Slashdot Mirror


80-Year-Old Inventor Gil Hyatt Says Patent Office is Waiting For Him To Die (venturebeat.com)

Dean Takahashi, reporting for VentureBeat: Gil Hyatt has gotten many rewards from his days as an inventor. In 1990, he received a fundamental but controversial patent on what he called the first microprocessor, or computer on a chip. It was 22 years late, but he nosed out rivals such as Intel in being the first to file for a patent application in 1968. He then licensed that patent and 22 of his 69 other patents to Philips Electronics, which then began enforcing them on the rest of the electronics industry and collecting royalties.

Philips' efforts netted Hyatt more than $150 million, though the state of California would try for 24 years to take a big chunk of that money for taxes. It argued that Hyatt pretended to move to Las Vegas in 1991, but in 2017, he finally prevailed in convincing the tax board that he really did move. But at 80 years old, Hyatt still isn't resting on the rewards he got. In fact, he's still in a bitter battle with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He claims the office is sitting on his remaining applications, and is waiting for him to die. Hyatt sued to get the patent office to issue his remaining patent applications. The patent office declined to comment, citing the litigation.
Further reading: Gil Hyatt interview: Why patent examiners gave controversial patents a scarlet letter.

56 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. why are they calling him that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are they calling him an inventor? Just because he got patents that automatically means he is one? It's clear he scammed a broken system (well, it works as it's designed actually, but broken for humanity as a whole in the sense that we all get fucked by it)

    1. Re:why are they calling him that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's for legal reasons. Turns out that "Patent Troll" is a Trademark of "International Patent Troll Consortium".

    2. Re:why are they calling him that? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      What's scary is that all of this already happened over 100 years ago. And nothing was done to fix the system. A patent troll crippled the fledgling auto industry for decades, before Ford finally won a ruling on a technicality that exempted it from the Seldon patent (its car engines used a different combustion cycle than the one described in the Seldon patent).

    3. Re:why are they calling him that? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Patent sugestions: updating your patent application should not reset the clock on patent duration. For a machine patent you should need to submit a working prototype. Anyone sued for patent infringement should be able to challenge the validity and scope of the patent. Your patent application should require sufficient detail to allow building it. For software patents you should need to submit source code and essential details on compiling it. Copyright should only cover artwork and books, not software. Failure to actually use a patent should preclude any damages for patent violations.

  2. Reads more like an early patent troll? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should be use em or lose em.

    1. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by hwihyw · · Score: 1

      Fine, apply it equally. Book manuscript, publish it or lose it. Movie script, make it into a movie or lose it. Logo design, use it or lose it. Painting, sell it or lose it. Book manuscript, turn it into a movie or lose movie rights. Photography, sell it or lose commercial rights.

    2. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

      You're confusing patents with copyright.

      That's not so say copyright is not insanely broken, but we are discussing patents, which (correct me if I'm wrong) currently stand at a reasonable 20 years, and actually do benefit both the creator, as well as society as a whole. It's one of the few ways left for a smart person to break into big money by being smart, solving problems, and working the system.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    3. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If you write an unpublished book, and I happen to write the same book, or a very close one, by some cosmic improbability, it's actually perfectly fine.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by hwihyw · · Score: 1

      So I write a book, take it to bunch of publishers, it doesn't get printed. You "happen" to write a similar book and it gets published or made into a movie. Guess what?

      https://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

      etc.

      https://www.google.com/search?...

    5. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by james_gnz · · Score: 2

      AFAIK, patents on chemical and pharmaceutical do bring a net benefit to society, but other patents don't.

      Bessen, James & Meurer, Michael J. (2008) Patent Failure. Princeton University Press.

    6. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      ...which has nothing to with the situation in question, but whatever.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      I have to respectfully disagree. The patent itself is the motivator to invent better and novel ways of doing things. Without the patent, we would likely not have a great many awesome things we have today. The short(er) time-frame of a patent allows the market to change things after the creator has had his day.

      What bothers me is the way that tech giants go about applying for them. I'm no expert,and this is purely observation from the outside, but it really seems like the giants apply for patents on every little thing, prior art be damned, and if even one out of 1000 sticks, the filing fees and lawyers salaries spent on the other 999 become a drop in the bucket. I would see a reasonable daily limit on patent applications from a single source if I had my way.

