[HN Gopher] A patent troll backs off ___________________________________________________________________ A patent troll backs off Author : zdw Score : 509 points Date : 2021-10-26 13:45 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sparkfun.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sparkfun.com) | alangibson wrote: | Had anyone ever heard of businesses forming a mutual defense | bloc? Every member could contribute to a pool of resources that | gets tapped to go to the mat with trolls that sue a member. | | Sounds like troll insurance now that I read what I just wrote... | schleck8 wrote: | Isn't that legal insurance? It's a good idea though | josaka wrote: | I think rpx and unified patents do something like this. | schleck8 wrote: | Some folks are just not compatible with a cooperative society. | mijoharas wrote: | So, I've not read much of this kind of stuff before. Can someone | tell me if the following response is just a standard legal way of | talking: 43. For example, US Patent No. 5,592,405 | (Assignee Texas Instruments) discloses: "There is thus a | need in the art for a system which handles multi-processors | having multi-memories such that the address space from all | of the memories is available to one or more processors | concurrently[.]" 2:5-9. Answer: Altair Logix does not | dispute the quoted language comes from U.S. Patent No. | 5,592,405 to the extent it is quoted correctly. Altair denies the | remaining allegations in paragraph 43. | | It's just very odd, as there is literally nothing else in the | paragraph that they are "denying". Now it seems clear, that they | just tack on "denies everything else in this paragraph" to every | single thing they say, but why? | | Is it better to deny some unknown thing in case you miss it, than | to not respond to it in a legal document? if so, why is that? | | Is there some other reason for it? | josaka wrote: | It's weird, but standard. These exchanges are a formal way of | fleshing out what the parties do and do not dispute. Both sides | limit what the agree to as much as they can with a straight | face, and everything is qualified as much as possible to make | it hard to pin you down on something later, after you've | learned more about your and their case, e.g., they might | disagree that TI is the assignee, or that the language is | properly part of the patent b/c it was amended during | prosecution or by a certificate of correction. | freejazz wrote: | They are denying the claims in the patent... that there is a | need for blah blah blah. | | Source: I litigate patents | tinus_hn wrote: | A Pyrrhic victory; they are out $12k and the troll is free to go | harass the next company. | kiba wrote: | Perhaps, but it did impose a cost on the troll which makes | their venture less lucrative and hopefully more importantly, a | psychological and emotional cost on the lawyers who's working | to extort people. | danhorner wrote: | On the contrary, this patent could now be useless even if it | doesn't get invalidated: | | It's expired for future use, and according to Sparkfun's | response it can't be asserted against prior infringers because | Huawei owned it and shipped devices without marking the patent | on them. | CalChris wrote: | Pyrrhic victory? $12k is _cheap_. Generally, patent litigation | is the sport of kings. That $12k means that Altair Logix gave | up quickly, which in itself is useful information. $12k means | that small cap companies should fight these trolls. | inetknght wrote: | > _$12k is cheap_ | | Not to real people it isn't. | creeble wrote: | Also missing from the article is an explanation of why they | spent $12k defending against an expired patent? | freejazz wrote: | The patent is expired now, but they can still sue for | infringement that occurred during the life of the patent. In | fact, this is how it goes for many patents given the | lifecycle. | awillen wrote: | Because you don't just automatically win because the patent | is expired. You have to hire a lawyer to research the patent | and find out it's expired, then, at minimum, your lawyer has | to go to court and prove that the patent is expired. | charcircuit wrote: | >You have to hire a lawyer to research the patent and find | out it's expired | | You can do this yourself though | creeble wrote: | But patent terms are 20 years. It had clearly been more | than 20 years. | | Why didn't the lawyer simply state this in their | counterclaim? I don't actually see it _anywhere_ in the | counterclaim. | josaka wrote: | You can, in some cases, sue for damages accrued up to six | years in the past. You don't have to sue for those before | the patent expires. You just stop accruing new damages | when the patent expires. Past damages is what was | allegedly at issue here. (Which is why the attorneys were | talking about "marking," as it's a factor in whether you | can get pre-suit damages for some types of claims in some | cases.) | [deleted] | oh_sigh wrote: | Because the allegations are for a period when the patent was | not expired. | alangibson wrote: | Getting qualified