A Federal Judge's Decision Could End Patent Trolling (computerworld.com) 168
"Forcing law firms to pay defendants' legal bills could undermine the business model of patent trolls," reports Computerworld. whoever57 writes: Patent trolls rely on the fact that they have no assets and, if they lose a case, they can fold the company that owned the patent and sued, thus avoiding paying any of the defendant's legal bills. However in a recent case, the judge told the winning defendant that it can claim its legal bills from the law firm. The decision is based on the plaintiff's law firm using a contract under which it would take a portion of any judgment, making it more than just counsel, but instead a partner with the plaintiff. This will likely result in law firms wanting to be paid up front, instead of offering a contingency-based fee.
The federal judge's decision "attacks the heart of the patent-troll system," according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."
The federal judge's decision "attacks the heart of the patent-troll system," according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."
Thanks EditorDave! (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent rash of clickbait on Slashdot made me expect this headline to be, "Could a Federal Judge's Decision End Patent Trolling?"
Thanks for not being a shitposting assclown. May your peers follow your example.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been around longer than EditorDave.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I scrolled down to see who did the last clickbait stupid question headline and....it was EditorDave. So now I hope my OP makes him feel guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't believe what this federal judge did to a patent troll!
Or...Patent troll was loving life till THIS happened
Or even...ZOMG KIM K NUDES
Is THAT really "pure evil"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to deny that abuse of the patent-system is wrong, but things like murdering a girl after raping her seem evil of considerably higher purity.
Re:Is THAT really "pure evil"? (Score:4, Interesting)
I kinda disagree.
A murdering rapist is a totally batshit crazy insane individual. So far off the reservation there is not even a planet in sight. No standard of behaviour can be expected from such a person. Probably cannot really comprehend what he's doing.
A patent troll however is a totally sane and calculating individual according to any textbook. However he does his actions anyways. That is pure evil.
Batshit crazy vs. pure evil.
Messed up morality (Score:2, Insightful)
A patent troll however is a totally sane and calculating individual according to any textbook. However he does his actions anyways. That is pure evil.
You seriously think patent trolls are as bad as genocide? Slavery? Premeditated murder? You need to sort out your priorities mate because if you really believe patent trolls are the worst of all evils then you have some seriously messed up notions about the world and ethics.
Re:Messed up morality (Score:5, Insightful)
How about trying to keep breast cancer tests as expensive as possible for personal profit?
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you do at work, for example, is "for personal profit". Would fewer or more women die, if the profiteer you are denouncing did not exist — and, consequently, his test was not available at any cost?
Messed up indeed...
Re:Messed up morality (Score:4, Insightful)
I think every member of a society should balance personal motives such as profit, against the greater good. Making a life-saving test extraordinarily expensive, and then pursuing anyone who develops a lower cost variant, particularly when the "test" as it were is simply identifying pre-existing and non-made-made genes, thus potentially harming thousands of people who the test's costs mean they cannot be tested cannot be justified save as a purely selfish and, dare I say it, sociopathic act. We should be doing all we can to get sociopaths out of any kind of corporate governance, not allowing them to game the system to our detriment and to their gain.
Re:Messed up morality (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem being that no one makes money in a vacuum. The "self-made man" is a fantasy. The only self-made men I can think of are mountain men who live in the woods hundreds of miles from civilization, and even the historical mountain men still came down from the hills to trade pelts for knives.
Sorry mate, the society you live in allows you to make your money, gives you the protection necessary to keep it, gives you the infrastructure necessary for its creation and accumulation, so whether you like it or not, you have an inherent debt. Liberty is not absolute, but if you feel it is, then throw off your clothes, walk out of your house, head for the nearest vast forest and see how long you last as a "self-made man".
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the reasoned riposte of the Libertarian, brought out whenever their fantasies are pulled out into the cold hard light of day.
Re: (Score:2)
You dodged the question pertinent to the discussion twice — proceeding to serenade the ridiculous, failed, and, most importantly, off-topic "You did not build that" sentiment.