      That paper was a great read, thank you. Tons of great points, and the parallels cannot be argued, but I still standby the fact that patents are necessary to secure the motivation to realize inventions and bring them to market. While this system does create a lot of problems in the same way that land and property rights do, patents expire, at which point those problems go away, and the invention becomes part of our collective culture.

      I'll sing a different tune when they start granting monopolies on space toiletpaper rolls, and zero-g dishwashers and the like. Patents on things like rounded corners, and "-----on a computer" infuriate me, but they can be challenged in court if the said patent is all the way silly, and they also expire eventually.

      The other thing I like about patents is that the functions and methods of the invention become searchable public knowledge, and can be read in full, so a person can build one for personal or educational use without asking for permission or paying licensing to the holder (under certain circumstances) This goes a long way down the "encouraging useful arts" road as far I'm concerned.

      I heard somewhere that the formula for WD-40 was never patented for that reason, and remains a trade-secret to this day.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    8. Re:Reads more like an early patent troll? by james_gnz · · Score: 1

      I have to respectfully disagree. The patent itself is the motivator to invent better and novel ways of doing things. Without the patent, we would likely not have a great many awesome things we have today. The short(er) time-frame of a patent allows the market to change things after the creator has had his day.

      Patents are a motivator for invention, but not the biggest one in most industries (Lopez, 2009, p. 21). (This is a meta-analysis. If I remember right, I found this paper to be an amusing read, because it was commissioned by WIPO, and it seemed apparent that the author really wanted to say something good about patents, but struggled to find anything.) Past research suggests that only pharmaceutical and chemical patents have actually provided us with a large number of inventions that we otherwise wouldn't have (Mansfield, 1986). (Sorry, no link for this one--I just found it mentioned in the above.)

      It may intuitively seem like patents ought to provide a net social benefit, but (aside from chemical and pharmaceutical patents) do you really have any reason to believe it?

      Lopez, Andres (2009) Innovation and appropriability, empirical evidence and research agenda. In WIPO (2009) The Economics of Intellectual Property.

      Mansfield, Edwin (1986) Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study, 32, Mgmt. Science 173.

  3. Controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 1990, he received a fundamental but controversial patent on what he called the first microprocessor, or computer on a chip. It was 22 years late

    First "on a computer" patent troll.

    So the first MCU that used an instruction set, but made from individual transistors, was made in 1953. Vacuum tubes that worked as transistors were older yet.

    The first integrated circuit that was designed to act as a transistor was built in 1956 and the design for it was a couple years before that.

    Gil Hyatt filed in 1968, over a decade before each and every component of his invention was already invented and put together using the same IC structure his patent described.

    The reason Fairchild and Intel fought so hard was in essence because *at best* Gil Hyatt invented the second MCU instruction set to ever exist, but fairchilds was the third and Intel was the forth.

    If Gil deserves a patent on an existing design that only differs in the instruction set, then neither fairchild or intels also-different instruction set should be covered by the same patent.
    If Gil's covers all future instruction sets to ever be invented, then being the second inventor he should lose his patent to Geoffrey Dummer instead.

    This guy is a patent troll who's only real "first" was to file the original "an existing thing, on my computer" patent.

    1. Re:Controversy by Xnet+Project · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is another interesting side note from a court case:

      https://www.boe.ca.gov/meeting...

    2. Re:Controversy by jd · · Score: 2

      Surely it should be to Tom Kilburn or F.C. (Freddie) Williams, as the Manchester SSEM had the first true instruction set.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Controversy by anegg · · Score: 2

      Just geezing here...

      I moved to California in early 1991 from a state with no income tax (on earned income). I filed my federal taxes for tax year 1990 in April of 1991, using my California address as my current address. The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) "made a determination" that I had been a California resident for the tax year 1990 on the basis of the address I used when I filed my federal taxes for tax year 1990. I protested that I had not been a California resident in 1990, and that they did not have evidence to the contrary. The FTB insisted that I prove I was not a California resident in 1990. I (foolishly perhaps) insisted that I didn't need to prove I wasn't a resident (I knew I didn't have a state tax return for another state for tax year 1990), they needed to prove I was a resident. They garnished my wages. After losing about $1,000 to them through wage garnishment, I did something (I forget what) to prove I wasn't a California resident. I never got my $1,000 back. The FTB claimed that they had passed it on to the federal government; the federal government claimed that they knew nothing about it.

      I can't speak to the merits of the patent issues, but I offer this (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that the California Franchise Tax Board are not nice people.

