Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit • Hacker News Board

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#281

Post by jawns » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

bavila wrote: post #139

sometimeshuman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you were the patent troll, what would you do at this point ?" If I could get the trial moved to a jurisdiction where I'm friends with a judge, which I recall was part of the strategy, I'd keep trolling. While geohot gets love on a hacker forum like HN, most courts (and people in general) as far as I can tell just assume guilt.

Courts don't appreciate having their time wasted. It's going to be a lot easier for a court to dismiss a frivolous patent troll than to "assume guilt" and go through the absolutely hellish process of extended litigation. (Source: Worked as a litigator for 7 years.)

Pardon my ignorance, but why, then, is East Texas considered a hot-bed for these types of lawsuits? Are the judges there an exception to the rule about not wanting their time wasted?

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#282

Post by r00fus » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #245

mschuster91 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically because the official environment (laws and courts) doesn't do its job, large private entities end up taking over in what is essentially a protection racket. Sounds a bit too much like the Mafia IMHO.

Seems like it's ok to let societies draw different boundaries around what the government's "job" is.

I think what mschuster91 is saying is that there are regulatory functions that, if an impartial government doesn't do it, will be done by big corporations in the space, or it's just a free-for-all where trolls roam free.

Exercise to the reader as to whether the EU, US or Japanese model is most effective.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#283

Post by patentlyredmud » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #90

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.

You mean like https://www.rpxcorp.com ?

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#284

Post by 8note » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

It's kinda weird that using the legal system the way it's supposed to is considered heroic

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#285

Post by denton-scratch » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #277

denton-scratch wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's my understanding too. But if the party asserting the patent decides not to defend it, and drops their claim against you specifically, can you go ahead and invalidate the patent in court? If you can, and there's no defence, then presumably the patent is invalidated by default. But it seems rather odd; in normal civil proceedings, you have an adversary against whom you allege some kind of wrongdoing. Who is…

If the filed a suit against you, you can counterclaim the invalidity of the asserted patents. And even if they drop the claims against you, you still have the claim that their patent is invalidity. If they just threaten you, can still sue the patent owner for a "declaratory judgement" that their patent is invalid, though you have to show harm in order for the court to hear the case. So if they promise not to sue or y…

> You can always file an Inter Partes Review at the patent office to attack any patent.

I see. So that sounds like the simplest, clearest course. Presumably it's in practice the most difficult, expensive and time-consuming route.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#286

Post by TylerE » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #215

nspattak wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one does not need to start with 20 people, if one doesn't have enough paying customers either...

They don't really need to employ lawyers at all. It's just an insurance club. They need an actuary, an accountant and a clerk. They can pay law-firms to do the lawyering, and contract researchers to dig up prior art. That way, the main costs arise on a per-case basis - only the office staff are fixed costs.

That's seem to make a startup LESS attractive companies, no? One bad case and the whole thing runs out of money.

This is the kind of service you'd want provided by somebody "too big to fail".

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#287

Post by barelycompetent » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:46 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #41

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170170984 If you cut through the lawyer-speak, claim #1 is basically about MITM-ing the vehicle's internal message bus. Hardly novel, even in 2007.

The above link is a published application rather than a granted patent. US20170170984A1 by itself carries no legal rights whatsoever.

In this case it was granted with largely similar claims (as US10027505B2). However, claims typically get significantly revised by the time they are granted, and less than half of applications are granted at all.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10027505B2/en

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#288

Post by freejazz » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #248

rkangel wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main difficulty is in the "obviously unjustified" determination. Member organisations would be trying to get the anti-patent-troll org to defend any and all IP claims against them. Not all IP claims are patent trolling, some are legitimate and you don't want there to be big arguments whether this is a troll attack that needs defending. Perhaps the way to do it is by the type of claimant rather than any an…

It's not like it's impossible to decide what counts and what doesn't. Insurance companies reject claims all the time.

And you think the insureds don't argue about it? let alone litigate it? have you ever dealt with insurance coverage for a litigation?

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#289

Post by freejazz » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:54 PM UTC

linuxhansl wrote: post #45

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…

US has fee shifting for frivolous patent litigations. for example, the NXIVM founder Keith Raniere paid out IBM's costs after he sued them for infringing one of his patents.

Automatic fee shifting has the opposite effect of discouraging anyone bringing forward a case that isn't a total slam dunk.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#290

Post by gruturo » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:00 PM UTC

nimbius wrote: post #93

labrador wrote: post #3

I always thought Hotz an interesting character. This paragraph adds to that impression: "What he didn’t take into account is that comma isn’t run by rational actors in suits sitting on a committee. It’s run by me, George Hotz. I’m willing to lose $1M before I give him $10k. We will hire an amazing legal team, fight this, and while doing so invalidate his patents so they can’t be used against anyone else. Not because…

ah yes, George hotz, the baba yaga of startup leadership

Next thing we know, the officers of the patent troll company die in a horrific car crash involving 4 empty vehicles running comma.ai software, quickly ruled an accident after the ruling judge notices an awful amount of empty self driving vehicles accompanying them anywhere they go.

Don't mess with Geohot.