Google-Backed Yieldify Has Acquired IP From 'World's Biggest Patent Troll' (theregister.co.uk)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google-Backed Yieldify Has Acquired IP From 'World's Biggest Patent Troll' (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on Friday May 6, 2016 @05:22AM from the feeding-the-beast dept.

An anonymous reader cites an article on The Register: Yieldify, the Google-backed startup accused of stealing code from British adtech company Bounce Exchange, has been making some unusual friends. Yieldify has acquired an ancient web patent from III Holdings which was first filed in 2007. III Holdings is better known as Inside Intellectual Ventures, co-founded by Nathan Myhrvold. It has been dubbed "the most hated company in tech" and "the world's biggest patent troll." IIV is a "NPE" (non-practicising entity), which gathers up patents and seeks to unlock their value through selling on or licensing the IP. This has been backed up by litigation, such as Samsung, a recipient of one of III's sueballs. In a court filing made last week, Yieldify made a request for declaratory judgement in its ongoing case versus Bounce Exchange, citing the IIV patent. Also from the report: Clearly, patent trolls are unacceptable when they're trolling you, but become strategically useful when you can troll back.

69 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Sueballs? by ITRambo · 2016-05-06 05:26 · Score: 1

Surely the word lawsuit could have been used instead of sueballs. It's an unneeded, contrived word. Just my opinion. Otherwise, thanks for the information.
1. Re:Sueballs? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Surely the word lawsuit could have been used instead of sueballs. It's an unneeded, contrived word. Just my opinion. Otherwise, thanks for the information.
  It's a fitting word when describing the ludicrous state of legality surrounding NPEs and their ability to create a business out of this bullshit.
  No, it doesn't quite rhyme with other fitting descriptors such as clusterfuck and asshat, but fitting nonetheless.
2. Re:Sueballs? by un1nsp1red · 2016-05-06 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  If 'sueballs' bothers you, you probably shouldn't read El Reg. That's their style.
3. Re:Sueballs? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  but, Sueball was a race horse.
4. Re:Sueballs? by Hognoxious · 2016-05-06 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  The entire sentence is garbage. Samsung is not a sueball.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
5. Re:Sueballs? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  If 'sueballs' bothers you, you probably shouldn't read El Reg. That's their style.
  Very much. I wish Slashdot would stop linking that useless tabloid. They sensationalize every story to such an extent that it is effectively lying.
6. Re: Sueballs? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-07 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  it is extremely fucking irritating, and thus I don't read The Register. A great pity for their advertisers given I'm usually working on 10m + technology programmes. They'll figure this out eventually.
Do No Evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 05:26 · Score: 0

Does hooking up with Patent Trolls count as evil or just good business sense?
1. Re:Do No Evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes.
  In fact, I believe evil and good business sense are synonyms in many circles.
2. Re:Do No Evil? by Coren22 · 2016-05-06 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Don't be evil is pretty much gone from Google, but how exactly is taking out a patent troll evil in itself? Temporary alliances that help the situation are allowed in war.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
3. Re:Do No Evil? by NotInHere · 2016-05-06 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, there is no real distinction between patent trolls and corporations which use patents offensively or through threats but which are no "patent trolls".
4. Re:Do No Evil? by Coren22 · 2016-05-09 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  There is a distinction. A patent troll makes no products. They just use patents to extract money from companies actually building things. What this means is, they have no product to go after, you have to attack the patent, which might be for a key part of the cellular system for instance.
  So, in this case, Google is teaming up with a patent troll to go after a company that isn't a patent troll (or else they couldn't go after them).
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
5. Re:Do No Evil? by NotInHere · 2016-05-09 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Does Apple make its iphones? No. Foxconn makes them. And this is no socialist "we do the work" bullshit, foxconn could easily declare that they do the iphones themselves and ship them with android. Why do they not do it? Because of patent and trademark laws.
  Now what if a company *wanted* to make products in a market, but is not successful in it? Should it ask everyone to pay for its patents as well? Microsoft is doing well these days, and a big chunk does not come from windows, but from patents they hold on android devices. They don't produce any phones, the windows phone market share is very low. Are they a patent troll?
  So if you consider this behaviour by microsoft "trollish": Where is the border? How much % of the market share do you need to have in order to be considered a "practicioning entity"?
  So why does a patent hold by a company that makes a product implementing this patent become "evil" just because that company went bankrupt and the patent gets sold to a "patent troll" company which then tries a different way to make money with the patent? The money the patent troll paid for the patent goes to to the creditors of the company, so it helps getting the bills paid the original company had. Isn't that something good?
check the author by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 05:29 · Score: 0

