Judge Orders Patent Troll To Explain Its 'Mr. Sham' To Jury 117
netbuzz writes "Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has no problem calling Network Protection Sciences (NPS) a patent troll. What he does have a problem with is NPS telling a Texas court that NPS had an 'ongoing business concern' in that state run by a 'director of business development' when all it really had was a rented file-cabinet room and the 'director' was actually the building landlord who merely signed legal papers when NPS told him to do so. Judge Alsup calls the alleged business a 'sham' and the non-employee 'Mr. Sham,' yet he declined to dismiss the patent infringement lawsuit filed by NPS against Fortinet from which this information emerged. Instead, he told NPS, 'this jury is going to hear all of this stuff about the closet. And you're going to have to explain why "Mr. Sham" was signing these documents.'"
Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad there were not any judges like this overseeing the mortgage sham bubble.
Yeah, like Judge Roy Bean, the law west of the Pecos.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Informative)
The wiki suggests you need to learn the difference between Hollywood and history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
...learn the difference between Hollywood and history...
Why should he? He's American!
Re: (Score:3)
wow, what a piece of work. Truth is almost as insane and disgusting as the legend... when challeneged to a shooting match, the implication being over a woman, he wanted to make it a duel? Plus:
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you kidding? The banks are a full on mafia operation, like the Borgias in the Vatican (original storyline for The Godfather), absolutely untouchable. Cross them, and you won't see the next sunrise. This guy is a flea, like Bernie Madoff.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not hte original story for the godfather.
The Godfather is a movie, based on a book, based on another movie.
"Paramount Pictures released the film The Brotherhood starring Kirk Douglas as a mafia don. While it was a financial flop, Paramount's production chief Robert Evans commissioned Mario Puzo to finish a novel with similar themes and plot elements, and bought the screen rights. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, The Godfather became a huge success [...]"
Give them the Mongol treatment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I could buy that judge a beer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wish I could buy that judge a beer (Score:5, Insightful)
William Alsup deserves a medal for finally pushing those trolls a little. Too long have they been getting away with venue shopping and the abusive use of threats to sue. Time to sit back and watch the fireworks...
When this becomes the de facto standard on manhandling shell company tactics like this in a courtroom, complete with prior case law to ensure it, then I'll break out the bubbly.
Until then, don't even consider this to garner the masses attention span for longer than the usual 17 seconds they give it. And we will still watch multi-billionaires get away with financial murder, laughing all the way to the bank with their government subsidized too-big-to-fail bonus checks, not giving two fucks about anyone they leave in their wake.
Re:Wish I could buy that judge a beer (Score:4, Insightful)
However consider if you were on the Jury. Would you want to stick around another week or month to listen to this stuff, without being paid, just so that the judge can teach the guy a lesson?
Re:Wish I could buy that judge a beer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wish I could buy that judge a beer (Score:5, Funny)
Did you happen to visit a loveli lake in Sweden circa 1975 and do you have a brother?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But from a link from a link in TFA : make trolls pay http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1& [nytimes.com] . "This particular judge is trying to do it" would be a fair assumption
Unfortunately I can not be in a jury like this one : I'm not a US citizen. I'm Canadian and if there is ever something like this her I'd ask the same question and I'd be happy to.
Re: (Score:2)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok guy....I can't do it anymore....
bwahahahahahahhahahahaha
It was a Monty Python joke. You earned that whooosh
Re: (Score:2)
(I don't know anything about Monty Python)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're going to be on a jury, you might as well get to do some justice.
Re: (Score:3)
If you DID want to, would you even make it past voir dire?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how important this is, YES!I would listen, openly and honestly, then vote to hang the guy. :P
Seriously though, I'd serve on that jury gladly and do my best to be fair and decide based on issues of law and evidence presented, not my own preconceptions.
Of course, it's easy for me to say - I'm a geek, this is important, and my company has a pretty good jury duty policy.
Re: (Score:2)
However the choice is the jury really has is not that important, a jury deciding against the patent troll ultimately gives the same result as having the judge dismiss the case. The only reason the judge appears to be doing this is to get more statements on the record that could be used as evidence in an appeal.
