background preloader

Patent and Copyright Laws, Abuses

Facebook Twitter

Urges Court To Maintain Protections for Innocent Third Parties Accused of Patent Infringement. Patent law, supposed to spur innovation, is instead unfortunately often full of barriers to innovation: trolls targeting phone app developers, standards making it harder rather than easier to invalidate bad patents, and toothless patent reform legislation, for example. But the law does do some things right, like removing liability for an innocent third party who unknowingly performs one step of a patented process. Yet some patent owners are trying to convince the Federal Circuit to change this law and create a new category of potential patent defendants: third-party users, consumers, and developers, i.e., a group that is likely to lack both requisite knowledge of the patent laws and resources to make a robust defense.

Yesterday, EFF filed two amicus briefs (really the same brief in two cases, here and here) opposing this change. Right now, the rule is simple: only one party can be guilty of direct infringement. Patent Busting Project. PDF version available here. I. The Problem Every year numerous illegitimate patent applications make their way through the United States patent examination process without adequate review. The problem is particularly acute in the software and Internet fields where the history of prior inventions (often called "prior art") is widely distributed and poorly documented. As a result, we have seen patents asserted on such simple technologies as: II. The Harm The harm these patents cause the public is profound. Unlike most technologies, software and the Internet have attracted a vast number of small business, non-profit, and individual users — each of whom has adopted and built upon these resources as part of their daily interaction with computers and the online world.

With this increased visibility, however, comes increased vulnerability. Illegitimate patents can also threaten free expression. III. So how do we confront these problems? A. B. IV. How “Patent Trolling” Taxes Innovation. Applying for a patent is expensive. Fees can exceed $25,000, and most applications require at least a couple years of effort. We might expect that anyone considering applying for a patent would be fairly certain of the merits of their case for one.

And yet, of the patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that are subsequently litigated, 40% are declared invalid in court. A court’s declaration that a patent is “invalid” means it should never have been granted in the first place, usually because the invention has been done before, or because it’s obvious to anyone familiar with the patent’s particular scientific or technical field. So why do so many people spend so much time and money filing for patents that are ultimately declared invalid? Uncertainty is one reason. Another answer is that seeking even dubious patents is a gamble worth taking. But there’s a third, more interesting reason so many people seek patents that have a high probability of being found invalid. Alleged 'Patent Troll' Hit With Large Fine In Appeals Court : The Two-Way. A ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is being seen as a victory against "patent trolls," companies that acquire intellectual property for the sole purpose of extracting licensing fees or settlements, despite having no intention of using the protected technology or idea themselves.

In the case of Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, the federal appeals court "allowed the district court's award of $141,984.70 for Rule 11 violations and another $489,150.48 in attorneys' fees," according to the blog Tech Dirt. The case revolved around methods for processing information — according to the case summary, "a system and method for inputting information from a document, storing certain portions of the inputted document information in memory according to content instructions, and formatting the stored document information for use by a computer program, effectuating a paperless office. " NPR reported that Myhrvold's company does have its own development lab: Patent Loving Court Strikes Again: CAFC Orders USPTO To Reconsider NTP Patents It Had Rejected.

We have discussed at great lengths the problems of the US setting up a specialized appeals court that handles patent cases, known as CAFC or the court of appeals for the federal circuit. That court has tended to lean increasingly "pro-patent" over the years, presiding over the greatest judicial-driven expansion of the patent system and what it covers. For a few years, the Supreme Court had started smacking down the massive overreach of CAFC, but in the past two years, it's started to back down and let CAFC do its thing again. If there was a "poster child" for the ridiculous excesses of the patent system, it was NTP, the results of a company that completely flopped in the marketplace (because it couldn't execute) that then successfully used the patent system to pressure RIM -- a company who successfully executed where NTP failed -- to hand over an astounding $612.5 million, even as the USPTO had made it clear that it found NTP's patents unlikely to be valid.

When patents attack Android. I have worked in the tech sector for over two decades. Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on. Here is what’s happening: Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers. But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents. A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth.

We’re not naive; technology is a tough and ever-changing industry and we work very hard to stay focused on our own business and make better products. Sawyer on Why Bilski Really Means That Software Companies Should Leave the US. My friend Sawyer was as disappointed in the outcome of Bilski as he was in the ending to LOST. In fact, he asked if I’d change his pseudonym to Joseph Adama of Caprica but I vetoed this over extreme nerdiness. Nonetheless Sawyer let loose on Bilski and helps clarify both his perspective on why the Supreme Court took such a milquetoast approach as well as what one of the unintended consequences of their action – or lack thereof – will be. And for those of you who have forgotten Sawyer’s background, he’s a patent attorney that is channeling his opinion through me. And we’ve been discussing setting up a very large data center on an island somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Seeing the reaction to Bilski, what has struck me is how surprised and disappointed some people are with the weak will of the Supreme Court to act to limit the damage that software patents are causing, and will keep causing, to innovation in the U.S. So, yeah, we’re a little screwed. Giving Up On Patents. Not so many years ago, even as I was filled with fear and loathing of the hideous mis­con­duct of the US Pa­tent & Trade­mark Of­fice, I re­tained some re­spect for the no­tion of patents.