Its an orlowski article, about anything tangentally related to google - best to take with a large quantity of salt.
lets not forget. by nimbius · 2016-05-06 05:30 · Score: 2

Patent trolls are notoriously synonymous as leeches that contribute nothing to the process of invention, but theyre no better than the intellectual property patents and frivolous design patents that their targets such as Google or Microsoft endorse and employ.

if anything patent reform by victory should be eschewed in favour of unilateral patent and copyright reform. litigation shouldnt be relegated to some remote texas exurban court, and the USPTO shouldnt roll over whenever someone wants to patent absurdities like one click shopping.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:lets not forget. by shawn2772 · 2016-05-06 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  theyre no better than the intellectual property patents and frivolous design patents that their targets such as Google or Microsoft endorse and employ.
  Do you have a citation of Google's use of such patents?
The quiet ones are worse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 05:32 · Score: 0

The quiet ones are worse. They sit on the patent, then only spring up a year or two after a product has launched when sales are well underway. There should be a time limit on when you are allowed to file for patent infringement, not "can I haz action plx?" a few years down the road.
You are a troll, but my patent is legitimate! by Steve1952 · 2016-05-06 05:37 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, this sums up the general rule in patent law: your patent is invalid and you are obviously a troll. I, on the other hand, have a clearly valid patent and I am enforcing my legitimate patent rights. Lather, rinse, repeat...
1. Re:You are a troll, but my patent is legitimate! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  From the brief description, the original court case was over stolen source code. Source code can be a constantly evolving script that expands into the millions of lines, which takes hundreds of man hours to construct. It is not the same thing as a patent. When source code is stolen and reused by another company, it seems like a perfect reason to take someone to court after making money on your work.
2. Re:You are a troll, but my patent is legitimate! by pr0fessor · 2016-05-06 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  That is the problem if after spending large amount of a money on R&D a company declares bankruptcy and I purchase a novel and unique patent not already used in dozens or hundreds of products to either sell, license, or produce then that should be fair but when patents are so broad that they could be almost anything and could be applied to dozens of products even ones made prior to the patent then there is big problem and that patent never should have been granted.
Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 05:39 · Score: 0

Why? Doesn't buying the patent from the troll provide them funds to buy up many more patents and troll more? Why would anyone do something like this?
I'm sure I'll get modded to -1, buy Google supporters really need to answer this.
Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by mi · 2016-05-06 05:53 · Score: 1

Presumably, most of the /. readers produce ideas and other intangible and easily copied once created things for a living. In other words, we are paid for these intangible things.
Why, then, are most people so negative on other people selling and buying them? The hated "patent trolls" buy ideas from people, who have them — thus rewarding our colleagues. What is theirs, they are entitled to reselling — at whatever price the market will bear. This is normal and perfectly ethical.
Yes, the weaponized litigation practiced by some of these firms is most reprehensible, but they are hardly the only ones partaking of it. Until we change our legal practices to make sure, the loser pays winner's legal costs by default, the side with a bigger legal budget will keep "winning" before entering the courtroom.
But none of it supports the abolishment of the very concept of intellectual property in general and patents in particular, which is so often suggested here. Are these suggestions coming from fools and/or folks short of their own ideas? What's going on?

