Meet the nice-guy lawyers who want $1,000 per worker for using scanners

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/meet-the-nice-guy-lawyers-who-want-1000-per-worker-for-using-scanners/

by jnand • 13 years ago

137 80 13 years ago

blackhole• 13 years ago

"I'd appreciate you not running a photo of me, anywhere," said Rust. "You know how photographs work, with copyright and all. If there's a photograph up online of me, I own it."

I guess lawyers don't read the terms and conditions when they use websites, either.

nwh• 13 years ago

If it wasn't clear; that statement is blatantly false.

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

He's not a very good lawyer. The photographer owns the copyright interest in any photos they take. the subject may have an interest based on their 'right of publicity,' but that's something quite different.

m0nastic• 13 years ago

In our copyright class in school, we were taught that photographers do give up copyright in the specific case of work-for-hire (with all the criteria for determining work-for-hire that entails; a la CCNV vs Reid).

I've certainly had to get "work-for-hire" verbiage stricken from client contracts, but I'd love to be wrong about that.

As far as I'm aware though, except for that, copyright is granted to the "artist" who created the work[1].

[1] With one famous exception: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-we...

pixl97• 13 years ago

He knows that he's such an asshole, he doesn't want his image out there in case of reprisal.

hkmurakami• 13 years ago

He does seem to have a nice smile, and probably has a firm handshake.

ugh.

noonespecial• 13 years ago

If I were in his business I don't think I'd want my picture out there either. You can probably steal from people like this and 99.99% of those people do the "smart" thing and just get on with their lives. But if you send enough extortion letters, eventually you'll roll over a nutcase like a landmine and life will get "interesting" after that.

prawn3• 13 years ago

Who'd dare mess with a guy who poses in a hat like that?

waterlesscloud• 13 years ago

Excellent. Harassing hundreds of small-to-medium business people (likely friends and contributors of lawmakers) is an excellent plan. I'm in favor of it.

someperson• 13 years ago

So the anonymous owners of these companies are actually disgustingly taking advantage of the US patent system not to make a profit but simply express its brokenness and to encourage reform?

That's a good conspiracy theory :)

kaoD3• 13 years ago

Actually, the way he repeated "you should contact an IP attorney, he'll explain you how it all works" throughout the whole interview made me think that.

Or maybe it's the way he justifies (rationalizes?) his actions to himself.

jdotjdot• 13 years ago

I sort of really hope this is actually the case. As long as no one actually ends up paying them any money.

cperciva2• 13 years ago

I don't know who first made this observation, but the best way to get a dumb law changed is to enforce it strictly. I can't help thinking that this is a good thing...

nh• 13 years ago

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

mav3r1ck• 13 years ago

I really don't think Lincoln said that (assuming he did, Lincoln certainly didn't try to apply that to the question of slavery, so under what context did he say it?). My sense of history smell is calling shenanigans and a quick search shows it's one of those things that was probably made up as I couldn't easily find an actual source.

Sorry to be slightly off-topic here, but it grinds my gears when using a made up quote by someone famous who didn't say actually it (and never likely did historically) doesn't add any real value to a conversation.

redact207• 13 years ago

US patent law applies to any company that runs in the US - or to any company that operates in the country where the patent was filed.

Does anyone know how this applies to online companies that are registered and operated outside of the US, but still make a portion of sales from US customers?

I'd assume many startups are susceptible to infringing on patented ideas that were never implemented; and leave them vulnerable to this sort of stupidity.

kghose• 13 years ago

How can you patent an action? Could some one please clarify what it is that was patented? The sequence of pressing a set of particular buttons? Really?

holograham• 13 years ago

not patenting an action but a system. In this case, as the article specifies, the combination of a scanner, LAN, and application software that allows a user to one button send a scanned image to email. Yes these are patentable under current law.

pravda• 13 years ago

Isn't it fairly trivial to get around this patent? Instead of 'one-click' to scan a document and email it, just scan the document to a file and then attach the file to an email.

