Patent Troll Targeting Users of Scanners; Wants $1000/Employee 227
New submitter earlzdotnet writes "A new patent troll is in town, this time targeting the users of technology, rather than the creators. They appear to hold a process patent for 'scanning a document and then emailing it.' They are targeting small businesses in a variety of locations and usually want somewhere between $900 to $1200 per employee for 'infringement' of their patent. As with most patent trolls, they go by a number of shell companies, but the original company name appears to be Project Paperless LLC. Joel Spolsky said in a tweet that 'This is organized crime, plain and simple...' I tend to agree with him. When will something be done about this legal mafia?"
Huh?? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this hold any legal water at all? Isn't the manufacturer of a product liable for patent infringements, not the end user?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even make sense as extortion. They are setting the fees so high that companies may be tempted to view settling as the more expensive alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't even make sense as extortion. They are setting the fees so high that companies may be tempted to view settling as the more expensive alternative.
If they want to play Mafia games, then there is a small danger that some of these companies they extort may find that pooling resources and paying someone $10K or so plus expenses to take out these turds may be a more economical solution than either paying the troll or settling.
Re:Huh?? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a process patent, according to the summary. I'd say it's the end user who does the process of scanning, then sending the scanned page by email.
Re: (Score:3)
Most office scanners do that process themselves these days, I think. You scan the image and enter the address into the scanner/printer/fax and it sends it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is about time that companies should be able to sue the US patents office for falsely assigning patents. If those patent lawyering favouring idiots were to be made financially liable for the stupid decisions we might see some improvement in that organisation. It is becoming all to apparent the ready willingness to approve the most stupid patents has been created by legal lobbyists and corrupt political appointees.
Re: (Score:2)
It is obvious, but it will cost you £££,£££ to prove that in a court of law. Cunningly these guys only want £,£££ to leave you alone, so the business case for paying is also obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Curse you Slashdot, 2012 and you can't process the god damn Pound sign...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a wizard from the past?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, if you read the letter that was sent to companies, they have a list of cases they say are infringing. One of them was using a scanner which had a automated scan and email function built in.
Re:Huh?? (Score:5, Informative)
That and those fines appear to fall just beneath what it would cost to get a patent lawyer to fight the charge so on a pure revenue basis, it's cheaper to pay the ransom.
Re:Huh?? (Score:4, Funny)
Err....what general legal logic?
Re: (Score:2)
No way, IP lawsuits are crazy expensive, just the pretrial stuff a lawsuit a family member was preparing for ran to almost six figures. Luckily for them the other side decided to get involved in three simultaneous lawsuits and ran out of money before the billable hours really started to rack up.
Re: (Score:3)
Patent attorney's I have talked to say not to start a patent lawsuit without a few million US dollars for initial costs.
35 USC section 271 - Infringement (Score:5, Informative)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as I thought. It's not the legal mafia that is at fault here. It's the intellectual property system that is the law of the land. We need a better system that rewards inventors and creators for their hard work but does not infringe on the right of the people to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the legal mafia that is at fault here. It's the intellectual property system that is the law of the land.
Hence the word "legal" in "legal mafia".
Abusing the law for fun and profit has a long and time-honored history. What makes you think anything will change?
Re:35 USC section 271 - Infringement (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as I thought. It's not the legal mafia that is at fault here. It's the intellectual property system that is the law of the land.
The fault is shared equally with both our imaginary property system AND the sociopathic assholes who choose to abuse it like this.
Re: (Score:3)
you should bold the word "invention", which this patent is not.
Re: (Score:2)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Under this section, wouldn't the manufacturer of the devices that get used by the person allegedly infringing the patent be legally negligent in not providing clear indication further licensing would be required to use their product compliantly within the law?
Oh, they probably already got their legal notice. The patent troll is 'going retail' with going after the users to improve their bottom line.
Fun thing about 'selling intangibles' is, the supply never dries up. And if this isn't a prime example, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Both can be liable: the manufacturer for making the product, and the end user (or other downstream customer) for using it. But as a practical matter, a manufacturer will often end up defending an infringement lawsuit against its customers (and some actually commit to doing so in their EULAs). If a patentee is actually looking for real damages, they generally want the manufacturer to be involved in the case (often a deeper pocket than the typical customer).
But in a situation like this, it's clear that cour
Re:Huh?? (Score:5, Funny)
legal precedent: arkell v pressdram
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As a responsible citizen, it's up to you to ensure that whatever you do doesn't violate any patents.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Enjoy!
Re:Huh?? (Score:4, Funny)
As a responsible citizen, it's up to you to ensure that whatever you do doesn't violate any patents.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Enjoy!
