FindTheBest destroys “matchmaking” patent, pushes RICO case against troll

I&#x27;m repeating myself, but in every single one of these patent trolling cases:<p>Name. And. Shame.<p>Eileen Shapiro. The headline should be: &quot;FindTheBest destroys &#x27;matchmaking&#x27; patent, pushes RICO case against patent troll Eileen Shapiro.&quot; (I&#x27;m assuming she&#x27;s not the only one involved, but they&#x27;ve got her name in there.)<p>Don&#x27;t let these people hide behind the names of their patent companies. Let them become famous for their malicious greediness.

Love the judge&#x27;s comment here:<p><pre><code> &gt; &quot;There is no inventive idea here,&quot; she wrote in her order. &gt; &quot;Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive. &gt; Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia... It is merely a &gt; mathematical manifestation of the underlying process behind matchmaking: &gt; determining good matches.&quot; </code></pre> A judge that uses the &quot;computer algorithms == maths&quot;, and uses it to shut down a shitty patent? Awesome! I wish there were more judges like Judge Denise Colt. Well done.

<p><pre><code> FindTheBest destroys patent troll (arstechnica.com) 18 points by sieva 2 hours ago | flag | cached | share | 1 comment </code></pre> Actual article title:<p><pre><code> FindTheBest destroys “matchmaking” patent, pushes RICO case against troll</code></pre>

From US District Judge Denise Cote: &quot;Taking basic practices in human commerce and culture and adding &quot;do it on a computer&quot; language ... would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting [of] the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas.&quot;<p>Indeed.

I am so cheering on FTB and salivating for a sweet, sweet verdict against the patent troll. Seeing someone like Eileen Shapiro named and shamed plus forced to pay $200k court costs would be the most wonderful Christmas gift ever!

So what? Right now the USPTO is approving hundreds of other useless patents of marginal value and expects the courts to figure out their validity. Without reform these wins are just morale boosters and nothing else.

Makes me wonder if said troll slipped up when targeting FindTheBest. I&#x27;m assuming a troll wants to go after someone who is <i>big enough to pay some money</i> but not <i>so big that they can afford to fight</i>.<p>FindTheBest&#x27;s founder was formerly founder&#x2F;CEO of DoubleClick. I&#x27;m not sure going after someone with a VC background and a 10-figure exit to Google was very wise.

&gt; Even this &quot;efficient&quot; win cost FTB about $200,000 in legal fees, said Seigle; that&#x27;s four times more than the $50,000 payout that Lumen View was asking for.

It&#x27;s important to see the long-term strategy behind software-patents.<p>Currently we are in phase 1, the &quot;Wild West&quot;. Anyone is free to grab some land and claim ownership. Gradually more civilized procedures will be developed to acquire (intellectual) property. But make no mistake. Software patents are in the interest of the dominating classes in the US and will be established. Two convincing arguments: Software patents<p>1. create revenue for the patent holders.<p>2. can be used to deter foreign competitors or at least to &#x27;tax&#x27; them with patent fees.<p>tl;dr: unfortunately poor prospects for the anti-patent league.

Not that it&#x27;s relevant to anything but it appears that Eileen Shapiro has written a book<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-ebook/dp/B000OI1ABQ/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-ebook&#x2F;dp&#x2F;...</a><p>EDIT: *books <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-Boardroom/dp/0201441950/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Fad-Surfing-In-The-Boardroom&#x2F;dp&#x2F;020144...</a>

I don&#x27;t see any indication the troll is destroyed.

I don&#x27;t see how a RICO case can possibly work, unless perhaps the plaintiff can show that the defendant committed fraud on the patent office.

Unfortunately they still paid a big price in legal fees. Can anyone tell me what the downsides are to a loser-pays-the-fees system? I heard it&#x27;s used in the UK but not in the US. What gives?

<i>&quot;Merely directing a computer to perform a function does not transform the computer into a specialized computer. Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting [of] the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas.&quot;</i><p>What a sensible judge they had. Perhaps noting that the rest of the world most certainly does <i>not</i> allow patents of quite this type might focus a few minds. This parasitic business opportunity (trolling) might be costing US its innovation lead...

It may be naiive optimism, but I hope the RICO suit has some success. A thin veneer of legalism in an obviously bogus patent shouldn&#x27;t be enough to make one immune entirely from racketeering charges.<p>By way of comparison, if I threatened to file bogus nuisance suits hoping for quick settlements for anything other than patent infringement, I very well could be held liable (and disbarred) under all manner of existing precedents.

&gt; From the judges order: <i>Nothing in the ‘073 patent evinces an inventive idea beyond the idea of the patent holder to be the first to patent the computerization of a fundamental process that has occurred all through human history.&quot;</i><p>It strikes me that a large number of patents would evaporate if this standard were more universally applied.