marked as malware, but that's pretty trivial. Of course, you'll probably just think I'm a shill and part of your grand conspiracy.
45. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Then again, I hate them both and if they beat the shit out of each other, all the better.
  But, but, DoubleClick is (owned by) Google!
  Google is good! They even say so "do no evil!"
  You must root for the Google!
46. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  I predict a civil war in USA within 15 years.
47. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by hedwards · 2013-09-17 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Calling somebody what they are is disrespectful and insulting?
  That explains a lot.
48. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by hedwards · 2013-09-17 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  If they want us to look so bad, perhaps they shouldn't use flash ads that obscure content and other tricks to get clicks fraudulently. I only have a 5mbps connection and a lot of those ads are so corpulent that it slows down what should be a quickly loading site.
49. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by HiThere · 2013-09-17 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Remembering back to before ads...I'm not sure it would be worse, just because it was different.
  It's true that in the early days there wasn't nearly as much on the internet, but in the first place that wasn't all bad, and in the second place, anything that people were interested in tended to show up.
  And in the third place, ads hosted on the site, rather than distributed, tend to be much more accountable. (If the ads are too annoying, the site dies.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
50. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  ... need a think tank ...
  
  Didn't President Obama promise patent reform a few months ago? How is his list of delivered promises looking?
51. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Darinbob · 2013-09-17 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  Nonsense, it's not hate speech. Trolls are woodlands creatures who maintain bridge infrastructures through remuneration. Thus they are beloved by both greens and corporatists.
52. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Darinbob · 2013-09-17 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, there was a spammer who posted a diatribe against the anti-spam posts, defending his free-speech rights to spam by saying "you guys are the real terrorists!"
  So this sounds like the same sort of attitude of failing to completely understand why they're being hated.
53. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by almitydave · 2013-09-17 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
  This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:
  
  Well if one's software is not protected: the group invests (often large amounts of) money in creating new and unique software, then Joe Schmuck will reverse-engineer the software when it is first available, then write similar software and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This discourages the creation and money put into creating new software.
  So I'm not sure how you get
  
  4) Software falls under copyright and trademark laws and therefore patents do not apply.
  I'm not saying whether we should have software patents or not, but the fact is that a lot of the same reasoning applies. Also, it's worth considering that perhaps the design of the system is fine, but the implementation is terrible. I believe that a significant part of the problem is that the patent office has a tendency to rubber-stamp every broad, vague, "but on a computer", or similar bogus software patent it sees. You'll have the same problems if they do this with physical inventions.
  I think the fact that there is so much software patent litigation is proof that this is the problem: if it were a truly novel and non-obvious invention, then you wouldn't have to sue 40 companies that all had the same idea and implemented it independently.
  
  --
  my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
  I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
54. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's all politics. Eg., one person's role model is another's process schizophrenia.
  And it's all bullshit, of course. The racketeering begins with Congress, anyway.
55. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Next you'll be saying something about freedom of speech. :-)
56. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by tqk · 2013-09-17 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, there was a spammer who posted a diatribe against the anti-spam posts, defending his free-speech rights to spam by saying "you guys are the real terrorists!"
  That's funny. I believe that was the reaction we got as well from the original Green Card Lawyers.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
57. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by tqk · 2013-09-17 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Without ads, there would be no internet career, and the internet as we know it would not exist.
  Yeah, it'd just be a whole mass of writings, blogs, documentation, discussions, ... Wikipedia, Urban Dictionary, freemathhelp.com, ... techdirt, torrentfreak, xkcd, ...
  Thank $DEITY for advertising saving us from that. I *love* spending time on vendor websites. *-)
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
58. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  APK is mentally ill, and not particularly bright. You must have even fewer functional neurons to think that the sole surviving relic of the pre-DNS era is a way to do anything well.
  Not only that, but ABP will block ads before address resolution takes place. If you didn't know, there are a number of things that your browser is doing before it actually determines that it needs to fetch a piece of content.
  Factual inaccuracies contained in your post include the removal of hosts in Win8, the availability of ABP, and oh wait the entirety of your post.
59. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by chrismcb · 2013-09-17 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
  This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:
  Actually it doesn't. Patents are supposed to protect the implementation, not the idea. For example the one click patent, I should be able to implement one click patent myself, if I do it differently than the way Amazon does it. But I don't really know how Amazon does it, cause I can't see their code. Nor can I truly understand the patent itself.
  The other issue with software patents is the majority of them are not really patent-able, as they are not novel or they have prior art.
60. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by chrismcb · 2013-09-17 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  not only do they rip off anyone and everyone but they waste the courts time with absurd charges, or the courts are stupid enough to take on such cases
  they aren't wasting the courts time with absurd charges (well they are, as the original patent lawsuit turns out was absurd) but they are threatening the defendant with the absurd charge. And that is the whole issue here.
61. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by qzzpjs · 2013-09-17 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe patent troll is the wrong term. We need to use a word that the government understands. They are patent terrorists! They use the fear of litigation and fines to extort people or companies into wasting their money in lengthy lawsuits or giving up their businesses outright. All to destroy competition, not to foster innovation.
  I think we need one simple fix. Patents should not be transferable and if you are not actively creating and selling the item you have a patent for, the patent is cancelled immediately.
62. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by almitydave · 2013-09-18 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
  This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:
  Actually it doesn't. Patents are supposed to protect the implementation, not the idea. For example the one click patent, I should be able to implement one click patent myself, if I do it differently than the way Amazon does it. But I don't really know how Amazon does it, cause I can't see their code. Nor can I truly understand the patent itself.
  Actually, it does. What you have done is point out a flaw in the argument. But the argument, as stated, can apply to software patents.
  
  The other issue with software patents is the majority of them are not really patent-able, as they are not novel or they have prior art.
  That was the key point of my previous post. One-click, even if no one had done it before, was trivial and should not have been patentable.
  
  --
  my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
  I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
63. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by jbo5112 · 2013-09-18 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I would accept a compromise of gutting software patents to 5-7 years. It would be much easier to get large companies and patent trolls to agree to it, and cause much less damage.
64. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  this should be the quote of the day, probably one of the most ridiculous statements I have read in awhile!! not only do they rip off anyone and everyone but they waste the courts time with absurd charges, or the courts are stupid enough to take on such cases.
  The legal analysis here SHOULD be simple, and the situation is FAR more serious than just a simple "rip off", or a mere "waste" of somebody's time.
  Freedom of speech does not necessarily apply to government officials while engaged in official business, or to legal professionals engaged in the practice of law. It is a right of the people, not necessarily a right of the government, or of the legal profession (which in many ways functions as an extension of the government, or at least the courts). It particularly does not apply when either party is attempting to prevent another from engaging in reasonable freedom of speech.
  For those to whom this point is not immediately obvious, read some history. Look at the name-calling that was routinely done in the press by opposing parties to describe candidates in elections (such as Thomas Jefferson) in the days of the Founding Fathers. You'll be in for a surprise.
  Claiming that the use of the term "patent troll" is somehow a violation of the law is not a legitimate thing for a legal professional to do while engaged in the practice of law. It is not ethical legal practice. It is a violation of fundamental rights "retained by the people". It is a violation of the oath that legal professional has sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights, and such an action immediately and permanently disqualifies that person from engaging in the practice of law.
  For a legal professional to attempt to get money while suppressing another's freedom of speech is even worse conduct. It is extortion in the eyes of those who understand the 9th Amendment. The right to not have legal professionals (or members of government) engage in extortion is certainly a right "retained by the people".
  No legal professional can authorize this person to engage in oath-breaking or unethical practice of law, and any attempt to do so, or to retain them within the legal profession, or even to grant pardon or immunity, is invalid and illegal and makes any parties involved in the attempt accessories to the original violation. No Bar Association can authorize this conduct. No judge can authorize it.
  Contradictions in the legal system create an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals. In ethics terms, the phrase that describes this situation is "conflict of interest". It's a bad thing. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible, as a right "retained by the people".
  Hence, any precedents that would authorize a legal professional to engage in this form of conduct, as they necessarily contradict freedom of speech, represent violations of the oaths of office sworn by the judge or judges creating those precedents, and are illegal and invalid. Similarly, any laws to that effect are illegal and invalid.
  We can assert the equivalent of the Nuremberg precedent in US law, under the authority of the 9th Amendment, as a right "retained by the people", or under the authority of the 10th Amendment, as a right "reserved to the people". Just as governments can not pass laws that authorize military personnel to commit atrocities, they also can not pass laws or create precedents authorizing civil officials OR legal professionals to violate fundamental rights. Just as military personnel have an individual responsibility to refuse to obey illegal orders, so to do legal professionals have a responsibility to refuse to act, while engaged in the practice of law, according to illegal laws or precedents. The legal and civil chain of command is just as subject to good individual judgement and common sense as the military chain of command.
  As I said before, the legal analysis SHOULD be simple. Unfortunately, the US legal system is riddled with ethic
65. Re: I have mixed feelings about this. by jbee02 · 2013-09-27 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Not a complete overhaul they just need to make it illegal to patent software
hate speach post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:12 · Score: 0

