Judge awards EFF almost $30k for fighting off patent on photo contests

"Ranking things in categories... was well known before the Internet."

Read the whole story

 

[rick*d]

jwo7777777[/url]":hxjpgh9p]

DCStone[/url]":hxjpgh9p]

iampanis[/url]":hxjpgh9p]

caldepen[/url]":hxjpgh9p]Ironic that people billing $1000 an hour for something are the good guys...

They're not billing anything close to $1000 an hour. $30,000/51 hours = $588/hour

Engineer's rounding: 0.588x10^3 rounds to 1x10^3.

Should be 5.88E2 rounding to 5.9E2 or 6E2. Still well under 1E3 even for engineering purposes even if it is insignificant for federal budget economists.

Yes, but as an engineer I look at the change from 5.88E2 to 1E3 and say to myself "they didn't even double it. not much of a safety factor".

 

[isparavanje]

Stories like that give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

 

[mandy2tom]

I'm not really sure you could call it the supreme court anymore at least for now it certainly doesn't rain supreme
Maybe SUBPREME ??

??

If the Supreme Court's ruling is tied 4 to 4 and are sent to a lower court

The article referenced a Supreme Court ruling

I'm just thinking as long as they're missing a judge we need a new interim name for them???

 

[isparavanje]

rick*d[/url]":1tlysdlh]

jwo7777777[/url]":1tlysdlh]

DCStone[/url]":1tlysdlh]

iampanis[/url]":1tlysdlh]

caldepen[/url]":1tlysdlh]Ironic that people billing $1000 an hour for something are the good guys...

They're not billing anything close to $1000 an hour. $30,000/51 hours = $588/hour

Engineer's rounding: 0.588x10^3 rounds to 1x10^3.

Should be 5.88E2 rounding to 5.9E2 or 6E2. Still well under 1E3 even for engineering purposes even if it is insignificant for federal budget economists.

Yes, but as an engineer I look at the change from 5.88E2 to 1E3 and say to myself "they didn't even double it. not much of a safety factor".

In physics we look at the number after the E most of the time. (varies by field of course)

 

[rick*d]

isparavanje[/url]"2bzkxum]

rick*d[/url]"2bzkxum]

jwo7777777[/url]"2bzkxum]

DCStone[/url]"2bzkxum]

iampanis[/url]"2bzkxum]

caldepen[/url]"2bzkxum]Ironic that people billing $1000 an hour for something are the good guys...

They're not billing anything close to $1000 an hour. $30,000/51 hours = $588/hour

Engineer's rounding: 0.588x10^3 rounds to 1x10^3.

Should be 5.88E2 rounding to 5.9E2 or 6E2. Still well under 1E3 even for engineering purposes even if it is insignificant for federal budget economists.

Yes, but as an engineer I look at the change from 5.88E2 to 1E3 and say to myself "they didn't even double it. not much of a safety factor".

In physics we look at the number after the E most of the time. (varies by field of course)

Physics is all well and good but engineering is how you turn physics into useful products, and useful products need safety factors. Sure, you guys figured out how to make a teleporter, but it took engineers to make a safe teleporter.

 

[THavoc]

isparavanje[/url]":2romm4yi]Stories like that give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Might want to have a doctor check that out.

It doesn't sound healthy.

 

[rick*d]

THavoc[/url]":1q2cnh6j]

isparavanje[/url]":1q2cnh6j]Stories like that give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Might want to have a doctor check that out.

It doesn't sound healthy.

Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it's not healthy. ;-)

 

[THavoc]

rick*d[/url]":37v9k9oq]

THavoc[/url]":37v9k9oq]

isparavanje[/url]":37v9k9oq]Stories like that give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Might want to have a doctor check that out.

It doesn't sound healthy.

Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it's not healthy. ;-)

True, that is why someone invented Viagra.

 

[isparavanje]

THavoc[/url]":33ke7e3d]

rick*d[/url]":33ke7e3d]

THavoc[/url]":33ke7e3d]

isparavanje[/url]":33ke7e3d]Stories like that give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Might want to have a doctor check that out.

It doesn't sound healthy.

Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it's not healthy. ;-)

True, that is why someone invented Viagra.

Um, not that (fuzzy??? What) feeling.