And you pick at me for not arguing nicely?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't dodge any question, I reject completely the notion that there has been a human being born in the last 200,000 that was a "self-made man". Even the boy raised by wolves was raised by wolves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you did. Here is the question for the third time:
You can keep claiming this bullshit to your heart's content, but it is not germane to the point I made.
Which is, that anyone selling something for a pric
Re: (Score:2)
Since the greedy inventors were more than likely educated at a taxpayer-funded university, I'd say the basic research already existed. This test, as it were, is simply a test for a specific gene marker. It's one of the reasons these sorts of gene test patents are so bloody awful, in essence they're nothing more than someone using technology largely developed using public funds to hunt down genes which the "inventor" had no part in developing, and then using a shitty patent system to assert ownership over th
Re:Messed up morality (Score:5, Insightful)
>Everything you do at work, for example, is "for personal profit". Would fewer or more women die, if the profiteer you are denouncing did not exist — and, consequently, his test was not available at any cost?
That scenario is impossible - and your claim is disproven by history. The correct counter-example is Jonas Salk. Created a vaccine that prevented one of the most debilitating diseases in human history (a disease which has killed at least one beloved US president by the way). Did not patent it. Did not even TRY to profit from it (was very happy with his middle-class professor's salary)... gave it to the world for free, and eradicated a disease entirely.
And since myriad are not staffed by gods knowing forbidden knowledge - had they not existed other researchers WOULD without any doubt have discovered those genes too - and NOT tried to see how many women they could kill.
You know what it's called when you tell somebody "give me a crapload of money or die ?" it's called robbery and extortion. It is definitely not called "doing honest business".
Re: (Score:2)
There's also those who work to prevent making the US price of AIDS drugs cheaper by making political agreements to manipulate the price [bit.ly].
Re: (Score:2)
how about having to pay for medical care at all?
Because enslaving doctors and nurses seems like such a better solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you know this, but there is only one rich country where you have to pay for medical care.
Inaccurate (Score:2)
Re:Inaccurate (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a good idea for you to get pedantic because your comment is besides the point.
If there is a sick baby, on what basis do you deny the child care? What about a person who has worked hard all their life, gets sick, and then loses their employer sponsored heath care? Before Obamacare, they were basically left for dead. This is not an argument I'd want to take your side on.
Medicare is not free, you pay a premium and then you pay coinsurance. Go get scraped up in another country and see if they ask if you have paid the premium (have your card) or come after you for the coinsurance.
The most frequent criticism of the French system is that everyone gets everything that they want. But they pay less for their care than we do--by half. That is, at least partly, because they don't have to pay for someone to sit at a desk denying claims the first four times to make sure you really want it covered, 20 companies negotiating with each hospital on the rate for every procedure a hospital can possibly perform, and generally throwing in a middle man that offers no actual medical care. In slashdot terms, if you ran a debugger on the medical system, you would cutout the insurance company.
If you have been or had a family member who has been very sick there is a pretty good chance that you would realize that our system is far from perfect. And we pay twice what everyone else does for an imperfect system.
Why not take half off and stop making people pay for things that are not their fault?
Re: (Score:2)
However, in all known countries, the effects of disease spread through the population without regard to personal income or morality. You may want to get Aids, Ebola, bubonic plague or typhoid, etc from a random person near you. We in Europe don't.
Re: (Score:2)
These countries define their citizenship to be the elite, not everyone who lives in the country for an extended time or is born there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go so far as to argue that birth isn't a determination either.
The fourteenth amendment says that it is. It was necessary to enforce the thirteenth (ending slavery).
Re: (Score:2)
The US cannot afford to give free health care.
On the other hand, the US can't afford to not give free health care. European countries that offer it pay half what the US does, per capita, and have lower infant mortality rates. If you think infants are to blame for something or need to be taught a lesson by diving, you'll have to explain that to me in a pretty detailed way because I'm going to have a hard time following your logic.
