Hmm. It’s an interesting story – it doesn’t seem that it’s 100% the typical patent troll mold, though it’s obviously still a shitty tale of bullshit patent litigation tactics. It looks like Pappas had his original idea and filed for a patent in 2000, basically trying to create a way to monetize the ad hoc markets that pop up whenever people are in line or reserving places for entertainment (probably based on his own restaurant experience). He filed a single, very broad, multiregion patent on this, and launched a company and online platform around it in 2008 (OptionIt) to provide an online service for trading ticket reservations / places in line. Braxton had a similar but more clearly defined idea in 2011, and filed his own patent.

Like I said – I don’t like this idea, I wish it hadn’t been granted patent protection, and I’m happy if it never reaches the market. However, for all that, I think Pappas original idea was a bit more inventive. Back in 2000 we didn’t have an app economy, and we hadn’t gotten used to these kinds of ad hoc, internet-facilitated temporary market places. When Braxton came up with it, it was pretty dull.

Either way, once Pappas started his business, I guess he instructed his law firm to handle litigation as aggressively as possible, which is fairly standard practice, and which is the unfortunate behavior described in the video. After losing the original suit and then losing the Rule 11 motion, they argued like aggressive assholes in mediation, and got Braxton to back down. I think their threat was fairly hollow – he says that they threatened him with their ‘patent portfolio,’ but this is the only patent family I can find for OptionIt / Smart Option.

I’m not sure I would call this a textbook case of patent trolling – usually patent trolls file or acquire patents for the sole purpose of extorting legitimate businesses, but here it looks like Pappas was actually trying to make a go of this (shitty) app idea, but used intimidation to try to protect that idea. It’s one shitty business trying to intimidate another upstart shitty business, and the courts ruling against the first party. On the whole we all lose – OptionIt wins the mediation through shitty intimidation, and Braxton’s shitty patent gets added to Spangenberg’s portfolio of shitty troll assets to keep the cycle going.

The whole copyright and patent system needs to be redone from scratch. This sort of shit is just fucking idiotic.

Thank goodness TechDirt and the NYT continued to follow this story and outed the troll: Smart Options (in context even the name is f'ed up). It's a good read and even has cringingly terrible troll on troll fighting: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150510/07083630948/patent-trolls-frivolous-attack-startup-forces-startup-to-sell-out-to-another-patent-troll.shtml

Stories like this simply crush my desire to strike out on my own in software development. We seriously need patent reform!

1 - His app sounds horrible and I would fucking hate if its use became widespread.
2 - Software and service patents are awful and shitty and shouldn't be a thing. His patent seems pretty shitty.
3 - The troll is obviously worse.

Your video, How Peter Braxton defeated a patent troll and still lost, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@ChaosEngine

Did you even read the article I linked? It makes a pretty strong case that at the time the wording was intended to imply every citizen's responsibility as well as right for "collective self-defense," as in everyone should own a gun so they can help out in the event of an invasion.

In other words, you're flat out wrong when you say the 2nd amendment wasn't about self-defense--that's precisely what it was about. It wasn't about personal (i.e. individual) self-defense at the time of its inception but it has since been found to include that meaning because the idea that people should keep guns at home but only use them to defend against foreign attackers and not domestic ones, such as a home invader, was found to be patently absurd. And yes, eventually militias faded away, but the idea that citizens have a right to own firearms for sport or protection--whether it be from wildlife or other humans--had already been legally established for a long time.

I'm not sure why your tone is so dismissive in this thread. You live in New Zealand, am I correct? Yes, you're right, you're quite lucky to live in a country where your government protects you from growing your own food by throwing all those dangerous gardeners in prison.

Look, New Zealand has a shit-ton of guns (about one for every four people) as well and people own them for a variety of reasons, from sport to self-defense. You have a lower crime rate, which can be attributed to a variety of factors but not conclusively to the strict gun laws, as people in New Zealand do in fact still commit crimes with guns.

So... what's the point you're trying to make?

True, no one KNOWS, but it's a no brainer that his election would be seen as unpredictable by the markets, and dire political unpredictability=bear market.

Not so in any way. He has so little actual power it's laughable that you would think that. He's not even allowed to run the companies he actually owns large parts of because the boards won't allow him to, because they have a duty to not let him drive the companies into the ground. What "power" do you think he has?

He probably can't "seize the reigns" by force unless he's elected. He can attempt to seize them if he is elected.

Facism-(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Has Clinton been convicted? You didn't even say "likely broken Federal law", you said "on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law" Because his past has not been as transparent by far and usually those dealing with him are forced to sign non disclosure agreements, it's patently ridiculous to imply that his crimes would be simple to just point to....but OK, not paying off on interstate contracts is a federal crime, one he's admitted publicly that he's committed uncountable times, any time he gets service before payment in full it seems....and he's been found guilty of that in civil court. Satisfied?

Um...lacking knowledge is being naïve.
Naïve-having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

Okay. You're right. He can be a politician. He is a politician. A stinking poor one, but since he is running for public office, he is by definition a "politician."

Doesn't change the fact he is unqualified to be President. He knows nothing. He promotes fear-mongering and encourages violence. He says he will do things as president that are clearly unconstitutional and outside his powers (banning Muslims, changing the libel laws so he can gain financially.) He is thin-skinned.

He has just revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post because he didn't like a front page story. The man doesn't understand the three branches of government plus the fourth estate of a free press.

I'm qualified to disqualify him because I am a thinking American who knows some history. Like Ken Burns. Like Mitt Romney.

Trump is a unifier, all right. For the first time in almost eight years, some Republicans are putting their love of country above partisanship. I've never been more proud of everyone who has the courage to tell the truth about Donald Trump.

He is patently unfit to serve our country. He has never done it before. He isn't interested in doing it now.

Adam Carolla was being sued by patent trolls who claimed to own the patent on making podcast episodes available for download. He refused to settle, which is what they want. They only dropped the suit once they realized he doesn't make enough money to make their suit profitable.

People and companies buy up patents like this for the sole purpose of suing anyone they can because there is no penalty for them to sue anyone they want, and in most cases anyone they sue will settle because they can't afford a defense or it will be less costly to just pay them.

It's madness, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

This reminded me of that movie Joy 2015 with Jennifer Lawrence. Her patent on the mop she invented was stolen by a shyster from Texas.

These corrupt scabs need to be annexed.

Hmm... are you sure these are crimes? I guess that a fraudulent lawsuit could be criminal if the plaintiff would knowingly try to enforce a non-valid patent... but since they have explicit confirmation from the USPTO that the patent is valid, it seems difficult to claim that they 'know' the patent is not valid... though it's obviously common sense.

Patents and Copyright need to be completely rewritten from scratch. They are so outdated and biased it is ridiculous and you end up with shit like this. And it's only getting worse.

This is still a thing because we haven't rebooted the patent system. Google looks after itself, it's "do no evil" mantra left as a whisper in the wind. Patents are rarely thrown out...watch the referenced video about beating a patent troll in the comments...fight the infringement. The patent system is outdated and documents sometimes software thought experiments instead of actual work. Poop smells because it rots in your colon before being expelled.

Good video...gave it the upvote.

Seriously, why doesn't Google help?

I would have directed the video to all app developers on Google, telling them that they are next to be sued, and to stop using the Google Play store as a result, since they all, apparently, are violating the patent. And that's a reason and vested interest in Google to assist.

How is this still a thing? How is that not a conflict of interest? Why doesn't Google jump in to protect their customers? Why aren't these overly vague patents thrown out? How do they get approved in the first place? Why does poop smell?