
FindTheBest destroys “matchmaking” patent, pushes RICO case against troll - sieva
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/findthebest-destroys-matchmaking-patent-pushes-rico-case-against-troll/
======
chasing
I'm repeating myself, but in every single one of these patent trolling cases:

Name. And. Shame.

Eileen Shapiro. The headline should be: "FindTheBest destroys 'matchmaking'
patent, pushes RICO case against patent troll Eileen Shapiro." (I'm assuming
she's not the only one involved, but they've got her name in there.)

Don't let these people hide behind the names of their patent companies. Let
them become famous for their malicious greediness.

~~~
allochthon
_Name. And. Shame._

I wish some enterprising young kids in the tech community could work out a
technical or collective solution to the problem of patent trolls. They would
be asking for punishment, to be sure. But I bet there are some really cool
things that can be done here.

* One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become.

* Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an injunction. I'm guessing this would need to be done by a third party so as not to prejudice the case of the business being sued by the troll, but I'm not a lawyer.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and
> member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups
> and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable
> its portfolio would become.

Patent portfolios don't work against trolls that don't have any business other
than patent extortion.

> Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas
> of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an
> injunction.

The court records are already public. It's the cases that _settle_ that you
never hear about, because the trolls demand that you sign an NDA. I don't know
that publishing in a different country gets you out of the NDA.

What we really need is to start a PAC to abolish software patents and have
everyone contribute money to it, and provide them with lots of "ammunition"
(i.e. thousands of testimonials from startup founders explaining how the
patent system is ruining everything) to bring to Congress to get this fixed.
Note that this _isn 't_ the EFF -- they do good work, but they're litigators,
not lobbyists. This is a situation where what we really need are lobbyists to
push to get the law changed, and grass roots lobbying by individuals to the
same end.

~~~
throwawaykf
How would you legally define "software patent"? If you figure it out, please
let the Supreme Court, the CAFC and the USPTO know, because currently nobody
really knows.

As for "ammunition", look up the Berkeley Patent Survey [1]. The only damning
thing you'll find in there, though, is that entrepreneurs in software on
average don't think they present a competitive advantage, so "only" 60% of
software startups file for patents. And it's typically because investors ask
for them.

Edit: I misremembered... It's actually only 25% of all software startups in
the survey, but 67% of VC-backed startups.

1\.
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> How would you legally define "software patent"?

Software patent: A patent that can be infringed by executing a software
program on a general purpose computer.

> It's actually only 25% of all software startups in the survey, but 67% of
> VC-backed startups.

Which does tell you something, doesn't it? Unless VC-backed startups are an
incredibly small percentage of startups, the patents filed by non-VC-backed
startups would have to be significantly _smaller_ than 24% (I assume 25% was a
typo, see table on page 1277 of the report). Moreover, given the stark
contrast in the numbers, query whether the VCs are interested in patents as
patents vs. interested in them as a method for weeding out uncommitted startup
founders.

