Patent Troll Tracker, Trade Secrets, and other Bits, No. 16

  • Troll Tracker Revealed: After learning that Ray Niro paid $10,000+ for information leading to his actual identity, the Patent Troll Tracker has revealed his identity — Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel [LINK]
  • Trade Secret: Although perhaps a novel theory, I would argue that an anonymous blogger’s identity is a protectable trade secret. Improper means used to reveal the trade secret can create liability.
  • Quote of the day (from 1895):

    “It should also be borne in mind that no property is so uncertain as “patent rights”; no property more speculative in character or held by a more precarious tenure. An applicant who goes into the patent office with claims expanded to correspond with his unbounded faith in the invention, may emerge therefrom with a shriveled parchment which protects only that which any ingenious infringer can evade. Even this may be taken from him by the courts. Indeed, it is only after a patentee has passed successfully the ordeal of judicial interpretation that he can speak with any real certainty as to the scope and character of his invention. Especially is this true of patents on spring-tooth harrows.” [1]

[1] E. Bement & Sons v. La Dow (C.C.) 66 Fed. 185 (Circuit Ct. N.Y. 1895)

171 thoughts on “Patent Troll Tracker, Trade Secrets, and other Bits, No. 16

  1. “My small contribution was coining (and Trade Marking) the pseudonym preamble “Just a …””

    Well that is certainly consistent with your expansive view on what should be protected by intellectual property laws.

  2. Soon.

    Its been quite a day.

    My neighbor just came home a told her husband, “I just won the Lottery. Pack your bags.”

    The husband says, “Great, what should I pack?”

    The wife says, “I don’t give a flying fart, just pack and get out.”

  3. Oh the irony of it all …
    Mr. Patent Troll Tracker himself now being outed as A RIP OFF ARTIST!

    I, “Just an ordinary inventor(TM)”, a relative new comer to the blogosphere, believe I have a small claim to fame in the blogosphere world.

    When I first became a blogospherer commenter, it was on Patently-O and, as memory serves, it was about 2005 (I could be wrong now, but I don’t think so).

    My small contribution was coining (and Trade Marking) the pseudonym preamble “Just a …”

    Imagine my surprise one week ago when I discovered, after $35,000,000,000’s Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel’s “Patent Troll Tracker” blog was outed on Patently-O,

    that MY PREAMBLE HAD BEEN RIPPED OF BY NONE OTHER THAN MR. PATENT TROLL TRACKER HIMSELF!, Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel.

    YES, IT’S TRUE, IT’S TRUE (as the reform platform candidate would say on
    “O Brother, Where Art thou”).

    Check it out on http://www.trolltracker.blogspot.com look on the upper right of the opening page under “About me”.

    If that don’t beat all?!, life just gets “Curiouser and Curiouser!”

  4. (RE: Your Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54 PM post above) For a $25,000 unmasking fee, Malcolm, you better keem them d-amn pants off in your high-resolution unmasking photo.

  5. “The ease at which you are rejecting any given application depends squarely on what art has been turned up, not having time to turn up the perfect ref makes many rejections very hard. This is in fact nearly an everyday consideration. As to it being my fault: Lol? Are you joking or what? Cold dropping a case in your lap about your art and seeing if you can reject it in under 15 hours. Sometime I’ll make up a case and we’ll have an exam-off on here. If I don’t smoke you I’ll be surprised, even with your advanced years. Or better yet, I’ll end up with a rejection and you’ll end up with “allowed” that would get kicked back from your SPE.”

    Your gripe isn’t with the application, then, but with the USPTO-imposed time pressure you labor under. Why do you assume that examiners will be given more time per application if the backlog goes down?

    My point, which you glibly dismissed, is that the USPTO already provides a low-cost search. (So does every other major international patent office I deal with, fwiw.) Obviously, a search MUST be performed. Any system that asks the applicant to do a search and report results opens the door to charges of willful ignorance, incomplete/insufficient searching, and/or deliberate withholding of material information (ring a bell?). In US courts, making these implications has been raised to an art form.

    If the applicant received search results and was given an opportunity to amend claims (or abandon) before substantive examination … then the claims SHOULD be narrower, not read on the prior art, and be more readily examined to completion. At absolute worst, every last applicant receives the search report, does nothing to the claims, and requests substantive examination — which is essentially what we have now. For every application that is amended in view of search results, however, examination hastens to some extent and the backlog is reduced; for every application that is abandoned in view of search results, the backlog is reduced all the more.

    And we’ve yet to address the horrible time pressures on examiners.

  6. examiner#6K

    In your 10:25PM letter you write that the USPTO is providing a low cost search solution at the agency’s expense.

    The USPTO is not an organization that exists to make a profit or to sell a service. The USPTO is an organization established to serve the people of the United States by providing conditions that motivate innovators and investors. The innovators and investors set-up companies, the companies pay taxes and employ people. The employed people pay taxes and buy stuff, reducing unemployment even further.

    The ultimate contribution of the USPTO is not in collecting search fees, but rather in engendering an environment that reduces American unemployment and allows the IRS to collect more taxes.

    For clarification as to who the real employers of the USPTO Examiners are you should watch the movie “Clear and Present Danger”, I think when Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) is talking with the President (Donald Moffat).

  7. You’re gonna have to drag yourself into the office in a few hours, those applications aren’t going to examine themselves…

  8. You’re on sonny.

    No offense, but you strike me as a plodding type. The key to production is not to wallow. Search early and intensely, find that art, then mop up. And keep track of the good art in your art. The better examiners I understand have a cache of art that they use regularly for primary references. Then its just a delta.

    But you still haven’t answered my question about “overclaiming,” If its hard to turn up art, then maybe there is really an invention there.

    I guess that didn’t occur to you.

    Oh and by the way, the patent business isn’t easy as you may have imagined. You may actually have to work long and hard at times.

    Now get some sleep.

  9. “and, strictly speaking the backlog is, o, I don’t know, not really your personal problem. I applaud your concern, but a big backlog for you only means more opportunity to make your counts.”

    The backlog, and subsequently production, is everyone’s problem at the pto, didn’t you notice the jump in production back in the 70′s when fully successful went from 75 to 90? (then to 95 in the 90′s iirc), the only reason people are asked to do 95% is there is a huge number of apps, it’s not just to drive down the examiner to application ratio, you really believe management cares about that? The only thing they’ve cared about since at least the 80′s is moving a volume of applications. The definition of a “good” examiner is currently “one who can move applications”. Didn’t you know? The 95% isn’t hardly at all to get rid of “sucky” examiners not sending out application after application at 75%, as anyone will freely tell you, it’s to make us get our arses in gear and move the humongous volume of applications we have in the backlog, or what was threatening to become one back in the day.

    And, even not considering that, the backlog is the American people, as well as all inventor’s problem as well, and that makes it of concern to me.

    “If you can’t easily reject an “overclaiming” claim then isn’t the “bad patent” problem (assuming there is such a thing) really your fault?”

    The ease at which you are rejecting any given application depends squarely on what art has been turned up, not having time to turn up the perfect ref makes many rejections very hard. This is in fact nearly an everyday consideration. As to it being my fault: Lol? Are you joking or what? Cold dropping a case in your lap about your art and seeing if you can reject it in under 15 hours. Sometime I’ll make up a case and we’ll have an exam-off on here. If I don’t smoke you I’ll be surprised, even with your advanced years. Or better yet, I’ll end up with a rejection and you’ll end up with “allowed” that would get kicked back from your SPE.

  10. I assume when you say overclaiming you mean one that is too broad. I wonder why you don’t just reject such a claim. Am I missing something here?

    If you can’t easily reject an “overclaiming” claim then isn’t the “bad patent” problem (assuming there is such a thing) really your fault?

  11. …and, strictly speaking the backlog is, o, I don’t know, not really your personal problem. I applaud your concern, but a big backlog for you only means more opportunity to make your counts.

  12. “Just take your claims as you find them and do your job.”

    I do, but you notice the patent system has o, I don’t know, a huge backlog only getting bigger.

    “Poorly written claims should be easier for you to reject, therefore what do you care?”

    I care because they’re not always easier, and, poorly written ones aren’t the problem, 112 and objections are fine there, it’s the overclaiming ones that are a problem.

  13. Its not about being lazy #6K. Many filing institutions for the benefit of a clean record prefer the PTO to throw the first pitch. On the other hand, many institutional filers do, in some cases, submit IDSs with their initial papers. I understand your frustration at claims that are too broad. I personally don’t like them myself and prefer to write claims and revise claims that I have reviewed to have some initial traction. I dont see what the big deal is for you. Just take your claims as you find them and do your job. Poorly written claims should be easier for you to reject, therefore what do you care? You can go home early, take your pants off, crack open an Old Milwaukee and pull up a pew at PatentlyO.

  14. Of course it’ll be a burden on littleguy, although frankly, I would say straight up that the search req’s could be very much lower for littleguy, maybe he just needs to do a fairly comprehensive googling of NPL, go through some database searches, and do a search or two on the USPTO’s site. Or in the alternative, use a program like EAST to do one big one. Maybe littleguy should realize that if he wants to play bigboy it’s going to take some work? I think maybe YES.

    And of course you’d RATHER have the pto do you one definitive search. Then again, I’d RATHER have breakfast in bed. You’re not making me breakfast, so why’re we doing you an ignorance dispelling search for your first action? No reason at all that’s why. Come in sans ignorance or not at all is what congress would like to tell you, because your ignorance is burdening the system.

    And remember, I don’t accuse you of being ignorant, the good people of this board accuse that, I on the other hand was taking the high road and just saying you were withholding material references on the grounds that “you didn’t think they were relavent” but either way you slice it, either of them is a problem.

    Oh, and RA, no, seriously, it’s not hard for me to imagine the real validity rates are abysmal, I’m well aware that is probably the case. I’ve cited 50% of the cases allowed as actually being decent, but that’s a generous number I will be the first to say. Further, I understand why you think you need all those deps thrown in. However, at the same time, I see that they’re a blight across the land, and need to go. If you want to impose IP property on the people of this country, then figure out what it is you want to claim, and claim only that. 1 to 2 claims should suffice. Don’t be lazy and rely on the PTO to do your factfinding for you. Find out what has been made, and tell us what your contribution is. End of story. If it turns out that’s not actually your contribution, too bad, that’s life, claim narrower next time. Take a minimalist approach and claim only what you need to protect your product and not try to claim stuff that isn’t your product and we’ll all be happy, and you’ll have your property protected, unless someone already made it, in which case, you never had any property to begin with.

    Draconian isn’t it? Yeah, this isn’t a game, so stop making it into one with all your squeeming around claiming what your actual invention is.

    Anyway, lets keep this topic on TT and how he’s a mean slimy dirty ol rat bast and we the people need to search him out and hang him for his high crimes against humanity, nay, the universe, by speaking his mind and doing public research.

  15. Of course it’ll be a burden on littleguy, although frankly, I would say straight up that the search req’s could be very much lower for littleguy, maybe he just needs to do a fairly comprehensive googling of NPL, go through some database searches, and do a search or two on the USPTO’s site. Or in the alternative, use a program like EAST to do one big one. Maybe littleguy should realize that if he wants to play bigboy it’s going to take some work? I think maybe YES.

    And of course you’d RATHER have the pto do you one definitive search. Then again, I’d RATHER have breakfast in bed. You’re not making me breakfast, so why’re we doing you an ignorance dispelling search for your first action? No reason at all that’s why. Come in sans ignorance or not at all is what congress would like to tell you, because your ignorance is burdening the system.

    And remember, I don’t accuse you of being ignorant, the good people of this board accuse that, I on the other hand was taking the high road and just saying you were withholding material references on the grounds that “you didn’t think they were relavent” but either way you slice it, either of them is a problem.

    Oh, and RA, no, seriously, it’s not hard for me to imagine the real validity rates are abysmal, I’m well aware that is probably the case. I’ve cited 50% of the cases allowed as actually being decent, but that’s a generous number I will be the first to say. Further, I understand why you think you need all those deps thrown in. However, at the same time, I see that they’re a blight across the land, and need to go. If you want to impose IP property on the people of this country, then figure out what it is you want to claim, and claim only that. 1 to 2 claims should suffice. Don’t be lazy and rely on the PTO to do your factfinding for you. Find out what has been made, and tell us what your contribution is. End of story. If it turns out that’s not actually your contribution, too bad, that’s life, claim narrower next time. Take a minimalist approach and claim only what you need to protect your product and not try to claim stuff that isn’t your product and we’ll all be happy, and you’ll have your property protected, unless someone already made it, in which case, you never had any property to begin with.

