IP Lawyer Who Represented TiVo Is Trump's Pick As USPTO Chief (arstechnica.com) 67
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: President Donald Trump has selected Andrei Iancu, the managing partner of a major Los Angeles law firm, to be the next head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Iancu has been a partner at Irell & Manella since 2004 and was an associate at the firm for five years earlier. His most notable work in the tech sector is likely his representation of TiVo Corp. in its long-running patent battles with companies like EchoStar, Motorola, Microsoft, Verizon, and Cisco. TiVo ultimately succeeded in compelling those defendants to pay up for its pioneering DVR patents, and payments to TiVo ultimately totaled more than $1.6 billion, according to Iancu's biography page. Iancu also had a hand in Immersion Corp.'s $82 million jury verdict against Sony Computer Entertainment, in which a jury found that Immersion's patent claims on tactile feedback technology were valid and infringed. Those big wins aside, most of Iancu's work has been on the defense side. He's represented eBay in a case against Acacia Research Corp., a large, publicly traded non-practicing entity, and he worked for Hewlett-Packard when it defended against Xerox patent claims. He's also worked in the medical device area, enforcing patents for St. Jude Medical on vascular closure devices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's good that he probably understands what the problems are. Maybe less so that he is used to profiting by them.
Both valid points.
But profiting by patents- either defending for them or against them (which he did both), doesn't necessarily mean he likes the system the way it is, only that he understands the rules/problems. He might very well support patent reform (as many of us on Slashdot do) but we just don't know.
Software patents, especially, are far too vague/generic, and often obvious. They have caus
Re:Good (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to add a ">" when quoting your original line in my reply... sorry about that :) I can't tell you how many times I wish I could correct things after they are posted.
Anyway, in some ways it is a lot like people complaining about "the rich" using loopholes to lower their taxes. It isn't their fault the loopholes are there (at least I believe it isn't), and they would be stupid NOT to use them. Or people complaining about a President not winning the popular vote- that isn't the rules of the game,
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't their fault the loopholes are there (at least I believe it isn't)
Yeah. It *is* their fault. Not so much the regular rich. The "upper middle class", and the "lower upper class" if you will. They just work within the laws that they are given. But the ultra rich ... they do help write the law, and have a lot of sway in creating the loopholes, and exert a lot of influence in protecting them.
There is nothing unethical or wrong about playing the games by the rules.
There is nothing illegal about playing games by the rules. There can be plenty wrong and unethical with it.
And government is not a game; people don't get to shake hands and go home win or
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, in some ways it is a lot like people complaining about "the rich" using loopholes to lower their taxes. It isn't their fault the loopholes are there (at least I believe it isn't), ...
Well, they pay a fortune in "Campaign contributions" nee bribery every election cycle to get those loopholes injected, so......
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to add a ">" when quoting your original line in my reply... sorry about that :) I can't tell you how many times I wish I could correct things after they are posted.
You can also use <quote> and </quote> to quote another post...
Re: (Score:3)
agreed - My tone was unnecessarily negative. The guy deserves the benefit of any doubt.
He does. In your defense, it is said that the pessimist is rarely disappointed.
Sounds knowledgable (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
> Agreed. Tivo definitely had a valid claim against those companies
No. Not really. Their patents were the very definition of obvious. People are willing to overlook sound governance once their pet brand is involved. Tivo is the perfect example.
I was wondering how long it wouI was wondering how long it would take for some fanboy to crawl out from under his rock and defend them.
That is the real problem here. People are willing to make excuses for bad practices (when it's their pet brand) even in a forum li
Re: (Score:2)
"For their pet brands" -- you're ruling out astroturfing. You are also ruling out astroturfing "on your side". You, yourself, could be an astroturfer with a pre-written FUD response. It even includes moral invective against the opposing side, which is not a valid argument of persuasion.
I wonder if most online discussions of controversial topics, especially ones involving government power affecting money, even involve real, independent people anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you know a lot of people in your work environment that go around espousing ethics over profitiability all the time? If anyone did that at my work place they wouldn't work there much longer....