But I'm less concerned about the number of patents software startups are
applying for. If nobody was applying for software patents at all, obviously
the patent system wouldn't be doing any good there, but it wouldn't really be
the strongest call for abolishing them -- no harm no foul, right? The problem
isn't (just) the lack of usefulness or cost effectiveness of patents to
innovators, it's the harm created by mass producing land mines. Because if
software startups aren't getting many software patents, but the number of
software patents being issued keeps going up, guess who is.

~~~
throwawaykf
_> Software patent: A patent that can be infringed by executing a software
program on a general purpose computer._

Ever wonder why all the jurists all over the world have not stumbled upon such
a simple and elegant definition? Herein lies just one problem: your definition
of software patents may also include:

\- Control systems for automotive, industrial and robotic systems.

\- Signal processing methods for digital communications, audio processing,
speech processing, image processing, video processing, automated control
systems, and so on.

\- Microcode in processors

\- Embedded firmware in appliances and devices.

\- Mechanical watch designs. They are simply mechanical implementations of
algorithms.

\- Digital circuits, chips and hardware that implements any of the above.

The software / hardware equivalence makes simple definitions impossible.

 _> Which does tell you something, doesn't it?_

It could tell me many things, depending on what assumptions I may apply. Let's
see how many you disagree with.

\- The majority of software startups are not doing anything particularly
technically innovative.

\- The (vast) majority of the _software industry_ as a whole is not doing
anything particularly technically innovative.

\- Patents are expensive to apply for and get, something a startup can't often
afford.

\- Patents don't provide enough protection for software products anyway.

(The last two are actually borne out by the study.)

 _> query whether the VCs are interested in patents vs. interested in them as
a method for weeding out uncommitted startup founders._

Why wonder when there are studies on the subject? It's called "signaling". Of
course VCs have no interest in IP itself, only what it means for their ROI.
But if there's no funding, there's no startup, let alone innovation, so for
many founders it's a necessary evil.

 _> Because if software startups aren't getting many software patents, but the
number of software patents being issued keeps going up, guess who is._

Again, why guess when there are studies :-) If you believe James Bessen it's
actually manufacturing, industrial and semiconductor firms. (See his "A
generation of software patents" paper. Flawed study, IMO, but a useful
starting point.) If the answer surprises you, maybe you should consider that
"software patents" are not easy to define.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The software / hardware equivalence makes simple definitions impossible.

The software / hardware equivalence is overstated. You can implement
everything in hardware that you can implement in software, but you can't
implement everything in software that you can implement in hardware. There is
no software alone that you can run on a general purpose computer to cause it
to generate thrust, or convert raw steel into an automobile chassis, or help
the immune system to fight cancer.

So your argument seems to be that we can't define "software patent" as "patent
that software executing on a general purpose computer infringes" because that
would include patents over software hard-coded into hardware. But why is that
a problem? Firmware is code. Microcode is code. They're supposed to fall into
the same category as "software" \-- the fact that you can't disambiguate them
is a result of them being the same thing. And they are all things that, like
other software, can be protected by copyright.

On the other hand, the watch isn't the same thing. The formula that describes
the timing of a watch mechanism is not a watch mechanism. A watch simulator is
not a watch. Executing a software simulator of a watch mechanism on a general
purpose computer without a clock doesn't imbue it with the ability to keep
time. You can patent a physical watch without patenting its "algorithm" in
much the same way as you can patent a specific nuclear reactor design without
patenting E=MC^2, or patent a drug without causing a research paper describing
the drug to infringe.

>\- The majority of software startups are not doing anything particularly
technically innovative.

>\- The (vast) majority of the software industry as a whole is not doing
anything particularly technically innovative.

The second is a refutation of the first. If you take Microsoft, IBM et al as
not doing anything particularly technically innovative, even though they are
applying for a large number of patents, "innovation" (in the sense of
interesting rather than merely something you can lawyer through the patent
office) is clearly not a requirement for obtaining a patent. Which means that
a lack of innovation can't adequately explain why startups should be less
inclined to file for patents than larger firms which are innovating even less.

>\- Patents are expensive to apply for and get, something a startup can't
often afford.

>\- Patents don't provide enough protection for software products anyway.

It doesn't surprise me that the study found both of these. This is evidence
that software patents are ineffective to promote innovation. But again,
uselessness without harm is irritating but mostly benign. The real trouble is
that software patents are _harmful_ , because they entrench incumbents by
creating patent thickets and facilitate the trolling of successful innovators
by lawyers and failures.

> But if there's no funding, there's no startup, let alone innovation, so for
> many founders it's a necessary evil.

That's the point. If we get rid of software patents then VCs would need to
find some other signaling mechanism to distinguish between startups, but
founders would no longer need to spend scarce resources and time on patent
prosecution that could better be spent somewhere more productive.