    Draconian isn’t it? Yeah, this isn’t a game, so stop making it into one with all your squeeming around claiming what your actual invention is.

    Anyway, lets keep this topic on TT and how he’s a mean slimy dirty ol rat bast and we the people need to search him out and hang him for his high crimes against humanity, nay, the universe, by speaking his mind and doing public research.

  16. And let me be clear, I understand the standards of public disclosure are different in the criminal case mis-handled by Nifong. However the federal rules of civil procedure have sanctionable prohibitions on public disclosure depending on the facts of the case and any secrecy orders that the parties are under.

    The attempt to influence outcomes and affect the impartiality of triers of fact by a corporate officer is at the very least an impropriety. That would explain the visceral reaction that so many have had.

  17. “Well, the overclaiming out of ignorance of the prior art (which you routinely accuse applicants of doing) is what I’m targeting. Assuming (1) a good search is done, and (2) applicants repair their claims in view of the found art, then the claims should be more expeditiously examined.”

    That’s what a first action does currently, and it leads directly to a final i.e. what should be a final and I mean FINAL rejection of your application, which, barring an allowance, is what we’re shooting for. This is why we’re trying to implement the continuation rules and claim limit rules as well, because without them, we can never really go FINAL, we just go lolfinal.

    But, irregardless of that, your system it does nothing but provide you with a free, or low cost search solution at the agency’s expense. I’m not seeing why this is a good thing. I’m pretty sure that our overall objective here isn’t to educate the ignorant masses, you must be confuzuling us with the public school systems. It’s the applicant’s duty to have a reasonable belief that he has an invention to legally submit an app, not the office’s duty to educate him about whether he has made one or not, and if he has, to what extent it is inventive. Currently we’re performing that function for you via your infinite continuations if nothing else, and it’s malarky. Like I said, your system doesn’t address the agencies actual problem, it only addresses the applicant’s problem “after the fact” of him causing a burden on the system. That’s all well and good, but it does nothing to help the agency’s problem which is the reason for the whole discussion taking place.

    “So, examiner#6K, why do you want to require “presearches”?”

    Because hopefully, at least one of those presearches will turn up some basic art that will persuade at least one of the applicants to not overclaim quite as much leading to a faster disposal on the office’s end (hopefully allowance, but probably just an easier time rejecting it because we don’t have to start from ground zero of building a rocketship when building a facie case o obvious). You don’t seem to grasp the concept of “good claims in” –> “fast case disposal”

  18. To Leopold Bloom,

    Do you think you’re scaring me? My opinion is that Frenkel is in a heap of, Nifong style, trouble. What are YOU talking about?

  19. E6: “Thats not a horrible idea Fen, except one thing, the base problem facing the system is its innability to dispose quickly enough, so perhaps you can explain how slowing down the process of us being able to get rid of cases (either way, allow/reject) helps this problem. Remember, the base problem creating the system’s problem isn’t overclaiming per se, the base problem is how ignorant overclaiming (presuming the sworn behind oaths aren’t lies on here) slows down the system and how, combined with exacerbating problem of infinite lives for the applications and greedy applicants, they clog the current capabilities of the system.”

    Well, the overclaiming out of ignorance of the prior art (which you routinely accuse applicants of doing) is what I’m targeting. Assuming (1) a good search is done, and (2) applicants repair their claims in view of the found art, then the claims should be more expeditiously examined.

    “What’s needed is private preliminary searches (hopefully performed between an expert searcher in that field and the inventor himself in person, or the inventor himself as many of these guys are perfectly capable researchers) and a system like EAST (only better) that’s publicly available. Does anyone know of such a thing?”
    The point of my suggestion is to spread the search cost evenly among all applications. Forcing every applicant to search is little burden on BIGCORP and a huge burden on LITTLEGUY. There’s already socialism in the system, so the notion of doing this is hardly novel.

    “Also, I suppose I’m so bad at searching I routinely find way better art than the “search experts” downstairs who are private contractors? When I say routinely, I’ve only seen one instance of them finding anything of any real use, whereas nigh on every case that crosses my desk I’ll find something very relavent. ”
    I’ve used about five search firms thus far. Twice, I’ve been burned where the examiner found art better than the private firm turned up. The other problems with imposing a search requirement, as has been posted before, are that they’re quite expensive and no two searches seem to return the same best art. As an applicant, if I have to rely on only ONE search, I’d greatly prefer it bear the imprimatur of the USPTO.

  20. “When I say routinely, I’ve only seen one instance of them finding anything of any real use, whereas nigh on every case that crosses my desk I’ll find something very relavent.”

    So, examiner#6K, why do you want to require “presearches”?

  21. “It’s amazing to me how tidy cases with 1-2 claims are.”

    It’s amazing to me how easy they are to invalidate. Keep ‘em coming, Examiner#6K. :-)

    [You're not looking at the whole picture, and you have no idea what the true validity rate of issued patents is, or what it's like to assert a 2-claimer against a capable adversary. Your assumption should be that the USPTO examination is only the preliminary one, and that the few patents that are valuable go through a second examination that is two to three orders of magnitude more expensive... but every patent that the USPTO issues can become one of the valuable ones, and then the real examination will occur.]

    [P.S. Before you say it, it doesn't make economic sense to require the applicant to support a million dollar examination of every patent, for numerous reasons.]

  22. Thats not a horrible idea Fen, except one thing, the base problem facing the system is its innability to dispose quickly enough, so perhaps you can explain how slowing down the process of us being able to get rid of cases (either way, allow/reject) helps this problem. Remember, the base problem creating the system’s problem isn’t overclaiming per se, the base problem is how ignorant overclaiming (presuming the sworn behind oaths aren’t lies on here) slows down the system and how, combined with exacerbating problem of infinite lives for the applications and greedy applicants, they clog the current capabilities of the system.

    What’s needed is private preliminary searches (hopefully performed between an expert searcher in that field and the inventor himself in person, or the inventor himself as many of these guys are perfectly capable researchers) and a system like EAST (only better) that’s publicly available. Does anyone know of such a thing? I know lawyers have something like it but don’t know it’s name.

    Also, my secret agenda is to get patent reform passed, start my own searching/opinion company (by scavaging the best examiners from the PTOs bad pay) and make billions muahahahaha. (And know that I’m doing a public good at the same time, it’s really a win/win). Dang, it’s not a secret anymore … don’t steal that, I have a patent on that business method!

    VA, idk, I think it’s less we’re experts on production and more that you force us to show off that particular expertise moreso than the others by wasting our time with 40 page specs and 20 extraneous bs dep claims. That, my friend, is entirely up to you. It’s amazing to me how tidy cases with 1-2 claims are. Also, I suppose I’m so bad at searching I routinely find way better art than the “search experts” downstairs who are private contractors? When I say routinely, I’ve only seen one instance of them finding anything of any real use, whereas nigh on every case that crosses my desk I’ll find something very relavent.

    But anyway, lets keep this thread on topic fellas.

  23. “just an anonymous nobody”

    Wait, we’ve heard that before – pretty soon you’ll be pulling all of Examiner#6K’s applications!…

  24. “Quick question”

    That depends:

    1) are you feeling lucky?
    2) do you want to make the second action final?

    If you’re sure what you want to use is an admission, you can use it. You may not, however, use the applicant’s own teaching against him… yet.

  25. “Applicants get the benefit of the USPTO’s better searching abilities.”

    I’m with the folks at IP Kat, everybody knows that USPTO search and examination is rubbish.

    The notion that USPTO examiners are expert searchers is pretty laughable. They’re experts at the production system. But not searching. And certainly not examination.

  26. “Well, isn’t he a Special 6K now! Are you his manager?”

    No, I am just an anonymous nobody who prefers to avoid publicity and who may or may not be a PTO manager. I will, however, pay out on the $36.00!

  27. “SF, that would be 30 extra claims. Could cost a lot more than $510.”

    True. So assuming the excess claim fees are split among examination and searching, the USPTO is still a bargain as a search entity.

  28. Back on-topic: there seems to be a blurring between (a) non-practicing entities and (b) weak patents and/or the tenuous assertion of infringement. Is this blurring deliberate? Am I misunderstanding the term “troll”?

  29. SF wrote “Yeah, but on the cheap. $510 for a large entity utility search? Come on. What do you think a private patentability search would run for an application of 50 claims?”

    That is a flaw in the USPTO reward system, and should not be placed upon the practitioner. The practitioner has paid a minimum of $1500 and most likely over $2000 for the privilege of filing those claims and and the Examniner’s time should be based upon the number of claims (and also the length of the spec and possibly the art area, although that is debateable) Those extra fees should be exchanged for search time by the Examiner.

  30. Guys guys guys, don’t get off track, this thread is about TT and why he’s so horrible, not how all the sworn to statements on here lead one of ordinary intelligence to believe we need presearches, I just through that in for flavor. We’ll get to all that later on.

    Quick question Off topic though, if someone says in their discussion of related art “the information in this section is for the understanding of the invention and may contain information that is not prior art and may not be known to one of ordinary skill in this or any other country” then would it be mean to reject them over their own discussion of the related prior art ivo a reference that discloses their little addition of part x onto the larger machine y?

  31. How about a system where the first step in examination is a search. That’s it, just a search, with the results reported to the applicant. A preliminary amendment then may be filed before substantive examination would begin.

    If you assume the results of a pre-filing search will actually be reviewed by the applicant and impact the claims as drafted, then you may likewise assume the post-filing search report will have a like impact vis-a-vis the preliminary amendment.

    Applicants get the benefit of the USPTO’s better searching abilities, USPTO gets the benefit of the applicants honing their claims in light of the search results. Fees get bumped accordingly … which shouldn’t be much, since all that’s occurred is that the search and first action tasks have been separated.

  32. “Also, we noticed that someone is offering bounty for outing examiner#6k. We will see that $31.00 and raise it $5.00 = $36.00 total!”

    Well, isn’t he a Special 6K now! Are you his manager?

  33. “At this time, we are busy pulling all of Cisco’s pending applications for close review.”

    That would be funny if it weren’t true.

  34. Thank you for your offer VA. At this time, we are busy pulling all of Cisco’s pending applications for close review.

    Also, we noticed that someone is offering bounty for outing examiner#6k. We will see that $31.00 and raise it $5.00 = $36.00 total!

  35. “The PTO could restructure itself and fire most of its examiners and managers.”

    So what are we waiting for???!!!!!!

    If they need somebody to hand out pink slips, I’m available.

  36. SF

    I am looking forward to receiving and interpreting the searches and search analysss which my Asian clients will send to me.

    I am also looking forward to arguing with the PTO as to whether the search was sufficient and whether the analysis was sufficient.

    And what do the expensive maintenance fees pay for?

  37. SF, that would be 30 extra claims. Could cost a lot more than $510.

    VA, no. Not as it is now. The PTO could restructure itself and fire most of its examiners and managers.

  38. “Applicants have no constitutional right to file without performing a prior art search and it’s only a matter of time before the USPTO will get its rules in a place where some time of search and analysis is mandatory.”

    When applicants and practitioners are doing the PTO’s job for them, will we really need the PTO?

  39. “Aren’t applicants paying the PTO to search their invention?”

    Yeah, but on the cheap. $510 for a large entity utility search? Come on. What do you think a private patentability search would run for an application of 50 claims?

    Everyone knows that applications are much better drafted and inventions are better claimed at the outset, when applicants have performed a prior art search prior to filing and/or drafting. Applicants have no constitutional right to file without performing a prior art search and it’s only a matter of time before the USPTO will get its rules in a place where some time of search and analysis is mandatory.

  40. examiner#6k,

    why should it be a requirement that applicant’s “reasonably presearch”? Aren’t applicants paying the PTO to search their invention? Don’t examiners, who are experts in the field, do a better job searching? If the filing fee needs to be increased so that the examiners can better handle their searching duties, then increase them?

  41. “So #6K, what would you be doing for work if the system against which you rail was destroyed by young, pantless in-duh-viduals like yourself?”