I even wrote what I think is an un­usu­al­ly easy-to-read in­tro­duc­tion to Pa­tent The­o­ry. But no more. The whole thing is too bro­ken to be fixed. Maybe it worked on­ce, but it doesn’t any more. The patent sys­tem needs to be torn down and thrown out. I of­fer the fol­low­ing ev­i­dence, just a few ran­dom things that came across the radar in re­cent week­s. RIM hit with more patent woes.

I par­tic­u­lar­ly like that last piece, even though it’s too long. And here are a few words for the huge com­mu­ni­ty of le­gal pro­fes­sion­als who make their liv­ing pur­su­ing patent law: You’re ac­tive­ly dam­ag­ing so­ci­ety. By Tim Bray. The opinions expressed here are my own, and no other party necessarily agrees with them. A full disclosure of my professional interests is on the author page. Sawyer Weighs In On Intellectual Ventures.

I have a number of friends who are patent attorneys. Some have strong negative feelings about software patents that mirror mine while others keep me entertained by arguing both sides of the situation with themselves while I sit around and listen. One of my friends – let’s call him Sawyer – has very strong negative opinions as he’s spent most of his time recently defending his clients against software patent suits including an increasing number from patent trolls (non-practicing entities). He spends a lot of time in East Marshall, Texas and has figured out where all the best restaurants are. While East Marshall isn’t quite as nice as an invisible, mysterious island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it clearly has a number of similar characteristics. Sawyer has decided that he can’t write publicly about his thoughts and experiences so I’ve agreed to channel his experience into my own parallel universe.

Perhaps Mr. Let’s internalize that for a second. Layout of node-link structures in ... - Google Patents. A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. The present invention relates to layout of node-link structures. Fairchild, K. M., Poltrock, S. E., and Furnas, G. W., "SemNet: Three-Dimensional Graphic Representations of Large Knowledge Bases," in Guindon, R., Ed., Cognitive Science and its Application for Human Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1988, pp. 201-233, describe SemNet, a three-dimensional graphical interface. SemNet presents views that allow users to examine local detail while maintaining a global representation of the rest of a knowledge base.

Pages 214-222 describe strategies for large knowledge bases. A. Determining expiration dates of US patent. Intellectual property: Patents against prosperity. AMERICA is still in denial, but among economists and wonks I think the hard truth is settling in: we're not as rich as we thought we were and our prospects for future high growth rates aren't looking so great. America's last best hope for breaking free from what Tyler Cowen has called "the great stagnation" is the discovery of new "disruptive" technologies that would transform the possibilities of economic production in the way the fossil-fuel-powered engine did.

As it stands, growth, such as it is, depends largely on many thousands of small innovations increasing efficiency incrementally along many thousands of margins. Innovation and invention is the key to continuing gains in prosperity. Zero-sum "win the future" rhetoric notwithstanding, it doesn't much matter whether the advances in new technology occur in China, India or America. Nevertheless, it remains that America is the world's leader in technical invention, and continues to attract many of the world's most inventive minds. FOSS Patents. Groklaw - Digging for Truth. Home | M·CAM, Inc. Techdirt. Intellectual Ventures And The War Over Software Patents : Planet Money. Update, July 26: This story from Planet Money's Alex Blumberg and NPR's Laura Sydell aired this weekend on This American Life. (Check out TAL's "Ways to Listen" page to find how you can hear the story.) A shorter version of the piece is also airing today on All Things Considered.

Here's the story. Nathan Myhrvold is a genius and a polymath. He made hundreds of millions of dollars as Microsoft's chief technology officer, he's discovered dinosaur fossils, and he recently co-authored a six-volume cookbook that "reveals science-inspired tech­niques for prepar­ing food. " Myhrvold has more than 100 patents to his name, and he's cast himself as a man determined to give his fellow inventors their due. In 2000, he founded a company called Intellectual Ventures, which he calls "a company that invests in invention.

" But Myhrvold's company has a different image among many Silicon Valley insiders. The influential blog Techdirt regularly refers to Intellectual Ventures as a patent troll. He continued: IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law. Intellectual Ventures And The War Over Software Patents : Planet Money. TechDirt. If you're talking about the short list of the most well-known appellate judges in the federal court system today, Judges Alex Kozinski and Richard Posner are likely on that list, potentially near the top.

We've discussed both plenty of times in the past, sometimes agreeing strongly with rulings from both -- and sometimes finding their rulings maddeningly troublesome. However, lately we've been especially troubled by Kozinski's ruling in the Cindy Lee Garcia case, in which he appeared to make up his own rules about what copyright law says, and how an actress in someone else's film can magically claim a copyright over her performance. A new ruling by Posner in a case that is... well... positively bananas, provides a nice quick lesson in just how wrong Kozinski was. The case of Catherine Conrad, the "Banana Lady" involves Conrad suing a bunch of credit unions over a variety of wacky theories after she performed at some event they held.