Drew Curtis: How I beat a patent troll

Translator: Troels Larsen Reviewer: Simon Lebech Cichosz

Last January, my company, Fark.com, was sued

Sidste januar blev min virksomhed, Fark.com, sagsøgt

along with Yahoo, MSN, Reddit,

sammen med Yahoo, MSN, Reddit,

AOL, TechCrunch and others

AOL, TechCrunch og andre

by a company called Gooseberry Natural Resources.

af en virksomhed kaldet Gooseberry Natural Resources.

Gooseberry owned a patent

Gooseberry ejede et patent

for the creation and distribution

på skabelsen og distribueringen

of news releases via email.

af nyhedsskrivelser via email.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now it may seem kind of strange that such a thing can actually be patented,

Det kan umiddelbart virke sært, at sådan en ting kan patenteres,

but it does happen all the time.

men det sker hele tiden.

Take something already being done

Tag noget som allerede gøres

and patent it for an emerging technology --

og patenter det for en fremkommende teknologi --

like phone calls on the internet

såsom telefonsamtaler på internettet

or video listings for TV shows

eller programoversigter for TV

or radio but for cellphones,

eller radio, men til mobiltelefoner,

and so on.

og så videre.

The problem with these patents

Problemet med disse patenter

is that the mechanisms are obscure

er at mekanismerne er obskure

and the patent system is dysfunctional,

og at patent systemet er dysfunktionelt,

and as a result, most of these lawsuits end in settlements.

og resultatet bliver, at de fleste af disse søgsmål ender i forlig.

And because these settlements are under a non-disclosure agreement,

Og fordi disse forlig er bundet af en fortrolighedsaftale

no one knows what the terms were.

ved ingen hvad omstændighederne var.

And as a result, the patent troll can claim

Resultatet bliver, at patent trolden kan hævde

that they won the case.

at have vundet sagen.

In the case of Gooseberry Natural Resources,

I sagen omkring Gooseberry Natural Resources,

this patent on emailing news releases

havde dette patent på at emaile nyhedsskrivelser

had sort of a fatal flaw

en slags fatal fejl

as it pertained to myself,

i dens forbindelse med mig selv,

and that was that in the mainstream media world

og det var, at i mainstream medie verdenen

there is only one definition for news release,

er der kun en definition på nyhedsskrivelse,

and it turns out that is press release --

og det viser sig at være en presse meddelse --

as in P.R.

som i P.R.

Now my company, Fark,

Min virksomhed, Fark,

deals with news, ostensibly,

beskæftiger sig med nyheder, angiveligt,

and as a result

og som resultat deraf

we were not in violation of this patent.

krænkede vi ikke dette patent.

So case closed, right?

Så sagen er afsluttet, vel?

Wrong.

Forkert.

One of the major problems with patent law is that,

Et af de store problemer med patentlovgivningen er,

in the case that when you are sued by a patent troll,

at ifald du sagsøges af en patent trold,

the burden of proof that you did not infringe on the patent

falder bevisbyrden for, at du ikke krænkede patentet

is actually on the defendant,

faktisk på den anklagede,

which means you have to prove

hvilket betyder at du skal bevise

that you do not infringe on the patent they're suing you on.

at du ikke krænker det patent de sagsøger dig under.

And this can take quite a while.

Og dette kan tage et godt stykke tid.

You need to know that the average patent troll defense

I skal vide at det gennemsnitlige forsvar mod patent trolde

costs two million dollars

koster to millioner dollars

and takes 18 months when you win.

og tager 18 måneder når du vinder.

That is your best case outcome

Dette er det bedste udfald

when you get sued by a patent troll.

når man sagsøges af en patent trold.

Now I had hoped to team up with some of these larger companies

Jeg havde håbet på at gå sammen med nogle af disse store virksomheder

in order to defend against this lawsuit,

for at forsvare mig mod dette søgsmål,

but one-by-one they settled out of the case,

men en efter en indgik de forlig,

even though -- and this is important --

selvom -- og dette er vigtigt --

none of these companies

ingen af disse virksomheder

infringed on this patent -- not a one of them.

krænkede dette patent -- ikke en af dem.

And they started settling out.

Og de begyndte at indgå forlig.

The reason they settled out

Grunden til at de indgik forlig

is because it's cheaper to settle than to fight the lawsuit --

er fordi det er billigere at indgå forlig, end at bekæmpe søgsmålet --

clearly, two million dollars cheaper in some cases,

umiddelbart, to millioner dollars billigere i visse tilfælde,

and much worse if you actually lose.

og meget værre hvis du faktisk taber.

It would also constitute a massive distraction for management of a company,

Det ville også udgøre en stor distrahering for ledelsen af en virksomhed,

especially a small eight-man shop like my company.

især for en lille 8 mands biks som min virksomhed.

Six months into the lawsuit,

Seks måneder inde i søgsmålet,

we finally reached the discovery phase.

nåede vi endelig frem til udforskningsfasen.

And in discovery phase,

Og i udforskningsfasen,

we asked the patent troll to please provide

bad vi patent trolden om venligst at anskaffe

screenshots of Fark

skærmbilleder af Fark

where the infringement of their patent

der hvor krænkelsen af deres patent

was actually occurring.

faktisk fandt sted.

Now perhaps it's because no such screenshots actually existed,

Det er muligvis fordi sådanne skærmbilleder faktisk aldrig eksisterede,

but suddenly Gooseberry wanted to settle.

men pludselig ville Gooseberry gerne indgå forlig.

Their attorney:

Deres sagfører:

"Ah, yes. My company's having a reorganization on our end."

"Ah, ja. Min virksomhed undergår en reorganisation."