    I hardly want to destroy the system, I want to rail against it for change. In my own humble opinion, based on the newest sworn behind revelations on this site, the answer to the patent system’s ills are having the applicants not be ignorant of the prior art when they submit an application, i.e. make them reasonably presearch it. But, even that has it’s problems because people would just try to bs it. Taking away the presumption of validity for your everyday patent is a solution that’s been put forward as well, and requiring you to pay for a strenuous examination if you wanted that presumption may well assist in helping the overall impact of the system.

    I can go on and on, but suffice to say I hardly want the system destroyed. If however, I did blow it all up with an elder statesmanlike speech to congress, then I suppose I’d just study for the LSAT and get my arse on into school, or move one hour west or two hours south and practice my art in my field. Really smart people could probably out my art based on that info.

    Yeah JD, sorry I didn’t get back to your other post the other day, I certainly forgot about it until the other day then couldn’t find it. But yeah you’re right, I’m disposable, but I’m a costly disposable “mismanagment” is putting in place efforts to not fire us newbies. And, you know how it goes, if I’m considered disposable, I consider the job disposable. I think the managment is catching on.

    gtg for today

  42. that’s news to me …

    ‘cept, it’s wm carlos wm and joyce that pointed out the itsy bitsy style of shrunk and white and the limits of ludwig’s theory even after being poked by a popper … and, my 2nd language is agglutinative … /// >>> ,,, $$$ …

    still want those carnie tix … time value on that patentable option is rapidly declining … (check out some of the recent pat pubs on pricing advertising against bandwidth consumption … curiously interesting assignees)

  43. step back … exactly … NEXT

    weasel the wise – “my iron lung”! love it … got the bends chuckling! … thank you for the reference, intentional or not … they know HOW to message …

    on a more troubling note:
    my-little-government-bureaucrat-who-couldn’t-even-if-it-wanted-to — SIX# :”not on too many hard drugs while posting (excepting maybe ironicslip)” i do not even drink … that characterization is not appropriate … for anyone … you have been warned …

  44. “Even so, I kind of doubt PTT publicly disavows what he says on the site, nor would he tell you anything differently if you were to discuss matters in person with him. The same likely holds true with Mooney. It for dang well sure holds true with me, and I have little doubt that it holds true for you and Ordinary and real anon and JD and etc. I would also say there’s a good chance all of us are people wearing pants (except me right now as I’m home and can’t sleep) and are not on too many hard drugs while posting (excepting maybe ironicslip).”

    It certainly holds true for me.

    People post anonymously for a multitude of reasons. That’s their right.

    I’ve never felt the need for it. My opinions of PTO (mis)management don’t change based on whether I’m posting on Dennis’s site, or any other site, or whether I’m speaking in person to somebody. PTO (mis)management is a horribly corrupt and incompetent bunch. Not exactly a newsflash. Certainly not very controversial.

    I doubt it holds true for you though, 6k. You are wise to post anonymously. Although you are the perfect, probationary (i.e. disposable), brain-washed, examining automoton that PTO (mis)management has strived for years to create, I’m fairly certain that you’d find your work subjected to about 7th pair of eyes review if your identity were revealed. Then you would see how PTO (mis)management treats its “outstanding” employees. Trust me, you wouldn’t like it.

    JD

    P.S. I always wear pants when posting.

    P.P.S. The hardest drug I use when posting is bourbon.

  45. “Excerpt from several versions of Local Rules (FRCivP) ‘… no public statements if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial.’”

    “publicly expressing opinions possibly related to ongoing federal court jury trials that are intended to influence public opinion and possibly the outcome of your pending cases and prevent a fair trial.”

    Caveman, you’ve suggested ethical problems with Frenkel’s posts a couple of times. I’m not sure what “Local Rules” you’re working with. However, I note that the ABA Model Rules disallow extrajudicial statements by lawyers participating in a case if the communications will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the case.

    I think it’s a stretch to suggest that a judge or jury in E.D. Texas has ever been substantially influenced by Frenkel’s posts. However, I also notice that the Model Rules allow a lawyer to make public statemetns about the claims involved, the identity of the persons involved, and information contained in a public record. Do you have any SPECIFIC examples of statements made by Troll Tracker that (a) involved Cisco litigation, (b) were calculated to prejudice a case, and (c) were not limited to naming persons involved or information in public record?

    Accusing Frenkel of misconduct, on the other hand, without any facts to back it up, might cross an ethical line…

  46. So #6K, what would you be doing for work if the system against which you rail was destroyed by young, pantless in-duh-viduals like yourself?

  47. Sorry #6K, as I’ve said before, you may quite possibly be completely insane. Not that I dislike you mind you.

    I agree that many if not most would say the same things they post if pressed at, say, a cocktail party among non-colleagues. Also, I’m not saying that the enhanced sense of freedom that leads to more open expression provided by anonymity is a bad thing.

    However, posting a few sharp opinions anonymously on a website is a far cry from establishing an influential day to day blog, as a director for IP of a major corporation with ongoing litigation and publicly expressing opinions possibly related to ongoing federal court jury trials that are intended to influence public opinion and possibly the outcome of your pending cases and prevent a fair trial.

    That’s all I’m saying. Now go put some pants on.

  48. “Anonymity allows people the sense of comfort to say what they would otherwise not normally say. blah blah”

    And?

    Are you trying to say that a means of emboldening people to speak their mind in a rational manner is a BAD thing? And you’re saying this anon on the cyberwebz? You should post as ironicslip when you imply such a thing.

    Even so, I kind of doubt PTT publicly disavows what he says on the site, nor would he tell you anything differently if you were to discuss matters in person with him. The same likely holds true with Mooney. It for dang well sure holds true with me, and I have little doubt that it holds true for you and Ordinary and real anon and JD and etc. I would also say there’s a good chance all of us are people wearing pants (except me right now as I’m home and can’t sleep) and are not on too many hard drugs while posting (excepting maybe ironicslip).

    I have, as a matter of fact, have stated some of my concerns (which I have also voiced on here) with the system with some of my superiors just as idle chat when the opportunity arises (rarely) and in every case so far they understand quite completely what concerns I have, as they’ve had them all throughout their careers, but they’ve all come to terms with them as just being facts of life unchangable by them. There is a GREAT DEAL of wink wink, nudge nudge that goes on just to make the system even function, and I totally understand why it goes on. The Graham inquiries, what a load of horse malarchy. The presumption of enablement so often extended as a courtesy. Again, you can’t begin to believe that is actually the case in many of today’s cases. These are just the jutting tip of a huge submarine iceberg of rediculousness that goes into making patents today. And of course, I being young, restless, and opinionated have to go saying this and that at every opportunity to rail against such a system.

    Presumption of validity LOLOLOLOLOLOL, good one. Please do go on.

  49. Sorry Mooney, your identity isn’t worth a dime to me, because I already know all I need to about you. And it only took one or two of your posts.

    Obviously you missed the point and just confirmed my point that unmasking IS a big deal. Especially of Frenkel. Anonymity allows people the sense of comfort to say what they would otherwise not normally say. You for example, could very well be a pantless, crack-smoking m0r0n that noone would ordinarily listen to. But here on Patently-O you have an annoying yet persistent presence like a fly at a picnic or a squirrel at a cotillion, or that stink coming from Cisco way.

  50. “I’ll even put some pants on.”

    MM brings up a good point, I would also have to do this I suppose.

    ” I’m tired of trying make a living while blogging away most of the day trying to educate a select few sorry IPeople that when Cisco’s IP Director man peees in your face*, that that is is a rather offensive sign of disrespect which is to be suspect to say the very least”

    So now we have it Ordinary, you’re tired of making a living while blogging to teach us how to be offended because someone put their (likely biased) opinion on the cyberwebs. Presumably, posting one’s opinions along with facts is also now tantamount to peeing in someone’s face. Face it, you’re just mad because he’s a coporate bigshot and is “gasp” smarter than you, by “gasp” miles, and make “gasp” millions more than you. Here’s a shocker for you, people like him are still people, and just like you spouting your “American patent system” rhetoric, him spouting his “American patent system” rhetoric is no different just because other people liked to hear what he had to say a bit more than they wanted to hear you.

    Bed time for me.

  51. “Mike Masnick of TechDirt has posted the first in what he promises to be a series exploring intellectual property…”

    Mr. Slonecker,

    Techdirt is a place for retards.

    Any educated person reading techdirt for more than a few minutes gets very very angry…
    The PTT at least provided some useful factual court info and links unlike Mike of techdit who just spews anti-patent propaganda based on false assumptions and bogus “research”…

  52. Cavey asks

    “If Frenkel’s anonymity or lack thereof is not such a big deal Mooney, why don’t you unmask yourself?”

    I’ll happily unmask myself for $25,000, Cavey. You send Dennis the cash. He can keep half, I’ll take the other half. I’ll send Dennis a high-resolution picture of me typing away at the computer for the “unveiling”. I’ll even put some pants on.

    My point is obvious and has been made by others: the identity of the PTT does not change the information collected and disseminated by the PTT, all of which is/was verifiable. There was widespread public demand for the collection and dissemination of that information and PTT provided it, in spades.

    In contrast, the demand for information about Mr. Schenkel was extremely tiny before he revealed his identity as the PTT. Not only that, but the only people who gave a crap about who PTT was were the subjects of PTT’s postings.

    The only real question remaining is: how will those subjects behave now? We can guess how they will behave, of course, based on their well-documented (archived and easily accessible) behavior.

    Does anyone want to bet against one or more of those people behaving in a self-righteous, classless, greedy and litigious manner?

  53. This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Frenkel now being identified as the one behind the PTT blog. The below blog post at PTT speaks quite nicely about the exchange of ideas/dialog between Madison and Jefferson that led to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Unfortunately, the pre-enactment dialog he mentions appears to be based in part on a letter Jefferson wrote in 1813.

    The rule to be learned is, of course, always check your cites….

    “Thursday, February 21, 2008
    Mike Masnick on Intellectual Property

    Mike Masnick of TechDirt has posted the first in what he promises to be a series exploring intellectual property. In the first installment, he explores the dialog between two of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, on the nature of intellectual property, and their concerns that too-strong intellectual property laws could lead to abuse. The compromise that they arrived upon was the now-familiar refrain from Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution:

    The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

    Mike queries whether the patent system we have today is always generating exclusive rights that “promote the progress of science.” It will be fun to see where Mike goes with this.”

  54. Oops! Regarding my earlier post, I was too thick to figure out who posted what, and so want to both apologize to the parties incorrectly quoted and thank those of you who pointed out my mistake.

    So, the post that I had attributed to M. Slonecker was, indeed, not by M. Slonecker but instead by JAOI(TM). What I attributed to “Malcolm Mooney” was actually written by “step back”; what I attributed to “ironicslip” was actually written by “Malcolm Mooney”. My sincere apologies to all. In penance, I’m changing my name from “Sarcastic Weasel” to “Moronic Weasel”.

  55. Dear Lionel,

    Re:
    “The intent of the arguer has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.”

    Are you saying that when Bill Clinton argued,

    “It depends on what the meaning of what ‘is’ ‘is’ ”

    his (Mr. Clinton’s) intent had no bearing on the validity of his “is” “is” argument?

    I’ll take your argument about his argument under advisement, seriously, and maybe I’ll get back to you. However, with all due respect, may I suggest in the mean time, please get a life, I mean a real life, not some preposterous lawyer’s argument for a life. You’ll thank me in the morning.

    If I’m a tad offensive, please forgive; I’m tired of trying make a living while blogging away most of the day trying to educate a select few sorry IPeople that when Cisco’s IP Director man peees in your face*, that that is is a rather offensive sign of disrespect which is to be suspect to say the very least, i.e., to say the very least so late this evening – Sorta’ like the seven tobacco director guys saying one after the other after the other after the other after the other … , no, no, no, no way did I know tobacco was addictive, what a surprise to me, are you sure?

    Why oh whyly-O would anybody try to excuse or suggest toleration of boldface liars?; beats the galdarn heck out of me.

    Oft wit their heads I say, and give me a break. Till tomorrow then, have a nice day.

