Texas and the end of innovation in the United States
The results of the recent 'patent-trolling' case against NewEgg.com are frankly, shocking. Only in a small town in Texas, known for its extreme conservatism and absent in much understanding of things digital, could the obvious outcome of a case have been skewed in such a gross manner. Whitfield Diffie testified in the trail for NewEgg and against the patent troll. Strangely, as you might have guessed, NewEgg lost.
You might ask yourself as the jury probably did, "just who is this Diffie hippy guy?" Diffie is the co-creator of the Diffie-Helman key exchange, which allows the entire internet to work on a secure basis, and has served as the foundation of all other consequent security protocols (RSA). Diffie-Helman allows secure connections between two priorly unknown computers via its asymmetric public/private key pairings; a private non-shared key and a publicly available shared key are created at the same moment, the former used to verify the latter. When the patent troll lawyer noted that Whitfield Diffie did not have a doctorate, and much less a masters degree; and that he was not a university professor even though had taught some classes, the jury decided in favor of the patent troll. (A good description of the case can be found in the SecurityNow! episode 432.)
Good going there, Texas. Perhaps, while you are at it, you should overturn the teaching of Darwinian evolution at the same time. Oh, wait. You are actually trying to do so.
This case marks the end of innovation in the US. Even though likely overturned on appeal, the enormous potential legal costs of innovation in the United States will likely serve as a impossible hindrance for young truly innovative upstart companies. Large corporations can afford to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars--many already have to this particular patent troll--but the small start ups serving as the seeds for future economic growth (and possible economic behemoths) simply cannot afford to do so. The patent trolls have already won something like $44 million in these particular series of cases, for which they have not created any new technologies AT ALL.
Yet the entire purpose in awarding a temporary monopoly, as described by Thomas Jefferson, was precisely to act as a stimulus for innovation. If the future inventor knew that he would be able to financially benefit from his efforts at innovation for a predetermined period of time, noted Jefferson, he would likely be spurred on into creativity. (Jefferson himself was an inventor.) It is this core principle of the US constitution which drove a nation with a fraction of the population of much larger countries (China, India) to become the economic giant of the 20th century.
Truly trivial lawsuits as these, from a technical point of view, are one of the factors that will help to further drive the US economy to the ground.