Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#101

Post by yardie »

Whitespace wrote: post #29

It seems that almost all patent troll cases are tried in the East District of Texas because that district had strongly favored plaintiffs. I'm then curious: if a US company refused to do business with Texas citizens -- citing an inhospitable litigation environment or some such -- could they still be brought to court in EDTX? Continuing the thought experiment, what if companies continued to do business but added a sur…

As a counterpoint because EDTX has been used so heavily as a patent litigation court their infrastructure is uniquely tailored to handle software patent litigation. By extension the jury is also more familiar with the complexities and details of software patents.

So your choice is choosing a jury in a district that is more familiar with technology, software, and patents or choosing a jury in a district who were dumb enough not to get out of jury duty.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#103

Post by nonamegiven »

bentoner wrote: post #20

The company won't hire law firms that take on patent troll cases, and its top lawyer, Lee Cheng, is vocal about his view that others should take the same approach. Is there a site somewhere listing which firms represent patent trolls?

Can you imagine any large, resource-laden law firm refusing any business? It's business, and they're advocates for hire.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#104

Post by huherto »

robomartin wrote: post #85
dankohn1 wrote: post #48

I founded NetMarket [1], which actually did build the first shopping cart on the web in August 1994, 5 months before OpenMarket launched and filed their application. I was deposed in the 2004 Amazon case due to an email Amazon discovered from Open Market to NetMarket demonstrating that they were aware of our site. Unfortunately, I didn't have screen shots or source code definitively demonstrating our work, and Amazon…

I'm interested in learning more. Are you saying that one should deliberately take and store screen shots to document the chronological use of various technologies? Would screen shots have been pivotal or simply one more checkbox item?

If that is the case, I would think that the emergence of github may help to legally document the evolution of software products.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#105

Post by arbuge »

waqf wrote: post #37
arbuge wrote: post #9

Comparing patent trolls to bacteria would be an unforgivable and entirely unwarranted insult to bacteria everywhere. Even the plague bacterium deserves better. We need to see alot more of this happening - hopefully this will show people there is another way to go, i.e. never ever settle with a patent troll, no matter how scary the alternative may seem to be. 3 patents invalidated but thousands to go. It is disgusting…

You will never win by directing your anger at the people who are just responding to the incentives provided by the system.

This is indeed true. What is needed for a long term solution is to fix incentives. In the sense that it shows patent trolls that there is at least some risk involved to their dirty game, the Newegg verdict does that a little bit. Real reform must come from (a) Washington and/or (b) multiple companies banding together into industry associations to fight the trolls.

The patent trolls have made tens of billions at this point - around $20B last year alone in fact. They have deep pockets and will not go away easily. It will take a real fight to change things, and it will require the support of many industry players.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#106

Post by sthu11182 »

bstpierre wrote: post #76
Whitespace wrote: post #29

It seems that almost all patent troll cases are tried in the East District of Texas because that district had strongly favored plaintiffs. I'm then curious: if a US company refused to do business with Texas citizens -- citing an inhospitable litigation environment or some such -- could they still be brought to court in EDTX? Continuing the thought experiment, what if companies continued to do business but added a sur…

It's a Federal court -- you can't avoid jurisdiction just by not doing business in TX. My understanding is that it's the trolls that open offices in Tyler just so that they can file the suit in that district. I.e. the plaintiff is dragging the defendant into TX, and the defendant can't avoid that court.