  56. Nah MM, I’m not going to tear him too big of a new one tonight, don’t have the time. Suffice to say that his thinking that we were all duped and TT is a traitor is borderline delusional, since 1. only Ordinary was duped and 2. TT is as American as the next guy expressing his views. You might try reading some Thomas J. on the subject of patents sometime Ordinary.

    I assure you I’m one examiner that joined in late 2006. Don’t believe me? Too bad. 60k will buy you a big underwhelming disclosure.

    Tell you what though Ordinary, you ever get really interested in who I am, and feel like taking me to task on my position in person, just tell me when you’d like to hit up lunch and as long as you’re paying I’m down. You can explain to me face to face why TT is (was) a horrible blight upon the land and precisely how his actions were tantamount to treason against our country and how you probably won’t get a wink of sleep until is head is on a pike for publicly discoursing facts in a public forum and rarely stating a definitive opinion of them.

  57. “bascially one side of every argument is wrong” what a sad perspective. Maybe true if debating the acceleration of gravity, but little else. “I’m right/you’re wrong” ~ the hobgoblin of little hairy minds.

  58. Excerpt from several versions of Local Rules (FRCivP) “… no public statements if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial.”

    There’s a start…

  59. Lionel Hutz said

    “I continue to be amazed that people in this country (lawyers and inventors no less) cannot comprehend the difference between the arguer and the argument. The intent of the arguer has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.”

    Poor, dear, innocent Lionel – personal attacks and innuendo are standard fare for lawyers – have you never attended an advocacy course – they are trained to do it. And the lawyers are not alone. Have you not been paying attention to any political campaign conducted in our lifetimes?

    Basically, one side of every argument is wrong and has to resort to personal attacks. When you see who is first and fiercest with the personal attacks you know who has a looser on the merits.

    I have to go now, there is a nice piece of creamy Havarti calling out to me.

  60. Sarcastic weasel,

    Thank you for spelling my name correctly. As you now no doubt realize, I was not the author of the post that motivated your response.

    Obviously, the identity of the PTT blogger being a senior level official at Cisco has engendered a negative, visceral reaction by quite a few who have posted here, at PTT, and other blogs/sites. Personally, I attribute this likely due to the blogger having been viewed by them as an “honest broker”, and they now feel (rightly or wrongly) quite the fool.

    While it seems clear that the PTT blogger was working an agenda, one much broader than just addressing “trolls” in general, I do give credit that some of the more flagrant abuses of the patent system have been brought out into the open. To me it is not that the system is broken and in dire need of reform/repair; it is that certain persons have found what they believe is a relatively easy way to line their pockets…and in doing so have given the patent system an undeserved bad name. If blame is to be placed, it should be on these few individuals and those courts much too timid to impose sanctions as well they should.

  61. Of course Mooney doesn’t know anything about the little ethical standard that all attorney’s are supposed to uphold called avoiding the “appearance of impropriety.”

    I thing Frenkel gets an “F” in that department.

  62. As far as I can tell Frenkel revealed his own identity (as I think he may have explained). He probably chafed at the idea of his kids or his wife ratting him out and making a few shekels.

  63. And here’s another thought.

    Frenkel being outed is like Nifong being outed for hosting a website called “I h8te rich, privileged, Northeastern white kids – and I want to run for mayor, or governor or something in a state with a large black population”

    Oh sure, what’s wrong with that???

    There is also a good chance that, like Nifong, he has committed ethical violations.

    If Frenkel’s anonymity or lack thereof is not such a big deal Mooney, why don’t you unmask yourself?

  64. I’m not surprised the likes of Mr. Glib himself, Mooney, come out and say essentially “what’s the big deal, what’s wrong with Frenkel being outed?” I’ll tell you what, Cisco will never be able to bring a case to the plaintiff’s bar with a straight face ever again. Go fish your crack pipe out of the lake and have another smoke.

  65. Sarcastic weasel, I believe that was JAOI(TM)’s post, not M. Slonecker’s.

    JAOI(TM) has been having a little bit of an extra-ordinary day. Normally, he is very polite and sensitive to the feelings of other hominids and humanoids, although he seems to have developed an aversion to small four-legged creatures that crouch close to the ground (such as yourself perhaps).

    But I’m sure the rest of your post is error free.

    “If only Malcolm’s post could be inserted after every other post, some real dialog, rather than diatribe, might happen.”

    O.K. here goes (gulp, as he gets ready to defend against copyright infringement):

    “Has anyone identified a clear example of a dishonest statement by Patent Troll Tracker?

    If not, I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. If Frenkel worked for (or was himself) a quintessential troll that competed with other trolls, I could understand the disdain amidst the resulting hypocritical stench.

    But I don’t see what the big deal is here.

    Resident hyperventilator JAOI asks:

    “Do you think Cisco, a $35,000,000,000 public company had/has the legal right, (individual) moral right, or (public) ethical right to fool the public for so long with its IP Director’s Troll Tracker Blog?”

    Nobody was “fooled” by anything, JAOI, just like nobody here is fooled by your claim to be an “inventor.”"

    There! (I assume that’s what you wanted.)

  66. I still haven’t seen someone mention a lie that TT told on his blog.

    Saying you are just a lawyer is not a lie if you are a lawyer. Is “just a lawyer” code for not working for Bigtech? If so, someone needs to give me an updated euphemism dictionary.

    Why would he say anything other than that? More information may have given clues about who he was. Again TT’s occupation is completely irrelevant to the things he said.

    I continue to be amazed that people in this country (lawyers and inventors no less) cannot comprehend the difference between the arguer and the argument. The intent of the arguer has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.

    Now if there are factual misrepresentations or misleading statements, please identify them.

  67. In response to Posted by: M. Slonecker | Feb 25, 2008 at 03:14 PM :

    Malcolm asks for proof of a dishonest statement by PTT.
    M. Slonecker replies that PTT’s big, horrible, awful sin is — and I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, here — that PTT is NOT (gasp!) “just a lawyer”.

    Perhaps out of a recognition that this big revelation is, well, underwhelming, M. Slonecker tries to tart up the charge by throwing in a big healthy dose of hyperbole — starting with a characterization of what normal humans would recognize as the admirable quality of self-deprectation (“[I'm] just a lawyer”) as “a boldface lie” that “slaps you in the face”, and ending with a characterization of PTT as a “confidence man” whose “slimy hand” is “in the cookie jar.” One presumes that the only reason M. Slonecker didn’t continue his logical argument to the point where he concludes that PTT is the sole cause of AIDS, failing moral values, and, perhaps, Sin in the Otherwise Perfect Universe is that M. Slonecker ran out space in the Comments box. Perhaps he went over his allowed “number of words written in all caps” quota.

    M. Slonecker then argues that a person who reveals his identity because he was forced to has not, actually, revealed his identity. I know, I know… it sounds crazy to argue that a person who HAS revealed his identity (because someone forced him to) has NOT revealed his identity — but this is exactly what M. Slonecker argues in his Feb 25, 2008 at 03:14 PM post. A better man might have tried to soldier on through the chaos of M. Slonecker’s tortured logic, but I admit that it was too much for me. Who knows? Perhaps M. Slonecker then went on to prove that black is white, or that up is down, or that good is evil. I gave up, out of a fear that M. Slonecker would argue that ON was OFF and thus persuade me to unplug my iron lung.

    Meanwhile, cheers to ironicslip [Feb 25, 2008 at 01:49 PM] and Malcolm Mooney [Feb 25, 2008 at 02:24 PM] for putting the real issues into an adult perspective. If only Malcolm’s post could be inserted after every other post, some real dialog, rather than diatribe, might happen.

  68. Hey rat, quick, go eat your cheese and slither back into your hole before you are exterminated and we lose a rather funny even if ugle commenter …

  69. “We’ve all been duped!”

    JAEOI(SM), you’re kidding right? Some of us went to the site once, saw what it was about, and never went back (even out of curiosity) until TT was disrobed. And we won’t go back again.

    If I wanted to find out about software patents, do you think I would visit Groklaw thinking they serve a public purpose?

    Can’t your wife talk some sense into you (or at least give you enough knockwurst so you stop hallucinating)?

  70. Malcolm,

    So, are you suggesting that some, including yourself, draw little or no difference between zealous tongue-in-cheek American democracy and German fascism? Huh? Thaat too is rhetorical.

    This is addressed to all who think Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel’s Troll Tracker Blog served a “public purpose”:

    Please be prepared to come forward and testify under subpoena against Mr. Frenkel when and if he is prosecuted for his alleged high crimes including his treasonous anti-American patent system deception which was continually perpetrated against our unsuspecting IP community, our three branches of government and against We the American People. This could be the patent trial of the Century, and you too can participate.

    We’ve all been duped!

    The significant difference is that some are aligned with Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frencel’s malicious anti-American propaganda and some are not.

    [sits back with third Manhattan, asking hungry wife to please be patient, this blogging noise, the most exciting since who-can-remember, is bound to stop before we pass out from lack of grilled knockwurst nourishment]

  71. ironicslip,

    sorry, I’m not interested in seeing whether PTT traffic goes down. The corollary part of blog traffic dying without new posts is that I won’t be checking in two months to see whether new posts went up. Also, my attention span won’t last two months on this topic. If DC doesn’t remove the link on the side, I’ll still click on it now and then, but if he does, I’m probably never going there again.

  72. money :: no, “are you serious?” — you hiding from me in plain sight? you cant decipher my unreadable challenge :: come on, whatcha scared of? ill throw in some free carnie tickets to your favorite playground … i got lots of guanxi … i know who you are

  73. “examiner#6k, don’t you realize that you are the biggest joke on this blog?”

    This oughta be good.

    [sits back in comfy chair with big bowl of popcorn]

  74. “life in Germany seems to be growing scarier and scarier owing in part to the… lack of religiously patriotic Germans”

    Fixed your typo.

  75. “Malcolm,
    Are you telling me that you believe Cisco’s IP Director is honestly characterized as “Just a lawyer.””

    The only appropriate response (other than silence) is “Are you kidding me?”

    Of course, I know the answer to that question already. Out of consideration for the rest of us, please consider it a rhetorical question.

  76. step back … good point, we’ll keep that — do you agree with the contrapositive that the “paparazzi effect” may offset? …

    can we agree to use a measurement tool such as alexa and the following “terms” … :: “patent troll tracker” … how about an anonymous blog service, as well?

  77. Mr. rat,

    Re:
    “Perception of social decline is a common illusion, frequently experienced by the elderly and is associated with the decline in their own mental and physical faculties.”

    So sorry to hear you are living in a nursing facility, but I certainly do appreciate your passing on your personal experience. I’ll keep it in mind.

  78. examiner#6k:

    Re:
    “No matter what JAOI and his like spout off about, TT was, and will probably continue to be a public service …”

    examiner#6k, don’t you realize that you are the biggest joke on this blog? At least I try to be funny and entertaining most of the time, that’s my nature, but you are the laughing stock with even realizing it.

    With all due respect, who do you work for?, really, be honest and fess up before you too are outed now that outing anti-American patent system Con Men has been started.

    I doubt you have principles or courage enough to “reveal” yourself.

    There are going to be a lot of happy Patently-O readers readers when you are outed.

  79. As to seeing whether the PTT blog dies a slow death, I think the first month is probably not a good metric. He’s already said he’s not going to post for a couple of weeks. Surely one thing that kills blog traffic is a lack of new posts.

  80. “America seems to be growing scarier and scarier owing in part to the scarcity of leadership integrity in all three branches of government,”

    Perception of social decline is a common illusion, frequently experienced by the elderly and is associated with the decline in their own mental and physical faculties.

  81. Dear Lionel Hutz,

    Re:
    “To support such [patent reform] legislation is similar to supporting the poisoning of a wetland to kill a mosquitos.”

    By his continually propagating pejorative troll talk under the Con Man guise of “just a lawyer,” Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel poisoned the American patent wetland fostering the undermining we see today of America’s strong patent system at the

    (i) Executive level,
    (ii) Congressional level, and
    (iii) Judicial level of our government, and
    (iv) the patent community level, as well as the
    (v) public level.

    Using the subterfuge of “just a [regular] lawyer”, Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel
    (a) promoted the weakening of American patent system strength,
    (b) terrible American patent system reform, and
    (c) harmonization of the American patent system with that of second rate nations.

