Fortkentdad
Senior Member
I want the patent an patent trolling. Anyone wanting to make a fortune suing any one must pay me a piece of their profits.
Lawsuit over photo contests
- Thread starter hark
- Start date
You don't. You need the patent to sue others into bankrupcy for not paying you the rights to their 'intellectual property'.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/fighting-patent-reform-washington-dc
Here are the 2 I was with in DC last week. Although I wasn't with them the days the photos were taken or the particular meetings, I did attend 2 other events one of them being the patent reform briefing I posted previously.
Congress is actually listening
Here are the 2 I was with in DC last week. Although I wasn't with them the days the photos were taken or the particular meetings, I did attend 2 other events one of them being the patent reform briefing I posted previously.
Congress is actually listening
Good luck Ruth!
If your appeal is successful, and hopefully it will be, can you recover your costs from the "Patent holder"?
I didn't mean the ones that were given the patents, I thought about the ones who granted it.
update, I prevailed in my case.
In case the actual online document is moved from press release, I'll also copy the text here too.
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/victory-photo-hobbyist-prevails-over-junk-patent-bully
May 22, 2015
Victory: Photo Hobbyist Prevails Over Junk-Patent Bully
Garfum Abandons Case Against ‘Vote-For-Your-Favorite’ Online Competitions
Camden, New Jersey – Patent bully Garfum has abandoned its lawsuit against an online photo hobbyist, just one day after a federal judge set the date for a face-off in court against lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
EFF together with Durie Tangri LLP represent Bytephoto.com, which has hosted user-submitted photos and run competitions for the best since 2003. In 2007, a company called Garfum.com applied for a patent on the “Method of Sharing Multi-Media Content Among Users in a Global Computer Network.” The patent takes the well-known concept of a competition by popular vote and applies it to the modern context of generic computer networks, and Garfum claims that it covers the rights to online competitions on social networks where users vote for the winner—despite the fact that courts have ruled that this kind of abstract idea using generic computer technology cannot be patented.
Garfum used this patent to accuse EFF’s client of infringement, filing a federal lawsuit without warning. EFF moved to dismiss the complaint earlier this year, arguing that the junk patent should be declared invalid. But after all the briefing had been completed and just one day after the court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss, Garfum capitulated: it dropped its case with a promise not to sue Bytephoto.com again rather than defend its patent before a judge.
“We’re pleased that Garfum has abandoned its claims against our client. But it’s a travesty that this case was ever filed in the first place,” said EFF Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer, who is also the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents. “Our client began running online ‘favorite photo’ competitions years before this patent was filed. The idea that you could patent this abstract idea, find innocent enthusiasts online and demand settlement money—and then slink away once challenged and before the court issues a ruling—goes against any sense of fair play.”
“Patent bullies count on not having to defend their weak patents in a court of law. They drive up costs with baseless lawsuits and then bow out before getting a decision they don’t like,” said EFF Staff Attorney Vera Ranieri. “So while we are glad our client doesn’t have to worry about Garfum anymore, there’s still a lot of work to do the fight against bad patents.”
Joe Gratz of the law firm Durie Tangri LLP and Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado & Grassi, PC are co-counsel with EFF.
For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/garfum-v-reflections-ruth
Contact:
Daniel Nazer
Staff Attorney and Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents
[email protected]
Vera Ranieri
Staff Attorney
[email protected]
Related Cases
Garfum v. Reflections By Ruth
In case the actual online document is moved from press release, I'll also copy the text here too.
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/victory-photo-hobbyist-prevails-over-junk-patent-bully
May 22, 2015
Victory: Photo Hobbyist Prevails Over Junk-Patent Bully
Garfum Abandons Case Against ‘Vote-For-Your-Favorite’ Online Competitions
Camden, New Jersey – Patent bully Garfum has abandoned its lawsuit against an online photo hobbyist, just one day after a federal judge set the date for a face-off in court against lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
EFF together with Durie Tangri LLP represent Bytephoto.com, which has hosted user-submitted photos and run competitions for the best since 2003. In 2007, a company called Garfum.com applied for a patent on the “Method of Sharing Multi-Media Content Among Users in a Global Computer Network.” The patent takes the well-known concept of a competition by popular vote and applies it to the modern context of generic computer networks, and Garfum claims that it covers the rights to online competitions on social networks where users vote for the winner—despite the fact that courts have ruled that this kind of abstract idea using generic computer technology cannot be patented.
