He
starts his talk saying that his company Fark.com was sued along with many other large corporations such as Yahoo,
MSN, Reddit, AOL, TechCrunch and others by a company called Gooseberry Natural
Resources. Gooseberry owned a patent for the creation and distribution of news
releases via email. Now it may seem kind of strange that such a thing can
actually be patented, but it does happen all the time.
Curtis explains that the
problem with these patents is that the mechanisms are obscure and the patent
system is dysfunctional, and as a result, most of these lawsuits end in
settlements. And because these settlements are under a non-disclosure
agreement, no one knows what the terms were. And as a result, the patent troll
can claim that they won the case. Also, “Patent
troll” is a term given to anyone who files a patent for something already being
done, and then sues the people already doing it
He explains that one of
the major problems with patent law is that, in the case that when you are sued
by a patent troll, the burden of proof that you did not infringe on the patent
is actually on the defendant, which means you have to prove that you do not
infringe on the patent they're suing you on. And this can take quite a while. You
need to know that the average patent troll defense costs two million dollars
and takes 18 months when you win. That is your best case outcome when you get
sued by a patent troll.
Watch the video: http://blog.ted.com/6-talks-about-problems-with-patents/
Watch the video: http://blog.ted.com/6-talks-about-problems-with-patents/
Hi Vruti,
ReplyDeleteNice analysis of the Drew Curtis Ted Talk. I thought your summary and highlights of his key points in his presentation was quite thorough and clear. I'm just curious about your thoughts on patent trolls, especially with the way Curtis presented it? He really was quite aggressive towards them and his techniques were quite unfamiliar so maybe next time, you can highlight your opinion more so on the information presented, but otherwise awesome post!
Great summary! I think Drew Curtis set a precedent here and hopefully more people/organizations affected by patent trolls will gain the courage to fight back! Great analysis!
ReplyDeleteGreat video Vruti. I think that Drew Curtis was very bold in his approach to taking on a patent troll. He stood up for what was right and it paid off for him in the end. Great analysis. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteHi Vruti, this is a great summary of Drew's talk. I like your explanation on patent trolls, and I like how you mentioned the exact flaw of this system, that the burden of proof of infringement is actually on the defendant, which is very hard to prove..
ReplyDeleteI really liked what Drew Curtis said and you did a wonderful job of summarizing it. I think that he took a risk to stand up to the trolls, but in the end called their bluff. I think that he ultimately determined the weakness of patent trolls.
ReplyDeleteVruti,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. I really liked to see that you pointed out that patents litigation works fundamentaly differently than criminal precedings. The fact that the defendant is guilty of infringement until they prove otherwise seems like such a skewed way to run a legal system.
Mark