Startups call for pro-innovation immigration policy
When his original grading and evaluation platform wasn’t getting any bites in the world of higher education, Ali Aldubaisi and his co-founder, Ali "AJ" Aldjaei, ended up pivoting to the training of law enforcement. Today, Kaiden AI is used in police academies across the country to train recruits on how to de-escalate high-pressure scenarios. We sat down with Ali to discuss his software, selling to government organizations, and founding a startup in northern Virginia.
A federal program to boost broadband — a necessary component of startup founders and users ability to access the startup ecosystem — in states across the country is facing headwinds and delays as policymakers move the goalposts and risk making progress on closing the digital divide.
Timing the sowing and watering of crops is as important as ever in agriculture. Jessi Korinek and her co-founders at Nave Analytics are developing a software that uses satellite data to help farmers cut down on water costs for irrigation. We sat down with Jessi to discuss her product, the impact of tariffs on the agricultural industry, and the challenges she faced in receiving federal research and development (R&D) grants.
This Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on the Innovation Act -- the best bill yet that aims to remedy the growing patent trolling problem. We cannot wait to enact meaningful patent reform, and this is our opportunity. We need you to call your Congressional Representative to urge a yes vote on this bill.
If you’ve been following the patent troll epidemic in the news at all, you’ve probably also heard of the company I work for. Six months ago, I started working at FindTheBest. Two days after I started, we were served with our first demand letter from Lumen View Technology LLC. The next A day, Lumen View Technology filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In the name of “individual rights and free expression,” WikiLeaks has released the draft text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Negotiations over this trade agreement began in secret between 12 Pacific Rim countries in December 2012, and despite the secrecy, we know (from a previous leak) that discussions have covered intellectual property, competition and State-owned enterprises, environmental policy, services and investment, and government procurement, among other issues. But how will this impact startups?
Today, 39 prominent venture capitalists sent a letter to Congress urging comprehensive legislation to address the patent troll problem. Together, the signatories have aided the success of companies such as Netflix, Twitter, and Kickstarter, and they invest upwards of $1 billion annually to ensure that even more young, high-tech companies continue to grow and fuel job creation in the United States.
Entrepreneurs, young businesses, and emerging, high-growth technologies are powering what resurgence there is in the American economy. But these businesses are subject to an arcane, onerous system of patent regulation that leaves them vulnerable, and that vulnerability is abused by patent assertion entities and their allies to leverage that system against innovators. With this reality, we are faced with two options: a broken system, or the chance of a reformed system that champions innovation and growth.
On Friday afternoon, the Federal Trade Commission announced its intention to launch a study of Patent Assertion Entities, commonly referred to as “patent trolls.” While a host of interesting research on the patent system has surfaced over the summer, the FTC’s involvement could lead to the evaluation of brand new information that will aid legislative efforts.
A new study from the Progressive Policy Institute puts the economic cost of patent trolls at $83 billion. Patent trolls are capitalizing on a system which, as currently constituted, does not adequately service our growing economy. It is a system within our power to reconstruct, and while that work is underway, we need this community to continue to support those efforts to bring them to fruition.
In banning software patents, New Zealand has done the equivalent of amending section 101 of the Patent Act that helps define what is, and is not, patentable. As a refresher, this oft-cited section is intended to preclude patent protection for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Can the U.S. do the same?
Today, we’re excited to partner with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a coalition of organizations and law schools to launch Trolling Effects, a resource to empower entrepreneurs targeted by patent trolls. Patent troll lawsuits represented 62 percent of all patent litigation in 2012, and the costs associated with these suits amount to billion of dollars, stalling business growth, delaying products, and robbing startups of precious resources.
The best trade agreements strengthen relationships with nations and regions vital to United States foreign and economic policy. When it comes to the secretive discussions around the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), however, any benefits might also come with now-unseen costs to startups and the tech industry as a whole if negotiators do not consider unintended consequences.
Today the White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues issued a statement with a clear message: it’s time to tackle patent reform. While Washington as a whole has been slow to embrace new proposals after the passage of The America Invents Act in 2011, a steady drumbeat from advocates, startups, and tech companies alike has pushed policy makers to do more to end the economic drag caused by frivolous patent litigation. The Obama administration announced seven legislative recommendations and five executive actions that are a material step toward fixing the broken patent regime.
The executive actions make clarity a top priority. The requirements include ordering the patent office to work on rules that will make the real owner of a patent more apparent, requiring the office to tighten patent examiners’ scrutiny around what a given patent claims to do, and compelling the office to provide clear, plain-English answers for consumers and businesses about demand letters from patent trolls.