patent troll! patent troll, patent troll patent troll.
patent troll! patent troll!! patent troll.
patent troll.
please don't sue.
1. Re:hate speach post by ShanghaiBill · 2013-09-17 00:33 · Score: 2
  
  please don't sue.
  Hate speech is not a crime in the United States. You are free to express all the hatred that you want. Some schools have administrative penalties for hate speech, but the courts have thrown out many of those policies. Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities. There is silliness from both sides here.
2. Re:hate speach post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  yet i still hope his rico suit wins.
3. Re:hate speach post by chrismcb · 2013-09-17 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities. There is silliness from both sides here.
  I'm not sure what you consider a completely legal activity. Is it legal for me to threaten you with a lawsuit, and then file what is shown to be an illegal lawsuit? Is it legal for me to claim that I will have you charged with what sounds like a legitimate crime, if you don't comply? What the troll is doing might be legal, but if it is it sure skirts the boundaries of legalities. Makes the RICO claim much more likely.
The only victims in these battles by EmagGeek · 2013-09-17 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

are the consumers who end up paying for both sides.
1. Re:The only victims in these battles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Nonsense. Business owners and entrepreneurs pay a price also. The consumer doesn't have it so bad, really.
2. Re:The only victims in these battles by fgouget · 2013-09-17 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  are the consumers who end up paying for both sides.
  So your position is that it's better to not fight such extortion schemes? Because then the only victims are still going to be the consumers who are going to pay the patent trolls through increased prices. And since nobody fights back (your policy), more trolls will come to the easy money feast. And that is better how?
3. Re:The only victims in these battles by Solandri · 2013-09-17 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  So your position is that it's better to not fight such extortion schemes?
  That's not how I read OP. I read it as a roundabout way of saying that we've reached them point where... "extrajudicial" justice would be more cost-effective than seeking justice through the court system.
4. Re:The only victims in these battles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  And often the employees of the loosing side.
5. Re:The only victims in these battles by sjames · 2013-09-17 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  It would be better if this nonsense wasn't allowed in the first place. Then the consumer wouldn't have to pay for either side or for the cost of jamming the courts to capacity.
6. Re:The only victims in these battles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  are the consumers who end up paying for both sides.
  In what way are consumers paying for this? He made it perfectly clear that he's using his personal money to fund this.
  It is effectively a hobby. If he wants to fund litigation instead of building model airplanes as a hobby, the only people who are out any money are the local model airplane shop.
7. Re:The only victims in these battles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  The consumers are clearly not the only victims in these battles.
  Talk to a small business owner or entrepreneur and you will see that they are also victims.
Go After the Lawyers also by kevinT · 2013-09-17 00:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Someone needs to not only go after the trolls, but go after the law license of the Attorneys representing them as well. Get a couple of lawyers disbarred and watch the lawsuits end!
1. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  You know thats not a bad idea at all.
2. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  Just distribute the verdict evenly amongst each lawyer and whoever he/they represent, regardless of whether the case is won or lost.
3. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-09-17 00:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Someone needs to not only go after the trolls, but go after the law license of the Attorneys representing them as well. Get a couple of lawyers disbarred and watch the lawsuits end!
  You know thats not a bad idea at all.
  True, but drone strikes would be more fun.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
4. Re: Go After the Lawyers also by techprophet · 2013-09-17 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  More effective, too
5. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by easyTree · 2013-09-17 00:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wouldn't camaraderie amongst the legalistas prevent this getting off the ground?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
6. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  yes make it extremely expensive to offer a settlement and then lose or drop the case, lawyers personal money maybe a body part
7. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-09-17 01:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's a logical step if this type of trolling is indeed classed as extortion. In that case, the lawyers are complicit in the crime.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
8. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by rwise2112 · 2013-09-17 01:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Someone needs to not only go after the trolls, but go after the law license of the Attorneys representing them as well. Get a couple of lawyers disbarred and watch the lawsuits end!
  From what I've seen, it seems a lot of these patent troll companies are owned by lawyers.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
9. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by benjfowler · 2013-09-17 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  And what are the odds of the Democrats going after them? Probably none, since lawyers are in bed with the Democrats.
10. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by kevinT · 2013-09-17 01:38 · Score: 2
  
  Wouldn't camaraderie amongst the legalistas prevent this getting off the ground?
  In some cases, yes. But all you really need is a grumpy old attorney in semi-retirement that doesn't care anymore (for what ever reason). Then watch out.
11. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  isn't most of the politicians on both sides lawyers of some kind?
12. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by NatasRevol · 2013-09-17 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  s/Democrats/politicians/g
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
13. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Rigel47 · 2013-09-17 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  A lawyer disbarred for being a scumbag? Oh dear, that's rich.
14. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by 91degrees · 2013-09-17 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  The impression I get is that a lot of lawyers hate these guys as much as we do. Even evil has standards:) But more to the point, they do consider themselves to be respectable professionals and don't like their reputation to be dragged through the mud to obviously.
15. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by houghi · 2013-09-17 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds nice. If that would hold water, what you need to do is always go after the lawyers. That way if you have enough money, there will be nobody to defend the other party, so you start to win even easier.
  Imagine if the MAFIAA would start doing that Or the patent trolls themselves.
  When you start thinking, instead of reacting, you will see that this would be a very bad idea.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
16. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by alexgieg · 2013-09-17 02:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  they do consider themselves to be respectable professionals and don't like their reputation to be dragged through the mud to obviously.
  "It's the 99 percent of lawyers who give the rest a bad name."
  
  --
  Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
17. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by TC+Wilcox · 2013-09-17 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  "It's the 99 percent of people who give the rest a bad name."
  Fixed that for you.
18. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by TheP4st · 2013-09-17 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  But not as fun as televised (reality show format) deportation to Ilha da Queimada Grande
  
  --
  "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
19. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by TheP4st · 2013-09-17 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  On second thought, that would be a horrid act of animal cruelty.
  
