TED2012
Drew Curtis: How I beat a patent troll
Drew Curtis: Hvordan jeg overvandt en patent trold
Filmed:
Readability: 4.4
1,109,604 views
Drew Curtis, grundlægger af fark.com, fortæller historien om, hvordan han bekæmpede et søgsmål fra en virksomhed med patent på "... skabelsen og distribueringen af nyhedsskrivelser via email." Undervejs deler han nogle skøre statistikker omkring de voksende jurdidiske problem vedrørende letfærdige patenter.
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Last January, my company, Fark.com, was sued
0
0
4000
Sidste januar blev min virksomhed, Fark.com, sagsøgt
00:19
along with Yahoo, MSN, Reddit,
1
4000
3000
sammen med Yahoo, MSN, Reddit,
00:22
AOL, TechCrunch and others
2
7000
3000
AOL, TechCrunch og andre
00:25
by a company called Gooseberry Natural Resources.
3
10000
3000
af en virksomhed kaldet Gooseberry Natural Resources.
00:28
Gooseberry owned a patent
4
13000
2000
Gooseberry ejede et patent
00:30
for the creation and distribution
5
15000
2000
på skabelsen og distribueringen
00:32
of news releases via email.
6
17000
3000
af nyhedsskrivelser via email.
00:35
(Laughter)
7
20000
3000
(Latter)
00:38
Now it may seem kind of strange that such a thing can actually be patented,
8
23000
3000
Det kan umiddelbart virke sært, at sådan en ting kan patenteres,
00:41
but it does happen all the time.
9
26000
2000
men det sker hele tiden.
00:43
Take something already being done
10
28000
2000
Tag noget som allerede gøres
00:45
and patent it for an emerging technology --
11
30000
2000
og patenter det for en fremkommende teknologi --
00:47
like phone calls on the internet
12
32000
3000
såsom telefonsamtaler på internettet
00:50
or video listings for TV shows
13
35000
3000
eller programoversigter for TV
00:53
or radio but for cellphones,
14
38000
2000
eller radio, men til mobiltelefoner,
00:55
and so on.
15
40000
2000
og så videre.
00:57
The problem with these patents
16
42000
2000
Problemet med disse patenter
00:59
is that the mechanisms are obscure
17
44000
2000
er at mekanismerne er obskure
01:01
and the patent system is dysfunctional,
18
46000
2000
og at patent systemet er dysfunktionelt,
01:03
and as a result, most of these lawsuits end in settlements.
19
48000
3000
og resultatet bliver, at de fleste af disse søgsmål ender i forlig.
01:06
And because these settlements are under a non-disclosure agreement,
20
51000
3000
Og fordi disse forlig er bundet af en fortrolighedsaftale
01:09
no one knows what the terms were.
21
54000
2000
ved ingen hvad omstændighederne var.
01:11
And as a result, the patent troll can claim
22
56000
2000
Resultatet bliver, at patent trolden kan hævde
01:13
that they won the case.
23
58000
3000
at have vundet sagen.
01:16
In the case of Gooseberry Natural Resources,
24
61000
2000
I sagen omkring Gooseberry Natural Resources,
01:18
this patent on emailing news releases
25
63000
2000
havde dette patent på at emaile nyhedsskrivelser
01:20
had sort of a fatal flaw
26
65000
2000
en slags fatal fejl
01:22
as it pertained to myself,
27
67000
2000
i dens forbindelse med mig selv,
01:24
and that was that in the mainstream media world
28
69000
2000
og det var, at i mainstream medie verdenen
01:26
there is only one definition for news release,
29
71000
3000
er der kun en definition på nyhedsskrivelse,
01:29
and it turns out that is press release --
30
74000
2000
og det viser sig at være en presse meddelse --
01:31
as in P.R.
31
76000
2000
som i P.R.
01:33
Now my company, Fark,
32
78000
2000
Min virksomhed, Fark,
01:35
deals with news, ostensibly,
33
80000
2000
beskæftiger sig med nyheder, angiveligt,
01:37
and as a result
34
82000
2000
og som resultat deraf
01:39
we were not in violation of this patent.
35
84000
2000
krænkede vi ikke dette patent.
01:41
So case closed, right?
36
86000
2000
Så sagen er afsluttet, vel?
01:43
Wrong.
37
88000
2000
Forkert.