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Hatred of intellectual property isn't strange. Hatred of intellectual property is perfectly natural:
  1) It's a government-granted monopoly
  2) Intellectual property is an oxymoron
  3) Intellectual property laws are one of the principal methods of rent-seeking (economic activity that does not generate value) and tax avoidance (ditto)
2. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by ShanghaiBill · 2016-05-06 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why, then, are most people so negative on other people selling and buying them? The hated "patent trolls" buy ideas from people, who have them — thus rewarding our colleagues.
  The problem is that independent inventors, who patent their inventions, and then enforce those patents, are contributing NOTHING to society. They are just parasites preying on companies that came up with the same idea independently. At my company, we are forbidden to even look at patents, or to talk to someone who claims to have a patent, because that just increases our liability. They can later come back and say we "stole" their idea. They are just blood-sucking parasites and the world would be better off without them.
  The belief that "independent inventors" are creating useful innovations, and then licensing them to grateful companies, is nonsense. That almost never happens.
  If you want to be a inventor, you should work for (or start) a company that actually produces products.
3. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  But none of it supports the abolishment of the very concept of intellectual property in general and patents in particular, which is so often suggested here. Are these suggestions coming from fools and/or folks short of their own ideas? What's going on?
  Imagine that you have a plumbing issue in your bathroom.
  The toilet is all messed up.
  You call a company to fix it, and they send out a plumber to install a new toilet.
  This new toilet has a "feature" whereby you can't flush it unless you swipe your debit card and pay a flush fee.
  This flush fee is, of course, credited to the company who sent the plumber to install your toilet.
  We (these "intellectual property" creators who read Slashdot) are the other plumbers in this economy, and we're saying this:
  This PAY-TO-FLUSH is a bunch of horse shit!
  People should OWN their toilets, not have to pay to flush!
  Hire plumbers to install it, not to USE it!
  This rent seeking "pooptalectual property" has got to stop!
  And now here you are asking: "Plumbers install toilets. Why are you guys so upset at pay-to-flush pooptalectual property?"
4. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by NotInHere · 2016-05-06 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  You know I have nothing against the concept of intellectual property or patents. Its good to have it. The only thing I am against are software patents, as in 99% of the cases they are just trivial patents, and in all other cases they only help the big companies and those with sufficient funding.
  About copyright, a term of 70 years after the death of the creator is far too long, and should be life of the creator plus 25 years or something, and 50 years for works that were created by multiple people.
  And having a patent term of 20 years in the software industry is far too long. There are four protection mechanisms the software industry has. First, the compiler and minifier: if you publish your software, its hard to find out how it works. Second, non disclosed communication protocols: Often the communication protocols your software uses in order to talk or save stuff or so is not documented, which means only your software can access it. Number three and four are copyright and patent law.
  Usage of these four mechanisms has rendered competition impossible in many areas of the software industry, creating world wide monopolies, like google search, microsoft office, or microsoft windows.
  The software industry is really fast moving. Having a term of 20 years for patents in the software world is far too much for the industry, there even 5 years mean more than 20 years in other industries. Also, I don't think the software industry needs patents at all. It has a really big a monopoly problem (what I outlined above), and that problem can't be solved by giving them government granted monopolies.
5. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by NotInHere · 2016-05-06 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Shhh, silent, or somebody files a patent for it and makes a SV startup unicorn.
6. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Gravis+Zero · 2016-05-06 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  Presumably, most of the /. readers produce ideas and other intangible and easily copied once created things for a living. In other words, we are paid for these intangible things.
  as a software developer, my work is covered by copyright. however, both copyright and patent law are absurd. software patents are the single worst form of patent because they are not for a specific implementation but rather the mere idea of a design. here's the thing, software patents didn't exist until patent law was amended to allow it. so yeah, software patents need to die forever and copyright needs to be reduced back to it's original 14 year term.
  
