‘trolling for business’

Several years ago some were bashing the patent system, decrying that ‘bad patents’ were issuing. Undoubtedly, some patents issued that should not have. That is to be expected. However, rarely are those patents ever of consequence because it takes millions to enforce them and those who obtain such patents if they have that kind of money surely would think twice about risking it on ‘bad’ patents. Also, recently the courts have taken a more aggressive stand against those who assert patents which subsequently are invalidated or are found not infringed and have awarded counter judgements and issued sanctions. That’s another reason why ‘bad’ patents are not enforced. Far more likely those patents simply sit in someone’s desk or adorn their walls and shelves collecting dust. No one wants to throw good money after bad and certainly does not want to open a bad faith can of worms.

But while those patents themselves are of no consequence, the problem is the frantically over hyped existence of such patents by some who were trolling for business to perform searches attempting to uncover prior art was used as pretense by large multinational infringers and their partners in crime to con law makers, the courts, past administrations and federal agencies into overreacting and barring the issuance and enforcement of the vast majority of other patents which truly were just. So all the hype about what they called ‘patent reform’ was really nothing more than a concerted Chinese style propaganda campaign to legalize theft of our inventions. It worked, so much so that according to our study the small entity share of issued patents and most probably filed applications has cratered to only about 10% of their historical shares, if not less and still falling.

There are many reasons why for us now the patent system is too expensive, slow, and hard. A patent attorney recently described to us how in a post issue admin review where he represented a patent holder the proceeding was the most contentious he had ever experienced in about 35 years of practice. Those proceedings to us are anything but unbiased. If attorneys are finding it so, it’s far worse for inventors who have no choice but to represent themselves pro se as we cannot afford the up to a million dollars just one such proceeding will cost us. An inventor described his experience in a post issue review and said while it took him 10 years fighting the PTO to get his patent he lost it in mere minutes in a post issue review. To him the outcome had already been determined before the process had begun. He spoke of how an employee of his largest competitor was now a “judge” at PTAB. Is it any great wonder why we are ground into dust there? That by itself explains why Judge Rader has described these proceedings as ‘death squads killing property rights’. Many regard those proceedings as shams.

Therefore the problem never was about patents that were issuing. Now more than ever the problem is the patents that are NOT issuing. These reproachful conditions and more explain why the inventor/small entity share of issued patents has so plummeted. Our patent system has been ‘reformed’ to death by large multinational infringers (thieves) and those they have conned, black mailed, or otherwise commandeered by propaganda…the doctrine of theft.

‘easier…to rob’


‘bill that would have made it easier for companies to defend themselves against so-called “patent trolls”‘

spin free translation: bill that makes it easier for large multinationals to rob and crush their small competitors

In their minds it is a ‘bad faith patent infringement lawsuit’ every time they are sued for stealing our inventions. Don’t believe the lies of thieves. Just because they call it ‘reform’ doesn’t mean it is.

As for Bessen, America’s founders believed protecting America’s “faculties”, such as our inventions was the ‘first object’ of government. Who funds Bessen’s work? Our guess it is some of the same large multinationals who have largely destroyed our patent system with their Chinese style propaganda machine. Who do you trust, large multinational thieves and their partners in crime, or America’s founders?


‘still-unresolved problems’


‘Whatever your feelings about this specific strain of salacious tech, then, the case highlights still-unresolved problems in the way technology patents are awarded, interpreted, and enforced. The 1998 cybersex patent, like those in other instances of patent trolling, is extremely broad, describing general functions (“select input device and stimulation device”) rather than specific mechanisms. There is also compelling evidence it wasn’t even novel at the time it was filed.’

First, take a look at the author’s website and you’ll find this…

‘I’m a freelance writer and editor, with bylines in…’

As we’ve written before, with the present state of journalism, many writers/journalists have been forced to sell their bylines to anyone who pays. Its a rough world out there for them…and cold. Our guess is he was paid to sign his byline to what PR staffers for large infringers wrote themselves. It appears Morris has no expertise with patents. Then again, neither do the firms that apparently paid him to sign his name to their Chinese style propaganda piece -if we ignore infringement (theft). Lift the rock and you’ll find yet another large multinational invention thief hiding in the shadows.


patent troll=small competitor

Their criticism of the patent is vague, but they seem to suggest the wording of the claims is overly broad -broader than the invention deserved. Yet, if that was the case it would have been invalidated in court. As it was not we must conclude it was NOT overly broad. Similarly, their other complaints seem mere baseless accusations that likely too failed in court. Then again, this is typical of large infringers. They lose in court so they pay to publish fake news stories to whine publicly, trying to con their way into future legalized theft. Notice how this piece does not allow comments. Propaganda pieces never do. Don’t believe the lies of thieves.

