
Stop Patent Trolls: Support the Innovation Act of 2015 - Ologn
https://act.eff.org/action/stop-patent-trolls-support-the-innovation-act-of-2015
======
WildUtah
This law would take the most effective tool against trolls and weaken it
without providing any real relief for innovative small companies targeted by
trolls.

The post-grant review process is the only way patents get a serious review of
their validity. The PTO actually takes printed references found by accused
infringers that pay a five-digit fee as reviews the patent. It's essential
because the original pre-grant review only allows a few hours of research and
examiners are rewarded only for issuing patents so it's hard for one to be bad
enough to be rejected.

This bill would make it much harder to revoke patent claims by prohibiting the
reasonable interpretation standard. It would also entitle trolls to demand new
claims by making trivial adjustments in wording without any serious review so
that winners who get bad patents revoked have to immediately face new bad
patents.

Meanwhile the loser pays provision is so weak that it provides no hope to
small businesses and little to large ones. East Texas judges have already
shown it won't apply in their courts.

The pleading requirements have already been enacted by the Supreme Court this
month.

This bill has been so watered down that it's worse than the status quo. EFF
should oppose it.

~~~
roarkjs
EFF seems to be making a habit of backing these worryingly pernicious bills.

~~~
purpled_haze
Could you provide examples? I've not personally heard of the EFF backing
anything worrying.

~~~
pc86
worrying != worryingly pernicious

The bill does nothing of substance. That's the problem. It's a waste of
resources for the EFF and frankly makes me wonder how they're spending my (and
others') money.

------
askmelater
My two cents.

A lot of these problems come from two clear areas, software and business
methods implemented in software. It was not until recently that patents were
allowed in these areas. I have never felt that there was any justification for
that change, and I would not mind if all patents in those areas are thrown
out.

I do not support HR 9 it weakens protection for invention in all areas,
tipping the balance to the big boys, since they repeatedly attack a small
entities patents, without risking being found in infringement.

I think if you exclude the software and business method patents, you might
find that a lot of the so called "non practicing entities" are not trolls, but
are small businesses that actually are developing technology.

~~~
sandworm101
>> not trolls, but are small businesses that actually are developing
technology.

While I admit that they are lots of such valid entities, by volume of
lawsuits, most seem to be trolls who are developing nothing. Either they did
so once upon a time (ie before the internet) or they have purchased some
seemingly worthless patents for pennies and now wield them as if they were
actual innovators rather than professional plaintiffs.

------
Animats
Stop the EFF before they kill innovation. HR 9 is overreaching. There are only
a few real "patent trolls". The EFF has a list.[1] Only one law firm, Farney
Daniels, has sent more than three demand letters.

What HR 9 does is to make it possible to sue patent holders over and over
until they're worn down and broke. It empowers rich infringing companies and
lets them infringe patents at low risk. Worst case, they end up paying
royalties, not being shut down.

Background: [http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-
blog/technology/238973-hr-...](http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-
blog/technology/238973-hr-9-crushes-innovation-killing-the-american-dream)

Activism: [http://www.savetheinventor.com/take-action-
now](http://www.savetheinventor.com/take-action-now)

[1]
[https://trollingeffects.org/lawfirms](https://trollingeffects.org/lawfirms)

~~~
loup-vaillant
Bah, the patent system as a whole is broken anyway. There are very few patents
whose absence would have slowed down innovation. On the contrary, the
_presence_ of patents tend to slow down innovation.

You want more innovation? Abolishing patents altogether is probably best. It
won't "save the inventor", but it will certainly save the _invention_.

~~~
incepted
> Bah, the patent system as a whole is broken anyway. There are very few
> patents whose absence would have slowed down innovation. On the contrary,
> the presence of patents tend to slow down innovation.

There is very little evidence of that.