      Another anecdote - Although I could not find online evidence, I recall that back in the 1990s California was making a case for being able to tax 401(k) distributions to individuals who were not residents of California at the time of the distribution, but who had been residents at the time of the original income deferral. This line of thinking did not prevail - imagine the chaos if it had. Would you have to determine what percentage of a distribution came from what income? What about investment gains from the original deferral before you moved/after you moved?

    4. Re:Controversy by pilaftank · · Score: 1

      I (foolishly perhaps) insisted that I didn't need to prove I wasn't a resident...

      Innocent until proven guilty!!! Oh wait, this is not a criminal matter (at least not yet!). You (and your employer, investment broker, etc) provide documentation so the FTB can verify you paid the correct amount of taxes. Lots of people fraudulently claim residence where they don't actually live in order to avoid paying taxes. People in the FTB may or may not be jerks, but are they supposed to just let everyone claim anything they want without documentation and then pay whatever taxes they choose? For the record, I hate paying taxes (but I like the protection provided by our tax-funded military).

      --
      dna.js
    5. Re:Controversy by hawk · · Score: 1

      In particular, CA tried to tax retirement income of those who moved to Nevada.

      Our response, given that we have to give full faith and credit to sister-state judgments, was to make all property in the state exempt for judgments for income tax on retirement income . . .

      hawk

    6. Re:Controversy by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, Chuck Moore's instruction set was the forth.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Not sure which is worse... by bblb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's worse... calling a patent troll, however successful he was, an "inventor"... or that California spent two and half decades trying to extort that patent troll for money.

    1. Re:Not sure which is worse... by Xnet+Project · · Score: 2

      It would be curious to see if there is an heir to said patents regardless of original creation or "patent-obtained" technologies going forward. In the end a last Will and Testament could throw a wrench into the proverbial wait for the patents to shift ownership in their entirety.

    2. Re:Not sure which is worse... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And as resentful as ever, considering California is the fifth largest economy on the planet, while Michigan is number 37. Even Massachusetts beats Michigan.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Not sure which is worse... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

      California is one of a small handful of states that put more money in Federal coffers than it takes out (Texas is the only red state in that category). It may make you feel a very big person to make fun of California, but more than likely it's true that wherever you live in the US, California could buy your state. Whatever it's problems, it is one of the major economic engines not just of the United States, but of the entire world.

      Before you start mocking the size of your neighbor's penis, you should probably take a good hard long long in the mirror at your own.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Not sure which is worse... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Well it would, wouldn't it? It starts to cancel itself out when you factor in population and cost of living

    5. Re:Not sure which is worse... by bblb · · Score: 1

      Is patented IP bequeathable, like say a copyright would be? That would be an interesting twist...

    6. Re:Not sure which is worse... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There's a reason California's housing and rental prices are high, while some other states' are so low. It's because people want to move to California, and out of those other states.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Not sure which is worse... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Well it should be - if an immortal company can own one.

    8. Re: Not sure which is worse... by reiterate · · Score: 1

      Ah yes the true seat of power, the place any American thinks of when they hear the word "California": Sacramento. The perfect target.

    9. Re:Not sure which is worse... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Those who have more should be happy to share with those who do not. It's called socialism. It is at the core of Leftism and it's ironic as soon as it's your money that's getting redistributed, you instantly become a tight fisted fiscal conservative - the very people you hate so much. Way to speak truth to the powerless.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Not sure which is worse... by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      There's a reason California's housing and rental prices are high, while some other states' are so low. It's because people want to move to California, and out of those other states.

      Bullshit. Prices are high because the political climate limits new housing development and lards on regulations like requiring solar panels on all new homes. As far as population changes, why don't you go look up uhaul prices in and out of the bay area. It costs much more to rent for leavers than arrivers. Gosh I wonder why.

      I would love to move to CA for the weather but I can't stomach the Progressive governance and the high cost of living. Guess I'll just have to stay in my $4million, I mean $400K house in TX with 3000sq/ft, pool, acre of land, and 30 min commute to work.