~~~
throwawaykf
_> There is no software alone that you can run on a general purpose computer
to cause it to generate thrust, or convert raw steel into an automobile
chassis, or help the immune system to fight cancer._

And what about the algorithms that measure and control the thrust and the
robots that make the chassis and compute the folding that leads to drug
design? Much more often than you'd think, that is the crucial point of novelty
and competitive advantage, and what many patents cover. Software eating the
world and all that.

 _> ... And they are all things that, like other software, can be protected by
copyright._

Functional things cannot be covered by copyright. If it's the functionality
itself that is novel, no amount of copyright can protect it.

 _> On the other hand, the watch isn't the same thing. The formula that
describes the timing of a watch mechanism is not a watch mechanism. A watch
simulator is not a watch. _

That wasn't my point. Simulation is not what I mean. A watch mechanism is
essentially a series of cascaded counters. X "ticks" of one gear = Y "ticks"
of another gear. It's an algorithm: if (m++ == 60) h++; You'll find such
physical implementations of algorithms all over the place if you know where to
look, especially in automation, from factories to toasters.

 _> You can patent a physical watch without patenting its "algorithm" ..._

And that applies to most "software patents" too. Most software patents don't
cover the abstract algorithm, they cover the application of that algorithm.
Case in point, the patent in TFA: it didn't cover comparing a bunch of numbers
to find another number, it covered comparing a bunch of numbers representing
preferences to find a match between business entities associated with those
preferences. You could very well use the exact same algorithm to find a match
between a vacationer and a list of vacation spots and not infringe the patent.
I'd say the judge's analysis in rejecting was a bit off: this patent is
invalid because it's non-novel, not because it's abstract.

 _> The second is a refutation of the first._

No, but do you mean to say that the majority of software startups are doing
technically innovative work? Heck, look at the much vaunted YC companies. How
many are doing something beyond some variation of CRUD?

 _> If you take Microsoft, IBM et al as not doing anything particularly
technically innovative..._

I'm sorry, I live outside the HN bubble, so I completely disagree that
Microsoft and IBM don't do innovative work. (Well, OK, these days it's mostly
IBM Research, in case of IBM. In case of Microsoft, both MSR and MS products
introduce inventions and innovations at a pretty fast pace.) Just because
_you_ don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Sadly, the vast majority of the software industry is _not_ like Microsoft and
IBM. The vast, vast majority involves translating pre-existing business logic
into code. And most software startups are not much different.

I agree, though, that most patents (not just "software patents"), are not
really "interesting", but historically this has always been so. And all the
hand-wringing you see here is not new either.

 _> It doesn't surprise me that the study found both of these. This is
evidence that software patents are ineffective to promote innovation. _

Well, then maybe we need to make it cheaper to file "software" patents _and_
make them more powerful so they afford some real protection? :-)

 _> The real trouble is that software patents areharmful, because they
entrench incumbents by creating patent thickets and facilitate the trolling of
successful innovators by lawyers and failures._

There is no undisputed, convincing empirical evidence that software patents
are harmful on average, other than tech media fishing for rage-views. For
every paper saying software patents harm entrants, there's one saying the
opposite (see "Software Patents, Incumbents and Entry" as an example). There
are even studies suggesting that thickets _helped_ innovation by centralizing
licensing efforts.

Also: "Innovators". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
etc. etc.

 _> If we get rid of software patents then VCs would need to find some other
signaling mechanism to distinguish between startups, ..._

1\. It's not just in software that VCs look for patents. If you read that
survey or other studies, or heck, watch Shark Tank, you'll see it's common in
most industries.

2\. If you drop the empirically unfounded assumption that all patents are
bogus, a patent is a proxy for a multitude of signals that VCs find useful.

3\. Studies show that startups with patents are _more_ likely to have a
successful exit. I don't know what better signal a VC would want to find.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> And what about the algorithms that measure and control the thrust and the
> robots that make the chassis and compute the folding that leads to drug
> design?

What about them? They're software. Get a copyright or keep it as a trade
secret.

> Functional things cannot be covered by copyright. If it's the functionality
> itself that is novel, no amount of copyright can protect it.