    I have a simple preference:
    I prefer my children and (God willing) my grandchildren to grow up in the nation leading the rest of the world as you and I did, and not in a second rate nation.
    As I blogged months ago,

    I favor in patriotism. Together, citizens comprise power greater than one. Historically, America’s democracy has thrived on strength, honor and principled Biblical behavior, and by helping one another.

    These not-particularly-religious principles, and these, comprise my personal beliefs:

    >He that hath principles should abide them.
    >He that hath principles and does not abide them should try harder.
    >He that hath no principles be d a m n e d, and that’s fine by me.

    Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel, and those who wittingly turned a blind eye at Cisco, be d a m n e d.

    I take pride in being an American. Others don’t, and that’s their personal choice, and I have no problem with that. After all, this is America. That, however, is not my choice. Insofar as such well-deserved pride is a good positive feeling to have, others are missing out.

    I am grateful to be an American, and I give thanks at least daily for being an American, despite the fact that, during for the past couple of administrations, there is and has been a severe shortage of sensible studious statesmen in Washington, and despite that life in America seems to be growing scarier and scarier owing in part to the scarcity of leadership integrity in all three branches of government, leadership that abides the Constitution religiously, and the lack of religiously patriotic Americans.

    Yours Truly,
    Just an ordinary standup Constitutional philosopher(TM)
    a/k/a

  82. I am also really shocked by the attacks at Mr. Frenkel. I really don’t see why everybody (actually It only appears to be a handful of extremely upset posters) are so upset with the Cisco Kid. Did anyone really expect him to be just some random impartial lawyer. I had, at a minimum, expected him to be someone who represents large corporations if not in-house counsel at one. His posts always seemed to be on the side of big corporations and from the view of someone who was involved in the defense of alleged patent troll suites. He still provided some interesting information. Hopefully he keeps it up.(Doubt it, though).

  83. “And as for these “shell patent companies” who don’t make any products, do you think that some huge corporation is behind the patents in these companies possession. Isn’t it more likely that it is some little guy with an invention and no money to enforce the patent or even make a product according to the invention. These independent inventors align themselves with those with money to enforce their property. Attacking independent inventors is not an honorable way to run a blog or an honorable activity for a lawyer.”

    LOLOLOL, you call what they’re doing “aligning themselves with those with money”? BS, you mean, those with money come to those without money, and attempt to make money off of the work of those without money. Yes, there is two sides to the coin in that the inventor may otherwise not be able to enforce his patent, but if it is a strong one then frankly you’re addressing a seperate issue, cost of litigation. And you’re right, it is outrageous at the present.

  84. money :: are you serious? bad question … follow the stench, pal … moo-LA

    what is your definition of “identify” & “dishonest statement” — is there some sort of “innocent” verdict being sought? how about framing your question concerning *why* he revealed himself? it is irrelevant to me — i respectfully disagree with his views BUT proposals being *heavily* pushed — by the company he literally keeps — have a strong appearance (supported by public statements) that ignore objective widespread discourse …

    (why all the nice houses in dc during the recession : “it’s the lobbying stoopid”) …

    patent troll tracker? who cares … besides reporting easily searchable data posters simply posted that he did not seem like a very good advocate for his clients … alas, were they wrong? … maybe not … i will propose a hypothesis test for you below for “stench value measurement” … but, consider what you dont know … he could have claimed the bounty, right? and, he could have shut it down, anonymously, right? who do you think blinked first? any push back from folks, what and who?, on the sudden flood of opposition to the patent reform act and the lengthy wait for a decision on the final rules? …

    fancy those ingredients with his now open comments that relate to transparency, openness, and the hundreds of companies they have SUCCESSFULLY purchased … they are seriously AWESOME integrators and evaluators of both ip and more importantly human ip/talent … 2 + 2 = 5 radiohead!

    but to be sure, today:

    his profile, presumably his own words:

    1) “just a lawyer” … unassuming … check //

    2) industry: “accounting” … not such a fuss … BUT, hold the iphone (oops – who has the tm on that again — proper attribution insert here ” “) … can YOU get standing, unlike the aclu, to figure out how many packets are being “accounted” and whose packets those are? better yet, who is “he”? and who is said “he” “accountable” to? is there or are there companies actually accounting packets? i am unable to answer that question … you?

    notwithstanding his comments as listed on the blog, he has made, sometimes with cisco’s gc, a number of public comments on ip reform that impacts ALL americans — akin to the packets being accounted. you can search the record and the tone and we can hypothesize if the whole patent troll tracker thing starting from may 2007 was just another form of messaging for patent reform proponents in advance of the summer votes for HR 1908 (coincidentally close to the *labor* day “holiday”) …

    the timing is one we may never understand –HOWEVER — the same judiciary committee looking at warrant-less wiretapping using … routers? … has agreed to push the senate bill on patent reform to the floor already … “ive got the pistol so ill take the pesos and that seems fair!” (refreshments) horse trading? no clue. planned damage control? no clue. unknowns? too many to “account”.

    IMHO the REAL BEEF >> lots of money involved in balancing privacy with piracy while protecting property …

    big clue to the fuss … all of these terms are *properly vague* and require context … certainly a 112 issue …

    this debate is inherently one for the american people not a select few, whoever they are and however they blog or account … the man could be the next thomas paine, in cyberspace, great! but, his opinions are unsupported by objective facts and his position within a company that is accountable to shareholders is an issue for others to consider.

    why don’t we wager bandwidth that his blog dies a fairly slow death and based on the current ranking on google for “the” blog (not sold on who is responsible or accountable for the blog and its contents), the reference point, or you choose the search methodology (eg, choose some related terms and see where they come up at a particular time and we can have others provide the same measurements as google searches too need to be “normalized”), a time period in which traffic dips by some reasonable percent — say 10% first month, 20% second month, etc … then we’ll know if it is a “deal” at all …

    you lose >> then you MUST reduce your bandwidth by a corresponding percentage … meaning less POSTS …

    fair … any other posters can assist with reducing any co-variance … *no monetary consideration* just testing the searchable relevance of the “patent troll tracker” blog …

    we can then observe public comments made by proponents of the patent reform act of 2007 (senate bill S. 1145) … going forward … as april appears to be another “latest” target for a full Senate vote …

    there may be no correlation between the two … but in a neat sorta way we can test your prognostications on a very specific subject …

    no wonder you left the band … mooney … maybe we can change the moniker to mcdowell and bet milk?

    scott mcnealy once said it best (paraphrased) “you have no anonymity so get over it”
    (his better quote for your blended scotch is “i cant believe im living my life” – johnny walker)

  85. So just how would you go about brining an enforcement action – in your individual capacity? as an sole inventor? I would hazard that almost all enforcement actions are brought by some ‘company.’ I don’t know what ‘shell’ adds but another invective.

  86. “Sorry #6K, I’m gonna have to go with angry dude. Regardless of the accomplices, he takes the fall. Too much of a lasting stink on the whole thing.”

    I’ve seen stranger things happen than someone like this getting a promo and raise. No matter what JAOI and his like spout off about, TT was, and will probably continue to be a public service in educating the interested masses in what’s going on in troll type cases. The facts of the cases stand on their own no matter if TT or DC was reporting them.

    But, maybe you’re right it might be a higher chance he takes the fall.

  87. I did not quite finish.

    Regardless of whether I believe he was a hypocrite or not, his status as one did not change because of his outing.

  88. JAOI,

    At the risk of coming down on your bad side, you never directly addressed step back’s first point, or the first I noticed. Namely, why does TT’s identity matter?

    Let’s assume that everything TT did was propaganda for Cisco’s own agenda. Either you agreed with it or you didn’t.

    Finding out he’s the IP director at Cisco may explain or frame for you many of his comments, but they don’t change the substantive content of those comments as he stated them anonymously.

    As others have said, I do think he is a complete hypocrite. Like many, I believe the patent reform bill will do very little to prevent trolls and will do much to inhibit legitimate inventors, both independent and those at firms that actually do real research rather than buy technology, from obtaining patents. To support such legislation is similar to supporting the poisoning of a wetland to kill a mosquitos.

  89. I’m confused.

    Is plaintiffs hiding behind shell corporations supposed to be a good thing? If so, why? If not, does it matter who was trying to “out” the shells?

    How about some sanctions for failing to disclose all persons (outside of stockholders in a public corporation) having a financial interest in the matter?

  90. And as for these “shell patent companies” who don’t make any products, do you think that some huge corporation is behind the patents in these companies possession. Isn’t it more likely that it is some little guy with an invention and no money to enforce the patent or even make a product according to the invention. These independent inventors align themselves with those with money to enforce their property. Attacking independent inventors is not an honorable way to run a blog or an honorable activity for a lawyer.

  91. Frenkel writes on his blog, “I was shocked to learn that a huge portion of the tech industry’s patent disputes were with companies that were shells, with little cash and assets other than patents and a desire to litigate, and did not make and had never made any products.” Is this guy a mo-ron, or what. Does he even know that patents do not give a right to make or cause a duty to make products covered by the patent. A fundamental structure of the entire patent system is that a patent may keep OTHERS from making, using, selling. The entire patent legal theory is centered around that point. But this guy goes half cocked as a masked Quixote advenger based on a complete lack of understanding of a fundamental aspect of the patent system. And what about Cisco? Do they make products for each and every one of their patents? Of course not. Cisco has patents just to keep others away from certain areas. Why isn’t this masked advenger going after Cisco’s assertion of its non-product patents? Two faces, but perhaps not two fisted (but that would help explain the blog).

  92. Mild-mannered IP blogger derails future of nation: 300 billon forced to go without next generation iPods

    In other news, China is going to the bleeping moon.

  93. Dear Malcolm,

    Re: “Has anyone identified a clear example of a dishonest statement by Patent Troll Tracker?”

    Here is what Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel says about himself on his Troll Tracker’s front page, verbatim on three consecutive lines:
    “About Me
    Troll Tracker
    Just a lawyer,”

    Malcolm,
    Are you telling me that you believe Cisco’s IP Director is honestly characterized as “Just a lawyer.”

    Are you telling me that you don’t know a boldface lie when it slaps you in the face?

    Are you telling me you condone the farce Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel has perpetrated on We the American People for so long?

    Are you telling me that you don’t recognize a “Confidence Man” when he is caught red-handed with his slimy hand in the cookie jar?

    We the American People have been collectively swindled by the IP Director of a $35,000,000,000 public company: A Con Man is one who swindles by means of deception.

    * * * * *

    Dear step back,

    Boy, I wouldn’t want to insult you; I’d rather do business with you. You see, Malcolm is right, I am not an inventor – I am a realtor (not), and I own the Brooklyn Bridge, and you can buy it today for only $20. Please let me know soon because bargins like this don’t happen every day.

    BTW, most of your naiveté is addressed above in several easy to follow comments above, so I won’t labor this comment with needless repetition of my comments above.

    However, I’ll point out one specific mistake; you said:

    “As for ‘turncoat,’ did he switch sides somehow by revealing his identity?”

    Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel did not reveal his identity. Where did you come up with that propaganda?, or rather, boldface lie? Perhaps you are blinded by personal bias. The truth is that
    Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel was “outed.”

    With indulgences from other readers, The remainder of this comment is a verbatim reprint of someone else’s comment above:
    ———————

    Well, far from being just another patent lawyer, Rick Frenkel turned out to be none other than a propaganda tool for Cisco. He is not “just another patent lawyer” — he is the DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, responsible for ALL IP matters at Cisco.

    Ciso, of course, along with Microsoft and Intel, has been at the forefront of the patent “reform” for its self-interests by, using among other things, massive funds for campaign contributions and promises to build plants in certain districts.

    The patent system is not perfect; it could use improvements on many fronts. But, what you have witnessed over the past 6 months or so through the so-called Patent Troll Tracker is how powerful and pervasive these special corporate interests are.

    They have attempted to push their agenda through our Congressmen using campaign contributions and other inducements. They have perpetrated often false impressions in the mainstream media through its powerful lobbying and PR firms.

    What has been revealed is that they have also tried (anonymously) to create grassroots support by pushing their agenda through the Patent Troll Tracker.