people to dig up prior art and write | responses ain't cheap. | tyingq wrote: | They did produce a fairly good pattern for the next company | approached by Altair Logix. Including links to prior art, | counterclaim documents, etc. | freejazz wrote: | That's all standard in a patent litigation and is by far the | least expensive element of what you'd be paying an atty to | do. That is to say, it's basically trivial to get an atty to | say that you should contend invalidity via a counterclaim | (especially in light of how SS101 is treated lately). What | costs is getting an atty to actually find the invalidating | prior art, draft up the counterclaims, etc. | tyingq wrote: | Sorry, I'm confused. If Altair Logix sues some other party, | for the same patent, why is this linked list of | invalidating prior art and counter claims not useful in | reducing cost? | YetAnotherNick wrote: | > Altair Logix | | Do you think those kind of company keep their name same for | more than few years | caf wrote: | The patent number stays the same though. | rvnx wrote: | "We've sold 221 units over the entire time we carried the | pcDuino. You want to sue us for $500 worth of made-up royalties | to use your bogus patent? Sure. Come get it." | | I think it's not the 500 USD they are looking for, but rather | to win a court case against someone who has not the ressources | to defend himself, so they can reuse this case as an example in | a more lucrative litigation. | drewzero1 wrote: | Free maybe, but at least not funded as a settlement would have. | zh3 wrote: | This is sort of a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. Very few | people want to stand up and be counted (Sparkfun aside), yet it's | the few who do who keep the bottom feeders[0] in check. | | [0] I've been advised by lawyers to just pay them off, as it's | "cheaper than dealing with the bottom feeders". Some things | matter more than money, and on the few occasions I've pushed it | to the wire the chancers have slunk away. It's still expensive | though - and maybe only small companies can do it, because for | big companies it would be internally expensive/potentially | ruinous/worries the C suite it might affect the share price. | exabrial wrote: | Go full scorched earth, every time. If possible, file complaints | with their bar association. Work to get their licenses to | practice law revoked. Form class action suits. Do whatever it | takes, because they won't be the last. | CptanPanic wrote: | What's the deal with buying an expired patent? Doesn't expired | mean the patent is not valid? | alangibson wrote: | I came here to ask the same question. It's he sitting for | infringement that happened whale the patent was active? If so, | don't you have a duty to sue in a "timely manner"? | MobiusHorizons wrote: | From the article, it sounds like the patent was expired when the | current owner purchased it. How does a suit like that even make | it to court? Would the owner be able to sue for violations from | before it expired? | danhorner wrote: | One aspect of this defense was failure to mark: A previous owner | of the patent produced processors covered by the patent but did | not mark them as such. | | It turns out that systematically not marking your patent on your | products invalidates claims for infringement unless it occurred | after the owner notified future infringers of the violation. | | The striking thing about this for a patent troll is (if I | understand this correctly) that it's easier to shake companies | down if your patent has never been used to ship anything. | | That seems odd. | turbohz wrote: | > Every time a company settles it just funds the trolls to wreak | more havoc. This is especially true for companies larger than | $100 million in revenue. I'm looking at you Texas Instruments, | VIA Technologies, Renesas, ASUS, Caterpillar, Nuvision | International, and Netgear, just to name a few of the companies | that have dealt with Jason Nguyen's Altair Logix. When you roll | over and pay the trolls it hurts smaller companies terribly. | | I wonder if those companies consider this a "feature"? | N00bN00b wrote: | Ugly. So it's just a "protection fee" in a sense. Wouldn't | surprise me if that's true. | | You just won't find it written down anywhere. | NicoJuicy wrote: | The company I work for also had a patent troll, who got settled | by much bigger companies in the trolls favor. | | They found a previous concept that would invalidate their | expensive patent(s). | | They tried to settle with 0EUR. The lawyer of HQ didn't agree | and changed it so they had to pay 1 CAD. | | Just because they could. | | Ps. It was accepted ofc. | rcxdude wrote: | A nominal fee is pretty common in contracts, it tends to be | more binding than zero costs (because an important part of | contract law is that both sides benefit from the contract). | franga2000 wrote: | Am I understanding correctly that you (your company) found | prior art and chose to settle instead of presenting it in | court and killing the patent? Any idea why? Isn't there some | law that automatically