Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Encryption The Almighty Buck The Courts

Jury Finds Newegg Infringed Patent, Owes $2.3 Million 324

Posted by Soulskill
from the battle-lost-war-continues dept.
Jah-Wren Ryel sends this quote from Ars: "Newegg, an online retailer that has made a name for itself fighting the non-practicing patent holders sometimes called 'patent trolls,' sits on the losing end of a lawsuit tonight. An eight-person jury came back shortly after 7:00pm and found that the company infringed all four asserted claims of a patent owned by TQP Development, a company owned by patent enforcement expert Erich Spangenberg. The jury also found that the patent was valid, apparently rejecting arguments by famed cryptographer Whitfield Diffie. Diffie took the stand on Friday to argue on behalf of Newegg and against the patent. In total, the jury ordered Newegg to pay $2.3 million, a bit less than half of the $5.1 million TQP's damage expert suggested. ... TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jury Finds Newegg Infringed Patent, Owes $2.3 Million

Comments Filter:
  • Good advertising? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:10PM (#45530425)

    Hopefully this turns out to be good advertising for NewEgg - I know I'll be making my next computer purchase from them to help support them in fighting a patent troll.

    • by Chameleon Man (1304729) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:19PM (#45530555)
      Is there anywhere else you should buy computer parts from? Their hardware all seems to be competitively price, and their customer service is outstanding. My buddy bought a mouse at Best Buy that didn't work. When they didn't take it back, Newegg did and gave them a full refund.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cdl (902729)
        Ahh - did your friend tell Newegg that the mouse was bought at Best Buy? If so, props to Newegg for helping your friend out. If not, I think that's called fraud (and no props to your friend).
      • by hawguy (1600213)

        Is there anywhere else you should buy computer parts from? Their hardware all seems to be competitively price, and their customer service is outstanding. My buddy bought a mouse at Best Buy that didn't work. When they didn't take it back, Newegg did and gave them a full refund.

        Lately, I've found that Amazon usually meets or beats Newegg's pricing for most things I buy, with free 2 day shipping (for Prime members). Even when NewEgg does offer free shipping, it's their "Standard 5 -7 days shipping" - I don't purchase enough things that Newegg carries to make it worth signing up for their $79/year "Shoprunner" service that provides 2 day shipping on many items.

        • Re:Good advertising? (Score:4, Informative)

          by keytoe (91531) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:30PM (#45530701) Homepage

          Lately, I've found that Amazon usually meets or beats Newegg's pricing for most things I buy, with free 2 day shipping (for Prime members).

          This was when I stopped using Newegg as well - the moment my wife signed us up for prime. We actually did it for the video and kindle, but once you experience free shipping like that it's pretty hard to accept anything else.

          Add in that they allow me to pay using my Discover card rewards right at checkout and it's a dangerous combo.

          Well played, Amazon.

          • Don't forget cheap as dirt next day shipping, for the things I have used it on so far, being a prime member takes 1 day shipping from $14+ to like $1-3.

            When taking that into account the prime membership pays for itself after a few purchases, plus you get your stuff quite a bit faster. Oh yeah, and you get free video services to boot.

          • by pspahn (1175617) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @05:48PM (#45531673)

            So we have an article that talks about a company "sticking it to the man" (even if they lost) and then we have some /. locals come on to talk about how great "the man" is (Amazon) because their size allows them to offer slightly cheaper prices on stuff.

            It's a bit like seeing a live performance of "Run Like Hell" and everyone in the audience is clapping because Waters said you should.

            And people thought WalMart put a lot of Mom & Pops out of business.

          • by sstamps (39313)

            Funny this should come up in a topic about patent trolls.

            Amazon is no stranger to patent trolls, since it also is a patent troll. One-click shopping, anyone?

            I have never bought ANYthing from Amazon, and NEVER will. While I won't go all over-the-top Scott Adams on Amazon customers and wish them die a slow, painful death, I most certainly am happy to wish it on Amazon as a corporation. Though not a slow death; a quick one. The sooner, the better.