For our position and the changes we advocate (the rest of the truth) to restore the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

‘a realistic expectation’

Our goal is to restore the American patent system to where inventors and small businesses will once again have a realistic expectation we will be able to commercialize our inventions.

To accomplish that we must have a patent system that encourages us, not discourages. Presently for example, it is far too hard, expensive and slow for us to get patents for our inventions. That is in part why small entity issued patents and filed applications have plummeted to only about 10% of their historical shares, if not less and still falling. For us the PTO has become the Patent Rejection Office. Some attorneys tell us the problem begins with the examiners. They believe many are not competent in their fields and in too many instances examiners are from foreign countries and speak poor English so it is difficult for our attorneys to even carry out a productive conversation, let alone prosecute a technical application to a successful conclusion -allowance and issue. Perhaps that is why so many examiners regularly issue out of hand lengthy boilerplate rejections. In one case an examiner cited a 10 column passage of a reference to reject a five word limitation in a pending claim. If the examiner cannot cite a specific passage of approximately the same length in the reference to a claim limitation in question, then it cannot be factually said the limitation has been met. Where is accountability?

Perhaps the reason for these canned rejections is that far too few examiners are qualified and competent in their fields and they feel they can only get in trouble if they erroneously allow a claim versus rejecting. The problem is that every unjustified rejection only drives up the prosecution costs for our patents. If we run out of money before we are able to enforce our patents, let alone obtain them, we go out of business and will never invent again. Is this what Congress, the President, and the courts want?

But the Constitution says…

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

If the purpose of the patent system is to discourage inventors, then they have nailed it. If the purpose is to promote and encourage, then they are heading in the wrong direction.

Then again, maybe the PTO is still being controlled by employees who came in with prior directors who had close ties with large multinational serial infringers (former employees of, etc) and they have set this policy of trigger finger boilerplate rejections? If so, a house cleaning is severely overdue. Maybe that’s what the new director is still sorting out? In that case, we encourage a thorough purge. There is no place in OUR patent system for agents of large multinational infringers whose aim is to legalize theft of our inventions. As in the case of big business fat cats, great heft often comes from grand theft. It gives a new meaning to the old phrase, the ‘filthy rich’.

‘always affectionately’


‘Such companies are often known (not always affectionately) as “patent trolls.”’

Those who play to this blatant Chinese style propaganda of ‘trolls’ by large multinational invention thieves do inventors and other small entities an injustice. The truth is, to infringers anyone who sues them for infringement is a ‘troll’.

patent troll=small competitor

Playing to this rhetoric only spreads confusion and does further damage to the patent system and the rights of inventors. Don’t believe and propagate the lies of thieves.

Our guess is large infringers and their in house propagandists prey on free lance writers who are struggling to make a living as best they can under the present state of the news business and end up signing their by lines to anything large infringers place before them and are willing to pay for. It’s the modern version of payola. It’s propaganda, not reporting. Did Apple or their attorneys write and pay for this piece? That would explain why there is no comment section. Open public debate is NOT something they will pay for.

For example, one ‘troll’ definition is a plaintiff in a patent suit that does not themselves commercialize. That often includes universities -no doubt. But of course universities and many inventors often lack the resources to commercialize and since the Ebay SCOTUS decision we are often unable to obtain injunctions to stop infringement so inventors and others have no fair chance at commercializing -not with far larger, better funded infringers using our inventions. That’s just not fair. But then why should it matter if the inventor elects to license and not commercialize himself. If you build a house, do you have to live in it to own and sell it? Inventions are property, clearly, if one reads Madison and other founders at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. Read our position statement and other posts on our site for details.

The patent system now teeters on the brink of lawlessness. Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to stop or pay”. It’s a pure red herring by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. As Mark Twain said, ‘truth is not hard to kill, and (that) a lie well told is immortal’.

For the last several years the Chinese and large multinationals have been ransacking and looting small American entities taking everything they can carry. Those are the same multinationals who when they cant export jobs, import workers and artificially inflate their employed Americans. The fact is, many of the giant multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. Sometimes, as in the case of big business fat cats, great heft comes from grand theft. It gives a new meaning to the old phrase, the ‘filthy rich’.

For our position and the changes we advocate (the rest of the truth) to restore the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com