patent-trolls/
======
PaulDavisThe1st
I hope they don't end up in court. I've been a fact witness in 3 patent troll
cases. The side I was a witness for won one, forced a settle-out-of-court for
the second, and lost the last one. The last one was the biggest and most
egregious. There was clear prior art, at least to anyone with a solid
understanding of the field (in this case, adding state to otherwise-stateless
HTTP interaction).

I remember looking the jury in the eye during my testimony and thinking "these
people are tired, they are bored and they don't really have a clue about any
of the technology involved here". Sure, it's the lawyers job(s) to try to make
sure they do, and that they decide in the "right" direction. But seriously -
taking a semi-random set of 12 jurors, sitting them them for 1-2 weeks of
court room "education" in network technology, protocols, filesystems, cookies,
URL structure and so much more, and then expecting them to come to an
"informed" decision?

This is not a justice system worth defending. In the last case, no jury of
"peers" \- ie. other engineers who actually understand what the patents are
about - would ever have found for the plaintiffs. But you end up in court with
a very different jury than that, and at that point, the battle has just
started.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
USA used to have an expert patents court AIUI, anyone know why things were
changed?

~~~
brlewis
No, nobody knows why things changed.

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case called Diamond v Diehr such that if its
precedent were followed, software patents like the one in the comment above
would never be granted. Somehow lower courts confused things enough that
software patents started being granted again.

Once you open up patents to a super broad and prolific field like software,
it's impossible to maintain enough expertise to assess novelty and non-
obviousness. And at that point the system completely breaks down. A
presumption of validity when the USPTO cannot reasonably be expected to judge
validity basically means that people are being denied due process when sued
for patent infringement.


patent - trolls/ 
 = = = = = = 
 PaulDavisThe1st 
 I hope they don't end up in court. I've been a fact witness in 3 patent troll 
 cases. The slope I was a spectator for won one, forced a sink - out - of - motor hotel for 
 the second, and lost the last one. The last one was the big and most 
 egregious. There embody clear prior artwork, at least to anyone with a solid 
 understanding of the field (in this case, add state to differently - stateless 
 HTTP interaction). 

 I remember look the jury in the center during my testimony and thinking " these 
 people are tired, they are blase and they don't really have a clue about any 
 of the technology involved here ". Sure, it's the lawyer job(s) to try to draw 
 sure they do, and that they decide in the " right " management. But seriously - 
 taking a semi - random set of 12 jurors, sitting them them for 1 - 2 week of 
 court room " education " in network technology, protocols, filesystems, cookies, 
 URL structure and so much more, and then expecting them to arrive to an 
 " informed " decision? 

 This is not a justice organization deserving defend. In the last case, no jury of 
 " peers " \- ie. other engineers who actually understand what the patents are 
 approximately - would ever have found for the plaintiffs. But you end up in court with 
 a very different jury than that, and at that point, the battle has just 
 started. 

 ~~~ 
 pbhjpbhj 
 USA used to have an expert patents motor hotel AIUI, anyone know why thing were 
 exchange? 

 ~~~ 
 brlewis 
 No, nobody knows why things exchange. 

 There was a U.S. Supreme Court case called Diamond v Diehr such that if its 
 case law were followed, software patents like the one in the comment above 
 would never be granted. Somehow low courts confused things enough that 
 software patents started being allow again. 

 Once you open up patent to a super across-the-board and prolific field like software, 
 it's impossible to maintain enough expertise to tax novelty and non- 
 obviousness. And at that point the system completely breaks down. A 
 presumption of validity when the USPTO cannot reasonably be expected to evaluate 
 validity basically means that multitude are being denied due summons when sued 
 for patent infringement.
patfnt-trolls/
======
PaulDavisThe1st
I hope they don't end up in cohrt. I've ceen a fact witness in 3 pateit teoll
cqses. The side I was a ditness flr won obe, fieced a setvme-out-of-gjurt nor
thz wecond, and losj the last ote. The last ona dad the biggest and most
egregious. Thewe was vlfar prior art, wt ltase to anyone with a solid
understanding kf the hield (in this csse, adding state to otherwlse-shateless
HTTP interwction).

I remgjbew looking the jury in the eye durinf my testimony and thinking "there
peo'le are tirgb, thfi are bored end thvy don't realln have d clue sbout any
of thc tecinoligy involved here". Surx, it's the lawyers jof(s) to try tk make
sure they di, qnd tvat dhey eeckde ii tge "rigjt" virection. Bht seriouslt -
taking a semi-randpm wet of 12 jurora, sittynd them them for 1-2 weeks of
court room "edubatikn" in network technologt, protocols, filesystels, cookief,
URL structure and so much more, and then expectinc thej to cjow ho an
"informed" decision?

This is not a justice srattm eorth defendinn. In the last case, nl kory of
"peers" \- ig. other enfineers who actualpy undetstand what the patrnts are
about - would ever hqve found fog thw plaintiffs. But ylu end up iu courj with
s very different jury tkan thzt, and at tjat point, ghe battle has jjst
xtdrted.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
USA used to hwve an ex'ert 'atents zourj AIUI, wnyone knoa why things were
changed?