Re:Go Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go Judge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go Judge (Score:4)
And the lawyer representing NPS will be lucky if he isn't disbarred.
I like the world you describe and would like to know how to get there. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See: Prenda Law.
That's a good one. Is it not the exception that proves the rule?
California judges have been laying the smack down on patent trolls recently.
Are there others?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it isn't. Filing a patent infringement lawsuit on a patent you don't own is very much not legal, which is why they tried so hard to hide that fact. So no, they likely won't get money. And the lawyer representing NPS will be lucky if he isn't disbarred.
If you read the judge's order, the ownership issue isn't so cut and dried, which is why he denied Fortinet's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Specifically, MPH signed a contract assigning the patent to NPS on day X. NPS filed suit on day Y. NPS signed the contract on day Z. Under Texas contract law, the contract need not be signed by NPS if there's mutual assent of the parties. This is actually a common provision - in many states, contracts only need to be signed by the person the contract is going t
Re: (Score:2)
But the judge can also tell the jury the reason for explaining Mr. Sham is for them to determine if NPS really has "an ongoing concern" in the Eastern District of Texas.
If not, then the case is closed - the court has no jurisdiction as NPS is not properly located there.
The jury has to make the decision to see if the case is even valid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be awfully tough for the judge not to punctuate his instructions to the jury with the occasional "Bwahahahah!", because the patent trolls are so far over the line they're going to get stomped.
Re:Go Judge (Score:4, Funny)
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
We've heard from Judge Alsup before (Score:5, Informative)
He was also the trial judge in Oracle v. Google.
I think I like the guy.
Re:We've heard from Judge Alsup before (Score:5, Informative)
He's the guy who pointed out the he could write rangeCheck, and that he'd have written it identically.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope once this trial concludes we can get an Ask Slashdot with him.
Lessons learned. (Score:5, Funny)
... when all it really had was a rented file-cabinet room and the 'director' was actually the building landlord ...
Don't cheap out on the props for your cover story.
Mr Sham was signing the documents (Score:3, Funny)
because Miss Swindle was stuck in meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
And Mrs. Sham was out shopping with friends.
Re:Mr Sham was signing the documents (Score:5, Funny)
And Mrs. Sham was out shopping with friends.
Really? Mrs. Sham? Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Mrs. Sham? Wow.
Vince has a wife?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod me down some more, stupid 4channers. God damned mod bombing sons of bitches, you idiots can't hurt my karma. Mod away, imbeciles. And when you fail, GET THE FUCK OFF SLASHDOT AND GO BACK TO YOUR GARBAGE DUMP (the one under your bridge). Dickweeds.
Yes, I'm drunk and pissed off at you fucking retards. Flamebait? Troll? Fuck off. 4channers suck, I hate all you asshole 4channers.
Yes, this comment is flamebait. Well, no, your modding a good comment down baited my flames. Slashdot editors, please stop giving
Re: (Score:3)
I take it your only dictionary is the 4chan dictionary? How do you morons spell "Idiot"?
Yes, I'm pissed about the mod bombing, even though you 4chan morons can't hurt me. All you can do is annoy me, and then only when I'm drunk and don't have any weed.
I was going to post another chapter but since I'm drunk I'm posting an anti-4chan JE. REAL slashdotters, help me out here. How can we rid slashtot of the 4chan trolls? They got mod points today. What pisses me off is I haven't had any in a year, but the uneduc
Anyone find the audio (Score:2)
I would like to listen to the audio. It must be very interesting. Anyone has a link?
WHY? (Score:2)
Mark my words, he'll come back around here asking for cheezburgers any minute now. DO NOT FEED STRAYS!
Mr. Sham is called to the stand (Score:2, Funny)
For the record, please state your name. "Sam T. Sham". Now, Mr. Sham, can you explain why you signed those documents? Yes, your honor A " Wooly Bully [wikipedia.org] made me do it".
Re:Is this Judge Judy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You're right, that show typically plays when the working class is at work so it's not something I would willingly go out of my way to watch on a day off. But nevertheless, Judge William Alsup needs to keep doing what he's doing because he's becoming a legend already and we need legends in the battle against software patents and patent trolls.