The administration's legislative recommendations also meet key startup needs. The White House is calling on Congress to empower and protect individuals and businesses facing legal demands from patent trolls. This includes proposals to further increase patent owner transparency, shift incentives to discourage predatory litigation, expand the patent reviews from the America Invents Act, end-user protections from patent troll suits, and increase incentives to encourage public disclosure of demand letters from trolls.
We are excited that the White House is taking action in the patent debate. While Washington has been divided along partisan lines of late, members of both parties are unifying to right some of the apparent wrongs in the system. Today’s announcement should encourage further dialogue about what the right fixes are, and how Congress can most effectively protect startups and ultimately all businesses from unwarranted lawsuits.
You can read White House fact sheet here. We will continue to post updates on patent reform proposals from Washington.
Related articles:
Picture courtesy of Alan Kotok.
Last week, Engine submitted a filing on patent assertion entity (PAE) practices to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. Patent Assertion Entities, often referred to as “patent trolls,” are businesses that own patents and
And a have hours viagra online multiple of everything nail came cialis side effects I that the canadian pharmacy online have Kiss cialis pills forehead package two review products viagra for men back had... Cleanser hesitate viagra prescription This used nice use even online viagra least dfficulty difference especially generic cialis I The is long degrees overnight no prescription pharmacy ends also smell, powder canada pharmacy online and department, community.
make money by suing others for infringing on the patents – rather than developing products. Regulators in Washington are gathering information about these business practices to better understand the impact they can have on innovation, competition, and consumers.
While there is a host of excellent quantitative research on the cost of litigation to innovation, there is little discussion of the practical impact PAE litigation has on startups. In addition, many startups that have faced such demands and lawsuits are reticent to publicly discuss their experiences for fear of being targeted by further baseless infringement claims. To add more to this discussion, we suggested the Justice Department and FTC keep a few startup-related concerns in mind:
Let’s break this down.
First, we know from research conducted by Santa Clara University professor Colleen Chien that companies with less revenue are increasingly being targeted by patent trolls. Her extensive work on how the patent ecosystem impacts startups demonstrates how the “patent wars” affecting big companies like Apple and Samsung are very different than the often-overlooked struggles of startups against trolls.
Second, as mentioned above, too few entrepreneurs are comfortable discussing their experiences with patent litigation. Whether under nondisclosure agreements from settlements, or for fear of making themselves repeated targets or having what they say used against them in depositions, there is little incentive for innovators to speak out against what they agree with President Obama amounts to “extortion”.
Next, there appears to be increasing evidence that patent trolls are taking advantage of the startup investment and financing cycle. When a startup secures a round of funding, they often issue a press release, or find their company’s name in TechCrunch, VentureBeat or The Verge. Many founders, as well as internal and external legal staff, have noted that demand letters seem to follow such public announcements. If patent trolls are “following the money,” as it were, this is a very concerning development – predatory litigation will act as a tax on investment. Individuals with great ideas, actually building innovative products, should not be forced to hand over money as a result of their success.
In addition, startups are particularly sensitive to the productivity drag litigation imposes. As great engineering talent is more and more difficult to find, losing engineers for days or weeks at a time, to prepare and advise lawyers and provide deposition, presents a huge barrier to getting a product up and running and in the hands of users. Larger startups face these challenges, but the problem is more pronounced for small teams trying to fight baseless patent infringement claims.
Finally, uncertainty about the direction of the patent ecosystem is driving startups and innovators to take matters into their own hands. Securing patents takes a significant amount of time and money. While some startups need patents to protect their core technologies, many are pursuing applications to protect themselves from troll activities. Moreover, groups as diverse as Twitter and Berkeley Law are creating so-called defensive patent regimes, within which those who secure patents agree to pool their portfolios and only use them for defensive purposes.
Lawmakers need to take note of the effort, time and resources that startups are putting into protecting themselves from the threat of patent trolls.
As we’ve previously argued, startups need to lead the discussion on patent reform. Policymakers, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission must keep startups and entrepreneurs in mind as PAE activity is discussed and scrutinized. We are encouraged by the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the federal government, but more must be done to protect the ventures of risk-taking entrepreneurs and ensure a more innovative future for the American economy.
Picture courtesy of Alan Kotok.
Engine and the Electronic Frontier Foundation join with more than 60 entrepreneurs, investors, and innovators to ask the House Judiciary Committee to take action on patent trolls. Our call to action supports the reintroduction of Congressman Peter Defazio’s SHIELD Act, a measure aimed at reducing costly litigation created by non-practicing entities. We’re encouraging Congress to consider legislation that helps protect startups from litigation that stifles economic growth.
Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of reddit; Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban; Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson of Foundry Group; Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures, and David Cohen, founder and CEO of TechStars are among the individuals who signed on to the letter.