 

[mandy2tom]

Ahh the sweet smell of programmers overheating their CPUs in the morning

 

[Boskone]

fishbait[/url]":7iom8c1n]i swear at this rate we need a new law
one that says
if you use any patent to demand royalties and this demand goes to court with a set hearing date,
then you choose to dismiss your claims before the hearing date then your patent is rendered invalid.

and

if you push for royalties and prior to the cases conclusion dismiss your case in court your patent is ruled invalid

those simple tenets would severely curb patent trolls since their greatest billy club is threatening litigation
now they couldnt do that without facing equal risk as their victims.

edit: basically dismissal of any case involving a patent by the party with the patent will render the patent invalid

edit2: alright downvoter(s) i await your replies.

Both of your suggestions negate the possibility of a settlement in the event of a valid claim, meaning there would essentially only be a nuclear option for patent enforcement.

They also negate the possibility of a good-faith claim that proves invalid.

 

[ReaderBot]

Dadlyedly[/url]":2pk6a28a]

Draven11[/url]":2pk6a28a]The sad thing is that despite these rulings, the US Patent Office continues to approve patents like this that are obviously not inventions. A patent from last year comes to mind, effectively patenting the process of a receptionist checking in a patient by adding the term "using a computer." :/

It's because the applicant pays the USPTO, not the rest of us. You do what the customer (the applicant) pays you to do. We would be better served if the fees went into the general fund, and the USPTO was fully funded by taxes.

The clients shouldn't be paying to approve. They should be paying to apply, regardless of whether their application gets approved. And each reapplication should be charged as a new application.

I'm not sure if that's the way it works now or not, but if it is, the application fee should be drastically increased, because there's obviously more demand than supply in that market.

 

[ReaderBot]

So, did the patent get thrown out?

 

[joemullin]

adamrussell[/url]":2gxj5qq5]
That doesnt mean he has to approve it, and how do you even know that the same examiner would get the revised application?

How do I know? Because I've read patent file wrappers. A lot of them are long arguments with the same examiners.

 

[mandy2tom]

In a good old-fashioned western movie they would say...

"Patent trolls and their lawyer's should be taken out in the street and shot down like the dirty dogs that they are"

Has a nice ring to it
Too bad this isn't the movies

 

[fishbait]

Boskone[/url]":1lc5kwoc]

fishbait[/url]":1lc5kwoc]i swear at this rate we need a new law
one that says
if you use any patent to demand royalties and this demand goes to court with a set hearing date,
then you choose to dismiss your claims before the hearing date then your patent is rendered invalid.

and

if you push for royalties and prior to the cases conclusion dismiss your case in court your patent is ruled invalid

those simple tenets would severely curb patent trolls since their greatest billy club is threatening litigation
now they couldnt do that without facing equal risk as their victims.

edit: basically dismissal of any case involving a patent by the party with the patent will render the patent invalid

edit2: alright downvoter(s) i await your replies.

Both of your suggestions negate the possibility of a settlement in the event of a valid claim, messing there would essentially only be a nuclear option for patent enforcement.

They also negate the possibility of a good-faith claim that proves invalid.

the settlement point would be an exception i meant it to mean a dismissal solely by the iniating party with the patent whereas in a settlement it is a dismissal by both parties. and anyone who had a good faith claim wouldnt dismiss their suit would they.

 

[sheepless]

I can't celebrate too much. Austin Hansley will just shrug and continue with their scumbag activities, and I'm guessing Garofalo has successfully shaken down other sites in the past, for an overall profit. There's no realistic prospect of effective reform, and nobody will go to jail.

 

[mandy2tom]

My second favorite

BT loses hyperlink patent case
BT has lost its lawsuit against Prodigy, in which it claimed that the entire Internet infringed on its 'hyperlink patent'. If BT had won, every ISP could have been forced to pay royalties

Next too

When Verizon sent me an eight dollar refund for failing to stop charging me for the telegraph tax

 

[Boskone]

fishbait[/url]":ufbyu8pq]

Boskone[/url]":ufbyu8pq]

fishbait[/url]":ufbyu8pq]i swear at this rate we need a new law
one that says
if you use any patent to demand royalties and this demand goes to court with a set hearing date,
then you choose to dismiss your claims before the hearing date then your patent is rendered invalid.

and

if you push for royalties and prior to the cases conclusion dismiss your case in court your patent is ruled invalid

those simple tenets would severely curb patent trolls since their greatest billy club is threatening litigation
now they couldnt do that without facing equal risk as their victims.

edit: basically dismissal of any case involving a patent by the party with the patent will render the patent invalid

edit2: alright downvoter(s) i await your replies.

Both of your suggestions negate the possibility of a settlement in the event of a valid claim, messing there would essentially only be a nuclear option for patent enforcement.