Never mind the fact

Uagtet det faktum

that the address led to a strip mall somewhere in Northern L.A.

at deres adresse førte til et indkøbscenter et sted i det nordlige L.A.

with no employees.

uden nogen ansatte.

"And we'd like to go ahead and close this out.

"Og vi ville gerne have lukket dette ned.

So would you mind giving us your best and final offer?"

Så ville du have noget i mod at give os dit bedste og endegyldige tilbud?"

My response:

Mit respons:

"How about nothing?!"

"Hvad med intet?!"

(Applause)

(Applaus)

We didn't have high hopes for that outcome.

Vi havde ikke høje forventninger til dette udfald.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

But they settled.

Men de indgik forlig.

No counter offer.

Intet modforslag.

Now, as mentioned before,

Som jeg nævnte før,

one of the reasons I can talk to you about this

er en af grundene til at jeg kan tale til jer om dette,

is because there's no non-disclosure agreement on this case.

at der ikke er en fortrolighedsaftale på denne sag.

Now how did that happen?

Hvordan gik det dog til?

Well during the settlement process, when we received our copy, I struck it.

Tja, under forligsprocessen, da vi modtog vores kopi, stregede jeg det ud.

My attorney said, "Nah, no chance of that working."

Min sagfører sagde, "Nææ, der er ingen chance for at det vil virke."

It came back signed.

Det kom underskrevet tilbage.

Now why? You can call them.

Men hvorfor? I kan ringe til dem.

They're not under NDA either.

De er heller ikke underlagt en fortrolighedsaftale.

Now what did I learn from this case? Well, three things.

Nå, hvad lærte jeg af denne sag? Tja, tre ting.

First of all, if you can,

Først og fremmest, hvis du kan,

don't fight the patent, fight the infringement.

lad være med at bekæmpe patentet, bekæmp krænkelsen.

Patents are very difficult to overturn.

Patenter er meget svære at modbevise.

Infringement is a lot easier to disprove.

Krænkelse er meget lettere at modbevise.

Secondly, make it clear from the beginning

Sekundært, gør det klart fra starten,

that either you have no money at all

at du enten ingen penge har overhovedet

or that you would rather spend money with your attorney fighting the troll

eller at du hellere ville bruge penge sammen med din sagfører på at bekæmpe trolden

than actually giving them the money.

end faktisk at give dem pengene.

Now the reason this works

Grunden til at dette virker

is because patent trolls

er at patent trolde

are paid a percentage of what they're able to recover in settlements.

bliver betalt en procentdel af hvad de er istand til at få udbetalt i forlig.

If it becomes clear to them that they cannot recover any money,

Hvis det bliver klart for dem, at de ikke kan få nogle penge,

they become less interested in pursuing the case.

bliver de mindre interesserede i at forfølge sagen.

Finally, make sure that you can tell them

Endelig, skal du sikre, at du kan fortælle dem

that you will make this process

at du vil gøre denne process

as annoying and as painful

så irriterende og så pinefuld

and as difficult as possible for them.

og så besværlig som muligt for dem.

Now this is a tactic that patent trolls are supposed to use on people

Dette er en taktik som det er meningen, at patent trolde skal bruge på folk

to get their way.

for at få deres vilje.

It turns out, because they're paid on contingency,

Det viser sig, at fordi de betales afhængigt af indtjening,

it works really, really well in reverse.

så virker det virkelig virkelig godt omvendt.

Don't forget that.

Glem ikke det.

So what does all this mean?

Så hvad betyder alt dette?

Well to sum up,

For at opsummere,

it boils down to one thing:

så kan det koges ned til en ting:

Don't negotiate with terrorists.

Lad være med at forhandle med terrorister.

(Applause)

(Applaus)

Patent trolls have done more damage to the United States economy

Patent trolde har gjort mere skade på den amerikanske økonomi

than any domestic or foreign

end nogen indenrigs eller udenlandsk

terrorist organization in history

terroristorganisation i historien

every year.

hvert år.

And what do they do with that money?

Og hvad gør de, med pengene?

They plow it right back into filing more troll lawsuits.

Det kaster det straks tilbage til at indgive flere trolde søgsmål.

Now this is the point in the Talk

Dette er pointen i min Talk

where I'm supposed to come up with some kind of a solution for the patent system.

hvor det er meningen, at jeg skal komme med en slags løsning på patent systemet.

And the problem with that

Og problemet med dette er,

is that there are two very large industry groups

at der er to meget store industrigrupper

that have different outcomes in mind

der har forskellige udfald i tankerne

for the patent system.

for patent systemet.

The health care industry

Sundhedsindustrien

would like stronger protections for inventors.

ønsker stærkere beskyttelse for opfindere.

The hi-tech industry

Høj teknologi industrien

would like stronger protections for producers.

ønsker stærkere beskyttelse for producenter.

And these goals aren't necessarily diametrically opposed, but they are at odds.

Og disse mål er ikke nødvendigvis diametrisk modsatte, men de er i konflikt.

And as a result, patent trolls can kind of live in the space in between.

Og et resultat er, at patent trolde på en måde kan leve i rummet imellem.

So unfortunately I'm not smart enough

Så desværre er jeg ikke klog nok

to have a solution for the patent troll problem.

til at have en løsning på patent trolde problemet.

However, I did have this idea,

Men, jeg havde dog en ide,

and it was kind of good.

og den var ret god.

And I thought, "I should patent this."

Og jeg tænkte, "jeg burde tage patent på dette."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Behold, patent infringement via mobile device --

Se, patent krænkelse via mobilt apparat --

defined as a computer which is not stationary.

defineret som en computer, der ikke er stationær.

My solution: award me this patent

Min løsning: giv mig dette patent

and I will troll them out of existence.

og så vil jeg trolde dem ud af eksistens.

Thank you.

Mange tak.

(Applause)

(Applaus)