Patent troll Lodsys demands $5,000 from Martha Stewart. That was a bad idea

http://gigaom.com/2013/09/25/patent-troll-lodsys-demands-5000-from-martha-stewart-that-was-a-bad-idea/

by tmoretti • 13 years ago

67 18 13 years ago

a3n• 13 years ago

Well that's awkward. Lodsys is owned by Nathan Myhrvold' Intellectual Ventures. Nathan Myhrvold has been a guest on Martha Stewart's show.

http://www.marco.org/2013/08/08/lodsys-honest-headline

http://www.marthastewart.com/868204/modernist-cooking-chef-n...

karamazov• 13 years ago

Not really. The show had 1000 episodes [1], and the Martha Stewart brand covers a number of businesses. It'd be unusual if no one who'd ever been on the show had a business conflict with any of those businesses.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_(TV_series)

thinkcomp• 13 years ago

The allegation of the link between Lodsys and IV has not yet been conclusively proven as far as I can tell.

However, I did do some research into Lodsys and found this interesting fact:

http://www.plainsite.org/articles/article.html?id=3

Also, lawsuit docket here:

http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2531707

bastards• 13 years ago

I'd never mess with Martha Stewart.

djrogers• 13 years ago

That lady's done time - you don't mess with a lady that's done time...

lnanek2• 13 years ago

Haha, yeah, in the app industry this is referred to as the welcome package. Most people aren't allowed to talk about it due to the terms. Good to see someone actually try to fight it.

greenyoda• 13 years ago

Interesting that Martha Stewart is suing Lodsys in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin:

"On information and belief, Mr. Small [CEO of Lodsys] conducts Lodsys’s business from an office located in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, within this jurisdictional district. Accordingly, on information and belief, Lodsys’s primary place of business and/or headquarters is located within this judicial district."

Maybe that court will be more reasonable than the one in Texas where the patent trolls like to file their suits?

dangero• 13 years ago

This article lacks substance. Martha Stewart may not have it in for patent trolls at all. It may be that she's a big target and her council has advised her to make an example out of any patent trolls that approach her. This could also mean that she has lawyers that are interested in racking up big bills.

cloudwalking• 13 years ago

How does Martha Stewart have the motivation and resources that Apple doesn't? I'm skeptical.

barkingcat• 13 years ago

Apple was barred from acting legally because it is an at-arms entity - the lawsuits do not technically involve Apple directly so no matter how much money or resources Apple had, they couldn't countersue for the subject matter at hand. In this case, Apples hands were tied.

Apple can sue Lodsys directly for something different, but cannot countersue for claims that Lodsys have brought against indy / small apps publishers.

Of course, a solution would be for Apple to purchase an indy developer currently being sued, and thus be able to defend the developer because it now involves Apple, but I doubt that is scalable for all the people being sued.

Another solution might be to provide free, ongoing legal aid (100 free lawyers for the community would be great) for all companies being threatened this way - but Apple is not running a charity.

Martha Stewart is being threatened directly, so they have the ability to respond (since they have the funding/resources to do so).

paulsutter• 13 years ago

The solution to patent trolls is a simple change to the law: patents should only be used to recover actual damages to an existing business from infringers, not force licensing fees.

That way patents could only be asserted against direct competitors that copied your design. Since patent trolls have no real business they'd have no actual damages.

tracker1• 13 years ago

How would you suggest companies that design systems like ARM survive under your concept?

I'd be for much stricter terms for patents, ie, they have to work with a physical device.. not a "virtualized computing environment" ex: no software patents. Or, software patents should be limited to 3-5 years.

All patents should have to be both unique, and non-obvious... no more derivative patents, or limit derivative patents to 5 years.

A patent system where there are different classes of patent, lowest being 3 years for system, process, or strictly software patents... to 20 years for hard, physical manufactured inventions.

bryanlarsen• 13 years ago

Much of ARM's business is also protected by copyright.

halviti• 13 years ago

If this were the case, anyone with manufacturing power can just monitor the USPTO for filings, create your product faster than you and release it to market months or years before your product gets there.

acd• 13 years ago

During the BBS modem era there was a proper term for people who was only sucking out data from the system but not giving anything back they were called Leechers. Patent trolls are Leechers that pray on the true innovators in society and suck out money.

How come we allow and tolerate this type of software patents at all? Algorithms are similar to mathematics and mathematics you cannot patent because the next step builds on the previous one.

noptic• 13 years ago

Troll description from From D&D:

"Trolls are infamous for their regenerative abilities, able to recover from the most grievous of wounds or regenerate entire limbs given time.

Severing a troll's head results merely in temporary incapacitation, rather than death. After cutting off a troll's head or other limbs, one must seal the wounds with fire or acid to prevent regeneration.

Because of this, most adventurers will typically carry some sort of implement capable of creating fire."

IMPORTANT NOTE: So not take this literaly.

Diping a Lodsys exec in acid sounds like fun, but you will get in serious trouble!

highwise• 13 years ago

If I were a young and enterprising lawyer (I am not, I am programmer), I would sell companies bullied by patent trolls legal defense for 90% of the sum being blackmailed.

Companies that "took advantage of this program" would be entitled to everything included legal defense in future demand arising from not yielding to the patent trolls.

Startups would only pay 90% of the extorted sum, and also have the advantage of not giving in and helping perpetuate the trolls' scheme.

I as a lawyer would earn a lot of income but would only have to defend in court a small number of app developers actually being sued.

I think something like this would work because what really intimidates small entrepreneurs is not losing the case in court, but just the onerous weight of fighting the case, no matter its outcome.

The community would benefit from patent trolls earning less money.

Finally, I know that there is a chance that patent trolls would litigate against each and every one refusing to give in. But in that case they would be DoSing themselves.

harveyro• 13 years ago

As a young lawyer, you wouldn't have the experience or resources to fight back effectively. The trolls' lawyers would know this, and they might be more likely to litigate as a result.

Patent troll Lodsys demands $5,000 from Martha Stewart. That was a bad idea

Related Stories