  5. California FTB is like that... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    California Franchise Tax Board (California's version of the IRS) is like that.. My wife and I bought a house in Las Vegas in 1994, and she moved into the house then and went to work for a local hospital. I got a tiny studio apartment near work in San Diego, as I had a job I liked and there was a rumor going around that there were going to be layoffs in the near future and I'd hoped to get laid off vs quiting. The wait for the layoffs wound up being close to 2 years, so I did quite a bit of flying up to Las Vegas over the weekend for that time. The layoffs finally happened in Dec 1995, and I was laid off. I moved my stuff up to Las Vegas and got unemployment. During the nearly two years I was still working in San Diego, I filed state income tax returns showing my California wages but did NOT show wife's Nevada wages. To make a long story short, I had to pay a tax attorney quite a bit AND nearly two years to convince the FTB that Nevada wages were NOT taxable by California, even though I had California wages. The CalFTB can FUCK OFF.. Soooo damn glad we escaped that nuthouse...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    1. Re:California FTB is like that... by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Michigan taxed me for wages I made in California, even though I moved out of the wolverine state two years prior. This happens a lot and has little to do with the pulsing horror that is California's bureaucracy and more to do with how individuals files their taxes. You really have to dot your "i"'s and cross your "t"'s to keep the tax man off your back.

      It's a very common trick for people in Bay Area to retire to Reno-Tahoe and cash out their stock to avoid a lot of taxes. The Franchise Tax Board is wise to this one and sometimes will try their best to extract everything they can before they leave. People make think that their money is theirs, but they earned it in California and probably owe taxes on it. That they can leave without paying taxes is more of a loop hole than a right, and you can expect many states to not be very nice about it.

      I'd much rather it were explicitly dealt with in federal regulations so that we can deal with it fairly, like a 50/50 split between old and new state. Rather than states like California chasing people for decades on seemingly minor issues as sort of an intimidation policy against tax cheats (the FTB secretly views you as a tax cheat)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re: California FTB is like that... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's a huge state -- ya got a lotta woik ahead of u!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Re:A shame he isn't getting the credit he deserves by crgrace · · Score: 1

    Hi Gil! I didn't know you read Slashdot!

  7. Me Too! by kackle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He claims the office is sitting on his remaining applications, and is waiting for him to die.

    Me too; and I'm only 50!

  8. They're not waiting for him to die by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is just a rich guy evading taxes. The "Snowbirds" in Arizona & Florida who live there 6.5 months out of the year do the same damn thing.

    As someone who lives in one state and pays every dime of taxes owed with zero deductions (stopped getting those when my kid turned 17.5) screw this noise. Enjoy civilization? Pay your dues like everyone else.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. People need to realize about patent durations by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    This patent was issued in 1990 - it expired after 17 years, in 2007. US patents are only good for a limited amount of time, somewhere between 3.5 years and 17 years (depending upon if you want to pay the maintenance fees to keep the patent in force). He's not collecting on the concept of a microprocessor any more.

    As far as his other pending patents, it appears the USPTO is playing games with him, as inventors 65 years old or older qualify for expedited examination, and it should take no more than a year for him to either receive his patent or receive a final rejection.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  10. Prick by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    First patent troll? He can't die soon enough.

  11. Re:getting in line by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Thumbing without editing because auto-correct based on key layout's likely mispresses is patented...

    Maybe he'd have died fat and happy by now if hebhadn't been fougbt so hard all along the way.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  12. so is everybody else by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    80-Year-Old Inventor Gil Hyatt Says Patent Office is Waiting For Him To Die

    I think it's safe to say that lots of other sensible people are hoping that this 80-Year-Old patent troll dies, the sooner the better. I certainly do.

    (No, I'm not defending the patent office.)

  13. It's when they're dying that they attack. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tired of companies inventing something great, then they stop innovating and instead sink all their money into lawyers and sue sue sue. Die Die Die.

    Actually, it's when they're dying that they sue, sue, sue.

    When a tech company is doing well, their money is better spent innovating and staying ahead of the pack. When they're getting behind, it's still better spent on getting ahead.

    During this period patent portflios are mostly used defensively against other company's suits. Find some patents in the portfolio the other guys can be accused of infringing and counter-sue. Then settle for a cross-licensing agreement, and maybe a true-up payment if one side has a bigger pile of relevant patents.

    But when they're dying, they're desperate. That's when they go through their portfolio and sue anybody they might be able to make money from.

    (Been there, dealt with that: Northern Telecom was on the ropes. They'd been a big player in the design of SONNET and had a lot of patents on it. So they went after anybody with patents that looked like they were doing something SONNET-related that might infringe on one of theirs. So I and my co-architect got to spend a few weeks writing, for our lawyers, a set of analyses of why each of several NT patents didn't cover the stuff in our patents, or other chunks of the chips we'd designed that looked like they just MUST have an infringing component. B-b )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:It's when they're dying that they attack. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      When a tech company is doing well, their money is better spent innovating and staying ahead of the pack. When they're getting behind, it's still better spent on getting ahead.

