71–80 of 154 posts
You don't really win until the legal atmosphere is such that the the key personalities behind a patent troll operation get 10 years in jail.
I really appreciate Newegg's approach here -- one of the main reasons that patent trolling is so successful is that the cost of settling is smaller even than the cost of winning a suit. Newegg is performing an (expensive) community service. How should I be supporting them (other than making them my "first place to check" for electronics shopping)?
> one of the main reasons that patent trolling is so successful is that the cost of settling is smaller even than the cost of winning a suit. Is the underlying reason for this strategy the low costs of settlement, or the extremely high costs of lawsuits? What if the value of a patent really is only a few thousand dollars? Note that this very tactic is used by big companies to avoid licensing valid and useful patents…
Note that this very tactic is used by big companies to avoid licensing valid and useful patents owned by smaller NON PRACTICING entities.
Yes, big companies have a better track record against trolls. And yes, this unfair. But that doesn't mean trolls are OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of a patent is to protect your idea from being sabotaged by others so the money goes into your account hopefully and feeds your family and pays for your kids education, etc. Patents are not a block, they are a building block. If you find a patent that makes you think you are stuck and have to abandon your idea; think again. Look for ways to improve on the already patented idea and file a new patent referenc…
Patents absolutely are a block if you need to be compatible with a patented system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a software engineer. Consequently I have to admit ignorance about this concept of a valid and useful patent. All I ever see is patents that hinder the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Are there really enough valid and useful patents that we should hesitate in our fight against the rest?
I'm confused, are you asking if you should be fighting patent trolls or patents? If trolls, then fighting them is better than not. Patents are tools, valid and legal, you don't fight tools, you use them, improve them, complain about them, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other countries, where this issue is solved (more or less) by the fact that the side which have lost the case is covering trial costs. This does stop 'court trolling' because even is the cost of winning the case is higher than the cost of the settlement, winning the case nullifies that cost. But hey, US is special this way! (and many others... ;)
How do they avoid disincentivizing small parties from suing larger ones in this system? Let's say I have a strong case (say 90% chance of winning) to sue an insurance company for, say, $50k. But the cost of their legal team/experts/discovery to defend it is, ~$500k, then things look a bit more bleak. Are there caps? Is one side prohibited from charging substantially more than the other?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one of the main reasons that patent trolling is so successful is that the cost of settling is smaller even than the cost of winning a suit. Is the underlying reason for this strategy the low costs of settlement, or the extremely high costs of lawsuits? What if the value of a patent really is only a few thousand dollars? Note that this very tactic is used by big companies to avoid licensing valid and useful patents…
If you know you have a valid case (you aren't a troll), how hard would it be in practice to find someone to front the money for a lawsuit? Or for that matter, could you go to the competition and sell your patent? That is, say Apple's infringing on my patent; will Samsung buy the patent from me for a fair price and then sue Apple?
I'm paraphrasing, but 'Just assign your patent to [some group of investor/trolls] and they'll let you know if they can make anything of it.'
Patents do virtually nothing useful for small businesses/solo inventors. There are exceptions, but they are exceptional.
Why would any of these trolls take on newegg?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do they avoid disincentivizing small parties from suing larger ones in this system? Let's say I have a strong case (say 90% chance of winning) to sue an insurance company for, say, $50k. But the cost of their legal team/experts/discovery to defend it is, ~$500k, then things look a bit more bleak. Are there caps? Is one side prohibited from charging substantially more than the other?
I believe it's at the judges discretion. There was recently a case against a journalist who paid bribes on behalf of a news corporation in which the judge outright stated that if the corporation had been paying costs he would have ruled for a much larger costs settlement then he did when it emerged the journalist himself was going to have to pay. The remainder gets picked up by the taxpayer, so whatever happens the w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patents absolutely are a block if you need to be compatible with a patented system.
We also need to comply with laws in order to live in a civilized society. Where in the world are there no patents today and that also has any significant positive impact on society as does America and Europe? Europe does have software patents after all.
Due to the Berne convention, we don't get to have that comparison. Although lots of people argue that China's weak enforcement of non-Chinese IP has had rather a positive influence on their industry.
There's a good history of patents and cartelisation in "Information Feudalism" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Information-Feudalism-Owns-Knowledge...
To achieve a decisive victory in these cases, Newegg typically has to take the defense of its case through a full trial and possibly an appeal.
People often fail to appreciate just how risky a trial can be. We stand on the sidelines and laugh at how absurd this or that flaky patent appears. And yet - and yet - the law itself went through a phase in which such patents were almost routinely granted. Standards may have tightened over time but, still, a patent claim in a hotly litigated case will not survive to trial unless it has been able to withstand a host of pretrial challenges by which a defendant has already asked a court to rule that the patent, as a matter of law, should not stand. It is only when a court tosses the patent claim in the pretrial phases that a defendant avoids the risk of a potentially absurdly high verdict after trial. If the claim survives such challenges, then the defendant has no choice but to settle or to play it out through trial while incurring just a risk of having a large verdict entered against it. This is the point at which most defendants - even large, deep-pocket defendants who can otherwise afford to pay the costs of defense - will fold. Newegg, on the other hand, has made the tough decisions, incurred the major risks, and largely managed to defeat such patents on the merits.
In doing so, it incurs the very large costs of defense typical in such cases. And it has the guts to take the potential liability risks of going through full trials to take the cases to verdict.
Large, institutional defendants have occasionally (though rarely) adopted such policies in the past. For example, over decades, GM adopted a policy of never settling injury claims if its own experts had determined that the GM autos were not at fault. In doing this, it would often incur defense costs that far exceeded the value of the claim being defended. But it did so to send a firm message to the plaintiff's bar that prosecuted such claims - that is, "if you want to sue GM, your case had better have merit - you will get no nuisance settlement from us."
Newegg effectively is delivering the same message but with an important twist. If GM successfully defended a particular injury claim, that ended the case for that claimant but had no preclusive effect on other, similar claims. If Newegg successfully defends and defeats a patent claim by having the patent declared invalid, the law of what the lawyers call "res judicata" (meaning, "a matter adjudged") kicks in and kills that patent off forever.
So, not only does Newegg take out the garbage, it makes sure it won't accumulate ever again.
This is a true public service for which we all must tip out hats.