Patent Trolls Cost US $500 Billion as Senate Kills Legal Curbs

LastWeekTonight

Predatory shell entities exploit vague software patents and asymmetric defense costs to extract settlements because trial lawyers lobby Congress to block reform.

AI-assisted summary of Patents: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2015-04-20

Key ideas

Patent troll litigation accounted for 3,000 of the 4,700 U.S. patent lawsuits filed in 2012, with studies estimating these non-practicing entities have cost investors over $500 billion since 1990. (0:04)
Overly broad software patents granted by an overwhelmed USPTO enable trolls to threaten ordinary end-users and non-profits over everyday functions like photocopier scan-to-email features. (3:48)
Because defending a patent case costs between $2 million and $5 million, trolls typically extract $100,000 nuisance settlements, resulting in roughly 90% of cases settling out of court. (5:53)
Roughly a quarter of all U.S. patent cases are funneled into the plaintiff-friendly federal court in Marshall, Texas, prompting companies like Samsung to spend lavishly on local civic amenities like outdoor ice rinks to sway potential jurors. (5:53)
Federal reform via the Innovation Act stalled in the Senate despite strong bipartisan House support, derailed largely by intense lobbying from trial lawyers who profit from patent litigation. (8:46)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by the official Last Week Tonight with John Oliver channel on April 20, 2015, this segment examines how the United States patent system is exploited by bad actors. According to the page description, while patents are vital tools to protect inventors from theft, patent trolls abuse the legal landscape by stockpiling patents and forcing businesses to shell out massive sums under threat of litigation.

## TL;DR John Oliver investigates the predatory rise of 'patent trolls'—non-practicing shell companies that weaponize overly vague software patents to extort real creators, app developers, and ordinary businesses. Because defending a patent suit costs between $2 million and $5 million, targets routinely settle for around $100,000, while trolls exploit plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions like the federal court in Marshall, Texas. Despite the economic toll reaching hundreds of billions of dollars, bipartisan legislative solutions like the Innovation Act have been stalled by powerful trial lawyer lobbying. Oliver emphasizes that without comprehensive reform, the risk of extortion will continue to paralyze technological entrepreneurship.

## Atmosphere & style The segment carries John Oliver's signature brand of satirical outrage, balancing rigorous policy breakdown with rapid-fire, surreal humor and visual callbacks. Oliver shifts effortlessly from playful mockery of reality television pitches to visceral disgust over trolls extorting disability service organizations. Watching the piece feels like an accelerating roller-coaster of disbelief and righteous exasperation, capped off by a gloriously absurd musical performance that drives home the ridiculousness of the status quo.

## Bulletin - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) Patent troll litigation accounted for 3,000 of the 4,700 U.S. patent lawsuits filed in 2012, with studies estimating these non-practicing entities have cost investors over $500 billion since 1990. - [03:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=228s) Overly broad software patents granted by an overwhelmed USPTO enable trolls to threaten ordinary end-users and non-profits over everyday functions like photocopier scan-to-email features. - [05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) Because defending a patent case costs between $2 million and $5 million, trolls typically extract $100,000 nuisance settlements, resulting in roughly 90% of cases settling out of court. - [05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) Roughly a quarter of all U.S. patent cases are funneled into the plaintiff-friendly federal court in Marshall, Texas, prompting companies like Samsung to spend lavishly on local civic amenities like outdoor ice rinks to sway potential jurors. - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) Federal reform via the Innovation Act stalled in the Senate despite strong bipartisan House support, derailed largely by intense lobbying from trial lawyers who profit from patent litigation.

## Key takeaways - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) Patents were designed as exclusive commercial rights to protect inventors, serving as a critical foundation for startups and venture investment. - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) The patent system is increasingly weaponized by patent trolls—non-practicing entities that manufacture no goods but amass patent portfolios strictly to threaten litigation. - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) Patent troll lawsuits nearly tripled over two years, representing roughly 3,000 of the 4,700 patent cases filed across the U.S. in 2012. - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) Patent troll litigation has inflicted an estimated $500 billion in investor wealth destruction since 1990. - [03:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=228s) Rapid technological shifts have overwhelmed the USPTO, leading to the certification of broad, vague software claims that lack the specificity required of traditional mechanical inventions. - [03:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=228s) Trolls frequently exploit vague software patents against everyday businesses and non-profits, such as demanding $1,000 per employee from a disability charity for using standard office scan-to-email tools. - [05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) With full legal defense costs running between $2 million and $5 million, companies rationally opt to pay $100,000 settlement demands rather than risk bankruptcy in court. - [05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) Approximately 90% of patent troll lawsuits are resolved via out-of-court settlements, insulating vague patents from judicial scrutiny. - [05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) Predatory litigation is typically conducted through layers of opaque shell holding companies designed to hide the true owners behind the lawsuits. - [05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) Nearly 25% of all U.S. patent lawsuits are filed in Marshall, Texas, due to the Eastern District of Texas court's reputation as uniquely hospitable to plaintiffs. - [05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) Targeted technology corporations have spent millions cultivating goodwill in Marshall, Texas, including Samsung funding the construction of an outdoor ice-skating rink across from the federal courthouse. - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) The bipartisan Innovation Act sought to curb troll activity by shifting defense fees to losing plaintiffs and requiring disclosure of shell company owners. - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) Despite passing the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin, the Innovation Act was blocked in the Senate due to aggressive lobbying by trial lawyer interest groups. - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) Without legislative overhaul to close procedural and venue loopholes, patent litigation will continue to suppress innovation across the broader economy.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) The Role of Patents and the Rise of Patent Trolls