  --
  "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
20. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by LoRdTAW · 2013-09-17 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Wouldn't work, the snakes would welcome them as one of their own. And besides, sharks would give them a ride home to shore as a professional courtesy.
21. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately it seems to be insanely difficult to disbar a lawyer.
  How long did it take - and how much crap did he have to pull - just to finally get Jack Thompson disbarred?
  The people doing the disbarring are the same who would be affected by more lax rules. They also have a lot of friends in their area who would be affected, so they'd rather keep the status quo and only act when really really really necessary.
22. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  It constantly amazes me how many people will come to this site and do the equivalent of waving their arms in the air and shouting "Hey, look at me! I'm an idiot!"
23. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by thaylin · 2013-09-17 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  seems a little backwards there... More lawyers are republicans, and we know how republicans feel about all regulation.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
24. Re:Go After the Lawyers also by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't camaraderie amongst the legalistas prevent this getting off the ground?
  In some cases, yes. But all you really need is a grumpy old attorney in semi-retirement that doesn't care anymore (for what ever reason). Then watch out.
  Or a young idealistic one that is willing to risk his/her future for a cause.
Charity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:23 · Score: 1

Can we please donate money as charity to the cause?
I am not from USA, but i'd give my 1$.
I don't like Ad companies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

And how they track and use the data they accumulate.
But they are a far more benign cancer and in fact do help pay for the intarwebs as we know it.
Patent trolls, on the other hand, do absolutely nothing positive for technology, the internet or the world and no, they do not protect inventors.
Patent trolls are an extremely malignant force and raise the cost of doing business for legitimate companies tremendously.
Doubleclick= annoying.
Patent trolls= criminal.
I am amazed that anyone with the capacity to use the internet states that they believe otherwise.
1. Re:I don't like Ad companies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Patents are a way of earning back your investment. Selling the patent is getting your money back. In that way the system works. The investment is moved to another company, and they want to earn money, so they enforce the patent. So far they do something positive for technology - giving money to the inventor who can use that to invent something else. I don't think this is necessarily wrong.
  The whole legal process is the problem. This is more than just patents. It's the whole legal system in the US, where it more or less rules the country, and where it has such power (because of the huge amount of money that is earned) that they can bend the political system so it won't change.
2. Re: I don't like Ad companies by O('_')O_Bush · 2013-09-17 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Except patent trolls aren't actually committing crimes, and therefore aren't criminal.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
3. Re: I don't like Ad companies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  His argument is that they are comitting crimes, and therefore is seeking civil renumeration for their criminal activity.
4. Re: I don't like Ad companies by pla · 2013-09-17 01:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except patent trolls aren't actually committing crimes, and therefore aren't criminal.
  
  The worst criminals have always had the law on their side - From the landed nobles of Old Europe, to the "robber barons" of the late 19th / early 20th centuries, to patent trolls and the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA today.
  
  Doesn't make it right. They all belong(ed) up against the wall.
5. Re:I don't like Ad companies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Patent trolls, on the other hand, do absolutely nothing positive for technology, the internet or the world and no, they do not protect inventors.
  Patent trolls add value to the economy by giving inventors another way to monetize their invention (sell patent to troll, or let troll enforce it for you). This increases the incentive to patent, and (it is assumed) by extension the incentive to invent more stuff.
6. Re: I don't like Ad companies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  In the sense that extortion isn't a crime if you manage to avoid being prosecuted. And Al Capone's only crime was tax evasion.
7. Re: I don't like Ad companies by 91degrees · 2013-09-17 02:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Except patent trolls aren't actually committing crimes
  Well, that seems to be something that O'Connor disagrees with.
  
  Based on wikipedia's defintion, "A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist." I think he might have a point.
  
  Of course the legalities are probably more complicated than this, but from my layman's perspective I'd say he has a good chance.
8. Re:I don't like Ad companies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  The whole legal process is the problem. This is more than just patents. It's the whole legal system in the US, where it more or less rules the country, and where it has such power (because of the huge amount of money that is earned) that they can bend the political system so it won't change.
  That is why it's called the rule of law.
9. Re:I don't like Ad companies by bzipitidoo · 2013-09-17 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Patents are a way of earning back your investment
  You made a whole bunch of assumptions with that start. If the patent isn't for something obvious, perhaps so obvious that no investment at all was required to develop it, and if it wasn't actually someone else's invention and investment for which the patent holder did not pay, and if it doesn't cover something that shouldn't be patentable at all, such as a mathematical formula or other fact of nature, and if the patent isn't overly broad, and if there isn't prior art, then perhaps "earning back your investment" is a fair statement.
  
  In that way the system works
  Fantasy. The patent system isn't working as intended. It simply has too many built in incorrect assumptions about the processes by which inventions are created. The mythical lone genius inventor toiling away in a garage in obscurity is just one of the figures distorted and caricatured by powerful interests that think stronger patent law is to their advantage.
  
  The whole legal process is the problem
  Yes, that is certainly a big part of the problem. The legal profession has a vested interest in opposing any reforms that clean the system up and lead to fewer lawsuits and less work for them. They encouraged the patent office to go ahead with the idea of kicking the can down the road. Instead of the patent office doing their job of screening out the obvious and overly broad, they grant the patent, collect the fees, and let the courts and lawyers figure out later whether the patent is valid or applicable. They're also happy to ally themselves with any tech firms that think that patents, while costly, are still worth having for such purposes as litigating small competitors into the ground. In short, these big tech companies think monopolies are worth having so long as it is they who have the monopolies.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Ummmmmm..... by volpe · 2013-09-17 00:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yay Doubleclick?
1. Re:Ummmmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  First positive sentiment I've had towards ads as well...
  Could doubleclick just replace every ad nation-wide with "It is my personal opinion that lawfirm XYZ is dishonest, subversive, and riddled with STD's. Thank you"?
2. Re:Ummmmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  If they already had, would anyone on slashdot know it?
3. Re:Ummmmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  From what I've heard of lawyers, that last part is probably true.
4. Re:Ummmmmm..... by Gravis+Zero · 2013-09-18 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be the first to say it, I love Doubleclick. Of course you are wondering why and the answer is that make it easy to block sooo many ads. I wish more people would use Doubleclick.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by doas777 · 2013-09-17 00:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

So a guy who got rich by assuming illegitimate rights over peoples personal info, is mad that another entity is trying to get rich by assuming illegitimate rights over a process that appears to sell that personal info. Mafioso's all around.
1. Re:Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by oobayly · 2013-09-17 00:36 · Score: 2
  
  Simple - don't use websites that have doubleclick's content. It is your choice after all.
2. Re:Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by q.kontinuum · 2013-09-17 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  ... Or use Adblock, or add "127.0.0.1 ...doubleclick.net" to hosts (lot of work for all subdomains, wildcards not supported), or use "squid" with a blacklist for ad-domains, or use any other solution that suits you better ...
  
  --
  Trolling is a art!
3. Re:Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by gsslay · 2013-09-17 00:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Try and step away from the personalities involved for a moment. In this particular situation who is in the right, and who is the scum-bag criminal?
  Personally I hope the patent troll gets pummelled into a greasy spot on the courtroom floor, and a precedent is set that applies for all other patent trolls. So, uncharacteristically, I'm rooting for doubleclick.
4. Re:Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by oobayly · 2013-09-17 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm very well aware of all the methods to avoid doubleclick (and similar hosts). The reason for my comment as that some people get very self righteous about advert companies tracking them, but still are quite happy to frequent the sites that utilise their services.
  For the record, I only use FlashBlock (to avoid fast moving annoying graphics) and I browse Slashdot with the ads even though I'm given the option switch them off. Why, because I know who pays their bills. You can argue that I've sold my privacy in return for free content, and to a certain extent you're right - they know I like hiking, sailing, climbing, RC helicopters & electronics. They don't however have access to my personal communications because I'm sensible enough not to use free providers for stuff like that.
5. Re:Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  How is that simple in practice? The web has this thing called hyperlinks, which often lead to websites you haven't visited before, and which don't contain any advance doubleclick warnings.
6. Re:Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Doubleclick has NOTHING to do with it (except for the fact that the man behind FindTheBest, the startup that is being trolled, has incidentally created Doubleclick a long time ago). The headline is misleading, the summary says it quickly ("attacking his new startup"), but TFA barely mentions Doubleclick at all.
7. Re:Giant Duche vs Turd Sandwich by amicusNYCL · 2013-09-17 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  DoubleClick, owned by Google, is not a party to this lawsuit. This is a suit between FindTheBest and apparently something called Lumen View. FindTheBest's CEO's old company has nothing to do with this.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
don't extort a billionaire for $50K by raymorris · 2013-09-17 00:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

The troll screwed up this time. $50K?!?! To O'Connor, that's like $20 is to most of us. It might get more expensive? As is $150K, less than 0.1% of his net worth? I don't think he's scared.
1. Re:don't extort a billionaire for $50K by cdrudge · 2013-09-17 01:17 · Score: 2
  