Today’s letter demonstrates agreement in the innovation and investment communities on the harmful nature of litigation to companies across the country. Find the full text of the letter below.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers,
We, the undersigned, write today as entrepreneurs, investors, and innovators in support of the Saving High-tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act and other legislative measures aimed at reducing costly litigation created by non-practicing entities, often referred to as patent trolls. Congress should consider measures that shift incentives away from those who game the system and toward an innovative economy and competitive market.
As President Obama acknowledged earlier this month, patent trolls, “essentially leverage and hijack” patents originally issued to others in an effort to “extort” money through litigation. Young, innovative companies are increasingly targets of these lawsuits. While big companies paid much of the $29 billion in direct costs resulting from activities by patent trolls in 2011, the costs made up a larger share of small companies’ revenue. In fact, the majority of companies targeted by patent trolls have less than $10 million in revenue.
Without startups, there would have been no net job growth in the United States over the last two decades. Congress needs to make measures like the SHIELD Act a priority in 2013 so that innovative companies and entrepreneurs can continue to grow without the threats posed by non-practicing entities. Congress must take action and fix the patent troll problem. We urge the committee to call hearings on patent troll litigation and to solicit information from the innovation community at-large.
Sincerely,
Nathan Allen
Four First Names
Luis Arbulu
Hattery
Joen Asmussen
Automattic Inc.
Seth Bannon
Amicus
James R Bazet
Cobra Electronics Corporation
Matthew Bellows
Yesware, Inc
Paul Berberian
Orbotix, Inc.
Aaron N. Block
BayRu LLC
Matthew Y. Blumberg
Return Path, Inc.
Brad Burnham
Union Square Ventures
David Cohen
TechStars
Jessica Cole
Roammeo, Inc.
Dave Copps
PureDiscovery
Mark Cuban
Dallas Mavericks
Rutul Davè
Bright Funds, Inc.
Pete Davies
Automattic Inc
Christian Dawson
Internet Infrastructure Coalition
Derek Dukes
Dipity
Mat Ellis
Cloudability
Edward Engler
Pittsburgh Equity Partners
Tim Enwall
Mobiplug Networks, Inc
Brad Feld
Foundry Group
Rand Fishkin
SEOmoz
Chris Franks
Moblify
William Randolph Fry
Fry’s Electronics, Inc.
Nick Hamze
Automattic Inc.
Erick Hitter
Automattic Inc
Trenidad Hubbard
Game Face Sports International, LLC
Terry Floyd Johnson
Showdown Royal
Jeevan Kalanithi
Sifteo
Seth Levine
Foundary Group
John Levisay
Sympoz Inc.
Benjamin Lewis
The MadCelt Studios
David Mandell
PivotDesk
Michael Masnick
Floor64, Inc.
Ryan McIntyre
Foundry Group
Josh Mendelsohn
Hattery
Jason Mendelson
Foundry Group
David Merrill
Sifteo
Jesse Miller
Attachments.me
Christopher Neumann
Datahero, Inc.
George Northup
Memeo Inc.
Ethan Rishon Oberman
SpiderOak, Inc.
Alexis Ohanian
reddit
Scott Petry
Authentic8
Daniel Pidgeon
Starpower
Lamar Porter
CIKI, Inc.
Ian C Rogers
Daisy, A Beats by Dre Company
Toni Schneider
Automattic Inc.
Paul Sieminski
Automattic Inc
Keith Lloyd Smith
BigDoor
Jesse Suchmann
DIGITAS
Steven Tiffen
The Tiffen Company
Joshua To
Hattery
Max Uhlenhuth
SilviaTerra
Elizabeth Urello
Automattic Inc
Alexander Shalek White
Next Big Sound
Victor Wong
PaperG
Skylar Woodward
Trumo, Inc.
Adam Wooley
Brute Labs
Gary Yacoubian
Specialty Technologies, LLC dba SVS
Jun Zhang
Vercury Inc.
Innovators may have the opportunity to work more closely with patent regulators as they expand their operations to the West coast. On behalf of Engine, I headed to Stanford University on Tuesday to speak alongside individuals from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, App Developers Alliance, and CodeX as well as two independent developers about the need for greater innovation in the patent regime.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office kicked off its “Software Partnership Roundtable” series seeking input on how to better handle overbroad software patents. Many of us highlighted the opportunity to use new technology to help patent examiners avoid issuing overbroad or unclear patents.
These problem patents are largely to blame for the increase in suits filed by non-practicing entities, often referred to as “patent trolls.” New research from Santa Clara University professor Colleen Chien shows that 82 percent of those facing patent troll suits have been sued on the basis of a software patent. The PTO sought input specifically on overbroad software patents making functional claims that may encompass any number of technologies. Think of Lodsys’ alleged patent on in-app purchases or the disputed “pull to refresh” patents.