    Posted by: | Feb 24, 2008 at 06:49 PM

  94. step back,

    While the information from PTT has been quite informative, the site has for quite some time been an active proponent that “trolls” (a pejorative term since no one has ever really defined it in a somewhat satisfactory manner) are a major factor in matters of litigation costs, damage awards, enhanced damages for willful infringement, venue shopping, etc. With “trolls” as a rallying cry, significant inroads have been made within Congress to “fix” a system that Judge Michel has so aptly noted seems to be proceeding along consistent with the underlying principles of patent law.

    In my personal view, it is somewhat disingenuous to set up “trolls” as a strawman for the purpose of arguing in favor of reform that is only marginally impacted by them. Other than some appropriate changes to how venue is determined, I am hard pressed to see the need for the breadth of other changes to our system of litigation. High litigation costs? Try exercising restraint and manage outside litigation counsel by not giving them a blank check against which to rack up billable hours. High damage awards? It is impossible to determine if this is a “problem” since those of us not involved in the litigation do not have the information that makes up the record before the district courts. Enhanced damages? Having read case decisions assiduously since I first began practice, it is the rare case indeed where these are ever awarded.

    It is useful to shine the light on those who most would agree abuse the patent system, and for that blogs such as PTT are beneficial. However, I submit they do tend to cross the line into partisanship when they characterize exceptions as the rule.

  95. JAOI,

    Are you saying PTT is not a public service? I certainly think it is – now I know more about the various non-practicing entities and their twisted, tangled connections in various lawsuits than I did before. Or are you construing “public service” more narrowly than I am?

    As for “turncoat,” did he switch sides somehow by revealing his identity? How has the substance of what he’s posted changed because you now know his identity? PTT’s never said patents are bad as far as I can tell, though he’s certainly said some patents are more meritorious than others. But that’s what patent litigation is for – to find out for sure, with millions of dollars and unlimited time, whether the PTO examiner, with much less money and time, did a good job.

    Do I think Cisco had a legal, moral, or ethical right to fool the public with a PTT blog? Assuming I believe the blog was condoned by Cisco, do you think media relations and PR people tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Of course not. Do you have a legal, moral, or ethical right to only be told the truth to? If so, let me know where it comes from so I can tell the USPTO and get some straight answers from them too. Otherwise, money talks, but you don’t have to listen to it or believe it.

    ‘Just a lawyer’ being a lie? Look up the meaning of the term “puffery.” Then ask yourself, do I believe everything I read, or am I smarter than that? Having a title like IP director doesn’t make him “more” of a person than he was, it just means he gets paid more than some other people. In the end, we’re all bags of water walking around trying to be something.

    Let’s go back to the big question: how does knowing his identity change the substance of what he said? If he was an ordinary inventor, would your reaction be any different? Tell me how your reaction would be different. Then I’ll reconsider whether this is a big deal or not.

  96. Has anyone identified a clear example of a dishonest statement by Patent Troll Tracker?

    If not, I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. If Frenkel worked for (or was himself) a quintessential troll that competed with other trolls, I could understand the disdain amidst the resulting hypocritical stench.

    But I don’t see what the big deal is here.

    Resident hyperventilator JAOI asks:

    “Do you think Cisco, a $35,000,000,000 public company had/has the legal right, (individual) moral right, or (public) ethical right to fool the public for so long with its IP Director’s Troll Tracker Blog?”

    Nobody was “fooled” by anything, JAOI, just like nobody here is fooled by your claim to be an “inventor.”

  97. >>Mr. Slonecker “The former define it in terms of competition between businesses (this is merely a generalization), whereas the latter is much broader in the sense that it is not “competition” based.”

    interesting … thank you!

    i have a comment on competition below :: namely cisco is one of the best at m&a for ip … so could his blog represent unfair competition against smaller rivals with ip that is of interest? would that be a reasonable defense against trade secret arguments >> potentially bidding down the value of interesting ip and talking up the value of patent reform?

    what if the blog is an anonymous form of protected speech, but unknown to the company’s directors? it would seem that if his own trade is protecting IP (licensed practitioner) and he is bashing those who protect IP a myriad of issues opens up … for instance only, his employer is very good at tracing packets and thus he “may” have an unfair advantage over his anonymous posters who are not really anonymous to his system …

    an early example :: Universal v Corley & deCSS litigation of posting trade secret keys for dvd security …

    >>> link to cs.cmu.edu

    simply, if the “views” *are* political & it can be shown that statements made by he or his employer are public … can they be “trade secrets” …

    [[ultimately he is accountable to the cisco board and the shareholders of the company -- once again TRANSPARENCY is the best disinfectant ... ]]

    for instance, based on several estimates that the patent reform act of 2007, Senate S. 1145, may wipe billions of dollars of equity off of the books of companies …
    what is the current intangible value of the cisco patent estate?
    what is the value of any potential target known only to those with a need to know?
    HYPOTHETICALLY, do they believe a win in reform means a win over the long term for purchasing devalued ip?

    politics is the most expensive form of capital …

    >>Dennis “Can someone say more about the history of using Trade Secret theory to protect the name of an anonymous author?”

    yes … e me specific questions if you wish (ill keep it short) …

    CaveMan … my ramble on and on and on

    there has been little in the way of incentives for the economic “growth” of the bazaar versus the cathedral — eric raymond popularized the concept – cathedrals require commitment of time and resources and thus need a centralized model to optimize the output of the work — cathedrals could take 50 -100 years to complete — maybe the reason we have freemasons ;-) … at some point you need to cover your nut and move from the bazaar to the high street

    see, for instance, recent buy-outs of open source companies which “sold out” to the obvious buyers (a monopsonist distortion – who else would buy them but those they antagonize by giving competitive stuff away and using “service” to support their business — as the tools are open source the ability to pick off cheaper support makes the service less than reliable) … and they never reached anywhere near the original or adjusted valuations so it is unclear if any returned any money on money invested …

    patents that are valuable (ex post) are *purely speculative* when conceived and reduced to practice and not even worth the money and time invested unless there is a viable market from which to exclude — in a market sense … excluding someone from a market that has zero margin is wasted effort in a free market … but politically, the danger always exists that the state or the large incumbent is able to prevent competition … for all the obvious reasons

    however, the outlier effects of having people re-invent or look at a different path or simply pay to see if they can get a cardboard doc with a red ribbon does not cost the public anything that can be measured in advance … applicant supported patent system is simply optimal for our form of government … did not say perfect … my stack of OAs hardly look optimal

    we call that price planning … and by effect we also then have to price the production and weigh the interests of various industries, businesses, etc. who have a varying degrees of access to the political process … by making our system consistent (relatively) across all matter of discovery we assist with what can never be a truly objective inquiry … each patent has its own advocate, its own circumstances, its own path through the pto and of course, what every american loves it’s own story … the best stories (economically speaking) are the most valuable patents (my opinion)

    many “studies” on innovation (call it work instead) identify this as a form of network effects … a few people working on problems of the day and suddenly boom 100s of papers patent filings … many unique but all to often of little innovative or economic value — BUT the system gained lots of input which was a cost borne by the applicant

    it has been shown time and again that clear property rights coupled with transparency in law (say it :: clarity & equity makes me happy!) are foundational to democracies (there is obviously a cultural and legal framework to match differing histories – another reason why patent harmonization is like eating BBQ ribs in Tokyo or LA, even) …

    plymouth provided ownership and jamestown largely did not — debt means you work for someone else // equity means you work for yourself …

    the success of the us patent system is largely mirrored in the success of the us democracy … mentioned elsewhere … the oldest “government” (statist) in the world … it is very hard to get people to invent if they know it can be taken easily or the “ownership” is illusory the rewards do not exceed the costs (why trolls should be as proud as vulture capitalists and swinging d*** traders on wall street — its about the MONEY — the inventor rarely gets all the just rewards — even she must share)

    … just look at other patent systems and other ip markets (why i keep mentioning copyright) … if you compare copyright to patent and you are an incumbent what would you choose?

    to drastically and quickly change the patent system while the composition of the economy is under foundational change with no objective reasoning or compromise … as is being proven by more studies and more attention played to this story at this time … is befuddling but then again approval ratings in the teens means you can only go up … hopefully this time around going up means going out …

    no pain no gain (ramble)

  98. Jaoi(TM)’s Tidbytes No. 16(a):

    Who at Cisco knew?, and when did they know?,
    and what did they do when they knew?,
    and when did they do what they did when they knew?

    Who (how high up did it go) at Cisco gave tacit approval?, and who gave overt approval?

    Will?, when will Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel be canned, taking the hit as a scapegoat as part of Cisco’s damage control, for bringing such shame to Cisco?,
    or was Cisco IP Director’s subterfuge part of his written corporate job description?

    Did he carry out his treachery on personal time?, as well as on company time?

  99. Dear step back,

    BREAKING NEWS STORY EXPOSÉ:

    CISCO’S IP DIRECTOR HAS BEEN OUTED AS A DISENGENOUS PUBLIC-SERVICE TURNCOAT!

    Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel has been disingenuous to say the least.
    Cisco’s Rick Frenkel HAS ATTEMPTED TO COME OFF AS OFFERING SOME KIND OF “TROLL TRACKER” PUBLIC SERVICE.

    All the while Rick Frenkel was CISCO’S IP DIRECTOR! Incredible! What temerity!, what gall!

    Do you think Cisco, a $35,000,000,000 public company,

    had/has the legal right, (individual) moral right, or (public) ethical right

    to fool the public for so long with its IP Director’s Troll Tracker Blog?

    Do you really think CISCO’S IP DIRECTOR is “Just a lawyer”?, or do you consider that Troll Tracker’s statement to be A BOLDFACE LIE.

    Personally, I am shocked at this BREAKING NEWS STORY EXPOSÉ, but then again, I tend to be a bit more passionate than some others (OK, OK – a lot more passionate, even zealous).

  100. I wonder what Cisco’s Directors are doing today?

    Damage control?, damage control?, anyone?, anyone?, Bueller?

  101. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal that PTT turned out to be Cisco’s IP director.

    Look, either you already agreed with his postings or you didn’t. His identity should not change the way you think or feel about his postings, unless you’re saying you don’t trust your own judgment. Did you really think he was an objective, non-biased commentator? If you did, maybe you shouldn’t trust your own judgment.

    For my part, I wish he would tell us how he found his information. As a starting attorney, it would certainly help out my career to know.

  102. I wonder how Cisco will explain the lawsuits it brings in ED Texas and Wisconsin when their IP Director Counsel says those are “troll jurisdictions”.

    He already deleted several of my posts asking such questions!

  103. Dear real anonymous,

    Re:
    “I have not discounted the fact that the Article I Section 8 clause is working exactly as the Founding Fathers had hoped.”

    For the most part, i.e., at least up to recent times, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

    However, I have no doubt the Founding Fathers would be sick about what’s been happening to our American patent system of late, and they would just plain puke at our joining global patent system “harmonization.”

    And, of course, the Founding Fathers’ would be horrified at the Supreme Court having been misled into making the unlawful unconstitutional eBay ruling (as I explained in part above).

    I attribute that supreme eBay mistake in-part to the unscrupulous and perhaps unlawful* Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel’s Troll Tracker’s Blog’s treasonous treachery, a new low low form of big-business lobbying against the interests of We the People.

    I’ll bet Rick could teach Jack Abrimoff new tricks.

    Using Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel’s own words, “I was shocked to learn…” that Cisco was involved in any way, shape or form in fooling We the People with Rick’s treasonous treachery Troll Tracker Blog.

    * * * * *
    * I’ll let a lawyer, or better, a District Attorney, make the assessment whether or not such activity was/is unlawful; after all, I’m
    Just an ordinary inventor(TM:o).

  104. Not “just a lawyer,” but yet another skunk in the woodpile. Wonder how many reporters got hoodwinked by Cisco, et al., PR flacks.

  105. “Thank you for the compliment, you are too kind.”

    Actually, I meant it as a compliment in a back-handed way, as if I were speaking to Mr. Edison. I too think inventors are the greatest natural resource this country has, and have always wondered what it is about America that breeds such:

    link to corporate.britannica.com

    I have not discounted the fact that the Article I Section 8 clause is working exactly as the Founding Fathers had hoped.

    I think large corporations should show more public responsibility than individuals (for the most part anyway, since “to whom much is given, much is expected”), but I certainly wouldn’t judge Cisco for being greedy. (I will think twice, however, about ever buying Cisco/LinkSys products again – having already blacklisted many CPF members. But I suspect their end will come from within, not from without, or if not, then from the demise of the U.S.)