They also negate the possibility of a good-faith claim that proves invalid.

the settlement point would be an exception i meant it to mean a dismissal solely by the iniating party with the patent whereas in a settlement it is a dismissal by both parties. and anyone who had a good faith claim wouldnt dismiss their suit would they.

What if the initiating party decided to license or, GPL-style? They may not be interested in licensing small fry, or developers, but still intend enforcement against large or commercial use? Why shouldn't someone be able to just change their mind about how they use their IP?

Of course a good faith claim could still get dismissed. A company isn't going to let you dig into the nuts and bolts of their products just because you have a patent, but something might be found during discovery that changes whether it infringes. Hell, with a lot of corporate groups these days, it'd be possible to find out one business unit is infringing something at the same time another is licensing it, but neither knew. So you start a suit in perfectly good faith, only to find that it's covered by a licensed you couldn't reasonably know about.

 

[fishbait]

Boskone[/url]":3ei0hffv]

fishbait[/url]":3ei0hffv]

Boskone[/url]":3ei0hffv]

fishbait[/url]":3ei0hffv]i swear at this rate we need a new law
one that says
if you use any patent to demand royalties and this demand goes to court with a set hearing date,
then you choose to dismiss your claims before the hearing date then your patent is rendered invalid.

and

if you push for royalties and prior to the cases conclusion dismiss your case in court your patent is ruled invalid

those simple tenets would severely curb patent trolls since their greatest billy club is threatening litigation
now they couldnt do that without facing equal risk as their victims.

edit: basically dismissal of any case involving a patent by the party with the patent will render the patent invalid

edit2: alright downvoter(s) i await your replies.

Both of your suggestions negate the possibility of a settlement in the event of a valid claim, messing there would essentially only be a nuclear option for patent enforcement.

They also negate the possibility of a good-faith claim that proves invalid.

the settlement point would be an exception i meant it to mean a dismissal solely by the iniating party with the patent whereas in a settlement it is a dismissal by both parties. and anyone who had a good faith claim wouldnt dismiss their suit would they.

What if the initiating party decided to license or, GPL-style? They may not be interested in licensing small fry, or developers, but still intend enforcement against large or commercial use? Why shouldn't someone be able to just change their mind about how they use their IP?

Of course a good faith claim could still get dismissed. A company isn't going to let you dig into the nuts and bolts of their products just because you have a patent, but something might be found during discovery that changes whether it infringes. Hell, with a lot of corporate groups these days, it'd be possible to find out one business unit is infringing something at the same time another is licensing it, but neither knew. So you start a suit in perfectly good faith, only to find that it's covered by a licensed you couldn't reasonably know about.

in those cases a settlement could be reached where they both agree to walk away with no damage kind of a cease fire agreement. and the case would end

in the gpl license enforcement against large corps example they wouldnt voluntarily dismiss their case as is the type of dismissal you typically see when a troll tries to run b4 their patent is invalidated.
i will admit that perhaps i should have specified i mean voluntary dismissals prior to judgement

 

[KiwiPhred]

I wonder when we will see the first attempt by a failed troll to sue the Patent Office for misleading them that their patent was valid. "Well, if the Patent Office hadn't granted the patent we wouldn't have sued, lost and had costs awarded to us."

 

[Boskone]

fishbait[/url]":22oeulwk]

Boskone[/url]":22oeulwk]

fishbait[/url]":22oeulwk]

Boskone[/url]":22oeulwk]

fishbait[/url]":22oeulwk]i swear at this rate we need a new law
one that says
if you use any patent to demand royalties and this demand goes to court with a set hearing date,
then you choose to dismiss your claims before the hearing date then your patent is rendered invalid.

and

if you push for royalties and prior to the cases conclusion dismiss your case in court your patent is ruled invalid

those simple tenets would severely curb patent trolls since their greatest billy club is threatening litigation
now they couldnt do that without facing equal risk as their victims.

edit: basically dismissal of any case involving a patent by the party with the patent will render the patent invalid

edit2: alright downvoter(s) i await your replies.

Both of your suggestions negate the possibility of a settlement in the event of a valid claim, messing there would essentially only be a nuclear option for patent enforcement.

They also negate the possibility of a good-faith claim that proves invalid.

the settlement point would be an exception i meant it to mean a dismissal solely by the iniating party with the patent whereas in a settlement it is a dismissal by both parties. and anyone who had a good faith claim wouldnt dismiss their suit would they.