            It is the epitome of irony that consumerism ultimately funds it

            • by Enry (630) <enry.wayga@net> on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @06:07PM (#45531889) Journal

              I'd argue that there's a difference between Amazon and a true patent troll.

              Trolls usually don't use the patent they own and use it solely as an investment tool.

              Whatever you think of Amazon, they use the patents they hold. Maybe they enforce it, maybe they use it as leverage in case a competitor sues them (IBM, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, etc. all do this as well.).

              That's not to say the one-click patent is valid or not, but I don't think I'd call Bezos a troll for patenting the idea.

          • Re:Good advertising? (Score:5, Informative)

            by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @07:43PM (#45532985) Homepage

            I assume you do this after you used Newegg to search for the item. Because Amazon's search engine doesn't have 1% of the power that Newegg's has. I can't go to Amazon and find out which video cards use a 4-pin power connector versus a 6-pin. Stuff like that is what makes newegg awesome.

        • by stdarg (456557)

          I've started comparing prices for each component at both sites.

          Also check out camelcamelcamel.com and camelegg.com. Now we just need a site where you enter your build and it puts together order lists from newegg and amazon to optimize for price. Ideally it would also search for near substitutes (different brands of value ram for instance) and build your shopping cart for you.

        • by jonnythan (79727)

          Yup. I browse NewEgg because their products are meticulously tagged and organized, and their reviewers are by and large much more knowledgeable than those on Amazon.

          But I almost always buy on Amazon. Because of Prime.

          • by lgw (121541)

            I don't care about the shipping cost, but I've found that Amazon often has better packaging. Newegg is awesome about returns for damaged goods, but still: better extra padding in the first place.

            • go read up on newegg's own reviews about disk drives.

              more and more, they are denying your return for bogus reasons. read up and you'll see.

              • by lgw (121541) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @07:37PM (#45532929) Journal

                Well, I'm generally extremely skeptical of such claims in reviews, since people are generally idiots and don't understand why claims are refused to begin with. BUt for sure the rate of complaints about "drive was shipped with no padding, arrived broken" are on the rise at Newegg. It's to bad too, as no good can come of Amazon having an effective monopoly over any product space.

        • by larry bagina (561269) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:48PM (#45530941) Journal

          NewEgg stands up to patent trolls.

          Amazon... well, one-click.

          • by KingSkippus (799657) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @05:20PM (#45531365) Homepage Journal

            NewEgg stands up to patent trolls.

            Amazon... well, one-click.

            This. Exactly. I'd rather pay Newegg a few bucks more knowing that those bucks will be spent fighting patent trolls than saving a few bucks at Amazon knowing that the reason they're able to offer prices a few bucks lower is because they sued some other company out of existence for having the audacity to put a button on their web page that charges your credit card and checks you out in one action.

        • Yeah but Amazon charges sales tax in my state and Newegg still doesn't. Plus you can get an indefinite free trial of Shoprunner if you dig around the internet hard enough.
        • their 'ultra cheap' shipping is also a joke. it comes via UPS for the main leg and then usps via the last mile. takes twice as long and saves, what, a dollar? sheesh. what a waste.

      • by Villain (19081)

        I hope their RMA department has stopped intentionally bending pins in the CPU socket to avoid having to replace the boards for their customers. I'll never buy from them again.
        http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1694667 [hardforum.com]

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sometimes Amazon has stuff for like 4 dollars less, but their prices are different at different times of the day and sometimes (rarely) even when browsing their site with different browsers. Really, it's trust; I trust Newegg, I don't trust Amazon.

      • fyi, do not EVER buy an 'open box' item from newegg.

        you may think it goes thru some kind of sanity checking or testing but they DO NOT TEST. NOT EVER.

        I got a bad ssd (someone must have done their own, (cough) testing of the ssd before returning it) and I got stuck with this dud. when I complained newegg told me they never test customer returns. I was shocked! and they did nothing for me since it was over 30 days before I found that the ssd was worn out.

        I normally buy things from there, but this turned m

        • Did you pay with a credit card? You may be surprised what additional benefits you have with electronic items purchased with credit.

