Patent trolls are shaking us down for selling “rubies” in our game

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 6:33 AM UTC

mysterypie wrote: post #149

dragonwriter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr., of Rubin and Rudman is associated with working in some manner on this case for the deBruin Firm, despite not being in the regular employ of the firm, and hence is listed in the filing as “Of Counsel” [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel

Do you suppose that the deBruin Firm did this deliberately to distance themselves from the case, so they still get a cut of the money, but Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr. and his firm Rubin and Rudman get the potentially bad publicity for being patent trolls? Leslie L. Jacobs wrote pro hac vice ("for this occasion only") after his name, which makes it sound like a one time engagement and not a frequent collaboration with the d…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 7:09 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #86

kelnos wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ridiculously disheartening that this sort of thing even has to exist. It's just taking the money you'd be forced to pay some exploitative patent troll, and giving it (well, probably/hopefully less of it, but still) to an exploitative insurance firm instead.

The insurance firm isn't exploitative. The patent troll is actively harmfully attacking people. The insurance firm (assuming they aren't secretly creating demand for their product) is mitigating the damage. Locksmiths and firefighters aren't exploitative.

Post by vadimberman » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 7:41 AM UTC

zerostar07 wrote: post #22

Can american patent trolls equally easy bully companies outside the US?

Post by Kliment » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 8:17 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #53

rhizome wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once they get some precedent under their belt. They have to do this via small-time operators first because porn people have money.

If most or all the small-time operators settle, that doesn't set precedent, though, right? A judge isn't going to look at a future case and say "well, all these other companies settled, so seems like the patent is valid". That would be absurd.

Post by lultimouomo » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 8:29 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #121

roganartu wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance doesn't mitigate damage, it amortizes it (typically across a group of entities). The expected average annual claims on an insurer's policies need to be lower than the sum of the premiums or the insurer loses money. This is why people in high risk categories pay more for insurance (eg young people and people with high performance cars have higher car insurance premiums because statistically they crash more o…

In this case it does because someone with insurance is a poor target for patent trolls. Assuming it becomes common you get 'herd immunity' as patent trolls become less effective which also lowers the cost of the insurance.