It is a little bit more complicated than that. Transferring out of EDTX has been easier since the Fed Cir granted mandamus in In re TS Tech and its progeny (which was based on a 5th Cir decision, In re Volkswagen). The case law is still developing, but patent trolls are having a slightly more difficult time staying in EDTX. http://patently-useless.tumblr.com/

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#107

Post by hessenwolf »

sounds wrote: post #96
creamyhorror wrote: post #72

A victory for common sense, the tech industry, and right-thinking citizens everywhere. May the gods of the market continue to smile upon Newegg (a prosperous Lunar New Year to them!). Points of interest to me: Lee Cheng: And we'll take a case through trial as a matter of principle because we want to accomplish the purpose of making good law. Like eBay did, like Quanta did when they challenged LG. It's part of our dut…

Without assuming Fred Chang or his associates share my views, in my position I'd be willing to bet the whole company on a principled stand like this. In other words, I don't always take the game theoretic rational local maximum – lots of business is like that. If for my company to survive I must pay "rent" to a patent troll, taking a stand against them would be my first choice. (Obviously this only works in a positio…

Sounds nice, but I am sure there would be some employees floating around with families and mortgages and bills that work hard and honestly, that you might feel a bit beholden to, no?

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#108

Post by ynniv »

robomartin wrote: post #85
dankohn1 wrote: post #48

I founded NetMarket [1], which actually did build the first shopping cart on the web in August 1994, 5 months before OpenMarket launched and filed their application. I was deposed in the 2004 Amazon case due to an email Amazon discovered from Open Market to NetMarket demonstrating that they were aware of our site. Unfortunately, I didn't have screen shots or source code definitively demonstrating our work, and Amazon…

I'm interested in learning more. Are you saying that one should deliberately take and store screen shots to document the chronological use of various technologies? Would screen shots have been pivotal or simply one more checkbox item?

The lack of durable documentation of prior art is a large part of what keeps frivilous software patents valid. It would be difficult to establish the date and authenticity of screenshots, tho. You're usually looking for printed material like magazines or manuals.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#109

Post by talmand »

nordsieck wrote: post #95
creamyhorror wrote: post #72

A victory for common sense, the tech industry, and right-thinking citizens everywhere. May the gods of the market continue to smile upon Newegg (a prosperous Lunar New Year to them!). Points of interest to me: Lee Cheng: And we'll take a case through trial as a matter of principle because we want to accomplish the purpose of making good law. Like eBay did, like Quanta did when they challenged LG. It's part of our dut…

"This seems true enough - from a (rational) game-theoretic perspective, why should any victim really fight hard to overcome a troll, if in doing so they risk big losses, and don't gain any advantage over their competition even if they win?" This might be true over a single iteration, but I don't think it holds well over indefinite iterations. Developing a (credible) reputation as an entity (government, corporation, p…

I agree. I will imagine as a company like Newegg gets a reputation for fighting patent trolls and, in many cases, invalidating patents then they will be avoided. If a patent troll only makes money from its patents then it's a huge risk to have them invalidated. Then, most likely, they will behave as the bullies that they are by going after companies they view as softer targets.

Funny thought, these patent troll cases are turning into Western movie stories. Villain terrorizes small town because group won't defend themselves because of fear of loss of life and/or property so it's easier to just give in. One to three strangers appear then save town by standing up and fighting because they realize they have nothing to lose in the long term.

Re: How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail

#110

Post by talmand »

lake_rogue wrote: post #80
illumin8 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a US district court, as in Federal court, so no, you can't just choose not to show up if you are filed against. Unless, of course, you don't want to do business in the US, or have any assets here.

Can another tactic be employed in this battle against patent trolls?... Public education programs targeted to residents of East Texas. Documentaries, billboards, sophisticated advertising campaigns, unsophisticated advertising campaigns on 7-11 cups, etc. Whatever communicates to the residents. i.e. don't say "you hillbillies are stupid pawns", but use a marketing campaign that speaks to the residents. For example "p…

Won't work, most people have no concept of their freedoms and how they are threatened. They typically don't realize the problem until the freedom is already taken from them.

To get through in an immediate way you have to educate them on how much it costs them in monetary terms. For example, often it is cited that juries give ridiculous amounts at trial because it "isn't their money". I fully believe that many think this way. But if the affected party are organizations that receive money from the public for their services in return, in the end it is their money they are giving away.

Post reply on HN