 problem, as the article says, is that even getting to the stage
where you can call their bluff like this is extremely expensive, and
statistically very few defendants will take it this far. So for the few folks
who do stick it out this far, Lodsys can simply drop out and still stay way
ahead of the game.

As to why I think their case is somewhat stronger than the usual troll:
Firstly, it's patents partially survived Google's supposedly "devastating" re-
examination request. Although the process is still ongoing, the claims that
survived are golden. Those now have an "enhanced presumption of validity",
which means if asserted at trial, the defendants would be wise to seek
stronger alternate defenses besides invalidity.

Secondly, and speaking of alternate defenses: patent exhaustion. Exhaustion is
triggered on first authorized sale [1]. I really cannot (and neither can the
EFF) comment on this since all the relevant terms on which Apple, Google etc.
have a license are secret. Further, since Apple was not allowed to intervene,
it seems even less likely a defense.

Thirdly, the claims are "vague" only if you decide not to put much effort into
understanding how they work. Much like non-lispers complaining about
parentheses. I have seen vague claims, and these are downright straightforward
in comparison, despite what the EFF's out of context snippets may imply. Also,
mentioning fax machines is a non sequitur. If the main function of fax
machines in this patent was to act as network components, by the Doctrine of
Equivalents [2] they are functionally equivalent to the Internet of today.
Heck, it could be carrier pigeons and still be valid. This is not an abuse of
the system, and if you want to make it so, you'd need a lot more reform than
is likely to happen.

I cannot comment on the quality (novelty, non-obviousness, etc.) of the claims
since I have difficulty evaluating them in context of the state of the art in
~1992, to which these patents claim priority.

(IANAL. Which may also be why I think one solution to this problem is a
drastic lowering of attorney fees :-P)

[1]
[http://en.
problem, as the article says, is that even getting to the stage 
 where you can visit their bluff like this is highly expensive, and 
 statistically very few defendants will take it this far. therefore for the few folk 
 who do stick it out this far, Lodsys can simply dangle out and still stay manner 
 ahead of the game. 

 As to why I think their character is somewhat stronger than the common troll: 
 Firstly, it's patents partially survived Google's supposedly " devastating " re- 
 examination request. Although the procedure is still ongoing, the claims that 
 survived are fortunate. Those now have an " enhanced given of validity ", 
 which intend if asserted at trial, the defendants would be fresh to seek 
 stronger alternate defenses besides invalidity. 

 Secondly, and speaking of alternate defenses: patent exhaustion. Exhaustion is 
 triggered on first authorized sale [ 1 ]. I really cannot (and neither can the 
 EFF) comment on this since all the relevant terms on which Apple, Google etc. 
 have a license are secret. Further, since Apple was not allow to intervene, 
 it seems even less likely a defensive structure. 

 third, the claim are " vague " only if you decide not to put much effort into 
 understanding how they work. Much like non - lisper complaining about 
 parentheses. I have seen vague claims, and these are downright straightforward 
 in comparison, despite what the EFF's out of context snippets may imply. Also, 
 mentioning fax machines is a non sequitur. If the chief function of facsimile 
 machine in this patent was to act as network components, by the Doctrine of 
 Equivalents [ 2 ] they are functionally equivalent to the Internet of today. 
 Heck, it could be carrier pigeons and still be valid. This is not an maltreatment of 
 the system, and if you want to make it so, you'd want a lot more reform than 
 is probable to happen. 

 I cannot comment on the quality (novelty, non - obviousness, etc .) of the claims 
 since I suffer difficulty measure them in context of the state of the artwork in 
 ~1992, to which these patents claim priority. 

 (IANAL. Which may also be why I intend one solution to this problem is a 
 drastic lowering of lawyer fees :-P) 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ http://en.
 prlblem, as the article sayr, is that even ywtting to ths stage
wfere you can call their blufh lije thus is extremely expenskve, and
stwtisticaoly tery few defendaifs will take jb thiv far. So for thg few folks
wvo do stick it ojt this far, Lodsys can simply drop oue and syipl stay way
ahewd og the game.

As to why I think their case js somexhat stronger tnan the usual troll:
Firstly, it's patents partially survived Gioglq'w supposedly "devastating" re-
examinajion request. Although the procesr is xtill ongount, tjg claims thav
survined are goldek. Those now hafe an "enhanced prxsumption of validity",
whici means if asserted wt trial, dhz defendants would be wuse tm seak
stfingdr zlverhate dffeises besidea invaliditt.

Secondly, and speakond of alternate defenfef: patent exhaustion. Exhaustion is
triggeged kn first authorized salw [1]. I really cannot (anf neither can the
EFF) comment on this since all the relevand terjr ou whicf Aople, Google etc.
have a license are secret. Furtrsr, spnce Apple was nob allowed to interfeje,
oj seems even lgss likzmy a defense.

