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

Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#71

Post by fbuilesv »

ajross wrote: post #19
x0054 wrote: post #2

Apple should hire a nation wide law firm to defend any and all apple developers who are sued by Lodsys fore these patents. Instruct the lawfirm to never settle and actively file actions on beheld of each client against Lodsys. It's simple, once they realize that no one will settle with them, they will go away. Now, where on earth is that patent troll bill congress has been promising?

If Apple is "instructing" that firm, then they aren't representing their clients' interests correctly. That sort of relationship is actually very hard to manage in the courts, which is why it's quite rare (and usually limited to true pro bono work by established non-profits).

> If Apple is "instructing" that firm, then they aren't representing their clients' interests correctly.

Sorry to pick on just one phrase of your comment but I'm honestly curious. How is the "not-representing the client's interests" thing a problem inside a court? Is it because the other side or the court will pick on it, or is it because it honestly does not represent a client's interests[0]?

[0] In this case, I can't imagine an app. developer not wanting help dealing with this specific problem, but I've never been in that position.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#72

Post by jlgreco »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #68
dctoedt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption? Journalists. They know that you avoid libel by stating facts supported by evidence. Truth is a defense to a libel charge (at least in the U.S.). And as mentioned above, when the libel plaintiff is a "public figure," a higher standard applies, precisely because of the public interest in ferreting out corruption and the like.

So give some indication of how they would in any way be able to show malice in this case, let alone a defamatory statement.

Seriously, people voice suspicions about corruption and bribery on the internet thousands of times every day. Rather specific suspicions about specific people, which is a lot more than what the ancestor post did.

How many /r/politics or /r/conspiracy or /r/occupywallstreet posters have been sued for libel? There is no realistic risk that the ancestor post will have to test his theories on libel in court; it just flat out isn't going to play out that way.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#73

Post by [deleted] »

jlgreco wrote: post #72
moocowduckquack wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So give some indication of how they would in any way be able to show malice in this case, let alone a defamatory statement.

Seriously, people voice suspicions about corruption and bribery on the internet thousands of times every day . Rather specific suspicions about specific people, which is a lot more than what the ancestor post did. How many /r/politics or /r/conspiracy or /r/occupywallstreet posters have been sued for libel? There is no realistic risk that the ancestor post will have to test his theories on libel in court; it just fla…

[deleted]

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#74

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #73
jlgreco wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, people voice suspicions about corruption and bribery on the internet thousands of times every day . Rather specific suspicions about specific people, which is a lot more than what the ancestor post did. How many /r/politics or /r/conspiracy or /r/occupywallstreet posters have been sued for libel? There is no realistic risk that the ancestor post will have to test his theories on libel in court; it just fla…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#75

Post by moocowduckquack »

jlgreco wrote: post #72
moocowduckquack wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So give some indication of how they would in any way be able to show malice in this case, let alone a defamatory statement.

Seriously, people voice suspicions about corruption and bribery on the internet thousands of times every day . Rather specific suspicions about specific people, which is a lot more than what the ancestor post did. How many /r/politics or /r/conspiracy or /r/occupywallstreet posters have been sued for libel? There is no realistic risk that the ancestor post will have to test his theories on libel in court; it just fla…

Sorry, misread name, made stupid post.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#76

Post by randomfool »

jevinskie wrote: post #35
justinpombrio wrote: post #4

Here is what Lodsys has to say about the creator of the patents it asserts: > Abelow is not an officer or manager of Lodsys Group LLC, he has no interest in Lodsys patents, and he does not receive any revenue from the licenses granted by Lodsys in the patents he created.

So Abelow is either a fool for not getting a cut from Lodsys or he is a patent gifting fairy.

Neither- he already cashed out. He sold the patents years ago.

Just like you can sell stock to people completely unrelated to a company, you can sell patents too. Patent trolls are just efficient monetization of patents. The real problem is patent law (and judges preventing class-action to allow more efficient judgement of the validity of patents).

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#77

Post by ps4fanboy »

fbuilesv wrote: post #71
ajross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple is "instructing" that firm, then they aren't representing their clients' interests correctly. That sort of relationship is actually very hard to manage in the courts, which is why it's quite rare (and usually limited to true pro bono work by established non-profits).

> If Apple is "instructing" that firm, then they aren't representing their clients' interests correctly. Sorry to pick on just one phrase of your comment but I'm honestly curious. How is the "not-representing the client's interests" thing a problem inside a court? Is it because the other side or the court will pick on it, or is it because it honestly does not represent a client's interests[0]? [0] In this case, I can…

> "Instruct the lawfirm to never settle"

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#79

Post by possibilistic »

chetanahuja wrote: post #34

The texas east district stuff is fascinating. What if the app and software developers start licensing their apps with a license and technical measures explicitly excluding East Texas (or the entire state of texas, for extra safety) from the operation of the app. It could be enforced by some soft of geofencing at app startup that splashes a "You're from East Texas, our app doesn't work there" type language. Will that…

I like this idea a lot.

If the population living in the causative region understands the nature of what their governing body is doing to impact and infringe upon on the rest of the world, maybe they'll change who holds the relevant positions of power.

It would be great if we could do this to websites and technology in general as well. Maybe we can start with this kind of campaign [1], but utilize geo-IP targeting.

[1] http://internetdefenseleague.org/

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#80

Post by AnthonyMouse »

javajosh wrote: post #28

The threat that Lodsys represents to anyone doing technology is so large that it would seem to make sense to band together. I'm thinking along the lines of creating a "Patent Defense Cooperative" where members pay a certain amount every month for the three purposes of a) patent lawsuit insurance, b) to fund lobbying efforts to reform the patent system, and c) scrutinize a judicial apparatus that seems biased in favor…

>patent lawsuit insurance

Lawsuit insurance is interesting. The problem seems to be that if an insurance company is funding the defense then they have the same incentive to pay a settlement rather than fight that anyone else does, and that would just cause even more money to go into the pockets of trolls by giving them a deep pocket in the form of the insurance company, exacerbating the problem (and making the premiums unaffordable).

But let's suppose we solve that by stipulating up front that the insurance money can't be used for a settlement. If you want the money then you have to fight; it can only go to lawyers, not plaintiffs. That would be an interesting dynamic. (Obviously plaintiffs would hate it with the fire of a thousand suns because it would cause all but the most blatantly liable defendants to fight.)

> to fund lobbying efforts to reform the patent system

That sounds pretty sensible.

> scrutinize a judicial apparatus that seems biased in favor of patent trolls

I don't see this going anywhere. It is far, far easier to lobby to have the law changed by Congress after a judge does something you don't like than to actually have the judge punished for the ruling. What you may want to do here is to lobby for sympathetic judges to be appointed to e.g. the Eastern District of Texas or the Federal Circuit (which has jurisdiction over patent appeals), but that's obviously not a short-term solution because the turnover rate isn't that high.

Post reply on HN