
Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage' - profitbaron
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111001/00365416161/patent-troll-says-anyone-using-wifi-infringes-wont-sue-individuals-this-stage.shtml
======
noonespecial
Hams have been doing packet radio since the 70's in earnest and it's been
around far longer.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio>

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.

Edit: Might a flood of complaints to the bar association do some good here?

~~~
redthrowaway
Say what you will about the trolls; these guys have it figured out. They're
targeting people with enough cash to make it go away, but not enough to mount
a proper defence. Prior art doesn't enter the picture, as the trolls' targets
are unlikely to retain counsel. When it costs as much to retain a lawyer as it
does to make the issue go away, it's perfectly rational for the small business
owner to pay up and move on. Tragedy of the commons at its finest. It's
cynical, reprehensible, and evil, but it's a pretty solid business model.

~~~
skrebbel
An acquaintance of mine goes by bars, small stores and coffee shops in his
town. He tells them that he knows the neighbourhood pretty well, and that for
the low, low fee of $400 a month, he can make sure that their store doesn't
burn down or get trashed. It's cynical, reprehensible, and evil, but it's a
pretty solid business model.

~~~
redthrowaway
Nobody's saying it isn't a protection racket, just that it makes more sense
for individual business owners to pay the extortion than to tangle with the
mob, even if the net result is everyone having to pay extortion to a powerful
mafia.

------
waterhouse
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 _stifling_ 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.

<http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf>

~~~
kprobst
Intellectual property and patents are not the problem, the problem is the
broken system around them that allows these types of abuses.

~~~
wnight
Nope. The problem is granting monopolies and expecting to encourage growth.
It's nonsensical.

Even if our courts were up to it, and we see time and hand again that they are
not, you simply cannot consistently enforce incoherent laws.

All IP laws other than trademark are harmful to society and the economy and
need to be abolished.

~~~
adestefan
You think that if I were to write a song and post a recording of it on
YouTube, then it would be perfectly acceptable for anyone, from the
grandmother down the street to the ultra-mega business in the big city, to
take my lyrics and melody and make mounds of money from it without
compensating me in the least?

~~~
wnight
Absolutely. You got your compensation already when you learned about music
from everyone else. And even if not, it's just morally wrong and nigh
impossible to contain ideas.

How do you think the ultra-mega-corp is going to get unreasonably huge without
monopoly control of creation or distribution though? And with tiny profit
margins because their competitors can just copy them.

I also don't think you should get government help in keeping secret the method
you use to do anything. It's possible to look at you and see what you're doing
- if you do it where people can see you they'll just naturally be able to copy
you. We'd have to lobotomize them or set up some ridiculous bureau of ideas to
check everything for originality. Both nonsensical. A society can't afford to
handicap its creators.

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

~~~
beedogs
I'd honestly prefer someone did it with a MOAB at this point.

~~~
burgerbrain
I'm currently finding myself question my own disapproval of capital
punishment. Every single one of the board members of this company could be put
to an incredibly painful death by lethal injection and I just might bake a
cake.

~~~
PakG1
You know that death by lethal injection is actually not painful? Not that I
support your hyperbole (if it is hyperbole), just clarifying the facts.

~~~
knorby
It is meant to be a bit painful in all circumstances. It isn't a pleasant way
to die, but it doesn't look all that bad to watch, which is why it is used.
Pain and trauma free measures like nitrogen asphyxiation aren't used for that
reason; pro-death penalty advocates want to keep it painful.

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

~~~
kylec
Patent trolls may be evil, but they're not stupid. The best we can hope for is
for them to sue a close friend of a congressman or judge.

~~~
saalweachter
Maybe not stupid, but I think their hubris is steadily growing.

At some point a patent troll is going to fly too high and set fire to the
entire business model.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
I wonder if a possible defense would be to intentionally trigger some
political response via some patent trolling of your own.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Dang, this is a REALLY good idea. Get a whole slew of companies to combine
patents and start suing "influential" people. Call it lobbying with teeth. The
EFF could be the "troll" and could take the extras as contributions.

------
diego_moita
This is very nice!

Politicians will only solve a problem after it becomes a calamity. If the
problem gets bad enough, they might start paying attention.

~~~
Astrohacker
Politicians created the problem by creating IP laws. If they "solve" it, they
will undoubtedly just introduce some new problem.

~~~
MartinCron
That's a really cynical view, isn't it? Implying that the people, through
their democratically elected governments, can't ever improve upon things that
have come before.

~~~
kevingadd
Cynicism is rarely proven wrong in cases like this.

~~~
dasil003
The cynic can only take pleasure in saying "I told you so," but can never take
credit for any improvement, which does occasionally happen against all odds.

------
tlogan
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.

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.

Is there anything we can do to speed up this process?

~~~
tjmc
Of course - only sue politicians, the media and anyone else with political
influence. Give them 2 options:

1\. Pay - where all proceeds will be used to acquire more frivolous patents
and lawyers to sue them again

2\. Change the law to ban all software patents

------
mrspandex
Original article: [http://patentexaminer.org/2011/09/innovatios-infringement-
su...](http://patentexaminer.org/2011/09/innovatios-infringement-suit-rampage-
expands-to-corporate-hotels/)

------
mkjones
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?

------
plink
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.

------
pavel_lishin
> 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.

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?

~~~
colanderman
Ya but your local B&B can't deal with this. They need to mobilize _now_ and
pool together to buy good legal defense.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I sort of imagine that the large chains would smack these trolls down pretty
hard. Hilton and Marriott and Starbucks aren't exactly mom-and-pop.

~~~
steve-howard
Which is why, I imagine, they'll either stay far, far away from the biggest
players (Caribou is several orders of magnitude smaller than Starbucks) and
just harass companies too small to take a stand. The system works again!