  Why, then, are most people so negative on other people selling and buying them?
  for the same reason i'm against international arms deals who have no quibbles selling weapons to terrorists.
  
  The hated "patent trolls" buy ideas from people, who have them — thus rewarding our colleagues.
  developers don't make patents and developers don't get rewarded when their company sells a patent. so how are our colleagues rewarded again?
  
  What is theirs, they are entitled to reselling — at whatever price the market will bear. This is normal and perfectly ethical.
  there is nothing ethical about extortion.
  
  Yes, the weaponized litigation practiced by some of these firms is most reprehensible, but they are hardly the only ones partaking of it. Until we change our legal practices to make sure, the loser pays winner's legal costs by default, the side with a bigger legal budget will keep "winning" before entering the courtroom.
  you make a good argument for abolishing patents.
  
  But none of it supports the abolishment of the very concept of intellectual property in general and patents in particular, which is so often suggested here.
  widespread abuse and a total deviation of it's intended purpose isn't reason enough?
  
  Are these suggestions coming from fools and/or folks short of their own ideas? What's going on?
  no, they are coming from people who are fed up with the bullshit idea that because someone thought of an idea before them that somehow entitles them to exclusive ownership of the idea. very few patents are actually novel and everything will be reinvented given enough time.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
7. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Hognoxious · 2016-05-06 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  The belief that "independent inventors" are creating useful innovations, and then licensing them to grateful companies, is nonsense. That almost never happens.
  [citation needed]
  
  If you want to be a inventor, you should work for (or start) a company that actually produces products.
  Why? If I want to be a film director do I have to be an employee of Disney? If I want to be a software developer do I have to work for Microsoft?
  Who the fuck are you to deny people the right to operate as independent entrepreneurs?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by UnknownSoldier · 2016-05-06 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  > Why, then, are most people so negative on other people selling and buying them?
  You can start here with the shenanigans of Imaginary Property:
  * Against Intellectual Property
  * Against Intellectual Property 2
  --
  Only Cowards Censor
9. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-06 06:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you want to be a inventor, you should work for (or start) a company that actually produces products.
  In addition, they should be required to produce a commercial product within a year of filing that implements the patent or lose the rights. That way, companies couldn't come up with new ideas and patent them in hopes of using them isn some unspecified future product. Keep the idea a trade secret and don't patent until you are ready to release a product; and if someone else beats you to it too bad.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
10. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by PCM2 · 2016-05-06 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Until we change our legal practices to make sure, the loser pays winner's legal costs by default, the side with a bigger legal budget will keep "winning" before entering the courtroom.
  Wait ... how does "loser pays" keep the side with the bigger legal budget from winning? Bigger legal budget = more and better lawyers, meaning the little guy will probably lose. Under the "loser pays" system, however, there is a massive penalty for losing. If I sue Google and Google brings its whole legal team to bear against my couple of lawyers, I will not only probably lose but paying Google's legal costs will probably put me out of business. Knowing this, I will never sue to begin with, and once again, Google has won without ever entering a courtroom.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
11. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by PCM2 · 2016-05-06 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  There are four protection mechanisms the software industry has. First, the compiler and minifier: if you publish your software, its hard to find out how it works. Second, non disclosed communication protocols: Often the communication protocols your software uses in order to talk or save stuff or so is not documented, which means only your software can access it.
  Are you a software engineer? De-compiling binaries/obfuscated code and reverse engineering wire protocols are both trivial. Security analysts do both daily for malware, for example.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
12. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  NPEs are a scapegoat. The actual problem are bogus patents and frivolous litigation practices. But big companies are doing that too, so their PR teams have come up with the scary image of "patent trolls" to divert attention from themselves.
  With all that being said, software patents are idiotic, and that has been already explained to death under any of the million articles about the topic, do a search and read them.
13. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  His point is to actually create a product based on the invention. Be it for your own startup or someone else or whatever.
14. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by NotInHere · 2016-05-06 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Then show me the compliant whatsapp clients, or the microsoft office compliant applications. Its damn hard to reverse engineer a binary data protocol. Perhaps its easier in the age of json, but I doubt it. If you use idapro or similar tools, you infringe their copyright. In fact, security analysts infringe copyright for their day job. Just the copyright holders don't want to tell their names to the state, so they can't sue them.
15. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Hognoxious · 2016-05-06 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't, because he has only asserted - not proved - that they don't in fact do so.
  He's spouting the dirty hands fallacy - e.g. that architects should pour concrete.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
16. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by mi · 2016-05-06 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that independent inventors, who patent their inventions, and then enforce those patents, are contributing NOTHING to society
  What? Of course, they contribute — their ideas. Ideas, which you find sufficiently useful to want to use them...
  