          While a bit old, it's still valid [nytimes.com]. Sorry to hear about your luck, I've been bitten by return periods (with brakes) but I ended up reselling them on my own. As far as computer components, I prefer to buy those from a walk-in retailer like Microcenter. They're right down the street from me and I prefer being able to do returns same day if th

      • by bhcompy (1877290)
        Mwave, Microcenter, and Frys all have comparative pricing. Frys has shitty service and a shitty webstore, but they often have better pricing.
      • by Khyber (864651)

        "Is there anywhere else you should buy computer parts from?"

        Pricewatch.com. Monoprice.com.

      • I was a long time Newegg customer and fan until my Black Friday laptop two years ago. They shipped me a DOA unit (which was a common issue in this model as comments after Black Friday revealed). They were reasonably quick to suggest a few basic troubleshooting items and issue an RMA. Then it went to hell. Long story short, they received my laptop then lost it. They lied to me repeatedly, blamed it on the carrier, refused to cooperate with the carrier (who was willing to cover it despite the obvious problems

    • Hopefully this turns out to be good advertising for NewEgg - I know I'll be making my next computer purchase from them to help support them in fighting a patent troll.

      Newegg follows a 'no protection money to trolls' policy generally. Plus, they ship fast and always seem to be within a few percent, plus/minus, of the going rate (aside from occasional retail loss leaders, or the 'you can get 20 USB cables for a dollar, on the slow boat from China' ebay deals). Microcenter FTW for retail; but they make a fairly compelling case for online purchases.

  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSwift (2714953) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:10PM (#45530435)
    I need to buy a new desktop anyway. Newegg, my money's coming your way.
  • Stupid judge/jury. (Score:4, Informative)

    by JustNiz (692889) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:12PM (#45530455)

    Trolls 1, good guys 0.
    Stupid judge/jury.

    At least it sounds like NewEgg will take it higher.

    • by cdl (902729) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:26PM (#45530657)
      We can fight these stupid decisions coming out of east Texas one by one, or we could be smarter about it. We can try for patent reform, but the $$ involved, they will probably find a way around that as well. How about we start a PR fund with the goal of flooding the East Texas jury pool (buy TV/Radio/Newspaper/Internet in that geography) explaining why this is bad to the people that will be sitting in the jury box. Explain that it's actually killing small, successful companies, and only enriching the trolls/lawyers who actually did nothing. Call it carpetbagging - should resonate with Texans.
    • by Scowler (667000) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:29PM (#45530699)
      Playing devil's advocate here... Why is this result some failure of the judge/jury of this case? Like it or not, this patent has previously been granted by the patent office. Jurors and judges don't get to invalidate patent claims because of some flaky idea of who is trolling who. Rather, they have to follow a more or less established legal process, regardless the side they may otherwise be rooting for. You want a "Bad Guy" for this event? Blame Congress, as current law incentivizes patent reviewers to accept questionable patent applications, and the number of years granted to these patents are too many.
      • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:32PM (#45530733) Homepage

        Playing devil's advocate here... Why is this result some failure of the judge/jury of this case?

        When the guy who invented public key encryption tells you that the basis of the patent had been around for years, that is a failure of the jury in this case.

        At this point, I think people should just be suing the USPTO for lousy patents which should never have been granted in the first place.

        • by JustNiz (692889)

          Actually I've often wondered why people dont sue the USPTO for that or something similar.
          I read somewhere that in the US if you sue the police and win, you cant get legal costs awarded too, so consequently not may people risk suing the police.
          Is it the same with any government agency? (i.e. including the USPTO?)

        • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:50PM (#45530951) Homepage Journal
          The most amazing thing is that TQP's argument against Diffie involved them finding potential prior art to show that Diffie wasn't the inventor of public key cryptography. Even if this argument succeeded, then it should have put an even bigger nail in their coffin since it would show even more prior art for the patent.

          This really was the worst kind of patent too. So I see you're doing asymmetric crypto for key transfer...but ah ha, I got a patent for asymmetric crypto for key transfer using RC4! Checkmate! Like wow, you applied the most common (at the time) algorithm to a system that kind of resembles a SSL connection, except that it's with modems and came a few years after the big Diffie-Helmann paper.