Which is kind of the point -- it's really the whole problem with software
patents. In software there are enormously many widely differing but still
sensible ways, i.e. different functions, that all accomplish the same result.
Such that in order to have a valuable patent you have to try to patent the
idea itself or any computation of the relevant law of mathematics or physics
or the intended outcome rather than any particular way to do it, otherwise
anyone competent could easily come up with a thousand other ways to do the
same thing just as well. So software patents end up being either so abstract
that they're abstract ideas or sufficiently specific that anyone can easily
avoid them. And companies don't even attempt to get the second kind because
it's a waste of money, so instead they spend all their efforts convincing the
patent office to improperly issue the first kind.

Function is effectively irrelevant here, only outcome is relevant. If you have
code to take input from set X and map to output from set X' then that code is
fungible with any other piece of code that produces the same mapping from X to
X', regardless of _how_ it does it. The only practical consideration is
whether the performance of some particular implementation is inadequate, which
is clearly not a significant point of contention in the majority of software
patent cases. So instead of patenting the software equivalent of "brake pad
compressed against rotating disc by caliper with hydraulic actuator" they
patent the software equivalent of "car slows down" and now they want to sue
anybody with a vehicle capable of decelerating.

Because in a car it matters whether you have disc brakes or drum brakes
because disc brakes stop better and fade slower and they cost a different
amount of money and wear at different rates etc. etc., which are very
important characteristics when choosing what kind of brakes to design a car
with. In a computer it doesn't really matter most of the time whether you use
a linked list or an array or a red black tree or a hash table. Some choices
will be faster than others or use more or less memory, but that's about it,
and for the most part that isn't what the patent system is concerned about.
But that's the nature of function in computer science: Different functions can
_easily_ produce the same outcome, just with different efficiency. So in order
to patent something others can't easily avoid, you have to patent the result
rather than the function. Which isn't supposed to be allowed.

> A watch mechanism is essentially a series of cascaded counters. X "ticks" of
> one gear = Y "ticks" of another gear. It's an algorithm: if (m++ == 60) h++;
> You'll find such physical implementations of algorithms all over the place
> if you know where to look, especially in automation, from factories to
> toasters.

But you aren't patenting the algorithm, you're patenting the mechanism. This
is made clear by the fact that no software or arrangement of transistors or
equivalent logic gates can possibly be made that would infringe the patent
claims on the watch mechanism. Because you aren't patenting the outcome
("keeps time"), you're patenting the mechanism. Every watch since the
beginning of time (so to speak) has operated with the algorithm "if (m++ ==
60) h++;" and yet novel watch mechanisms continue to be patented on a regular
basis, because they patent something _other than_ the algorithm.

> Most software patents don't cover the abstract algorithm, they cover the
> application of that algorithm.

I don't think that's right in this case. Unless by "application" you mean some
artificial and irrelevant limitation like the one you're pointing out with
business entities vs. vacationers. Allowing that to make something
unpatentable into something patentable is how we get into this mess. It's like
the classic "that thing we all know about, but on the internet" patent. It
would be like allowing Jules Verne to patent "rocket for traveling to the
moon" the day after Sputnik launched and proved rockets could make it into
orbit, providing no additional utility or novelty other than the arbitrary
limitation that it must be used to travel to the moon. How is that worthy of a
patent?

What you should need for a patent is some actual implementation of the
abstract idea. An "application" of "rocket for traveling to the moon" is the
Lunar Module, not a claim of launching any unspecified rocket in the general
direction of the moon. Which is all adding some frivolous field of use
limitation to a mathematical algorithm is doing.

> No, but do you mean to say that the majority of software startups are doing
> technically innovative work? Heck, look at the much vaunted YC companies.
> How many are doing something beyond some variation of CRUD?

I think some of them are. Most of them probably aren't. The obvious problem is
that VCs are throwing money around and it attracts people who are more
interested in getting rich so they can retire rather than building something
epic. But you can identify small companies that are doing good creative work,
e.g. Whisper Systems.