01:45
One of the major problems with patent law is that,
38
90000
2000
Et af de store problemer med patentlovgivningen er,
01:47
in the case that when you are sued by a patent troll,
39
92000
3000
at ifald du sagsøges af en patent trold,
01:50
the burden of proof that you did not infringe on the patent
40
95000
3000
falder bevisbyrden for, at du ikke krænkede patentet
01:53
is actually on the defendant,
41
98000
2000
faktisk på den anklagede,
01:55
which means you have to prove
42
100000
2000
hvilket betyder at du skal bevise
01:57
that you do not infringe on the patent they're suing you on.
43
102000
3000
at du ikke krænker det patent de sagsøger dig under.
02:00
And this can take quite a while.
44
105000
3000
Og dette kan tage et godt stykke tid.
02:03
You need to know that the average patent troll defense
45
108000
3000
I skal vide at det gennemsnitlige forsvar mod patent trolde
02:06
costs two million dollars
46
111000
2000
koster to millioner dollars
02:08
and takes 18 months when you win.
47
113000
3000
og tager 18 måneder når du vinder.
02:11
That is your best case outcome
48
116000
2000
Dette er det bedste udfald
02:13
when you get sued by a patent troll.
49
118000
2000
når man sagsøges af en patent trold.
02:15
Now I had hoped to team up with some of these larger companies
50
120000
3000
Jeg havde håbet på at gå sammen med nogle af disse store virksomheder
02:18
in order to defend against this lawsuit,
51
123000
2000
for at forsvare mig mod dette søgsmål,
02:20
but one-by-one they settled out of the case,
52
125000
3000
men en efter en indgik de forlig,
02:23
even though -- and this is important --
53
128000
2000
selvom -- og dette er vigtigt --
02:25
none of these companies
54
130000
2000
ingen af disse virksomheder
02:27
infringed on this patent -- not a one of them.
55
132000
3000
krænkede dette patent -- ikke en af dem.
02:30
And they started settling out.
56
135000
2000
Og de begyndte at indgå forlig.
02:32
The reason they settled out
57
137000
2000
Grunden til at de indgik forlig
02:34
is because it's cheaper to settle than to fight the lawsuit --
58
139000
2000
er fordi det er billigere at indgå forlig, end at bekæmpe søgsmålet --
02:36
clearly, two million dollars cheaper in some cases,
59
141000
3000
umiddelbart, to millioner dollars billigere i visse tilfælde,
02:39
and much worse if you actually lose.
60
144000
2000
og meget værre hvis du faktisk taber.
02:41
It would also constitute a massive distraction for management of a company,
61
146000
3000
Det ville også udgøre en stor distrahering for ledelsen af en virksomhed,
02:44
especially a small eight-man shop like my company.
62
149000
3000
især for en lille 8 mands biks som min virksomhed.
02:47
Six months into the lawsuit,
63
152000
2000
Seks måneder inde i søgsmålet,
02:49
we finally reached the discovery phase.
64
154000
2000
nåede vi endelig frem til udforskningsfasen.
02:51
And in discovery phase,
65
156000
2000
Og i udforskningsfasen,
02:53
we asked the patent troll to please provide
66
158000
2000
bad vi patent trolden om venligst at anskaffe
02:55
screenshots of Fark
67
160000
2000
skærmbilleder af Fark
02:57
where the infringement of their patent
68
162000
2000
der hvor krænkelsen af deres patent
02:59
was actually occurring.
69
164000
2000
faktisk fandt sted.
03:01
Now perhaps it's because no such screenshots actually existed,
70
166000
4000
Det er muligvis fordi sådanne skærmbilleder faktisk aldrig eksisterede,
03:05
but suddenly Gooseberry wanted to settle.
71
170000
2000
men pludselig ville Gooseberry gerne indgå forlig.
03:07
Their attorney:
72
172000
2000
Deres sagfører:
03:09
"Ah, yes. My company's having a reorganization on our end."
73
174000
4000
"Ah, ja. Min virksomhed undergår en reorganisation."
03:13
Never mind the fact
74
178000
2000
Uagtet det faktum
03:15
that the address led to a strip mall somewhere in Northern L.A.
75
180000
2000
at deres adresse førte til et indkøbscenter et sted i det nordlige L.A.
03:17
with no employees.
76
182000
2000
uden nogen ansatte.