What if the initiating party decided to license or, GPL-style? They may not be interested in licensing small fry, or developers, but still intend enforcement against large or commercial use? Why shouldn't someone be able to just change their mind about how they use their IP?

Of course a good faith claim could still get dismissed. A company isn't going to let you dig into the nuts and bolts of their products just because you have a patent, but something might be found during discovery that changes whether it infringes. Hell, with a lot of corporate groups these days, it'd be possible to find out one business unit is infringing something at the same time another is licensing it, but neither knew. So you start a suit in perfectly good faith, only to find that it's covered by a licensed you couldn't reasonably know about.

in those cases a settlement could be reached where they both agree to walk away with no damage kind of a cease fire agreement. and the case would end

in the gpl license enforcement against large corps example they wouldnt voluntarily dismiss their case as is the type of dismissal you typically see when a troll tries to run b4 their patent is invalidated.
i will admit that perhaps i should have specified i mean voluntary dismissals prior to judgement

So what if you have an adversarial defendant? Remember that "overly enthusiastic" people will come up on both sides. So a small inventor--say, a start-up--sues a larger, infringing company. It's to the defendant's benefit to force a settlement or, better yet, for the plaintiff to drop the suit and invalidate the patent. When you have someone on the scale of Microsoft or Apple, it's not a stretch for them to cost-effectively out-spend most everyone else.

The point you're missing is that your suggestion reduces the options available, but doesn't really effect the underlying issues. With patents, as they are, you always have to assume the system will be abused.

With less absolute rules the damage can be at least mitigated, like the fact that loser-pays is an option (but not required) now. But if the laws are absolute they'll be abused, and the abusers will just shrug and say they didn't have a choice. But with your suggested actions if they're not mandatory, they're toothless.

 

[Bean Bandit]

iPirateEverything[/url]":3t6pa3kj]
Most first year programmers have been making the above "demo" project for years...

I remember learning PHP on my own and the first major task (in the book) was creating a user account interface, followed by an interface to upload content (for shopping cart) Good times...

 

[foxyshadis]

I'm just glad that Austin Hansley's reputation must be rapidly going into the toilet; even if others will step up to take patent cases, they won't be as experienced or slimy as his firm. I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank, but if his big patent revenue stream dries up, he'll have scratch out a living helping regular joes.

Of course, watch him pull a Donald Trump, Shai Agassi, or Rick Scott and use business failure as a way to catapult himself into fame and power. Sigh. Look for Austin Hansley to run for Texas governor in 2020, maybe?

 

[Sulla]

Well, this judgment for payment couldn't have happened to a nicer firm!

 

[Luddite Curmudgeon]

Pokrface[/url]":uirg1tu1]

In all, Garfum is on the hook for 47 hours of work done by EFF's Nazer and four hours of work by other attorneys. That will add up to close to $30,000 on its own, and some additional hours will be added for work on the fee motions.

Burn, baby, burn. I hope Garofalo has to use personal funds to cover the fees and I hope it hurts him.

And then he doesn't have any money to pay the shyster lawyer who was representing him. Maybe that will put him out of business as well.

 

[Schmidt.aaronr@gmail.com]

I may be a bit ignorant about attorney fees but damn... over 30k for 1 week of work? If I wasn't already neck-deep in cybersecurity I'd switch to being a lawyer asap.

Oh, and I'm glad this patent troll has to pay up, even if it is only 30k or so.

 

[Neep33]

iPirateEverything[/url]":a6fi7uzx]

The patent's key claim describes creating user accounts, uploading content, organizing it, and having users vote on the content.

HOW??


Seriously, HOW the hell was this patent granted?

Most first year programmers have been making the above "demo" project for years so again, HOW THE HELL WAS THIS PATENT GRANTED?

The USPTO has a quota system and frankly they don't care.

 

[Dadlyedly]

ReaderBot[/url]":2kgr059b]

Dadlyedly[/url]":2kgr059b]

Draven11[/url]":2kgr059b]The sad thing is that despite these rulings, the US Patent Office continues to approve patents like this that are obviously not inventions. A patent from last year comes to mind, effectively patenting the process of a receptionist checking in a patient by adding the term "using a computer." :/

It's because the applicant pays the USPTO, not the rest of us. You do what the customer (the applicant) pays you to do. We would be better served if the fees went into the general fund, and the USPTO was fully funded by taxes.

The clients shouldn't be paying to approve. They should be paying to apply, regardless of whether their application gets approved. And each reapplication should be charged as a new application.

