GOOD.is
GOOD is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. Get involved.
  • Home
  • |
  • Columns ▶
    • BoingBoing on GOOD
    • Joe Ippolito on Business
    • Carol Coletta on Cities
    • Alissa Walker on Design
    • Ben Jervey on the Environment
    • Peter Smith on Food
    • Truman National Security Project on Foreign Policy
    • Picture Show
    • Mark Peters on Language
    • Anne Trubek on Literature
    • See All Columns
  • |
  • Video
  • |
  • Infographics
  • |
  • Community
  • |
  • Events
  • Follow GOOD:
  • twitter
  • flickr
  • facebook
  • youtube
  • rss feed
  • Business
  • |
  • Cities
  • |
  • Culture
  • |
  • Design
  • |
  • Education
  • |
  • Environment
  • |
  • Food
  • |
  • Health
  • |
  • Media
  • |
  • People
  • |
  • Politics
  • |
  • Technology
  • |
  • Transportation
  • 3
  • 34

The Patent Troll

  • Posted by: Heather Skyler
  • on June 29, 2009 at 8:00 am

Erich Spangenberg makes a fortune suing major corporations for infringing on patents he owns. Is he exploiting a legal loophole or is he a modern-day Robin Hood? A look at one very unusual and vilified profession.

It’s 4:30 p.m. on an overcast day in Minneapolis, and Erich Spangenberg is ready for a drink. He started his day in his hometown of Dallas, stopped for business in Chicago, and just landed in Minnesota an hour ago. Now, he is seated at the bar on the fourth floor of the Graves Hotel, a swanky, upscale place appointed in dark wood, frosted glass, and bizarre modern sculptures.

Arranging this meeting was complicated, due to Spangenberg’s wariness of reporters, as well as his constant city-hopping and shifting schedule. He doesn’t seem to stay in any city for long, nor does he sit still for very long. When he orders a vodka tonic and wants a specific Minnesota-made vodka, he jumps up and walks to the bar to peer at the bottles. “I can tell you what it is,” he tells the waitress. “I’ve had it a million times.” Then he tells her to “just put in a little vodka” before sitting down and leaning toward me with a wide, white-toothed smile. He sports a black turtleneck, jeans, black Nikes. He is short and compact with close-cut brown hair. He exudes a quick, snapping energy.

The small tape recorder I’ve placed on the table between us seems to rankle. “So you’ll destroy that tape afterwards, right?” he asks. The request strikes me as odd, but I agree and he is pleased. “Perfect,” he says, then leans to take a sip of his fresh drink, and pops a few wasabi peanuts in his mouth.

You’d think we were about to discuss trade secrets or a dark, sordid past. Instead, we chat for over an hour about ordinary things: where he grew up, his parents, his education, his wife and son. Much later, after vodka, after two bottles of Evian, and more wasabi peanuts, we will get to the reason we are here: his profession.

Spangenberg is a patent troll. At least that’s what his victims like to call him, and his victims are all giants: Microsoft, Ford, Oracle, GM, Cisco, and Hewlett-Packard to name a few. “Patent troll” is a controversial term that emerged in the early 1990s to describe an individual or company that buys up patents for the sole purpose of suing other companies for patent infringement, or “idea stealing.” Typically, patent trolls have no operations or products, and they are not inventors. They survive solely by litigating against other businesses.

Spangenberg does not like the term, and considers himself more of a hybrid because he is involved in other business ventures as well, but he is well-known, even notorious as a troll. Google his name and many articles pop up, most denouncing his patent practices, his “shell” companies. One MarketWatch article claims Spangenberg has been publicly named as the “nemesis of the technology industry.”

Spangenberg estimates there are about 100 patent trolls—non-practicing entities is the more technical term—in the United States. And though they may be few, their impact is significant. In a recent Senate hearing on the the Patent Reform Act of 2009, the CEO of Micron Technology made the case for reforming the patent system to discourage lawsuits by trolls. He stated that last year alone Micron spent $30 million on patent litigation, mostly defending the company’s many patents against NPEs. He also noted a significant rise in these types of suits, as well a sharp increase in the amount of money they award. According to testimony, there was only one patent-damages award in history larger than $100 million prior to 1990. In the past seven years, there have been at least 15 judgments and settlements in that category, with at least five topping $500 million.