In other news, countries with more people have more tax payers too (funny that), so the n size is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
That argument might have merit if the US's economic performance per capita was lower than other countries. As it is, the US is doing rather well, so there's no reason it couldn't deliver a universal health care system comparable to any other developed nation. Or, to put it another way, you're making a claim based on screwy metrics.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably you send an irate email to amazon every time you see "free shipping" as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a line item on your pay stub that is your payment for medical care. I, too, live in a socialist country. No one here pretends that health care is free, because we aren't stupid French shits.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you work for free? Why do you expect anyone else to?
Actual invention is useful. The nonsense that goes on in the software industry is not. There is simply no sweat equity there.
It's generally stuff that can be recreated by undergrads with no knowledge of the particulars beyond the description.
Re: (Score:2)
intellectual property is a BS term invented 20 yrs to monetize computer work in an effort to keep it when the employees left.
Re:Actual invention (Score:5, Insightful)
Aaah yes, steam engines, the number one argument against patents.
Watt gets the credit for inventing the steam engine - but he did nothing of the kind. Steam engines have been around since the ancient greeks. Getting progressively better over the centuries. By the 15th century there were more than a few steam powered mills in Britain.
What Watt did do was come up with a good mathematically concise way of measuring the amount of work a machine did, which allowed him to compare various designs for efficiency and come up with the best combination of known technologies at that time. Not a single one of the designs was his own - he merely figured out which designs for various parts were the best performing and then put them all together. Along with a wealthy financier -they then pushed steam power for trains.
Great inventions are never the work of one man or company - they are always the culmination of thousands of years of gradual improvement by thousands of people, and the INEVITABLE result of the state of human knowledge at any given time. Which is why, for any invention you wish to think off, you will find several competing claims as to who made it (besides whoever got the common credit) and generally at least 2 of them will have genuinely and independently come up with the same design without any knowledge of one another's work at teh same time.
Invention is a consequence of the collective history of all science, when the science reaches the point where an invention becomes possible it WILL happen - and it SEVERAL people will see the possibility.
So why does ONE of those people get a piece of paper saying the others aren't allowed to be rewarded for it ? Why does the government interfere with the market by giving one of those people a monopoly ?
The ostensible argument is - if you allow them to compete right away then (all) the inventors will keep the working of their products secret, which means the product could be lost when they go. This is certainly a concern - but patents are a very poor solution to that problem. Even if you do accept it, it has nothing to do with the absolutely ridiculous notion that ideas can be owned.
Re: (Score:2)
Genocide and slavery are not perpetrated by single individuals. Hitler did not personally murder 6 million jews. He actually murdered no one. His staff did. Those numerous individuals send the commands onward.
If a patent troll has a patent on a part of a drone and that drone kills a town on demand that in fact that trolls fault. The most a slaver could be guilty of is 144 the maximum that would fit in the hull of his frigate. I explained about murder already. Evil is on higher orders. The more people affect
Re:definition of purity (Score:5, Interesting)
There is another factor - which is that wealth multiplies effect. I really spend my life trying to do good to other people, to uplift people, to help people, to empower people. You know what, all I've done pales into invisibility compared to what the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has done - and I think Bill Gates is a terribly evil person, yet he has done more good in a year than I could achieve if I live to be a thousand.
Why ? Because he has far more financial resources at his disposal, which enables him to do good that affects far more people than I ever could.
But the same goes for evil. A crazy killer may poison a well, it takes a greedy corporation to poison an entire river and killed hundreds or thousands of innocent people downstream. A crazy, evil person may become a rapist killer. How many could victims can he conceivably affect ? Even the most successfull serial killers are in the low-twenties. Harold Shipman got (probably) around 300 but he was much richer than the average serial killer and his lucrative job also gave him very good cover to hide his crimes. But the vast majority don't even get to 5 - and that's serial killers (3 or more - the vast majority of potential serial killers are caught without ever becoming serial killers).