awards you legal fees in the case of a | frivolous lawsuit? | AlbertCory wrote: | You don't present it "to court" because that might be | decided by a jury of unsophisticated people. You file an | Inter Partes Review, which goes to the Patent Trial and | Appeal Board, and is cheaper (note I didn't say "cheap"). | | The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" model like other | countries. You _can_ file for attorney 's fees, but the | barriers are higher. | freejazz wrote: | It's called an invalidity counterclaim. | AlbertCory wrote: | ??? what are you disputing here? IPRs, or defending | against an infringement suit, or what? | freejazz wrote: | Finding prior art to invalidate a patent doesn't make the | plaintiff's lawsuit frivolous, so they probably wouldn't be | awarded atty's fees. If the court didn't invalidate the | patent, then you are now stuck in a serious litigation | where the plaintiff has no reason to settle. | stordoff wrote: | $1 is probably a peppercorn payment[1]. A contract for 0EUR | may well fail to be a valid contract due to a lack of | consideration - both sides must offer something of value to | the other for a contract to be binding. | | It's possible that the rest of the settlement would provide | valid consideration, but a nominal payment removes any doubt | from the situation. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal) | fsckboy wrote: | a settlement is not a contract | freejazz wrote: | Settlement agreements are contracts. No one would agree | (hmm, funny word, right) to a settlement if it wasn't | legally binding. | freejazz wrote: | Peppercorn payments don't actually happen in the real | world. Consideration is never an issue in actual contract | litigation and in this case, settling something in exchange | for any other benefit (no countersuit, etc) would suffice | as consideration. | jonas21 wrote: | I can report that they do actually happen in the real | world. I've signed two contracts in the past year that | had consideration of $1 written into them (and actually | made the $1 payment). Are they necessary? I have no idea, | but real lawyers wrote the contracts and apparently | thought it was good to have that in there. | dunham wrote: | There is also a Feynman anecdote about this (wherein he | demanded the dollar that they neglected to pay him): | | https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7277192-anyway-smith- | told-m... | freejazz wrote: | Sure, there are plenty of bad attorneys. | [deleted] | robocat wrote: | If the settlement were 0EUR, it could have been paid with a | zero euro bank note: https://www.banknoteworld.com/zero-euro/ | kbenson wrote: | That was my first thought too. In this way, it serves a similar | purpose to overly strict regulation, which is also something | smaller companies have a much harder time dealing with than | larger ones (and encouraging regulation of a specific area is a | well known tactic of larger companies to raise the bar of entry | to the market). | | That's not to say all regulation is bad, just that like most | things that have beneficial ways to be used, it can be abused | by some to negative effect also. | exabrial wrote: | I've ordered a ton of crap from SparkFun, and to help out as a | thank you, I'll be ordering a huge batch of RPIs from them when | they come back in stock. | mherdeg wrote: | Wow is that a PDF of a Microsoft Word document with inline | comments written by the judge? I don't think I've ever seen a | document in that style in PACER before (linked in the blog post | at | https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/7/0/Alta...) | . | | I think there's a typo in the blog post ("parent" should be | "patent" below): | | > Do you ever wonder what parent trolls tell their children they | do for a job? | | I read a story somewhere that claimed that "Captain Planet" had | to be edited to feature cartoonishly evil villains, rather than | the mundane day-to-day polluters, because they were worried that | kids would ask uncomfortable career questions of their parents in | sectors like disposable consumer goods, plastics, petrochemical, | cigarettes, etc. | yeetaccount wrote: | If you can find a link to that Captain Planet story I'd like to | read it. It sounds totally plausible. | owlninja wrote: | I think this is it | | https://grist.org/culture/captain-planet-planeteers-real- | sto... | | >That family edutainment goal affected a lot of the show's | writing. Pyle didn't want kids to see their family members as | evil, ecologically speaking. "That's one of the reasons we | made the bad guys and their plans so ridiculous," she | explained, "We tried to point the finger at behaviors rather | than industries. That way, no child would go home and say, | 'Oh, daddy, you're in a blah blah business.' It would be | horrible for some child to see their family member as a | Captain Planet villain." | lotsofpulp wrote: | I do not see why it would be terrible for a kid to see the | ramifications of their future due to their current | lifestyle of a 2k+ sq ft detached single