Under current law, what Spanenberg and others do is not in any way illegal. But many believe it is unethical. Not Spangenberg, though, who considers the question of whether trolling is right or wrong irrelevant. “That doesn’t matter,” he says. “It’s economically right.”

When most companies are sued by patent trolls, they settle out of court. Others will fight back, as Hyundai recently did. They lost to the tune of $34 million.

Trolling works something like this: First a shell company, which is incorporated but has no significant assets or operations, is created. Orion IP is one of Spangenberg’s many shell companies; others of his include Plutus IP, Taurus IP, and Gemini IP, to name a few. Next, this shell company purchases a patent or a patent portfolio, typically from a failing company and sometimes from an inventor. Once the shell company has researched which operating companies are using similar technology to the patents it owns, it files lawsuits claiming patent infringement. And if you’re Spangenberg, you file lots of lawsuits.

In March of 2007, Orion IP filed suit against 46 companies—including Xerox, Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn, and Nordstrom—over two patents covering electronic product proposals and sales. In April of the same year, Gemini IP filed suit against six companies: Hewlett-Packard, Cisco Systems, Adobe Systems, Avid, Pinnacle, and Corel. In August, Taurus IP filed suit again Ford, Mazda, and Volvo. Spangenberg estimates that he currently owns about 65 patents and typically has eight or nine lawsuits going at any given time.

Most companies, when they’re sued by patent trolls, will settle out of court for undisclosed amounts. Others will fight back, as Hyundai recently did against a suit by Spangenberg, but the law is not often on their side. Hyundai lost to the tune of $34 million, which should give you an idea of the amount Spangenberg rakes in every year from lawsuit settlements.

“GM was the first [company Spangenberg sued]. Then Ford. Everyone settled except for Hyundai. There was a jury trial there and they lost. I have no idea what they were thinking.”

Spangenberg wasn’t always so wealthy. He was born in the late 1950s in Buffalo, New York, to working-class parents. His father worked in a factory, then joined the Army and eventually used the G.I. Bill to get his education and become a shop teacher at the local high school. His mother was a telephone operator.

He didn’t grow up dreaming of becoming a patent troll. Mainly, he liked numbers and knew he wanted to make money. “Where I grew up,” he says, “either you joined the union and became a construction worker—and I came this close to that—or you went to college and were going to be a doctor, a lawyer, or a teacher. What Color is Your Parachute? didn’t make it to Buffalo.”

The only entrepreneurs he came in contact with were store owners, and they intrigued him. “I remember telling my dad I wanted to own a restaurant and he said, ‘Well you can’t because you’re not Greek or Italian.’ It wasn’t racist. He just literally believed that, because the people who owned restaurants were Greek or Italian.”

Spangenberg didn’t graduate from high school, but did well enough on the ACT to get into the University of Delaware. He soon transferred to Skidmore College, where an economics teacher later encouraged him to apply for a scholarship to the London School of Economics.

He loved London and “really got into the whole British thing. I thought ‘Hey, they are smarter and better than us,’” he says with a laugh. After graduation, he switched gears, got a law degree, then went to work for the firm Jones Day in Texas where he was first exposed to patents while working with Texas Instruments.

“They were having severe financial difficulties at the time and realized in order to survive they needed to use their intellectual property. They weren’t really making anything. They were making some things, but they were also licensing [their patents or intellectual property] in areas where they weren’t making anything. Unfortunately I was too young, and didn’t get the importance of that at the time,” recalls Spangenberg.

It was during this period that Spangenberg met his wife, Audrey, who was working for the financier and notorious takeover artist T. Boone Pickens as an accountant. Spangenberg had decided he was done with bachelorhood so he signed up to participate in a charity bachelor auction and “decided just to go on as many dates as I could until I met the best one.” Audrey was date number 33. “She’s a very mathematical person too,” he explains, “so when she heard about all the dates before hers she didn’t mind at all. She said ‘Yep, that makes perfect sense to me.’”

