[throwawaykf03]

Every time someone links to those episodes I feel compelled to chime in and note that they (well, the first one, at least) are a terrible piece of reporting about patents.

1. Read through the transcript of the first episode. Note that the word "claims" shows up not even once.

1. a) If you don't know why that's a problem, you're in no shape to judge the patent system either.

2. All the patents at the M-CAM guy says are "on the same thing" are actually not. I know because I read them all.

3. There is no such thing as "a patent on toast". It's a downright shame that the authors didn't think to double check that with someone who, y'know, real understands how patents work. But oh look, amongst other things, M-CAM sells "patent risk management" services! No, not a conflict of interest there at all.

4. They talk to engineers (like many you'll find on HN) to get their views on patents. And like most here, none of them seems to understand how patents work. (Again, see point 1. a) above.) What do you expect will happen when you ask a Blub programmer his views on Haskell?

5. In the first episode, they insinuate that IV doesn't pay inventors like they claim. In the second episode, turns out that they do pay quite well, but oh look! that inventor is totally a schmuck for ripping off his coinventors! (Is he really the kind of inventor that IV is paying?!)

[davesims]

>> Note that the word "claims" shows up not even once.

That word actually shows up exactly once in each episode.

>> In the first episode, they insinuate that IV doesn't pay inventors like they claim. In the second episode, turns out that they do pay quite well, but oh look! that inventor is totally a schmuck for ripping off his coinventors! (Is he really the kind of inventor that IV is paying?!)

Yes, IV paid Chris Crawford -- the one example given by IV of an "inventor" who made money -- for a stake in a patent. That's what IV does. They buy patents or percentages of patents. TAL never claimed otherwise. Crawford retained a percentage of interest in ongoing revenue obtained in court, which was distributed accordingly.

As to whether Chris Crawford is a schmuck and ripped off others, or whether the invention in question was even his to sell or was his idea to begin with, I think this court transcript from a case that he lost, speaks for itself:

---

Attorney: So the first paragraph of this document reads, quote, "This proposal, it is in response to Jack Byrd's idea to provide automated offsite backup services for PC users." And aren't you in the second sentence saying that Jack Byrd had an idea to provide automated offsite backup services for PC users?

Chris Crawford: No. What I'm saying is that Jack Byrd had an idea of me pursuing the automated offsite backup services that I had--

Alex Blumberg: Chris Crawford then launches into a rather surprising explanation for how the sentencing that this business was, quote, "Jack Byrd's idea," doesn't actually mean that the business was Jack Byrd's idea. His explanation? He was using the apostrophe S incorrectly.

Chris Crawford: As far as the apostrophe S-- and I'm still not clear if you're trying to derive a specific meaning with respect to the apostrophe S--

Alex Blumberg: Of course, what would a sentence reading, "in response to Jack Byrds idea" even mean if the S was plural?

Attorney: I'm asking you, though-- you certainly know what the use of an apostrophe S means, do you not?

Chris Crawford: [SNIFFING] As I've written documents over the years, there are times when I use an apostrophe S, and it seems like I'm supposed to use an apostrophe S. But I have to say that my grammar is not strong enough to tell you right now with clarity when an apostrophe S is used.

[throwawaykf03]

Hmm, I'm been unable to respond because I get a "you're submitting too fast" error. Maybe I tripped some sort of flame detector. To avoid multiple replies, I'm consolidating responses into one mega-reply.

davesims:

> The word ['claims'] appears exactly once...

Yes, I worded my argument poorly. The word "claims" does occur, but it's not in the context of a patent's claims, but rather the claims made by a plaintiff. They discuss multiple patents in the episode, but not once do they talk about any patent's claims, and no discussion of a patent can begin without the claims. In fact, the journalists seem to make the very common mistake of interpreting a patent's scope based on what the abstract and other sections mention.

> TAL never claimed otherwise.

Oh, they very much insinuated it by emphasizing how difficult it was to verify instances of inventors getting paid.

Also, yes, the inventor was a schmuck, but that should have no bearing on IV or other trolls who claim to help inventors. The vast majority of inventors don't try to rip off their co-inventors. (Glass half-full: because most people are decent human beings. Cynically: incorrect inventorship, as in this case, can automatically invalidate a patent. If you search askpatents.com, you'll see this issue come up a few times.)

nickff:

> Bread refreshing method US 6080436 A

The main claim in that patent, as pointed out by belorn, requires a temperature of 2500 F to 4500 F. Toasters typically operate at temperatures at 310 F. I don't know what you get at 2500 - 4500 F, but it's not toast. The thing is, you don't even need to be a patent lawyer or an engineer to fact-check this little but.

