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

US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 91 posts

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#21

Post by trothoun »

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?

They also like cases that are purely questions of law, they tend to avoid cases that have unresolved questions of fact.

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#22

Post by michaelhoffman »

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?

They don't really have standards for most of the sorts of cases that come up. It's really up to the justices' discretion.

_Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court_ is a fascinating book that explains how the court decides to take some cases and not others, based on interviews with court insiders.

http://www.amazon.com/Deciding-Decide-Agenda-Setting-Supreme...

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#23

Post by Nutella4 »

ck2 wrote: post #20

What did it cost Newegg to litigate that? Does the troll have to pay legal fees? Hope Newegg can remain price competitive.

And I hope the many companies that caved to this patent troll and paid it millions for claiming it owned the shopping cart now go after it to get all those millions back. With interest.

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#24

Post by ceejayoz »

Nutella4 wrote: post #23
ck2 wrote: post #20

What did it cost Newegg to litigate that? Does the troll have to pay legal fees? Hope Newegg can remain price competitive.

And I hope the many companies that caved to this patent troll and paid it millions for claiming it owned the shopping cart now go after it to get all those millions back. With interest.

My understanding is that revenues get siphoned very quickly out of the shell company to avoid precisely that.

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#25

Post by jaynos »

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.

If you have a serious (winnable) claim, there is surely a law firm that will take your case for a percentage of the final settlement.

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#26

Post by revelation »

I guess this is why HN mods edit titles on submissions (although the original title is just as terrible). The Supreme Court did not side with anyone; they denied a petition to the court, which is the case for the vast majority of petitions.

If they did accept this particular petition, this would not mean that the Supreme Court sides with the patent troll and the world is doomed; it simply means that the case deals with a contested issue where clarification by the Supreme Court is widely sought.

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#27

Post by rayiner »

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?

When the federal government appeals, the Supreme Court will more likely than not hear the case. Blatant conflict with prior Supreme Court precedent tends to increase the chances of the Supreme Court hearing a case. Decisions striking down acts of Congress are more likely to get heard. The Supreme Court also appears to try and "tidy up" areas of law by hearing a number of cases in a particular area in successive terms. For example, in 2004-2008, the Court heard Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan, and Boumediene, all Guantanamo prisoner cases, in an effort to outline the rights of detainees.

This article has a very thorough description of the cert process: http://www.mayerbrown.com/Certiorari-Practice-The-Supreme-Co...

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#28

Post by vanderZwan »

Good news, but the last sentence of the article made me curious:

> The total median awards to trolls is now nearly twice as high as those to legitimate patent holders, whose median reward fell about 30 percent to $4 billion, according to a 2013 report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

I was wondering how they estimated this, so I checked out the report:

> We collect information about patent holder success rates, time-to-trial statistics, and practicing versus nonpracticing entity (NPE) statistics from 1995 through 2012.

> Damages awards for NPEs averaged more than double those for practicing entities over the last decade.

Note: PWC does not use the word "patent troll" - that is entirely the interpretation of the article.

So, just to play the devil's advocate: are NPEs by definition patent trolls? I can't think of a counterargument, but maybe someone else can?

EDIT: Thanks for the enlightening examples so far!

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#29

Post by austerity »

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?

I've just checked and the content is still there, so he clearly hasn't stolen it.

Re: US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by patent troll

#30

Post by mjburgess »

vanderZwan wrote: post #28

Good news, but the last sentence of the article made me curious: > The total median awards to trolls is now nearly twice as high as those to legitimate patent holders, whose median reward fell about 30 percent to $4 billion, according to a 2013 report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. I was wondering how they estimated this, so I checked out the report: > We collect information about patent holder success rates, time-to-tri…

They arent definitionally "trolls" but they cannot be Using the patents (deriving value from their being patents in the fist place). So it's still a useful metric.
Post reply on HN