

Rollover image on your website? That will be $80,000 (please) - bluesmoon
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/patent-troll-takes-over-the-web-can-it-be-stopped.ars

======
jacquesm
I'm not a violent person. But patent trolls make me have visions of dungeons
and medieval tools...

They're like parasites that try to find the optimal amount of blood that they
can suck out of healthy businesses without killing them.

Novartis having the moral high ground in a lawsuit is rare enough that that
alone should give you pause as to how low these people really are.

There are times that I wished I was a Catholic so I could condemn types like
this - and mr. McBride - to hell.

Failing that, debtors prison would be fine with me as well.

~~~
vaksel
it'd be cheaper for Novartis to just have these guys killed. Maybe after a
dozen or so patent trolls end up dead, they might go looking for a safer
market.

Frankly I think patent law, should be like trademark law. You can patent
anything, but you can't sue anyone who is not your direct competitor.

Also it couldn't hurt, to have a clause that in order to be granted the
patent, that you'd need to show a fully functional prototype.

~~~
lotusleaf1987
Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get
by without them. I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people
who innovate, but so often they are abused by the likes of Nathan Myhrvold and
Intellectual Ventures. Without patents, everything would essentially be a
meritocracy. Either way, this is another example of how badly the patent
system needs reform of some kind.

Here is an article that makes a better argument than I have the time or
capacity for: [http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-
without-i...](http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without-
intellectual-property.aspx)

~~~
jemfinch
> Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to
> get by without them.

There are several things wrong with your proposition.

First, the food and beverage industries get by without patents because they
leverage trade secrets, which is the exact sort of privatized knowledge that
patents have long sought to prevent.

Second, fashion survives without patents because _names_ matter. People will
buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on
it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but
his _name_ that matters.

The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for
companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent
inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple
guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass
produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to
manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for
less?

The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact
that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and
shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.

~~~
jerf
"Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will
buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on
it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but
his name that matters."

How do you know this is _cause_ and not _effect_? The adaptation of the system
to not having government monopolies may have been to go to a name-based
reputation system.

It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better
than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does.

" What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their
garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number
of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just
make their invention and sell it for less?"

Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any _evidence_ that it
actually works that way? I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on
a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works; I do see a
lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.

Goals aren't results. You've stated the goals of the system, but really, who
cares what the goals are? What matters are the effects. The effects in reality
do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the
patent process in the first place, especially now that turnaround time is
measured in _years_. In fact the horrible outcome you describe in a world
without patents seems rather similar to what _actually_ happens in this
one.... the little guys won't be able to afford the lawyers, and everybody in
the system knows it.

~~~
jemfinch
> It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better
> than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does.

Yes, it would work better for software! I'm unsure why you and my other
interlocutor considered this an interesting point to make: my post is clear
that I believe _software_ patents should be abolished, but not _all_ patents.

> Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it
> actually works that way?

Yes. The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors
have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim.

> I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product
> where they get a lot of protection that works;

Sure you do. Segway is one. Many of the products by Dyson would be others.

> I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.

Please, by all means, provide examples.

> The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little
> guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place

Tell that to James Dyson or Dean Kamen.

~~~
cousin_it
Isn't Segway protected by its uselessness rather than a patent?

Edit: if you believe that Segway's lack of success meant nothing, and that
many companies want to build and sell self-balancing scooters but the patent
system is stopping them, you should argue that point _and_ downvote, not
_just_ downvote. I'm annoyed.

~~~
jacquesm
> I'm annoyed.

Rightfully so.

Downvotes aside, it seems the segway has it's dedicated fans.

I think the biggest thing that's wrong with it was the way it was launched,
not the article per se.

~~~
thaumaturgy
DEKA is a strange duck. They have some genuinely brilliant people there,
working on some genuinely revolutionary inventions -- but they just can't seem
to actually bring them to market. Or, they're not interested in bringing them
to market.