> I'm sorry, I live outside the HN bubble, so I completely disagree that
> Microsoft and IBM don't do innovative work.

Oh sure, if you measure the amount of research they do in absolute terms then
it's a lot because they're such large entities. But in terms of a percentage
of their revenue? Or their ratio of engineer hours spent doing actual research
vs. engineer and lawyer hours spent on patent prosecution?

> The vast, vast majority involves translating pre-existing business logic
> into code. And most software startups are not much different.

We get all the rage against "do X on a computer" patents, but as it turns out,
even if "do X on a computer" is bleeding obvious and shouldn't be patentable,
it can also be highly profitable because the pre-computer solution was "do X
manually."

But I'm not sure this is much different from other industries. Drug companies
regularly announce minor (but newly patented) improvements to their previous
drugs just as the previous versions fall out of patent. Medical device
companies spend an enormous amount of time and money to get very conservative
designs approved by the FDA. The ability of Tesla to combine a Lotus with a
thousand laptop batteries and produce an electric car is not nothing, but it's
more a testament to the massive failure of their predecessors to do it first.
And why is it that I have the same speed ethernet interface in my PC today as
a 400MHz PowerMac G4 had in 2000?

> Well, then maybe we need to make it cheaper to file "software" patents and
> make them more powerful so they afford some real protection? :-)

You're going to make the trolling problem a lot worse then, what about that?

> For every paper saying software patents harm entrants, there's one saying
> the opposite

Then clearly half of them are wrong.

>There are even studies suggesting that thickets helped innovation by
centralizing licensing efforts.

If there were no software patents then there would be no need or benefit in
centralized licensing. Moreover, centralized licensing is very similar to a
lack of patents (i.e. results in more competition than a single incumbent with
a concrete patent monopoly), but notably differs by creating a wealth transfer
from newcomers to incumbents, which would tend to result in less innovation by
discouraging challengers and protecting incumbents, leading to less
competition and consequently less competitive pressure to innovate.

> It's not just in software that VCs look for patents. [etc.]

The point is, maintaining the existence of software patents in order to retain
them as a signal to VCs is the tail wagging the dog.

------
girvo
Love the judge's comment here:

    
    
      > "There is no inventive idea here," she wrote in her order. 
      > "Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive. 
      > Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia... It is merely a 
      > mathematical manifestation of the underlying process behind matchmaking: 
      > determining good matches."
    

A judge that uses the "computer algorithms == maths", and uses it to shut down
a shitty patent? Awesome! I wish there were more judges like Judge Denise
Colt. Well done.

~~~
randartie
Judge Denise Cote* (not Cole)

~~~
girvo
I actually had Colt, not Cole ;) Cheers! I _knew_ I was going to misspell it
for some reason...

------
taspeotis

        FindTheBest destroys patent troll (arstechnica.com)
        18 points by sieva 2 hours ago | flag | cached | share | 1 comment
    

Actual article title:

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

~~~
alextingle
How does this comment further the discussion?

~~~
taspeotis

        alextingle 29 minutes ago | link
        How does this comment further the discussion?
    

I'm pointing out the title doesn't match reality. The patent is "destroyed",
not the company. There's nothing to suggest the company is in trouble. How
significant is this patent being smacked down in court? How many patents does
the company have? Is this the only one? Do they have 50?

Maybe you could contribute some answers and further the discussion?

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

Indeed.

------
jakejake
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!