          And of course they aren't suing the people who made the SSL offload appliances that got NewEgg into trouble, they're suing all of their customers, for using the thing with the default settings. And they're calling it willful infringement because they didn't go an explicitly disable the RC4 feature to comply with a patent they knew nothing about.
          • by JustNiz (692889)

            Public Key Cryptography is just another of the many things that the US claims they invented, but was actually invented by the British and just 'better marketed' by the US.
            However as the British research was for the UK government/military it was kept secret until sometime after the conference where Diffie anounced his own research. It is terefore clear that Diffie/Helmann were acting completely independently of the British work and also announced it first.

            That said, even if he takes care to always cite the B

            • by 0racle (667029) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @05:26PM (#45531449)
              It wasn't better marketed, it was created and made available by Diffie. That 'and' is important here. The British kept it secret that they even done it until '97. This is an example of parallel invention, only in this case one side made it known he had created it and the other didn't. For creating and publicizing Diffie is correctly attributed as the co-creator of Public Key Cryptography.
          • The most amazing thing is that TQP's argument against Diffie involved them finding potential prior art to show that Diffie wasn't the inventor of public key cryptography. Even if this argument succeeded, then it should have put an even bigger nail in their coffin since it would show even more prior art for the patent.

            TQP's patent wasn't invalid over Diffie's invention alone. Rather, TQP even admits that their patent is a combination of Diffie's work and some other work by Lotus - if the two prior art* references are applied together, then the invention is obvious in light of the combination.

            But, their argument was that the Lotus work doesn't legally count, because Lotus kept it secret until after they applied for the patent.

            So, as you note, they found some earlier work before Diffie that shows that he wasn't really t

        • by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus.slash ... .com minus distr> on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @05:42PM (#45531603) Homepage Journal

          Playing devil's advocate here... Why is this result some failure of the judge/jury of this case?

          When the guy who invented public key encryption tells you that the basis of the patent had been around for years, that is a failure of the jury in this case.

          Except he didn't, and they didn't. Read page two of this article [arstechnica.com] from yesterday about his testimony.

          Basically, TQP admits that their patent is obvious in view of a combination of two references, one of which is Diffie's work, and the other of which was some work by Lotus: neither Diffie nor Lotus invented TQP's invention, but if you slap the two together in a reasonable way, they teach everything in TQP's invention, so it's obvious.

          Except, Lotus didn't publish their work until after TQP filed their application. And legally, that means it's not prior art, even though they were working on it in secret for some time. In other words, even though someone else invented what they did, it doesn't count, because that someone else kept it secret.

          So, Diffie gets on the stand and talks about his work on crypto, which was the first half of TQP's combination. On cross examination, TQP's lawyer points out that he didn't really invent it, did he? And Diffie says that someone else invented what he did, but it doesn't count, because that someone else kept it secret.

          So, it sounds like the jury was persuaded by Diffie that TQP's patent was valid.

        • by Darinbob (1142669) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @09:45PM (#45533959)

          The claims weren't really about the encryption. They admitted they did not invent RC4. The claims were about the transactional model (SSL). I still feel it's bogus though, but reading the full articles and history can help.

          The real issue may be the locale. Patent trolls love that court house. And no one in the court room was allowed to use the term "patent troll". The juries there seem to love standing up for the little guy who's being bullied by the big company. So the Newegg company and its lawyer, from the distant land of California, versus a locally based company and a lawyer from Dallas. Even the local Marshall Texas newspaper in the article saying that the trial had started took care to point out that the lawyer was from Dallas. Liberal big business California versus local home grown salt of the earth folks.

      • Jurors and judges don't get to invalidate patent claims because of some flaky idea of who is trolling who. Rather, they have to follow a more or less established legal process, regardless the side they may otherwise be rooting for. You want a "Bad Guy" for this event? Blame Congress, as current law incentivizes patent reviewers to accept questionable patent applications, and the number of years granted to these patents are too many.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org]

        If Jurors are expected to be robots helplessly putting up with all measure of insanity placed before them what is the point of having a Jury? In the real world legitimacy matters.