  They are just parasites preying on companies that came up with the same idea independently
  Did they come up with it independently?
  And if so, why would they go through all that effort-duplication instead of checking, what's already been patented, for example?
  
  If you want to be a inventor, you should work for (or start) a company that actually produces products.
  Nonsense. First of all, there is a relatively little overlap between the set of people capable of inventing cool things and the set of those capable of running/starting a company — these activities require vastly different skill sets and personality traits.
  And second, without intellectual property protection, such starting of a company becomes unduly difficult too. Your idea can be copied (stolen) with impunity by someone you spoke to even before you offer a product to market. The inventor partners with a businessman, explains his idea to him ... — why does the businessman even need the inventor after this?
  And even if some people may have enough scruples not to do it before, after you've come to market it will be "open season" on your invention. Established corporations — with loads of business acumen and manufacturing capabilities — will drive you out of business...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
17. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Citation provided:
  http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/innovation/en/wipo_ifia_kul_96/wipo_ifia_kul_96_1.doc
  Please see point 12:
  "12. Inventors and all those involved in marketing inventions and innovations should not forget that only a very small percentage (5 to 7 percent) of all inventions for which patents have been granted reach the commercialization phase of the innovation process."
  This has not gotten any better since this was written. Only worse.
18. Re: Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Architects shouldn't get a cut from everybody making houses however.
19. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by ShanghaiBill · 2016-05-06 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Who the fuck are you to deny people the right to operate as independent entrepreneurs?
  Patent trolls are not "entrepreneurs". Entrepreneurs are the people they prey on.
20. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by ShanghaiBill · 2016-05-06 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, they contribute — their ideas.
  Ideas are a dime a dozen, and very few are original. Many patents are frivolous. My company was sued because we had an HTML file on a CDROM, and Acacia Research, a notorious patent troll, had acquired a patent on that.
  
  Did they come up with it independently?
  Yes, many people have independently put HTML files on CDROMs. Almost nobody searches patent portfolios looking for ideas to steal. 99% of them are garbage, and the other 1% are indecipherable.
  
  And if so, why would they go through all that effort-duplication instead of checking, what's already been patented, for example?
  So, before I copy each file on a CDROM, I am supposed to spend a few days on "research" to see if someone already thought of the "idea" of copying that type of file onto that type of media?
  
  And second, without intellectual property protection, such starting of a company becomes unduly difficult too.
  A company producing an actual product can be given different protections from a NPE, since they can show actual damages.
21. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by mi · 2016-05-06 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Ideas are a dime a dozen, and very few are original. Many patents are frivolous.
  Well, this is a problem. But not the entire concept of patents or intellectual property.
  
  So, before I copy each file on a CDROM, I am supposed to spend a few days on "research" ...?
  No, this is a case of abuse, and your company, probably, should've fought it. On the other hand, if it was patented before the idea became obvious to anyone "skilled in the art", then this was not an abuse and you should pay them. Because they paid the original patent-holder — likely, a fellow /.-er...
  
