Live data from Hacker News

Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

youtube.com

51–60 of 431 posts

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#51
post #5

Couldn't Google offer defense in such cases for its users? Every case is the same so it shouldn't even be that expensive (I guess, IANAL), and it would discourage future cases because the troll would know he will have to fight against Google.

Yea they could in multiple ways. They could sue to the troll for a declaratory judgement of invalidity and non infringement. Or they just indemnify their app stor developers for any patent liability caused by using their product.

>Or they just indemnify their app stor developers for any patent liability caused by using their product.

What about actual patent violations?

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#53
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Loser pays" would go a long way, I think. Not being that familiar with the US system, what's the reasoning not to have this?

Loser pays means that when an ridiculous East Texas judge and jury decide that a patent troll's claim is justified, the victim will not only have to pay damages and their lawyers, but the troll's lawyers too.

To be fair, I think this mistake in the US judicial system should be fixed separately.

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#54
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. I agree, but I think we can be more specific. Criminals (or those accused of a crime) are constitutionally guaranteed an attorney. Civil plaintiffs/defendants, by contrast, have no such right. The anecdotes and experiences of HN users overwhelmingly describe the civil side of things. Civil lawsuits, IMO, should carry no guarantee of counsel at…

What about a right to a defense attorney in a civil case? That way you can't bring frivolous suits. That's actually exactly how the criminal courts work too. This seems too simple of a solution though, are there good reasons not to do this?

Everyone has a right to a defense attorney, just not a free one. Are you suggesting that the government (which is to say, taxpayers) fund the legal defense of everyone who gets sued in America? Including, say, OJ Simpson's civil suit?

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#55
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If loser pays, poor people would be discouraged from even attempting to sue rich people. Even if the poor person has a legitimate claim, there is a small probability that the rich person will win with their superior lawyers and the poor person will be bankrupted by the legal fees. Since they will know that from the beginning, they won't sue in the first place.

This comes up every single time, but it remains false. Loser pays does not mean that the loser has to pay a gigantic amount for the opponent's extremely expensive lawyers. Loser pays means that the judge determines what is a reasonable amount for the legal fees. Often the amount you have to pay for your opponent's lawyers is limited to what you paid for your own. So unless you hire extremely expensive lawyers yoursel…

> judge determines what is a reasonable amount for the legal fees

That just gives financial unsupervised power to the judge, without any clear definition of involved terms. Which doesn't really sound like a good idea.

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#56

So, no attempts to bring Davis in front of the Texas BAR association for unethical practices? I'm also curious why numerous developers have not demanded an Insurance Protection Product / Plan that would take a premium in return for subrogation (defense) if a frivolous Patent Suit is filed. I'm rather certain the market exists and while it may be for larger businesses or players, developers forming a Mutual Company an…

> I'm also curious why numerous developers have not demanded an Insurance Protection Product / Plan that would take a premium in return for subrogation (defense) if a frivolous Patent Suit is filed. I'm rather certain the market exists and while it may be for larger businesses or players, developers forming a Mutual Company and writing on some big name AM Best A paper (or even going to Lloyds) could be helpful.

It would be very cool if company such as NewEgg could offer this - they already have the in-house counsel/expertise; and since the number of people trolled is very small, I'm sure even a small premium would be enough to cover it (provided you have enough customers).

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#57

Someone with money and lawyers needs to sue the state of Texas for allowing a father and son duo to practice in such a conflict of interest fashion. This is a clear cut case of corruption.

I'm not sure where exactly this assertion stands - Judge Davis retires last year, and in 2011 when Lodsys was represented by his son's firm, their cases were always assigned to the other district judge (Gilsap I believe?) due to the conflict of interest.

It's sensational and scummy sounding, so it really fits the narrative of the evil patent trolls (a narrative I wholeheartedly support), I don't see any reason to believe it's true.

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#58
post #2

People will mention the problem with patents but I see another, perhaps bigger, problem: We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. If you have money, you have the power to legally hold people with less over a barrel. That exploitable inequality is poison for a well functioning society. That is the problem that needs solving.

>We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. I agree, but I think we can be more specific. Criminals (or those accused of a crime) are constitutionally guaranteed an attorney. Civil plaintiffs/defendants, by contrast, have no such right. The anecdotes and experiences of HN users overwhelmingly describe the civil side of things. Civil lawsuits, IMO, should carry no guarantee of counsel at…

Maybe the cost a lawsuit should include a public defender style attorney for the defendant?

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#59
post #2

People will mention the problem with patents but I see another, perhaps bigger, problem: We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. If you have money, you have the power to legally hold people with less over a barrel. That exploitable inequality is poison for a well functioning society. That is the problem that needs solving.

| We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. If you have money, you have the power...

Your POV that money distorts and helps determine winners, while seeming so prima facie obvious, does not come close to getting to the real problem. I know this because I have money and I've spent well over a million dollars on attorneys in the last decade and I got very little in the way of ... not justice, very little in the way of consideration of the core legal questions in each case; in fact, I don't even know how the interesting core legal questions would have been resolved, the courts completely dodged them; and along the way, I saw a vast amount of phony posturing, amplification of minor details, and outright lying and manipulation of the legal system, mostly by attorneys; and the judges eat it up, because they too are attorneys. (and BTW, when a judge sees an unsophisticated indigent defendant, they actually do bend over backward to help them, say a confused tenant who does not pay rent is most usually given many many more chances.)

To put it into the context of this guy's patent rant: my point would be, there is a question as to whether this patent is valid or not, and whether it covers this particular issue or not. The "right/just" answer would be found more quickly and more cheaply and more rationally if the judge would simply decide that first in a non-binding way, like "from what I know so far, here's the way this is tilted". Then after that, if the losers wanted to spend money to present a stronger case they could, and the judge could say "warmer...warmer... colder". Then after all that, if you want to try to change the thing on a technicality like "yeah but you didn't serve the notice the right way", then the court would hear that.

The way courts decide things is to completely front-load all these arcane minor points, and it has the effect of squeezing the shit out of the litigants to force them to settle. "You think you have a legal dispute that's worth this much? I'll give you dispute resolution that costs more and much of your life. Now do you want to settle? Don't test me, as a judge I'm a former attorney, we win at this game. Now do you want to settle?"

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#60

Someone with money and lawyers needs to sue the state of Texas for allowing a father and son duo to practice in such a conflict of interest fashion. This is a clear cut case of corruption.

I'm not sure where exactly this assertion stands - Judge Davis retires last year, and in 2011 when Lodsys was represented by his son's firm, their cases were always assigned to the other district judge (Gilsap I believe?) due to the conflict of interest. It's sensational and scummy sounding, so it really fits the narrative of the evil patent trolls (a narrative I wholeheartedly support), I don't see any reason to bel…

Ah! I didn't know that! I was going on what the guy in the video said.
Post reply on HN