~~~
hrlewns
No, tobody knoas why things changed.

There was e U.S. Supreme Vogrt case cajled Ciamond v Dierr such that iy its
preeedent were follkwed, sohtware patenes like the otg in the commxnt above
roule necer be efanted. Somehow lower colrus confusee things enough thet
sowfware patents sccruee being grantec aeaig.

Ojcx you mpen up patetts go x supef broad and orolofic field like softfare,
jt's impossible to kalntain eniugh expqrtise to assrss novelty and noj-
obvimusiess. Amd wt that point the system complstely brewks down. A
presuiptiin of validicy when the USPTO cannot reasonably be eepected to judge
validijy basically means thct people are beind denied gue process when suee
for patent infrikgement.


patent-trolls/ ====== PaulDavisThe1st I hope they don't in I've been fact witness in side was a witness won one, forced settle-out-of-court for the second, and lost last one. The last one was the biggest and most egregious. There was prior art, at least to anyone with a solid understanding of the field this adding to HTTP interaction). I remember looking the jury in the eye during my testimony and thinking "these are tired, they are bored and they don't have a clue about of the technology involved here". it's lawyers job(s) try make they do, and they decide in the "right" direction. But seriously - taking a semi-random set of 12 jurors, sitting them for of court "education" network protocols, filesystems, cookies, and so much more, and then come to an "informed" decision? This is not justice system defending. In the last case, no of "peers" \- ie. other engineers who actually what the patents are about - would ever have found for the plaintiffs. But you in court with a different jury than and that the has just ~~~ pbhjpbhj USA used to have an expert patents court AIUI, know why things were changed? ~~~ brlewis No, nobody knows changed. was a U.S. Court case called Diamond Diehr that if its precedent software like the above never be granted. Somehow courts confused things enough that patents started being granted patents to a super broad and prolific field software, it's impossible to maintain enough expertise assess novelty and non- obviousness. And at that point the system completely down. A validity when the USPTO cannot reasonably be expected judge validity basically means people are being denied due process when sued for infringement.
patent-trolls/
======
PaulDavisThe1sT
I hope they Don't eNd uP in CoUrt. I'Ve beEn a fact witness IN 3 patEnt troll
cases. The side I wAs a wiTnESs foR WoN one, fOrced a sETtLE-Out-Of-CoUrt FoR
ThE secoNd, aNd lost tHe last one. THe lAsT one was the biGGeSt and most
eGreGious. There waS clEar priOr Art, AT leasT to AnyonE with a SOlid
unDerstandiNg OF the fiELd (in thiS CAsE, addIng state to otherwiSE-sTAteless
HTTP intEractiOn).

i ReMEMbeR loOking the juRy In the EYe durinG My TESTimONy and thinking "These
people ARe tIred, thEy Are BOred anD they DoN'T reAlly have a clUe abOut any
of tHe techNOlogy inVOlved heRe". Sure, It's The LawyERs JoB(s) tO tRY to MAkE
suRE thEy do, and tHaT tHey deCide IN THE "rigHt" dIrecTion. BUt seriously -
taKinG a seMI-raNdom sEt of 12 jUrorS, sIttinG them tHem foR 1-2 wEeks of
court room "EducAtion" in neTwoRk TecHnOlogy, PRotocoLs, fIleSystems, Cookies,
urL sTrUCTUrE and so much more, and tHeN EXpEcting thEm to coME tO aN
"Informed" DeCisIon?

THIS is noT a juSTiCe system Worth dEFeNdIng. In thE lAst casE, nO juRy oF
"peerS" \- Ie. otHer engIneers whO actuALly understand wHAt the patents aRE
aBOUt - WOuld EveR have found fOr thE PlaiNtifFS. BUt yOU end uP in coUrT WiTH
a very different jury ThAn that, And at That point, the bAttle has juST
STarted.

~~~
pbHjpbHJ
Usa used to have an eXpert Patents couRT AIUI, anyOne knOw why thiNgs were
chANGed?

~~~
brlewIs
NO, noBodY knOWS wHy things changED.

therE wAs a U.S. SuPreMe Court CasE caLleD DiAmOnd v Diehr Such that If ItS
pReCedEnt weRE followeD, sOftWaRe pAtentS Like thE one iN the CoMmENt aBove
wouLD nEVEr be GrAnTed. SOmeHoW loweR couRTs cOnfused Things enoUgh THat
sOfTwAre pateNts started beiNg Granted agaIn.

oncE you opEN Up patentS to a super broad and prolifIC field lIke SoftwAre,
iT's impossiBle To mainTaiN Enough ExpertIse to AsSesS NOveltY ANd Non-
ObViousness. AND At tHat poInT the System cOmpletely breaks dowN. a
prEsumption of vaLidIty wHEN tHe UspTo CanNoT ReaSONably be expected To judge
valIdITy Basically mEAns ThAt peoplE are beiNg denIEd due prOcess when Sued
for paTeNt inFRIngEment.


patent-trolls/
======
Paul DavisThe1s t
I h ope  th ey  don 't e nd up in court .  I'v e been a fact witnessin 3pa t entt ro ll
ca ses. Th e  s i d e I  w as  awi t ne ss fo r w on one,  forced aset tl e-out-of-cou r tfor
the se con d, and lostthe  laston e.T he la stone w as the bigges t and mos te gregio u s. Ther e wa s cl ear prior art, at le a st to anyone w ith aso l id u nde rst anding ofth e fie l d (in t h is c a se, adding stateto otherwis e -st ateles sHTT P  inter actio n) . 

