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

Don't mess with Newegg

blog.newegg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 200 posts

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#151

Post by Avenger42 »

deong wrote: post #125
jacquesm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incredible that such a transparent strategy would not be punctured in court. Just requiring that the principal holder of a patent is the only one with standing to sue for infringement would get rid of this particular trick immediately.

Presumably what would happen in that case is that the parent company would sell the patent to the shell company, who would then just sell it back as soon as there was any threat that a victim was going to fight it in court. It's still an improvement, but I'm sure that there are plenty of even cleverer ways to get around this than my off-the-cuff guess.

If the shell company sues ten companies over a patent, and one of them threatens to sue, and they sell the patent back to the parent company, wouldn't that mean they no longer have standing to sue the other nine either, and they'd have to file a motion to dismiss all the rest?

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#152

Post by shasta »

mhandley wrote: post #138
bsder wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the troll companies are always shell companies with nothing but the patents. So, even if you win, the shell company will declare bankruptcy. This is what changed the game. Before, two big companies generally had enough patents that they would simply agree to cross license because they both infringed one another's patents. So, for the company being sued, it's a no win situation.

In one British case I was involved in, the troll's strategy was so obvious they were required to put up a bond to cover at least part of our side's legal fees if they lost. That's a pretty good way to reduce completely frivolous cases. They did eventually lose (we invalidated their patent). We were still out of pocket, but if their patent had been even weaker, I think they'd have backed out when they had to post the…

> the troll's strategy was so obvious they were required to put up a bond to cover at least part of our side's legal fees if they lost.

Yeah, how much money did you spend getting to that point?

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#153

Post by jebblue »

aptwebapps wrote: post #83
jebblue wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> And the troll companies are always shell companies with nothing but the patents. So, even if you win, the shell company will declare bankruptcy. I think you've hit on it. Anyone who proclaims patents are bad overall are not considering that the real problem is the shell companies, "patent trolls", who are taking advantage of a system that was intended to encourage good faith between businesses; these shell compani…

Patent trolls are definitely a distinct problem, although the problem is exacerbated by, if not created by, the profusion of bad software patents. So if you reduced the number of bad patents you might fix that particular problem but, for me, software patents are a problem in and of themselves.

OK I'm with you, abolish patents! Legalize pot too while we're at it! Free love and sex any time anywhere!

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#154

Post by glesica »

cynicalkane wrote: post #57
glesica wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there isn't always (or even usually) a "mothership" from what we've seen lately. Look at the Prenda Law saga (Ars Technica has some great write-ups). They can't even figure out who officially owns the company, it is almost entirely opaque. I think the problem is that corporate personhood has run completely amok. It is far too easy to invent a new corporate person with little or no visible or even provable connect…

It's worth pointing out that corporate personhood in the commercial sense is not the same as corporate personhood in the Citizens United sense. Governments are free to regulate how a 'corporate person' can come into existence and do business. They are just bad at it.

Agreed, that is an important distinction to make.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#155

Post by mantis369 »

Intermernet wrote: post #146
mantis369 wrote: post #88

Newegg are cheapskates. The publicity from doing this pays far more than the money they'd save by settling with patent trolls.

Do you make all decisions based on potential profit, or do have a principle or two that you occasionally feel like standing up for?

I have plenty of principles. However I am not a for-profit corporation. It is not cynicism on my part to assume that Newegg is motivated by economics. That is the very definition of a corporation. Maximizing return to shareholders.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#156

Post by mantis369 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #97
jeorgun wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that they're being rewarded for their actions doesn't mean that those actions aren't laudable (especially when that reward consists of their being lauded).

The HN community collectively hasn't ever been able to grasp this concept; apparently if a corporation has any possible benefit from an action, it MUST be the motivation behind the action. It's a particularly delightful cop-out because any positive action (including philanthropy) can be dismissed as a PR move.

I grasp the concept perfectly well. But this is theater. Look at the title ("When Will Patent Trolls Learn Not to Mess with Newegg?") and the ridiculous picture of the lawyer!

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#157

Post by dtech »

mcherm wrote: post #130
weland wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, this should not be dealt with at a company level, since the shell company is arguably not engaged in any economic activity: their juridical entity is, essentially, worthless. Instead, given the toxic economic climate the people behind it create, this should be transported into criminal charges brought against the make-believe CEOs behind the shell companies that specifically engage in patent trolling. They're a…

> this should be transported into criminal charges brought against the make-believe CEOs behind the shell companies Ah, but the original proposal was for individuals to file lawsuits. Individuals cannot press criminal charges -- only the state (in the form of the prosecutor's office) can do that. And the state can not (and SHOULD NOT) use that power to go after individuals because we don't like those people, or becau…

It is fairly common, even necessary, for justice to go after the key figures of businesses that engage in criminal behavior (e.g. Maffia, money laundering companies). Otherwise it would be a type of behavior for which no-one can be held (individually) accountable.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#158

Post by saryant »

digitalengineer wrote: post #103
hkmurakami wrote: post #35

Personally, I love the fact that this title evokes the "Don't mess with Texas" line, given that it's the East Texas courts that aid patent trolls so greatly.

If it's mainly the Texas court, then why not go after that angle?

It's a federal court based in Texas, not a state court.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#159

Post by mhandley »

shasta wrote: post #152
mhandley wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one British case I was involved in, the troll's strategy was so obvious they were required to put up a bond to cover at least part of our side's legal fees if they lost. That's a pretty good way to reduce completely frivolous cases. They did eventually lose (we invalidated their patent). We were still out of pocket, but if their patent had been even weaker, I think they'd have backed out when they had to post the…

> the troll's strategy was so obvious they were required to put up a bond to cover at least part of our side's legal fees if they lost. Yeah, how much money did you spend getting to that point?

That part, only the client knows. But I'd guess at least £1m (out of £3m or so total legal costs on our side). These cases are not cheap if they get as far as going to court.
Post reply on HN