In addition to falling in love with Audrey, Spangenberg also became a big fan of T. Boone Pickens and his sharp and ruthless business sense. “People were saying these horrible things about him, that he was a raider, that he was just looting the company, but I was thinking ‘Isn’t this what we want?’ You know, efficient deployment of assets? For the first time I got to see people who were really in business.”

His BlackBerry, resting on the plush cushion beside him, rings now and he jumps up and excuses himself, explaining “This is the only number that rings. I have to take it.” He paces the high-ceilinged foyer beyond the bar, talking with great concentration. I wonder which number is programmed to ring. His wife’s? His son’s? T. Boone Pickens’s?

He returns to the dim bar and sits back down on the edge of the couch, looking as if he might pounce, every nerve alert and ready. He explains that he has to take a break and work out—“which means going on the stair climber until I pass out,”—then we can eat dinner at a new place down the street where he knows the chef.

Spanenberg met his first patent troll before he’d ever heard the term. Visiting the guy’s office, he recalls, “was like walking into Versailles. When I sat in the chair in his office, my feet didn’t touch the ground.”

It turns out he doesn’t exactly know the chef. He met him in the restaurant’s bar last time he was in town on business, and they started talking over drinks. Spangenberg promised to try out his food the next time he was in Minneapolis. True to his word, we are eating at Chambers, a restaurant with white walls, couches, and a strange, avant-garde bust in the lobby.

During the meal he never asks to speak to the chef or try and curry favor with the waitress for having met him, and it strikes me that he’s simply doing what he told this virtual stranger he would do: eat at his restaurant. That’s been my experience with him so far as well: He has been where he said he would be. He has done what he said he would do.

He orders a red wine, and he knows the owner of the vineyard where it was made—a man named Joseph Phelps, who used to own a construction company in Colorado—and now has a successful line of wines. I’m beginning to think he will know the man who killed the duck for the curry he ordered, and the person who caught the fish in his sashimi hors d’oeuvres.

After a couple of glasses of red, our conversation returns to Spangenberg’s career. He met his first patent troll before he had ever heard the term. In the late 1990s, when Spangenberg was CEO of a company called SmarTalk, a man named Ronald Katz sued the company for patent infringement. Spangenberg describes Katz as “the most successful patent pursuer living in the world.” When Spangenberg paid a visit to Katz’s offices, he recalls, “it was like walking into Versailles. When I sat in the chair in his office, my feet didn’t touch the ground. I got that. I’ve had psychology classes and I understood what he was trying to do.”

Spangenberg also got what Katz was trying to do with his patents. “His patent [against SmarTalk] was valid and I immediately settled with him.” When asked if he still talks to Katz, Spangenberg laughs and says, “No, we don’t have a predators’ ball yet.”

A few other patent infringement suits followed soon after. Then, one of Spangenberg’s wife’s companies was sued for patent infringement. “That one eventually went away, but I saw that method again,” he says.

All of these patent-related suits culminated in 2002 when Spangenberg tried to help a friend of his with a struggling company in need of assets. “One of the things the company had of value was their patent portfolio. This was 2002 and there was really no market for patents,” says Spangenberg. So he turned to his wife, Audrey, and convinced her buying these patents was a good business decision that would eventually “generate a ton of capital which she could redeploy into other businesses… About a month later, she bought the patents [for $1 million].” (Audrey’s company Acclaim Financial Group spent another couple million figuring out what they’d bought and what they were worth.)

Next, Spangenberg filed “a bunch” of lawsuits in Texas, where he lived at the time, and the companies started to settle. “GM was first,” says Spangenberg, “then Ford. Everyone settled except for Hyundai. There was a jury trial there and they lost. I have no idea what they were thinking.” Others were settled too: Oracle, Microsoft and SAP. “In general, we settle with multi-billion dollar companies. That’s the M.O.”