So a few tens of victims... maybe.
How many people have been killed by wall street corruption ? How many people took their own lives after a bank corruptly foreclosed on a house in a fraudulent matter ? There were millions of cases like that just in 2009, so it's inconceivable that the death toll is not at least in the thousands.
When Katrina hit New Orleans - how much worse was the outcomes made for poor people, when the insurance companies found a million reasons not to pay their claims ? Sure the insurance companies feared they'd be bankrupted... but that was their PURPOSE - that's what htose people paid them for ! The sole reason we tolerate their existence is so that, when a hurrican destroys people's homes THEY go bankrupt instead of those people. How many more died in that floodwater thanks to greed? There is overwhelming evidence that wealthy people got prioritized rescue and other advantages which ultimately made the death toll far higher than it otherwise would have been.
When the average person commits evil - it affects only a small number of people. When the extremely wealthy commit evil - thousands suffer. Their very wealth magnifies the effect of their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have statistics for the insanity defense being used in such cases? I'm afraid, it is not as common as you believe. Such criminals really are evil — not insane.
And I can offer other examples, which a patent troll, however pissed off a judge may get at them, does not come close to matching...
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, applying "insanity defense" for a criminal who does something radically against the mores (and morals) of a society is just as wrong as applying the insanity argument to someone making a technological breakthrough (luckily that's mostly left to history now) or in any way thinking radically differently from the general population. It's possible to disagree or just disregard societies' morals and laws and still be sane - that's basically one definition of a "criminal"...
It sounds awful today, but histor
Re: (Score:3)
A murdering rapist is a totally batshit crazy insane individual. So far off the reservation there is not even a planet in sight. No standard of behaviour can be expected from such a person. Probably cannot really comprehend what he's doing.
Hearing stories about the atrocities of war involving these same activities - and worse, even though that's often hard to imagine - you'd either have to conclude (possibly hundreds of) thousands of soldiers were batshit crazy insane. Otherwise maybe being perfectly sane but bereft of morals (or having their societal moral compass stripped from them by training, indoctrination, or group mentality) is the much more likely option.
Re: (Score:2)
Less violent? That's nuts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"The other just takes money, which is worse?"
Your money is obtained in exchange for your time (*).
Your time is your life.
Therefore, taking your money is taking (a part) of your life.
Theft and murder are different faces of the same die...
(*) Yes, ignoring silverspoons and welfare dependents. However their money still represents a portion of someone's life, just not their own.
Re:Is THAT really "pure evil"? (Score:5, Funny)
Hyperbole is the most heinous abomination against God that mankind has ever committed.
Re:Is THAT really "pure evil"? (Score:5, Funny)
Hyperbole is the most heinous abomination against God that mankind has ever committed.
I call BS. All generalizations are false.
Wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole is the most heinous abomination against God that mankind has ever committed.
and which god might that be?
All of them.
He's just kidding. Of course he meant both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to deny that abuse of the patent-system is wrong, but things like murdering a girl after raping her seem evil of considerably higher purity.
You're right. The fact that Wall Street execs have ruined the lives of millions and gotten away scot-free (and in fact, have gotten better off by getting 'bailed out') is better proof that "pure evil exists".
Re:Is THAT really "pure evil"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think each shows a kind of pure evil in its own way. Yes, as a matter of degrees some sociopath with a law degree who uses his intellect and education to fuck over entire industries isn't committing an act quite as evil as a psychopathic pedophile that rapes and murders a child.
Or, maybe in some cases [techdirt.com] patent trolls and murderers same degree of evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Why? A Rape/murder is an act of individual power and a show of hatred. However evil it is (and it is evil) it is still only a single individual.
A patent troll could patent something that could effect a million lives or more, leading to those deaths if its in medical, power or weapon fields. Even if it is in Computer IT, these things are more intrusive everyday and can cause deaths on a massive scale if used in a particular narrow aspect. So a million small bad events does cause a cascade
Re: (Score:2)
Chaotic evil vs. Lawful evil
Lawful evil is much greater evil because it is coldly calculated...