Training employees to do this would cost less then $1000/employer that the patent holder is asking.

joelwilliamson• 13 years ago

What I'm interested in is how they determine someone is one-click scanning to email. Do they just bulk mail to businesses and hope their targets use this system?

ScottBurson2• 13 years ago

It certainly sounded that way from his careful description on the phone call:

"If you said you hooked it up to the Internet, and in one button, you can scan and e-mail directly out—yes, you have violated the patent that we own."

njharman3• 13 years ago

I don't believe you actually have to use a thing for the thing to be in violation of patent. Just having created the thing (connecting network to scanner with 1 click scan to email) is in violation of patent.

dogweather2• 13 years ago

Certain "processes" can be patented.

r0s2• 13 years ago

Maybe patents should have restrictions on transferal? This kind of problem would be less frequent if the original inventor had a period where the patent was non-transferable.

What might happen? Would this decrease patent hoarding and trolling? Would options to buy make waiting periods ineffective?

esrauch• 13 years ago

Likely that would just mean that the troll company would pay the same upfront sum to the owner for the right to "represent" them and sue other companies and keep any revenues.

Also, consider when StartupX is bought by BigCo., and BigCo wants to simply keep the company running exactly as it was. Clearly someone else is controlling the patents than the original owner of the company.

r0s2• 13 years ago

Patent trolling is probably unavoidable, but I'd say much less likely when it's initiated by individuals. Legitimate claims must be accessible, and the courts need to be the test.

Your second point cuts to the heart of the issue, should patents be treated as traditional assets? One possibility: Once you sell your patent, it loses legal protection and becomes merely a trade secret.

kaoD3• 13 years ago

And why are the users and not the printer companies being sued for this?

dangrossman• 13 years ago

Nobody's being sued. They want settlements, not litigation. The printer companies would refuse to pay the settlement offers, so the lawyers get nothing. The 10-employee companies can't afford litigation, so there's a chance they'll pay off the troll to avoid it.

kaoD3• 13 years ago

So it's basically extortion?

"It'd be a shame if something happened to your little business..."

spc476• 13 years ago

If I were running a business that got one of these "settlement" letters, I say, "sue me." Then I'd turn right around and sue the printer company for failing to indemnify me for using their products and basically, force them into the fight.

btilly• 13 years ago

That is the heart of patent trolling.

With a weak patent you do not want a single victim with deep enough pockets to fight it. You want a large number who will pay you something to go away and stop ruining their lives.

jsmeaton2• 13 years ago

I want to know the same thing. Doesn't the printer manufacturer license these patents so each user does not have to themselves? I just can't understand how this bs is allowed.

roel_v4• 13 years ago

It's in the article.

njharman3• 13 years ago

If you actually read the article simple questions like this will be answered.

roel_v4• 13 years ago

The article goes into that. The idea is that it infringes only at the moment the device is hooked up to a network.

prawn3• 13 years ago

How is that really inventing anything? They're either following instructions to use a product, or doing something completely obvious.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent of patents, but I would've thought they protected the interests of the inventor against competition by other inventors rather than users of an invented product?

robterrell• 13 years ago

I might have worked on some prior art related to this. In 1993 I worked on a project for a "superfax" system for the NCSU library. It was basically a scanner hooked up to a Mac that would send the resulting tiff files over FTP. It was a great learning experience (well... scsi scanners can blow me, tiff is nuts, the ftp protocol is way over-complicated, but I was doing real internet socket programming in 1993, for money!). It was certainly a one-click scan-and-send solution. Maybe we can get this fucker overturned. (If the email angle isn't essential, which now that I think about it, it probably is.)

ScottBurson2• 13 years ago

That might be close enough prior art to get the patent ruled obvious.

I mean, it ought to have been discarded as obvious in any case, but maybe sticking this in the PTO's face would help. Do you have any evidence?

wiml• 13 years ago

NeXTmail had some very similar scan/fax/email integration, but it might not have been until a couple of years later than that --- I don't remember.

vxNsr• 13 years ago

Yes, contact the author so he can put you in touch with the proper lawyers

walshemj• 13 years ago

I seem to recall that telecom gold (dialcom in the us) had an experimental email/fax gateway back in the 80's.

smoyer• 13 years ago

I was building distance learning systems in 1997 and 1998 that included the ability to send faxes across a TCP/IP network. There were two devices (already on the market) that allowed you to push the send button on the fax machine, and forward it another similarly configured fax machine.