  106. Dear CaveMan,

    Thank you for your concern.

    Recent days have me thinking about having a wet lunch while I stand down and watch the show unfold.

    Do you think there will be fireworks?

  107. Just an ordinary… you may want to relax a bit before you blow a gasket. Things will work themselves out. The show is just beginning…

  108. Thank you for the compliment, you are too kind.
    I try to be humble lest my big-enough head swell.

    Question:

    Did Cisco, a $35,000,000,000 public company,

    have the legal right, (individual) moral right, or (public) ethical right

    to fool the public for so long with its Troll Tracker Blog?

  109. “I submit, CISCO’S IP DIRECTOR is not ‘Just a lawyer.’”

    And I submit you are not just an ordinary inventor. :-)

  110. CISCO HAS BEEN OUTED!
    Such a shame if some are not happy that the true identity of the TROLL TRACKER BLOG has been revealed.

    If one of my major points was not made clearly, allow me to clarify:

    I, Jaoi(TM), stand by each and every post I have made — I have never attempted to hide my personal bias, my strong pro-American patent system position, my religiously patriotic agenda. And I signed my posts as Just an ordinary inventor(TM) as appropriate.

    In contrast, Rick Frenkel has been disingenuous to say the least.
    Rick Frenkel, in contrast to me, HAS ATTEMPTED TO COME OFF AS OFFERING SOME KIND OF “TROLL TRACKER” PUBLIC SERVICE. All the while Rick Frenkel was CISCO’S IP DIRECTOR! Incredible! What temerity!, what gall!

    Here is what Troll Tracker’s Rick Frenkel says about himself on his front page, verbatim on three consecutive lines:
    “About Me
    Troll Tracker
    Just a lawyer,”

    I submit, CISCO’S IP DIRECTOR is not “Just a lawyer.”
    Personally, I consider Troll Tracker’s statement to be A BOLDFACE LIE.

    Talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothes, as MM would say, “Gheesh.”

    Cisco, a $35,000,000,000 public company, is interested in a global economy. Here is what Cisco itself says about itself on its “About Cisco” page:

    “2007 Corporate Citizenship Report
    Learn how our CSR efforts positively affect the health, welfare and sustainability of our business and global communities where we operate.”

  111. “I beseech America’s big-businesses to work for We the People.”

    Somehow JAOI(TM), I think you have between 4? and 9? (? is an integer) post-1976 US patents*, and that regardless your agenda may be no less self-interested than Cisco’s – I suspect Cisco thinks they are being patriotic too in a contorted sense too, since “What’s good for Cisco is good for the U.S.”… right? (The “right” is sarcastic, btw.]

    I’m not suggesting that selfish interest is bad in either case – it’s actually much worse if our government starts ignoring those who are interested most – but the anonymity may play the same role in both your case and TT’s case.

    David Testardi

    *I could post the exact number I think you have if you wanted me to.

  112. Dear TT Fan,

    With all due respect, you are dead wrong; you have either been duped or are a shill.

    CISCO’S TT BLOG HAS SERVED A SHAMEFUL ANTI-AMERICAN PURPOSE.

    “[A]d hominem attacks” are perfectly in order given the disingenuous nature of Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel’s freakin’ TT blog which has been anonymously advancing an organized big-business anti-patent agenda – “globalization, harmonization with the rest of the world’s patent systems” and other such demoralizing un-American and undermining rhetoric. This is the Bush legacy – geared toward ever growing global markets for his big-business cronies while sacrificing We the People’s prestigious and advantageous world leadership position.

    The damage Cisco’s TT blog’s rhetoric has done/is doing to America’s strong patent system is incalculable and could last for generations contributing to our nation’s ongoing tail-spin joining the rest of the world’s second-rate nations. There is only one Number One, and we presently are privileged to be it!; we have earned that position with innovation, leadership, dedication and hard work.

    The damage Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel has personally levied on untold individual self-employed inventors is/has been devastating.

    I Jaoi(TM) have a strong pro-patent agenda and I proudly wear that agenda on my religiously patriotic sleeve. And there is nothing sneaky about my pitching my position anonymously – I’m a self-employed inventor struggling to make a living for me and mine – I manage a totally private under-financed start-up attempting to compete with mammoth public companies – a biblical modern-day story of David v Goliath.

    I believe these truths are both sacred and self-evident:

    AMERICANS SHOULD ASPIRE TO LEAD, NOT FOLLOW.

    AMERICA’S PATENT SYSTEM IS THE HEART OF OUR INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

    I beseech America’s big-businesses to work for We the People.
    Directors’ of American big businesses:
    Believe that greater, more prideful profit ratios can ultimately be achieved via a strong American patent system and it will be so if you strive to make it so.
    Stop stealing patents from self-employed inventors – start licensing their patents.

    How does one go about starting a groundswell of grassroots support for strengthening our American patent system?
    How do We the People undo Cisco’s treasonous TT blog treachery?

    Cisco Directors, here is your chance to make public amends and stand tall among America’s finest.
    You’ll thank me in the morning.

  113. Hey TT Fan, I wish I could ride the tractor of innocence and return to the life I never knew… but I can’t, so I have to live with it.

  114. Hey TT Fan, I wish I could ride the tractor of innocence and return to the life I never knew… but I can’t, so I have to live with it.

  115. Hey TT Fan, I wish I could ride the tractor of innocence and return to the life I never knew… but I can’t, so I have to live with it.

  116. I wish many of the comment-posters here would tone down the rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. Whether or not one likes Cisco, and whether or not one agrees with the TT’s viewpoint, the TT blog has served a useful purpose in unmasking convoluted chains of ownership. If Rick Frenkel had let it be known at get-go that he works for Cisco, the blog clearly wouldn’t have taken off, but in the time it’s been around it’s proved its worth, and I hope the TT keeps blogging – no vitriol, just the facts ma’am, just as he’s been doing all along. If someone has facts that show that the TT’s reporting a patent ownership shell game is wrong, they’re welcome to correct him, but I haven’t seen it happen yet (though he has on several occasions corrected himself).

  117. Sorry #6K, I’m gonna have to go with angry dude. Regardless of the accomplices, he takes the fall. Too much of a lasting stink on the whole thing.

  118. “Caveman, if his superiors were in on it he only stands a 50% chance of getting the boot imo, the other 50% chance is to getting a raise and a promotion”

    Promotion ??? Ha… What for ?

    For failed PR assignment ?

    This guy has totally discredited himself revealing his true identity at the worst possible moment for his company and other “Coalition” members – just before the coming onslaught in the US Senate regarding “patent reform”…

  119. “I know examiners well. You don’t fit the mold, and you post too much to be examining. Also, how can you support that guy? He’s a freaking liar!”

    I doubt you know examiners as well as you think you do, especially the upcoming classes, considering I work beside them everyday, and see the happy face we all put on for the lawyers we work with. As to my posting, I post either during breaks in the afternoons I’m staying late (all too often) or on weekends mostly. I support him because as has been noted above, even though he’s a higher up of the company what he posted on his front page about his shock at the bs they were being sued about struck a cord with me as well, just as I was shocked at the bs being portioned off as an “invention” around here. He may very well be a liar about that which he claims happened to him, but I doubt it. Times are a changin’, people with brains are taking note.

    Caveman, if his superiors were in on it he only stands a 50% chance of getting the boot imo, the other 50% chance is to getting a raise and a promotion.

  120. I think Frenkel will have difficulty finding a real job after this… He probably is taking time off to update his resume.

  121. I am with you Just an Ordinary… I’m not suggesting anything subversive here. I’m just saying that when I take of my patent attorney hat, what I think is the most tragic thing about today’s technological landscape is simply the fact that there is great technology waiting in the wings (this is nothing new by the way).

    My suggestion for a solution is nothing draconian and would preferably be a private solution that includes pooling agreements and cooperative agreements. Television makers across Asia for example are forming cooperative pacts as opposed to destructive competition. Of course in America we have the anti-trust laws that would prevent too much collusion between competitors.

    My point is simply that the anticommons, agree or disagree, is the biggest tragic side effect of a strong patent regime. But, since the grant is government based, there could be a government mechanism to assist in the commercialization of useful technology. However, once such a mechanism were put in place, it would probably incentivize parties to form private agreements anyway.

  122. Don’t flatter yourself #6k. I’ll start by offering $29.00.

    I know examiners well. You don’t fit the mold, and you post too much to be examining. Also, how can you support that guy? He’s a freaking liar!

  123. Hah, pay me 60k up front and I’ll post you a nice little picture, give you my home address, and write you a scholarship type piece on how your old time patent system is ripe for reform. Of course I’m a nerd, (but I hardly look as much like one as TT) do you think anyone but a nerd could work in the high tech areas of IP? You think an entry level job in IP on the civil service side is worth THAT much to an old time country boy like myself who has half of his hs graduating class doing lawnwork? I’ll take your 60k, combine it with the meager amounts I’ve scrounged from this place, and open a business, or go to law school faster than your head’l spin. If you feel like you’d like to not have people that feel the same as me about IP in your PTO then you need to fire more than half of each of the incoming classes from the PTA. I’m hard pressed to come up with someone who would be on your side of any of the issues we discuss on here from my graduating class and from what I know of the other classes they’re the same.

    Give me your phone num and I’ll give you a call sometime if you’d really like to bend my ear about this or that. I post my opinions on here as those of myself only, fyi, the PTO can disclaim even hiring examiners for the first two years as we’re the most highly paid “interns” that I’ve ever heard of. Look into it sometime, we’re not even officially hired until 2 years are up. I could be “let go” because I looked at my boss funny, I’m hardly a hardened employee of the gov. Oh, and I’m no smoke screen for anyone, nobody here knows I post, not my bosses, nor my coworkers.

    In the end, you mistake the very real growing turn of opinions on the benefits of the patent system to be only coming from people who stand to benefit from the changing of those opinions. That my friend is a falsehood.

    TT is the man, though he should have been more discrete, pete’s sakes what was he thinking telling everyone he knows about what he does? Craziness in his position. Though, lets be honest there’s probably plenty of people who would hire him straight up after this debacle.

  124. An interesting post from TT Blog

    Troll Tracker:

    You spent a lot of time beating up on Scott Harris, the former Fish & Richardson partner, who possibly lost his job as a result of your tirades. Now that you have told everyone about your connection with Cisco, why don’t you tell them about your connection with Fish & Richardson’s litigation partner Kathy Lutton? Didn’t she represent Cisco in a case in Delaware? Hasn’t she sat on various panels with you? Isn’t she the partner that forced Scott Harris out of Fish & Richardson?

    Now is the time to tell the whole story–the truth and nothing but the truth!

    Very truly yours,

    jayslax555

    February 24, 2008 9:26 PM

  125. Dear CaveMan:

    Re: “There needs to be a mechanism to allow good technology to be developed notwithstanding patent rights.”

    I believe the following describes the current “mechanism.” What would you suggest be changed?, or what would you like to add to the “mechanism”?

    Article I, §8, Clause 8 of The Constitution:
    “The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

    The “exclusive Right” means the Right to exclude all but “one,” the inventor, as stated on the cover of original “ribbon” patents (The Supreme Court’s ebay decision is, of course, unconstitutional).

    Congress, by permissible statute, i.e., 35 USC 261, gave inventors the further right to formally assign their patents.

    The Exclusive Right Yes, But Only for a Limited Time …

    The Framers give Congress the means and the Power UP FRONT to regulate the “exclusive Right.” By including in Clause 8, “securing for limited Times,” Congress can pass patent statutes that grant more or less time to a patent, and, by statute, Congress has done so. And, also by statute, Congress has the Power to create different types of patents with different lifetimes, as they have done for Design Patents. Congress has also created Trademark statutes that live somewhere between Copyrights and Design patents.

    Thus, Congress has absolute Constitutional Power to administer our patent system, and, for the most part, it has rightly done so. Further, within the Constitution itself, one finds authority for Congress to exercise its Power to moderate “the exclusive Right” under certain constitutionally certified circumstances:

    (A) To regulate Commerce,
    (B) provide for the common defense, and to
    (C) promote the general Welfare.

    Article I, §8, Clause 3:
    “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

    Thus, in its body of antitrust statutes, Congress imposes certain limits when exercising a patent’s “exclusive Rights” in order to regulate Commerce.

