TED2012
Drew Curtis: How I beat a patent troll
Filmed:
Readability: 4.4
1,109,604 views
Drew Curtis, the founder of fark.com, tells the story of how he fought a lawsuit from a company that had a patent, "...for the creation and distribution of news releases via email." Along the way he shares some nutty statistics about the growing legal problem of frivolous patents.
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Last January, my company, Fark.com, was sued
0
0
4000
00:19
along with Yahoo, MSN, Reddit,
1
4000
3000
00:22
AOL, TechCrunch and others
2
7000
3000
00:25
by a company called Gooseberry Natural Resources.
3
10000
3000
00:28
Gooseberry owned a patent
4
13000
2000
00:30
for the creation and distribution
5
15000
2000
00:32
of news releases via email.
6
17000
3000
00:35
(Laughter)
7
20000
3000
00:38
Now it may seem kind of strange that such a thing can actually be patented,
8
23000
3000
00:41
but it does happen all the time.
9
26000
2000
00:43
Take something already being done
10
28000
2000
00:45
and patent it for an emerging technology --
11
30000
2000
00:47
like phone calls on the internet
12
32000
3000
00:50
or video listings for TV shows
13
35000
3000
00:53
or radio but for cellphones,
14
38000
2000
00:55
and so on.
15
40000
2000
00:57
The problem with these patents
16
42000
2000
00:59
is that the mechanisms are obscure
17
44000
2000
01:01
and the patent system is dysfunctional,
18
46000
2000
01:03
and as a result, most of these lawsuits end in settlements.
19
48000
3000
01:06
And because these settlements are under a non-disclosure agreement,
20
51000
3000
01:09
no one knows what the terms were.
21
54000
2000
01:11
And as a result, the patent troll can claim
22
56000
2000
01:13
that they won the case.
23
58000
3000
01:16
In the case of Gooseberry Natural Resources,
24
61000
2000
01:18
this patent on emailing news releases
25
63000
2000
01:20
had sort of a fatal flaw
26
65000
2000
01:22
as it pertained to myself,
27
67000
2000
01:24
and that was that in the mainstream media world
28
69000
2000
01:26
there is only one definition for news release,
29
71000
3000
01:29
and it turns out that is press release --
30
74000
2000
01:31
as in P.R.
31
76000
2000
01:33
Now my company, Fark,
32
78000
2000
01:35
deals with news, ostensibly,
33
80000
2000
01:37
and as a result
34
82000
2000
01:39
we were not in violation of this patent.
35
84000
2000
01:41
So case closed, right?
36
86000
2000
01:43
Wrong.
37
88000
2000
01:45
One of the major problems with patent law is that,
38
90000
2000
01:47
in the case that when you are sued by a patent troll,
39
92000
3000
01:50
the burden of proof that you did not infringe on the patent
40
95000
3000
01:53
is actually on the defendant,
41
98000
2000
01:55
which means you have to prove
42
100000
2000
01:57
that you do not infringe on the patent they're suing you on.
43
102000
3000
02:00
And this can take quite a while.
44
105000
3000
02:03
You need to know that the average patent troll defense
45
108000
3000
02:06
costs two million dollars
46
111000
2000
02:08
and takes 18 months when you win.
47
113000
3000
02:11
That is your best case outcome
48
116000
2000
02:13
when you get sued by a patent troll.
49
118000
2000
02:15
Now I had hoped to team up with some of these larger companies
50
120000
3000
02:18
in order to defend against this lawsuit,
51
123000
2000
02:20
but one-by-one they settled out of the case,
52
125000
3000
02:23
even though -- and this is important --
53
128000
2000
02:25
none of these companies
54
130000
2000
02:27
infringed on this patent -- not a one of them.
55
132000
3000
02:30
And they started settling out.
56
135000
2000
02:32
The reason they settled out
57
137000
2000
02:34
is because it's cheaper to settle than to fight the lawsuit --
58
139000
2000
02:36
clearly, two million dollars cheaper in some cases,
59
141000
3000
02:39
and much worse if you actually lose.
60
144000
2000
02:41
It would also constitute a massive distraction for management of a company,
61
146000
3000
02:44
especially a small eight-man shop like my company.
62
149000
3000
02:47
Six months into the lawsuit,
63
152000
2000
02:49
we finally reached the discovery phase.
64
154000
2000
02:51
And in discovery phase,
65
156000
2000
02:53
we asked the patent troll to please provide
66
158000
2000
02:55
screenshots of Fark
67
160000
2000
02:57
where the infringement of their patent
68
162000
2000
02:59
was actually occurring.
69
164000
2000
03:01
Now perhaps it's because no such screenshots actually existed,
70
166000
4000
03:05
but suddenly Gooseberry wanted to settle.
71
170000
2000
03:07
Their attorney:
72
172000
2000
03:09
"Ah, yes. My company's having a reorganization on our end."