03:19
"And we'd like to go ahead and close this out.
77
184000
2000
"Og vi ville gerne have lukket dette ned.
03:21
So would you mind giving us your best and final offer?"
78
186000
4000
Så ville du have noget i mod at give os dit bedste og endegyldige tilbud?"
03:25
My response:
79
190000
2000
Mit respons:
03:27
"How about nothing?!"
80
192000
2000
"Hvad med intet?!"
03:29
(Applause)
81
194000
5000
(Applaus)
03:34
We didn't have high hopes for that outcome.
82
199000
2000
Vi havde ikke høje forventninger til dette udfald.
03:36
(Laughter)
83
201000
2000
(Latter)
03:38
But they settled.
84
203000
2000
Men de indgik forlig.
03:40
No counter offer.
85
205000
2000
Intet modforslag.
03:42
Now, as mentioned before,
86
207000
2000
Som jeg nævnte før,
03:44
one of the reasons I can talk to you about this
87
209000
2000
er en af grundene til at jeg kan tale til jer om dette,
03:46
is because there's no non-disclosure agreement on this case.
88
211000
2000
at der ikke er en fortrolighedsaftale på denne sag.
03:48
Now how did that happen?
89
213000
2000
Hvordan gik det dog til?
03:50
Well during the settlement process, when we received our copy, I struck it.
90
215000
3000
Tja, under forligsprocessen, da vi modtog vores kopi, stregede jeg det ud.
03:53
My attorney said, "Nah, no chance of that working."
91
218000
3000
Min sagfører sagde, "Nææ, der er ingen chance for at det vil virke."
03:56
It came back signed.
92
221000
2000
Det kom underskrevet tilbage.
03:58
Now why? You can call them.
93
223000
3000
Men hvorfor? I kan ringe til dem.
04:01
They're not under NDA either.
94
226000
2000
De er heller ikke underlagt en fortrolighedsaftale.
04:03
Now what did I learn from this case? Well, three things.
95
228000
3000
Nå, hvad lærte jeg af denne sag? Tja, tre ting.
04:06
First of all, if you can,
96
231000
3000
Først og fremmest, hvis du kan,
04:09
don't fight the patent, fight the infringement.
97
234000
3000
lad være med at bekæmpe patentet, bekæmp krænkelsen.
04:12
Patents are very difficult to overturn.
98
237000
2000
Patenter er meget svære at modbevise.
04:14
Infringement is a lot easier to disprove.
99
239000
3000
Krænkelse er meget lettere at modbevise.
04:17
Secondly, make it clear from the beginning
100
242000
2000
Sekundært, gør det klart fra starten,
04:19
that either you have no money at all
101
244000
2000
at du enten ingen penge har overhovedet
04:21
or that you would rather spend money with your attorney fighting the troll
102
246000
4000
eller at du hellere ville bruge penge sammen med din sagfører på at bekæmpe trolden
04:25
than actually giving them the money.
103
250000
2000
end faktisk at give dem pengene.
04:27
Now the reason this works
104
252000
2000
Grunden til at dette virker
04:29
is because patent trolls
105
254000
2000
er at patent trolde
04:31
are paid a percentage of what they're able to recover in settlements.
106
256000
3000
bliver betalt en procentdel af hvad de er istand til at få udbetalt i forlig.
04:34
If it becomes clear to them that they cannot recover any money,
107
259000
3000
Hvis det bliver klart for dem, at de ikke kan få nogle penge,
04:37
they become less interested in pursuing the case.
108
262000
3000
bliver de mindre interesserede i at forfølge sagen.
04:40
Finally, make sure that you can tell them
109
265000
2000
Endelig, skal du sikre, at du kan fortælle dem
04:42
that you will make this process
110
267000
2000
at du vil gøre denne process
04:44
as annoying and as painful
111
269000
2000
så irriterende og så pinefuld
04:46
and as difficult as possible for them.
112
271000
3000
og så besværlig som muligt for dem.
04:49
Now this is a tactic that patent trolls are supposed to use on people
113
274000
2000
Dette er en taktik som det er meningen, at patent trolde skal bruge på folk
04:51
to get their way.
114
276000
2000
for at få deres vilje.
04:53
It turns out, because they're paid on contingency,
115
278000
2000
Det viser sig, at fordi de betales afhængigt af indtjening,
04:55
it works really, really well in reverse.