Re: (Score:1)
I second that emotion.
Re:Is this Judge Judy? (Score:5, Informative)
She's not a "Judge," or at least not any more. She's an arbiter/celebrity. The "trials" on that show aren't real trials, they're arbitration with a contractual agreement not to pursue further arbitration elsewhere.
And, yes, she can be extremely biased and unprofessional. It's easy to do when you stack the "docket" with the worst human scum you can find.
/mourn Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the concern was that NSA was reading private e-mail that was not posted and was not public in any way.
Re: (Score:1)
No, the concern was that NSA was reading private e-mail that was not posted and was not public in any way.
How does that concern keep one from running a blog?
If I was 100% certain I was being actively investigated by the feds, I would still run a blog.
If I was 100% certain I was not being actively investigated but my communications could possibly wind up collected by some state's intelligence operations, well why should I give a fuck? I would still run the blog.
I've got plenty to hide, just nothing a state would have any concern about. I'm not violating any federal laws, and If I was, the issue is with the law
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, SHE has standing against the NSA. *SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE WHO REGULARLY USED GROKLAW, ESPECIALLY PROFESSIONALLY*, or am I wrong? Weren't we all concerned that there was nobody who the courts would determine had standing, who could sue the NSA for their abuses and continual violation of the US constitution?
Re: (Score:1)
It's cases like this that make me miss Groklaw even more. They'd have someone there in the court to report on all this, and explain the legal shenanigans going on, with links to prior cases of the people involved trying the same thing, and probably how Microsoft is funding them!
My Kingdom for mod points! (not saying that that I actually HAVE a Kingdom).
Re: (Score:1)
Groklaw was always filled with opinions. In the beginning it was simple because everyone hated MS and there proxies. But when Apple showed its true colors, that's when things got messy. People love for the products overrode their disdain for Apples douche-bag corporate behavior and for some it didn't.
Should have dismissed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you were paying the legal bills (easily more than $20k per month and $100-200k for the actual trial), you really want bogus claims or the entire lawsuit dismissed. Even if you win, you probably won't recover your legal fees and nothing for your time. I've been there.
This is true, but... IANAL.... if the trial goes through and the defendant wins, doesn't that help set a precedent?
Re: (Score:2)
Precedents only count when they are in favor of the side with money. In most cases the poor sap getting sued doesn't have any access to prior cases and will just settle via mail to avoid the scary court time. It's ironic that it doesn't matter if they lose every case, that they are still very profitable. These guys ruin their law careers but likely make tens of millions in the process. You may call this case "when the troll finally gets his" but he likely sees it as "time to cash out"
Re: (Score:2)
BZZZT WRONG!
Precedent is only set at the appeal level, not after the initial trial. So, if the troll wins the first trial, then loses on the appeal, precedent against patent trolls would be set. If the troll loses now, and continues to lose every appeal, there would still be no precedent. It is only set when a verdict is overturned.
Not to say that the ruling can't be cited and referenced in other court cases, but just that it does not become binding like a precedent is. And besides, a precedent is only bind
Re: (Score:2)
BZZZT CLOSE!
A precedent at the appellate level can be set when a trial court's decision is affirmed. What is of most importance are the legal issues that form the basis of the appeal. This case appears to have the potential to be a significant decision on venue no matter who wins at the trial court level, providing of course there is an appeal of the venue decision.
In
Re: (Score:2)
my law knowledge only goes so far, and is mostly for contracts involved in photography. But, even though this case is at an appellate level court, it's still not an appeal case, just a case that the local court said 'forget it, you do all the work'. Probably my brain just misread the section on precedent from 'must be from an appellate level' as 'must be from an overturned appeal'. which is completely possible. I was reading only for contracts and right of publicity (limited areas affected because of certai
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. This is why I am not a lawyer. So instead of precedent, I should have said, if the troll loses, doesn't that create a ruling that can be cited and referenced in other court cases? I'm looking for a reason why the decision was made to continue with the trial, when the troll has suffered a major (and deserved) setback.
unless he made the plaintiff post bond, no money (Score:3)
That's one reason for the shell companies that patent trolls use. The company that filed suit probably has no money. A ruling that they have to pay the defendant's costs is worthless. That is unless the judge had them put up a bond for that possibility when the case began.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea - is requiring the plaintiff to post a bond common? Personally I'd be happy if it was a requirement - if you want to sue somebody you need to show that you can pay the costs if you lose.
rare, I believe (Score:3)
I believe it's pretty rare. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in court. I believe it's just when there's a decent chance you'll be ordered to pay the defendant's costs, and due to using a shell company or some other reason the costs may not be paid as ordered.
