Khalling did you read the article? That was what I got out of it. I didin't say anyone else did. A is indeed A, and they guy was stating so.

Eff an organization devoted to killing patents. Let's start with some facts. Any invention deserves property rights, morally and under the Constitution. The definition of an invention logically does not include the nonsensical idea of obvioiusness. Something that did not exist before it was created cannot be consider obvious.

Let's start with some other facts. The richest, most free, and the most technological advanced and the countries that create the overwhelming bulk of new technologies have the strongest patent laws. When you have some real facts come back.

Because there have been so many patents issued for (1) obvious ideas and (2) ideas that somebody did 40 years ago, at least in the field of computers, that plaintiffs of the kind I describe can be safely labeled as rent-seeking rather than creating value.

If you want evidence and/or examples, start at eff.org or publicknowledge.org.

Did I say 2nd Amendment? I must have guns on my mind. we were protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT!

Good find, Txs.

Because if I buy an apartment that I did not build, I have no rights to the property?

Fascinating!

Go get 'em! Love the response, to IP Nazis!

nick, I appreciate your posts. you have no objective evidence to support your multi-pointed claims. HELLO A is A

I have followed that. wow. great story and a little sad :(

The original article referred to has no details at all, but this one explains more about the technology disputed: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/...

"This past weekend I had a phone call from 360-761-1155. they claimed to be with the IRS and were demanding payment ..."

This IRS threat scam is very common and has unfortunately fooled a lot of people into paying thousands of dollars, probably because the scam so well fits the character of the IRS that it sounds plausible.

Honest or not, telemarketers are required to check their phone lists against the national list of those who have signed up on the 'do not call' list to not be harassed, but they routinely ignore it. Local police do nothing about these telephone scams and the FTC is slow to go after violators of the 'do not call' list, but you can sign up for the NoMoRobo service, which works with most telephone carriers like an anti-spam blacklist and reporting system: http://www.nomorobo.com/ It's a lot easier than trying to track them down yourself.

Nomorobo intercepts your incoming calls in parallel with your own telephone. It the source is on the blacklist your phone rings once and stops. If a spam caller gets through, you submit the caller ID number to Nomorobo for future blocking and automatic repeat reporting to the FTC.

With this system and reporting for new harassers we now get get dramatically fewer spam calls -- including elimination of the repetitious IRS threat scam Woodlema described. Like email spammers who avoid targets who report them to blacklists, the phone scammers seem to be doing their own filtering to stay out of trouble and mostly leave you alone when they figure out that you are defending yourself, even when they otherwise ignore the 'do not call' list.

Mostly yes. Certainly I would regard any company that doesn't do any inventing, but just buys broadly written patents and tries to enforce them, as a troll and a fraud.

Example 1 has to be the plaintiffs in SCO v. Linux, as well as a certain billionaire competitor who everyone knows was bankrolling them.

I did not read just the article.
Check out woodlema's post below.
I read it four hours after he posted here.

Very true!

Hear hear - good for you. I have also told clients that they eventually become known as an easy target if they always settle right away.

The legal system is a mess and it is absurd to suggest that patents are anywhere near the top of any list of things that need to be reformed.

Of all the rockers I met, Gene Simmons of KISS was the most avid free enterpriser. Here's the way a clever businessman thinks. While Gene is very protective of his copyrights, he realized there was nothing he could do about suing us, so instead, we joined forces and put out 5 new editions with his cooperation. When we closed the company, I turned the artwork and copyrights over to him for the cost of shipping.

Indeed!!

Pretty fair response, and what I would expect from a good attorney. Although not having experienced a patent fight, I have had battles with the EEOC and DOL, both of which were absurd interpretations of rules and regulations, and I received settlement offers in each case that my attorneys recommended I take. I soon realized that was the goal of the suits brought by both agencies, to force a bullied settlement out of fear, with full knowledge of no wrong doing existing on my company's side.

I remained firm even with a lot of shin kicks under the settlement conference tables from my attorneys for my oral responses (not written), and eventually the agencies caved in both cases. It cost quite a bit of money, but the settlement offers set precedence that offered future harm to my company and several others nationwide working in my field, which had ben the entire intent of bringing the actions. So my empathy lies with the guy being charged and I don't intend that there is any similarity between this case and mine.

My argument is not against patent law or honest actions, its the misuse of the system.

Awesome:

"I will pray tonight that karma is real, and that you are its worthy recipient"

Words as weapons....

Wait! Whoa! What he feels is irrelevant?? How can that be? I thought that what he feels is the most important thing. Isn't that what we are bombarded with day in and day out. "I feel offended." "I feel like I deserve a higher wage." "I feel like the rich don't pay enough in taxes."

There you go. Injecting reason into a feeling world. :)

I got enough out of the articles to know:
1. The guy had just gotten money for his company.
2.Some clown collection with no staff, and a mansion in Fla preys on such situations, after having bought as many little useless patents as they could so that anything related to a pancake (such as butter) is an infringement.
3.They had some shark bait lawyers who they probably have a deal with to share the profits so they don't have to pay the ridiculous hourly fees
4. They knocked their little peckers in the dirt, taking minor damage in return.
Having sued my dumb ass neighbor with 275 alpacas on 3 acres and never picked up any manure in 3 years for a nuisance, and getting 138 K in awards (which now I am blowing more money on a useless BK attorney after he fraudulently filed), I can sympathize with the whole thing.

This is just another form of looting. Imagine GM suing Galt because he made an engine. That is where I see this mess. Good for them!

The reality is that in our society, the legal profession has become the problem, as well as the pervasive nature of our culture based on the thinking "it's easier to settle than fight," attitude, i.e. medical malpractice, and the big payouts like the DUMBASS lady who squished McDonalds hot coffee in her own crotch and won a 5 million dollar lawsuit...if I had been on that jury she would not have received a dime. I bet she irons her pants after she puts them on too.

Until there is some REAL tort reform that address the frivolous and the outright fraudulent cases providing some significant penalty for fraud, I seriously question just about any claim made, especially when it does not pass the smell test. I just got 50 million today and tomorrow I am getting sued. The smell test is a good gauge, and common sense is generally pretty accurate..

CTYankee poses an interesting conundrum. Looking for infringement that is justified...possibly. think about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper, and the guy who invented texting.

Or how Microsoft outright STOLE the methods from Digital Equipment to make Windows NT clustering work. All legitimate.

But when someone is using vague, subtle ways to sue, when there is no real connection, especially when the first course of action is to sue, that is when I question things seriously.

The "Troll" in the example above, would have been much better served by directly approaching Chris and discussing their perception of the perceived infringement. Probably could have avoided the entire court battle. But when you look at the guy, big mansion no employees, just a holding company and a layer on retainer. Smells like troll to me.

there is not enough information in this article for any of us to come to this conclusion.

david, just because you lose a patent lawsuit, it means you are a troll? Every case has a winner and loser. where's the objectivity? Note the author of the article gives no information about his case-no substantive links that I saw. He reacted immediately to the charging letter with vitriol. Have you considered the other side was at all not fraudulent?