Re: (Score:2)
GREAT decision. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's logical, it's practical, it has no downsides I can imagine. Why can't we have more common sense judgment like this?
Here's a downside. (Score:5, Insightful)
it has no downsides I can imagine.
If generalized beyond patent trolling suits it could severely limit the ability of shallow-pocket plaintiffs to obtain legal council on a contingency fee basis to obtain redress for the torts that damaged, and perhaps impoverished, them.
The result would be that the legal system becomes accessible only to the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
it has no downsides I can imagine.
If generalized beyond patent trolling suits it could severely limit the ability of shallow-pocket plaintiffs to obtain legal council on a contingency fee basis to obtain redress for the torts that damaged, and perhaps impoverished, them.
The result would be that the legal system becomes accessible only to the rich.
It is possible, but there is no reason to expect it to go there.
The problem only arises because of an expansive view of corporations is allowing too many corporations that were designed to fail as part of their business model, thereby privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. These corporate entities are simply not businesses in the pedestrian manner of a restaurant or a tech start up. In a sense, the court is searching for a real person as a plaintiff, other than the fake person which is the corp
Re: (Score:2)
"If generalized beyond patent trolling suits it could severely limit the ability of shallow-pocket plaintiffs to obtain legal council on a contingency fee basis to obtain redress for the torts that damaged, and perhaps impoverished, them.
The result would be that the legal system becomes accessible only to the rich."
I'm not entirely sure about that.
What it will do is force the lawfirms to be a lot more picky about what cases they pick up. They'll pretty much limit themselves only to those cases which have a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In England & Wales a plaintiff (and I think in some cases the respondent/defendant) can be required to make a payment into court in various situations, one of which is to act as a bond if costs are awarded against him.
Re: (Score:2)
The article did not specify, but I don't think the district of East Texas will take very kindly to this sort of ruling, as there is money to be made from the Law. Judge Rodney Gilstrap [vice.com]in particular might be a bit upset.
Exaggerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."
Really? That's a little hyperbolic don't you think? Yes patent trolls are a very bad thing but let's not exaggerate their impact or how much they matter. They certainly are not evil on the scale of slavery or war or genocide or any number of other horrific crimes. I'm tempted to make some snarky Trump joke since he is (not kidding) better evidence for pure evil than patent trolls but even that would be an unfair comparison given some of the real evils of the world.
Patent trolls are extortionists and leeches on society and terrible human beings but the "best evidence that pure evil exists"? No. No they are not.
Re: (Score:3)
We've lowered the bar for "pure evil".
Maybe they consider that other stuff adulterated evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Not an exaggeraion, IMHO. The impact of patent abuse is a lot worse than a few cases you hear about. It's the cases you DON'T hear about, where the mere threat of a bogus patent lawsuit is enough to suppress competition and prevent new products and services from reaching the market. This ruling in this case does not provide a universal solution to the problem, but it's a good start.
Re:Exaggerate much? (Score:5, Informative)
Not an exaggeraion, IMHO.
Yes, it is an exaggeration. I once met a Rwandan woman who, as a child, hid in a crawlspace while her mother was raped and then hacked to death with a machete. Her mother was one of 800,000 Rwandans who died that way. Dealing with an annoying patent lawsuit is not worse than genocidal mass murder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh huh. If we're really going to get pedantic about this stupid shit, then "pure evil" doesn't represent the magnitude of evil but rather how much it is diluted by other factors. Thus it is certainly possibly for a small scale evil to be just as pure as a large one.
Also: the parent poster was talking about the economic impact of patent trolls, and while the harm which that sort of thing causes may not be as obvious as genocide it can potentially be just as severe. Drug patents kill people every day. How man
Re: (Score:3)
"pure evil" doesn't represent the magnitude of evil but rather how much it is diluted by other factors.
