Fark Founder Drew Curtis Explains How Fark Beat a Patent Troll 59
Velcroman1 links to this coverage of Drew Curtis's explanation of how his company, Fark, managed to beat a patent troll's lawsuit alleging infringement of a patent on distribution of news releases by email. From the article: "It boils down to one thing: don't negotiate with terrorists," Curtis said during a talk at the TED 2012 conference in Long Beach, Calif."
Non Fox (Techdirt) link (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/04260518542/farks-drew-curtis-explains-how-to-beat-patent-troll-live-to-tell-tale.shtml [techdirt.com]
Why use Fox "News", rather Fark.com itself? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As much as I hate to say it.. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's about the same because the guy selling the hunting permits is always a Republican.
Re:A question for IP attorneys (Score:4, Informative)
Has *anyone* ever fought back asserting that by Article 1, section 8(8) specifically says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors", and since trolls is neither the author nor inventor, nor to they use the material of the patent to produce the product of the patent, their claim to the patent is invalid?
Not that I know of, but they would fail. The Constitution doesn't define what a patent is, but rather gives Congress the power to pass laws securing time-limited monopolies for copyrights and patents. In the use of that power, they passed 35 USC 261, which states:
Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.
Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.
So, arguing that the troll's claim to the patent is invalid means you're arguing that Congress lacked the power to pass that law... Specifically, you'd have to argue that letting inventors sell their patents doesn't encourage at least some inventors to invent in the first place, and I doubt such an argument would be entertained by any court, much less the Supreme Court.