Also, for using a system that's allegedly broken, the US is the country that
has been the most innovative in terms of software for decades in a row now.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Let's put your idea to the test. There's allegedly around 200,000 patents that
can cover smartphones. Everything from how they look to how they can connect
to putting voice over a data line. Try to design a standards-compliant
smartphone that runs common apps with understandable interface that doesn't
infringe on patents. You will have to read and consult hundreds of thousands
of claims regularly as you make every detail.

Realistically, you'll just (a) not get into that market at all or (b) ignore
the patents then fight with or pay whoever comes after you. Apple vs Samsung
is a nice example of where (b) can go but most choose (a).

~~~
incepted
> Let's put your idea to the test.

My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US __is __the
most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades.

The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the
system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the
BlackBerry.

Now try to understand why the system works despite your understanding of it.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Most of the patents files for software are by big companies. Most innovations
come from startups, academics, and volunteers in FOSS. Most of it was
protected by copyright law with money recouped in licensing and acquisitions.

Now try to understand why innovation existed outside patent motivations. Then
look up what big companies do with all those patents. Only then will you see
the real effect of the patent system.

~~~
rayiner
Universities are big filers of patents, so that leaves startups and FOSS. The
latter do a lot of innovative application, but not much invention. If you look
at something like a smart phone. The UI was developed at a big company, using
ideas originally developed at big corporate R&D labs. The CPU and wireless
chips were all designed at big companies. The LCD and touch screen technology
is all developed at big companies. The only big FOSS part (the Linux core of
Android), is a clone of something (UNIX), invented in a big corporate R&D lab.

~~~
pcwalton
FOSS has its fair share of research. You just don't hear about it as often as
you hear about the more engineering-focused FOSS projects, for the same
reasons you don't hear about the research projects big companies do as much as
their flagship engineering projects. (How many people have heard of Midori
compared to Windows? I'd wager it's the same ratio, speaking in orders of
magnitude, as the number of people who have heard of the Glasgow Haskell
Compiler vs. GCC, both of which are FOSS. I could name many other examples
just in the PL domain.)

Now you might say that a lot of those open source research projects are funded
by big companies, so they don't count. But most development on popular open
source projects is funded by big or medium-size companies. Research isn't any
different in this regard.

I think it's no accident that most of your examples are hardware, not
software. The problem there is that open source hardware is difficult to make
work, not that open source research is difficult to make work. The other main
example you gave is Unix, but FOSS didn't exist in 1973--of course it wasn't
open source by the modern definition. Its research successor, Plan 9, _was_
open source.

Disclaimer: I work on one of those open source research projects.

------
sesutton
The summary of the bill for those interested in what it actually does.

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-
bill/9/su...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-
bill/9/summary/17)

~~~
dawnbreez
>Removes a provision that prohibits a patent from being deemed invalid based
on novelty, prior art, or nonobvious subject matter solely because a defense
is raised or established based on prior commercial use.

This looks kinda troubling. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like this section
makes it impossible to declare a patent dispute invalid due to innovation,
i.e., you can be sued for infringement if you make a better mousetrap, even
though you have demonstrably improved the design.

~~~
rando289
Nope. You are reading it completely wrong. It's saying patents can be declared
invalid in more cases, nothing to do with "declaring a patent dispute
invalid."

~~~
dawnbreez
My bad. Thanks for clearing that up.

------
Ologn
I am starting to see ads against this bill from patent trolls. It's on the
Congressional calendar right now. It has 27 cosponsors. Hopefully it will
pass! The EFF link has a box where you can e-mail your congressional
representative, if you live in the USA of course.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Wait, you can have ads against bills?

~~~
Ologn
Sure, here is one of their ads on Youtube (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMPF2gNfStg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMPF2gNfStg)
). The title video explains who the person is:

"Keith McNally - Inventor, Online Ordering Software"

If you click on the lower left link on the video, it takes you to a web page
where they ask you to send a letter to your congressional representative
urging them to kill House Resolution 9.

~~~
TeMPOraL
"Inventor of Online Ordering Software". _Really_?

