Good on Mr. Smith. But was he in any way involved with the legal defense team for GNOME?<p>The story reads to me like GNOME spent $150k on a legal defense that saved themselves and carved out a little niche for FOSS projects, but otherwise allowed the patent troll to continue profiting from this patent.<p>> Of course, that’s little comfort to the 20+ victims attacked after GNOME with the now-proven-worthless Rothschild ‘086 patent, or the 50+ companies targeted with related patents that haven’t yet been re-examined.<p>Meanwhile, it looks like Mr. Smith basically did what the GNOME defense team should have done from the start and got the patent <i>invalidated</i>, with no funds to speak of.
<a href="https://foundation.gnome.org/2020/05/20/patent-case-against-gnome-resolved/" rel="nofollow">https://foundation.gnome.org/2020/05/20/patent-case-against-...</a><p>> Leigh Rothschild said “I’m pleased that we have managed to settle this issue amicably. I have always supported the innovation of open source software and its developers and encourage its innovation and adoption.”<p>FOR SURE, BUDDY.<p>That sounds like something Putin would say after he gets absolutely decimated by the Ukrainians.
> <i>“offers a number of ways to wirelessly share photos online such as through social media.”</i><p>How was it possible to patent this in 2018?<p><a href="https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/50/f8/a8e7c12c764d15/US9936086.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/50/f8/a8e7c12...</a>
The heading is somewhat misleading, in that one might read it as "the troll lost all rights to any patents, ever." If you (correctly) didn't read it that way, you can ignore the rest of this.<p>What they actually lost is <i>that patent.</i> It was reexamined and all its claims were cancelled. Reexamination is a standard tactic against a patent infringement suit, and we did it all the time at Google. A reexamination is a mini-trial, with no jury; just a bunch of patent law experts. It costs less than a full trial but still can be $500,000 or so.<p>A troll will offer to settle for a small amount rather than risk getting their patent cancelled. I think it's fair to call it "irresponsible" if you pay them that ransom, but of course, it's cheaper for you that way.
This seems like a loss. Gnome and other companies had to pay money (as I understand) for an invalid patent, a patent lawyer had to pay for re-examination and a patent troll lost nothing except for a patent that was invalid anyway.<p>Are vaguely worded patents legal? For example, if someone in the age of black-and-white TV would patent an idea that "colors can be transmitted wirelessly or by wire, decoded or not decoded by a TV or other electronic or non-electronic device and displayed or not displayed on a screen or other medium". Would this idea without any research count as a valid patent application? Please explain, knowledgable people.
There needs to be anti-SLAPP style legislation for patent trolls. I honestly don't understand why there isn't: it seems like an easy PR win for legislators. Who would be against this (except patent trolls)?
The owner of <a href="https://www.corporationwiki.com/p/2rwhc6/rothschild-patent-imaging-llc" rel="nofollow">https://www.corporationwiki.com/p/2rwhc6/rothschild-patent-i...</a> seems to run a whole slew of patent trolling shell companies (40 in total or so). They'll probably just make another shell company and keep going.
Can someone ELI5 what this the RPI patent (US9936086B2) even tried to patent? Their claims look like the description of just any digital camera and a connected web service (Google Photos).<p>[1] <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US9936086B2/en" rel="nofollow">https://patents.google.com/patent/US9936086B2/en</a>
Software patents and patents on business processes should not be allowed. Period.
An idea has no cost and society does not benefit from granting monopolies on ideas.<p>Note that I am referring specifically to patents, not Copyright.
Copyright protects a specific _expression_ of an idea and is an important concept. This is true for both proprietary and open source software.<p>Also other areas where research is an enormous cost factor (for example medical research) patents are essential to protect the cost of such research (or nobody would do it).<p>Edit: Spelling
I mean, to the author, thank you. Can't believe it cost $150,000+ for the open source community to go through that litigation...<p>Dorsey, and all the SV billionaires who made money off open source, perhaps it's time you "contribute back" by financing the fight against patent trolls...
> Perhaps it's time for the law to adjust to the point where the stakes for the troll are high enough to make it less appealing as a business?<p>No, that's just polishing the brass on the Titanic.<p>Patents on software just shouldn't exist. At all. We already have established laws where you can't patent maths. An algorithm is just a function. It should be covered by the maths disqualifier.<p>The fact that a smartphone could could contain and potentially violate literally thousands of patents is a complete anathema to the original intent of the system and it should be a huge red flag to the entire idea of software patents.
Man, where was McCoy Smith in the days of the Amiga CD32, which was banned from sale in the USA because of a patent on (I'm not making this up) the XOR bitwise operation?
How about we make "non-practicing entity" a defense in a patent lawsuit? That, if you can prove that the owner of the patent is an NPE (and doesn't reasonably license or innovate or even try to innovate, only sue or unreasonably license), case tossed...
Either we build open source, decentralizing, individual empowering, tech, or we work in support of our own enslavement. I know; we all wish it weren't so. It does not matter.