Garfum used this patent to accuse EFF’s client of infringement, filing a federal lawsuit without warning. EFF moved to dismiss the complaint earlier this year, arguing that the junk patent should be declared invalid. But after all the briefing had been completed and just one day after the court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss, Garfum capitulated: it dropped its case with a promise not to sue Bytephoto.com again rather than defend its patent before a judge.
“We’re pleased that Garfum has abandoned its claims against our client. But it’s a travesty that this case was ever filed in the first place,” said EFF Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer, who is also the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents. “Our client began running online ‘favorite photo’ competitions years before this patent was filed. The idea that you could patent this abstract idea, find innocent enthusiasts online and demand settlement money—and then slink away once challenged and before the court issues a ruling—goes against any sense of fair play.”
“Patent bullies count on not having to defend their weak patents in a court of law. They drive up costs with baseless lawsuits and then bow out before getting a decision they don’t like,” said EFF Staff Attorney Vera Ranieri. “So while we are glad our client doesn’t have to worry about Garfum anymore, there’s still a lot of work to do the fight against bad patents.”
Joe Gratz of the law firm Durie Tangri LLP and Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado & Grassi, PC are co-counsel with EFF.
For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/garfum-v-reflections-ruth
Contact:
Daniel Nazer
Staff Attorney and Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents
[email protected]
Vera Ranieri
Staff Attorney
[email protected]
Related Cases
Garfum v. Reflections By Ruth
and YES!!! Congress and Senate DO care.
The Patent Act passed in the Senate today June 4th vote 16 to 4
If you click the highlighted text that says Committee executive business meeting are available online.] it should go to the recorded video of the 3 hour meeting.
Press Release | Press Releases | Press | U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont
[h=1]Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, On Senate Judiciary Committee Approval of the bipartisan PATENT Act[/h] [Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) issued the following comment Thursday after the Committee approved the bipartisan PATENT Act, a bill to cut down on abuses in and bring needed transparency to the patent system. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee last Congress, Leahy led bipartisan negotiations to craft a comprehensive and balanced bill to tackle the issue. Leahy continued those bipartisan talks this year as Ranking Member. His full remarks at today’s Judiciary Committee executive business meeting are available online.]
“When businesses are threatened with patent suits just for using a scanner they purchased, or website owners face threats simply for using basic software in e-commerce, the patent system is not working as intended. I am proud that our measures to address these problems are a key piece of the PATENT Act. Any reforms to our patent system must be measured and maintain the careful balance of the overall system. The Managers’ Amendment we approved today, which was the result of two years of work in the Judiciary Committee, achieves this balance and brings needed transparency that will ensure the U.S. patent system remains the envy of the world. The bill reported today also includes my Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act, which strengthens an existing program at the PTO and encourages innovations to be used for humanitarian good.
“As this legislation proceeds to the floor, there are some further issues to address. I am committed to continue these conversations. I thank Chairman Grassley, Senators Cornyn and Schumer and other bipartisan members who worked with me these last two years to craft and ultimately support the PATENT Act.”
The Patent Act passed in the Senate today June 4th vote 16 to 4
If you click the highlighted text that says Committee executive business meeting are available online.] it should go to the recorded video of the 3 hour meeting.
Press Release | Press Releases | Press | U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont
[h=1]Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, On Senate Judiciary Committee Approval of the bipartisan PATENT Act[/h] [Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) issued the following comment Thursday after the Committee approved the bipartisan PATENT Act, a bill to cut down on abuses in and bring needed transparency to the patent system. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee last Congress, Leahy led bipartisan negotiations to craft a comprehensive and balanced bill to tackle the issue. Leahy continued those bipartisan talks this year as Ranking Member. His full remarks at today’s Judiciary Committee executive business meeting are available online.]