      Except so many choose to die and therefore sue. It's not like IBM doesn't have an R&D budget.

  14. Maybe? by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's time Gil

  15. Yes by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    I'm deeply opposed to regressive taxation. Meaning taxes that target the working class, especially the working poor. The "Netflix Tax" was a great example of this, as are soda taxes, sales tax and many Vehicle License Taxes. I favor progressive taxation. Meaning the larger benefit a person receives from society the more they pay for it's upkeep and improvement. I'm a Democratic Socialist after all.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yes by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "I favor progressive taxation. Meaning the larger benefit a person receives from society the more they pay for it's upkeep and improvement."

      There is literally no way to interpret "progressive taxation" in this way, nor is there any way to measure "benefit a person receives from society" sufficiently to support such a taxation approach.

  16. Progressive taxes are those by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    that disproportionately apply to the wealthy. That was implied by context. The wealthy receive the greatest benefit from society and therefor must pay a larger share of it's upkeep. Civilization is like a club you join and pay dues for. Taxes are those dues. If the people who use the club the most don't pay their dues the club goes to ruin.

    America had it's best years when the top marginal tax rage (income over $12 million/year adjusted for inflation) was 90%. Things started going downhill when Reagan slashed taxes and restructured corporate taxes to make pump and dump style stock buy backs a thing. Clinton accelerated this trend but the .com boom and later the housing boom hid the damage.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Progressive taxes are those by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I guess you have never been a member of any club. Dues are the same regardless of income and are not prorated based on how much you use the facilities.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Progressive taxes are those by Jhon · · Score: 1

      " If the people who use the club the most don't pay their dues the club goes to ruin. "

      You mean like the poor?

  17. They're also fun if you move out of the country by Solandri · · Score: 1

    If you move out of the U.S. but your last state of residence was California, the CA FTB will try to argue that since you did not move to another state, your "state of residence" is still California even if you don't live in the country anymore. And that you owe California taxes on income you're making in Canada or the UK or wherever. When I began working in Vancouver, Canada, I got lucky and happened to consult with a tax attorney first. He strongly recommended I first rent an apartment in Washington for a few months and get a WA driver's license, and commute cross-border to work. That would establish with no uncertainty that I was a Washington resident. Then I could move to Canada, free of the clutches of the California FTB.

    (The U.S. Federal government does this too - demands U.S. income tax on money you earn while living abroad. No getting around it if you're a U.S. citizen, which is why some wealthy people have worked to give up their U.S. citizenship. Most outher countries tax based on residency. If you live in the country, they expect you to pay income tax. If you live outside, they don't tax you. This is especially fun for dual-citizens who hold U.S. citizenship by birth (one of their parents was a U.S. citizen). They may have never set foot in the U.S. their entire lives, but Uncle Sam still demands they pay taxes.)

  18. Stupid by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Stupid. If California is such a "shit hole" why does it have some of the highest property values in the US. For every negative California has I'd wager whatever backwater you live in has two.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stupid. If California is such a "shit hole" why does it have some of the highest property values in the US.

      That's easy, beaches and sunshine.

      For every negative California has I'd wager whatever backwater you live in has two.

      I'll take mosquitoes in the summer and snow in the winter over shit in the streets all year.

    2. Re:Stupid by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Because it has lots of jobs crammed into tiny areas with heavily restrictive building requirements?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Stupid by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Because significant parts of it have some of the best weather in the US which is never too cold, never too humid, rarely too hot. I never travel during the height of summer or winter now because of it.

      Or how about another fundamental basic, food? We're America's produce basket and year round I can eat good quality produce either grown here or in Chile who has the same climate, just in the opposite hemisphere and a very convenient chipping distance away.

      The fundamental root of California's attraction isnt companies and job. Companies and jobs come to California because the fundamental basics of life are easier here.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  19. Patent troll vs kleptocrats by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    He and the People's Republic of California deserve each other. This story reads like the punchline of a canonical lawyer joke.

  20. Re:Definitely a Troll by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    You dont know shit.

    The USPTO has a shadow classification, "SAWS", for specific people that is basically "never issue this person another patent, ever, for any reason." Not only is this true, its a fact now in court evidence that this classification was placed on him.

    The USPTO is just favoring large corporations over the little guy here, because they are scumbags.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."