Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

Hams have been doing packet radio since the 70's in earnest and it's been around far longer.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio</a><p>There is clearly prior art. When you make this big a nuisance of yourself, clearly exploiting the system at society's expense, you should be permanently disbarred. You are a clear and present danger to the continued operation of the justice system.<p>Edit: Might a flood of complaints to the bar association do some good here?

The book "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is highly recommended reading for the question of patents (and other intellectual property). The authors make a mostly empirical survey of the effects of intellectual property laws and of their absence in a wide range of industries, and conclude that their effect is a <i>stifling</i> rather than an encouragement of innovation. I think it's especially appropriate because, while my own opinion on the issue comes from moral reasoning (and it's generally frustrating to try to argue that side), this book presents a wealth of stories and statistics that are just plain interesting to anyone who cares about the issue.<p><a href="http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf</a>

Leeches. Someone should destroy these folks. Legally and peacefully, of course. But they must be destroyed.

I really hope they do start suing individuals. Congressmen, and judges specifically.

This is very nice!<p>Politicians will only solve a problem after it becomes a calamity. If the problem gets bad enough, they might start paying attention.

This is actually a very good development. This will help that even general public start understanding "patent troll" problem which, in turn, will get some ears in in Washington.<p>I hope that more and more opportunistic lawyers join the "patent troll" bandwagon. Eventually, some of them will not say "wont sue individuals" because they will understand that changes in IP laws are going to happen soon: make money now or never (very similar to what was happening just before the housing crash of 2008). Then the politicians will act. Hopefully, giving bailouts and not doing reforms will not work for this issue.<p>Is there anything we can do to speed up this process?

Original article: <a href="http://patentexaminer.org/2011/09/innovatios-infringement-suit-rampage-expands-to-corporate-hotels/" rel="nofollow">http://patentexaminer.org/2011/09/innovatios-infringement-su...</a>

It sounds like they're going after small business owners individually, so not necessarily "any old joe." Still, this gives me hope given how hot small businesses are in the current political climate. Perhaps targeting one or two of the wrong (read: noisy and politically-connected) owners will result in an outcome at least slightly positive for patent reform?

Do the descendants of Joseph Guillotin still hold the patent on his invention? I fancy a scenario unfolding in today's environment that might vastly enrich his heirs.

&#62; While its initial lawsuits against coffee shops and restaurants did focus on the central corporations, with the hotels, Innovatio appears to be focusing on individual franchisees. Yes, the small businesses who own individual hotels and probably have no idea how to deal with a patent infringement lawsuit -- all because they dared to offer WiFi somewhere in their hotels. To make it "easy" of course, Innovatio's lawyers will let them settle for between $2,300 and $5,000. In almost every case, that's going to be cheaper than hiring a lawyer to just get started dealing with this -- which I'm sure is exactly what Innovatio intends.<p>Isn't this precisely the sort of thing that can be forwarded to corporate? Someone who owns a Motel 6 would surely expect the corporation to help them with this, no?

It's nice to see that Innovatio IP is focused democratizing the opportunity to license their patents. Patent trolling isn't just for the Fortune 500 anymore.

I'm not a lawyer, so my question is simple - say that you receive a citation from Innovation and you simply ignore this. What then ? They will actually take you to court ?

Does anyone know what these patents claim to cover? "wifi" seems a bit broad

What is this patent actually for? I was looking up wifi, and the precursor to 802.11 came out in '91. That's well over 17 years ago.

After getting sued a good course of action would be to sue the manufacturer for loses incurred. At least that would get their attention. Somebody could start a class action lawsuit agains the manufacturer.

Someone needs to set up a Patent Troll company and patent a bunch of processes for political methods / action / campaigning / etc.<p>Then start trolling politicians.

It's about time the CSIRO (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Ind...</a>) got some money for their invention.

The patent is from 2004. <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=zi8SAAAAEBAJ&#38;printsec=abstract&#38;source=gbs_overview_r&#38;cad=0#v=onepage&#38;q&#38;f=false" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/patents?id=zi8SAAAAEBAJ&#38;printsec=a...</a><p>I hope their greed gets the best of them. Here's a poll I created to get general feedback on this subject. It's so infuriating to me, but a lot of people seem to be indifferent on the subject of patents: <a href="http://www.wepolls.com/p/3363896/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wepolls.com/p/3363896/</a>

Good luck with that one Trolls.

Surely this?

I wouldn't think they could ever win anything. One of the rules with patents is you can't just kick back and wait for your competitor's product to grow and sue 10 years later.<p>Considering WiFi is almost 20 years old, and has practically surpassed 'ubiquity', I'd say that ship sailed.