41–50 of 164 posts
Apple has sold maybe 800million iOS devices. Say 400 million that support FaceTime. $1.50 per device. wow.
Or 625,000,000/ 14 employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this. Is there some paid off official there? Different standards? Why is it such a great place to win patent troll suits - which seem to get overturned in higher courts? Is the idea that a win there will stop the defendant from trying to appeal?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-g... > But why do patent plaintiffs, especially trolls, see it as such a favorable forum? Partly, the district's relatively rapid litigation timetable can put pressure on defendants to settle. But other local practices in the Eastern District also favor patentees. And, in our view, they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the governing Federal Rules, and…
More trials should mean more money for lawyers in the area, judges, ancillary people like stenographers and clerks.
Ugh, disgusting. Think of how much damage that troll will now be able to wreak. With that kind of money it can buy all sorts of other patents and start the whole progress over again.
What we really need are patent co-ops. The problem as I see it is: patents exist to allow innovators to get paid for their inventions (setting aside the USPTO not being able to do its job correctly due to under-funding and granting bad patents), patents therefore have a monetary value, however that monetary value in fact scales with the monetary resources of the company it's held by (i.e. small companies cannot legal…
The way it works now is that most defendants want to settle because the legal costs are too high for the defendant, and the patent trolls know this. If the defendants pooled their money for anyone who took them to court and won (not even a full patent co-op, which has its own challenges) - would that change how the patent trolls did their math - and diminish their ability to sue many parties?
One patent troll has to pay another patent troll.. Good.
Perhaps apple ABUSES patents (that's a different discussion I do not want to get into), but I prefer to reserve the term "patent troll" for those individuals or organizations that do not actually perform invention nor manufacture, sales and marketing of actual products.
Is it too much to say "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
Ugh, disgusting. Think of how much damage that troll will now be able to wreak. With that kind of money it can buy all sorts of other patents and start the whole progress over again.
What we really need are patent co-ops. The problem as I see it is: patents exist to allow innovators to get paid for their inventions (setting aside the USPTO not being able to do its job correctly due to under-funding and granting bad patents), patents therefore have a monetary value, however that monetary value in fact scales with the monetary resources of the company it's held by (i.e. small companies cannot legal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that companies can't bought other companies and take ownership of their patents?
Oh well, I guess that's the loophole in my proposal. But at least, a patent troll would have to buy an entire corporation rather than just its patent portfolio. Kodak, again: if let us say Toshiba wants Kodak's imaging patents, they'd have to buy Kodak in its entirety. At least this would raise the bar to acquiring patents.
Another issue I see is that patent trolls could just represent patent owners in litigation and charge high legal fees (or sign a contract that they receive all revenue for the patent).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-g... > But why do patent plaintiffs, especially trolls, see it as such a favorable forum? Partly, the district's relatively rapid litigation timetable can put pressure on defendants to settle. But other local practices in the Eastern District also favor patentees. And, in our view, they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the governing Federal Rules, and…
> work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial. More trials should mean more money for lawyers in the area, judges, ancillary people like stenographers and clerks.
It's like a tourism business except instead of being a nice place that people want to go, you drag them there with $625M blackmail.
The people on these juries know that if they stop being a haven for patent trolls, the cash cow goes away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/jury-apple-must-p... "East Texas Jury"...
I don't get this. Is there some paid off official there? Different standards? Why is it such a great place to win patent troll suits - which seem to get overturned in higher courts? Is the idea that a win there will stop the defendant from trying to appeal?