family house with | an SUV and pickup truck and flights to Disney world as a | villain. | maxlybbert wrote: | Perhaps the child pressures the parent to change careers. | Perhaps the parent pressures the child to "stop watching | that stupid show" and Captain Planet's audience shrinks. | I know which one I'd bet on. | rootusrootus wrote: | Pretty much exactly this. | | My kids bring things up sometimes. We have a discussion | about them, about our role in society, etc. But a good | portion of the time the discussion becomes a lesson in | critical thinking and not taking over-simplified | idealistic pleas from randos on the Internet at face | value. | mistrial9 wrote: | bad idea to put adult burdens of conscience and politic | on children -- let them be children for a while | franga2000 wrote: | You're not putting that on the child, you're putting it | on the parent. The children will put pressure on them | without being hurt in the process. I've seen similar | things with smoking - children are taught smoking is very | dangerous and they start asking their parents why they | smoke. "Are you going to get lung cancer too, dad? Please | quit!" I know of several cases where the parents quit | smoking in part because of their children. The children | felt really proud of themselves, which is great. | sodality2 wrote: | > "Are you going to get lung cancer too, dad? Please | quit!" | | This would definitely have a negative impact on a child | growing up- feeling like I had to worry about my parents' | health when I was ~12 definitely did. | [deleted] | mikepurvis wrote: | I mean, the child is still the agent of change in that | scenario-- and it's perfectly possible for it to go the | other way too, where no change occurs and the parent and | child end up resenting each other over it. | | I don't know if I'm necessarily making a value judgment | either way here, but I don't think "get to them through | their young kids" should be considered a general-purpose | strategy for effecting societal change... and fear of | this kind of thing is exactly what breeds mistrust in | public education, parents pulling their kids out of sex | ed, etc etc. | caf wrote: | It's true, but the opposite strategy - sugarcoat the | truth to avoid raising uncomfortable questions about the | status quo - _also_ breeds mistrust in education and | institutions. All we can really try to do is present our | best view of the truth, with all the uncertainties around | that. Does smoking cause lung cancer? That certainly | appears to be where the weight of evidence sits, and it | would be a lie of omission to avoid saying so. Should you | quit smoking? That 's up to you. | mikepurvis wrote: | That's true. The alternative is a bland world of | platitudes where no one ever says anything and all the | conflicts are fully made up (as in the case of over-the- | top villains for a cartoon purportedly about being good | stewards of the environment). | [deleted] | Igelau wrote: | Good goooood... and then we have left them most | vulnerable and depressed and upset the foundation of the | family, we will cut to commercials rife with aspirational | advertising! | | Yes, my student! Feel the power of the dark side! | buildbot wrote: | This document is actually way more interesting with the | comments, kind of an inside look into the legal process | yupyup54133 wrote: | This document is like HN in general. TLDR; the main doc and | just read the comments. ;-) | mig39 wrote: | Nah, I think they genuinely mean "trolls" who happen to be | parents and have to explain to their kids what they do for a | living. | breakyerself wrote: | I think parent troll is a play on words. Patent trolls with | children are parent trolls. | Igelau wrote: | Parent troll wisdom: No matter what he says, eat the littlest | billy goat first. Don't give up the choke point at the bridge. | Don't let the enemy onto the hillside behind you. | | I always wondered what the moral of that story was supposed to | be. | kbenson wrote: | Fairy tales and folktales don't necessarily have a moral, | which is a distinction from a fable or parable. | | Sometimes it was just the ancient version of Squid Game, and | people just wanted to hear or tell something entertaining. | kennywinker wrote: | I'm only two episode into squid game, but it's an add | choice for an example of "just entertainment" since it is | clearly a commentary on late stage capitalism. | kbenson wrote: | It's... interesting, in the end. They make some bold | choices (which I rather liked, since you don't see | choices of that type in American popular media as much), | but even as commentary, I'm not sure there's a moral or | lesson to come out of it rather than to just provoke | thought and to entertain. | | Put another way, it says a lot of things, and outlines a | lot of problems, but I'm not sure it puts any solutions | forth. That's probably a good thing IMO, as any solution | presented in a program like that invariably seems trite | to me, as it necessarily oversimplifies the problem so | the solution proposed can work. | Igelau wrote: | It might seem like it's going that way at first. I | wouldn't say it's a commentary on late-stage capitalism | as much as that's just part of the setting. | mherdeg wrote: | I never quite understood why they didn't just send the big | goat first. | Enginerrrd wrote: | Because you don't get to become the big Billy goat by | taking all the upfront risk. I've seen many a buck follow | this strategy. When a group of 2 or 3 bucks enter a | clearing, you'll almost always see the biggest oldest one | go last. | stickfigure wrote: | Maybe not a strategy, just survivorship bias? | Enginerrrd wrote: | Maybe I don't understand, but I don't think this | suggestion is quite coherent. | | If the bucks following this stategy are the ones that | survived, how is this survivorhsip bias rather than a | winning strategy? | SuoDuanDao wrote: | I imagine it's a couple things, these old stories pack in a | lot of useful information. | | Bridges are dangerous if you're a little kid, you may want to | get your older siblings to back you up. | | Disdaining small victories leaves you unprepared for the big | ones. | | There's always someone bigger. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | The moral is, you can escape from bullies by offering up your | classmates as more attractive targets. | | /s | | Or maybe it's that it doesn't pay to be the bully, because | eventually you try to bully someone bigger than you. | dylan604 wrote: | >worried that kids would ask uncomfortable career questions of | their parents | | such a missed opportunity. daddy, why are you trying to kill | the planet? | phoehne wrote: | Because mommy's coke is very, very expensive. Now go play | with your x-box. | MisterTea wrote: | Mommy usually buys coke with her vagina. Or at least that's | what my ex-drug dealing friend told me who "sold" a lot of | coke to rich bored house wives in NYC. | closeparen wrote: | As a child I learned that technological progress takes the form | of _inventions_ and comes from intellectual heroes called | _inventors_. Manufacture, distribution, marketing, business, | etc. were all just details that would inevitably get worked out | by one or another of the sharks in that grubby game. And the | sharks would constantly be trying to screw the inventor out of | his due. As a child I would have looked at someone who enforces | patents for a living as a kind of hero. | | Once I reached the tech industry it was a total 180, ideas are | worthless, the heroes are the engineers who can scale them and | the founders who can make businesses out of them. But patent | law didn't get the memo, it's still based on my elementary- | school worldview. | freejazz wrote: | Inventors regularly sign over their inventions to the | businesses that they work for, such that the businessmen are | able to make business models out of them that the engineers | will scale. To be honest, I don't think you know much of how | the patent system works to substantiate your comment. | wiseleo wrote: | Comment A2 is pure gold | | "Commented [A2]: Whoever wrote this sentence might be the same | person who writes patents. It would be helpful in the future to | write and speak in plain English. You are dealing with an | ordinary court, not a patent examiner. | lelandbatey wrote: | I absolutely _love_ chances to read or listen in on any | instance where a judge provides feedback in the US legal | system. For reasons I do not understand, there seems to be a | strong culture among judges of constantly dishing out | statements which somehow always feel like "sick burns". The | few encounters with IRL judges I've had also had this | quality, where the judge would be totally willing to frame | people really harshly in their questions, or just outright | denounce someone. If anyone has any insight into this (I bet | there are some good books about "legal culture and judge | culture" that'd be real interesting) please do chime in! | oasisbob wrote: | You might enjoy this series of interviews with Supreme | Court justices on writing style in _The Scribes Journal of | Legal Writing_ vol 13: | | https://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner- | transcripts-1.pd... | | The interviews go beyond writing style into broader | rhetoric, as well as dislikes and pet-peeves. | fhrow4484 wrote: | > Lesson #3) Anyone can sign up for Public Access to Court | Electronic Records (PACER) to search and retrieve your own legal | documents [...] getting them yourself at $0.10 a page. | | It sounds cheap, but one bad search and you may be fetching 100s | of pages (IIRC, the number of pages returned by your search is | what counts - https://pacer.uscourts.gov/pacer-pricing-how-fees- | work). | | If you do so, you can also use RECAP: https://free.law/recap. | It's like the internet archive for PACER documents. | | It's a browser extension that helps create a crowdsourced archive | of the PACER content. You can then search that archive (this time | for free) in https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/ | | For stuff not on RECAP, then PACER can be used, and fee