John Oliver introduces patents as "legally binding dibs," which grant inventors exclusive rights to their ideas once approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patents serve as the foundational bedrock of entrepreneurship and commercial investment. This reality is made painfully obvious on the television show *Shark Tank*, where investors relentlessly interrogate pitch contestants about their intellectual property, demanding to know whether they possess proprietary technology or patents before summarily declaring, "I'm out," if the founders lack legal protection. Oliver jokes that appearing on *Shark Tank* without a patent is like auditioning for *America's Next Top Model* without knowing how to "smize" or "booty tooch." The only pitch exempt from this scrutiny was an infamous entrepreneur who successfully pitched "I Want to Draw a Cat for You," dancing and singing about custom cat drawings—a business funded presumably because the founder holds a patent on whatever bizarre movement he was doing with his shoulders.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Patent Litigation Cycle accDescr: Diagram illustrating how patent trolls acquire vague software patents and leverage excessive defense costs to demand settlements. subgraph S1["Patent Acquisition"] A["USPTO issues broad, vague software patent"] --> B["Patent troll buys up patent portfolio"] end subgraph S2["Shakedown"] B --> C["Demand letter / Lawsuit filed in E.D. Texas"] C --> D{"Target assessment"} end subgraph S3["Resolution"] D -->|"Defense costs: $2M-$5M"| E["Settle for $100K (cheaper payout)"] D -->|"Fight case (rare)"| F["High financial risk in friendly venue"] end ```

Despite their importance, the patent system has become heavily corrupted by companies that produce nothing and weaponize legal claims. Oliver highlights the story of Austin Meyer, creator of the popular flight simulation app X-Plane, who was hit with a terrifying lawsuit from a company called Uniloc. The entity claimed it owned the patent on the concept of software checking a central server for authorization—a standard mechanism underlying every Android app. As Oliver observes, “This company Uniloc is essentially claiming it's entitled to a piece of every Android app,” meaning they could theoretically demand a cut from Tinder's business model, which he characterizes as a pile of STDs, sad orgasms, and broken self-esteem. Such predatory actors are known as "patent trolls": non-practicing entities that produce no tangible goods or services, but instead amass patents solely to shake down real creators through legal intimidation.

- In 2012, roughly 4,700 patent lawsuits were filed in the United States, with 3,000 of them initiated by patent trolls. - According to White House data, patent troll lawsuits nearly tripled over a two-year span. - Research estimates that patent troll litigation has cost investors approximately $500 billion ($0.5 trillion) since 1990. - Oliver illustrates that scale by noting Johnny Depp would have to star in *The Lone Ranger* over 100 times a year for 25 years to burn that amount of cash.

---

[03:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=228s) Targeting Everyday Users and the Crisis of Vague Software Patents

Patent trolls do not merely target corporate titans like Apple and Samsung; they routinely prey on end users and modest local operations simply for utilizing ordinary off-the-shelf equipment. In Old Lyme, Connecticut, a non-profit company called SARAH Inc. (serving individuals with employment barriers and disabilities) was blindsided when a shell entity named Fulleen LLC threatened legal action. The troll demanded $1,000 per employee using the "scan-to-email" functionality on their office photocopier, insisting it owned the broad patent for that digital process. As Oliver furiously remarks, “When you are threatening to sue a company which helps people with disabilities find work for using their own photocopier, you're not just on the road to hell, you have your own parking spot right next to the devil.”

The root cause behind this surge in extortion lies in the Patent Office itself. By law, examiners are tasked with granting patents only for concepts that are "new, useful, and nonobvious." However, during periods of rapid technological disruption, the agency often becomes overwhelmed and certifies dubious claims, a phenomenon seen during the 19th-century railroad boom and recurring today with the software explosion. Unlike traditional mechanical inventions, which require precise technical blueprints, software patents are frequently granted with broad, abstract, and vague descriptions. This ambiguity enables patent trolls to weaponize decades-old filings and demand royalties on modern developments the original applicants never even envisioned. Oliver quips that if someone had patented "computer thing that never works" decades ago, they would currently be raking in fortunes off FaceTime.

---

[05:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=353s) The Extortion Game, Obscure Shells, and Marshall, Texas

The business architecture of patent trolls is structured so that disputes almost never reach a courtroom trial; roughly 90% of cases settle out of court. Defending against a full-scale patent lawsuit typically costs between $2 million and $5 million in legal fees. Consequently, trolls deliberately ask for a fraction of that cost—typically around $100,000—knowing businesses will rationally opt to pay an extortion settlement rather than bankrupt themselves fighting. Oliver likens this settlement pricing to the way commercial airlines set their cabin temperatures: deliberately calibrated to make passengers utterly miserable, but not miserable enough to prompt revolt. Shielded behind nondescript names like IPNav, Empire IP, or MPHJ subsidiary Pragatus, these corporate fronts operate in complete anonymity, prompting Oliver to mock Pragatus as sounding like a tedious Greek hero who avoids slaying the Hydra because bruised farmers market produce is cheaper.

To guarantee favorable outcomes, patent trolls systematically exploit jurisdictional quirks by flocking to the Eastern District of Texas federal court in Marshall, Texas—a small town with a population of just 24,000. Nearly a quarter of all patent cases in the country are filed in this single venue because local judges and juries have established a reputation for being exceptionally plaintiff-friendly. The legal environment is so disproportionately skewed that targeted tech giants go to absurd lengths to charm the jury pool. Oliver notes that Samsung has poured close to $1 million into local Marshall community projects, including constructing an outdoor ice-skating rink directly across from the federal courthouse. “Samsung was so frightened of patent lawsuits they felt forced to build an outdoor ice rink in Texas,” Oliver says, pointing out that maintaining frozen ice in the Texas heat is as absurd as building a bowling alley in outer space.

---

[08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) Legislative Paralysis and the Fight for Patent Reform

There has historically been bipartisan interest in Washington to rein in the predatory legal ecosystem. Oliver points to the Innovation Act, a legislative reform package introduced with widespread support. The bill was designed to make patent litigation riskier for trolls by empowering judges to force losing plaintiffs to cover the defendants' legal fees and mandating greater transparency regarding the real corporate owners behind shell holding companies. Although Oliver acknowledges the legislation was not a cure-all, he analogizes it to parents putting a padlock on a liquor cabinet: it will not stop everything, but it will make it considerably harder to ruin the entire neighborhood.