73
174000
4000
03:13
Never mind the fact
74
178000
2000
03:15
that the address led to a strip mall somewhere in Northern L.A.
75
180000
2000
03:17
with no employees.
76
182000
2000
03:19
"And we'd like to go ahead and close this out.
77
184000
2000
03:21
So would you mind giving us your best and final offer?"
78
186000
4000
03:25
My response:
79
190000
2000
03:27
"How about nothing?!"
80
192000
2000
03:29
(Applause)
81
194000
5000
03:34
We didn't have high hopes for that outcome.
82
199000
2000
03:36
(Laughter)
83
201000
2000
03:38
But they settled.
84
203000
2000
03:40
No counter offer.
85
205000
2000
03:42
Now, as mentioned before,
86
207000
2000
03:44
one of the reasons I can talk to you about this
87
209000
2000
03:46
is because there's no non-disclosure agreement on this case.
88
211000
2000
03:48
Now how did that happen?
89
213000
2000
03:50
Well during the settlement process, when we received our copy, I struck it.
90
215000
3000
03:53
My attorney said, "Nah, no chance of that working."
91
218000
3000
03:56
It came back signed.
92
221000
2000
03:58
Now why? You can call them.
93
223000
3000
04:01
They're not under NDA either.
94
226000
2000
04:03
Now what did I learn from this case? Well, three things.
95
228000
3000
04:06
First of all, if you can,
96
231000
3000
04:09
don't fight the patent, fight the infringement.
97
234000
3000
04:12
Patents are very difficult to overturn.
98
237000
2000
04:14
Infringement is a lot easier to disprove.
99
239000
3000
04:17
Secondly, make it clear from the beginning
100
242000
2000
04:19
that either you have no money at all
101
244000
2000
04:21
or that you would rather spend money with your attorney fighting the troll
102
246000
4000
04:25
than actually giving them the money.
103
250000
2000
04:27
Now the reason this works
104
252000
2000
04:29
is because patent trolls
105
254000
2000
04:31
are paid a percentage of what they're able to recover in settlements.
106
256000
3000
04:34
If it becomes clear to them that they cannot recover any money,
107
259000
3000
04:37
they become less interested in pursuing the case.
108
262000
3000
04:40
Finally, make sure that you can tell them
109
265000
2000
04:42
that you will make this process
110
267000
2000
04:44
as annoying and as painful
111
269000
2000
04:46
and as difficult as possible for them.
112
271000
3000
04:49
Now this is a tactic that patent trolls are supposed to use on people
113
274000
2000
04:51
to get their way.
114
276000
2000
04:53
It turns out, because they're paid on contingency,
115
278000
2000
04:55
it works really, really well in reverse.
116
280000
2000
04:57
Don't forget that.
117
282000
2000
04:59
So what does all this mean?
118
284000
2000
05:01
Well to sum up,
119
286000
2000
05:03
it boils down to one thing:
120
288000
2000
05:05
Don't negotiate with terrorists.
121
290000
3000
05:08
(Applause)
122
293000
5000
05:13
Patent trolls have done more damage to the United States economy
123
298000
3000
05:16
than any domestic or foreign
124
301000
2000
05:18
terrorist organization in history
125
303000
3000
05:21
every year.
126
306000
3000
05:24
And what do they do with that money?
127
309000
3000
05:27
They plow it right back into filing more troll lawsuits.
128
312000
4000
05:31
Now this is the point in the Talk
129
316000
2000
05:33
where I'm supposed to come up with some kind of a solution for the patent system.
130
318000
3000
05:36
And the problem with that
131
321000
2000
05:38
is that there are two very large industry groups
132
323000
2000
05:40
that have different outcomes in mind
133
325000
2000
05:42
for the patent system.
134
327000
2000
05:44
The health care industry
135
329000
2000
05:46
would like stronger protections for inventors.
136
331000
2000
05:48
The hi-tech industry
137
333000
2000
05:50
would like stronger protections for producers.
138
335000
2000
05:52
And these goals aren't necessarily diametrically opposed, but they are at odds.
139
337000
3000
05:55
And as a result, patent trolls can kind of live in the space in between.
140
340000
4000
05:59
So unfortunately I'm not smart enough
141
344000
2000
06:01
to have a solution for the patent troll problem.
142
346000
3000
06:04
However, I did have this idea,
143
349000
3000
06:07
and it was kind of good.
144
352000
3000
06:10
And I thought, "I should patent this."
145
355000
2000
06:12
(Laughter)
146
357000
3000
06:15
Behold, patent infringement via mobile device --
147
360000
5000
06:20
defined as a computer which is not stationary.
148
365000
4000
06:24
My solution: award me this patent
149
369000
2000
06:26
and I will troll them out of existence.
150
371000
2000
06:28
Thank you.
151
373000
2000
06:30
(Applause)
152
375000
4000
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