
Wi-Fi patent troll hit with racketeering suit emerges unscathed - bitops
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/wi-fi-patent-troll-hit-with-novel-anti-racketeering-charges-emerges-unscathed/
======
arbuge
This kind of stuff will go on, all the way down the slippery slope of
craziness, until Congress acts and does the only logical thing - ban
software/methodology/business process patents in their entirety. Meanwhile the
patent trolls will continue to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of
dollars. (Around $20B in 2012 by the way - that last comment isn't hyperbole).

~~~
dylangs1030
Not necessarily. If you amend the way in which patents are granted, tighten
the criteria for a grantable patent, and change the ways patents are enforced,
you have a chance to reform the system.

What you say could be true, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water
until you've tried other ways first.

EDIT: This is also a technology issue. If patent offices had a better
understanding of Wi-Fi and practical applications of public internet, a patent
wouldn't be granted to Innovatio that would give them a legal position, and
this circumstance wouldn't arise.

Keep the patent system, but educate the system on rapid technology advances.
It's stale, but amendable.

~~~
Kliment
I personally now believe the patent system deserves to die in its entirety. It
is not producing any value, it is not resulting in any innovation, it just
strikes fear into the hearts of those of us who would dare attempt to make
something meaningful.

~~~
potatolicious
This is a common belief in the software industry - and almost _only_ in the
software industry.

Software patents != all patents

There are fields where R&D costs are astronomical, and patents are a barrier
that allows this enormous amount of money to be spent.

Keep in mind that software patents are only a tiny slice of the whole patent
pie.

~~~
arbuge
I agree with this last part. Pharmaceutical patents for example come to mind.
Those are clearly not software/methodology/business process patents though - I
don't think recognizing them would be difficult.

~~~
betterunix
I have a different take on pharmaceutical patents: the research costs could
largely be covered with NIH grants, and the pharmaceutical companies should
only be in the position of producing the drugs that grant-funded research
discovers. Why should the public have to pay absurdly high prices for
medication because of the special treatment big pharma gets from the
government? Let the pharmaceutical companies compete, and we can get our
medications at a fraction of the price (and maybe not have to rely on the
notoriously abusive health insurance companies just to do what our doctors
tell us to do).

While we are at it, let's disband the DEA and stop protecting the
pharmaceutical companies' market from drugs we could be growing in our
backyards.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"While we are at it, let's disband the DEA and stop protecting the
> pharmaceutical companies' market from drugs we could be growing in our
> backyards."_

Drugs != marijuana - the DEA's mandate extends well beyond that of policing
pot use. There are plenty of chemical substances of substantial and extreme
harm that are currently under the umbrella of the DEA and shouldn't leave it.

It's somewhat funny that this is in the same thread as "a small segment of
patents are bad, specifically the patents _I_ deal with personally, so let's
dismantle the whole system", since your stance seems to break down to "some
drugs are wrongly regulated, specifically the drugs _I_ deal with personally,
so let's dismantle the whole system".

~~~
pstuart
Sorry, but I'll have to disagree. The DEA operates in the criminal realm and
doesn't care about health (it only cares about itself, really).

The only drug enforcement we need is an FDA that ensures that what is on the
label matches what is in the product itself, and that standards are set for
_guidance_ in their use.

If you want to worry about dangerous drugs being available on the streets you
should start with alcohol and tobacco.

------
Natsu
As an interesting thought experiment, I wonder how lawyers would feel if legal
"processes" could be patented and the practice of law itself was subject to
claims of infringement? Particularly if relatively basic uses of basic legal
principles were being patented and individual lawyers, rather than their
firms, could be held liable.

Because that's the sort of nonsense being inflicted upon computer scientists.

~~~
wlesieutre
I'm sorry, but you'll need to license the patent for a "method of patenting
basic legal processes" first.

------
shmerl
Patent trolling is exactly that - protection racket. It's a shame that the
judicial / legal system is so broken that it can't apply the existing laws to
smash these racketeers for good.

~~~
SeanDav
As much as I would like to see a patent troll smashed, I think that a company
asserting rights that are challenge-able in a court is not racketeering.

Greedy, despicable and morally bankrupt, yes.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The problem is that the _entire_ legal system is a protection racket. If you
don't have deep pockets, you are 100% subject to the whims if whatever kind of
troll that comes knocking.

But why should this be surprising when the people who pass the laws are mostly
members of the group that gets rich either way.

~~~
dylangs1030
I was with you up until the last sentence.

I don't intend to be mean, but you should really try to avoid seemingly
partison statements like that unless you make them less vague, more relevant
and add citations. It's not simply that your statement isn't true (you didn't
specify enough for it to be one way or another), it's that it amounts to just
spouting cynical minutia.

It gives people an excuse not to listen to your point if you tag a bland
political statement on to an otherwise substantial point.

~~~
mattstreet
Is it partisan to point out that pretty much anyone in politics is in a
different economic class than 98% of the country? I'm pretty sure he meant
that when he said group, not Dem vs Rep.

~~~
dylangs1030
No, that isn't. But that's also being much more specific and is closer to
citing something substantial. You provided numbers, and that's the first step
to relevance.

~~~
dhimes
I think he meant that the people who write the laws are _lawyers_ \- and thus
there is an inherent conflict of interest.

