Comments on: Facebook Threatened by a Non-Patent Troll

By: Jim P.

Jim P. — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 23:19:21 +0000

All you need to do to get ahead in the world is this:

1. Create a company that doesn’t do anything.
2. Invest a relatively small amount of money in patenting vague ideas and imaginary technology.
3. Sue for infringement whenever a successful company inevitably wanders into your snare.
4. Settle as a nuisance with multi-million dollar company.
5. Retire or repeat, as needed. Or, alternatively – do both.

Also, don’t try to copy me on the above. It’s a patented technology. I’m just letting you know.

By: Gena777

Gena777 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:55:35 +0000

I'll admit that, at first, I was against the idea of NPEs ("patent trolls") profiting from others' innovations. However, after doing some research, I've come to agree that so-called "trolls" are doing nothing worse than many other companies. Notice that it's generally the large corporations that get incensed about the "trolls." Most NPEs don't seem to be any worse than day traders, for instance.

By: AllRise

AllRise — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:02:25 +0000

Did you know, the people took FB to court at AllRise.com. Join in and see if the people really think that Facebook are guilty in patent infringement http://bit.ly/AllRise260

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:41:32 +0000

Why do the patent courts choose to ignore the restriction that patents can not be granted for something that is obvious?

By: (8?Â»

(8?Â» — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:07:19 +0000

Well, this should be interesting, patent-trolls vs. CIAbook.

Given this conflict cannot be allowed to be resolved (as the criminals lose either way), I predict a large amount of STFU money.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:17:58 +0000

That’s it. If it’s that easy, then I’m suing Mises.org for using letters or character symbols in their articles that I might have typed before I came on this site for the first time.

By: Captain Obviousness

Captain Obviousness — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:34:19 +0000

Regardless of whether the claims in this patent are novel and nonobvious (they almost certainly are not), this patent is almost certainly invalid as directed to non-statutory subject matter under the current law. This patent was issued prior to the recent Bilski case at the Federal Circuit, which is before SCOTUS this year. Unless SCOTUS overturns Bilski, this patent is toast on its face.

By: matskralc

matskralc — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:06:47 +0000

I started to read one of Mr Halling’s posts, got to the first footnote, checked the cite, saw he spelled Stephan’s name wrong, and closed the window.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:51:37 +0000

Mr. Halling,

With all due respect, your blog posts “refuting” Mr. Kinsella were juvenile and weak. You should have simply said, “I believe in a labor theory of property rights,” which would save some time.

If labor is the basis of property rights, can I take your property, labor upon it, and claim it my own? Obviously, this means there is no such thing as property. Good day.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:14:56 +0000

Halling: “Mr. Kinsella is advocating a working requirement for patents. The US has consistently rejected the idea of a working requirement. Just because I don’t use my pick-up truck does not give you the right to use it (steal it).”

Halling is attacking a straw man. I don’t think he read the post. He saw the word “troll” and assumed I was jumping on the anti-troll bandwagon.

I agree that people who attack trolls are often, in effect, advocating a working requirement. But I did not attack trolls. In fact I criticized the reasoning of people who selectively attack patent trolls, as if it makes a difference. I agree that it makes no difference.

By: Dale B. Halling

Dale B. Halling — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:48:55 +0000

Mr. Kinsella is advocating a working requirement for patents. The US has consistently rejected the idea of a working requirement. Just because I don’t use my pick-up truck does not give you the right to use it (steal it).

Mr. Kinsella advocated anarchy in the realm of intellectual property. His theories are based on the “scarcity theory of property.â€ He suggests incorrectly that intellectual property is not subject to scarcity and therefore not a legitimate property right. This theory of property rights is flawed both logically and factually. See my posts Scarcity â€“ Does it Prove Intellectual Property is Unjustified? http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/22/scarcity-â€“-does-it-prove-intellectual-property-is-unjustified/
Scarcity and Intellectual Property: Empirical Evidence for Invention http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/25/scarcity-and-intellectual-property-empirical-evidence-for-inventions/
Scarcity and Intellectual Property: Empirical Evidence of Adoption/Distribution of Technology http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/25/scarcity-and-intellectual-property-empirical-evidence-of-adoptiondistribution-of-technology/.

By: bobobberson

bobobberson — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:28:48 +0000

Friendship is prior art. It was already obvious beforehand to make friends. (maybe making friends was novel to whoglue in the 2001 era, but they surely are not going to have friends now)

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:33:52 +0000

Apparently, without WhoGlue, no one would request the friendship of others over the Internet.

By: FTG

FTG — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:47:46 +0000

Without patents, WhoGlue would not have brought their idea into fruition and the world would have never witnessed such an innovative development – I mean, without patents, nobody would have heard of WhoGlue and their invention, right???

Ok, what do we have patent laws for, again?