Despite passing the House of Representatives with an overwhelming majority, the Innovation Act stalled and died without ever receiving a floor vote in the Senate. When analysts and news commentators were asked what killed the measure, the answer was unambiguous: powerful lobbying efforts by special interest groups, spearheaded by trial lawyers who make their fortunes litigating these claims. Oliver rails against this conflict of interest, arguing that trusting trial lawyers to decide whether baseless patent lawsuits should exist is the equivalent of allowing raccoons to establish municipal guidelines for garbage cans.

Although a new iteration of the patent reform bill has been reintroduced in Congress, Oliver stresses that urgent statutory change is mandatory. Without federal intervention, the American economy risks being suffocated to the point where the only viable commercial venture left is one requiring zero intellectual property: dancing and charging people to sketch crude cartoon cats. Oliver closes out the segment by joining the "I Want to Draw a Cat for You" founder onstage, singing along to the jingle while warning that if the system is not reformed quickly, everyone will pay the price.

## Notable quotes > [03:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=228s) When you are threatening to sue a company which helps people with disabilities find work for using their own photocopier, you're not just on the road to hell, you have your own parking spot right next to the devil. — John Oliver

## Mentioned John Oliver, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Shark Tank, America's Next Top Model, I Want to Draw a Cat for You, Austin Meyer, X-Plane, Uniloc, Tinder, Johnny Depp, The Lone Ranger, SARAH Inc., Fulleen LLC, Apple, Samsung, FaceTime, IPNav, Empire IP, MPHJ, Pragatus, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall, Texas, Innovation Act, House of Representatives, Senate

## Video description For inventors, patents are an essential protection against theft. But when patent trolls abuse the system by stockpiling patents and threatening lawsuits, businesses are forced to shell out tons of money.

Connect with Last Week Tonight online... Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight Connect with Last Week Tonight online... Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA)

中文简报

参议院阻挠法律限制措施，专利流氓令美国损失5000亿美元掠夺性空壳实体利用含糊不清的软件专利和不对等的应诉成本榨取和解金，而诉讼律师则游说国会阻止改革。约翰·奥利弗调查了“专利流氓”的掠夺性崛起——这些非执业空壳公司将过于含糊的软件专利武器化，敲诈真正的创作者、应用程序开发者和普通企业。由于专利诉讼的应诉费用在200万至500万美元之间，被盯上的目标通常选择支付约10万美元达成和解，而专利流氓则利用得克萨斯州马歇尔联邦法院等倾向于原告的司法管辖区。尽管由此造成的经济损失高达数千亿美元，但像《创新法案》这样获得两党支持的立法方案却因诉讼律师的强大游说而陷入停滞。奥利弗强调，如果缺乏全面的改革，这种勒索风险将继续阻碍技术创业。在2012年美国提起的4700起专利诉讼中，专利流氓诉讼占了3000起；研究估计，自1990年以来，这些非执业实体已使投资者损失超过5000亿美元。 (0:04) 由于不堪重负的美国专利商标局（USPTO）批准了范围过宽的软件专利，专利流氓得以就复印机“扫描至电子邮件”等日常功能威胁普通终端用户和非营利组织。 (3:48) 由于应对专利诉讼的成本在200万至500万美元之间，专利流氓通常会索取10万美元的和解金以了结纠缠，导致大约90%的案件选择庭外和解。 (5:53) 全美约四分之一的专利案件集中在倾向于原告的得克萨斯州马歇尔联邦法院，这促使三星等公司在当地公共市政设施（如室外溜冰场）上投入巨资，以拉拢潜在的陪审员。 (5:53) 尽管《创新法案》在众议院获得了跨党派的大力支持，但通过该法案推进的联邦改革仍在参议院陷入停滞，这主要是因为从专利诉讼中获利的诉讼律师进行了强力游说。 (8:46)

Reading summary

John Oliver argues that the United States patent system has been co-opted by predatory "patent trolls"—non-practicing entities that weaponize overly broad software patents and asymmetrical legal costs to extract settlements from productive enterprises and ordinary users. The Rise and Economic Toll of Predatory Litigation (0:04) While patents were established to protect original inventions, the system has increasingly been exploited by non-practicing entities that create no products and exist solely to initiate infringement claims. Oliver highlights the experience of Austin Meyer, developer of the flight simulator X-Plane, who was sued by Uniloc over the standard process of software verifying authorization through a central server. According to Oliver, this claim effectively asserted ownership over core functionalities used across all Android applications. Data cited in the program underscores the systemic scope of the issue: in 2012, approximately 3,000 of the 4,700 patent lawsuits filed in the U.S. were initiated by patent trolls, with White House figures indicating such suits nearly tripled within two years. Research also estimates that patent troll litigation has cost investors roughly $500 billion since 1990. Vague Software Patents and Collateral Damage to Users (3:48) The proliferation of troll litigation is heavily fueled by the United States Patent and Trademark Office certifying overly abstract claims. Although examiners are legally tasked with approving only "new, useful, and nonobvious" inventions, Oliver explains that rapid technological disruption—specifically the software boom—has overwhelmed the agency. Unlike traditional mechanical patents requiring precise schematics, software patents have routinely been granted with broad descriptions, enabling trolls to retroactively assert claims over subsequent technological developments. Consequently, trolls do not restrict targets to major tech conglomerates; they also pursue end users and small organizations for utilizing standard commercial office equipment. For example, shell entity Fulleen LLC threatened legal action against SARAH Inc., a Connecticut non-profit supporting individuals with disabilities, demanding $1,000 per employee merely for using the "scan-to-email" function on standard office photocopiers. Financial Coercion and Jurisdictional Exploitation in Texas (5:53) Patent assertion entities exploit legal cost dynamics to force quick cash settlements. Defending against a full patent lawsuit costs between $2 million and $5 million, which creates an economic incentive for targeted businesses to pay an average settlement demand of roughly $100,000. As a result, approximately 90% of these cases settle out of court. Furthermore, trolls obscure their true leadership behind opaque shell companies such as IPNav, Empire IP, and Pragatus. To maximize leverage, trolls systematically concentrate their lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas federal court in Marshall, Texas, a town of 24,000 residents. The venue handles nearly one-quarter of all U.S. patent cases due to a local bench and jury pool considered unusually friendly to plaintiffs. This dynamic has driven major technology defendants to extraordinary lengths to foster local goodwill; Oliver notes Samsung invested nearly $1 million in Marshall civic projects, including building an outdoor ice-skating rink opposite the federal courthouse. Legislative Paralysis and Lobbying Against Patent Reform (8:46) Efforts to curb predatory litigation through federal legislation have faced repeated institutional roadblocks. The Innovation Act sought to address core abuses by mandating public disclosure of the beneficial owners behind shell holding companies and empowering judges to force losing plaintiffs to cover defense legal fees. Despite broad bipartisan support that carried the bill through the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin, the measure died in the Senate without receiving a floor vote. Oliver attributes this legislative failure to intense opposition from special interest groups, most notably trial lawyers who profit substantially from handling patent disputes. He asserts that allowing litigators to dictate the terms of patent reform represents an inherent conflict of interest that sustains abusive legal tactics. Oliver concludes that without decisive statutory reform to penalize abusive litigation and clarify corporate ownership, patent trolls will continue to siphon financial capital and deter innovation across the broader economy.