------
noobermin
To be very honest, whenever I see any political group supporting this or that
bill, I have to roll my eyes. The thought that change could be wrought by this
congress voting on anything when it is the congress that has enacted the least
number of laws of any US congress in recent history[0] is one that is rooted
in futility. It seems like those votes against obamacare, just political
showmanship without the _serious_ hope of getting anything really
accomplished. The last major changes to law/goverment in this country have
been either by the courts(gay marriage, citizens united) or executive
action(draw down of the war on drugs). Has anything been done through congress
in the last few years where it is supposed to originate? None I can think of
other than a couple of standouts.

We need to fix the election finance system. That is the first problem before
we can think that anything can really be effected through congress, as it is
supposed to be.

[0] [http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/congress-
numbers-11365...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/congress-
numbers-113658)

~~~
chongli
_We need to fix the election finance system._

That's attacking the symptoms without looking at the real problem. All of this
political gridlock is baked into the system. Separation of powers, first-past-
the-post, non-proportional representation, electoral redistricting carried out
by the party in power (can you say conflict of interest?).

~~~
noobermin
The separation of powers is between divisions of government, not political
parties.

Also, once you fix campaign finance, you'll have people who will vote to
representatives who will fix redistricting issues. Probably not a
representative sample, but the recent Ohio elections showed that partisan
gerrymandering is _not_ popular. Once the electorate has representatives that
need not worry about appeasing special interests, their will will be done.

~~~
chongli
_The separation of powers is between divisions of government, not political
parties._

The separation of powers means you will often get a president whose party does
not control congress. This leads to extreme gridlock. Where I live (Canada)
people were tired of Stephen Harper so they tossed him and his party out of
office; no gridlock to worry about at all!

 _Also, once you fix campaign finance_

I'm not convinced. Jeb Bush has hundreds of millions in finances and what has
that gotten him? 5th place. He can't even crack double digit percentages.

Meanwhile you a guy like Bernie Sanders who, despite lacking a Super PAC,
manages to draw huge crowds and build support. Too bad the separation of
powers + first-past-the-post system means it would be utterly impossible for
him to start his own political party so that people would have a real
alternative to the Democrats.

------
ebbv
Dear EFF, I have been a big fan and even donated in the past but this bill is
terrible, and you guys are making a habit of supporting the wrong bills.

------
masonicb00m
"Patent trolls buy up patents and use them offensively against unsuspecting
businesses—without creating or selling anything themselves."

This sounds suspiciously like something software companies would argue, to
retain the right to protect their turf with patents, while reducing their
exposure to professional patent enforcers.

------
m1sta_
The problem they are trying to solve will only really budge when we get an
improved crowdsourced-based approach.

------
Eleutheria
Stop Patents. Period.

That would definitely be a cause to support.

------
Zklsalue8
Calling people who try to enforce the patents they own trolls is a disgrace.

~~~
rando289
Nonsensical statement. There is no other kind of enforcement than that done in
the interest of the patent owner.

------
nitin_flanker
People really are confused about patent trolls ans NPEs. An NPE is not a
troll.

------
incepted
How about maintaining software patents (which have merits) but making it so
the only way to acquire a patent is to acquire the company that owns it?

This would completely kill the patent troll business while adding value to
startups that file innovative patents.

~~~
tacos
The only thing that would do is add the insignificant cost of forming an LLC
to the cost of filing a patent. Also patent profiteering is typically based
around licensing, not ownership.

~~~
incepted
You're missing my point. I'm not talking about filing a patent but acquiring
an existing one.

You should only be allowed to acquire an existing patent if you acquire the
company that owns it.

~~~
dllthomas
You're missing the point. Given your rules, if you file a patent through a
shell company spun up for the individual patent, then you can sell that
company to the patent trolls just like you'd sell a patent these days. It
would leave many existing patents that are not already held by patent trolls
off limits to patent trolls, but it would not do anything for patents created
after the rule goes into effect (because there is no sufficient reason not to
create a shell corp and keep that flexibility, if you're already going through
the expense and paperwork of filing a patent).