Sorry, I already patented a method by which an individual analyzes manual physical processes to ascertain any potential conflict with applicable licenseable material.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this hold any legal water at all? Isn't the manufacturer of a product liable for patent infringements, not the end user?
No. All users of infringing products can be held liable. Most companies have the good sense not to go after end users, but it is perfectly legal. Sucks, but that's the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent infringement occurs when another "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention." 35 U.S.C. 271(a). If the company actually held a patent on the process of scanning documents and emailing them, then they really could sue users for infringement. In this case, though, that process is clearly not patentable since the process of scanning and emailing a document "was known or used by others in this country ... before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent." 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
Re: (Score:3)
How does this hold any legal water at all?
You act as if there are a set of rational rules regarding intellectual property laws, when reality quite clearly demonstrates there's nothing at all logical about any of it.
I keep expecting to hear that patent trolls are going to make anti-patents and will be able to sue you for NOT using them.
Upper right hand corner ad (Score:2, Interesting)
(Right, Upper hand corner of this page for me.) /.
"Wondering what your patents might be worth in the current market?"
Wow! I can't resist selling my patents!
Ahem! Well, back to
'Those lousy trolls, I wish they would just go away.'
come get us bitches (Score:2, Interesting)
Food Concepts Inc
2551 Parmenter St
Middleton, Wi
53562
I fucking double dare you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I was browsing the web and I found... (Score:5, Informative)
Process Patents (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jokes on them. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't e-mail people my scans, I upload them to Megaupload and send them the link.
Foolproof.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't e-mail people my scans, I upload them to Megaupload and send them the link.
Foolproof.
You've already played the fool. Megaupload is long gone.
Re:Jokes on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Dare I say, woosh?
So? Just another scam (Score:3)
In the old days you would send a fake purchase order for some low amount to finance and demand to get paid. This is just another scam like that
I guess people need to be outraged about something
Re: (Score:2)
so? if it was apple or google they can have it reexamined and get rid of it easily
small businesses can't afford the legal bills
In some way this could be good news. (Score:3)
Let us be very helpful to this troll and send him names and addresses of all the congresscritters and judges who might have been in violation of the claimed patent. Some how get him to include the names of these figures whose power/IQ ratio approaches infinity. Then may be some reform might happen.
Who Owns Project Paperless LLC? (Score:5, Informative)
Public records indicate that each of the partners in the law firm of Hill, Kertscher, & Wharton are either managers, members, or organizers in one or more of the shell companies which in turn appear to have a stake in Project Paperless, LLC.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's easy... (Score:2)
Does it also cover scanning, adding a signature in photoshop, and then e-mailing? Oh crap, wait! Gotta patent this fast!
Online world carries over into the real world (Score:5, Interesting)
So the best way to deal with trolls in the real world is the same as the online world: simply ignore them. If they want to sue you, then make them go through all the expense and trouble of making the case--most of the time they won't even bother. These are basically old timey protection rackets. They're trying to put the minimum amount of effort in to get the biggest return. They might try to make an example of a company or two, but it probably won't be you.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they'd only have to lose one or two of their cases to get the other targets to fight, and bleed them to oblivion with all the legal expenses that would be put on their tab. If it wasn't the USA, that is.
The reste of the legal world mocks the American Rule [wikipedia.org], that is the main reason why patent trolls exist in the USA and almost nowhere else.
When will something be done about this legal mafia (Score:5, Insightful)
When will something be done about this legal mafia?
Nothing will ever be done because every major company is playing the game.
Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM . . . . . every big company with deep pockets has been hit by patent trolls. So why don't they all get together and use their considerable lobbying power to demand that congress change the law? Why? Because they don't really want the law changed. They want to be able to whack somebody with a patent lawsuit when it suits them.
Bogus patents are the new nuclear weapons. Everyone knows they are bad and destructive, they serve no useful purpose and should be eliminated. But nobody is willing to actually do that because some day they might need a weapon to use against a competitor. That's the new business model. Litigation instead of competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows they are bad and destructive, they serve no useful purpose and should be eliminated.
Um, nuclear weapons have arguably saved humanity from a third world war. Patents have accomplished what, again?
How did the patent holder know (Score:2)
that the companies that they are suing are scanning to email?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume that is exactly the case, especially given that the first person I showed this story to said that he had personally done this in the mid 90s, years before their claimed 2001 patent date....I have to assume that they know that they will get laughed out of court, were this to actually find a challenge.
I've got to warn my employees! (Score:2)
I'll just scan the story and send out an email.
Wait...what?
Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)
The patents were filed beginning in 1997. Does anyone know if scanners from 1996 were able to scan in a document, launch an e-mail application, and attach said document to the e-mail? A quick Google Groups search did uncover a "photo scanning service" that promised to scan your photo and send it to you via e-mail. https://groups.google.com/group/nyc.singles/browse_thread/thread/6b8e902ec9996435/a1a550f3f5398a27?hl=en&q=scan+attach+to+e-mail#a1a550f3f5398a27
Also, for reference (and since people might not read the article), here are links to the patents in question:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6185590
http://www.google.com/patents/US6771381
http://www.google.com/patents/US7477410
http://www.google.com/patents/US7986426
Re:Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)
Does anyone know if scanners from 1996 were able to scan in a document, launch an e-mail application, and attach said document to the e-mail?
Yes, Paperport [usnews.com] from Visoneer was one. The Mac version was AppleScriptable and people regularly did things like transfer scanned images into e-mails, Filemaker databases, etc.
aside: the term TFS is looking for is "Legal Plunder". Bastiat coined it in 1850 in The Law [archive.org], and it was then an existing problem, so don't expect a quick resolution so long as the same power structures remain in place (people hate to admit that they're the ones with the role of being fleeced).
Standard challenge form (Score:2)
It seems that the perps in this scenario are using standard boilerplate forms to threaten lawsuits. Could some astute lawyer (IANAL) produce a standard boilerplate response form and offer it for a nominal fee? I think there is precedent for that in regards to a music copyright violation lawsuit-mill.
Re: (Score:2)
Could some astute lawyer (IANAL) produce a standard boilerplate response form and offer it for a nominal fee?
I believe that the proper reply can be found here [nasw.org].
we don't have employees do that there 3rd party (Score:2)
we don't have employees do that there 3rd party contractors
Re: (Score:2)
yes and we turned our web 2.0 over to india.
When will something be done? (Score:2)
When the government cares more about its citizens than patent holders. AKA when hell freezes over. If you reduce the power of the patent you not only stop these relatively small players but also degrade the worth of everyone's patents. Which hurts the rich and powerful.
What, no countersuit for legal fees? (Score:2)
FTA:
In the end, Hill and his fellow lawyers at his small Atlanta firm, Hill, Kertscher and Wharton, didn’t have a lot of fight in them. Two weeks after he filed the third-party complaint, Project Paperless dropped its lawsuit. No settlement, no deal—they just went away. (As a result, the scanner makers never actually came to court.)
That can't be where it ends. Where's the countersuit for legal fees? Compensation for the money required to do the prior-art search? There's protection (albeit not enough) from frivolous and vindictive (perhaps even defamatory, in this case) lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is the equivalent of anti-SLAPP for patents, some kind of quick process where a judge can examine the filing and make a summary judgement including awarding treble damages to the defendant for all costs incurred.
ahh the irony (Score:3)
Most businesses have now implemented stupid email "retention" policies to avoid law suits that require all email to be deleted after an insanely short time (my company has gone from 6 months to 1 month).
If only the kept that old email, and could show just ONE scanned document being emailed prior to the patent, they'd have prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
You're all stupid people to believe that this is the real 'legal mafia'. The government is the real mafia. Until you wake up and realize that more than 80% of your day goes to paying for the elite bastards to live high on the hog you won't ever find freedom.
The government is just the enforcer.
You want to talk to the Don, you'll be walking into a bank like Goldman Sachs or HSBC, not a government building.
Re: (Score:2)
We need Leverage... But they need that show's run.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, I RTFA (bad form) and I missed the part where the government is extorting money from people for scanning and emailing documents. But thanks for your "F the gubberment!!!"" post which is always good for some cheap mod points. If that's what you're into.
Question 1: Who develops and maintains the patent system that not only allows, but seemingly encourages this sort of trolling behavior?
Question 2: Assuming a correct answer for question one, do they who maintain the patent system profit from this sort of trolling behavior?
I fail to see how anyone who answers those questions honestly can absolve the government of blame.
Re: (Score:2)
A1: Lawyers
A2: Yes.
Counter Question: Would you want to live in a society where the Government had total power to control Lawyers?
Re: (Score:2)
A1: Lawyers
... who are employed by the government.
Counter Question: Would you want to live in a society where the Government had total power to control Lawyers?
From all I've seen, there's no evidence that I don't already reside in such a hellhole. Asking whether or not I want to live in such a dystopia is pretty much non sequitur, considering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I RTFA (bad form) and I missed the part where the government is extorting money from people for scanning and emailing documents
You would, because it doesn't work that way. People extort money from other people using the government. The extortionists then pay the government for the privilege of being allowed to extort.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had read any political history, you'd recognize that it's much much worse today than it has been in recent history. You have to go 100 years back to find a government so cravenly beholden to the rich and powerful. Our government is more corrupt than any in living memory, that qualifies for a "these days".