“When businesses are threatened with patent suits just for using a scanner they purchased, or website owners face threats simply for using basic software in e-commerce, the patent system is not working as intended. I am proud that our measures to address these problems are a key piece of the PATENT Act. Any reforms to our patent system must be measured and maintain the careful balance of the overall system. The Managers’ Amendment we approved today, which was the result of two years of work in the Judiciary Committee, achieves this balance and brings needed transparency that will ensure the U.S. patent system remains the envy of the world. The bill reported today also includes my Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act, which strengthens an existing program at the PTO and encourages innovations to be used for humanitarian good.
“As this legislation proceeds to the floor, there are some further issues to address. I am committed to continue these conversations. I thank Chairman Grassley, Senators Cornyn and Schumer and other bipartisan members who worked with me these last two years to craft and ultimately support the PATENT Act.”
it's there whole so called business model. Hit those that can't afford to fight it and force them to pay up.
My fees were from September to January. February to date (June) were with the help of EFF pro bono.
I have another show this weekend Saturday/Sunday at the Peddlers Village Fine Arts Festival in Lahaska, Bucks County, PA and hope the show will do well. I had to pay for 2 shows on Paypal 6 months no interest, and will probably have to pay 2 more of the larger shows that way as soon as they are due come July.
Hopefully I will also find more time to go out and take new photos
My fees were from September to January. February to date (June) were with the help of EFF pro bono.
I have another show this weekend Saturday/Sunday at the Peddlers Village Fine Arts Festival in Lahaska, Bucks County, PA and hope the show will do well. I had to pay for 2 shows on Paypal 6 months no interest, and will probably have to pay 2 more of the larger shows that way as soon as they are due come July.
Hopefully I will also find more time to go out and take new photos
well Garfum is going to suffer. March 30th 2016 the judge awarded us attorney fees and he also took the extra unexpected step and invalidated the patent, so NO ONE can be sued EVER again with it.
another update we were awarded attorney fees. Not 100%, but at least from April
I think the judge wondered why I didn't just take Garfum's offer to end the lawsuit, but then he realized my goal was to invalidate the patent.
So, even though the case was over, the judge took it upon himself to invalidate the patent for us
Horrah!! no one can ever be hurt by this ridiculous patent again.
Man who sued over a patent on online photo contests must pay fees to EFF | Ars Technica
another update
we were awarded attorney fees. Not 100%, but at least from April I think the judge wondered why I didn't just take Garfum's offer to end the lawsuit, but then he realized my goal was to invalidate the patent.
So, even though the case was over, the judge took it upon himself to invalidate the patent for us
Horrah!! no one can ever be hurt by this ridiculous patent again.
Man who sued over a patent on online photo contests must pay fees to EFF | Ars Technica
another update we were awarded attorney fees. Not 100%, but at least from April
I think the judge wondered why I didn't just take Garfum's offer to end the lawsuit, but then he realized my goal was to invalidate the patent.
So, even though the case was over, the judge took it upon himself to invalidate the patent for us
Horrah!! no one can ever be hurt by this ridiculous patent again.
Man who sued over a patent on online photo contests must pay fees to EFF | Ars Technica
we were awarded attorney fees. Not 100%, but at least from April I think the judge wondered why I didn't just take Garfum's offer to end the lawsuit, but then he realized my goal was to invalidate the patent.
So, even though the case was over, the judge took it upon himself to invalidate the patent for us
Horrah!! no one can ever be hurt by this ridiculous patent again.
Man who sued over a patent on online photo contests must pay fees to EFF | Ars Technica
Danno_RIP
Senior Member
another update
I think the judge wondered why I didn't just take Garfum's offer to end the lawsuit, but then he realized my goal was to invalidate the patent.
So, even though the case was over, the judge took it upon himself to invalidate the patent for us
Horrah!! no one can ever be hurt by this ridiculous patent again.
Man who sued over a patent on online photo contests must pay fees to EFF | Ars Technica
Congratulations... and Thank you for fighting the good fight.