By that measure, the evilness of NPEs (patent trolls) is not very "pure". NPEs help small independent inventors by enforcing many legitimate patents for real innovation. On balance, I think NPEs are harmful and need to be reined in, but they (occasionally) do some good.
Re:Exaggerate much? (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife works in a business licensing IP and I hear some of the opposite side of the story. The nature of their product is such that it can't be made and distributed in any centralized way, so the business model is mostly licensing the product to producers who then participate in selling and marketing it locally under a common brand name.
Anyway, they occasionally get knocked off by producers. Sometimes its licensees who keep making it after their agreement expires, sometimes its producers who outright knock it off, making their own tooling.
They *could* sue all of them for patent infringement, but it's just not practical. In some cases the patent is close to expiration, in some cases its mostly a negotiating ploy to renew the license under more favorable terms.
Anyway, I would argue that it's not that simple to just "threaten to sue" -- you have to have a case you can win, it's expensive to bring even a winning lawsuit and it can have a chilling effect on other business partners who may see an eagerness to sue as a reason to not do business with you or to demand other concessions which could damage profitability.
And a lot of times if you do threaten, you have to follow through. Businesses are often run by egomanics who don't want to be pushed around, even when they're in the wrong. They'll spot a false threat from a mile away and will view failure to follow through accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
The nature of their product is such that it can't be made and distributed in any centralized way...
Then why is it patentable? I wish we could go back to the way it was before, where you had to submit a physical working example of your invention when submitting a patent application. A patent on a business model should not be allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Because its made out of concrete and the shipping costs would make it impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes patent trolls are a very bad thing but let's not exaggerate their impact or how much they matter.
You say that as someone who is watching patent trolls in the tech sector.
You'd likely have a different opinion if you watched patent trolls in the medical sector.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you see in the medical sector?
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing. Patents being bought and sold between firms that don't implement them. Techniques being locked up due to monetisation reasons. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, companies that support them, the medical and pharma industries do not. Look up through the comment lists and you'll find others have already provided cites for medical procedures being unavailable or suddenly spiking in cost due to nothing more than patent trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
let's not understate it either. Some people give away practically the entirety of their pay for a patented drug to keep them alive. It's not exactly slavery, but it's not exactly not. People die every year because they couldn't afford a simple life saving device, test, or medication.
Non-Precedential (Score:4, Informative)
For starters, this decision is non-precedential. It was issued by a District court, and not the Federal Circuit or SCOTUS.
Secondly, per a Law360 article, the reason for the attorneys fees award against the law firm was, per a law360 article:
The court awarded attorneys’ fees against AlphaCap and its counsel, Gutride Safier LLP, on the theory that AlphaCap and Gutride Safier multiplied the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously,” McCrary wrote. “The record, however, establishes that it was Gust and its counsel, not AlphaCap and Gutride Safier, who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceeding.”
Thus, this ruling has nothing to do with patent trolling being dealt a death blow, but rather unscrupulous counsel being punished.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, this decision is non-precedential.
Not everyone gets to be the precident.
True, but only a few law firms troll, all abuse (Score:4, Informative)
That's true the law firm was held liable for costs based in the actions of this law firm, the same reasoning doesn't apply to other patent suites generally. HOWEVER, 90% of patent trolling is done by just a handful of law firms, who all pretty much act the same way. So the reasoning does apply to the vast majority of patent troll suits.
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may also mean that patent trolls will be pickier about which cases they take to court. They may still try to extort money from companies by offering to settle out of court, or offering to sell the patent.
Personally liable, not the bloody company! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, so now you create lots of shell law firms.
Until the courts go after people PERSONALLY (you know, like they do every time you get a ticket) there will be no change of behaviour.
Throwing a few lawyers in jail will do so much more for the profession than fining anyone.
AC
Re: (Score:2)
Until the courts go after people PERSONALLY (you know, like they do every time you get a ticket) there will be no change of behaviour.
