Drew Curtis, the founder of Fark.com, gave a Ted Talk on his process in challenging and defeating a patent troll that claimed that his company was infringing on their patent for the creation and distribution of news releases via email. Naturally, I found this story quite amusing and certain points really stuck out to me during his presentation.
Along with his company, Mr. Curtis noted that other large organizations such as Yahoo, MSN, TechCrunch, and others were also accused of infringement by Gooseberry, but rather than defend themselves, these companies choose to settle in hopes of avoiding the high costs that are associated with patent infringement lawsuits. The irony behind this that caught my attention was the inability of Gooseberry to defend its own lawsuit when Mr. Curtis did not give in to their settlement demands. Gooseberry couldn't even provide screenshots of Fark where the infringement of their patent was occurring. To further compound the hilarity of this situation, they pressed Fark further into settling. In my belief, if this doesn't go to show you the pathetic nature of these trolls and the need for the justice system to take action against these companies, I don't know what further proof you need to highlight the systemic damage these trolls cause on innovation. As the accuser, they cannot even come up with the evidence against the defendant, making it blatantly obvious that their existence solely is to manipulate the patent system for money rather than defending any intellectual property.
2. Lessons learned.
I thought Mr. Curtis brought up some unique defenses in how to combat these trolls. Fighting the infringement, not the patent is definitely a safer route of action to take against these trolls. It's easier to force their hand into showing what aspect you are infringing rather than going up against their patent, which is traditionally difficult to overturn. Making it clear to the troll that you have no money or you would rather spend money fighting the troll rather than giving them any money is another good option as the troll becomes fearful of not recovering any money. And in general, making the entire process extremely difficult and painful for them, simply frustrates them and pushes them into making poor decisions and weakening their allegations. I feel that this way mentally "trolls the troll" as their arguments become weaker and the evidence they draw up against companies really isn't as strong as they thought it would be.
3. Trolls are terrorists.
It's a bit of an extreme statement, but when you consider the fact that trolls have done more damage to the U.S. economy than any domestic or foreign terrorist organization in history every year, it shows you how much harm they cause to the economic environment we exist in. I don't argue with the principles of the free-market economy and capitalism because I believe they have proven to be the most efficient market systems in the world historically, but you cannot possibly defend those who manipulate and hold the markets hostage in such manners. If we have taken such a priority to defend our nation against terrorists both domestically and abroad, shouldn't we take the initiative to defend our economy against those manipulating it? Their has been nothing good coming from the existence of trolls and it's about time we take back our rights of innovation and creation.
Another great analysis, Rushil -- well done (again)! Its really interesting how many firms choose to just settle the case with patent trolls at the outset due to the high costs of fighting it. In this case, I admire Drew Curtis's determination.
ReplyDelete