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

Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

rackspace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#31

Post by hkmurakami »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #30
hkmurakami wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One such way is countersuit, which Rackspace is doing. If everyone (successfully) countersued, the incentive to be a patent troll would diminish. I was under the impression that these patent troll shell companies are set up so that they have virtually no assets under them. Does countersuing even hurt these shell companies significantly? The only thing I can see countersuits costing patent trolls is time in court (ma…

Rackspace is more focussed on having the patents declared invalid than hurting the troll any other way. Eventually you'd run out of patents that are even remotely defensible, because they would have to have been filed long before HDFS became as ubiquitous as it is.

Ah thanks. Thank makes much more sense, esp in light of Newegg's recent victory along those exact lines: "How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5125770

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#32

Post by SeanDav »

rayiner wrote: post #4

> In actuality, it is a bit more complicated. Our dealings with this particular troll reach back to December 2010 when IP Navigation Group (IP Nav), as agent for a supposedly secret patent owner, now known as Parallel Iron, accused Rackspace of patent infringement. IP Nav told us that they could not divulge the details of their infringement claims – not even the patent numbers or the patent owner – unless we entered…

I don't see this as shady. Suing and defending being sued is expensive enough to worry even medium sized companies. Exploring other options first seems like good business practice to me.

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#33

Post by _ak »

rayiner wrote: post #4

> In actuality, it is a bit more complicated. Our dealings with this particular troll reach back to December 2010 when IP Navigation Group (IP Nav), as agent for a supposedly secret patent owner, now known as Parallel Iron, accused Rackspace of patent infringement. IP Nav told us that they could not divulge the details of their infringement claims – not even the patent numbers or the patent owner – unless we entered…

Well, it's not exactly news that patents are an extortion racket. And where there's a racket, you will find someone to use it, be it the mafia or a patent troll.

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#34

Post by vacri »

aroman wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #4

> In actuality, it is a bit more complicated. Our dealings with this particular troll reach back to December 2010 when IP Navigation Group (IP Nav), as agent for a supposedly secret patent owner, now known as Parallel Iron, accused Rackspace of patent infringement. IP Nav told us that they could not divulge the details of their infringement claims – not even the patent numbers or the patent owner – unless we entered…

Is there even a reasonable situation where a one-sided "forbearance agreement" is ever appropriate? Or even remotely fair? That seems like basically writing up a contract that says "By signing this you owe me $100" but entrenching and obfuscating it in 75 pages of legalese.

I heard this used as an example against the legal uselessness of disclaimers on emails - they can't force you into a contract without your consent, and to be clearer, the example was given: "By reading this you agree to pay me $100 immediately"....

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#35

Post by rayiner »

SeanDav wrote: post #32
rayiner wrote: post #4

> In actuality, it is a bit more complicated. Our dealings with this particular troll reach back to December 2010 when IP Navigation Group (IP Nav), as agent for a supposedly secret patent owner, now known as Parallel Iron, accused Rackspace of patent infringement. IP Nav told us that they could not divulge the details of their infringement claims – not even the patent numbers or the patent owner – unless we entered…

I don't see this as shady. Suing and defending being sued is expensive enough to worry even medium sized companies. Exploring other options first seems like good business practice to me.

The part that seems sketchy to me isn't the agreement itself, but not disclosing what you're threatening to sue for. Plaintiffs usually come at you with a litany of grievances. You can hash them out in court or settle, but you know up front what you're fighting about.

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#36

Post by mitchellhislop »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #21
VanL wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We couldn't sue because we didn't know what we would sue on. They wouldn't even tell us the patent numbers - so we didn't have the knowledge necessary to even file a complaint. As for suing because of the forbearance agreement, they try to write these things so they are just on the side of the line, and it is really hard to make a RICO suit stick (see Cisco and Innovatio). We, of course, think that it is just BS. Now…

Excellent reference, thanks Van. This comment from the judge in the WSJ coverage[1] of Cisco ""It is enough for now to determine that Innovatio at least has a plausible argument that its infringement claims are still viable," wrote Judge Holderman. The "licensing campaign is therefore not a sham," he said." So did Innovatio include the patent numbers? I have read in other cases that legal test for extortion was "cred…

Could I talk you into sharing that list?

I have been thinking I should be more proactive with my congresscritters. It seems I am always sending reactive messages.

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#37

Post by mitchellhislop »

danielpal wrote: post #3

Can anyone explain if it's possible for this patents to just go from one company to another? Like what's is stopping IP Nav and Parallel Iron from just creating a new corporation and transferring their IP if Rackspace succeeds in this lawsuit? Seems like they can just start shell companies in order to avoid being counter-sued.

Rackspace's goal is to kill the patents. The people can move on, but the would need new IP.

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#38

Post by rayiner »

notahacker wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #4

> In actuality, it is a bit more complicated. Our dealings with this particular troll reach back to December 2010 when IP Navigation Group (IP Nav), as agent for a supposedly secret patent owner, now known as Parallel Iron, accused Rackspace of patent infringement. IP Nav told us that they could not divulge the details of their infringement claims – not even the patent numbers or the patent owner – unless we entered…

I can't understand why anyone would sign away their right to counter-sue in order to obtain information on something which can't possibly damage them until the information is disclosed anyway (IANAL)

It might be the plaintiffs way of identifying targets that don't have the will or money to litigate. A larger company isn't going to sign one of these--it doesn't buy you barely anything.

Re: Why Rackspace Is Suing The Most Notorious Patent Troll In America

#39

Post by A1kmm »

I'd love to see a patent troll lose a case, but their breach of contract case seems a bit weak (without seeing the actual contract, since they didn't include 'Exhibit B' in the PDF).

As I understand it:

* Parallel Iron owns IPNav.

* IPNav and Rackspace signed a contract saying that IPNav won't sue Rackspace without giving 30 days notice first.

* Parallel Iron sues Rackspace without giving notice first.

* Rackspace sues Parallel Iron and IPNav for breach of contract.

But IPNav and Parallel Iron are separate legal entities, and so unless Rackspace can argue that they can 'pierce the corporate veil' (which might be difficult if they followed appropriate standards to separate the companies, which I presume lawyer heavy patent trolls would be careful to do) and treat them as the same legal entity, IPNav isn't responsible for Parallel Iron filing the suit, and Parallel Iron isn't subject to the contract entered into by IPNav.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Post reply on HN