  And second, without intellectual property protection, such starting of a company becomes unduly difficult too.
  A company producing an actual product can be given different protections from a NPE, since they can show actual damages.
  (So, no countering of the first reason I listed?) Essentially, you are saying, no patents should be granted until an actual product — or a prototype — has been devised. That may be an Ok requirement, but it still requires patents — just changes the rules for their issuance. And it would not have helped you with that HTML-file on CDROM thing — for whoever patented that, would've had no problem devising a "product"...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
22. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by JaredOfEuropa · 2016-05-06 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if it was patented before the idea became obvious to anyone "skilled in the art", then this was not an abuse and you should pay them.
  No, no, no. Just being first shouldn't be enough to gain a patent. Putting an HTML file on a CD-ROM is obvious to anyone skilled in the art, even if it hasn't been done before. Think for a moment... in the future we may have .ai files containing precooked artificial intelligences trained for a specific task. These files don't exist yet, but I can already imagine that we'll put them on Blu-rays. Or in cellphones. Or send them over the net. Should I be granted a patent on doing that just because I speculated about this first? No. Yet this is exactly the sort of crap that IV come up with; using think tanks to speculate about nonexistent but obvious ways of doing things, then rushing to the patent office for a bit of intellectual land-grab.
  
  If something is patented, it may still be declared obvious to someone skilled in the art after the fact, and be subsequently overturned. That's the way it is and should be. The only problem is that even ridiculously obvious patents hardly ever get revoked.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
23. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by mi · 2016-05-06 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, no. Just being first shouldn't be enough to gain a patent. Putting an HTML file on a CD-ROM is obvious to anyone skilled in the art, even if it hasn't been done before.
  I did not say, the patent is valid, because it is old. I said, it may be valid, if it was registered before it became obvious to anyone skilled in the art. Read...
  
  If something is patented, it may still be declared obvious to someone skilled in the art after the fact
  Even if it was not so obvious, when it was first issued? Could you cite the relevant rule/law?
  I don't think so, because a great many patents become obvious once published — "Oh, shit, why didn't I think of that?!" — overturning them immediately after that seems to defeat the purpose...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
24. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by JaredOfEuropa · 2016-05-06 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think so, because a great many patents become obvious once published
  That is not what "obvious to someone skilled in the arts" means. It means: would this have been obvious to someone solving the problem at hand without prior knowledge of the patented solution. In case of putting HTML files on CD-ROMS, using XOR to draw a cursor, or that sort of thing, the answer must be Yes. Some further reading
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
25. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  No it isn't, because he has only asserted - not proved - that they don't in fact do so.
  He's spouting the dirty hands fallacy - e.g. that architects should pour concrete.
  No, no he isn't. You're spouting a broken analogy. Neither the architect nor the person who pours the concrete necessarily claim ownership of the building. Please show me how I'm wrong?
  Now, his point was that the purpose of patents should be the defense of a unique activity wherein the patent owner is engaged in that activity. In this case, NPEs don't engage, and hence have nothing they could defend against.
  Unfortunately, this is still a paper tiger, as patent transfer would just force NPEs to find PE partners to sustain their operations. The solution to that would be to ban patent transfers. Because only natural persons can invent and therefore hold patents, companies would never own patents. How could this be implemented? Immediately revert all current ownership of patents to their applicants with a flat rate fee paid to current patent owners by the patent office, payment due ... oh ... sometime in the long future. Effectively a partial reversal of fees as rebate for fucking things up.
  End of patent trolling. End of most of the patent industry as well. Good riddance, IMO. In this case as well, employment would likely carry either a ban on patent application, or if allowed, requirement for patents in the area of art that they are engaged in to be bound in-perpetuity to only be exercised for the interests of the employer at time of application.
  Would it work? Yea, it'd work.
26. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  About copyright, a term of 70 years after the death of the creator is far too long, and should be life of the creator plus 25 years or something, and 50 years for works that were created by multiple people.
  The value of a work does not depend on how long the author has left to live, so why should the copyright term depend on it? that only makes it less lucrative for someone late in live to create something - with fewer years left on the copyright, they will naturally only be able to sell it for less money.
  Copyright should be a fixed term that depends on the medium, and that term should be short enough that you can't have some asshole sit on the originally published version of something until the medium it was recorded on disintegrates just to sell more lightsaber toys.
27. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-05-06 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  You call a company to fix it, and they send out a plumber to install a new toilet.
  This new toilet has a "feature" whereby you can't flush it unless you swipe your debit card and pay a flush fee.
  I'm not a home-owner, but I had no idea a plumber could force an un-replaceable toilet on you.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
28. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by non0score · 2016-05-06 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  It seems like the present laws surrounding patents confound multiple aspects of the economics of inventions: the invention itself, use of invention, licensing, and protection against litigation. It's reasonable to assume that patents should lead to actual economic product, rather than just a piece of paper for trolling. Therefore, the suggestion of commercializing patents within a year is good.
  However, there are cases where a person/company thinks of an idea, has no immediate purpose of putting this idea to use, but is afraid of litigation. To solve this issue, there should be something akin to trade secrets, but filed with the USPTO, dated, and sealed. If a second party later patents the same idea and sues the first party when the first party finally gets to implementing it, then the first party can unseal the filing to dismiss the patent suit.
  If this is how everything's been working already, then I'll go back to hiding under my rock.
29. Re:Strange hatred of intellectual property on /. by Hognoxious · 2016-05-06 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  You're spouting a broken analogy. Neither the architect nor the person who pours the concrete necessarily claim ownership of the building.
  Where did I say they did? You appear to have missed the point by a country mile. What's wrong is mandating vertical integration and denying specialisation, and the stupid idea that thinking isn't real work. Do you expect an admiral to build his own ship?
  Inventors should invent. Researchers should research. Saying that they should build the product themselves or run a factory is absurd. They're different skills.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 05:55 · Score: 0