The court has not precluded that. If the lawyer's compensation will be determined by the case they're working On, and their law firm is indigent, then the lawyer is personally a business partner too!
Re: (Score:2)
A lawyer's reputation is their business. Their name is the name of their firm. Even if they're incorporated to limit personal liability, having to pay court costs will directly impact their income and their professional reputation. If doing so causes the firm to fold, they're going to have a very hard time staying in private practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that now, but when an insurance company denies a covered expense let's see what you take is on taking someone to court.
This seems to be an exception (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an example. Suppose you have neighbor who doesn't like you and the neighbor sues you for something really stupid and asks for a huge monetary award. Suppose that you win, but the case is extraordinarily difficult and time consuming and you end up ruined financially from having to pay the costs to defend yourself against this frivolous lawsuit. You can probably count on one hand the number of judges and lawyers who actually feel sorry for you. From their perspective the system worked perfectly. You got sued for something bogus and you won. The fact that it destroyed you financially to defend yourself is not their concern. Not at all.
I think the problem is Judges are well to do (Score:2)
Re:This seems to be an exception (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
And since contingency fees are one tool that poor and middle class people use to obtain legal assistance, this decision will harm this group to a greater degree.
To continue with your example: I am quite wealthy, but live in an upper middle class neighborhood (not Warren Buffet, but same idea). So if I decide to file a frivolous lawsuit against a neighbor, I just pay my attorney for her time. So she has no risk. And if I lose, so what? I could wipe out my neighborhood with lawsuits even if my track record in court was 50%. They, on the other hand aren't in line to receive a big settlement. They are defendants, whose best outcome will be a 50% chance of being reimbursed for their expenses. Smart lawyers will avoid such clients, leaving them at a disadvantage in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like the courts like to drum up business, how American. Here in Norway the general rule is that the winners are awarded reasonable court costs if their claim is mostly or entirely won, rule of thumb is around 80% for economic damage. That is to say, if I claim $3000 in compensation for lost income and the court awards me $2500+ I'll get court costs covered on top. If I make a bullshit $10000 claim for emotional distress and is awarded $3000 then I have to pay my own costs. The reasoning is that you s
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting perspective. Goes to show that there's no justice in this world, only competing self interests.
BTW, posts like this are the reason why I'm still on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Collateral damage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind, this ruling included misconduct on the part of the law firm beyond simply accepting the case on contingency.
Not even close (Score:3)
Attorneys fees aren't awarded in garden-variety troll cases, and this decision does absolutely nothing to change that. Here, at a minimum, the plaintiff's attorneys:
1. Filed suit on a patent that (even by troll standards) was almost certainly invalid after the Supreme Court's Alice decision (issued the year before the suit was filed).
2. Filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas when there was not even the thinnest veneer of a basis to do so.
3. After this defendant refused to settle for small potatoes like the others, plaintiff first offered a covenant not to sue (which also would have made the current case go away), then when defendant announced its intent to seek fees, litigated the case for another year and a half in two different states and ran up defendant's costs even more.
This might give pause to attorneys taking on a handful of really egregious cases around the margins, but IMO isn't going to take very much of a bite out of the troll industry in general -- the game will just shift to the next-higher-quality tier of patents.
Now, the TC Heartland venue case that the Supreme Court has decided to take [scotusblog.com]? That's the one that could significantly impact the troll community -- keep an eye on it.
The five or so troll firms act similarly (Score:3)
Because about 90% of patent trolling is done by only a handful of law firms, who all sue on questionable patents in East Texas and generally follow a similar pattern of behavior, this certainly could have a significant effect. Heck, even knocking one of the top five troll firms out of the trolling business would be significant.