        You want a "Bad Guy" for this event? Blame Congress, as current law incentivizes patent reviewers to accept questionable patent applications, and the number of years granted to these patents are too many.

        I blame "we the people" for not insisting on campaign finance reform and ending "K" street.

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Hanlon's Razor should take priority. But letting patent trolls win on basic encryption technology could be something intended by the government, a first step outlawing strong encryption outside their control everywhere.
    • I'm wondering if there was any discriminatory thinking by the jury. Probably the troll's technical guy was neat and clean cut versus some hairy bearded academic sounding guy (whether well dressed or not, whether a nice guy or not, whether qualified or not). Average people have built in ideas of what qualified trustworthy 'real' business people look like. People here on /. may not like it, but regular folks do pay attention to that kind of thing and give more credence to people without the long hair and bear

  • guaranteed if Newegg is taking such a strong position vs. patent trolls, this is not over by a long shot.

    expect appeals for years to come.
  • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:15PM (#45530519)
    How can that company not be a patent troll?
    • Re:SSL? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:31PM (#45530721) Journal
      What is somewhat surprising is that Newegg had, as expert witness, Whitfield Diffie, as in 'Diffie-Hellman' Diffie. I didn't even know that it was possible to lose an assymetric-key encryption related case with him on your side, especially against nobody in particular.
      • It's a quibble, but I'm pretty sure it's symmetric. You use DH to establish a shared secret (the same on both sides). The only assymetric part of ssl is the certificates that are used to prevent man in the middle... I'd hardly call X509 ssl, just a necessary evil (or is it, convergence.io seems dead).
    • How can that company not be a patent troll?

      I don't think that there's any doubt that they are. Unfortunately, and I think most people don't really grasp this, being a patent troll in the United States is not just legal, it's extremely lucrative. That's why, while I certainly hope that Newegg eventually successfully appeals this case and continues defending against patent trolls, what we really need is better legislation to make all of this shit illegal.

  • aka Patent Troll Capital.

    Surely Newegg is going to appeal this idiocy?

  • Is it an appeal? Oh yes it is. These ass-clowns who think they have patents on the internet haven't yet faced the wrath of slashdot's anti-patent group of extremely knowledgeable and resourceful people.

    I suspect a few people here with a little time on their hands will be able to prior-art their way to having the patent completely invalidated.

    • Yes, thank goodness all of us random Internet guys will be able to immediately do what Whitfield Diffie, the inventor of cryptography, failed to do. What would the Internet do without Slashdot?
  • Something's rotten in the state of Texas.

  • Diffie was awesome (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:24PM (#45530615)

    "And how is it that you're familiar with public key encryption?"

    "I invented it."

    • by sl4shd0rk (755837)

      "I invented it."

      Not enough for the jurors, apparently.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:52PM (#45530979)

        Let's stop this jury are morons myth. The judges gives the jury a list of very specific questions to answer in these cases, taking 2-5 hours. It's not like 12 Angry Men, where people debate what they're heard and sway opinions.

        The judge controls the entire jury thought process and has clearly spent a long time crafting the question list beforehand. Being an expert at law, they have already determined the result and knew precisely how to ensure their verdict is the one reached, but they still need to go through the proletarians to reinforce his chosen result.

        I've been on jury duty in a bullshit patent suit, and despite the obvious sane result, the judge's contrived question list ensures you cannot come up with any result other than what (s)he has already determined. There is no "let's discuss this" based on what was presented. Any jury not doing so will be kicked out and the trial starts from fresh.

        The massive issue here is that this is all behind the scenes, none of it is allowed to become part of the public record, hence posting AC.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @05:16PM (#45531297)

          I've been on jury duty in a bullshit patent suit, and despite the obvious sane result, the judge's contrived question list ensures you cannot come up with any result other than what (s)he has already determined. There is no "let's discuss this" based on what was presented. Any jury not doing so will be kicked out and the trial starts from fresh.