“Look, I make an unbelievable living. It’s insane, but I’m not going to apologize for it.”

Most people view excessive litigation with disdain, so it’s no wonder patent trolls are vilified. Big corporations that field several troll suits a year decry the practice, but Spangenberg argues that companies such as Microsoft and Ford know patent negotiation is one of the costs of doing business.

“A big company’s first hope is that something they’re doing is not patented; their second hope is that if it is patented, no one finds out. Third, if they do get caught they’ll just settle out of court. Is the general counsel going to tell you this? No, but that’s the mentality of a giant company,” says Spangenberg.

He adds that these corporations are similar to trolls in the sense that they make money off of other people’s patents. “Microsoft is sitting on tons of patents that they didn’t invent. In fact, they didn’t invent anything—someone who works for them did.”

Spangenberg predicts a day when corporations and trolls will live in relative harmony. He estimates that in the near future, litigation will be taken out of the patent equation, and people will buy and sell intellectual property in a way similar to the method now used to buy and sell works of art: auctions with built-in criteria to determine value.

He explains: “The courts are intermediaries for patents right now, and the courts are extremely inefficient. Patents will trade as a commodity in the next five to six years, and what I do won’t even exist.”

As evidence of this “new market,” Spangenberg points to the company Ocean Tomo that began holding large patent auctions in 2006, creating a forum for companies, inventors and, yes, trolls, to buy and sell patents. Approximately 500 IP and business professionals have attended past Ocean Tomo events.

Spangenberg said there are also steps being taken toward devising an algorithm to asses the quality of patents, and that developing patent metrics will help move toward a litigation-lite patent system. “Litigation is horrible,” Spangenberg says, “My objective is to eliminate it. Not entirely, because they’ve outlawed dueling, so as a last resort litigation is the right way to go, but right now it’s used as a primary resort and it’s expensive and a waste of everyone’s time. We’re not quite there yet, but we’ll get there.”

He doesn’t explain how a person with several lawsuits underway will help to eliminate litigation, but he does add, “Look, I make an unbelievable living. It’s insane, but I’m not going to apologize for it.”

Part of this “unbelievable living” comes from the other ways Spangenberg spends his time. Trolling is only a portion of his work. He also buys up failing companies and attempts to make them whole again.  Most recently, he purchased a company called iXmatch in Minneapolis and is pouring in funds and advice to get the company back on its feet.

One could argue that Spangenberg could, in some bizarre way, be considered a modern Robin Hood, stealing from the giants of corporate America to prop up smaller businesses. But he doesn’t see himself as a David to Big Business Goliaths.  “I see us as equals,” he says. “It’s a fair fight.”

  • Filed under: Magazine : Features
  • Categories: Business
  • Share
  • Discuss
  • Mark it good!
  • Facebook
  •   Twitter
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
Direct link to this post:
Send as an Email:
Your email address:
Recipient's email address:
Message:

X
DISCUSSION: 34 Comments
    • Posted by: Isaiah
    • on June 29, 2009 at 9:47 am

    I’m all about sticking it to the man but for some reason… this doesn’t feel right and I don’t think its suppose to.The guy is a mosquito, not Robin Hood. Remember, steals from the rich and GIVES to the poor. Where’s the giving?

    • Posted by: George D
    • on June 29, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    A little bit of IP is good for protecting inventors, rewarding for their work. Too much actually stifles innovation however, as a huge amount of effort has to be spent trying to investigate whether the way you’re doing something has been filed in any of your potential markets, and then significantly increases the cost of business if you happen to have missed it.

    • Posted by: Dave S
    • on June 29, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    He’s a piece of shit – not Robin Hood.When he sues Ford, Ford in-turn sues the contractor, who in-turn sues the sub-contractor. Shit, after all, flows down hill.He’s stealing from the Rich, the Bourgeois, the Poor. He’s stealing from everyone.

