Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

cookingatmidnight The analysis of the movie provided by "aecolu" is 100% accurate. I can't tell if the movie is grossly misinformed, or intentionally misleading. I laughed out loud when the narrator put the red box around the preamble of the claim and said "this is what they have the right to"...NO. That's actually the part of the claim that holds little to no weight.I completely agree that patent trolls are a huge problem and the system needs to be adjusted to protect against them. However, as someone who works with patents every day, I was very disappointed with all the incorrect information this movie put forward.

Vikky0007 Shows exactly what is wrong with today's patent laws and filing. Patent trolls are real and they can get you anywhere, specially if you are in the growth stage. Ridiculous state of the matter. I agree wit the end abstract remarks. Those changes are needed. Good job.

Richard Davis This is an interesting and worthwhile watch. I'd actually give it a 6.5, but rounded up... The show does not state that all patent infringement claims are frivolous. It states that a very large and significant proportion of them are, and that a very significant proportion of them are generated by shell corporations (LLC's typically), from empty offices, and mostly in some small towns in East Texas. It also states that in a significant number of cases brought, the Judge's are relations (fathers) of the two lawyers controlling the lawsuits! These appear to be proved facts. Honestly, the muck that is uncovered here is eye-watering. And dreadful. I feel extremely sorry for these mid-size companies that are being bled dry by the leeches that seek to sue and litigate for everything. Oh, and Peter Wolf. Just wait till you watch his interview. I cannot believe that that individual had the gall to agree to be interviewed and said what he said. I'm shaking my head in disbelief at the content of his interview - listen carefully to him; his patent was eventually quashed but he kept all of the "licensing" cash that he bled out of the photographers before he was eventually found out. The world really is full of scumbags. Watch this well-made amateur film effort to see some of them.

aecolu It doesn't seem the show had much research. It is true patent trolls are a big issue and it is something that needs to be addressed. The key issue is when the patent office gives an allowance to a patent application that should not have been allowed. Patent claims must be novel and not obvious. The other problem is the burden of the people who are being sued in being the ones that need to show the invalidity of the patents.The show begins with the idea of shoe polishing as a patent being granted and the argument the show gives is that there is no patent on it. This is not true. If you can find shoe polishing in any literature whether it'd be novels, movies, or a news article then the patent claim fails the test and a patent cannot be granted.The show later then talks about the host being sued and shows a red box of the preamble of a claim and argues that's what the company suing him owns in their patent and it's so basic. A preamble is not the property of the person holding the patent, it is in fact prior art, it is what follows the preamble that is the property of the patent holder. The show misdirects viewers by showing you something that obviously shouldn't have received a patent, and which it wasn't. The red box are did not get patented, it is the following paragraphs after the word "comprising".Then the show goes on to US 6370535 and says they own the patent to "red box area" once again, rather than the claim. A look up of the patent and the independent claim you see it is much more specific than what the show's host claims. The host shows a basic simplified example of the patent and claims they own the right to anything of such, but when really they own the right to something much more specific.Throughout the show they argue patents are bad that you shouldn't be able to own an idea. This is a terrible notion. Lots of start-ups would be in danger of big companies simply copying their idea and squeezing them out if it was not for patents. The problem is frivolous patents.This show talks about an important problem in America, but I cannot give it more than 4 out of 10 because this is more like an YouTube rant by someone getting sued rather than an actual documentary that is well researched and well debated. It is heavily one-sided and misrepresented. In order to win the debate they present frivolous patents to be ridiculous frivolous by using red-boxes to highlight areas of more basic ideas that the patent holder does not own the right to, in an attempt the show shows the incompetency of the patent office. If the show had been true and shown actual patent claims and not just highlighting the preamble they will find it not as easy in debating whether the idea is novel or not, especially since a lot of these patents are almost 20 years old and soon to be expired.In another example the show talks about US 7778664, and first misdirects the viewers into thinking the patent was filed for in 2010 by focusing on the said date, when the date of filing is 2001. Secondly the host claims the patent gave the person claim over the rights to a telephone. When in reality this is a patent claim with priority in 2001 for a digital phone that you can make a video call with that also shows an image of yourself during the video call as well as blocks incoming calls of anyone on a blocked list. But the host claims the patent gave the inventor the rights to telephones in general, and that this happened in 2010.