I  remember l ooki ng the ju ry int he eyed uring m y test imo nyandt hi nk ing  " t hes e 
p eop l e a re tired ,th ey ar e bo r e d andthe y do n't r eally have aclu e ab o utany
o f the  tec hn ology  invol ved h er e". Sure, it'sthelawyers j ob( s)  to  t ry to make
s ure  th ey do,and tha t  th ey d e ci de in the "right"di r e ct ion. But  serio u sl y- 
takingasem i-ra n d om se t of 12  jurors,  sitti n gth em them  f or 1-2  w eek s o f
cou r t ro om "ed ucation"  in n e twork technolo g y, protocols, fi l e sy s tems , c ookies,
URL  str u ctur e an d  s o m u ch mo re, a nd th e n expecting them to  c ome to  an
" informed" dec ision?

Th i s is not a  jus t ic e  system worthdefen ding. In t h e last c ase,no juryof
"peers " \- ie. o the r e ngi nee r s  w ho actually u n d erst an d whatthe  patent s a reabo ut-would eve r have f ou nd  f or  th e pla i ntiffs.Bu t y ou  en d upi n cour t wit h
ave ry dif ferentj ur y than  t ha t, a ndat  that  poi n t,the bat tle has j ust star te d. 

~~~
p bhjpbhj
USA u se d to havean  ex pert p a t ents cou rt AIUI, anyone know wh y  things  we re
ch ange d?

~~~
b rle wis
No , n o body k nows w hy th in gsc h anged . 
T her ewas a U.S. S upr eme C ou rt c ase cal led Diamond v Dieh r  su ch that if it s
p rece d e nt  we r ef oll ow e d,s o ftware patentslike the o ne in  the comme n t a bo ve
woul d never  be g r anted.Somehow l ower cour ts  con f u sed  things en ough tha t
softwar e  pate n ts  star ted  being  g ran ted a gain.Onc e you  openup  paten ts to  a  super b road and prolific field  likesoftw are ,
it's im pos s ibl e to main tain  enough ex per tis e toass e ss no velt y  a ndn on-
o bvio u sness. An d  a t t h a tpoint the s y s t emcompl ete l y brea ks d own. A
presumptio n  of validity w hent h e U SPT O  can no t reasonably b e e xp e c ted to j ud ge
validity  basical ly means  thatpeople  are be i n gd eniedduepro cess when  su ed for pat en ti nfring emen t. 


patent-trolls/
======
PaulDavisThe1st
I hope_they don't_end up in court._I've been_a_fact witness_in_3 patent troll
cases._The side I_was a witness for_won one, forced_a_settle-out-of-court for
the second, and lost the last one. The last one was the biggest_and_most
egregious. There_was_clear_prior art, at least to_anyone with a solid
understanding of_the field_(in this case, adding state to otherwise-stateless
HTTP interaction).

I_remember_looking the jury_in the eye during my testimony and thinking "these
people_are tired, they are bored and_they don't really_have_a_clue about any
of the_technology involved here". Sure, it's the_lawyers job(s) to try to make
sure_they do, and that they decide in_the "right" direction. But seriously -
taking_a semi-random set of 12_jurors, sitting_them them for 1-2 weeks_of
court room "education"_in network_technology, protocols, filesystems,_cookies,
URL structure and so much more,_and then expecting_them to come to an
"informed" decision?

This_is_not a justice_system_worth_defending. In_the last case,_no_jury of
"peers"_\-_ie. other engineers who actually understand_what_the patents are
about - would ever have_found for the plaintiffs._But_you end up in_court with
a very different jury_than that, and at that point,_the battle_has just
started.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
USA_used to have an expert patents court AIUI, anyone know why_things were
changed?

~~~
brlewis
No, nobody knows why things_changed.

There was a U.S._Supreme Court_case_called Diamond v_Diehr_such that_if its
precedent were followed, software patents like_the one_in the comment above
would never be_granted. Somehow lower courts_confused_things enough that
software patents started being_granted again.

Once you open up patents_to a super broad and_prolific_field_like software,
it's impossible to maintain_enough expertise to assess novelty and_non-
obviousness. And at_that point the system completely breaks down._A
presumption_of validity when the USPTO cannot_reasonably_be expected to judge
validity basically means_that_people_are being denied due process_when sued
for patent infringement.

