181–190 of 318 posts
They should just be abolished as a concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a simple reason for this - corruption. That’s why most of this suits are filed in a specific court in texas
Are you implying that Texas is corrupt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_f...
There needs to be an anti-patent-troll membership organization. You pay a fee relative to some metric and the organization acts as insurance against parent trolls by fully defending any patent lawsuits that are obviously unjustified. And to keep costs low, membership in this organization would be public to deter patent trolls from even trying to sue a member in the first place.
The Japanese video game industry does this in an ad-hoc way. Smaller game studios ask bigger companies, like Nintendo, to register some patents in their stead so the bigger companies can keep them safe with their elite team of lawyers. The bigger companies like Nintendo in turn gatekeep the patents from trolls and abusers, letting the industry at-large use the patents for a greater good while suing anyone who doesn't…
There needs to be an anti-patent-troll membership organization. You pay a fee relative to some metric and the organization acts as insurance against parent trolls by fully defending any patent lawsuits that are obviously unjustified. And to keep costs low, membership in this organization would be public to deter patent trolls from even trying to sue a member in the first place.
Run the numbers: Assuming you need a legal staff of 20 with avg cost 500k per. So that’s 10 million per year. Double it for rent, SGA, etc. we’re at 20 million per year. Offer a protection package at 10k per year, you need 2000 paying customers. Since all the lawyers are on staff, you can have them invalidating patents when not defending case. If you structure it like a mutual insurance company, you could return a po…
There needs to be an anti-patent-troll membership organization. You pay a fee relative to some metric and the organization acts as insurance against parent trolls by fully defending any patent lawsuits that are obviously unjustified. And to keep costs low, membership in this organization would be public to deter patent trolls from even trying to sue a member in the first place.
Intellectual Ventures started out that way but quickly went on offense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that Intellectual Ventures started out as a defense against patent trolls, but after gathering enough of a patent portfolio, they started playing offense in a way that looks like patent trolling.
The important thing to know is that they did so because the economics of defensive aggregation were insufficient to return capital to the investors.
There needs to be an anti-patent-troll membership organization. You pay a fee relative to some metric and the organization acts as insurance against parent trolls by fully defending any patent lawsuits that are obviously unjustified. And to keep costs low, membership in this organization would be public to deter patent trolls from even trying to sue a member in the first place.
I was sent this the other day. Haven’t had a chance to dig deeper. Free for companies under $10M in revenue? (If I remember). https://lotnet.com/sem/
I'd rather see the Cloudflare approach, beat the barbarians back from the gates then destroy the troll's IP inventory with examples of prior art.
In every western country - except the US and England - the loser pays for the cost of the trial (all parties' lawyer fees + the court). Just this reduces frivolous lawsuits. If you have a good case, sure, go ahead. If your case is weak, you run a real risk paying not only for your lawyers but the other side as well. (Note that there are disadvantages to loser-pays as well. Image you legitimately want to sue corporati…
It should be noted that atleast in Germany, you can't just run up the lawyer bills. There are standard rates and you only pay "necessary costs". That means one lawyer. At standard rate. And only for what they did in the court room. That means what you pay the other side in legal costs is usually less than what you paid your lawyer. Though you pay other fees too and in total IIRC it usually amounts to about 150-200% o…
Then the party I sued absconded to the US (he already had a house there and his family was already living there) and simply never returned.
The real legal bill was 50K. But at least the annulment stood and that was the main thrust of the suit.