Patent Trolls & Wars
If patent trolls make your blood boil — do not read this article. Besides looking at everything you despise, it has some serious Kafka undertones.
Firstly, the term ‘patent troll’ itself was denoted as prejudicial by the Federal Trade Commission (not a joke):
“In the Commission’s view, a label like ‘patent troll’ is unhelpful because it invites pre-judgement about the societal impact of patent assertion activity without an understanding of the underlying business model that fuels such activity.”
And it gets weirder and weirder, or — as Alice said it better on her slightly less strange journey in Wonderland — curiouser and curiouser:
“A New Hampshire state court has dismissed a defamation suit filed by a patent owner unhappy that it had been called a ‘patent troll.’ The court ruled that the phrase ‘patent troll’ and other rhetorical characterizations are not the type of factual statements that can be the basis of a defamation claim. While this is a fairly routine application of defamation law and the First Amendment, it is an important reminder that patent assertion entities — or ‘patent troll’ — are not shielded from criticism. Regardless of your view about the patent system, this is a victory for freedom of expression.”
Defamation claim. Right. I hope you are sitting and not drinking your morning coffee, as I didn’t want you to spill it. Even hope you were already laying.
Yes, there was an actual trial (as in not a Kafka one), where a person named David Barcelou and his company Automated Transactions, LLC sued 13 (sic!) entities — including banking associations, banks, law firms, lawyers, and one very unlucky publisher called Crain’s New York Business for their old (2013) article Inventor or Patent Troll?
• Here’s Barcelou’s original complaint [PDF]
• And the court ruling [PDF]
Since Mr.Barcelou has already sued (for other reasons) a rather large number of entities even before this defamation case — and I really don’t want to be one of them — I must denote that I am absolutely on his side, and find the term ‘patent troll’ derogatory and unjust — even for the trolls (in the original, folklore definition). Besides everything, the term assumes that these magical cave-dwelling creatures are in the business of being ‘Patent Assertion Entities’ (PAEs) — as patent trolls insist to be called.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation just filed amicus brief to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, with its idea being that the First Amendment protects criticism of patent trolls.
Until this is settled, I will defend the patent t… assertion entities with all my might, fighting for them with no fear —basically, like a troll.
To be absolutely safe — as Amendments feel slightly less stone-carved these days — I also wanted to denote that I always loved our current overlord(s) too.
Amazing guys, five stars.
