31–35 of 35 posts
I thought patents weren't valid if it was just a normal thing done in the real world "with a computer". Isn't the patent essentially "money - with a computer".
I don't get how patents like these are allowed through in the first place. Seems like the US patent system needs a big overhaul.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does the "new brand of patent troll companies" gain from this? Patent trolls exist today because of the monetary gain, why would those exist for no monetary gain?
You're telling me that you can't envision a situation where Big Company A holds patents worth billions, and Big Company B wouldn't pay money to see those patents invalidated? You're telling me that you can't envision a situation where Big Company B could spend millions (instead of billions) in an attempt to bring down such patents and, even if it loses, consider it just a risky bet at best?
We need to really make it painful to be a patent troll. Allow companies to band together and accuse a company for being a patent troll (list of patents as evidence and evidence of the ideas having existed prior to patent filings), if proven then their patents should be disbanded and the company fined. At the very least allow companies to band together to have invalid obscure patents from unknown companies that DO NOT…
The first thing that came to mind was a new brand of patent troll companies that seek to invalidate a smaller company's patent by "proving" it invalid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that this is asymmetric warfare. It's "cheap" for the patent troll to engage in countless procedures, each of which costs you the case if you fail, whereas it costs the defendant tens of thousands of dollars each time.
OTOH patent trolls generally rely on victims preferring to quickly settle for moderate sums, they're not usually built for losing cases. IIRC Newegg's refuses to ever settle[0], and when patent trolls find out and try to drop it[1] Newegg sues right back[2]. You do need a motivated lawyer/legal department with institutional support though. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-scotus-newegg-soverain/u-... [1] https:…
The entire strategy of patent trolls is to go after targets for whom the costs of defense are disproportionately (read: prohibitively) larger than the costs of offense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that this is asymmetric warfare. It's "cheap" for the patent troll to engage in countless procedures, each of which costs you the case if you fail, whereas it costs the defendant tens of thousands of dollars each time.
It isn't countless procedures, there are standard rules of civil procedure, which are not countless. And they are balanced - if you counter sue for legal costs, you get to play the same game, and you also have actions you can take under the rules of civil procedures to which the trolls must also respond or lose the case. Also, there is no lawsuit here. This is a letter. The harm of ignoring a letter is simply a matte…
This is self-evident and documented to the point that it's absurd even to be discussing that point. Knowing the law is literally complex enough to warrant its own profession, but even so, the operational aspects of filing legal documents are prohibitively time-consuming for small businesses.