------
drzaiusapelord
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.

~~~
mistercow
Morale boosters are potentially helpful, though. If the perception shifts from
"hopeless" to "fighting chance", and we start seeing more trolls defeated in
court, the story can be framed much more usefully. Right now it's "businesses
are being shaken down for violating frivolous patents". That's not great
because it's too easy to argue against superficially. All the trolls have to
say is "If these patents are so frivolous, why do so many businesses agree to
settle out of court?" There's a good answer to that question, but now you're
having a debate, so you've already lost.

But if the story is "the courts are clogged with frivolous patent suits
because the USPTO isn't doing its damned job", there is no debate.

People don't like to think. They want someone else to do the thinking for
them. If a debate has no tribal affiliation, the two sides both seem to have
an argument, and there's no authoritative answer, people throw up their hands
and say "well, it's complicated". Change the story so that the courts can be
that authority, and people will just take their answer as read.

So the issue stops being "are patent trolls a problem?" and becomes "how do we
fix patent trolling?"

------
callmeed
Makes me wonder if said troll slipped up when targeting FindTheBest. I'm
assuming a troll wants to go after someone who is _big enough to pay some
money_ but not _so big that they can afford to fight_.

FindTheBest's founder was formerly founder/CEO of DoubleClick. I'm not sure
going after someone with a VC background and a 10-figure exit to Google was
very wise.

------
anoncow
> Even this "efficient" win cost FTB about $200,000 in legal fees, said
> Seigle; that's four times more than the $50,000 payout that Lumen View was
> asking for.

------
ExpiredLink
It's important to see the long-term strategy behind software-patents.

Currently we are in phase 1, the "Wild West". 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

1\. create revenue for the patent holders.

2\. can be used to deter foreign competitors or at least to 'tax' them with
patent fees.

tl;dr: unfortunately poor prospects for the anti-patent league.

------
adamnemecek
Not that it's relevant to anything but it appears that Eileen Shapiro has
written a book

[http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-
ebook/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-
ebook/dp/B000OI1ABQ/)

EDIT: *books [http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-
Boardroom/dp/020144...](http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-
Boardroom/dp/0201441950/)

------
happywolf
I don't see any indication the troll is destroyed.

------
tzs
I don't see how a RICO case can possibly work, unless perhaps the plaintiff
can show that the defendant committed fraud on the patent office.

------
lifeformed
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's used in
the UK but not in the US. What gives?

~~~
DanBC
There's a downside to the UK system.

You have to pay the costs, even if you win, if:

i) You're offered an out of court settlement and

ii) You reject it and

iii) the settlement is more than the damages you are awarded by the court

This is to make sure that people try to settle things before going to court.

And I'm not sure how it would work for a non-practising entity. A company that
has no assets apart from the patent that they're suing for would have no money
to pay fees if they lose.

~~~
nknighthb
Undercapitalization in the absence of liability insurance could be grounds for
piercing the corporate veil.

~~~
tptacek
It can? Has that actually happened (in the UK or US), or been argued, ever?
Can you cite a source?

~~~
nknighthb
Vuylsteke v. Broan, Minton v. Cavaney, State v. Weinschenk, Anderson v.
Abbott.

~~~
tptacek
Sorry, I was imprecise. I understand that it is possible to collect damages
from controlling shareholders of corporations; for instance, in any tort case;
in several states, unpaid wages also incur liability on company owners, as
they did in Vuylsteke. I was asking specifically about your liability
insurance argument.

~~~
nknighthb
You mean that insurance can count in determining adequate capitalization?

The cases I can find that are most on point is Walkovszky v. Carlton, where a
claim of underinsurance was directly at issue (unsuccessful because the
insurance that was carried met an explicit statutory requirement) and Autrey
v. 22 Texas Services Inc. (on a summary judgement motion finding there are
facts in dispute, so not squarely ruled on).

A couple of relevant papers that discuss insurance throughout:

[http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...](http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2470&context=cklawreview)

[http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/56/5/Millon....](http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/56/5/Millon.pdf)

------
keithpeter
_" 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."_

What a sensible judge they had. Perhaps noting that the rest of the world most
certainly does _not_ allow patents of quite this type might focus a few minds.
This parasitic business opportunity (trolling) might be costing US its
innovation lead...

------
YokoZar
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't be enough to make
one immune entirely from racketeering charges.

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.

------
jpmattia
> From the judges order: _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. "_

It strikes me that a large number of patents would evaporate if this standard
were more universally applied.