  There are a variety of copyright troll cases that are in the works now where the plaintiffs have either had to pay legal fees for the defense or post bond in case they lose. In the former case, $20-50k in defense fees have been awarded before the case even went to trial. Other cases bonds of $250k were asked for. And these are for "simple" copyright infringement cases, not a patent fight.
  Troll cases usually are calculated to cost more than what is a trivial amount, but less than what it will cost to defend and risk losing. As you pointed out $50k is a drop in the bucket. But is $300k? $500k? What if litigation costs for all sorts of experts, eventual appeals, etc reaches $1+m? That's a lot more of a risk.
2. Re:don't extort a billionaire for $50K by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  But the ad guy said he was going to fight them for entertainment...some billionaires race yachts, some take sadist patent troll scrubs to court and watch them squirm.
3. Re:don't extort a billionaire for $50K by Theaetetus · 2013-09-17 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  There are a variety of copyright troll cases that are in the works now where the plaintiffs have either had to pay legal fees for the defense or post bond in case they lose. In the former case, $20-50k in defense fees have been awarded before the case even went to trial. Other cases bonds of $250k were asked for. And these are for "simple" copyright infringement cases, not a patent fight.
  Yes, but I'd take those with a grain of salt - specifically, the Prenda copyright cases had bonds and sanctions with payment to the defense attorneys because of some truly outrageous behavior, including fraud on the court, forged signatures, etc. The Righthaven cases had an issue where Righthaven didn't actually own the copyrights they claimed to be asserting. There are tons of other copyright cases that haven't required anything of the sort - see, for example, the Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum RIAA cases.
  Here, they certainly own the patents - the assignment is in the public records at the USPTO - and there's no indication that they've committed any fraud... yet. There's no reason to hold your breath waiting for news that they'll have to post a bond for defense fees.
4. Re:don't extort a billionaire for $50K by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Troll cases usually are calculated to cost more than what is a trivial amount, but less than what it will cost to defend and risk losing.
  Those fuckers need to understand that what they're asking for also costs more than a hit man, and some day someone on the receiving end of one of these suits will realize that.
The court system is as bad as the trolls, by Grand+Facade · 2013-09-17 00:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

So folks are hesitant to fight because a court ruling in favor of the Trolls would set precedence.
There is also the resources consumed in a protracted fight coupled with the above that makes it seem kinda suicidal.
On the other hand one good win could loose the flood waters and lead to some kind of reform.
I just don't see that happening as too many are making bank on the status quo.

--
Rick B.
Reminds me of Prenda Law by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 00:54 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the Order by Judge Wright in California federal district court, where he slammed Prenda Law, the infamous copyright trolls, and stated that they resembled a RICO organization. THAT PATENT TROLLS ARE FACING THE SAME MUSIC IS A GOOD THING !!!!
"[Though] Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO (a reference to federal criminal statutes regarding 'racketeer-influenced and corrupt organizations'). The federal agency eleven decks up (the U.S. Attorney's office on the 13th floor of the Los Angeles federal courthouse) is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage."
Trolls vs mafiosi by alexhs · 2013-09-17 00:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

'It's like going against the Mafia,' [Kevin O'Connor] said.

The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges
It's telling that they object to being called patent trolls, but are ok with being compared to the Mafia :)

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
1. Re:Trolls vs mafiosi by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the mafia is cool. Trolls just piss off bridgegoers.
Strong Arm Tactic by Andover+Chick · 2013-09-17 00:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is a strong arm tactic commonly used by criminals. It is done by the mafia, it is done by prison gangs. Of course it is not without precedent in the economy. For example, in the music/entertainment world aggressive lawyers have long beaten down artists. All those nice office buildings around the West Hollywood and Beverly Hills area are full of lawyers. Another example, I once had a rug cleaning guy, who was really a lawyer, come into my apartment to clean a rug. After I signed his work order and he immediately started to threaten to take me to court unless I paid $400 (which was 1000% the cost of the cleaning). Being an athletic lady I snatched the work order out of his hands, shredded it, and flushed it down the toilet. I then threatened to scream "rape". Anyways, the point is it is not good enough to just have computer skills to become an internet entrepreneur, you need some well rounded skills such a law. In Babson College's entrepreneurial program they require students take a law courses since they know starting a business is full of legal landmines and shakedowns. Also be ready to kick a bully in the gonads.
1. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by benjfowler · 2013-09-17 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  If somebody comes into your flat to extort and threaten you, and they subsequently disappear forever, is anybody going to know where they ever went? Especially if they're crooks with few friends?
2. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by Andover+Chick · 2013-09-17 02:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You are precisely correct. What you say was part of their scam. I sense their's was a technique tailored to females alone in apartments who would be intimidated, then he'd disappear. He did not anticipate there'd be a sharp bone in his fish that day. I'm a 5'10'' rugby and ice hockey player with a black belt in Kempo. And I always keep a knife down the base of my back when a service man is in my flat. I wasn't intimidated. Then I had one of our doormen (porter) escort him out of the building since, as you say, I was concerned he'd slip away and try it again on one of our neighbors. The doorman then notified the other building doormen on my section of Park Ave (Manhattan). Personally, I'm thrilled to go bare-knuckled w/scam artist and trolls. I advocate others to kick some butt too!
3. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Patent trolls and their crook lawers remind me of a school bully I met once when I changed to a new school. I didn't know the dude was a bully and was supposed to be feared so on the first day when he attempted to extract a "protection fee" his nose became ground zero for my fist. It took three people to peal me off of that crying ass-hole. Hope Kevin kicks troll ass. Everyone should stop being so damn afraid of coming forward and calling out those fucken scumbag patent trolls.
4. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by fliptout · 2013-09-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost too bad you didn't get to use him for boxing practice. Well done.
  
  --
  A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
5. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  You are precisely correct. What you say was part of their scam. I sense their's was a technique tailored to females alone in apartments who would be intimidated, then he'd disappear. He did not anticipate there'd be a sharp bone in his fish that day. I'm a 5'10'' rugby and ice hockey player with a black belt in Kempo. And I always keep a knife down the base of my back when a service man is in my flat. I wasn't intimidated. Then I had one of our doormen (porter) escort him out of the building since, as you say, I was concerned he'd slip away and try it again on one of our neighbors. The doorman then notified the other building doormen on my section of Park Ave (Manhattan). Personally, I'm thrilled to go bare-knuckled w/scam artist and trolls. I advocate others to kick some butt too!
  Dang, if I still live in Manhattan I'd ask you out for pizza. Though if you had all the other qualities claimed and liked pizza to boot, I'd expect your GF to mind :)
6. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by Andover+Chick · 2013-09-17 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm hetero. Playing rugby is a great way for a gal to meet guys.
7. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-09-17 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  What's a "doorman"? What's "Park Ave"? I honestly and truly have no idea, and I get the impression that most of the people who just read your statement don't know, either.
  You keep a knife down your back? Isn't that sort of thing illegal in civilized areas? What's next, an AR-15? Like the New Yorker who opened fire at the Washington Navy Yard? You violence-loving people are freaking weird.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
8. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  ... I then threatened to scream "rape" ...
  
  Rape is defined from your perspective and hence is your problem. The perspective of by-standers is a decision to avoid the argument that you did or didn't 'offer' consent.
  Fire, however tends to be everyone's problem.
9. Re:Strong Arm Tactic by Andover+Chick · 2013-09-17 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Park Ave is a major avenue in Manhattan, New York City, 10016. A doorman is someone who sits at the door of apartment buildings as security and concierge. A knife isn't illegal in ones own residence even if concealed. It's absurd hyperbole to link any of this to the naval yard tragedy - take your lithium please.
The winners by schneidafunk · 2013-09-17 00:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

And the winners are the lawyers on both sides.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Hmm. Doubleclick Vs. Patent Trolls by Greyfox · 2013-09-17 01:15 · Score: 2

This is like a fight to the death between Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. No matter who loses, I win! *gets popcorn*

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Hmm. Doubleclick Vs. Patent Trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Have you seen Miley Cyrus lately? I think she wins...
Patent Pending by zztong · 2013-09-17 01:54 · Score: 1

Someday I really need to submit my patent for my business process of securing patents for things I have no intention of manufacturing and then attempting to enforce those patents against others.
This will get the lawyer sanctioned by IP_Troll · 2013-09-17 01:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

"and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately"

Threatening criminal charges to gain the upper hand in a civil case is against the rules of ethics for attorneys. Every state has its own flavor of rules but they are derived from the ABA model rules.