116
280000
2000
så virker det virkelig virkelig godt omvendt.
04:57
Don't forget that.
117
282000
2000
Glem ikke det.
04:59
So what does all this mean?
118
284000
2000
Så hvad betyder alt dette?
05:01
Well to sum up,
119
286000
2000
For at opsummere,
05:03
it boils down to one thing:
120
288000
2000
så kan det koges ned til en ting:
05:05
Don't negotiate with terrorists.
121
290000
3000
Lad være med at forhandle med terrorister.
05:08
(Applause)
122
293000
5000
(Applaus)
05:13
Patent trolls have done more damage to the United States economy
123
298000
3000
Patent trolde har gjort mere skade på den amerikanske økonomi
05:16
than any domestic or foreign
124
301000
2000
end nogen indenrigs eller udenlandsk
05:18
terrorist organization in history
125
303000
3000
terroristorganisation i historien
05:21
every year.
126
306000
3000
hvert år.
05:24
And what do they do with that money?
127
309000
3000
Og hvad gør de, med pengene?
05:27
They plow it right back into filing more troll lawsuits.
128
312000
4000
Det kaster det straks tilbage til at indgive flere trolde søgsmål.
05:31
Now this is the point in the Talk
129
316000
2000
Dette er pointen i min Talk
05:33
where I'm supposed to come up with some kind of a solution for the patent system.
130
318000
3000
hvor det er meningen, at jeg skal komme med en slags løsning på patent systemet.
05:36
And the problem with that
131
321000
2000
Og problemet med dette er,
05:38
is that there are two very large industry groups
132
323000
2000
at der er to meget store industrigrupper
05:40
that have different outcomes in mind
133
325000
2000
der har forskellige udfald i tankerne
05:42
for the patent system.
134
327000
2000
for patent systemet.
05:44
The health care industry
135
329000
2000
Sundhedsindustrien
05:46
would like stronger protections for inventors.
136
331000
2000
ønsker stærkere beskyttelse for opfindere.
05:48
The hi-tech industry
137
333000
2000
Høj teknologi industrien
05:50
would like stronger protections for producers.
138
335000
2000
ønsker stærkere beskyttelse for producenter.
05:52
And these goals aren't necessarily diametrically opposed, but they are at odds.
139
337000
3000
Og disse mål er ikke nødvendigvis diametrisk modsatte, men de er i konflikt.
05:55
And as a result, patent trolls can kind of live in the space in between.
140
340000
4000
Og et resultat er, at patent trolde på en måde kan leve i rummet imellem.
05:59
So unfortunately I'm not smart enough
141
344000
2000
Så desværre er jeg ikke klog nok
06:01
to have a solution for the patent troll problem.
142
346000
3000
til at have en løsning på patent trolde problemet.
06:04
However, I did have this idea,
143
349000
3000
Men, jeg havde dog en ide,
06:07
and it was kind of good.
144
352000
3000
og den var ret god.
06:10
And I thought, "I should patent this."
145
355000
2000
Og jeg tænkte, "jeg burde tage patent på dette."
06:12
(Laughter)
146
357000
3000
(Latter)
06:15
Behold, patent infringement via mobile device --
147
360000
5000
Se, patent krænkelse via mobilt apparat --
06:20
defined as a computer which is not stationary.
148
365000
4000
defineret som en computer, der ikke er stationær.
06:24
My solution: award me this patent
149
369000
2000
Min løsning: giv mig dette patent
06:26
and I will troll them out of existence.
150
371000
2000
og så vil jeg trolde dem ud af eksistens.
06:28
Thank you.
151
373000
2000
Mange tak.
06:30
(Applause)
152
375000
4000
(Applaus)
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Drew Curtis - Web entrepreneurDrew Curtis is the founder and administrator of Fark.com.
Why you should listen
In 1993, while a student in England, Drew Curtis began sending links to his friends. Over time that grew until he founded a website for the links: Fark.com. The site has now grown into one of the largest, and most irreverant, news aggregators on the web.
Along with managing Fark.com, Curtis speaks on behalf of other entrepreneurs targeted by "patent trolls" -- an epithet for companies or law firms that file aggressive, broad patent lawsuits against other companies.
Download a .zip file of Drew Curtis and Fark's court documents >>
Drew Curtis | Speaker | TED.com