          Meaning a Jury could stall a verdict by doing what is right and debate the issue. correct?

          • by sconeu (64226)

            Except, of course in Apple v. Samsung, where they explicitly ignored Judge Koh's instructions.

    • "I invented it."

      That only has meaning if the jury is already informed. Assuming this jury is like most, all they've got is one guy saying "I invented it" compared to the patent being disputed which essentially says the same thing about another guy.

      Maybe there was more to it, like spelling out the patents he was awarded for PKE (if there were any) or journal articles he wrote about it. That sort of thing. But if there wasn't a lot of effort put in to establish his credibility beyond his own words on the stand, then I can

      • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:56PM (#45531023) Homepage Journal
        NewEgg's lawyers spent a fair bit of time proving Diffie's claim. They had a textbook, his original paper, and he gave a very informative talk about the early days of public key crypto. I suspect what happened here is that they took TQP's argument to heart that said TQP has a piece of paper that says they own it, so the law says the must find in favor of TQP, despite whatever feelings the jurors might have on the issue.

        TQP managed to make the trial about "Did Newegg infringe on this patent?", not "Is this a bad patent that should be overturned?" In that case, the answer is probably a yes.
        • I suspect TQP's lawyers scored enough doubt with the jurors when they challenged Diffie on whether Ellis, Cocks, and Williamson invented it first (but secretly) at GCHQ. Also they went after Diffie in that he doesn't have an earned doctorate but rather honorary ones. But I wouldn't suspect from a patent troll would play nice.
    • I still have my original copy of the IEEE journal paper that I clipped in the 1970's. It stood out as a landmark paper then. About 15 years ago, I was at a technical talk and was able to get Martin Hellman to autograph it.

  • by AnalogDiehard (199128) on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:27PM (#45530673)
    Newegg lost the trial but has prevailed on appeal with past cases against patent trolls. [arstechnica.com] Newegg had budgeted its legal warchest to include appeal, so the fight ain't over yet.
    • by jandrese (485)
      It's important to remember that East Texas almost invariably sides with the NPE. That's why most of these suits are brought up in East Texas.
  • Retailers (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg

    Perhaps the retailers should make a gentleman's agreement to stop shipping to Marshall, TX.

  • I have no idea how in the world anyone with a clue can claim that this patent and SSL using RC4 have anything to do with each other. I just took at look at the linked patent and in a nutshell, what it does is have both parties switch encryption keys multiple times during a transmission by having both parties have identically configured pseudo random number generators which supply the encryption keys (this means that a limited amount of the transmission is encrypted with the same key before the key gets chan

  • by Press2ToContinue (2424598) * on Tuesday November 26, 2013 @04:50PM (#45530957)

    As a developer of original software products, I consider it impossible - just my opinion - to determine if any software I create infringes on existing patents. There are usually thousands and often tens of thousands of ideas, algorithms and design approaches in a product that would need to be checked, and patents are so wordy that the time it would take to determine if there was infringement would always far exceed the time it takes to make the product. This seems to me to pose an undue burden, and is therefore unconstitutional?

    Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

    • As a developer of original software products, I consider it impossible - just my opinion - to determine if any software I create infringes on existing patents.

      I'll make it easy for you: it does. Unless you're coding ridiculously simple, run of the mill, junior college project level software, you are violating someone's patents somewhere in your code. Will someone come kicking down your door someday? Probably not, at least, not unless you become successful enough to be worth it.

  • Annual Sales

    Approximately $2.5 billion in 2010

    http://www.newegg.com/Info/FactSheet.aspx [newegg.com]

    I'm sure this will really hurt their bottom line. lol
    I'm surprised Newegg doesn't just buy this company and fire the entire staff with extreme prejudice.

    I do a lot of business with newegg. As a hobby I run a small "custom computer" business. I basically started out building computers for my familly and friends... and then it move on to "extended family and friends" and now I do between $10k and $20k in business with them

    • It would be great if they spent an extra couple of mil and hired the mafia to off these fuckers and their families.

APL hackers do it in the quad.

Working...