精炼阅读摘要

John Oliver 在节目中指出，原本旨在保护创新的美国专利制度已被“专利流氓”（非执业实体）异化为系统性的法律敲诈工具。这些实体利用模糊的软件专利、高昂的应诉成本以及特定的司法管辖区大肆敛财，而旨在遏制此类滥诉的联邦立法改革却因利益集团的强力游说陷入停滞。专利流氓的兴起与巨额经济代价 (0:04) Oliver 表示，专利本是发明者的法定独占权和商业投资的基石，但在实践中，不从事实际生产或研发的“专利流氓”（Non-Practicing Entities）通过囤积专利，向真正的创造者发起恐吓式维权。节目列举了飞行模拟软件 X-Plane 开发者 Austin Meyer 的遭遇：空壳公司 Uniloc 指控其侵犯了一项关于“软件连接中央服务器进行授权认证”的宽泛专利，而该机制实为所有 Android 应用的标准功能。根据白宫发布的数据，专利流氓发起的诉讼在两年内激增了近两倍；在 2012 年全美约 4,700 起专利诉讼中，有多达 3,000 起由专利流氓提起。学术研究估计，自 1990 年以来，专利流氓诉讼已给投资者造成了约 5,000 亿美元（0.5 万亿美元）的损失，严重削弱了实体经济的创新活力。专利审查漏洞与宽泛软件专利的滥用 (3:48) 专利流氓的侵害对象不仅包括苹果或三星等大型科技公司，还延伸至普通终端用户与地方小型机构。例如，康涅狄格州为残障人士提供就业支持的非营利组织 SARAH Inc. 曾收到空壳实体 Fulleen LLC 的诉讼威胁，对方声称拥有办公打印机“扫描并发送至电子邮件”功能的专利，要求该机构为每名使用扫描功能的员工支付 1,000 美元赔偿。 Oliver 解释称，这一现象的根源在于美国专利商标局（USPTO）的审查机制在技术突飞猛进时失守。根据法律规定，专利必须具备“新颖性、实用性与非显而易见性”，但在软件行业爆发期，审查员因负荷过重而签发了大量描述抽象模糊的软件专利。这导致投机者得以利用数十年前申请的宽泛条款，向后来出现的各项通用数字化流程索要巨额专利费。诉讼勒索模型与德州东区法院管辖 (5:53) 专利流氓构建了一套精密的敲诈机制，导致约 90% 的案件最终在庭外和解。由于应对一场完整的专利诉讼通常需要耗费 200 万至 500 万美元的律师费，原告往往将和解金故意设定在约 10 万美元的水平。面对破产风险与抗辩成本，绝大多数被告企业只能理性选择妥协付款。这些诉讼主体通常隐藏在 IPNav、Empire IP 或 Pragatus 等错综复杂的匿名空壳公司背后。与此同时，专利流氓系统性地利用“挑选法院”（Forum Shopping）策略，集中前往得克萨斯州马歇尔市的联邦地区法院（德州东区法院）。这个人口仅约 2.4 万人的小镇承理了全美近四分之一的专利案件，原因在于当地法官和陪审团以倾向原告闻名。为了讨好当地陪审员，常年应诉的三星公司甚至斥资近 100 万美元资助当地社区项目，包括在法院正对面修建了一座室外真冰滑冰场。联邦立法受阻与诉讼律师利益冲突 (8:46) 为遏制恶意诉讼，美国国会两党曾推动具有广泛支持的《创新法案》（Innovation Act）。该法案的核心内容包括赋予法官裁定败诉原告承担被告律师费的权力，并强制要求空壳实体披露幕后的实际控制人与股权结构，以此大幅提高专利流氓的滥诉成本。尽管《创新法案》在众议院以压倒性多数通过，但随后在参议院搁浅，甚至未能进入全院表决。行业分析与媒体报道指出，阻杀该法案的主要力量是以诉讼律师为代表的特别利益集团，他们通过巨额游说保护自身在专利诉讼中赚取的丰厚律师费。Oliver 批评这种利益冲突无异于让直接受益者制定监管规则，致使司法改革难以推行。尽管新版专利改革法案已被重新提交至国会，但在强大的游说阻力下，立法改革前景依然充满不确定性。Oliver 强调，若不通过联邦层面的制度纠偏来遏制专利敲诈，持续攀升的制度成本将严重抑制真正的商业创新与创业空间。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 LastWeekTonight（《约翰·奥利弗上周今夜秀》官方账号）于 2015 年 4 月 20 日发布。视频简介指出，专利本应是保护发明者免遭抄袭的重要防线，但当专利流氓通过囤积专利和滥诉敲诈来滥用该制度时，企业不得不为此蒙受巨额经济损失。 ## TL;DR 本期节目深入剖析了美国专利制度遭到“专利流氓”（Patent Trolls）严重扭曲与滥用的严峻现状。这些投机公司利用美国专利及商标局（USPTO）审核通过的宽泛模糊的软件专利，锁定普通开发者乃至慈善机构发出侵权指控，利用高昂的应诉成本逼迫受害者支付巨额和解金。案件往往扎堆在偏袒原告的得克萨斯州东区联邦地区法院，迫使三星等科技巨头不得不斥巨资在当地讨好公众。尽管国会曾提出《创新法案》试图遏制这一产业链，但该法案却因诉讼律师等强大游说集团的阻挠而在参议院搁浅，使得专利体系的改革迫在眉睫。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目的基调犀利辛辣、幽默讽刺且极富批判性。约翰·奥利弗以快节奏的脱口秀风格，穿插了大量荒诞生动的比喻——从《创智赢家》的抖肩画猫男，到恶魔旁的专属车位，再到得州法庭前荒诞的人造滑冰场，将枯燥复杂的法律困局解构得令人捧腹又发人深省。观众在观影过程中，会经历从对滥诉行径的荒谬失笑，到对其摧毁创新和敲诈弱小者的愤怒，最终转化为对华盛顿游说政治阻碍司法改革的深刻无奈与呼吁。 ## Bulletin - [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=96s) 专利流氓（Patent Trolls）通过囤积宽泛专利进行滥诉已形成庞大黑产，2012年全美4,700起专利诉讼中超六成由其发起，自1990年以来造成的经济损失估算高达5,000亿美元。 - [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=282s) 高昂的诉讼成本成为专利敲诈的杠杆，应诉一场专利官司需花费200万至500万美元，逼迫近90%的被告选择支付约10万美元的和解金破财消灾。 - [07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=432s) 得克萨斯州东区联邦地区法院因极其偏向原告而成为全美近四分之一专利诉讼的聚集地，甚至促使三星等巨头为讨好当地陪审团出资建造露天滑冰场。 - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) 旨在遏制滥诉的跨党派《创新法案》（Innovation Act）虽在众议院获压倒性通过，但由于诉讼律师游说集团的强力阻挠，在参议院被彻底搁置。 ## Key takeaways - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) 专利本质上是国家认可的商业“先占权”，在创投领域被视作核心护城河，但也由此催生了病态的投机滥用。 - [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=96s) 专利流氓不从事任何实际研发与生产，其核心商业模式是通过低价收购模糊专利并提起诉讼来榨取巨额和解金。 - [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=96s) 独立开发者常因使用行业通用架构（如Android向服务器验证授权）而沦为专利流氓的敲诈对象。 - [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=96s) 敲诈对象不仅限于大型科技公司，甚至使用复印机“扫描至电子邮件”功能的残障就业非营利机构也遭到索赔。 - [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=96s) 白宫数据显示专利流氓提起的诉讼在两年内激增近两倍，已对创新投资环境构成系统性危害。 - [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=282s) 专利局在软件技术爆发期因超负荷审查而失守，放行了大量措辞宽泛且模糊的软件专利，留下寻租漏洞。 - [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=282s) 近90%的专利诉讼以庭外和解告终，原因在于200万至500万美元的应诉成本与10万美元的和解金差距构成了精密的心理定标。 - [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=282s) 专利流氓通常设立名称晦涩的壳公司（如IPnav、Empire IP）隐藏幕后实际受益人以规避公众监督与法律责任。 - [07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=432s) 人口仅约2.4万的得克萨斯州马歇尔小镇因法院裁决显著偏袒原告，承接了全美近25%的专利官司。 - [07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=432s) 为了降低在得州东区法院的败诉风险，跨国科技企业如三星被迫耗资百万美元赞助当地市政建设及在法院门前建造露天冰场以讨好陪审团。 - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) 跨党派《创新法案》拟通过推行败诉方承担诉讼费和披露幕后受益人等规则打击专利流氓，但在参议院遭到阻挠夭折。 - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) 审判律师协会等既得利益游说团体是阻碍美国专利法改革的关键阻力，让诉讼律师决定滥诉规则如同让浣熊看管垃圾桶。 - [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) 若无法从法律层面彻底改革并遏制专利流氓，合法的技术创新将被扭曲的诉讼机制扼杀殆尽。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) 专利体系的初衷与《创智赢家》的“专利迷恋” 专利本质上具有法律约束力的“先占权”（legally binding dibs）。在美国，只要发明者创造出新事物并获得美国专利及商标局（USPTO）的批准，该创意的所有权便归其独有。对于商业运作而言，专利被普遍视为核心资产。这种执念在创业真人秀节目《创智赢家》（*Shark Tank*）中体现得淋漓尽致：投资人（Sharks）经常因创业者没有专利而断然拒绝投资，并连环抛出“除非你有专有技术、专利或无法模仿的软件，否则你就会遇到麻烦，我退出（I'm out）”的定论。约翰·奥利弗（John Oliver）调侃道，去参加《创智赢家》却没带专利，就像去参加《全美超级模特新秀大赛》（*America's Next Top Model*）却不懂得如何用眼睛微笑（smize）或展现翘臀（booty tooch）一样荒谬，只能被淘汰去拍商品目录。不过节目里也偶有例外：一名凭借“我画猫，邮寄给你”（I Want to Draw a Cat for You）项目的男子，仅靠抖动肩膀唱着打油诗就拿到了投资，奥利弗笑称这人大概是为他那诡异的抖肩动作申请了专利。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 专利流氓商业模式运作图 accDescr: 展示专利流氓如何低价购入模糊专利，规避审判，利用高额诉讼成本进行法律敲诈并获取和解金。 subgraph S1["资产获取"] A["低价收购或囤积模糊的软件专利"] end subgraph S2["敲诈目标"] B["锁定软件开发者或普通企业"] C["发出专利侵权警告函/起诉"] end subgraph S3["逼迫和解"] D{"应诉成本高昂<br/>(200万至500万美元)"} E["索要勒索式和解金<br/>(约10万美元)"] F["受害者被迫妥协支付"] end A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F ``` ### [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=96s) 专利流氓的崛起与高昂的勒索成本虽然设立专利制度是为了保护创新，但该体系已严重遭到滥用。独立飞行模拟应用开发者奥斯汀·迈耶（Austin Meyer）便遭遇了一场无妄之灾。一家名为 Unilock 的公司对他提起诉讼，理由竟是他们拥有“计算机程序向中央服务器验证授权”这一理念的专利——而这是几乎所有 Android 应用运行的基础构架。奥利弗犀利指出，按照这套强盗逻辑，Unilock 理论上可以跑去 Tinder 总部，要求分走 Tinder 创造的所有东西，“我猜那会是一堆性传播疾病、悲伤的性高潮以及人类自尊的碎片”。这类不从事实际研发与生产、仅靠囤积专利发起诉讼敲诈的企业被称为“专利流氓”（Patent Trolls）。奥利弗认为称其为流氓甚至侮辱了童话里的巨怪，因为桥下的巨怪至少还会看守山羊、出脑筋急转弯，而专利流氓纯粹是在通过滥诉榨取社会财富。更离谱的是，专利流氓的打击范围不仅限于科技巨头，甚至普通小机构也无法幸免。