Doubleclick Cofounder Responds to Patent Troll by Filing Extortion Lawsuit 225
A new submitter writes with news that someone other than newegg is fighting back against patent trolls, despite the business case for settling. This time, however, one of the founders of the Doubleclick ad network has decided to use his personal money to not only fight a patent troll attacking his new startup, but to strike back at them under the RICO act. "'There's a lot of outrageous stories, but everyone's so damn afraid of coming forward — It's like going against the Mafia,' he [Kevin O'Connor] said. But the idea that trolls may retaliate against those who speak out is overblown, he thinks. 'If they want to try to teach me a lesson, go for it. This will be my retirement. I'll fight them.' The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately, apologized, and gave financial compensation to the troll. The offer was 'good until close of business that day.'"
Go After the Lawyers also (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone needs to not only go after the trolls, but go after the law license of the Attorneys representing them as well. Get a couple of lawyers disbarred and watch the lawsuits end!
Re: I have mixed feelings about this. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's apparent that the whole patent system is in dire need of an overhaul. The question is who will finally step up in the government to fix this mess.. It's something I hear of almost daily (patent trolls killing off innovation and screwing people out of money).
The double-click ads never land on my systems. I use a hosts file to block their stuff along with other ads. I did some searching around and found a few places which provide hots files which you can use on your computers. Here's a great site which maintains a hosts file which you can use in your computers.. http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
Ummmmmm..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yay Doubleclick?
The court system is as bad as the trolls, (Score:5, Interesting)
So folks are hesitant to fight because a court ruling in favor of the Trolls would set precedence.
There is also the resources consumed in a protracted fight coupled with the above that makes it seem kinda suicidal.
On the other hand one good win could loose the flood waters and lead to some kind of reform.
I just don't see that happening as too many are making bank on the status quo.
Trolls vs mafiosi (Score:5, Interesting)
'It's like going against the Mafia,' [Kevin O'Connor] said.
The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges
It's telling that they object to being called patent trolls, but are ok with being compared to the Mafia :)
Strong Arm Tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
This will get the lawyer sanctioned (Score:5, Interesting)
Threatening criminal charges to gain the upper hand in a civil case is against the rules of ethics for attorneys. Every state has its own flavor of rules but they are derived from the ABA model rules.
Mr. O'Connor should immediately file a complaint with the (every) state bar in which this attorney is licensed.
Extortion and barratry are not legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities.
Extortion [wikipedia.org] is not a "completely legal activity". Furthermore neither is barratry [wikipedia.org] and racketeering [wikipedia.org], both of which arguably apply in the case of patent trolls.
Extortion isn't legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Except patent trolls aren't actually committing crimes, and therefore aren't criminal.
That is VERY debatable. In many cases they arguably are committing one or more of: extortion, barratry and/or racketeering. In many/most cases they are simply creating nuisance lawsuits in the hopes of coercing a settlement without any actual time in court. What they are doing is functionally the equivalent of some thug going into a retail store and saying "nice store - shame if anything bad would happen to it". Technically saying that is legal but in reality they are committing a crime. Patent trolls are really no different.
Re: I don't like Ad companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that seems to be something that O'Connor disagrees with.
Based on wikipedia's defintion, "A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist." I think he might have a point.
Of course the legalities are probably more complicated than this, but from my layman's perspective I'd say he has a good chance.
Re:Strong Arm Tactic (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't like Ad companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Patents are a way of earning back your investment
You made a whole bunch of assumptions with that start. If the patent isn't for something obvious, perhaps so obvious that no investment at all was required to develop it, and if it wasn't actually someone else's invention and investment for which the patent holder did not pay, and if it doesn't cover something that shouldn't be patentable at all, such as a mathematical formula or other fact of nature, and if the patent isn't overly broad, and if there isn't prior art, then perhaps "earning back your investment" is a fair statement.
In that way the system works
Fantasy. The patent system isn't working as intended. It simply has too many built in incorrect assumptions about the processes by which inventions are created. The mythical lone genius inventor toiling away in a garage in obscurity is just one of the figures distorted and caricatured by powerful interests that think stronger patent law is to their advantage.
The whole legal process is the problem
Yes, that is certainly a big part of the problem. The legal profession has a vested interest in opposing any reforms that clean the system up and lead to fewer lawsuits and less work for them. They encouraged the patent office to go ahead with the idea of kicking the can down the road. Instead of the patent office doing their job of screening out the obvious and overly broad, they grant the patent, collect the fees, and let the courts and lawyers figure out later whether the patent is valid or applicable. They're also happy to ally themselves with any tech firms that think that patents, while costly, are still worth having for such purposes as litigating small competitors into the ground. In short, these big tech companies think monopolies are worth having so long as it is they who have the monopolies.
Re:Extortion isn't legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure this is always the case, even with e.g. Prenda Law [wikipedia.org]?
:-(
I miss Groklaw
Those kinds of patent laws used to exist (Score:5, Interesting)
Curiously enough, some of the points made by 'anon' in the parent post here used to be part of some patent law systems in really ancient times (like 16th-18th centuries), but they were one by one abandoned, by court decisions or legislative amendments:
>> 1) Patent times are FAR too long in many cases and should not be renewable.
An early example of a time limit, fixed in 1623 in England, was 14 years from a really early time-point when patent grant took place -- which used to be almost immediately on application (compared with today's long process).
>> 2) Minor minor changes to the original patent should not result in a new patent.
One of the very early judges (even 16th century) said that small improvements were only like "a new button on an old coat" and refused to uphold the patent, setting a precedent that lasted a couple hundred years till overturned.
>> 3) Patents should only be issues where there is an actual product ... not a process.
Definition of invention used to be 'manner of new manufacture' in several countries, but that's gone now pretty much everywhere.
>> 4) Software falls under copyright and trademark laws and therefore patents do not apply.
The old definition (see 3) automatically excluded this kind of thing from patenting.
>> 5) If you have not created and sold a product to the public using said patent within 2 years of filing then you loose ALL rights to it.
For many decades (during the 19th & 20th c. in many countries, but not including US, I think) the patentee's failure to make & sell the invention used to be called an 'abuse of monopoly', it enabled others to claim the grant of (royalty-bearing) licenses by right, and it could also expose the patent to a risk of cancellation. So there was a way to achieve no exclusion from a patented invention if the patent holder wasn't doing anything about it.
it's of interest to ask 'who lobbied' for all of the changes that got rid of these old safeguards.
-wb-