    • Posted by: miriam
    • on June 30, 2009 at 8:24 am

    Where’s the added value? He makes a lot of money – which is fine – but what good does he do? Do we have a better world because he is in it – a worse one? Frankly skimming off money from other people’s work and creativity without adding any benefit to anyone or anything is a slimy way to make a living. Perhaps he has a secret side and supports a charity for homeless children??? 

    • Posted by: David
    • on June 30, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    I wonder how much of the current auto industry bailout would not have been necessary, if not for patent BS.

    • Posted by: Joel
    • on June 30, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    This article would be more at home in a magazine called WICKED.

    • Posted by: Ken
    • on June 30, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    What a joke of an article.  All fluff, no meat.  Sounds like Heather was a little taken by his turtleneck and Nikes.  You were sitting next to one of the most reviled men in the country, and all you can think to talk about is where he grew up, and how he envisions patents in the future?  What about what he is doing RIGHT NOW?  Nice softball arm you’ve got there, Heather. 

    • Posted by: The Real Robin Hood
    • on June 30, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    This is a terrible article. Complete puff piece. Way too many questions left un-asked.

    • Posted by: Null51
    • on July 1, 2009 at 5:23 am

    I’ve never heard of Good before, but if this is the standard of the site I’ll steer well clear of it.Read this for some more comments: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090629/1145455403.shtml

    • Posted by: and
    • on July 1, 2009 at 9:56 am

    and, what does this guy contribute to society?

    • Posted by: David
    • on July 1, 2009 at 11:33 am

    “this guy” contributes to society by participating in the patent market as a buyer. Most inventors don’t have the resources to sue the big corporations for patent infringement and win. So they to sell to a patent troll. At least they make some money whereas without him they would get stiffed.

    • Posted by: Stas
    • on July 1, 2009 at 11:37 am

    I am sad for America. This country will end up very bad. This guy is a scam and the fact that what he is doing is legal means that crime is legal in USA. From ethical standpoint what this guy is doing is crime. It is form of extortion. Form of racket. If this is legal then crime is legal. Nobody will do a business in the country where crime is legal. Business will run away from United states.

    • Posted by: Anonymous
    • on July 1, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    I agree with the other commenters that this article was far from objective. For a less flattering portrait of Mr. Spangenberg, this makes for a good read. 559 F.Supp.2d 947. Witness tampering is hardly “fighting fair.”

    • Posted by: Pt
    • on July 1, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    For a less flattering depiction of Mr. Spangenburg, this recent court opinion makes for interesting reading. 559 F.Supp.2d 947. Witness tampering is apparently a part of Spangenburg’s idea of a “fair fight.”

    • Posted by: Dima
    • on July 1, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    I am amazed that this article is in GOOD of all places – a fluff piece on a patent troll as a “fighting the man” agent is horribly missing the point.Part of the gross inaccuracy of this piece is stating that he is buying the patents from inventors.  Inventor, in common usage, is someone that creates something new.  Many of the patents owned by Spangenberg are not inventions in the sense that someone made a better mouse trap.  Instead they are descriptions of new products or even more dangerously, processes that the patent filer has not made but still gets 20 years of ownership over. Many of the patents warrant review for obviousness and prior art but Mr. Spangenberg is in the extortion business where the cost of a law suit is too great.To elaborate on the patent’s “inventors”, I could spend the time and money to patent a method for displaying stationary and moving infographics over a direct to brain interface.  The technology does not exist to do this now, I don’t produce graphing software and I have no plans to create such a technology BUT I would probably be able to patent this and have 20 years to let someone else invent this and then sue them for infringing on my “invention”.  If I did this, I doubt anyone would really consider me an inventor but this is exactly what Mr Spangenburg feeds on.Could you imagine if this same system applied to journalism or literature as it does with software technology? (Analogy used to differentiate between copyright as it used to apply to software and patent.)  One could patent many stories and never write a single one. Then when a journalist does write something, sue them so they settle as they can not spend years in a court room to make a quick buck. Another inaccuracy is the David v Goliath angle.  I was at a small company that Mr. Spargenburg sued over a software patent.  The patent was for such a common and obvious implementation that it would have been outrageous for us to have done a patent search before implementing.  Mr. Spangenberg sued us and dozens of other small firms that didn’t have the means to defend ourselves.  Neither he nor the original patent owner actually implemented it nor did they publish a paper or create any social value. They simply got the patent office to give them 20 years to wait for someone that would.Robin Hood never robbed the poor. Mr Spangenberg extorts the poor on a regular basis.