The patent in question that was invalidated [0]:<p><pre><code> Wireless image distribution system and method
Abstract
A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving device.
</code></pre>
[0] <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US9936086B2/en" rel="nofollow">https://patents.google.com/patent/US9936086B2/en</a><p>TL;DR some kind of device sends an image to some kind of "paired" companion device wirelessly.
If patents exist as a legal form of intellectual property, they should be able to be purchased and exchanged in a commercial market. Authors, composers and other creators of works with intellectual property rights can transfer or sell those rights and there is no obligation for the purchaser to do anything with the work other than own it and collect royalties.<p>In the case of a song or a book, it is simple (in most cases) to know that someone is performing your song or publishing your book without consent. This isn't the case with patents. There is an involved process to determine if a given entity is violating another's patent rights. This friction in determining right from wrong is the mechanism that allows patent trolls to extract a toll from anyone who isn't able or willing to fight the claim. This puts an asymmetric amount of leverage in the hands of the patent trolls. Some mechanism/legislation needs to be put in place to balance the power so that there is a higher cost to the patent owner who brings spurious claims.
> <i>none is as powerful as challenging the nefarious patents directly</i><p>Why don't we see this deployed against competitors? I get why the big boys wouldn't want to rock the boat. But hiring a patent lawyer to go through a competitor's patents and challenge the ones they think could be flimsy sounds like a decent way to, at the very least, distract them.
> Perhaps it's time for the law to adjust to the point where the
stakes for the troll are high<p>Take that further. The stakes should be high against all adjacent
patent holders. Ultimately if we want to keep a working patent system
it's too much work to rely on piecemeal independent cases like this,
albeit a great success. The system has to self-police to be fair, and
perhaps the best people to keep trolls and mischievous opportunists on
a leash are the bigger players with legitimate patents. They must be
fiven a motivated interest in eliminating trolls.<p>If you sell a gun to an unstable crazy who shoots up the neighbourhood
then some blame lies with you. While the transfer of patents between
concerned partner companies and subsidiaries seems okay, the market
for trading patents simply as value assets needs destroying.
Ultimately its probably better if we move to a world where a lot of
"intellectual property" expires with it's holder and passes into the
public domain.<p>To apply a leverage point analysis, it's probably time to reexamine
and change the rules about the transferability of patents. Does the
purchaser have a legitimate justification to hold the patent? If no,
it forfeits.
Leigh Rothschild, the troll in chief : <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/leigh-rothschild-bab450b/" rel="nofollow">https://www.linkedin.com/in/leigh-rothschild-bab450b/</a><p>Every once in a wile I get baffled by how american justice system is broken, lacks common sense and cannot be reformed. Aren't the judge able to spot such abusive and predatory patent trolls that attacks only small and weak companies that have no means to defend themselves?
Here where I live each time I discuss US justice system I get reminded of this probably false story of the woman that sued and won against a microwave company because they didn't state in the manual that you cant dry your pet in the microwave, and killed her dog or whatever.
Such inhuman system rewards just stupidity and greed.
Its crazy that this didnt hit the front page of HN before the verdict.<p>> That prompted over 4,000 Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community members to rally in defense of the GNOME Foundation, raising over $150,000 to defend against the bogus claim
I had this idea on how to stop prior art being patented. Require the patenting entity put some money in escrow for say one year and if anyone in the public supplies prior art to invalidate that patent, they get the money as a reward.
The title is misleading RPI has lost patent claims on the "Rothschild '086", which is the one that they used to sue GNOME. But they still have the right to pursue other patent claims that they have in their portfolio.
I often come across bogus patents when i come up with small business ideas, but the cost for reexamination is so high as to bar entry into some domains (from $13000).<p>Why are the costs so high to point out a mistake in the decision to grant a patent? Is the reexamination fee reimbursed should the patent be found invalid?
This discussion comes up regularly.<p>Here's something that would work, maybe, eventually. It IS simple; it's just not easy. You have to realize that lawyers and politicians don't want to <i>fix</i> problems; they want to make a living off them.<p>Who wants to lead this effort (and don't say "you" because I'm retired)?<p>1. Get someone with legal training to write legislation fixing this situation. Personally, I think just declaring software as <i>not</i> patentable subject matter is the core of the solution, but that's to be decided.<p>2. Get a Congressman to introduce it into the House or Senate. Let's say it becomes "H.R. 666" or some other number.<p>3. For every Congressional candidate, ask them "Do you support H.R. 666?" Make it clear that your support depends on a Yes answer. That's a language they can understand.<p>Will this work? Well, it stands a chance. Comments on a thread like this don't have much chance at all of effecting any change.
tl;dr; He is a retired attorney and a "firm believer in the patent system” so he filed for re-examination.<p>A random google search gives the costs mere mortals can expect for that (source: <a href="https://www.lventre.com/reexam.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.lventre.com/reexam.html</a>)<p>> Ex parte reexaminations. Expect total costs to be $20,000 - $45,000.