My point is it's kind of unfair to criticize industry people for what their public opinions are.... their opinion is always going to be profitability and whatever the field considers a middle ground for "fair." You won't ever know what their true intentions are until they are in the position of power to change thi
Re: (Score:2)
Crass pragmatism has limits.
Even crass pragmatism has to acknowledge the negative implications of frivolous patents.
20 year monopolies over stupid shit aren't a trivial matter. They are a burden on everyone. Even crass corporations can give lip service to "the greater good".
Re: (Score:2)
> And hence we have a low-IQ idiot as a president
Except Forrest Gump bothered to acknowledge the rules and game those rules to his advantage.
This triggered thunderous shrill cries of "unfair! change the rules!".
That's not bad for a drooling mouth breather.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you are not going to get a better option out of a Democrat. You're kidding yourself if you think so. All of those virtue signalling companies in Silicon Valley wouldn't stand for it.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't expect to like his politics. It's nice that it sounds like he picked someone competent for a change.
Hot Garbage (Score:1, Flamebait)
Who else but a patent troll would you think Trump would appoint to run the USPTO?
There has never been an administration this corrupt, this "pay-to-play", this openly and wantonly willing to break ethics laws. I'm not even sure there's anyone in second place. I mean, all the way down to over-charging the Secret Service for golf cart rentals when they take the frequent trips to Trump properties to make sure no one disturbs the royal golf games.
unimpressed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Looky here, goy - if Trump appointed him, he's a Nazi! How do I know he's a Nazi? Because they're all Nazis, I tells ya! NAZIS! THEY'RE ALL NAZIS I SAY! It's like anudda Shoah in here I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Learn to read, this guy *fought* trolls, and represented "practicing entities". No idea if he'll be good for the patent system, but I at least know he isn't a troll.
Re:Hot Garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Who else but a patent troll would you think Trump would appoint to run the USPTO?
This guy defended companies against patent trolls. But it appears you don't need factual info to form your opinion.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Here, let me help you.
This is from the article:
Re:Hot Garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Does that sound like someone who is "defending against patent trolls to you?
Well, you conveniently snipped your quote to omit the case where he defended eBay again Acacia, for one. Here are some others:
1. Defended LG against Imperium IP Holdings.
2. Defended RIM against Advanced Display Technologies of Texas.
3. Defended RIM against Negotiated Data Solutions.
4. Defended RIM against Unified Messaging Solutions.
5. Defended RIM against Golden Bridge Technology.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So, what you're saying is that this guy, this parasite, that Trump appointed has been making a nice living by playing both sides of the patent dysfunction.
Perfect. He's like a doctor who works for the tobacco industry. He's a goddamn shyster, the worst possible type of person to run the USPTO. People like Andrei Iancu are why our patent system is so messed up.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is that this guy, this parasite, that Trump appointed has been making a nice living by playing both sides of the patent dysfunction.
No, I wasn't saying anything of the sort. I was saying that your position that he doesn't defend companies against patent trolls is utter crap. Your response was to shamelessly jump to another lilypad and come up with some new inflammatory rhetoric.
Your new position might possibly have some merit if he had both represented and defended against patent trolls, but that doesn't appear to be the case and I haven't seen you suggest it.
As it is, this seems to leave you saying that we wouldn't want someone who i
Re: (Score:2)
I love this construction. "He's great for running the Patent Office because he's understands the considerations of all the stakeholders."
But that's only if you consider "all of the various stakeholders" to include only huge corporate interests. What you fail to understand is that the greatest "stakeholder" in the patent wars is actually the consumer. First, because the goddamn consumer is footing the bill for the whole fucki
Re: (Score:2)
No, I wasn't saying anything of the sort. I was saying that your position that he doesn't defend companies against patent trolls is utter crap
Every large company has to defend against patent trolls. The real question is whether he was a patent troll himself, and he has that history as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is whether he was a patent troll himself, and he has that history as well.