    The Preamble:
    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Eminent domain power, when exercised over a patent’s “exclusive Rights,” for national security and defense, is absolutely consistent with the Preamble, i.e., to “provide for the common defence.” Thus, military appropriations bills in peacetime and wartime routinely include allocations for patent royalties.

    If an independent inventor discovered and patented a vaccine for Anthrax, but refused to license or manufacture it for his anti-American religious reasons, eminent domain could absolutely and reasonably be asserted to “promote the general Welfare.”

  126. What is ironic is that Rick Frenkel sought out techno-geeks’ support and their ability to spread his messages and “poor me” victimology.

    At the same time, his company, the intended beneficiary of Frenkel’s anonymous campaign, of course has opposed open source, engaged in what many have stated are exclusionary practices, and otherwise toyed around with geeks who are not lemmings.

  127. Now, who will pay to uncover the huckster who calls himself/herself Examiner#6k? It’s probably a dishonest nerd like that TT guy.

  128. Additional, perhaps naive, questions arise:
    Are First Amendment rights guaranteed even when exercised anonymously? How are these questions related to protecting anonymous sources? To what extent are trade secrets protected during litigation? If complete anonymity or trade secrets cannot be protected under subpoena ad testificandum, under what circumstances can they be protected in camera?
    What a fascinating subject.

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  129. The issue of “trolls” is not what drives the most important negative externality of the patent process, e.g. the anti-commons effect. Anti-commons can exist with or without “trolls.”

    Anticommons the biggest shame I know of since there is so much great technology out there just waiting to be delivered to mankind, but for endless machinations about rights.

    Forget all the talk about patent reform. There needs to be a mechanism to allow good technology to be developed notwithstanding patent rights.

  130. examiner#6k & Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel are shills:

    Main Entry: shill
    Function: noun
    Etymology: perhaps short for shillaber, of unknown origin
    1 : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) ; also : one who makes a sales pitch

    Neither has ever invented anything.

  131. Can someone say more about the history of using Trade Secret theory to protect the name of an anonymous author?

  132. Doesn’t change one little bit what Trolls are doing. To say that Frenkel isn’t smart enough to exploit this for potential personal or his corporation’s gain would be folly. But regardless of that, trolls are still holding back technological progress, and much more importantly, the commercialization of products.

    Hope you aren’t fired and your corporation doesn’t have a scandal though TT.

  133. I think the desire for anonymity belies Mr. Frenkel’s understanding that, as director of IP for Cisco, he cannot easily claim that any IP related comments he makes do NOT reflect the policy of Cisco. Personally, I think he is or soon will be in some very hot water. Rightly so.

    In most cases, one man’s troll is another kid’s father trying to make a living. Besides the guy who invented the term has very publicly denounced and disavowed himself of the coinage of that term.

    If Cisco, more specifically, Mr. Frenkel’s department had set up a more comprehensive program to filter out non-meritorious suits, he may not have had to resort in frustration to labeling patentees as trolls. With only ten years of experience at a company like Cisco, frankly it sounds like Mr. Frenkel was over his head.

  134. While the trade secret theory is novel, it’s a non-winner.

    A better claim would be one of extortion or some other privacy tort.

  135. Here is Rick caught on video:
    link to images.google.com

    He looks very insecure to me… Not a good fit for a litigator
    no match for Mr. Niro, that’s for sure

    I can’t even imagine guy like him coming up with an idea of a troll tracker blog on his own, much less implementing it without direct order from his higher ups
    Just what I was thinking: a smokescreen and a perfect scapegoat for Mark Chandler

    Poor Rick…

  136. You mean that the following happens in America:

    A corporate lackey buys votes from the Represtawhores in DC and gets legislation passed to help corporate bosses?

    I’ll be God d@mned.

    Who would have thought . . .

  137. Mr. Frenkel — why don’t you use the reexam process to shoot down the trolls who are threatening Cisco? I would like to hear your reasons.

  138. Well, far from being just another patent lawyer, Rick Frenkel turned out to be none other than a propaganda tool for Cisco. He is not “just another patent lawyer” — he is the DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, responsible for ALL IP matters at Cisco.

    Ciso, of course, along with Microsoft and Intel, has been at the forefront of the patent “reform” for its self-interests by,using among other things, massive funds for campaign contributions and promises to build plants in certain districts.

    The patent system is not perfect; it could use improvements on many fronts. But, what you have witnessed over the past 6 months or so through the so-called Patent Troll Tracker is how powerful and pervasive these special corporate interests are.

    They have attempted to push their agenda through our Congressmen using campaign contributions and other inducements. They have perpetrated often false impressions in the mainstream media through its powerful lobbying and PR firms.

    What has been revealed is that they have also tried (anonymously) to create grassroots support by pushing their agenda through the Patent Troll Tracker.

  139. I find it wildly amusing and ironic that the guy looks a little like a troll himself.

    Apparently he is a self-hating troll.

  140. I was so close…
    From the very beginning I suspected this guy was somehow related to Cisco (a convicted IP thief on multiple occasions) .. after reading through all the nosensical garbage he and his boss Mark Chandler (I thought it was him for a while) wrote in various places over the last several months…

    Now, do you believe for just a second that his boss (Mark Chandler) didn’t know about this “troll tracker” blog ? Just give me a break…

    Oh, BTW, Mr. Frenkel, did you settle that pending patent lawsuit against your company for willfully stealing 56K modem technology ?
    Or you just hope that “patent reform” might help you out somehow ?
    Tough luck, Mr. Frenkel
    “Thou shalt not steal”

  141. “Trade Secret: Although perhaps a novel theory, I would argue that an anonymous blogger’s identity is a protectable trade secret. Improper means used to reveal the trade secret can create liability.”

    The person who disclosed the identity did not get this information illegally. The person also apparently was not under any legal duty not to disclose the information.

    Well, there is a vital difference between “improper means” and “illegal means”. Also, the blogger has stated that the opinion was his, hence the company can’t claim “trade secret”.

    Cisco get sued because they apparently has a policy regarding not negotiating licensing when a claim of infringement is made. Just as the claims could be frivolous, a baseless defense could also be as frivolous. I believe that it is unethical for an attorney to take a blanket position on any issue. What Mr. Frankel did was just that.

    IMHO, companies such as Cisco don’t innovate much. Hence, they have to use billions to lobby against strong patent rights.

  142. I think that the naked hostility displayed towards Mr. Frenkel and the attempts to get to him by attacking his employer fully justify Mr. Frenkel’s original desire for anonymity.

    Mr. Frenkel would have to be out of his mind to continue with his blog now that his identity has been exposed. I have no doubt that Mr. Frenkel and his employer are going to be threatened with litigation over his blog – if they have not already been threatened.

    So far as Cisco is concerned: I note that Cisco was founded not so long ago by a group of inventors and that they grew by buying IP from others. Ironicslip refers to Cisco swallowing other companies – that is so, and the owners of those companies were paid handsomely and sold willingly.

    Ray Niro is claiming a patent on the use of jpegs on web sites. Unless Dennis has a licence from Niro, either Dennis is a patent scoff-law or he thinks that the patent is invalid. (Dennis – I do not mean this as any sort of personal criticism of you but rather as a comment on the validity of the patents being asserted by Niro)

  143. I think that the naked hostility displayed towards Mr. Frenkel and the attempts to get to him by attacking his employer fully justify Mr. Frenkel’s original desire for anonymity.

    Mr. Frenkel would have to be out of his mind to continue with his blog now that his identity has been exposed. I have no doubt that Mr. Frenkel and his employer are going to be threatened with litigation over his blog – if they have not already been threatened.

    So far as Cisco is concerned: I note that Cisco was founded not so long ago by a group of inventors and that they grew by buying IP from others. Ironicslip refers to Cisco swallowing other companies – that is so, and the owners of those companies were paid handsomely and sold willingly.

    Ray Niro is claiming a patent on the use of jpegs on web sites. Unless Dennis has a licence from Niro, either Dennis is a patent scoff-law or he thinks that the patent is invalid. (Dennis – I do not mean this as any sort of personal criticism of you but rather as a comment on the validity of the patents being asserted by Niro)

  144. I think that the naked hostility displayed towards Mr. Frenkel and the attempts to get to him by attacking his employer fully justify Mr. Frenkel’s original desire for anonymity.

    Mr. Frenkel would have to be out of his mind to continue with his blog now that his identity has been exposed. I have no doubt that Mr. Frenkel and his employer are going to be threatened with litigation over his blog – if they have not already been threatened.

    So far as Cisco is concerned: I note that Cisco was founded not so long ago by a group of inventors and that they grew by buying IP from others. Ironicslip refers to Cisco swallowing other companies – that is so, and the owners of those companies were paid handsomely and sold willingly.

    Ray Niro is claiming a patent on the use of jpegs on web sites. Unless Dennis has a licence from Niro, either Dennis is a patent scoff-law or he thinks that the patent is invalid. (Dennis – I do not mean this as any sort of personal criticism of you but rather as a comment on the validity of the patents being asserted by Niro)

  145. ironicslip,

    An important distinction between the Restatement 2d/3d and the UTSA is how they define the term “trade secret”. The former define it in terms of competition between businesses (this is merely a generalization), whereas the latter is much broader in the sense that it is not “competition” based.

  146. imagine that … how many companies has cisco swallowed because of ip over its history?

    Patent tug-of-war waged in Congress: Big companies, small inventors struggle over U.S. system February 21, 2008 — link to tradingmarkets.com

    “The big issue we’re seeing is that the number of patent lawsuits filed by entities that make no products is overwhelming,” said Rick Frenkel, Cisco Systems’ director of intellectual property.

    Ten years ago, Cisco faced one or two patent infringement cases a year, mostly from competitors, Frenkel said. Now, it’s sued about once a month by “entities” — some with no connections to inventors — that make money by licensing patents and suing companies for infringing on them, he said. –

    given the charged nature of the patent reform act’s proponents, how would free speech apply — are the comment’s/blog his or made on behalf of his employer?

    mr. slonecker, pardon the sunday noise …
    assumption : is the blog protected under free speech? did he really make any effort to keep any alleged “trade secret” secret? the blog doesn’t seem to suggest it he knew of the bounty … last, what is his “trade”? assuming he is bound by a fairly common sili-valley employment contract which may assign all of his “work” – including ip – to his employer … ?

    coalition for patent fairness proponents and recent gaffes continue unabated (e.g., the universities disagreeing with the bsa on comments that the universities were fine with the act as amended — a few weeks ago — this was widely publicized)

    did anyone catch the blurb in bizweek quoting judge michel?

  147. Re:
    “Troll Tracker Revealed: After learning that Ray Niro paid $10,000+ for information leading to his actual identity, the Patent Troll Tracker has revealed his identity — Cisco IP Director Rick Franker [LINK] ”

    After reading the above LINK to yesterday’s Patent Troll Tracker, in my humble opinion and with all due respect, Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel is full of crap, a phony-baloney; I think he is advocating a patent patent pirating agenda and little more. Yet he said yesterday, “Cisco respects intellectual property…”

    Mr. Frenkel also said yesterday,
    “Why blog anonymously? … I feared that someone would claim to have the patent on blogging, and I might face a retaliatory lawsuit.”
    That’s just silly bull dung that defies belief – does he take his readers for fools?

    Mr. Frenkel would ignore the fact that self-employed inventors are and have been the core component of America’s leadership in innovation. I’m curious to know how many inventions has he patented?

    * * * * *

    Re:
    “Trade Secret: … I would argue that an anonymous blogger’s identity is a protectable trade secret. Improper means used to reveal the trade secret can create liability.”

    I for one second that Motion …
    Just an ordinary inventor(TM)

  148. Wonderful cite, Dennis. I actually checked it because the unintended foreshadowing of Graham was so startlingly accurate.

  149. Re TS, not a novel theory at all in those jurisdictions embracing the UTSA. For those jurisdictions embracing common law principles as set forth in either the Restatement Torts 2d or the Restatement Unfair Competition 3d, quite problematic.

  150. Watch out Dennis, you may be Ray’s next target – you’ve got jpegs on this website. Personally I’m pulling for both you and the Troll Tracker to keep blogging.

Comments are closed.