Thirdly, hhe clayms aee "vague" jnly if you decide not to put mych effort iuto
ynderstanding how chey work. Mueh likg non-lospers complaining abouc
parenfheses. I hage seen vzeue claims, and tfesv ara downright straightforwarq
in compacison, despitd whst the EFF's out lf cokdext snippets may lmply. Anso,
mentionlng fax machines is a non sequivnr. If the maim xunbtion of yax
macmines in this pwtent was to aet as necwork zomponents, by the Doctrine os
Equivalents [2] jhey are funcvionally qquicalebt to tfd Internet of yoday.
Heck, it could ve carrier pigeons ana still be valid. Thus is not an abise of
ehv sbstem, dnd if you wdnt go oske ig so, you'd nced a lpt more reform than
iv liiely to happen.

I camnjt commebt on thq quality (novrlty, non-obviousnesd, etc.) of the vlayms
since I have difficulty evamuating tjem in context jf tme sjate of the art in
~1992, to which these patents claim prmority.

(IANAL. Which may aoso be why I think pke solution vo thif problem is a
drastic lowerint of attorney feex :-P)

[1]
[http://en.
problem, as the article says, is that to stage where can call their expensive, statistically very few will take it far. So for the few folks do stick it out this far, Lodsys can simply drop out and still way ahead of the game. As to why I think their case is stronger the troll: it's patents partially survived Google's supposedly "devastating" re- examination request. Although the process is still ongoing, claims that survived are golden. Those now have "enhanced presumption of validity", means if asserted at trial, defendants be wise seek alternate besides invalidity. Secondly, speaking of alternate defenses: patent exhaustion. Exhaustion is triggered on first authorized sale [1]. I really cannot neither can comment on since the terms on which etc. have a license are secret. was not allowed to intervene, it seems even likely a Thirdly, the claims are "vague" only you decide not to put much effort into how they work. Much like non-lispers complaining about parentheses. I have seen vague claims, and downright straightforward in comparison, what the EFF's of snippets imply. mentioning fax is a non sequitur. If the main function of fax machines this patent was to act as network components, by the Equivalents they are functionally to the Internet of Heck, could be carrier pigeons be This abuse the and if you want make it so, you'd need lot more reform than cannot comment on the quality (novelty, non-obviousness, etc.) the claims since I have difficulty evaluating in context of the state of the art in ~1992, to which patents claim Which may also be why I think one to this problem is drastic lowering of attorney fees :-P) [1] [http://en.
 problem, as the article says, is That even geTting To tHe sTaGe
whEre yOu can call their BLuff Like this is extremely expEnsivE, aND
staTIsTicalLy very fEW dEFEndAnTs WilL tAKe It thiS faR. So for tHe few folks
Who Do Stick it out thIS fAr, Lodsys caN siMply drop out aNd sTill stAy Way
AHead oF thE game.

as to whY i think Their case Is SOmewhaT StrongeR THaN the Usual troll:
Firstly, IT's PAtents partiallY surviVeD goOGLe's SupPosedly "devAsTatinG" Re-
examiNAtION ReqUEst. Although thE process is sTIll OngoinG, tHe cLAims thAt
surViVEd aRe golden. ThoSe noW have an "enHanced PResumptIOn of valIdity",
wHicH meAns iF AsSeRteD aT TriAL, tHe dEFenDants wouLd Be Wise tO seeK
STROngeR alTernAte deFenses besides InvAlidITy.

SEcondLy, and SpeaKiNg of aLternaTe defEnSes: patent exhausTion. exhaustioN is
TrIggErEd on fIRst autHorIzeD sale [1]. I rEally caNNot (AnD NEItHer can the
EFF) commenT oN THiS since alL the reLEvAnT Terms on wHiCh APple, gOOgle eTc.
haVE a License aRe secrET. FUrTher, sinCe apple wAs Not AllOwed tO InteRvene,
iT seems evEn lesS Likely a defense.

tHirdly, the claiMS aRE "VaGUe" onLy iF you decide nOt to PUt muCh efFOrT inTO
undeRstanDiNG hOW they work. Much like noN-lIspers ComplAining about
paRentheses. I HAVE seen vagUe clAImS, And these are dowNrighT straightfORward
in cOmparIson, despIte what thE efF's out of ConTexT snIppETS mAy imply. Also,
meNTIoniNg Fax machIneS is a non SeqUitUr. IF thE mAin functiOn of fax
mAcHiNeS iN thIs patENt was to aCt As nEtWorK compONents, bY the DOctrInE oF
equIvalentS [2] ThEY Are fUnCtIonaLly EqUivalEnt tO The interneT of today.
HEck, IT couLd Be Carrier Pigeons and stiLl Be valid. ThiS iS noT an abuSE Of
the sysTem, and if you want to make it SO, you'd neEd a Lot moRe reForm than
iS liKely to HapPEn.

I canNot comMent oN tHe qUALity (nOVElTy, nOn-ObviousnesS, ETc.) oF the cLaIms
sInce I haVe difficulty evaluaTIng Them in context Of tHe stATE oF thE ArT In
~1992, tO wHIch THEse patents claim Priority.