------
fleitz
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.

~~~
throwaway0815
Look who's talking: a patent troll himself.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3058876>

~~~
fleitz
Have you considered law school?

Your insights into the actionability of patent _applications_ would be highly
informative to the majority of legal scholars and practicing lawyers.

------
octopus
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 ?

~~~
jcromartie
This is exactly what I have been wondering. The case has no merit: they can't
sue me for buying a Linksys router, can they?

~~~
mcherm
The way the US legal system works, if you are sued then the plaintiff and you
go to the court and make your arguments. If you don't show up, then they
automatically win all arguments they make. Even if the argument is wrong. So
you automatically lose, and then it moves to the collections stage.

tl;dr; Yes, they can sue you for buying a router. And win, if your high-priced
lawyer doesn't show up in court on the appointed day.

~~~
dctoedt
A couple of things:

1\. If you get sued and don't show up, the judge might _or might not_ enter a
default judgment. Think of a lawsuit as a road rally. The plaintiff has to hit
a number of checkpoints. In federal court, one of the first checkpoints is
that the complaint---that is, the plaintiff's formal statement of its claim---
must allege enough facts to set out a _plausible_ case entitling the plaintiff
to relief. (This is the _Twombly/Iqbal_ standard established by the Supreme
Court a couple of years ago.) Even if the defendant doesn't show up, usually
the judge and his or her law clerk will still read the complaint, to see if it
passes the smell test, before granting a default judgment.

2\. They can sue you for buying a router, but under section 2-312(2) and (3)
of the Uniform Commercial Code [1], absent a proper warranty disclaimer you
would normally be able to pass the buck to the seller, by filing a cross-claim
for breach of the implied warranty of noninfringement. Of course, that too
would require paying a lawyer, unless the seller stepped up and voluntarily
assumed the defense of the infringement suit (which is not uncommon; vendors
want to stay on customers' good side).

[1] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-312>

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

~~~
skymt
Here's one of their suits:
[https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fia700405.us....](https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fia700405.us.archive.org%2F3%2Fitems%2Fgov.uscourts.ilnd.253349%2Fgov.uscourts.ilnd.253349.1.0.pdf)

I don't know enough about the details of wifi to say whether the patents in
question actually apply, but it seems plausible. Here are all the patents
listed in the suit:

<http://www.google.com/patents?id=zi8SAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=0W-qAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=89fGAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=rlHHAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=HQwgAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=i9UYAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=Uz8JAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=f6mwAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=YxQcAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=unMYAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=yPcOAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=zDQSAAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=Bkh4AAAAEBAJ>
<http://www.google.com/patents?id=vfnOAAAAEBAJ>

------
sukuriant
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.

~~~
greatreorx
US Patent 6714559 is one they sued several hotels over. It was filed in 2001
but was a string of 6 continuations of a patent filed November, 1991.

------
felipemnoa
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.

~~~
tjr
They should be suing the manufacturers in the first place. Even if we were to
assume for a moment that this patent has any validity whatsoever, it would not
be the users of the wireless router than owe them a royalty payment, but the
router manufacturers. And I seriously doubt that a fair royalty on a single
router (such as what you might find in one of these small coffeeshops that
they are suing) is in the thousands of dollars.

~~~
caf
Why? It's not just the implementation of a patented idea that's protected;
it's also the use.

~~~
danssig
Don't consumers have some protection here? I mean, they probably bought the
wifi at a common store. You don't normally walk out of _Walmart_ with a box
containing a product you expect to not legally be able to use.

~~~
caf
Legally I believe that's an issue between the consumer and the merchant and/or
manufacturer.

~~~
tjr
Legally, it depends. A bit of web searching did turn up (so far) one LinkSys
router that explicitly disclaims implied warranty of non-infrigement. If that
is disclaimed, then yes, it falls to the consumer to deal with it.

------
DanBC
Someone needs to set up a Patent Troll company and patent a bunch of processes
for political methods / action / campaigning / etc.

Then start trolling politicians.

------
pyrotechnick
It's about time the CSIRO
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Ind...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation))
got some money for their invention.

~~~
whatusername
I have seen a few US writers attempt to call CSIRO a patent troll. Somewhat
amusing. This article isn't talking about the CSIRO patent though.

------
crizCraig
The patent is from 2004.
[http://www.google.com/patents?id=zi8SAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=zi8SAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

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:
<http://www.wepolls.com/p/3363896/>

~~~
machrider
If they applied for the patent in 2001, how can they possibly sue users of
wifi? 802.11 has been around longer than that.

~~~
caf
It's possible that the patent(s) are only alleged to apply to 802.11g and/or
802.11n implementations. At least one of the patents appears to relate to
MIMO, which would apply only to 802.11n.

------
SODaniel
Good luck with that one Trolls.

------
Vivtek
Surely this?

------
sliverstorm
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.

Considering WiFi is almost 20 years old, and has practically surpassed
'ubiquity', I'd say that ship sailed.

~~~
mcherm
That's the beauty of the scheme. They don't HAVE to win anything. They
threaten to sue for $2,000 to $5,000 which is less than the cost of hiring a
lawyer to defend. 98% of the people threatened pay up. Some miniscule
percentage are incredibly cussed individuals who are willing to spend
thousands of dollars just to be right... maybe they'll lose those cases. It
doesn't matter: they're still making huge amounts of money.

The only threat to the scheme is having your lawyers be sanctioned for
unprofessional conduct. If there was NOTHING behind the threat, this would be
a real possibility (like, say, if you tried this scheme when you didn't even
HAVE a patent). But as long as it's a plausible case, the threat works and
it's highly profitable.

~~~
daemin
It makes me wonder how this is not extortion? Pay up or we'll make your life
miserable and/or more expensive.

