Bill Would Force Patent Trolls To Pay Defendants' Legal Bills 167
First time accepted submitter TrueSatan writes "With support from the EFF's Defend Freedom Project two Republican congressmen seek to introduce a bill called the 'Shield Act' which, if passed, would enable judges to award costs to defendants if they are found to be the victims of frivolous patent litigation. From the article: 'A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives attempts to deter frivolous patent litigation by forcing unsuccessful patent plaintiffs to cover defendants' legal costs. Introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act is limited to patents related to computer hardware and software.'"
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Much as I'd like to believe that this is the result of politicians actually having a good idea, I suspect it's nothing but a negotiation ploy because they want bigger payments from corporations who draw a large revenue stream from the questionable use of patents.
Re:Does this include Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google, on the other hand, will be on hot waters especially with the recent purchase of Motorola Mobility.
Er, this isn't a retroactive bill ... not to mention legal costs (while big numbers to us) don't mean a whole lot to a company like Google. $40 million in lawyer fees? Drop in the bucket.
Google posted around $2.7 billion in profits for Q4 of 2011, so let's figure they make around $10 billion in profits per year.
$40 million out of $10 billion in profit is like Joe Average taking home $50,000/yr and spending $200 on lawyer fees. (An imperfect analogy, but it shows how little Google's profit margin is hurt by lawyer fees.)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Interesting)
You do know that the retina display in the iPhone is designed an manufactured by Samsung, right? The only "innovative" thing Apple did was to lock the supply chain by buying every single one of them, making them unavailable for anyone else until manufacturing capacity ramped up.
not enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Heh, the bill isn't bad (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason it's unnecessary is that the law already allows the judge to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs and attorney fees if he determines that the lawsuit was frivolous. This law, like many others, is a purely political move with no purpose but to create redundant legislation. The problem is that redundancy in the law can actually create ambiguity in its meaning. Neither patent trolls nor their victims will actually be affected by this one, except that the lawyers on both sides will get to play with the law's meaning more and, of course, bill for it.
Re:Does this include Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, let's not forget the scale. If $40 million buys billions (let's say 2 billion), then $200 buys $10,000. That could be a simple matter of taking the mayor for a good meal and discussing a zoning issue, or a vending permit.
Ahem (Score:4, Interesting)
...did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding, the court may award the recovery of full costs to the prevailing party, including reasonable attorney’s fees, other than the United States...
All this bill does is give judges the ability to required the loser to pay up. The legal definition and use of the word MAY is very important. MAY gives the judge discretion, SHALL does not. IANALBMWIAPL and she says this effectively does nothing other then give a judge the same ability to require one side to pay up without having to dismiss the case with prejudice. Nothing more then giving the judge more tools to punish trolls.
I have a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
"Bill would force patent trolls *and their attorneys* to pay defendants' legal bills"
Re:Please FIX the system dont PATCH it (Score:3, Interesting)
In the UK, where allocation of costs against losing litigants is common, there is a concept of constructive support. If a body can be shown to have been funding an action, then they can become liable for costs laid against the litigant they were funding. Precisely to avoid this sort of blocking. Obviously, the support has to be shown to the court's satisfaction, but that is usually straightforward.