is waived | if less than $30 that quarter according to | https://free.law/pacer-facts | AlbertCory wrote: | Hear, hear on RECAP. | | It is surprisingly complete. See [1] for the Theranos trial. | | I think most of the lawyers at Big Law must have the Chrome | extension. A high percentage of the docs you would want are on | there. | | [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7185174/united- | states-v... | freejazz wrote: | It's not the biglaw attorneys, its the reporters | KennyBlanken wrote: | FYI RECAP means you're technically in violation of PACER's | terms of use which prohibit redistribution or publishing. | | Violating terms laid forth by the federal court system ends | (for wealthy internet tech celebrities) in the EFF picking up | your legal tab and the FBI saying "okay FINE, just don't do | that again." | | For you and me, it ends in tens of thousands in legal costs and | at best probation terms that likely substantially interfere | with your ability to make a living. | jrochkind1 wrote: | > In this case, Jason, smelling potential money, purchased an | expired patent '434 from Huawei and then formed a shell company | to start suing people. | | What's going on with suing people under an expired patent? | | Is there actually some legal ground here -- like can you sue them | for their historical violation before it expired or something? | slac wrote: | I find it super bizarre that Huawei would sell expired patents. | Is it really worth it? | AlbertCory wrote: | "expired" doesn't mean you can't sue for infringement. For six | years (someone check me on this), you can sue for infringements | that happened while the patent _was_ unexpired. | detaro wrote: | If I understand correctly not applicable here (patent expired | after max duration of 20 years), but one facet of this is that | in some cases you can buy a patent that is expired because the | owner decided it wasn't worth to continue pay the extension | fees and un-expire it by paying the fees retroactively. | aerosmile wrote: | For every instance that results in a win against a patent troll, | there are many more instances where people just pay - you just | don't hear about them. More recently the portfolio of companies I | am a part of has seen an uptick in demands, and I have to assume | that this is driven by a feedback loop that's producing good | outcomes for trolls. | hackeraccount wrote: | I'm reminded of how Newegg and Cloudflare have dealt with this | kind of thing. | | https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/11/the-hunted-becomes-the-hun... | | At one time at least they seemed to view it as a fight to the | death. When offered a settlement they'd just keep going. | beefield wrote: | Unfortunately, however, looks like the nice people[1] at | Blackbird still keep on working their stuff, so it was not a | fight to the death. | | https://www.blackbird-tech.com/blackbird-technologies-settle... | | [1]that was sarcasm. | YetAnotherNick wrote: | They patented a switch?? How can this patent pass the basic | check? | anitil wrote: | Drawing a line in the sand and threatening mutual destruction | is a good way to make the trolls move one to an easier target. | dctoedt wrote: | And Blue Jeans Cable's 2008 response to a Monster Cable demand | letter: The CEO of BlueJeans was an ex-litigator; excerpt: | | <quote> | | After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School | in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a | focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and | complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on | the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with | insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for | nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been | to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. | In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong | advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the | way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement | were on the table. | | I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If | Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue | the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with | bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on | defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. | | As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property | which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any | circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not. | | I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable | typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client | threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead | for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session | that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client | then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince | others under similar threat to accede to its demands. | | Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to | get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me | that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that | effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. | | It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of | settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am | sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work | have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for | the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my | mind. | | If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold | the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to | speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims-- | from start to finish. | | Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather | miss it. | | </quote> | | (Extra paragraphing added.) | | https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/response041408.pdf | supermatt wrote: | Any way to recover the legal fees for something like this? | [deleted] | [deleted] | henvic wrote: | If you're interest in this subject, I recommend Austin Meyer's | documentary The Patent Scam (https://www.thepatentscam.com/). | | * Austin Meyer is the creator of X-Plane / Laminar Research. | can16358p wrote: | The only problem I see about this post is that asking big | companies to fight against trolls otherwise it hurts small | companies. | | While no one would legally admit that and putting aside morals, | isn't it what big companies want anyway? | matsemann wrote: | In the linked first post, they show a letter they received about | this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9729658 | | Can't even fathom what the patent is saying. Sounds like they | have tried patenting the web. | tschesnok wrote: | It would be great if VCs created funds / departments to fight | trolls attacking their portfolio. I understand that there are | many issues with this model. But it might just work. Especially | for accelerators like YC. I think word would get around quickly | to "not touch YC companies" and the expense would go to zero. It | would also be easy for YC to decide what is a troll and what is | legit. | eschaton wrote: | The problem is that even if VCs hate patent trolls when | directly affected by them, they don't actually hate patents, | and in fact try to make their portfolio companies patent | everything under the sun. | h2odragon wrote: | Thank you, Sparkfun, for spending the time and resources to | defend the principles of civil society. | | Can Sparkfun now counter-sue for costs and maybe even Barratry? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law) | imglorp wrote: | Thank you Sparkfun. | | I'll be ordering some circuity toys to let them know! | rbanffy wrote: | > Use your settlements budgets to fight because the rest of us | don't have settlement budgets. | | That's one of the reasons why some companies will settle instead | of litigate - it's a cheap way to kill your competition before it | threatens you while, at the same time, not raising any eyebrows | about anti-competitive practices. | AlbertCory wrote: | Hooray for him. | | Patent trolls have a business model, which he's disrupted: | | 1) buy a patent, the broader and better-tested the better | | 2) start threatening the easy marks; the ones who roll over and | write you a check right away. Their trick is to | ask for a settlement small enough to say "hey, it'll cost you | more than that for attorney's fees!" | | 3) use that money to threaten the harder targets: the ones who | will fight back. Those people get asked for much larger sums. | | 4) _maybe_ actually go to trial with a very big target, one that | 'll get dinged for a 9-figure judgment if the troll wins. In the | Eastern District of Texas, juries tend to do that. | | Researching the validity of a patent does not require $400/hour | attorneys. Anyone with a basic knowledge of patent law _and_ | computer science can do it. (And no, I 'm not advertising for | myself. I'm retired.) Do you think those expensive attorneys do | it themselves? It is to laugh -- they assign it to a junior who | knows technology. | Jake232 wrote: | First year associates at the law firm I use charge over | $500/hr. Senior lawyers/partner cost well over $1,200/hour in | 2021 at many of the largest / most successful firms now. | srcmap wrote: | Anti-Patent troll model: Talk to EFF, start a go-fund-me | campaigns, wild up the public opinions, | shmerl wrote: | More like they have shakedown and protection racket model they | call "business". Just highlights how messed up the legal system | is, if someone has to do so much work to disrupt racketeers. | freejazz wrote: | Junior attys at BigLaw firms are billed at the $400/hr rate... | silexia wrote: | A patent troll brought a lawsuit against my company, | CoalitionTechnologies.com, in the Eastern District Court of | Texas. My attorney and I were able to get them to voluntarily | dismiss the lawsuit shortly afterwards. I won't be naming the | patent troll here as they voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. | | Coalition has a policy of never settling frivolous