一家位于老莱姆（Old Lyme）、专门帮助残障人士就业的非营利机构，仅仅因为员工在办公复印机上使用了“扫描至电子邮件”（scan-to-email）功能，就遭到壳公司 Project Paperless（通过其关联实体如 Farney / Prowire 等）敲诈，要求每名使用该功能的员工缴纳 1,000 美元的许可费。奥利弗痛斥：“当你因为一家帮助残疾人找工作的机构使用自己的复印机而威胁要起诉他们时，你不仅走在通往地狱的路上，你还在恶魔旁边拥有专属车位。” - 2012 年全美提起的 4,700 起专利诉讼中，有 3,000 起是由专利流氓发起的。 - 白宫数据显示，在相关统计的前两年中，专利流氓提起的诉讼数量几乎增长了两倍。 - 相关学术研究显示，自 1990 年以来，专利流氓的恶意诉讼给投资者造成的经济损失累计高达约 5,000 亿美元（半万亿美元）。 - 奥利弗对比吐槽：要想让别人损失这么多钱，“约翰尼·德普必须在 25 年里每年主演《独行侠》超过 100 次”。 ### [04:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=282s) 宽泛软件专利与精算式“法律勒索” 这种体制性弊端的源头在于专利局的审查标准。专利局原本应当只认证具备“新颖性、实用性且非显而易见”（new, useful and non-obvious）的发明，但面对重大技术革新浪潮时（如 19 世纪的铁路热潮以及近年来的软件爆发期），专利局往往因工作量超负荷而审查失守。与针对具体机械结构的专利不同，软件专利往往写得极其宽泛与模糊，使得专利流氓日后可以用来对他们当年根本未曾设想过的发明主张权利。专利流氓深谙算计，将这套打法演化成了一门精密的勒索生意： 1. **规避庭审**：研究表明近 90% 的专利诉讼最终以庭外和解告终。这是因为在美国抗辩一场专利官司需要花费 200 万至 500 万美元的律师费与诉讼费，而专利流氓开出的和解金通常卡在 10 万美元左右。 2. **心理定标**：受害者在理智权衡后往往只能选择破财消灾。奥利弗形容道：“他们挑选数字的方式，就像航空公司挑选机舱温度一样——经过完美校准，让你痛苦不堪，但又不足以让你真正采取行动反抗。” 3. **隐蔽运作**：这些幕后实体往往隐匿在诸如 IPnav、Empire IP 或 Pragmatos 之类模棱两可的公司名称之下，如同最无趣的神话人物般在法律阴影中穿梭。 ### [07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=432s) 东得克萨斯联邦法院与法庭外的人造溜冰场为了将胜诉率最大化，专利流氓发掘并垄断了一块“诉讼圣地”——得克萨斯州东区联邦地区法院，特别是人口仅约 2.4 万的小城马歇尔（Marshall, Texas）。全美近四分之一的专利官司都涌向这个小镇。这里的法官和陪审团以极其偏袒原告而著称，导致各大跨国科技企业为了避免陪审团的敌意，不得不采取令人啼笑皆非的公关讨好手段。例如，因频繁在此被起诉，三星（Samsung）豪掷近 100 万美元资助当地的社区建设项目。最为荒谬的是，三星甚至在马歇尔县法院正门前方出资建造了一座露天人造滑冰场。奥利弗对此瞠目结舌并大加嘲讽，指出在得克萨斯炎热的气候下维持一座室外冰场简直不可思议，其难度“就像在太空中建一条保龄球道一样”，整件事情彻底沦为病态闹剧。 ### [08:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=526s) 改革受阻于院外游说集团面对如此严峻的弊端，华盛顿政界并非毫无作为。国会此前曾推出跨党派的《创新法案》（Innovation Act），提出多项务实改革，包括要求败诉的专利流氓承担胜诉方的法庭诉讼费用，以及强制公开专利流氓背后的真实受益人身份。奥利弗认为该法案虽非灵丹妙药，但就像给青春期叛逆孩子的酒柜上锁一样，虽然不能完全杜绝问题，至少能增加其为非作歹的难度。然而，尽管《创新法案》在众议院获得了压倒性票数支持通过，却在参议院被彻底搁置，连投票表决的机会都未曾获得。针对法案为何夭折，奥利弗引用新闻访谈指出：“诉讼律师在华盛顿的影响力依然强大而活跃。”包括美国审判律师协会（Trial Lawyers）在内的游说集团利用政治影响力强行阻挠了立法。奥利弗怒批让诉讼律师决定是否遏制无端诉讼，就像是让浣熊来制定垃圾桶摆放法律——浣熊只会立法要求“垃圾桶必须放在容易够到的地方，且盖子要留一道缝隙”。在节目的最后，奥利弗强调该法案正在国会卷土重来，不论是通过该法案还是其他措施，专利体系改革都刻不容缓。他总结道，如果不对这种勒索行为加以制止，未来全美唯一能存活的合规生意，将只剩下那个完全不需要专利的“画猫”服务；随后在欢快的画猫神曲伴奏中，奥利弗呼吁全社会必须尽快改革专利制度，否则整个商业社会终将被这套扭曲的法律机制彻底绑架。 ## Notable quotes > [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=96s) 当你因为一家帮助残疾人找工作的机构使用自己的复印机而威胁要起诉他们时，你不仅走在通往地狱的路上，你还在恶魔旁边拥有专属车位。 — 约翰·奥利弗 > [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&t=4s) 除非你有专有技术、专利或无法模仿的软件，否则你就会遇到麻烦 — 投资人 ## Mentioned 约翰·奥利弗, 美国专利及商标局, 创智赢家, 全美超级模特新秀大赛, 奥斯汀·迈耶, Unilock, Tinder, Project Paperless, Farney, Prowire, 约翰尼·德普, 独行侠, IPnav, Empire IP, Pragmatos, 得克萨斯州东区联邦地区法院, 马歇尔, 三星, 创新法案, 美国众议院, 美国参议院, 美国审判律师协会 ## Video description For inventors, patents are an essential protection against theft. But when patent trolls abuse the system by stockpiling patents and threatening lawsuits, businesses are forced to shell out tons of money. Connect with Last Week Tonight online... Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight Connect with Last Week Tonight online... Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA)