    • Posted by: pt24
    • on July 2, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    Heather, I think the reason you feel the way that you do is valid. Heck if I were in your shoes I might feel the same way, but I doubt that you would feel the same if your book was brought to court and sued for having words similar to another book. Imagine for instance that you were sued for using an electrical means of communicating via derived characters formed by the aggregation of photons onto an amorphous surface that are able to be discerned by via visual receptors, which description I now declare copyrighted this day in 2009.

    • Posted by: Counsel
    • on July 9, 2009 at 11:35 am

    Except this is like the man sticking it to the man (no offense intended for homosexuals either…). This process does not award the “creator” of the patent… Those with resources can always get more. This is not like “Robin Hood” at all… imho

    • Posted by: BP
    • on July 10, 2009 at 11:18 am

    I don’t like patent trolls, and I understand the extortion angle. However, if the defendants in Good’s lawsuits think his patents are bunk. File a re-exam. It’s much cheaper than litigation.

    • Posted by: Scott Dunn
    • on July 13, 2009 at 7:01 am

    If you want to do something about men like this, go here: http://www.againstmonopoly.org.

    • Posted by: Renee Marie Jones
    • on July 13, 2009 at 11:58 am

    … the question of whether trolling is right or wrong irrelevant. “That doesn’t matter,” he says. “It’s economically right.”

    OK. The Nazi’s kept meticulous records that show they made a profit from killing Jews in the Holocaust. So … does “right and wrong” not apply to the Holocaust simply because it is “economically right”???????????

    • Posted by: Anoying
    • on July 13, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    This piece of crap guy deserves a quick trip to the other life with NO return ticket….

    • Posted by: Sum Yung Gai
    • on July 13, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    I don’t feel one bit sorry for these big companies that get nailed by this patent troll.  Microsoft just did it to TomTom.  They’ve been threatening to do it for years to those who develop for or resell GNU/Linux devices.  Cisco threatened OpenBSD with a patent lawsuit if the latter implemented VRRP.  And notice that when Microsoft started their attacks, they didn’t go after someone the size of Google or IBM.  Noooo….they went after TomTom, a little guy!I say, let these megacorporations keep feeling the pain.  They’ve got it coming.  Maybe then we’ll go back to the way we used to do it before 1989.  You know, when software was treated like the algorithm that it IS and thus copyrightable, but not patentable?  That’s one way the Europeans are smarter than the US Gov’t.–SYG

    • Posted by: bob
    • on July 13, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    hes a lawyer piece of shit that needs to be taken out slowly

    • Posted by: Jose_X
    • on July 13, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    Great comment, Dima. Uncle Sam is allowing anyone willing to exploit society through unconstitutional weapons (that do not promote the progress of science) to do so.If you had done a patent search and gotten lucky, you might have ended up wasting extra money and extra time to design around it (raising costs for everyone and slowing down productivity and science.. maybe taking you out of the market and out of business). You may instead have decided not to enter the market (this would be the case if the patent was owned by a Big Corp trying to own a market by virtue of having written up some extremely general ideas on paper rather than building a quality product). The fact you didn’t do a patent search yet “reinvented” the same thing is telling. Someone is always the first (to write up a generalize description of something), but giving the entire market to dispose of at will to the first to write down the ideas is horrible for society. Whatever happened to competition in a capitalistic society? What makes this single science fiction writer more wise than the entirety of the rest of society in defining how the market should evolve and what people should be able to create and use (and for 20 years)? Or why should that person get a royalty from everyone for 20 years? for 1 year? Whatever happened to writing a book so that at least you entertain someone in ways they might not have otherwise been entertained? What about all the open source software that might never get created and maintained by the international open source community and otherwise be available (fully legally) at no charge to everyone? Such open source could have perhaps formed the foundation of a low cost quality low or no lock-in ecosystem? How is society helped by software patents invented by science fiction writers (broad idea patent writers) that surely didn’t “invent” in a vacuum?I’m hopeful the courts will neuter software patents or come close.