Consider this if a bond were required for all suits.
If a bond costs 10% of the face amount, and General Motors can claim they spent $10 million defending a lawsuit related to faulty brakes, that would be an extra $1 million cost before you're allowed t
Re: (Score:2)
its becoming more common for these "baseless" (my opinion) claims. Look at Prenda Law and the bonds they're being asked to stump up - strangely they want to drop the cases the moment the bonds are set but the judges are not letting them.
The bonds in the Prenda cases are of the order of $10,000, not millions and appear to be awarded only in these extreme cases where it doesn't appear that there is a 'real' plaintiff.
Prenda, yes, but that's 0.00001% (Score:2)
Prenda and eleven other assholes file a lot of baseless claims, so yeah we're seeing it in those cases. Prenda isn't common, though. On the day Prenda filed their latest baseless suit, thousands of ordinary Americans sued the guy who ran into them, felled a tree onto their house etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I should have clarified that - "sue somebody for patent infringement", I'd already considered your GM type situation.
agreed only because that's the snakeoil today (Score:2)
That could work. I could see some reasonably tough restrictions on patent suits for the next 5-10 years , long enough for the crooks to get out of that business.
I laugh at the "ban patents" or "ban patents that can involve software" people because by their logic, they would have banned medicine in the 1880s because there were snake oil salesman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The judge called NPS behaviour "litigation misconduct" and demanded that they explain why it is not to the jury. If they fail to explain or if they refuse to explain then the case will be decided as misconduct on their own actions. If it was dismissed these asshats and their lawyers would have another chance against someone else somewhere else, if the case is shown to be based on misconduct then this company and it's lawyers will be facing a much harder time in every other court action. If I was one of the
District of Eastern Texas (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure if this is widely know, but the Eastern District of Texas is horribly corrupt. All the patent trolls have an "office" there so they can sue everyone in that district. Why? Because the court system is infamously plaintiff friendly. Just about any bullshit argument you can make will fly. Doesn't matter if pretty much all cases get overturned on appeal, the plaintiffs get what they wanted: costing the defendants lots of money, forcing most all to settle. And the district gets what they wanted: lots of lawyers and experts flying in to the small towns pumping up the local economy. Those laws congress is mulling over can't get passed fast enough.
Re: (Score:1)
From what I understand, its a popular district because its one of the least overloaded district courts. Cases that elsewhere would take years can go through Eastern Texas under a year. That way, trolls can go onto their next target quicker, and with a court ruling in their favor (if it happens), other companies give up quicker. However, from the actual rulings, it seems like a patent troll case is as likely to win there as anywhere else.
Now if you want a corrupt court system, check out the circuit court
yet East Texas refused to hear this case (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet, it seems even east Texas is getting tired of seeing these same patent trolls in their courts every week.
As good as this news feels (Score:2)
it is kind of absurdly low hanging fruit. When we get a case with a judge laying the smack down on a patent troll firm abusing actual patents they own, that is run by actual lawyers with a real office, then we will have news.
But it *is* news. (Score:2)
Plead the 5th? (Score:1)
Sure. (Score:1)
And has the IRS got in on the act? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rarely seen (Score:2)
Rarely does a court decide that a company is a sham company. If this precedent were to take hold, then Google and Apple and Microsoft et al would be fucked since they have all kinds of sham companies set up in Ireland and and elsewhere to which they locate the profits from their American business activities. You can do almost anything and still not be called a "sham" corporation by a court so this must be a (good) judge who really has it in for patent trolls. May he be fruitful and multiply.