Source quotes

[1:36] 约翰·奥利弗: 当你因为一家帮助残疾人找工作的机构使用自己的复印机而威胁要起诉他们时，你不仅走在通往地狱的路上，你还在恶魔旁边拥有专属车位。 [0:04] 投资人: 除非你有专有技术、专利或无法模仿的软件，否则你就会遇到麻烦

Source quotes

[3:48] John Oliver: When you are threatening to sue a company which helps people with disabilities find work for using their own photocopier, you're not just on the road to hell, you have your own parking spot right next to the devil.

Original transcript

[0:04] patents they're basically legally [0:06] binding dibs and they're important if [0:09] you invent something in America and you [0:10] get it approved by the patent and [0:12] trademark office the rights to that idea [0:14] then belong to you they're absolutely [0:16] essential to business as you would know [0:18] if you've ever seen an episode of Shark [0:20] Tank why aren't you telling me youve got [0:22] something proprietary or a patent or a [0:24] technology or software no one can [0:25] emulate I hope you do get your patent [0:27] and I wish you good luck without having [0:29] it I feel that you're going to really [0:31] have a struggle don't have a patent [0:33] don't have a finished sample don't have [0:35] experience unless you have a patent or [0:37] some proprietary technology you're going [0:40] to be in trouble I'm out I'm out I'm [0:43] [Music] [0:44] out exactly arriving on the set of shark [0:48] tank without a patent is like turning up [0:50] to America's Next Top Model without [0:51] knowing how to smise or booty toou you [0:54] take that to catalog you're not [0:57] editorial you're not editorial [1:00] I don't know what that means [1:02] but the point is if you don't have a [1:05] patent you don't have a prayer on Shark [1:07] Tank unless you've got a once in [1:09] a-lifetime investment opportunity like [1:11] this [1:13] [Music] [1:15] guy you go to my site you describe a cat [1:18] I draw it I mail it it's as easy as that [1:20] I'd invest if I were you and I want to [1:22] draw a cat for [1:23] [Music] [1:27] you by the way his business got funded [1:30] presumably because he holds the patent [1:32] on whatever the he's doing with his [1:34] shoulders the problem is the patent [1:36] system has increasingly been prone to [1:38] abuse for instance a few years ago a man [1:41] named Austin Meyer made a popular flight [1:43] simulator app and then one day received [1:45] a frightening letter it said that a [1:48] company called Unilock was filing suit [1:51] against me the company is suing Meer for [1:53] patent infringements according to the [1:56] lawsuits Unilock says it owns the idea [1:58] of a computer program checking a central [2:01] server for authorization it is the [2:03] technology upon which all Android apps [2:06] are based all Android app that I know of [2:09] everyone I know of it's true this [2:12] company Unilock is essentially claiming [2:14] it's entitled to a piece of every [2:16] Android app that technically means they [2:18] could show up at the headquarters of [2:19] Tinder and demand a cut of everything [2:21] Tinder has created which I assume would [2:24] be a pile of STDs sad orgasms and shards [2:27] of human self-esteem that's that's the [2:30] business model but this this situation [2:34] has become so common there's even a name [2:37] for companies that do this so-called [2:39] patent trolls typically don't invent [2:41] anything or sell anything they simply [2:43] buy patents and make their money by [2:45] threatening lawsuits yeah most of these [2:48] companies don't produce anything they [2:50] just shake down anyone who does so [2:52] calling them trolls is a little [2:54] misleading at least trolls actually do [2:56] something they control Bridge access for [2:58] goats and ask people fun [3:01] riddles patent trolls just threaten to [3:04] sue the living out of people and [3:06] believe me those lawsuits add up in fact [3:09] of the [3:10] 4,700 patent lawsuits filed in 2012 [3:14] 3,000 were from the soall patent trolls [3:17] the White House claims during the last [3:18] two years the number of lawsuits brought [3:21] by Patent trolls has nearly tripled [3:23] research shows this type of litigation [3:25] has cost investors an estimated half a [3:28] trillion dollars since 1990 half a [3:31] trillion let me put that in context to [3:34] lose other people that amount of money [3:36] Johnny Depp would have had to start in [3:38] The Lone Ranger over a 100 times a year [3:40] for 25 years that's a horrifying amount [3:46] horrifying and Pat trolls Target [3:49] everyone from big businesses like Apple [3:51] and Samsung to tiny ones in fact you [3:53] don't even need to make something to be [3:55] targeted you just need to use something [3:58] a business in all lime couldn't believe [4:00] it when someone threatened to sue them [4:02] for using their own copy machine we [4:04] provide employment services for people [4:06] with um barriers to employment mostly [4:09] people with disabilities fuler LLC [4:12] threatened to file unless Hurley forked [4:14] over ,000 for each employee who uses the [4:17] scan to email function on this copier [4:20] fuler says it's entitled to this [4:22] licensing money because it owns the [4:24] patents for that process wow when you [4:28] are threatening to sue a company which [4:30] helps people with disabilities find work [4:32] for using their own photocopier you're [4:35] not just on the road to hell you have [4:37] your own parking spot right next to the [4:39] devil so so how exactly did we [4:42] get ourselves into this mess well in [4:45] part it has to do with the types of [4:47] patents that have been issued the patent [4:49] office is supposed to certify inventions [4:51] that are new useful and nonobvious [4:54] incidentally all the adjectives that Tom [4:56] Cruz would say he's seeking in an ideal [4:58] mate but [5:00] but during periods of big technological [5:03] change they can get overwhelmed and [5:05] certified patn that they shouldn't uh [5:07] this happened