Newegg Defeats Alcatel-Lucent in Third Patent Win This Year 143
Newegg's policy of not backing down from patent trolls, even ones as large as Alcatel-Lucent, continues to result in victory. Earlier this year, Overstock and Newegg successfully defended themselves with a jury invalidating Alcatel-Lucent's main patent used to force companies as large as Amazon to settle. Naturally, Alcatel-Lucent appealed, but the appeals court quickly ruled in favor of Newegg and Overstock.com. From Ars: "Federal Circuit judges typically take months, and occasionally years, to review the patent appeals that come before them. Briefs in this case were submitted last year, and oral arguments were held last Friday, May 10. The three-judge panel upheld Newegg's win (PDF), without comment — in just three days. ... Alcatel-Lucent dropped the case over its other two patents, desperate to get back the '131 patent that Newegg and Overstock had killed at trial. 'If they had been able to revive this patent, the litigation machine would have continued on,' Reines told Reuters after the win."
A simple summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of the patent(s) at hand would have been nice...
Re:A simple summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah I'm an idiot and didn't see that there :p
Patent office should have to pay legal fees (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent office should have to pay the legal fees of the winning side every time a patent is defeated in court.
The patent office are the gate keepers. They are currently enabling all the patent shakedowns.
For proper control every system needs proper negative feedback. If the patent office gets money for granting patents and does not lose money for granting bogus patents they are going to grant everything under the sun to encourage more applications and more incoming money.
Only by penalizing the patent office for improper patent granting will there be a proper measure of control.
Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Lesson from primary school (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to deal with a playground bully is to punch him in the face. Even if he has his buddies with him. Even if you'll get disciplined by the school. You do that a few times, and no one will mess with you.
The same principle applies to patent trolls: Always fight if you can at all manage it.
Newegg is no mom 'n' pop. (Score:5, Insightful)
Newegg might be smaller than Lucent, but they are still not a Mon 'n' Pop. I know that in the corporate mind anything under a thousand employees is "small business" but, face it, Newegg is not small business.
The real tragedy with patent trolls is that the *real* small business can not fight them. They can shut down a business writing innovative software with 2-3 employees just like that.
Good for Newegg, but treating it like a David vs. Goliath win is not too smart.
Re:Fuck Yeah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. I was a contractor there during the dot-com bust. Watched their stock drop like a stone overnight. For the company that essentially invented cellular service, the company that managed to build a global telecommunications infrastructure, and invent Unix and C on the side - it was truly sad to see what the corporate raiders did to them.
Re:Good show, NewEgg! (Score:2, Insightful)
In many cases, patent trolls set the price below the cost of a trial, so businesses settle. It's all about numbers.
"And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."
-- Rudyard Kipling
Re:too bad its not precedential (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not a 'legal' precedent, but most certainly a 'social' precedent.
It tells everyone that the trolls can be taken down. Notice how the trolls are backing off of Newegg. The trolls know Newegg will fight back. The trolls know that Newegg will take out their best moneymakers. Better to go pick on somebody that won't put up a fight. Well, when the rest of the playground sees that the bully will back down if you punch him in the nose, the bully's control is greatly curtailed.
Re:too bad its not precedential (Score:5, Insightful)
i wanted to scan the opinion, but there is none. and the decision says nonprecedential.
not a lawyer but it seems this decision cannot set a legal precedent for future cases
There was no precedent to be set here. Basically, the appeal was Alcatel trying to get its favorite patent un-invalidated, and the the judges looked at the case and are basically telling Alcatel "There's nothing wrong with the lower court's decisions - it stays invalidated. Now go away and quit bothering us".
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
A patent should require a physical object. Yes that means method and software patents die instantly, which is a very good thing.
Re:Force (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, their view is somewhat more long-sighted than that. "We know settling this one patent would be cheaper than fighting, but settling would encourage a flood of other patent trolls to try and that would be more expensive."
Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but this is probably the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. The do realize the US patent office is a part of the federal government, right? You further realize that the federal government's sole source of revenue is taxes, correct? Do you realize that you are espousing that we, as the taxpayers, pay the litigation costs for a company winning a patent battle against a bogus patent?
Re:Patent office should have to pay legal fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not only the patent office, but both the company that filed or bought the patent should get to pay. Not just the legal fees, but a penalty on top. That should make people consider more carefully when they buy or file a patent.
Forget fining the patent office -- all that will do is reduce the funding available for patent examiners to do their jobs causing the reverse effect of letting more bad patents slip through. But a fine on the patent holder for certain kinds of invalidations sounds good to me. It is my understanding that it is the patent filer's responsibility to seek out prior art as part of the application process. If a patent is invalidated for what is essentially failure to follow the filing process correctly then I think a big fine is appropriate.
What we do not want is to turn the system into one where a big company can simply out-lawyer a small patent holder and then add insult to injury by forcing them to pay a fine too. That increased risk would discourage little guys with validly patentable inventions from filing in the first place (or force them to settle out of the court on poor terms).
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
And since the US has set themselves up to be an economy highly dependent on patents and copyright, I seriously doubt you'll see these patents repealed.
The people lobbying for expanded IP rights don't want patents lessened, and they're not going to allow the politicians to take away their meal ticket.
When Microsoft makes more revenue from Android licenses (for patents I'm not convinced they've ever disclosed) than they do on their own OS, nobody is going to allow patents to stop being so widespread.
At this point, all of the "too big to fail" companies are so dependent on this as to make it inseparable from their core business.