Mr. O'Connor should immediately file a complaint with the (every) state bar in which this attorney is licensed.
1. Re:This will get the lawyer sanctioned by weatherwax · 2013-09-17 02:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Threatening criminal action for a frivolous cause also seems like marvelous fodder for a RICO case.
2. Re:This will get the lawyer sanctioned by lagomorpha2 · 2013-09-17 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  "the rules of ethics for attorneys"
  That can't be a real thing, you just made that up.
3. Re:This will get the lawyer sanctioned by mrbester · 2013-09-17 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  As a response, Arkell v. Pressdram springs to mind...
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
4. Re:This will get the lawyer sanctioned by HornWumpus · 2013-09-17 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  They exist. Where do you think 'It is an unethical act to let a sucker keep his money' came from?
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Extortion and barratry are not legal by sjbe · 2013-09-17 01:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities.
Extortion is not a "completely legal activity". Furthermore neither is barratry and racketeering, both of which arguably apply in the case of patent trolls.
1. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-17 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities.
  Extortion is not a "completely legal activity". Furthermore neither is barratry and racketeering, both of which arguably apply in the case of patent trolls.
  No, none of the above apply. They own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, even if you have to make a bunch of factual assumptions in favor of the plaintiff (those factual assumptions would be resolved at trial by the jury), then the suit isn't groundless. If the suit is not groundless, then it's not barratry. Offering to settle a suit that's not groundless is not extortion. And finally, with no underlying extortion, it's not racketeering.
2. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by smaddox · 2013-09-17 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  My understanding is that patent cases are not tried by jury.
  Also, the source of this whole patent problem is that they created a pro-patent court to hear all patent cases. So I don't see how more litigation is going to solve it. Revolutionary legislation is needed (which is practically an oxymoron).
3. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-17 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My understanding is that patent cases are not tried by jury.
  Did you miss the whole Apple-Samsung jury foreman interview fight?
4. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by mooingyak · 2013-09-17 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that patent cases are not tried by jury.
  Judges determine what is or isn't valid from a strictly legal perspective. Juries determine facts.
  Patent cases often involve rulings on legal points, and if a ruling goes against a plaintiff they may no longer have a case to take to a jury. Similarly, if a ruling goes against the defendant, the parties to a case may then agree to settle rather than take a case to trial. But if a plaintiff has grounds to sue, and the defendant is not willing to settle, then only a jury can say "Yes they infringed" or "No they did not infringe"
  IIOOTLF.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
5. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Even if there is a way to twist the facts to conjure up grounds for action, their proposed use of discovery seems more about retaliation than finding the facts.
  Would that qualify as barratry?
  (Seems a neat charge given that in Texas, the second offense is a felony.)
6. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by sjames · 2013-09-17 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Simple ownership of the patent is not enough. If you sue everyone and his goat using an unreasonably broad interpretation of the patent and carefully tailor the amount to be under the cost to successfully defend, you may well run afoul of a number of laws.
7. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-17 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Simple ownership of the patent is not enough. If you sue everyone and his goat using an unreasonably broad interpretation of the patent and carefully tailor the amount to be under the cost to successfully defend, you may well run afoul of a number of laws.
  Not sure why both you and another poster misread my post, but with 2 vs. 1, I have to assume the misstatement was on my part. Allow me to attempt it again:
  
  They own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, even if you have to make a bunch of factual assumptions in favor of the plaintiff (those factual assumptions would be resolved at trial by the jury), then the suit isn't groundless.
  
  My reference to ownership is because, with regard to the recent Righthaven copyright infringement, it did appear that the defendants infringed the copyrights... but Righthaven didn't own them, so when they brought suit, it was per se frivolous. You have to own the IP rights and have a reasonable argument for infringement... but if you do, then it's not a groundless suit.
  And if your suit is not groundless, then "carefully tailoring the amount [of an offered settlement] to be under the cost to successfully defend" is not illegal at all. If you believe the defendant infringes, and you're going to offer them a settlement, why wouldn't you ask for the most you reasonably could? If you ask for more than it would cost to defend the suit, they won't take the settlement, and if you ask for significantly less, then you're leaving money on the table.
  I think many people were confused by the Prenda Law sanctions, where the judge mentioned that the amount of settlements were calculated to be under the cost of defending them... That wasn't a factor in whether they deserved sanctions, period; it was a factor in what the amount of the sanctions would be. The sanctions were due to their fraud on the court, not the settlement amounts.
8. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Darinbob · 2013-09-17 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Juries are optional in civil cases and their use depends upon the types of claims and counter claims, and most states in the US allow civil trials (as well as federal courts).
9. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by sjames · 2013-09-17 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  Righthaven was one example, but there are other ways one can be guilty of extortion or barratry even while actually owning the IP in question. For example if you read TFA you'd know that the plaintiff threatened criminal charges (for calling plaintiff a troll, no less) unless defendant settled immediately. Then there are the many patent cases where there is no REASONABLE argument for infringement. For example, the case in TFA is only true if every job match and dating service ever (even back in the days when the profiles were entered on punchcards) infringed. That is, of course, impossible since they pre-date the patent.
  Then there's the nonsense of explicitly threatening to increase the settlement demand simply for filing an answer to the suit, threatening ruinous discovery, etc.All taken together as a pattern of behavior, it could easily rise to the level of extortion or barratry.
10. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-17 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Righthaven was one example, but there are other ways one can be guilty of extortion or barratry even while actually owning the IP in question.
  Well, yes, that's why in my last post, I said:
  
  You have to own the IP rights and have a reasonable argument for infringement... but if you do, then it's not a groundless suit.
  For example, if you own the IP but don't have a reasonable argument for infringement, then the suit is frivolous.
  I really felt I was being clear that time. Is it the "and" that's confusing you? Please let me know so that I can communicate successfully. Is there a different language we should be using?
  
  For example if you read TFA you'd know that the plaintiff threatened criminal charges (for calling plaintiff a troll, no less) unless defendant settled immediately.
  I believe the threat was criminal charges for harassment of the inventor, not for patent infringement or refusal to sue. If you read TFA, you'd know that. If the defendant did harass the inventor, then criminal charges wouldn't be unwarranted, and an agreement to settle rather than press charges is perfectly legal.
  Here's a tip - "barratry" is not "someone files a lawsuit I don't like". It's "someone intentionally files a frivolous lawsuit to harass or profit." The key is that (i) the lawsuit must be frivolous, and (ii) the filer must know it's frivolous and proceed anyway. If you harass someone and they threaten to sue you for harassment or pursue criminal charges, such a suit or charges would not be frivolous, because you actually did harass them. If they then offer to drop the suit or charges in exchange for $50, that's not barratry - the offer to settle doesn't travel back in time and magically negate your harassment.
  
  Then there are the many patent cases where there is no REASONABLE argument for infringement. For example, the case in TFA is only true if every job match and dating service ever (even back in the days when the profiles were entered on punchcards) infringed.
  Without actually citing the claims of the patent in question (which TFA does not do), you're merely pounding the table with an unsupported conclusion. You may be right, but that's pretty unlikely, since such a claim would be unlikely to ever fool a patent examiner. In fact, without even looking at the claim, I'll nonetheless bet you that I could come up with a way for a dating service not to infringe it.
  
