US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

Post by venomsnake » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 1:44 PM UTC

motbob wrote: post #2

"While the Court will likely hear the remaining cases, which deal with finer points of patent law, its dismissal of Soverain speaks to the potential frivolousness of its claims." I don't think this is accurate. The standard that the Supreme Court uses to decide whether to take cases is not "is this frivolous." Soverain v. Newegg would have to meet a pretty high standard in order to be granted appeal. I think the auth…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 1:49 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #10

kalleboo wrote: post #8

I had to use a secret browsing window to read this without signing up, so here it is for anyone else who has trouble loading the page: -------- Chalk one up for the enemies of patent trolls: The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a request for trial from alleged patent troll Soverain Software. The case, called Soverain Software LLC. v. Newegg Inc., is one of three such cases the Supreme Court is expected to consider t…

So you'd thought you'd break the law and steal their content?

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 1:54 PM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #4

dded wrote: post #3

I'm encouraged that patent trolls are getting knocked. But my fear is that patent law will hit such a state that only large corporations can wield them. If I'm a small patent holder, and I'm liable for court costs if I lose a suit, then it becomes far too risky to defend my patent against a corporation that violates it.

Just like currently it's far too risky to fight a troll in court even for a corporation, since treble damages means that if the jury (because 12 random people from the streets clearly know enough about technology, or can understand it well enough when it's explained to them, to pass a fair judgement) decides you're guilty, you're paying through the nose. The comparatively small amount demanded by the patent troll to…

Post by motbob » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 2:02 PM UTC

venomsnake wrote: post #12

motbob wrote: post #2

"While the Court will likely hear the remaining cases, which deal with finer points of patent law, its dismissal of Soverain speaks to the potential frivolousness of its claims." I don't think this is accurate. The standard that the Supreme Court uses to decide whether to take cases is not "is this frivolous." Soverain v. Newegg would have to meet a pretty high standard in order to be granted appeal. I think the auth…

What are the standards that SCOTUS uses except the obvious circuit split (having opposite laws in different parts of the country is obviously bad) for picking up a case?

Post by ck2 » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 2:11 PM UTC