    • Posted by: Travis
    • on July 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    I’m not sure if I’m more unimpressed by the subject or the author.  If the big companies were profiting from another’s invention, there is some ethical leeway.  However, generally they are using practices that they develop, only to find out later that a hidden troll pops out of the bushes.  I’m all for protection of IP, however, this guy waits until somebody has produced something before he leaps.  What a scumbag.And the piece is one giant handjob.  Can’t wait to hear what’s next — maybe an article on how domain squatters perform a much needed service by holding domain assets until somebody needs them?  C’mon, this is absolute garbage journalism.

1 2
Login or Sign up to discuss this article

About The Contributors

  • Heather Skyler

    Heather Skyler

    Heather Skyler has written for the New York Times and Newsweek.com. Her first novel, The Perfect Age, was published in 2004. She is currently at work on her second book.

     

Recent Readers

  • Price
  • Xeni Jardin
  • ChristineTan
  • superfamous
  • britthinch
  • Jay J. Ku
  • kelseyp
  • olivelife
  • audicow
  • atleyzgoodmagazi
  • disarmthetoys
See all

Related Content

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    See You in (Climate Change) Court

    Oil and power companies could face lawsuits from victims of violent floods or heatwaves where global ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    Trolling For The Truth

    GOOD's own Mattathias Schwartz, who last tackled online poker for the New York Times, has taken on ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    Unbreakable

    Wal-Mart loses a major lawsuit filed by its Pennsylvania employees, who stated that Wal-Mart refused to allow its employees to ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    Court Ruling: Schools Can Expel Lesbian Students

    This seems totally absurd to me, but clearly I don't understand the way things work in ...
    Read & Discuss

  • Blog : GOOD Blog

    The Gibson / Guitar Hero Patent Battle

    Activision—the muscle behind Guitar Hero and its unadulterated awesomeness—is tangled up in a patent quarrel with Gibson, the provider ...
    Read & Discuss

This Week In Magazine

  • Most Discussed
  • Most GOODMarked
  1. Transparency: The Effects of Bike Commuting on Obesity
  2. The GOOD 100: Cowpooling
  3. The GOOD Guide to COP15: The Treaty
  4. Picture Show: Four Days in Dubai
  5. The GOOD Guide to COP15: An Introduction
  6. The Kids Are All Right
  7. Transparency: How Education Spending Affects Graduation Rates
  8. Action, In Words and Pictures
  9. Picture Show: Breach
  10. LOOK: On the Road with Ethos Alliance
  1. Picture Show: Four Days in Dubai
  2. The Kids Are All Right
  3. Picture Show: Breach
  4. The GOOD Guide to COP15: The Fire this Time: Copenhagen and the War for the Future
  5. The GOOD Guide to COP15: An Introduction
  6. The GOOD 100: Cowpooling
  7. The Offal Truth
  8. The GOOD 100: Gay Marriage
  9. LOOK: PACT Sustainable Underwear
  10. Project: Islands for Islands

GOOD Magazine
About
|
Join
|
Sign In

Categories

  • Business
  • Cities
  • Culture
  • Design
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Food
  • Health
  • Media
  • People
  • Politics
  • Technology
  • Transportation

Special Features

  • Blogs
  • Events
  • Infographics
  • Look
  • Picture Show
  • Q&A
  • Video

Community

  • Community Board
  • Member directory
  • Join the Community

Social

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Flickr

Magazine

  • Current issue
  • Back issues
  • Subscribe
  • Gift a gift
  • Renew/Service

GOOD

  • What is GOOD?
  • Make GOOD better
© GOOD Worldwide LLC. - all rights reserved
  • Company details
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • RSS
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Powered by Verkata