Uniloc Founder Responds to Patent Troll Accusations

[Guest]

Uniloc founder Ric Richardson defends himself from accusations of being a patent troll.

Uniloc Founder Responds to Patent Troll Accusations : Read more

 

[Kami3k]

Okay, people are stupid for sending him emails and crap about this for obvious reasons.

However the company is being a patent troll, they would have a case to defend against that if they didn't have a history of this.

 

[Guest]

Grammar comment: I believe 'its' is acceptable english for 'it is'. Don't necessarily need the contraction. No need for [sic].

 

[Chipi]

You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but you're still an illiterate.

 

[Anomalyx]

For the grammar discussion...
"its" is always possessive, and never a contraction of "it is", which must always have the apostrophe. Don't worry about getting confused over English though, it's not easy to memorize all of its rules (a keen observer will note examples in that last sentence)

 

[rodbowler]

A patent troll is a paten troll is a patent troll. Uniloc creates nothing, simply aquires insanely broad patents and then attacks those that actually write code. This sort of thing will never stop, as the patent system will never be fixed.... oh man, I hope I'm wrong!

 

[teh_chem]

Forget about being a patent troll, this guy just looks like a troll.

I hate hearing about patent trolls. If the true purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation and allow people to protect their inventions, then why have "we" allowed the purchase of IP without requiring it to be used in an actual product? IMHO that's how the patent system should work. You can purchase all the IP you want, but unless you, as an "inventor" actually release technologies to consumer society involving this purchased IP, then you shouldn't be able to do anything with your purchased IP, since you're not losing any money from someone else who DOES use it to further inventions.

Seems to be the easiest way to prevent patent trolling. But that sounds like too much common sense to be involved in the patent system and litigation surrounding it...

 

[f-14]

theft   [theft] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2.
an instance of this.
3.
Archaic . something stolen.

Theft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Stealing" redirects here. For other uses, see Steal.
"Thief" redirects here. For other uses, see Thief (disambiguation).
For other uses, see Thievery and Theft (disambiguation).
In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2] The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2] In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny;[2] in others, theft has replaced larceny. Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief. The act of theft is known by terms such as stealing, thieving, and filching.[2]
Theft is the name of a statutory offense in California, Canada, England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Victoria.

Steal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Steal may refer to:
Theft, the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent
steal·ing   [stee-ling] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of a person who steals.
2.
Usually, stealings. something that is stolen.
Example Sentences
Also, in academia, there is also much infighting and nasty stealing of ideas because the funding situation has become so acute.
Hence that shows that stealing cannot fall under any objective morality.
Although you are not stealing, you are depriving someone else from earning a living.

 

[rebel1280]

[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom].... If the true purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation and allow people to protect their inventions, then why have "we" allowed the purchase of IP without requiring it to be used in an actual product? IMHO that's how the patent system should work. You can purchase all the IP you want, but unless you, as an "inventor" actually release technologies to consumer society involving this purchased IP, then you shouldn't be able to do anything with your purchased IP, since you're not losing any money from someone else who DOES use it to further inventions.[/citation]
I applaud you sir and could not agree with you more Apparently and unfortunately, this logic is either madness or just plain insane to our voted upon representatives of the legal system 🙁

 

[Cazalan]

The USPTO and patents in general have outlived their usefulness to society. The days of it protecting inventors is long past. It's just a tool for companies to exploit. It should be abolished, but like most things these days, has become too big to fail. Lawyers will defend it to their last dieing breath.

 

[eddieroolz]

He has an easy way to prove others wrong. He simply needs a product, which is an execution of the patent.

If he doesn't have one, then his foundation is a lot shakier.

 

[popatim]

if he wasnt a patent troll he wouldn't have waitied so many years for the technology to become widespread. IMO, they only wait so long to maximize the payout they might receive. So YES, they are a patent troll.

 

[beoza]

jacekring I agree with you. The USPTO doesnt need to be abolished, but it does need a major overhaul so that it better fits the modern era. Look and feel patents should be out right banned. Interface patents should be clearly defined with no room for interpretation by anyone, basically written in plain english that a 3rd grader could understand. I say this because an interface can be anything, from how a user interacts with a device to how a device connects (plugs in to) another device. And to get the patent you must have a working prototype ready by the time the patent is issued, no prototype no patent.

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]dicousta[/nom]my neighbor's half-sister makes $71/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her pay check was $17362 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site nyan.cat[/citation]
Does she make money by patent trolling? Heck, is she involved with Uniloc?

 

[hetneo]

[citation][nom]Serlin[/nom]Grammar comment: I believe 'its' is acceptable english for 'it is'. Don't necessarily need the contraction. No need for [sic].[/citation]
"Its" is possessive of third case neutral gender, it's is contraction of "it is" or "it has", but can never be contraction of "it was".

Back on subject.
This guy says he's not patent troll?! That's patently false, pun intended. Case in point, what type of people submit patent requests for existing inventions whose actual inventors didn't bother to submit patent most likely due to opinion that they have not invented anything.

http/www.google.com/patents?id=t5zTAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=ric+richardson&hl=en&ei=acFpTqisPKOJmQXj3tks&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=ric%20richardson&f=false

http/ricrichardson.blogspot.co.uk/p/list-of-patents.html

"The world can be a real disappointing place when people can steal inventions without taking responsibility for their actions, and be all butthurt when their immoral actions are faced by public scrutiny."
There, I fixed ya Mr Dick Dickardson.

 

[Guest]

Well... he is a patent troll because he or 'Uniloc' has sued over 75 companies and settled 25 of them... He sued microsoft in 2009 (well won a case) about patent infringment and won around 833$ million. Well uniloc now wants to be paid forever now... BS... they are basicly a company that thrives from patenting something that almost everyone does, sue them all, and reap the rewards.