I've never seen one of their wheelchairs; I've seen some Segways, but they
remain more a curiosity and spectacle than a common device; I've yet to hear
of the Stirling engine / water purifier being deployed anywhere; and their
cybernetics for amputees don't seem to be getting beyond experimental.

I really don't "get" them. The best I can figure is that everyone
(influential) there is happy just to be working on these puzzles, and they
don't really care if anyone uses them or not.

------
raquo
Someone PLEASE make a patent trolling incident database that would include
cases like that one. Two purposes:

1) you will gather an enormous amount of trolling evidence which will come in
handy when this issue will get more attention from government and the public

2) when the troll issues such notes en masse (which I think they do), it will
be easier for the victims to connect and pool resources to invalidate the
patent.

~~~
al_james
Thats actually a good idea. What would be the requirements? It might be an
interesting weekend project for me!

~~~
raquo
You need stuff like patent numbers in question, the companies involved,
industries, categories, links to relevant news stories and blog posts, etc.
People should be able to submit what they know (you don't want to gather all
this info yourself, apart from some initial pile so that the site does not
look empty). The website should be easy to use for

1) bloggers/journalists finding out about stories about blatant trolling

2) victims to report their case and find other victims affected by it
(automatic search by patent number, trolling company name, etc)

Note that victims will not look for your website in particular unless you're
really popular. You have to create a lot of pages for each patent number, each
company name, so that google picks them up and they come up on the first page
when searching for patent number for example.

This is unfortunately too much for simply a weekend project. The technology is
trivial but getting traction with such a website, bringing it to the attention
of major blogs and news outlets is the main work to be done.

~~~
cousin_it
The obvious way to implement this project would be a wiki. I googled a little
and found a specialized wiki that already has the beginnings of such a
project:

<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls>

So those of you who really want to help the world could go there and
participate.

------
anonqwe
(Posting from a throwaway account) These asshats threatened to sue the company
I work for. We ended up removing the "offending" technology from our site
because we were not going to pay their ridiculous licensing fee and we could
not afford fighting them in court. I spent three days removing code that made
our site easier to use. It was depressing.

~~~
jcromartie
I really wonder: do they have any power over people except for fear? What if
you just say "go screw yourselves." And leave it at that? Would there be
serious consequences?

~~~
jacquesm
I did that to 'acacia', they took a walk when they found out that I could
probably invalidate their patent. (and I probably really could, and would).

It's like the mafia, they like to pick on the weak, the slightly stronger
they'll go after in court if they think they can win. But they're cowards at
heart and they will avoid a confrontation if the other party might damage
them.

And if the stakes are high enough and they've been successful in the past with
their shakedown they'll sue big companies that are not going to be able to
invalidate their patent directly (that's what's happening here, after all
Novartis is not exactly a software development company, even though they have
plenty of IT).

Think about all the parties you could sue if you had a patent on the
hyperlink.

~~~
Natsu
> I did that to 'acacia', they took a walk when they found out that I could
> probably invalidate their patent. (and I probably really could, and would).

I'd have looked up whoever else they were suing and maybe quietly passed along
a tip about where to find prior art.

~~~
jacquesm
I did that a few times already.

I have a nice fat file for people that are in that position and that contact
me.

------
dstein
I think the main problem is there are very few consequences for patent trolls.

I consider this a form of extortion that our legal system is not structured to
prevent (it actually encourages it). Invalidating and banishing all software
patents would be a start.

~~~
jRoden
That's what pains me the most. Anyone with half a brain can see that these
people provide nothing of value and should be laughed out of court and
punished for wasting everyone's time, yet that will never happen and they will
continue to clog up the system with their BS.

~~~
mhb
"Loser pays" would help.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1792353>

------
todayiamme
>>>According to Law.com, Webvention acquired the property from the great
patent gobbler itself, Intellectual Ventures<<<

Why do I have this funny feeling that this is a front for intellectual
ventures and lots of people are going to bought off?