Re: (Score:2)
Changing my assertion to a generic form that is clearly untrue does not actually refute my assertion. Try again.
Really, please do. I would love to believe that the government has my best interests at heart, but there is no such evidence available. Show me when the government has chosen to act for the best interests of the people over the best interests of the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to believe that the government has my best interests at heart, but there is no such evidence available. Show me when the government has chosen to act for the best interests of the people over the best interests of the rich.
You are perhaps thinking that the best interests of the individual are the same as the best interests of the people as a whole, or that your best interests are the same as someone else's? In one sentence you refer to "my best interests", and in the next you write "best interests of the people". Those two are not necessarily the same.
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for giving them that idea. now I have to put my food in the front seat instead of the trunk.
Re: (Score:3)
Or wrap it in a Taun-Taun carcass and strap it to the hood.
Not that I have a patent on this particular grocery retrieval process.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a haggis joke in here somewhere
Re: (Score:2)
the reason is the end user won't fight it
the prior art is that the device in their patent had to exist before their patent. but the small business will pay up because its cheaper
Fax modem? (Score:2)
the prior art is that the device in their patent had to exist before their patent.
Fax modem? In the process of scanning-to-e-mail, you ultimately have a scanner at one end, a communications network, and a device for receiving and displaying scanned images. A fax machine is a scanner, the phone system is a communications network, and a computer with a fax modem can receive and display faxes. I took the lowest patent number (US6185590 [google.com]) and the filing date on that is October 15, 1997. I remember owning a Mac with a fax modem in the fourth quarter of 1995.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the naive assumption that what we have is the worst possible outcome, and by choosing people at random we'll automatically arrive at a different result.
Re: (Score:3)
Or the naive assumption that we have any choice in who we vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly we do, it's just that very few people take seriously the candidates who haven't completely sold their soul in order to afford a massive media blitz. It's really a shame since according to recent political polls the largest single political group among US voters self-identifies as independent: 40% versus 30% democrat, 27% republican, and 3% for all other parties. Clearly there's substantial disillusionment with party politics, what we need is for someone to figure out how to woo voters while bypa
Re: (Score:3)
Or the naive assumtion that once in office one will act differently than the other. After all, you're the product that they're selling out to their real benefactors.
When will something be done about this legal mafia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just 100 dollars? :D
He's European. They use the '.' where we Americans would use a ','.
Re: (Score:2)
not very metric of them ;)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So $100, to the thousandth. Got it. Wrong is wrong, I don't care where he is from.
No.
So $100. to the thousandth, Got it, Wrong is wrong. I don't care where he is from,
My client received on of these ... (Score:3)
1. You can't tell if the extortionist is related in any way to the patent holder.
2. They tell you to do your own investigation, provide some pointers, and provide bank routing money for your EFT.
3. They haven't done their jurisdiction homework (RightHaven got hammered for this).
and these are just some of the procedural problems. The prior art issues don't even come into play. I don't think th
Re: (Score:3)
If you RTFA you would realize in this case this is different then every other patent story posted on Slashdot.
This story is about the legal equivalent of you being sued because you wipe your ass with your left hand. Sure someone could in fact hold a legitimate patent for the process of left handed ass wiping but there is no legal precedence for suing people because they use their left hand for wiping their asses. Spend a second and think about the stupidity of someone claiming $1000 in damage per person t
Re: (Score:2)
Users of a Method, or a Process [wikipedia.org] that is patented are, under US law, breaking the patent.
These patents are designed to protect things such as a process for making soap or candles, so that no one else can copy your exact technique.
These patents are then abused to protect a common process that occurs in the vast majority of businesses these days - like it or not, that's the law.
They even explain in the legal letter (if you read the linked article, and the legal letter it contains) that they're not going after
Re: (Score:3)
They're never going to get to the point of actually suing anyone in court. If someone puts up even a iota of a fight, they'll just dismiss the lawsuit and move on.
They're looking for easy targets who will just pay up without asking questions, which is why they're suing smaller companies. Someone like HP would eat them for lunch and get the patent invalidated.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why, if they drop the lawsuit, they should have to pay all the legal expenses. Yes, including the lawyer bills of the defendant. And possibly moral damage on top of that. In short, what happens in any sane legal system, in which the initiator of a bogus lawsuit can suffer a significant net loss.
The American Rule is crap. Get rid of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Our company got one of these ridiculous letters about 2 months ago. I took great pleasure in immediately scanning it into an email to a colleague so we could laugh about it.
You should have replied to the letter with This [i.qkme.me]. (no, it is not a goatse or a rickroll.)