Re:Five or so? (Score:2)
Because about 90% of patent trolling is done by only a handful of law firms
I'm curious exactly what "handful"/"five or so" you have in mind. I just pulled up the 8 clusters of cases filed so far this year in the Eastern District of Texas, and what do you know -- 8 different law firms. Similar picture back into December (which is far as I care to look back right now and I think adequately makes the point).
and generally follow a similar pattern of behavior
In this situation that's irrelevant even if true. The only way this particular ruling is going to give any trolls much pause is if the vast majority of patents they might asser
Strange we have such different info. Austin and Ta (Score:2)
It's interesting that we have such different information, considering that you seem to be fairly well informed, yet I've received information from multiple reliable sources that doesn't match what you're saying. I am speaking specifically of patent TROLLS, not all cases related to patents.
You asked which law firms. Austin Hansley and Craig Tadlock filed 10% of all NPE patent cases in 2015. I don't recall other names offhand, but Hansley and Tadlock account for maybe 20% of TROLL suits (guesstimating, becaus
Continued (Score:2)
Certainly not all such patents have the issue decided in Alice, I didn't say they did. I said they tend to be questionable patents, as applied to the defendants. And they tend to engage in trollish behavior that is disrespectful to the court, as these attorneys did. I suppose that's a bit by definition - trolls act trollish.
Prenda did the same KINDS of things, which is why they were considered trolls and the courts shut them down. Prenda were of course copyright trolls, but the trollish tactics were the s
Re: (Score:2)
The main difference is that you're looking at numbers for 2015, which was a significant peak. In 2016, there were 1661 patent cases filed in EDTX (about 35% down from 2015). Of those, Tadlock filed 75 cases (4.5%) and Austin Hansley filed 11 (0.6%). Another secondary difference could be that you're only considering about 50% of the cases filed in EDTX to be troll cases. That's a matter of labeling to some degree, but is somewhat low IMO.
Summary: meritless suits, not just Alice (Score:2)
> The only way ... if the vast majority of patents they might assert in the future are Alice-susceptible
I wonder where you get that. I see the holding as essentially:
Attorneys who file meritless suits on a contingency basis may be liable for costs, especially if they engage in actions which are similar to, but not quite, abuse of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, or barratry. I don't see that Alice ("on a computer") is the key element here.
Certainly "meritless suits on a contingency basis, wit
Re: (Score:2)
> The only way ... if the vast majority of patents they might assert in the future are Alice-susceptible
I wonder where you get that.
Mainly because that's the only factor that's out of the law firms' control. The rest is a series of deliberate decisions about how they conduct themselves during litigation, and the vast majority know how to keep themselves on the thick side of the ice in that regard. While the Supreme Court's Octane Fitness decision in 2014 arguably made it easier for a court to award attorney's fees, I strongly suspect fees would have been awarded in a case like this even under the old standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't we just sell East Texas to Mexico? (and make Trump pay).
Lawyer's ethics (Score:2)
In a more perfect world, a lawyer's ethical obligations would preclude him from taking on a case that is "obviously frivolous."
If a judge found that a case was "obviously frivolous" then the judge would be encouraged to fine the lawyer personally and would be required to refer the lawyer to the state bar, which would likely fine him an additional amount equal to what his client paid him for that case. Lawyers who got many such referrals relative to their peers (lawyers with similar caseloads and specializa
Re: (Score:2)
LLC
There are certain restrictions on the ownership structures of law firms. In the past (things may have changed), limited liability was not allowed. Hence, law firms were structured as partnerships.
One interesting structure for monetizing risk is Lloyd's of London [wikipedia.org]. Where investors could sign on to receive the proceeds of insurance premiums. But there was no limit on the down side should someone make an insurance claim. So the investors stood to lose quite a lot. Lawsuits have a different financial structure
Re: (Score:2)
Lost sales or licensing fees are purely hypothetical if all someone does is sit on a patent for years.
Suppose you hold 2 patents for doing the same thing. One patent would result in more profit and a more expensive good/service, the other in less profit but a cheaper good/service.
You implement the more profitable patent.
Someone else 'steals' that 'intellectual property' for the less profitable patent, brings it to market selling that product or service for a lot less than you sell it for. Say through good marketing, they start to make a big profit out of this and your profits fall (because your good/service