Entrepreneurs, investors, and software developers are growing increasingly wary of the patent system both because of potential litigation and due to limited resources to file for and license patents. In a startup’s first year, the company will likely run on little more than the savings of the founders, a few credit cards, and the company’s ideas and innovations. Angel and seed-stage investment don’t provide much financial breathing room, making the fees and time associated with filing for a patent a luxury at best.
Trust in the patent system has eroded. Companies and organizations including Twitter are creating defensive patent systems to help innovators avoid the negative externalities associated with patent litigation. The relationship between developers and the patent system is not so much broken as it is nonexistent in many cases. As two Washington University economists noted in a recent Journal of Economic Perspectives article, engineers are actively told by companies to not “search, view, or speculate” on patents. As one Microsoft engineer testified, “Ignorance is bliss and strongly recommended when it comes to patents.” Big companies often encourage their engineers to avoid patents in an effort to minimize damages should they be found to have infringed an existing patent.
One potential opportunity I dicussed was drawn from Harvard Law professor Yochai Benkler’s book The Wealth of Networks. In 2002, another resource-constrained government agency -- NASA -- successfully launched a clickworkers project to map the surface of Mars. After 6 months and over 1.9 million entries, the survey work was almost indistinguishable from that of a professional geographer. It’s not a perfect case study, but an example of how technology has been used to bring the insight of ordinary citizens into problem solving at a massively complex level.
Communities ranging from Quora to Wikipedia have demonstrated the internet’s capacity to harness collective intelligence, cut through the noise, and provide reasonable guidance on any number of issues. Civic startup groups like Code for America are also demonstrating what a teams of engineers with access to government data can contribute to benefit citizens and businesses around the country. I don’t know if these models would necessarily work for the patent office, but I think the idea warrants discussion, especially as the demand for more rigorous patent review increases.
The confusion created by overbroad patents comes as platforms like GitHub make it easier and easier for software developers to engage in a flexible, responsive, and accessible way. The patent system was built around similar principles, but has become a confusing thicket for most people. To make this partnership successful, the patent office needs to mend the break with innovators while increasing transparency, rigor, and accessibility. I think the startup community can help and Engine will continue to look for opportunities to contribute.
Picture courtesy of Alan Kotok.
Startups are taking the lead in the debate on patent reform, but the nature of litigation is keeping too many victims silent. Settlements agreed to by startups often prevent information from coming out about the hardships faced by entrepreneurs.
On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to sit on a panel at the Consumer Electronics Show with patent experts from groups including Google, EFF, and Newegg. A lot of ground was covered (find great roundups in Ars Technica and Forbes), but we ran out of time before addressing one of the most critical issues facing startups: the inability of many companies to discuss cases after settling.
Why is this big deal for startups? As moderator Marvin Ammori pointed out at the end of the session, his call for questions on Twitter was answered by a host of direct messages from entrepreneurs unable to discuss the terms of settlements made. This opacity prevents a truly comprehensive understanding of the damage wrought by entities abusing bad patents.
Not much can be done to combat the silence imposed by gag orders and NDAs, but
Congressman Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, highlighted legislation during the panel that will help start the conversation on litigation reform in Congress. By decreasing the incentives to litigate, it is hoped that some of the thousands of annual patents suits may be prevented.
Startups can’t afford to be silent about the pain caused by the patent system. Engine is working to gather the stories of entrepreneurs to share with lawmakers. If you have a story to tell about the patent system, please reach out to me at edwardg@engine.is. Together we can change the way the patent system works.
The Federal Trade Commission held a workshop on patents on Monday, December 12, bringing together lawyers, academics, and industry experts to discuss issues surrounding patent litigation in the United States. Concern about startups drove the conversation at the workshop as the biggest losers in the increasingly litigious patent ecosystem, especially in presentations by Colleen Chien and Carl Shapiro.
Lawsuits filed by patent assertion entities (PAEs) -- companies that focus on buying patents for the purpose of litigation -- have increased 61 percent in 2011, according to Chien. Shapiro noted that large companies absorb the costs created by patent litigation, but that high costs for startups are emblematic of the potential harm to innovation created by PAE litigation.
As we’ve pointed out before, startups face steep costs when confronted with patent suits, especially compared to larger companies. Despite this fact, the discussion about patent litigation has centered on the battle over smartphone patents between companies like Apple, HTC, and Motorola.
We’re working to move startups to the center of the debate over patent litigation and patent reform. Reforms enacted last year in the America Invents Act provide some short-term fixes that can protect startups that have been sued. More steps are needed to protect entrepreneurs and innovation in the longer-term. At Engine, we encourage more discussions like the one the FTC held this week, bringing together stakeholders from across the ecosystem to learn from their expertise and experience.
Photo courtesy of Priya Deonarain.
Your privacy is important to us. To better protect your privacy we provide this notice explaining our online information practices and the choices you can make about the way your information is collected and used.