> The engineers understand how patents work...

This, in my experience with multiple online forums and countless personal interactions over the course of 7 years, is rarely true. Pretty much nobody, especially the tech media making the most noise about patents, even knows what claims are.

I agree that patentese seems esoteric at first glance. But that is because it has this particular structure for legal and historic reasons. It's easy enough to learn, though. If you've had to debug C++ STL compile errors, patentese is a breeze. This was the intent behind my Blub/Haskell comparison: complaining about something wihout understanding it is really not contributing much to the discussion.

reitzensteinm: > Lodsys

In my eyes, Lodsys is clearly a bad actor. They are preying on solo developers who have no way to afford any kind of defense. Many trolls exploit the extreme cost asymmetries of mounting a legal defense, but by targeting such small players, Lodsys is taking it to new lows. In that sense I find IV to be more palatable because at least they pick on "someone their own size". (Lodsys has been linked to IV, but until some time ago, Lodsys had a page on their site explicitly disavowing any relation to IV. No idea why it's been taken down.)

Also, a general note about TFA: I don't see what's so landmark about this trial. Generally, trials are "landmark" if they break new ground, and while interesting because the defendant is formidable, this is a pretty run-of-the-mill lawsuit of IV vs another tech giant.

[reuven]

Thanks for the excellent, in-depth explanations.

I think that the TAL episodes were great at exposing the fact that there are patent trolls, and that there are problems with the current patent system. But your descriptions and analysis do point to some serious flaws with their reporting and explanations.

And yes, I remember first hearing the episode about the patent invalidation, in which everything hinged on someone's handwritten notes that happened to be written down. That didn't point to the fundamental issues here.

I think that a lot of engineers, especially HN readers (and including myself), are interested in the world of software patents, but lack the legalistic training to think through things the way you described.

[gnoway]

re: bread patent. See here: http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436

The claims are that the heating element is set between 2500F and 4500F (claim 1b). The bread itself is held away from the element (sheets 2, 3), separated by air (which is not a great heat conductor), for between 3 and 90 seconds (claim 1c). Sheet 4 indicates that the 'cut fuzz & peaks' of the exposed face of the bread becomes toasted.

This patent describes a method of toasting bread using an electronically-controlled fast toaster.

[throwawaykf03]

Instead of hand-waving about the conductivity of air, what would have helped is a citation that clearly states how hot the heating element of toasters themselves get. (Really. Because I could not find a good cite either :-P)

The best I coud do was wiki answers: The heating element of toasters reaches 1100 - 1200 F [1].

If the answers.com link is not trustworthy, consider this: The most common alloy used for the heating elements in toasters is Nichrome [2]. Nichrome is used because it has a "high" melting point of 2550 F [3].

Not only does the temperature range required by this patent not make toast, it would melt the heating element in most toasters. The spec of the patent itself requires some kind of halogen lamp heaters.

It's pretty clearly not a "patent on toast". "Burnt to a crisp" toast, maybe, but not toast.

1. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_hot_does_a_toaster_get

2. http://www.toaster.org/works.html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichrome

[nickff]

>"4. They talk to engineers (like many you'll find on HN) to get their views on patents. And like most here, none of them seems to understand how patents work. (Again, see point 1. a) above.) What do you expect will happen when you ask a Blub programmer his views on Haskell?"

The engineers understand how patents work, and how the methods work, they are puzzled by the patents' language. This is significant because a patent is supposed to describe a method; when an expert cannot use a patent to learn the method, a large part of the patent (everything except the claims) is useless and wasted.

[nickff]

>"3. There is no such thing as "a patent on toast". It's a downright shame that the authors didn't think to double check that with someone who, y'know, real understands how patents work. But oh look, amongst other things, M-CAM sells "patent risk management" services! No, not a conflict of interest there at all."

Bread refreshing method US 6080436 A

http://www.google.ca/patents/US6080436

[belorn]

If you do the following, you are committing a patent infringement.

a) placing a bread product in an oven having at least one heating element,

b) setting the temperature of the heating elements between 2500 F. and 4500 F., and

c) ceasing exposure of the bread product to the at least one heating element after a period of 3 sec. to 90 sec.

[cma]

Sounds like a toaster where you move the bread away from the element rather than turn the element off. E.g. what happens in thousands of bread/toast factories around the world.

[vqc]

This a patent on a method of making "toast."

And not having looked at the spec, it is possible that the claims might be construed in a way that won't cover how you or I would usually make "toast."

[reitzensteinm]

Out of curiosity, what is your take on the Lodsys situation?