(IAnAl. whIch may also BE whY I Think onE solutiOn to tHIs problEm is a
drasTic loweriNg Of atTORneY fees :-P)

[1]
[http://En.
 problem, as the article s ays, is th at ev enget ti ng t o th e stage
wherey ou c an call their bluff li ke th is is e x tr emely  expens i ve , and 
s ta tis ti c al ly ve ryfew def endants wi llta ke it this f a r.  So for th e f ew folks
who  do  stick  i t o u t thi s f ar, L odsysc an sim ply dropou t  and s t ill sta y wa y
ah ead of the game.As to why I think  their  c a se i s s ome what stron ge r tha n  the us u al t r oll : 
Firstly, it' s patents p a rti ally s ur viv e d Goog le'ssu p pos edly "devas tati ng" re-
e xamina t ion req u est. Al though  th e p roce s sis  st il l  on g oi ng, the  claimsth at 
surv ived a r e  gol den . Th ose n ow have an "e nha nced pre sumpt ion o f va li dity" ,
whic h mea ns  if asserted at  tri al, the d efe nd ant swould be wis e t o s eek
str onger a l ter na t e de fenses besides inv al i d it y.

Seco ndly,a nd  s p eaking o falt erna t e  defe nses :  p atent ex hausti o n.  E xhausti on  is
tr ig ger edon fi r st a uthori zed sale  [1]. I really canno t  (and neither ca n th e 
EFF ) c omment on t hiss ince  all th e r e levan t ter ms on which Apple, Google  e tc.
ha ve alicense are s ecret. Fur t h e r, since  App l ew as not allowed  to i ntervene,i t seemsevenless lik ely a def e n se.

Thi rdl y,the  cl a i ms  are "vague"o n ly i fyou dec ide  not to  pu t m uch  ef fo rt into
u nderstan di ng  h ow  th ey wo r k. Muchli keno n-l isper s  compl ainin g ab ou tp are ntheses .  I h avese en  vag uecl aims,  and the se aredownright  st r aigh tf or ward
in  comparison,de spite what  t heEFF'so u t of con text snippets may imply .  Also,men tioni ng f ax machin esis a n ons equitu r. Ifthe m ai n f u n ction o ffax 
m achines in t his  pate nt  was  to act  as network compon e nts , by the Doct rin e of E qu iva l en t s [ 2] the y are functionall y equivale nt to  the Inter n etof  today. 
Heck,it co u ld be c arrier pi geons and  s till b e v alid. This  is notan abuseo f
the sy stem,  an d if y ou  wa nt to  makei t s o, yo u'd ne ed  a lot  more  r eform th an
is likely to happen. 

I ca nnotcom ment on t heq ual ity (nove lty,  non-obvio usn ess , etc .)o f the  cla i ms 
si n ce Ihave difficult y  e val u a ti ng them inc o n tex t ofthe stateof t he art in
~1992,t o which thesepate n t s c lai m  pri or ity.

(IANAL.Whi ch m ay alsobe  why I thin k one so lu t ion t o this  probl em is a d ra s tic lo weri ngof attorn eyfe e s :-P)
[ 1] [http: //en .
 problem,_as the_article says, is that_even getting_to_the stage
where_you_can call their_bluff like this_is extremely expensive, and
statistically_very few defendants_will_take it this far. So for the few folks
who do stick it out this_far,_Lodsys can_simply_drop_out and still stay way
ahead_of the game.

As to why_I think_their case is somewhat stronger than the usual_troll:
Firstly,_it's patents partially_survived Google's supposedly "devastating" re-
examination request. Although the process_is still ongoing, the claims that
survived_are golden. Those_now_have_an "enhanced presumption of_validity",
which means if asserted at trial,_the defendants would be wise to_seek
stronger alternate defenses besides invalidity.

Secondly, and speaking_of alternate defenses: patent exhaustion. Exhaustion_is
triggered on first authorized sale_[1]. I_really cannot (and neither can_the
EFF) comment on_this since_all the relevant_terms on which Apple, Google etc.
have_a license are_secret. Further, since Apple was not_allowed_to intervene,
it seems_even_less_likely a_defense.

Thirdly, the claims_are_"vague" only_if_you decide not to put much_effort_into
understanding how they work. Much like non-lispers_complaining about
parentheses. I have_seen_vague claims, and these_are downright straightforward
in comparison, despite_what the EFF's out of context_snippets may_imply. Also,
mentioning_fax machines is a non sequitur. If the main function of_fax
machines in this patent was to_act as network components,_by the_Doctrine_of
Equivalents [2] they_are_functionally equivalent_to the Internet of today.
Heck, it could_be carrier_pigeons and still be valid. This_is not an abuse_of
the_system, and if you want to_make it so, you'd need a_lot more reform than
is likely_to_happen.

I_cannot comment on the quality_(novelty, non-obviousness, etc.) of the claims
since_I have difficulty_evaluating them in context of the state_of_the art in
~1992, to which these_patents_claim priority.

(IANAL. Which may also be_why_I_think one solution to this_problem is a
drastic lowering of attorney_fees :-P)

[1]
[http://en.