
EFF is countersuing a patent troll that wants its name removed from a blog post - DamonHD
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff_countersues_patent/
======
baobrain
Can we change the link to the EFF press release?

[https://www.eff.org/press/releases/patent-owner-cant-use-
for...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/patent-owner-cant-use-foreign-
court-order-block-eff-speaking-out)

~~~
aurelianito
I prefer the information to be given by a neutral third party.

~~~
taurath
Ad supported news is not neutral - it is beholden to whatever it thinks will
get the most attention (whether that be quality journalism or clickbait - I
don't know where the register stands on that). Just the concept of neutrality
in any media is inherently false.

~~~
kristianc
Yet if it was subscription supported you can guarantee there would be people
complaining about posting paywalled links. We need to get news somehow.

Leave it to the reader to judge any bias or otherwise - but a media source is
less likely to have a firm stance either way than one of the parties to the
lawsuit.

~~~
__s
We almost need a kind of multiplex blogspam posts. A post saying as little as
possible to maintain neutrality: 'Patent troll makes case vs EFF, EFF counter
sues.' Then list in alphabetical order source material (Patent troll's claim,
EFF's claim)

This does have the issue of giving minority positions more exposure. ie
climate change denial links may be split 50% despite strong preference in the
scientific community. The reader has to recognize which links have substance
for themselves

~~~
kristianc
Sounds like you just described Techmeme.

------
FiloSottile
> We further demand that you make immediate arrangements for any links to the
> article to be removed from the world wide web including any and all other
> websites which references the infringing material. If you do not do this, we
> will be forced to do so at your expense.

Does that... involve paying Vupen to break into my web server, or what?
Because I'd love to see them try to "remove links from the world wide web".

~~~
simcop2387
Likely it'll mean paying lawyers to file false dmca requests in the end. Or
something similar with cease and desist. I think the intent is they're saying
we'll sue everyone and make you pay for it.

------
ndesaulniers
Time to renew my annual donation to the EFF.
[https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button](https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button)

------
zvpxdlk
Why is there not more media coverage on that district in eastern texas that
allows all these patent trolls to exist?

~~~
rhizome
I don't know that it would ever be stated so explicitly, but at the end of the
day there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about the EDTX courts without
major legislation, so there's no news there.

~~~
ajb
Actually it's presently before the supreme court:
[http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis-
justices...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis-justices-
hear-horror-stories-venue-patent-litigation/) But the argument report doesn't
look promising.

------
clort
While this judges ruling is patently inapplicable to the EFFs website
(different jurisdiction, different rules), I wonder if it could cause problems
personally to any of the staff (more likely: the directors) if they wished to
visit Australia in the future, can they be held responsible when entering the
jurisdiction?

------
kirillzubovsky
The SEO on this article is going to be fabulous. The words "patent troll" will
be forever tied to this company. Good work.

------
mcguire
Does anyone know anything behind the injunction from the Supreme Court of
South Australia?

[https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff-lawsuit-oz-judge-
injun...](https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff-lawsuit-oz-judge-
injunction.pdf)

~~~
caf
It's an interlocutory order, made on the same day its application was heard,
with no representation for the defendant appearing.

It's the kind of order that's made before a case is actually decided, to limit
some ongoing harm until the case can actually be heard. The plaintiff agrees
to compensate the defendant if the final judgement doesn't uphold the
interlocutory order.

------
musesum
Modest proposal: put all patent license fees into a 17 year escrow. Fees
returned if patent overturned. Publish a list of patent #'s and escrow
amounts. Allow for class action suits to represent the licensees. Sever and
nullify any clauses in existing agreements that would prevent a licensee from
participating in a class action suit. IANAL; merely a defensive patent holder.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Downside: an individual who made an important discovery and patented her
invention and licensed her technology to large companies would not be able to
access her money for 17 years.

~~~
caf
Presumably you'd be able to get a loan secured against the escrowed revenue.
If this actually happened you'd no doubt see specific tailored financial
solutions for this.

~~~
FireBeyond
Like you can get a loan or advance against annuities and settlements now?

Where the _best_ of these will take fifty per cent as a fee?

Sounds a great deal.

~~~
YokoZar
If half of all patents are known to be bogus then yeah, that'd be a fine deal.

~~~
__s
So as an escrow company I should also fund the creation of bogus patents to
increase the rates of my business model

~~~
caf
This makes no sense, because the only reason a higher proportion of bogus
patents would increase the interest rate charged is because it would increase
the risk that the patent returns very little in revenue (the higher interest
rates aren't increasing profit, they're covering higher risk).

I think what'd you'd actually see is specialist patent funding actuaries and
patent evaluators making an interest rate bid dependent on the actual patent
and inventor in question, much the way insurance industry works. The direct
competition would be business loans, and maybe that'd be essentially what they
were - secured business loans.

------
mcguire
The original EFF blog post: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-
patent-month-st...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-
storage-cabinets-computer)

------
chrismcb
On the surface of seems that the stupid patent, filed in 1999 has plenty of
prior art... How did the patent not get overturned?

~~~
phkahler
Unfortunately this story is the start of the process for how patents get
overturned...

------
killbrad
This is one of the reasons I support the EFF.

------
glitcher
Do they not know of the Streisand effect? Well, maybe this company will become
known as the Australian version of it.

~~~
throwawaytroll
I suppose it could hurt them (and no amount of shell companies would make a
difference) if the individuals behind this were to be exposed.

I didn't want to pay the $40 to pull the company record, but all their info is
super public on linkedin anyway:
[https://imgur.com/a/SVVYK](https://imgur.com/a/SVVYK)

So they either don't care or they're idiots.

~~~
BrandoElFollito
Looks like it is a family business of sorts (at least according to the names
of the various C-something titles)

------
janwillemb
> [the troll] asked for [EFF's] "Stupid Patent of the Month" post to be taken
> down. Remarkably, an Australian judge agreed

Does anyone know why the judge agreed? I'm all for taking down trolls, but if
a judge agreed, maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye.

~~~
Operyl
I think it was a default ruling. People are speculating that the EFF didn't
bother with defending on this one, since it was in Australian courts.

