{"id":179223,"date":"2018-04-14T19:44:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-15T00:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2018\/04\/14\/yes-virginia-you-can-call-them-patent-trolls\/"},"modified":"2018-04-14T19:44:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-15T00:44:00","slug":"yes-virginia-you-can-call-them-patent-trolls","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2018\/04\/14\/yes-virginia-you-can-call-them-patent-trolls\/","title":{"rendered":"Yes Virginia, You Can Call Them “Patent Trolls”"},"content":{"rendered":"

In New Hampshire, at least<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A New Hampshire state court has dismissed a defamation suit filed by a patent owner unhappy that it had been called a “patent troll.” The court ruled [PDF<\/a>] that the phrase “patent troll” and other rhetorical characterizations are not the type of factual statements that can be the basis of a defamation claim. While this is a fairly routine application of defamation law and the First Amendment, it is an important reminder that patent assertion entities \u2013 or “trolls” \u2013 are not shielded from criticism. Regardless of your view about the patent system, this is a victory for freedom of expression. <\/p>\n

The case began back in December 2016 when patent assertion entity Automated Transactions, LLC (“ATL”) and inventor David Barcelou filed a complaint [PDF<\/a>] in New Hampshire Superior Court against 13 defendants, including banking associations, banks, law firms, lawyers, and a publisher. ATL and Barcelou claimed that all of the defendants criticized ATL’s litigation in a way that was defamatory. The court summarizes describes the claims as follows: <\/span><\/p>\n

The statements the plaintiffs allege are defamatory may be separated into two categories. The first consists of instances in which a defendant referred to a plaintiff as a “patent troll.” The second is composed of characterizations of the plaintiffs’ conduct as a “shakedown,” “extortion,” or “blackmail.” <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These statements were made in a variety of contexts. For example, ATL complained that the Credit Union National Association submitted testimony to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary [PDF<\/a>] that referred to ATL as a “troll” and suggested that its business “might look like extortion.” The plaintiffs also complained about an article<\/a> in Crain’s New York Business that referred to Barcelou as a “patent troll.” The complaint alleges that the article included a photo<\/a> of a troll that “paints Mr. Barcelou in a disparaging light, and is defamatory.” <\/span>
<\/span>\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

The court also ruled that challenged statements such as “shakedown” and comparisons to “blackmail” were non-actionable “rhetorical hyperbole.” This is consistent with a long<\/a> line<\/a> of cases<\/a> finding such language to be protected. Indeed, this is why John Oliver can call<\/a> coal magnate Robert Murray a “geriatric Dr. Evil” and tell him<\/a> to “eat sh%$.” As the ACLU has put it<\/a>, you can’t sue people for being mean to you. Strongly expressed opinions, whether you find them childish or hilariously apt (or both), are part of living in a free society. <\/p>\n

Justice Tucker’s ruling is a comprehensive victory for the defendants and free speech. ATL and Barcelou believe they are noble actors seeking to vindicate property rights. The defendants believed that ATL’s conduct made it an abusive patent troll. The First Amendment allows both<\/i> opinions to be expressed. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let me just say, “Patent Trolls Eat Sh%$.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In New Hampshire, at least: A New Hampshire state court has dismissed a defamation suit filed by a patent owner unhappy that it had been called a “patent troll.” The court ruled [PDF] that the phrase “patent troll” and other rhetorical characterizations are not the type of factual statements that can be the basis of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[413,368,428,407,429],"class_list":["post-179223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-civil-rights","tag-corruption","tag-ip","tag-justice","tag-patent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179223"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179223"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179223\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}