  Then there's the nonsense of explicitly threatening to increase the settlement demand simply for filing an answer to the suit, threatening ruinous discovery, etc.All taken together as a pattern of behavior, it could easily rise to the level of extortion or barratry.
  Threatening to increase the settlement demand for filing an answer isn't nonsense. Say I sue you, and then offer to drop the suit for $5k. If you're going to take that settlement, but you first file a bunch of frivolous motions and answers that I have to respond to, just to increase my own costs past $5k, that's barratry. Why shouldn't I increase my settlement offer to account for my increased costs, incurred solely through your actions?
  And no, "taken together as a pattern of behavior" it couldn't rise to the level of extortion. Extortion isn't a "level" of something, it's a specific crime. That's as inane as saying "taken together, it could rise to the level of murder" or "it could rise to the level of arson". No, it couldn't, there's no dead body or fire. And similarly, with no underlying frivolous lawsuit, there's no extortion here.
11. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by sjames · 2013-09-17 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  The first thing throwing people is you're talking about a copyright case in relation to patents.
  The second is that you don't know what 'rises to the level of' means.
  Third, in a world where someone actually got a patent on the wheel, for swinging side to side on a swingset, and for teasing a cat with a laser pointer you are appealing to the authority of a patent examiner.
12. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by chrismcb · 2013-09-17 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out?
  Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.
13. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  >>Furthermore neither is barratry
  And I thought barratry was when a ship's officers seized control of the vessel from the captain (mutiny is when the crew does that).
14. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-18 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out? Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.
  What part of "and" do you not understand? From the post you're replying to:
  
  They own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, even if you have to make a bunch of factual assumptions in favor of the plaintiff (those factual assumptions would be resolved at trial by the jury), then the suit isn't groundless.
  It seems that in rushing to make your hamburger/carwash hypothetical, you stopped reading after the sixth word.
15. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-18 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  The first thing throwing people is you're talking about a copyright case in relation to patents.
  I thought we were talking about extortion and barratry. It's right there in the comment subject. And that's the most recent case of barratry, and is one that has been discussed here on Slashdot. If it throws people that I talk about a nigh-identical situation that occurred within the past six months because it's nigh-identical, rather than perfectly 100% identical, then that may be their problem.
  
  The second is that you don't know what 'rises to the level of' means.
  I certainly know what it means. My previous post pointed out that "rises to the level" may be perfectly fine when you want to angrily pound the table about something, but it's not the basis for a legal charge of barratry.
  
  Third, in a world where someone actually got a patent on the wheel, for swinging side to side on a swingset, and for teasing a cat with a laser pointer you are appealing to the authority of a patent examiner.
  Nice try there, but the Australian wheel patent was never examined. It was an "innovation patent," which is a registration-only system, and so was never examined for novelty or nonobviousness, by definition. It's a bit disingenuous not to mention that, since it directly contradicts your point.
  The method for swinging on a swing was rejected, and the method of exercising a cat has long since expired. Only one of your examples has any merit, and it's almost 20 years old.
16. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-18 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Third, in a world where someone actually got a patent on the wheel, for swinging side to side on a swingset, and for teasing a cat with a laser pointer you are appealing to the authority of a patent examiner.
  Oh, and additionally, your deflection aside, my underlying point remains the same: you say, without any evidence, that the patent covers every version of matching two things together throughout history. You haven't even quoted the patent claims. Are we seriously to believe your extraordinary claim, when you then have to point to Australian registration systems to support it, rather than merely quoting the patent in question?
17. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by sjames · 2013-09-18 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  So, care to comment on the threat to file bogus criminal charges unless they settled?
18. Re:Extortion and barratry are not legal by Theaetetus · 2013-09-18 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  So, care to comment on the threat to file bogus criminal charges unless they settled?
  With just one side of the story, there's not enough information to know what they're talking about. Plus, it seems to be a bit confused. From the Doubleclick guy's blog post, he called up the inventor and asked her a bunch of questions and she repeatedly refused to comment:
  
  I reached out to Shapiro directly to ask her a few questions about her interest in the patent and let’s just say she was not thrilled. I asked Ms. Shapiro if she held any economic interest in the patent and she repeatedly recited the same thing, “I was a co-inventor of the patent but no longer own the patent.” In other words, she refused to answer the question and claimed not to know the lawyer I was referring to.
  He then got a call from the plaintiff's attorney:
  
  Later that day, we received another phone call from Wasserbauer. Wasserbauer claimed that we had committed a “hate crime” against Shapiro and were in violation of the discovery process, which was false. He then told us we had until the end of the day to settle the case or face criminal charges for harassment. We immediately notified the FBI of his extortion attempt.
  ... so he says that the plaintiff's attorney told him that he committed a "hate crime", but then the attorney says he'll press charges for harassment. That's a bit different than a hate crime, and from the guy's blog post, it does sound like he was harassing the inventor with those repeated questions. Worthy of a criminal complaint? Unlikely... but ascertainably "bogus"? Not without more information. Like a recording of the call would be great, or at least a statement from the inventor with her side of the story.
  Certainly, I wouldn't publicly accuse an alleged victim of lying about harassment based only on a statement from the accused person, and without ever hearing what the alleged victim said, seeing a transcript, hearing a record, etc., and knowing that the accused person was the one who initiated the communication. That seems to be outrageously stupid. Your opinion may vary, of course.
Extortion isn't legal by sjbe · 2013-09-17 02:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Except patent trolls aren't actually committing crimes, and therefore aren't criminal.
That is VERY debatable. In many cases they arguably are committing one or more of: extortion, barratry and/or racketeering. In many/most cases they are simply creating nuisance lawsuits in the hopes of coercing a settlement without any actual time in court. What they are doing is functionally the equivalent of some thug going into a retail store and saying "nice store - shame if anything bad would happen to it". Technically saying that is legal but in reality they are committing a crime. Patent trolls are really no different.
1. Re:Extortion isn't legal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Not quite: In the thug's case, his speech is alluding to the potential of a crime being committed unless the store owner pays him some money. That is, he is actually making a criminal threat, which is what turns the case into criminal extortion.
  It is not, however, an actual criminal act to threaten someone with a lawsuit, and therefor cannot be classed as extortion in a criminal sense ;-)
2. Re:Extortion isn't legal by fritsd · 2013-09-17 04:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It is not, however, an actual criminal act to threaten someone with a lawsuit, and therefor cannot be classed as extortion in a criminal sense ;-)
  Are you sure this is always the case, even with e.g. Prenda Law?
  
  I miss Groklaw :-(
  
  --
  To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Disgusting by cookYourDog · 2013-09-17 02:05 · Score: 2

Really? Politicians focus on sugary drink portion sizes and intervening in foreign civil wars, but can't be bothered to address a widespread racketeering hustle the destroys innovation?

By the way, here's an example of a modern day patent troll as profiled by the NY Times. A real class act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/has-patent-will-sue-an-alert-to-corporate-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Continued... by meta-monkey · 2013-09-17 02:05 · Score: 1

The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately, apologized, and gave financial compensation to the troll.

"Subsequently, the patent troll crouched on his hands and knees behind O'Conner's legs. The attorney then shoved Mr. O'Conner, who fell backwards over the patent troll. Then the attorney climbed atop Mr. O'Conner's chest, took hold of each of his wrists and forced Mr. O'Conner to strike himself about the head and shoulders, all the while screaming, "Stop hittin' yourself, O'Conner! Stop hittin' yourself!""

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
death is the only way by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:16 · Score: 0

these trolls need to be killed, in the most violent and mercyless way possible. Their families if possible too. Everything must be video recorded and put online informing any other patent trolls that they will be next if they file frivolous lawsuits. Yes we need to be judge jury and executioner on this - trolling will stop fairly soon after. Kill them all.
Canned reply available by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:21 · Score: 1

unless they settled the civil case immediately, apologized, and gave financial compensation to the troll. The offer was 'good until close of business that day.'
I hope he refers them to the response in the matter of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971):

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Game theory by 91degrees · 2013-09-17 02:38 · Score: 1

"From a business perspective, it makes 100 percent sense to settle," [O'Connor] said.