"Also from the report: Clearly, patent trolls are unacceptable when they're trolling you, but become strategically useful when you can troll back."
This implies that the original company was trolling and not legitimately defending against a company using their stolen source code. Yieldify have made some a deal with this patent troll to defend themselves in court. They are alleging the patent, being held solely for the purposes of reselling, somehow absolves them from using stolen source code and other technology.
IP for sale? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 05:56 · Score: 0

Omg they bought the internet protocol.
2007 is ancient? by Ormy · 2016-05-06 06:07 · Score: 1

The web is 27 years old, how is a 9 year old patent ancient in that context?
1. Re:2007 is ancient? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  The web is 27 years old, how is a 9 year old patent ancient in that context?
  The web is ancient and only old people use it. Everyone else has switched to Snapchat and Slack.
Laches: You snooze, you lose by tepples · 2016-05-06 06:37 · Score: 1

They sit on the patent, then only spring up a year or two after a product has launched when sales are well underway. There should be a time limit on when you are allowed to file for patent infringement
If a patent holder intentionally sleeps on his rights to allow infringements to pile up, the equitable defense of estoppel by laches is supposed to prevent such a patent holder from collecting back damages.
1. Re:Laches: You snooze, you lose by packrat0x · 2016-05-06 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but back damages are when the product was starting out, so the number of units sold might be small. Damages will apply to future sales. Thus it becomes a timing game.
  