------
jessaustin
Many manufacturers claim to have licensed the relevant patents from Broadcom,
in which case their customers are not infringing by "exhaustion". Presumably
there are some manufacturers that didn't license, so parties who purchased
equipment from those would not have that defense. Does the troll in this case
have any reason to think that the hotels it's targeting have unlicensed and
thus infringing equipment? Or is this just an RIAA-style dragnet, in which
you're guilty until you prove all your equipment is licensed? Is there really
no means by which courts can rein in this type of abuse?

~~~
exhilaration
Very good point but how does one determine if the manufacturer of one's wifi
equipment has licensed the relevant patents? I assume you can ask them after
you get sued.

------
DocG
In my country, if I remember correctly, you need to pay 5% up front to court
for the money you want. Meaning If I want to sue McDonalds for 1 mil, I have
to pay 5k. This keeps away nonsense cases. If I lose, court keeps money. If I
win, I can add this sum to the total amount.

This keeps cases real and amounts realistic.

~~~
mnutt
What if the person is very poor and doesn't have 50k to put up for a lawsuit?
Should no plaintiff ever be able to sue someone for more than 5% of the
plaintiff's total net worth?

The real issue is that since corporations don't have the same responsibilities
as real people, they shouldn't have the same rights.

~~~
jlgreco
Surely if they can find a lawyer who honestly thinks they have a case, they
could get a loan for that amount.

~~~
dylangs1030
Yes but that takes more time. It's an interesting system, but we can't pretend
it doesn't have its own drawbacks.

~~~
jlgreco
I'm thinking the loan could be from the lawyer themselves and built into their
standard payment contract (similar to that "pay nothing if we don't win!" deal
perhaps), but yes, it isn't a perfect system.

~~~
dylangs1030
I suppose that would depend on the lawyer's financial position and personal
integrity.

------
CognitiveLens
Can anyone offer advice on the best response from a small business that is
sent a letter from a troll like this? Particularly since in this case it
sounds like the patents themselves are valid, but have been licensed by the
tech provider - how should end users protect themselves?

I realize there are plenty of rants against these practices available to read
in many forums, but given the progression of this case, what options are
available to the defendants?

~~~
socalnate1
Ignore it. They send thousands of letters for the same reasons e-mail spammers
do, they anticipate a huge percentage of people to ignore them, lose the
letter, have no money, etc. Be a part of that group.

This doesn't help the societal problem, but unless you're a well known company
and/or have very deep pockets, your best bet is to just ignore the letters.

~~~
dpark
That really depends on what kind of letter you get. If you ignore an actual
lawsuit, you may find a judge ruling in default against you, which is what the
article mentions at the bottom.

> _A few days after Holderman's order came out, Innovatio lawyers filed a
> lengthy series of notices regarding the dozens of hotels it is preparing to
> ask for a "default judgment" against, which suggests those hotels haven't
> yet defended themselves against the infringement allegations. Now there's a
> hearing approaching next week, on February 21, and Innovatio has put the
> hotels on notice that it intends to ask for judgments against them of $5,000
> each._

------
jevinskie
How is it that the end consumers are being hit with a lawsuit that resulted
from their equipment manufacture not being properly licensed? Is it my
responsibility to vet that every piece of consumer electronics was properly
licensed for the technologies that they use?

~~~
mikeash
Technically, yes. Simply using an infringing technology without permission
qualifies as patent infringement. You'd probably have an excellent case to sue
the manufacturer for damages if this happened, but you aren't automatically
shielded just because you're the end user.

------
mieubrisse
This sort of stuff makes me feel approximately pure despair. I'm no lawyer,
but I would think that the prevalence of patent trolls would be enough of an
indicator to a judge to shut this sort of thing down hard.

~~~
lh7777
They've got to work within the law, and the law hasn't caught up yet. I'm sure
this sort of thing will be sorted out eventually, but in the meantime a lot of
small businesses will still get hurt or destroyed.

~~~
mattstreet
And yet when people complain about being stuck working for giant shitty
corporations, they get told to just start their own business.

------
dylangs1030
Startup opportunity: patent troll insurance.

This is a disgusting abuse of the legal system and current patent laws. It
puts innovation in jeopardy by way of stagnation - small businesses won't
offer WiFi as much if they know they can be sued by a company that has no
practical connection to the technology. And if it isn't used as much by as
many entities, how will it improve?

I think it's a joke that Innovatio bluffed not attacking home Wi-Fi as if it's
an intentional "strategic position" like that. As if a single obscure company
with flimsy title deeds on technology could really take away something so
integrated from the public. They would have a reaction akin to SOPA.

~~~
PotatoEngineer
Patent troll insurance skirts the line of being just as bad as patent trolls
themselves: "Pay us some money and maybe you won't get hit by patent trolls."
It's a great idea, but when I look at it closer, it looks pretty similar to
trolling: "Pay us a little bit of money and we'll go away." It's not quite
that bad, because it adds on "...and we'll make other people go away," but
it's still interestingly close.

~~~
PotatoEngineer
One additional thought: anyone who buys patent troll insurance instantly
becomes a highly-cooperative target. Why fight it? Why ignore it? Just send
the contact info for your insurance company, and let them pay it.

------
zalzane
The real problem with patent trolls is that this entire spectacle is
completely out of the public's eye. Outside of business/startup circles, the
concept of a patent troll is completely foreign. It would be amazing if Vice
or someone of the like did a documentary on this modern day mafia to educate
the public on this new form of crime.

Once the public is actually conscious that this issue exists, congress would
be pressured to act in order to keep their voters happy.

------
femto
Does anyone know the identification numbers of the patents that Innovatio IP
are using, or even the specific claims that are being used? I'm interested to
compare with some prior art that I am aware of.

~~~
gonzo
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,714,559, 7,386,002, 7,535,921, 7,548,553, 5,740,366,
5,940,771, 6,374,311, 7,457,646, 5,546,397, 5,844,893, 6,665,536, 6,697,415,
7,013,138, 7,710,907, 7,916,747, 7,873,343, and 7,536,167

Source: [http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-
systems...](http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-systems-inc-
and-motorola-solutions-inc-v-innovatio-ip-ventures-llc.pdf)