Not really. If he nominally wins, even if it does cost him 20 times as much, it will also cost the patent troll a similar amount. Any other patent troll would go after easier targets.
$1 million is less than 1% of what he has by raymorris · 2013-09-17 02:42 · Score: 1

> As you pointed out $50k is a drop in the bucket. But is $300k? $500k?
Yes, when you have a billion dollars and you're pissed, no amount ending in "k" is scary. On the extreme high side, a million dollars, that's well under 1% of his money.
Let's guess the average net worth in the US is about $50,000. 0.1% of that is $50. So a million dollars to this guy is like $50 to the average person.
* DoubleClick sold for $3 billion. I'm guessing O'Connor has about a billion.
hate crime? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 02:47 · Score: 2, Funny

It IS a hate crime.. against trolls. Poor species of bridge and cave dweling creatures should never be compared to someone as vile and disgusting as patent attorneys.
This has nothing to do with Doubleclick! by pavon · 2013-09-17 03:05 · Score: 1

Okay, the headline was somewhat misleading, but does anyone on this site even read the summary anymore, or have we devolved to commenting based only on the headlines?

This time, however, one of the founders of the Doubleclick ad network has decided to use his personal money to not only fight a patent troll attacking his new startup

Half the posts here are about whether Doubleclick is the lesser of the two evils, but the guy doesn't work at Doubleclick any more, and Doubleclick isn't involved in the lawsuit in any way shape or form. This is like saying "Yay Paypal" because of what Elon Musk is doing with Space-X.
Sounds like he should sue the lawyer by davidwr · 2013-09-17 03:48 · Score: 1

The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent'

Unless the patent troll's attorney has a credible claim, this sounds like a personal case against said lawyer, and possibly grounds for the state bar association to sanction his license for incompetence or, if he knew he was lying, an ethics violation.
If the patent troll's attorney did have a credible claim then the 9th circuit needs to clarify the ruling in question.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Disbarment" the Schlock Mercenary way! by sgtrock · 2013-09-17 03:50 · Score: 1

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2005-11-06
Spoken like a patent troll by sjbe · 2013-09-17 03:53 · Score: 0

No, none of the above apply.

Only if you have an absurdly narrow view of what is actually occurring. Many of these are nuisance lawsuits brought by people who cannot possibly be injured by infringement of a patent because they do nothing with the patent except extract money from others via legal threats. Someone who purchases a patent solely for the purpose of extracting legal settlements IS engaging in a form of racketeering. The legal system merely has not caught up to what is actually occuring.

They own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, even if you have to make a bunch of factual assumptions in favor of the plaintiff (those factual assumptions would be resolved at trial by the jury), then the suit isn't groundless.

In many cases there is no reasonable argument that the "defendant" infringes because the patent should never have been granted in the first place. The mere fact that they own a particular patent is insufficient. There has to be a reasonable argument that somehow the defendant might possibly infringe on said patent. Additionally you do not get to make endless assumptions in favor of the plaintiff otherwise no suit could ever be considered groundless. In some cases the patent trolls have legitimate cases. Often they do not and you can be damn sure they know (or should know) the difference. The legal system is not supposed to be a source of profit. It is supposed to resolve genuine disputes over material issues.

Offering to settle a suit that's not groundless is not extortion.
And many of these suits ARE groundless. Furthermore there is usually no lawsuit, merely the threat of one regardless of the merits of the argument. If you pay up because you cannot fight even though you believe you would certainly win then that without question is extortion. There are numerous patents out there that would have no reasonable chance of withstanding judicial review.
But it's LEGAL extortion, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 04:05 · Score: 0

Patent trolling does pretty much fit anyone and everyone's definition of extortion (it is a threat to use force against someone unless they pay you) but isn't it legal extortion? We all vote for a policy whereby people are lawfully allowed to initiate force against innocent people based on these monopolies. That's the whole point of granting the monopoly in the first place, isn't it?
I don't think it makes any sense to use courts against them. The courts should necessarily say "yes, he attacked you. Congress passed a law allowing that. What's the problem here?"
He should use extra-legal means. Maybe hire someone to reply violence against the aggressor. Patent trolls need to learn that their flesh and blood is on the line whenever they initiate their attacks against innocent parties. This is what society wants; that's why we made the law be the way it is, where the courts are no recourse (on purpose).
Make Assasination a National Past Time by fast+turtle · 2013-09-17 04:09 · Score: 1

How much money do you think we could raise by donating a dollar each to terminating lawyers? Don't forget this includes most politicans and the god damn bottom feaders who call themselves "Lawmakers".
Once this is working, why not expand it to include CEO's and such? It might make them pay more attention to things and keep their companies out of trouble if they were subjected to Death for crimes. Forget the fucking courts. If there's not enough money, nobody good will take the commision and it will help clear out the damn idiots.
Serious question here, Why in hell do we need "Lawmakers" instead of Statesmen who help keep the peace?

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
1. Re:Make Assasination a National Past Time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Viva la revolution! Let the reign of terro, er, harmony begin!
  ...
  Thanks for your well thought out proposal. We will take it under advisement.
Evil vs Evil by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2013-09-17 04:45 · Score: 1

I guess evil will win
Spoken like someone who's never read the statutes by Theaetetus · 2013-09-17 04:58 · Score: 1

Maybe you resort to ad hominems in the subject line, but I'll stick to objective analysis. We'll let others decide which one of us has more credibility.

Someone who purchases a patent solely for the purpose of extracting legal settlements IS engaging in a form of racketeering. The legal system merely has not caught up to what is actually occuring.
Translation: "I acknowledge that the legal definition of racketeering isn't what's going on here, but I'm still going to say it's a form of racketeering and the laws just aren't right."
And while that may be a fine policy argument to change the legal definition of rackeetering, when someone points out as I did that, no, it's not rackeetering, calling them a troll is a childish response.
Particularly when you then admit they're entirely correct.

In many cases there is no reasonable argument that the "defendant" infringes because the patent should never have been granted in the first place.
I don't think you understand the concept of the burden of proof. The burden is on the defendant to show that a patent should never have been granted, as patents are presumed valid. As a result, the plaintiff can't possibly fail to make a prima facie case of infringement in the complaint "because the patent should never have been granted".

The mere fact that they own a particular patent is insufficient. There has to be a reasonable argument that somehow the defendant might possibly infringe on said patent.
Yes, and that's separate from invalidity. You can tell because the words "infringement" and "invalid" are spelled and pronounced differently. I never said that "owning a particular patent is sufficient", I said that "they own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, then the suit isn't groundless." The point of the former clause is that if you don't own the patents, then you can't bring suit, even if the defendant gleefully infringes while flipping off your mom. Remember Righthaven and the copyright suits? But that's merely one predicate, rather than this goalpost-shifting you're engaging in.

Additionally you do not get to make endless assumptions in favor of the plaintiff otherwise no suit could ever be considered groundless.
At summary judgement to dismiss a complaint, all factual disputes must be presumed in favor of the non-moving party. And suits can still be considered groundless if, even with those presumptions, the plaintiff still can't establish a prima facie case. For example, if it's undisputed that I don't own a patent, then even if we presume that the patent is valid and that you infringe, any suit by me would be groundless. Am I going too fast for you?
And yes, you get to make endless assumptions of any disputed facts at summary judgement, because that's how summary judgement works: "Even if my opponent is correct about every thing we disagree on, they still lose." If you didn't do that, then there's a possibility that the outcome could change if the fact turns a different way, and so you have to go to a full trial.

In some cases the patent trolls have legitimate cases. Often they do not and you can be damn sure they know (or should know) the difference. The legal system is not supposed to be a source of profit. It is supposed to resolve genuine disputes over material issues.
Licenses are a source of profit. If someone refuses to pay for a license that they're required to purchase, then it's a genuine dispute over material issues. That may result in profit, but it's the license that is the source of profit, not the legal system.

