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

Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#31

Post by dctoedt »

mcherm wrote: post #27
jcromartie wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I have been wondering. The case has no merit: they can't sue me for buying a Linksys router, can they?

The way the US legal system works, if you are sued then the plaintiff and you go to the court and make your arguments. If you don't show up, then they automatically win all arguments they make. Even if the argument is wrong. So you automatically lose, and then it moves to the collections stage. tl;dr; Yes, they can sue you for buying a router. And win, if your high-priced lawyer doesn't show up in court on the appoin…

A couple of things:

1. If you get sued and don't show up, the judge might or might not enter a default judgment. Think of a lawsuit as a road rally. The plaintiff has to hit a number of checkpoints. In federal court, one of the first checkpoints is that the complaint---that is, the plaintiff's formal statement of its claim---must allege enough facts to set out a plausible case entitling the plaintiff to relief. (This is the Twombly/Iqbal standard established by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago.) Even if the defendant doesn't show up, usually the judge and his or her law clerk will still read the complaint, to see if it passes the smell test, before granting a default judgment.

2. They can sue you for buying a router, but under section 2-312(2) and (3) of the Uniform Commercial Code [1], absent a proper warranty disclaimer you would normally be able to pass the buck to the seller, by filing a cross-claim for breach of the implied warranty of noninfringement. Of course, that too would require paying a lawyer, unless the seller stepped up and voluntarily assumed the defense of the infringement suit (which is not uncommon; vendors want to stay on customers' good side).

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-312

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#33

Post by sliverstorm »

beagle3 wrote: post #30
sliverstorm wrote: post #23

I wouldn't think they could ever win anything. One of the rules with patents is you can't just kick back and wait for your competitor's product to grow and sue 10 years later. Considering WiFi is almost 20 years old, and has practically surpassed 'ubiquity', I'd say that ship sailed.

Never heard of that rule. Perhaps you are confusing with trademarks, which you must defend? Or you are confused about the damages - you can't collect damages on anything that happened before you told the victim "you are infringing, now stop or pay me $XXX". But you definitely can collect from that point on (triple damages, if willful infringement is established)

Gah, you're right, I was thinking of trademarks. I need to stop mixing trademarks, patents and copyright up in my head.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#34

Post by TeHCrAzY »

saalweachter wrote: post #24
kylec wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patent trolls may be evil, but they're not stupid. The best we can hope for is for them to sue a close friend of a congressman or judge.

Maybe not stupid, but I think their hubris is steadily growing. At some point a patent troll is going to fly too high and set fire to the entire business model.

I wonder if a possible defense would be to intentionally trigger some political response via some patent trolling of your own.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#35

Post by machrider »

crizCraig wrote: post #25

The patent is from 2004. http://www.google.com/patents?id=zi8SAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... I hope their greed gets the best of them. Here's a poll I created to get general feedback on this subject. It's so infuriating to me, but a lot of people seem to be indifferent on the subject of patents: http://www.wepolls.com/p/3363896/

If they applied for the patent in 2001, how can they possibly sue users of wifi? 802.11 has been around longer than that.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#36

Post by caf »

noonespecial wrote: post #29

Hams have been doing packet radio since the 70's in earnest and it's been around far longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio There is clearly prior art. When you make this big a nuisance of yourself, clearly exploiting the system at society's expense, you should be permanently disbarred. You are a clear and present danger to the continued operation of the justice system. Edit: Might a flood of complaints to…

The existence of packet radio doesn't necessarily constitute prior art. The patents are far more likely to be on certain very narrowly defined processes that are arguably implemented in a WiFi system than on a very broad field like "digital communication over radio". If the hams didn't use the particular techniques at issue, then that wouldn't constitute prior art.

You really need to read the specific claims in the patents themselves to figure out how to invalidate or avoid the patents.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#37

Post by tjr »

felipemnoa wrote: post #32

After getting sued a good course of action would be to sue the manufacturer for loses incurred. At least that would get their attention. Somebody could start a class action lawsuit agains the manufacturer.

They should be suing the manufacturers in the first place. Even if we were to assume for a moment that this patent has any validity whatsoever, it would not be the users of the wireless router than owe them a royalty payment, but the router manufacturers. And I seriously doubt that a fair royalty on a single router (such as what you might find in one of these small coffeeshops that they are suing) is in the thousands of dollars.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#38

Post by waterhouse »

The book "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is highly recommended reading for the question of patents (and other intellectual property). The authors make a mostly empirical survey of the effects of intellectual property laws and of their absence in a wide range of industries, and conclude that their effect is a stifling rather than an encouragement of innovation. I think it's especially appropriate because, while my own opinion on the issue comes from moral reasoning (and it's generally frustrating to try to argue that side), this book presents a wealth of stories and statistics that are just plain interesting to anyone who cares about the issue.

http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#39

Post by felipemnoa »

tjr wrote: post #37
felipemnoa wrote: post #32

After getting sued a good course of action would be to sue the manufacturer for loses incurred. At least that would get their attention. Somebody could start a class action lawsuit agains the manufacturer.

They should be suing the manufacturers in the first place. Even if we were to assume for a moment that this patent has any validity whatsoever, it would not be the users of the wireless router than owe them a royalty payment, but the router manufacturers. And I seriously doubt that a fair royalty on a single router (such as what you might find in one of these small coffeeshops that they are suing) is in the thousands…

I know, you know, the manufactures know, the lawyers know, but unfortunately the lawyers do not care. They just want to make easy money. This might be a good way to shift the pain to the manufactures.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#40

Post by MartinCron »

Astrohacker wrote: post #15
diego_moita wrote: post #9

This is very nice! Politicians will only solve a problem after it becomes a calamity. If the problem gets bad enough, they might start paying attention.

Politicians created the problem by creating IP laws. If they "solve" it, they will undoubtedly just introduce some new problem.

That's a really cynical view, isn't it? Implying that the people, through their democratically elected governments, can't ever improve upon things that have come before.
Post reply on HN