in the 19th century with [5:09] railroads and then again more recently [5:11] with the development of software in the [5:14] last decade the number of software [5:16] patents has skyrocketed the issue here [5:18] say experts is that while patents for [5:20] machines tend to be fairly specific [5:23] software patents can be so Broad and [5:26] vague that they may give someone the [5:27] ability to later claim ownership for [5:30] inventions they never dreamed of at the [5:32] time and that is the seed of our current [5:35] problems because if a troll can get a [5:37] vaguely defined software patent they can [5:39] demand payment for anything that fits [5:41] that description basically if they [5:43] thought to patent computer thing that [5:45] never works years ago they currently be [5:47] getting rich off of FaceTime very very [5:51] rich patent trolls have this process [5:53] down to such a science uh for a start [5:56] they have figured out a way to almost [5:57] never go to trial one study found that [6:00] almost 90% of cases are settled for a [6:03] very practical reason it's an extortion [6:06] gain because it costs between two and $5 [6:10] million to defend a patent suit so the [6:13] patent trol says we'll settle for [6:15] 100,000 many decide to pay out [6:17] settlements because it's cheaper than [6:19] fighting the [6:20] lawsuits so they work out the maximum [6:23] amount of money you'd be willing to pay [6:26] rather than go to court and negotiate [6:28] for that they pick number the same way [6:30] Airlines pick a cabin temperature [6:32] perfectly calibrated to make you [6:34] miserable but not so much that you'd [6:36] actually do anything about [6:38] it and the most frustrating thing is [6:41] sometimes it's hard to know who's behind [6:43] all of this they often have vague [6:45] company names like IP nav Empire IP or [6:49] pragmas and incidentally pragmas sounds [6:52] like the most boring mythological Greek [6:54] hero of all time I am pragmatis and I [6:57] shall not battle the Hydra for is much [7:00] larger than me so I shall go home via [7:03] the farmers market for the bruised [7:04] vegetables are cheaper at the end of the [7:06] day pragmas bids you [7:09] farewell patent [7:12] trolls patent trolls have even managed [7:15] to find the friendliest place to file [7:17] their lawsuits almost a quarter of last [7:19] year's US Patent cases were filed in [7:21] this Eastern Texas Federal Court [7:23] District Marshall Texas population [7:27] 24,000 a quarter of all patent cases are [7:31] filed in Marshall Texas and believe me [7:34] it is not because people there are [7:35] inventing like a methhead in a Home [7:37] Depot [7:38] aisle I combined a wheel with a nail [7:41] it's a nail wheel new new invention [7:43] patent here's fouret of PVC piping I can [7:46] use for a big straw patent holy I'm [7:48] a genius give me more [7:51] meth P trolls have figured out that for [7:55] whatever reason East Texas judges and [7:57] juries are sympathetic to plaintiffs and [7:59] it has been so effective that big [8:02] companies are having to go to absurd [8:04] lengths to Pander to the people of [8:06] Marshall Texas Tech companies know the [8:09] value of a good PR campaign here in [8:11] Marshall where almost anyone can be on [8:13] your next jury a city official tells us [8:16] that Samsung sued here multiple times [8:19] has spent almost a million dollars on [8:21] community projects like this I skating [8:23] rank right in front of the [8:28] courthouse Samsung was so frightened of [8:31] patent lawsuits they felt forced to [8:33] build an outdoor ice rink in Texas do [8:37] you know how hard that is to maintain [8:39] it's like building a bowling alley in [8:42] space this situation is insane now the [8:46] good news is there is cross Party [8:48] Support in Washington for fixing this [8:50] problem in fact a bipartisan bill was [8:52] introduced 2 years ago called The [8:54] Innovation act with some decent ideas [8:56] such as encouraging judges to make [8:57] patent trolls pay court cost if if they [8:59] lose uh and forcing patent trolls to be [9:01] more transparent about their identities [9:03] and I'm not saying that bill was perfect [9:05] but it would have helped it's like when [9:08] parents of teenagers lock The Liquor [9:10] Cabinet look I know this isn't going to [9:11] stop you rapidy but it will make it just [9:15] a little harder for you to up the [9:17] entire [9:19] neighborhood unfortunately while the [9:21] bill passed the house by an overwhelming [9:23] majority it never even made it to a vote [9:26] in the Senate I wonder why would that be [9:30] what do you make of the this bill [9:31] getting killed well I know this is news [9:34] but trial lawyers uh influence in [9:36] Washington is alive and well yes [9:39] apparently lobbyists for groups [9:41] including trial lawyers manag to prevent [9:43] the bill from moving forward and you [9:45] cannot let trial lawyers decide whether [9:47] there should be more baseless lawsuits [9:50] that's the equivalent of trusting [9:51] raccoons to make laws about garbage can [9:53] placement no uh they should be easy to [9:56] reach and left slightly open all in [9:58] favor [10:02] [Applause] [10:10] say that's a good impression as far as [10:13] you [10:14] know luckily there is actually a glimmer [10:17] of hope here because that bill is making [10:19] the rounds again and look even if it [10:21] doesn't pass something has to we have to [10:24] do something or the only viable business [10:26] left in America is going to be one that [10:28] relies on on no patents whatsoever and I [10:31] can only think of one business that fits [10:33] that description I'll draw you a cat [10:36] whatever the vibe I draw the cat that [10:38] you [10:39] [Music] [10:42] describe I guess all I'm saying is hit [10:46] it let's reform our patterns quick or we [10:49] will all be in the [10:52] [Applause]