And many of these suits ARE groundless.
But if it isn't, then it's not extortion, and if it's not extortion, then there's no pattern of racketeering activity. But, oh, wait, following the statute is "speaking like a patent
extortion by GrimShady · 2013-09-17 05:52 · Score: 1

I always wondered why nobody ever used this against unions when they go on strike. they are basically saying that we will harm you financially unless you give us money (or whatever). That is basically extortion in my book.
1. Re:extortion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  The government allows it because they know if the workers get driven down to $7.50 or lower there aren't going to be any taxes to collect in a meaningful way. Do you find India with it's huge $2 a day tax base to have an advanced or intimidating army? Yeah, me either.
2. Re:extortion by david_thornley · 2013-09-17 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  If somebody refuses to give me something I need unless I pay him money, is that extortion? There's a difference between "That prescription will cost you $400 a month" and "I'll break your kneecaps unless you give me $100 a week", even if I need the prescription more than I need kneecaps. Unions don't threaten to destroy things, they withhold what they're selling (labor) unless they get a price and conditions they find acceptable.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
3. Re:extortion by Livius · 2013-09-17 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  No-one cares about unions not working. But they prevent people who want to work from doing so.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-09-17 06:11 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Those kinds of patent laws used to exist by waterbear · 2013-09-17 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Curiously enough, some of the points made by 'anon' in the parent post here used to be part of some patent law systems in really ancient times (like 16th-18th centuries), but they were one by one abandoned, by court decisions or legislative amendments:
>> 1) Patent times are FAR too long in many cases and should not be renewable.
An early example of a time limit, fixed in 1623 in England, was 14 years from a really early time-point when patent grant took place -- which used to be almost immediately on application (compared with today's long process).
>> 2) Minor minor changes to the original patent should not result in a new patent.
One of the very early judges (even 16th century) said that small improvements were only like "a new button on an old coat" and refused to uphold the patent, setting a precedent that lasted a couple hundred years till overturned.
>> 3) Patents should only be issues where there is an actual product ... not a process.
Definition of invention used to be 'manner of new manufacture' in several countries, but that's gone now pretty much everywhere.
>> 4) Software falls under copyright and trademark laws and therefore patents do not apply.
The old definition (see 3) automatically excluded this kind of thing from patenting.
>> 5) If you have not created and sold a product to the public using said patent within 2 years of filing then you loose ALL rights to it.
For many decades (during the 19th & 20th c. in many countries, but not including US, I think) the patentee's failure to make & sell the invention used to be called an 'abuse of monopoly', it enabled others to claim the grant of (royalty-bearing) licenses by right, and it could also expose the patent to a risk of cancellation. So there was a way to achieve no exclusion from a patented invention if the patent holder wasn't doing anything about it.
it's of interest to ask 'who lobbied' for all of the changes that got rid of these old safeguards.
-wb-
1. Re:Those kinds of patent laws used to exist by chrismcb · 2013-09-17 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Curiously enough, some of the points made by 'anon' in the parent post here used to be part of some patent law systems in really ancient times (like 16th-18th centuries), but they were one by one abandoned, by court decisions or legislative amendments:
  >> 1) Patent times are FAR too long in many cases and should not be renewable.
  An early example of a time limit, fixed in 1623 in England, was 14 years from a really early time-point when patent grant took place -- which used to be almost immediately on application (compared with today's long process).
  Current patents are 20 years from the filing date. This was extended in the 90s, up from 17 years, not sure why. But 20 years isn't much longer than 14 years. I expect someone was thinking of Copyright lengths.
2. Re:Those kinds of patent laws used to exist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  The abuse of monopoly bit sounds great.
Re:Then you'd love this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 08:49 · Score: 0

Please fist fuck yourself until you die.
Re:AdBlock/Ghostery/Request Policy = inferior by tqk · 2013-09-17 09:23 · Score: 1

Unjustifiable downmods ...
If you posted discussion, perhaps it would be otherwise. Instead, you pontificate. Zzzz ...

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Phone call is a "hate crime" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 10:23 · Score: 0

Read the article, it says they committed a hate crime by making a phone call to the inventor on the patent.
Re:Double Standard by Kalriath · 2013-09-17 14:02 · Score: 1

That's fine, this has nothing to do with Doubleclick. So Anonymous really doesn't know what the hell it's talking about.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Drop in the Bucket by speedplane · 2013-09-18 01:06 · Score: 1

"he pledged $1 million of his own money to fight the troll that went after his company"

One million is a drop in a bucket. A good legal team can burn through that in about three months. It will take a lot more than that to get through the 10,000 or so patents owned by the big trolls like Intellectual Ventures.

--
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Re:AdBlock/Ghostery/Request Policy = inferior by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 03:09 · Score: 0

Hypocrite, You're completely off-topic. He wasn't. You fail, troll.
AdBlock = inferior to custom hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 03:17 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C & load w/ OS + 1st net request resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Benefits hosts files provide on numerous levels for speed, security, reliability, & anonymity = in link above)
---
* Makes hosts population (even w/subdomains) EASY & "AutoMagic" via 12 reputable security community sources + saves up to 40% bandwidth on avg. per site page!
---
A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard the henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish links), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!
(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Disprove my points: Hosts files vs. AdBlock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 03:33 · Score: 0

See subject troll & this:
A.) AdBlock's = redundant (since hosts operate with the IP stack itself long before AdBlock of browsers even start up)
B.) AdBlock's CRIPPLED BY DEFAULT! & doesn't block all ads ->
C.) AdBlock can't do as much for you as custom hosts files do per this list:
---
1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites.
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware.
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use.
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content.
6.) Blocking out known spammers &/or phishers.
7.) Blocking out TRACKERS.
8.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
10.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!).
13.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
14.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers & are generally written in slower INTERPRETED languages (e.g. AdBlock = python/perl/javascript)- Whereas by way of comparison, the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself which is written in C & Assembly language...).
15.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
16.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.
APK
P.S.=> You fail: YOU know it, I know it, & that's that... apk
Re:0.0.0.0 = better + AdBlock = INFERIOR by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 03:55 · Score: 0

Unjustifiable downmods = weak detractors' inability to disprove parent posts' points with attempts @ hiding it by bogus downmods.
Simple to resolve by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 04:25 · Score: 0

The patent system problem is simple to resolve. Unless you have a PRODUCT that is actively available that you are protecting you should not be able to assert your patent.
Why are we wasting time with this dumbass story? by cundare · 2013-09-18 06:12 · Score: 1

Sigh. Just more porn for the "the patent system is broke, man!" crowd. As an attorney myself (who makes most of my litigation fees defending clients against IP trolls), I assure you that the RICO Act can't be applied in this way. Whoever is taking DoubleClick's money to prosecute this case is the real criminal. I haven't researched the case law, but I'm nearly certain that this application of RICO has never resulted in a decision favoring a plaintiff. Sure, patent trolls are certainly abusers of the legal system (although, since the recent overhaul of the Patent Act, trolling has become a heckuva lot more difficult). But the aspects of the patent system that allow this type of abuse to occur are generally not specific to patent law. A patent troll, from a legal perspective, is no different than a person who makes a career of prosecuting slip-and-falls. If 10% of the problem is the concept of intellectual property as it exists today, 80% is rooted in fundamental characteristics of our legal system, which make it possible to extort money from victims by threatening them with frivolous lawsuits -- so long as the settlement is not significantly larger than the cost of a legal defense. Just ask the RIAA.
Lawyers .. Obligitory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 08:17 · Score: 0

Q: What do you call 500 lawyers on the bottom of the river?
A: A good start
"Like going up against the mafia"'? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 10:04 · Score: 0

Could never happen. Patent trolls aren't solid enough to be made.. If they're convicted under RICO, they're gonna need PC ;-)
Opinions Vary (50++:1 ratio in MY favor) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 11:32 · Score: 0

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4146239&cid=44715063
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4081759&cid=44546757
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3989671&cid=44321359
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44311011
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3459251&cid=42894295
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3488893&cid=42993337
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3488893&cid=42993393
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3647643&cid=43447983
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3137925&cid=41429093
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3397505&cid=42651965
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2940173&cid=40455449
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39408607
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2857487&cid=40034765
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2644205&cid=38860239
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2614186&cid=38658078
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611414&cid=38639460
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2926641&cid=40383743
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450