~~~
sireat
Indeed, why would Intellectual Ventures sell some of its patents instead of
doing the usual, that is using fronts to sue people.

In fact, this case seems suspicously similar to earlier case Intellectual
Ventures shell vs. Kodak
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100310/0302518496.shtml>

This way IV can continue claiming that they never sued anyone(themselves).

------
noonespecial
Calling all HN types in East Texas:

Make damn sure to show up for Jury Duty.

~~~
dfranke
You'll never get selected. In most any lawsuit, if you have a three figure IQ,
then chances are that one lawyer or the other doesn't want you on the jury.

~~~
gte910h
Incorrect, product liability and patent law both sides want educated people to
understand what the hell is happening.

~~~
dctoedt
> _product liability and patent law both sides want educated people to
> understand what the hell is happening._

Not always - if one side looks evil, the other side's lawyers might want
jurors who can't understand the technology and therefore will vote based on
good-guy-versus-bad-guy. Happens a fair amount.

------
janj
A quote about the inventor (found here
<http://www.webventionllc.com/about_the_inventor>):

"Dan Abelow is a prolific invetor and an expert on website usability, ease-of-
use and assured user performance. He provides ongoing high-level consultation
services to large corporations, and improves website usability, ensuring a
competitive advantage for his clients."

But then look at Dan's website:

<http://computing2.com/index.htm>

It's hard for me to believe that someone who promotes himself as an expert on
website usability would have such an awful website. Is he somehow just a front
for this patent trolling, or maybe he just got lucky with one very valuable
patent?

~~~
invisible
What IS sad is that he is not even using rollover images on the site! That's
hilarious to me.

------
zacharypinter
Yet another example of a flawed patent system in need of reform.

~~~
lr
If the patent really is 17 years old, one might be able to forgive the USPTO
for letting this one get by, considering nothing like it existed at the time
(Gopher was probably the closest thing). Now, on the other hand, I fully agree
with you that the patent system is in need of very serious reform.

~~~
jonhendry
Hypercard?

~~~
rwmj
Good old multimedia CDs too.

~~~
jonhendry
I'm not sure if those predated 1990. From what I can see, in the US multimedia
CDs hit the US around 1991.

~~~
stan_rogers
Well, Macromedia Director with Lingo (the software used to produce most of
them) was released in '88. (Director is older, but had limited interactivity
authoring capability before Lingo.) It definitely had image rollover effects
when I was working with it in '89. CD drives may not have been ubiquitous at
the time, but deployment via stacks of floppies was going on.

------
TravisLS
This patent is filed February 1990, issued October 1993 - wouldn't that make
it expired? Or am I naive?

~~~
DanielN
I guess this is the aspect I don't understand. With a lifetime of twenty
years, most software patents (a lot of hardware patents for that matter) cover
the entire viable commercial lifetime of the product.

In our brief experience of commercial software (what has it been? 40 years?
Note: that's 2 patent terms) I can't think of very many software technologies
that have lasted as a commercially viable product for 10 years let alone 20.

To my limited understanding of how patents work and how the software market
works I would think a patent term in the range of 1-5 years would be a lot
more reasonable. It would allow for the patent holder to gain a competitively
advantageous foothold in the market (the point of having a patent) and it
would destroy the incentive of inventors to sell their patents rather than
creating business from them.

I'd be interested to hear from people with more knowledge of these subjects
than me as to why this isn't the way software patents are maintained.

------
dhimes
Interesting comment in SO thread:
[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2609936/javascript-css-
ro...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2609936/javascript-css-rollover-
menus-are-patented-and-subject-to-licensing)

~~~
rwhitman
Interesting quote from that comment: "A long, legal way to say this patent is
public domain on 10/5/2010 and these guys are probably trying to snag a nickel
before it goes out."

Meaning the patent troll is trying to turn a last minute buck on something
that should have gone public domain last week. At least it sounds like there
isn't much to fear from this particular troll in the future

~~~
dhimes
I hope he is correct. This group smells like a bad cancer, though. I have a
feeling we are going to hear from them until they are stopped.