I'm not sure if that's the way it works now or not, but if it is, the application fee should be drastically increased, because there's obviously more demand than supply in that market.

Personally, I don't want the fees increased. I'd be fine with little to no fee. A large fee favors corporations over individuals. I want creativity rewarded, regardless of the ability to pay.

Let the USPTO represent the people of the US. I'm more than willing to pay them through my taxes to have them do this job properly and thoroughly.

 

[Nostromo21]

furbies[/url]":yawniab4]I call "Patent Pending" on the concept on carbon based lifeforms (humans) requiring oxygen by inhalation for continued living, and the exhalation of carbon dioxide as a consequence.

/s

You can have the 2% CO2 - I'll take the 80% N2 + 18% O2 that's exhaled!

 

[Nostromo21]

VidasDuday[/url]":2pa10o0i]Like I've said in other threads, you put enough heads on enough pikes and eventually people pay attention. Of course many of them will have the "this time it will be different!"
Fortunately, we can make more pikes.

There has to be a Game of Thrones object lesson or morality play in all that somewhere, I'm sure...

 

[RCT]

Wow Joe, I didn't realize that. That explains why it took from 2007 to the end of 2012 for it to be approved.
Another MAJOR change that needs to happen at the USPTO.

Thanks for the article again I'm passing it around to everyone

Agreed, and I would add—USPTO examiners are really not allowed to say no to a determined applicant. They can say "we don't accept this application," but that will often lead to the same examiner facing another, slightly changed application. That can happen twice, or it can happen a dozen times. It's up to the applicant. The examiner has no way to say "no, enough, don't come back."[/quote]

 

[RCT]

He can't pull this with ANY other website. First try was myself and 3 other artist related websites.

The judge invalidated his patent, so he/Garfum is done, only reason he got that patent was to sue others to gain success. He had plans to go even higher because of things I found on the internet posted by them.

I stopped all that from happening by contacting EFF.

I built Reflections by Ruth since 2004 and Bytephoto being the first place I EVER entered and won in 2003 is why I started Reflections by Ruth, later to own Bytephoto 2009, I wasn't about to let Garofalo/Garfum destroy ANY of it.
He had no clue what was about to hit him the day he sued me

I also have a cousin who is a lawyer, not an IP lawyer, but when I told him what I was up against, he strongly told me do ALL you can to find a way to take this to court, because I was going to win hands down. Don't feed the Trolls he said

tarwin[/url]":z9jhvydo]It doesn't really matter how much it cost the EFF, it's what the court approves. This was nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit and he really needs to be taught a lesson because he could pull this again with another website. This moron was trying to get some free money without going to court. Before it could go to trial, he retreated, after the EFF jumped into the fray.

 

[RCT]

They had the same examiner for their patent from day one, even for the extension they attempted to get which was shot down for being an exact duplicate of the first one. We know that, because Garofalo submitted it as evidence to the courts thinking proof he submitted an extension made his patent valid.
I cheered on that one when I saw the submission
I've learned MORE about this process than I've EVER wanted to.

joemullin[/url]":2b0xphqg]

adamrussell[/url]":2b0xphqg]
That doesnt mean he has to approve it, and how do you even know that the same examiner would get the revised application?

How do I know? Because I've read patent file wrappers. A lot of them are long arguments with the same examiners.

 

[LostFire]

Man who sued over a patent on online photo contests must pay fees to EFF

This headline is confusing and for a minute there, I thought the Pennsylvania photographer Ruth and not Garfum.com, is the one who is paying the fees to EFF.

 

[RCT]

Pokrface[/url]":mgijnv8b]

In all, Garfum is on the hook for 47 hours of work done by EFF's Nazer and four hours of work by other attorneys. That will add up to close to $30,000 on its own, and some additional hours will be added for work on the fee motions.

Burn, baby, burn. I hope Garofalo has to use personal funds to cover the fees and I hope it hurts him.

Lee, he actually has to be using personal funds to run the website. He makes no income from it.
Those ads you see on his website, are all his construction companies.
The one listed as Mind Trig also his web design company.

see this link showing the clients of web design company

http://mindtrig.com/our-clients-list/

3 are his construction businesses, 1 company Nahir is small construction business that rents space in his small office in Jackson NJ, same address as all his construction companies, and Garfum address.
The realestate, could be the business of a family member who owns their own realty.
The restaurant, which seems to be a chain all over the US, the website link is just a sublink and area directly on the the mindtrig site, which means it probably doesn't have its own busines name url.