  --
  227-3517
2. Re:Laches: You snooze, you lose by whh3 · 2016-05-06 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wish I had mod points. Thanks for posting this. Great information!
  Will
  
  --
  remove nospam. to email!
3. Re:Laches: You snooze, you lose by tepples · 2016-05-06 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  The idea of disallowing back damages but allowing subsequent damages is that an alleged infringer could discontinue the infringing product upon receiving notice of infringement and resume sales once a design-around has been implemented.
Life of the author's grandchildren by tepples · 2016-05-06 06:43 · Score: 1

About copyright, a term of 70 years after the death of the creator is far too long
The rationale for this copyright term is that those family members who knew an author personally ought to know best how the author wanted the work exploited. That's why the Berne Convention defines life plus 50, as an approximation of the life of the author's grandchildren. The subsequent extension to life plus 70 was intended to correct the approximation for increased life expectancy, not to act as corporate welfare. If you disagree with a life of grandchildren copyright term, that ship unfortunately sailed about a century ago, as you'd have to tear apart the WTO to dismantle it.
1. Re:Life of the author's grandchildren by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  how the author wanted the work exploited
  Author of a book wanted the work to be read. You can also use a book to wipe or as a fire starter, but usually an author writes a book to be read. By granting a 120 year copyright, you are preventing readers from reading the book, as the copyright owner can decide not to publish it or ask for more money than a reader is willing to pay. Most books also become irrelevant after 120 years.
2. Re:Life of the author's grandchildren by tepples · 2016-05-06 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Author of a book wanted the work to be read.
  If that were the overriding concern, the author would have put the book under a time-delayed public domain equivalent license. But the author chose not to because the author also wanted to ensure that his children and grandchildren could be fed.
  
  Most books also become irrelevant after 120 years.
  But some don't, particularly classic fiction or poetry. And to simplify things, the law treats all literary works the same way.
Article is unclear by Hentes · 2016-05-06 06:50 · Score: 1

I've read TFA twice and I'm still not sure whether Google uses the patent in question in an offensive or a defensive way. Surely countersuing against a patent litigation with patents of your own is rightful self defence. Countersuing with patents against a copyright litigation is very different though. And even if Google is only purchasing these patents for defence, it is giving funds to patent trolls by buying from them, making filing bogus patents a lucrative business.
"trolling you" and "trolling back" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 07:20 · Score: 0

"Trolling", as in trying to provoke a reaction, is a fishing term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)
Being a "patent troll" means you are acting like a troll under a bridge, which is different.
Re:check the perp by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 07:34 · Score: 0

Myhrvold, yet another greedy jew shyster out to fuck everyone over
Yield-ify by FunkSoulBrother · 2016-05-06 09:46 · Score: 1

Is there a company out there named -ify or -ly that I doesn't deserve an automatic javascript block in my NoScript rules? It seems to be a hallmark of shitty ad industry website bloat
Want a patented technology PAY for it! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 11:00 · Score: 0

Big companies want to take things for free and not pay. Patent is granted after certain conditions are met hence the protection. Too many times the small inventor can't take on the large company hence the advent of companies which buy patents from the small time guy or defunct companies and make sure some unethical company can't steal the technology.
So if you came up with a patent but didn't have the money to implement, it is ok for Google to just take it? Offcourse not!!! Pay the patent holder.
A solution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-06 11:48 · Score: 0

Another solution is to stop granting the patents to trivial ideas and only genuinely novel concepts which is what a patent should be granted for.
Nike Free Running 2016 by shencunyi · 2016-05-06 14:18 · Score: 1

famous saree website ,Nike Free Running has to offer its patrons. Offering a wide variety of embroidered sarees that are loved and cherished by its patrons, for a short while the website has opened up huge discounts on the current range held with them. While it is not immediately known whether the aim is to dispose of existing stocks before bringing in new ones, what is sure is that here is an opportunity that should not be missed. There are lots of varieties in embroideries in sarees. Those who have been following the blog on Indian sarees would be well aware of the intricacies involved. The huge fan following of the different kinds of saree embroideries would also be well aware of the beauty the little colorful threads add to the basic garment. One of the most famous garments that lends itself to wonderful embroideries is the Georgette saree. The Georgette cloth is amongst the most popular fabrics in the range of Indian sarees. The sheer material gets embellished beautifully with the colored thread embroidery that adds to the beauty of the saree. Colored threads used in the embroidery add further beauty to the georgette saree.