------
kragen
This is very interesting; it's the first time I've heard of an IV patent
actually being (almost) litigated. Here are a couple of relevant points:

\- Running this patent as a separate company limits the potential downside for
IV etc. Even if the legal system awarded legal costs to the winner of the
suit, which it won't, and even if other companies countersued for tortious
interference with business relationships, which they won't, the worst that can
happen is that the patent corporation goes bankrupt and there's zero return to
the investors.

\- It isn't necessary for IV to have control of, or even an ownership stake
in, the licensing corporation. They can sell the patent to a company run
entirely by third-party investors for its expected licensing revenues, minus
some return for the investors. If the payments for the purchase are spread out
over a period of time, then IV could charge a higher nominal price by sharing
in the risk that the patent won't pan out (and that the corporation will
therefore go bankrupt as a result with some payments still unpaid).

\- Webvention, to an even greater extent than IV itself, is immune to
countersuits for infringements of other patents.

\- There's nothing stopping IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc., from doing the same
thing. If Unisys had done this over the LZW patent, they wouldn't have
suffered the PR black eye that they did.

------
janj
Why hasn't 4chan ever gone after patent trolls? Seems like an appropriate,
worthy target for them. Actually, I guess I haven't heard anything about 4chan
for a while, are they done with that kind of stuff?

~~~
Perceval
As far as I can tell, the folks on 4chan are concerned about ACTA, but aren't
really riled up about any specific cases of patent trolling. There aren't a
lot of lulz involved.

------
jon914
It's ironic that the USPTO's own site technically violates this patent, unless
they've paid the royalties. ;) <http://www.uspto.gov/siteindex.jsp>

------
gesh
"According to Law.com, Webvention acquired the property from the great patent
gobbler itself, Intellectual Ventures."

Aha.

~~~
spot
spawn of microsoft.

------
andybak
I'd like to put forward the idea that what the anti-(software)-patent lobby
needs is more and better patent trolls.

Is it possible that the situation could get so bad that a couple of the big
guns would swing behind patent reform?

------
VladRussian
how in hell such patent got issued? Were the patent authors the first to
invent menus? Less than 20 years ago? Obviously not.

There is pretty easy solution - don't issue patents when there is previous
art.

In addition - lets have the technical patent protection period to be shorter
than 20 years. Say 5 or 10 years. That would allow the real inventor of menus
~40 years ago to enjoy the meaningful patent protection when it was making
sense.

------
fara
I'm kind of glad this happens to Novartis.

Our company (devartis) received an oposition from Novartis against our
trademark registration solicitude in Argentina due to the similarity of the
names. The funny thing is that they registered theirs in a different category
and the similar part is the word "artis" (which is art in latin), and
dictionary words can't be owned.

I wonder how many software companies have the word soft in their names.

------
retube
Something of a tangent, but Intellectual Ventures (from whom these "patents"
was purchased) was reviewed with gushing admiration in Superfreakonomics - all
geniuses, all wonderful etc. According to the authors they have solutions for
many of the worlds major problems (global warming, big hurricanes for
example). Glad to hear developing ridiculous patents is a part of this!

------
oozcitak
Here: A method for aiding transportation by erect ambulation using lower
appendages. You can not only sue most humans, but primates and meerkats as
well.

Seriously, how on earth do such patents get granted? I fail to see the
invention in this patent claim. Is the patent office confused by the obscure
language?

------
pringle
Leave it to patent trolls to make you root for a pharmaceutical company.

------
metellus
Is there any way I can patent the process of patent trolling?

~~~
arethuza
Too late: <http://boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html>

------
davidmurphy
Evil exists in the world.

QED.