I didn't see any cases where he represented patent trolls, and I note you didn't cite any. If you have any specifics, I'm happy to discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is whether he was a patent troll himself, and he has that history as well.
I didn't see any cases where he represented patent trolls, and I note you didn't cite any. If you have any specifics, I'm happy to discuss.
Sure, I'll go into a specific: I think Tivo's original DVR patents were bullshit. Whether they won court cases or not, they got a club to wield against people using obvious techniques that had been in use before Tivo was doing it. I guess YMMV as to whether that -really- counts as "patent trolling," but I set a low bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I'll go into a specific: I think Tivo's original DVR patents were bullshit. Whether they won court cases or not, they got a club to wield against people using obvious techniques that had been in use before Tivo was doing it. I guess YMMV as to whether that -really- counts as "patent trolling," but I set a low bar.
Yeah, now I see the disconnect. The traditional "patent troll" just owns and tries to collect royalties on the patent without actually doing anything with it, and in fact the more formal term is "non-practicing entity." Poor patent quality often goes hand in hand with patent trolls/NPEs, but it's really a separate issue. A patent troll/NPE could assert a very high-quality patent (though it's statistically unlikely since they usually buy them and thus have to content themselves with more marginal ones), a
Dig The Hole Deeper (Score:2)
Here we have living proof of the phenomenon where, when confronted with proof their belief is wrong, people will just dig in further.
Dude, patent trolls by definition are Non-Practicing Entities. Meaning they don't make products, just sue people for infringing on low-value patents. That description in no way describes TiVo or Immersion.
Hey, guess what, Immersion DOES have the rights to "tactile feedback technology." THAT'S WHAT A PATENT IS! That's why Nintendo designed their Rumble Pak to work differently:
Re: (Score:2)
It has everything to do with "this guy". The head of the USPTO isn't there to represent patent-holders, he's there to represent the People. I'm surprised that you don't understand this. The idea that "this guy" is going to usher in some age of "patent reform" that will in any way help consumers is laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop moving the goalposts. The person you were responding to wasn't making some wild claims that this guy was some messiah that was going to reform anything. He's a patent attorney. He's familiar with the system. He's represented companies who were attacked by patent trolls, as well as companies who sued over technologies they actually developed and sold.
What's novel about him is he's an apparently an uncharacteristically competent and experienced nominee compared to Trump's usual choices!
Re: (Score:2)
No. Patent trolls are anyone that abuse the patent system. it doesn't matter if they are a manufacturer or not.
You're trying to claim that harm doesn't exist because of the nature of the harm.
You still have someone claiming ownership over something that isn't theirs. THAT is the relevant part of the "bridge troll" metaphor.
Bullshit is bullshit regardless of whether or not you have a device that will be the only one allowed to be bought by the rest of us for 20 YEARS.
Re: (Score:2)
Who, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to make some white kettles!
Re: (Score:2)
Does that sound like someone who is "defending against patent trolls to you?
Maybe because those few examples need to be balanced against that very clear statement;
Those big wins aside, most of Iancu's work has been on the defense side
and the article goes on to explain more, but not so prominently as the items highlighted by the author with the intent to paint a picture in your mind, and you seemed willing to allow it to be a canvas.
Re: (Score:2)
The calculation (Score:3)
The candidate must be
a) a true Trump believer that thinks all the bad press Trump has gotten is just partisan fear mongering.
b) they think they are smart and independent and strong-willed enough to run the department credibly in spite of any shortcomings Trump or the rest of his crew might have.
c) the increase in prestige of high office will do more for their reputation than association with Trump will hurt it.
d) the entire structure is going to come crashing down regardless and the best plan is to be has high up on it as you can so you land on top and not underneath.
Any other options? Any bets?
Re: (Score:2)
lol-k, you have just defined the trump-spin
1. Identify your dislike for Trump
2. Identify why you are going to roll over and let him do whatever he wants.
So.... Trump is the devil because he could never ever, even accidentally/negligently/unintentionally, do a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Patent is a ... (Score:2)
... is a virtue.