The intermediate format was to send a TIFF file to an e-mail server ... this sure sounds a lot like the patents being foisted upon small businesses today. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of either device, but I've got a picture of me hiking with my kids in one of these company's t-shirts. More to come!

chickopozo2• 13 years ago

I bought a Canon scanner in 1996. It had a one click email button on it. I hooked my computer to the net so... does this mean I should really hold the patent?

chickopozo2• 13 years ago

I think the software was called canoscan.

juiceandjuice• 13 years ago

Prior art for this predates the World Wide Web. The physics arxiv and SPIRES database were doing this in the 80s.

reader50003• 13 years ago

Did NOT expect patent troll cowboy.

But seriously, these people should be disbarred.

krichman• 13 years ago

And he was formerly involved in a Ponzi scheme. Why is it so hard for these people to make an honest living?

IheartApplesDix• 13 years ago

its a two way street. these companies would do the vary same thing the second it becomes profitable.

prawn3• 13 years ago

Did you read the bit about how he escaped any penalty previously? Nothing's taught him otherwise.

crazytony• 13 years ago

The patent quoted in the article has to do with software api compatibility.

Other than a repeated reference to an OCR wrapper, I don't see how this has to do with email, printing or using a single button to send. In fact, it seems like Mr. Klien is asserting that he has discovered middleware. In 1998.

Is there some other non-referenced case law that narrows the scope of this patent to the above printer scenario?

nhebb• 13 years ago

Could an enterprising lawyer file a class action suit against the printer manufacturers on behalf of the letter recipients? They have mass marketed items that violate patents to unwitting consumers.

I don't think this is any less unethical that what the patent trolls are doing, but at least it may force the issue to come to a head.

Yaggo• 13 years ago

The hidden costs for the whole US society/economy must be huge due to broken laws. (Stalled innovation, reduced efficiency, etc.)

psionski3• 13 years ago

There are some really smart people in the USA, but sadly this doesn't apply to their leaders. The only thing they're good at is running massive propaganda campaigns (to the point where some people think they're proud to work two jobs and barely have something to eat).

brazzy4• 13 years ago

The funny thing is that most people who actually meet their political representative in person will tell you that this really is an honest, hard-working guy with the best interests of everyone in mind, totally different from all those crooked idiot politicians...

robryan• 13 years ago

I think they know that there is a very good chance this will be invalidated if it found its way to a case.

Unless I was running a massive company I would ignore this. It would be nowhere near lucrative enough for them to risk the case.

asmithmd1• 13 years ago

At least people outside of tech are starting to notice there is a problem with patent law. Check out the "Tabarrok curve":

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/09/pat...

tterrace• 13 years ago

It would be interesting to see if these groups of small companies could band together and share resources to fight something like this. On their own, a small company has no shot but everyone that received the letter together might.

arbuge• 13 years ago

Anything but nice guys. With a fake smile, their message to small companies is to pay up or they'll break your knuckles... these people are about as socially useful as a bunch of rats making a living from raiding food stores.

jawns• 13 years ago

If a company pays the licensing fee to get the patent troll off its back, and the patent is later invalidated ... does the company have any way of recovering the licensing fee it has paid?

dctoedt• 13 years ago

I used to know Bryan Farney quite well; we were partners in the same IP litigation firm. (I haven't been in touch with him in probably 15 years.)

Do not underestimate Bryan. He's a brilliant and highly competent lawyer, a seasoned litigator, and a very focused individual. He knows the tech industry from the inside; in one incarnation, he was general counsel at Micron Technology. IIRC correctly, after that he was a partner in Brobeck's Austin office before that firm imploded. Personally Bryan is indeed a nice guy, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a pushover.

Meet the nice-guy lawyers who want $1,000 per worker for using scanners

Related Stories