SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Patent-holding company TQP Development made millions claiming that it owned a breakthrough in Web encryption, even though most encryption experts had never heard of the company until it started a massive campaign of lawsuits. Yesterday, the company's litigation campaign was brought to an end when a panel of appeals judges refused (PDF) to give TQP a second chance to collect on a jury verdict against Newegg.
The TQP patent was invented by Michael Jones, whose company Telequip briefly sold a kind of encrypted modem. The company sold about 30 models before the modem business went bust. Famed patent enforcer Erich Spangenberg bought the TQP patent in 2008 and began filing lawsuits, saying that the Jones patent actually entitled him to royalties on a basic form of SSL Internet encryption. Spangenberg and Jones ultimately made more than $45 million from the patent.
TQP appealed its case, and oral arguments were heard at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 8. Yesterday, the three-judge panel found in Newegg's favor, issuing a short two-page order that did not explain its reasoning. While TQP could theoretically still appeal to the full Federal Circuit or to the Supreme Court, it's far from clear there's any legal issue in the case that would compel either of those bodies to take the case.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 01 2017, @09:17AM (3 children)
I have four patents to my name, albeit a major oil company I worked for at the time owns them.
We had patented these as a guarantee that some patent troll ( like what this story is all about ) could not nail us for coming up with this way of solving our problem, then hold us hostage for doing it.
It was built on prior art, just as damn near every other "invention" is. I oughta know. I was the "inventor".
To the best of my knowledge, the company never went after anyone else for making something similar. We simply aren't in the business to tell someone else they can't solve their problem the same way we did.
Patent trolls like this just make me sick. Its really getting to be a pain in the ass to be forced to obfuscate any contribution I may make toward advancement of humanity in order to try to shield myself or my employers from this kind of dirty pool.
When I was being educated, it curried much favor amongst my educators to foster in me a sense of curiosity and a drive to do things.... however my own Congress seems all poised to pen law backing those who will tell me to do nothing, be quiet, and do not investigate how things work. Just consume.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 01 2017, @09:38AM
Giving info away [soylentnews.org] instead of selling products is one way to get around it.
In cases where that isn't feasible... good luck dealing with trolls or Congress.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday March 01 2017, @04:36PM
It was built on prior art, just as damn near every other "invention" is.
No need to put "invention" in quotes, because that's what invention is. Like Newton said, quoting someone who lived over five hundred years earlier, "If I see further than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."
The arts are like that as well; the new is always built on the old. Imagine how technological progress would suffer if patents lasted as long as copyrights? That's how literature and especially music are suffering. Just be glad the Bono Act didn't cover hardware!
That law should have never been passed, and should be repealed.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sourcery42 on Wednesday March 01 2017, @05:40PM
I have my name on a patent too. In my eyes it was ridiculous. It is for a "novel combination of existing technologies." My experience mirrors yours in that the company owns it and it was essentially a cover your ass exercise. The worst part about it was working with the patent attorneys. Those guys are complete slimeballs. The worst lawyers I have ever crossed paths with. Their incentives and ways of doing things just comes across as perverse to those who tend to work more with technology than weasel words. It was quite possibly the most distasteful thing I've had to do in my professional career.