lawsuits and | fighting all the way to the bloody end. We recently won a | judgement with attorneys fees in another lawsuit. | | When I first received the notice that I was being sued, I freaked | out a little bit. I didn't sleep well for the next couple of | nights, but began working on this right away. I contacted a | couple of dozen Texas patent attorneys, most of whom quoted | outrageous prices ranging from $200 to $600 per hour and some | asking for a $25k retainer upfront! I soon realized that all of | these Texas patent attorneys are in the same game with the patent | trolls... these attorneys make money the longer the legal process | gets drawn out. I was contacted by Amit Agarwal (310-351-6596 - | based in LA but he can operate anywhere) and at first I was | turned off by his aggressive approach. However, I spoke with my | other attorney and he said it won't hurt to give him a shot. I | signed up with Amit and it was the best decision I could have | made. Amit brought a very aggressive approach and quickly got the | patent troll to back down and dismiss the lawsuit. | | The lawsuit was mostly dismissed after Amit really went after the | troll and their attorneys with some great research and motions he | spent Christmas writing. | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | I don't know if your work in SEO has affected your speech but | this sounds a 100% like an ad that people write about | themselves online to promote their services. It follows all the | patterns of false testimonials you'd usually hear in | infomercials. | | Sorry if it's genuine, I also sometimes like to recommend | people and companies I've had good experiences with. | dylan604 wrote: | It's not like they were hocking their company. They | specifically gave out information on someone they hired | outside of the company. Yes, there a little self-promotion | listing URL and what not, but it was much more about the | attorney they hired. meh | ziddoap wrote: | It's not necessarily just the content, but the style and | delivery of that content. | | Which in this case, certainly reads like a boilerplate | advertisement you read on a Top 10 How To Advertise | listicle. Good faith advice or not. | dylan604 wrote: | I guess you'd rather see something like: | | Yo dawg!!! You'll never guess what happened to me when | those bizsnitch little lawyers tried to sue me for some | whack azz shiznit yo! Yo! You gotta call my bro the | bizsnitch laywer asskickin mofo! Just smash them digits | 555-212-0420 and he'll go to work for you yo! | | Or maybe somewhere in between? | ghostbrainalpha wrote: | This is hilarious if it's satire. Pretty sad if its a genuine | recommendation. | | But you are right, its too hard to tell. | philote wrote: | I agree it sounds like an ad. A quick search found this | however: https://joelx.com/how-to-beat-a-patent-troll-in- | east-texas/1... which makes me think it's legit. Weird it's | almost verbatim from the blog post, but hey why bother | spending time on a new write-up I guess. | smusamashah wrote: | Another comment of author is also their another blog post. | silexia wrote: | My apologies for my writing style, I guess my years in SEO | have had a strong effect! | | I'm extremely grateful for the work Amit did for me, he did | not compensate me or even request that I post this for him. | | As the original blog post said, patent trolls are predators | that rely on the fact that it costs companies over a | million dollars to defend a case even if they win so that | they can extort tens of thousands of dollars without much | work. | | We need to abolish the patent system altogether, as | everyone on here knows ideas are worthless and execution is | everything. The best way to protect real innovators is to | prevent artificial monopolies rising up preventing them | from competing in the market. | abhinav22 wrote: | Well unless people are selling their hacker news accounts, | it's seems genuine and I just think the poster was very | appreciative and hence posting. Sometimes we can all be too | cynical | [deleted] | jimmyed wrote: | > with some great research and motions he spent Christmas | writing. | | It helps that Amit doesn't celebrate Christmas and needs | holidays. | rvnx wrote: | Don't ever mention Christmas in a professional setting. | | One day I got invited for interview at a famous SV company | who has offices in Europe, in a snowy and catholic country. | | It was the end of the year, so on the way out, with a good | mood I said "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" to the | people I just met. | | Later on, the recruiter explained to me that the team felt | offended that I used the word "Christmas" (but still got an | offer). | blinding-streak wrote: | Is it surprising to you that not everyone celebrates | Christmas? | alangibson wrote: | What's surprising is that you can't expect people to be | charitable in their interpretations and take things in | the spirit it is meant. I make Marx look like a Bible | beater, but I wont take offense at someone wishing me | Merry Christmas. Or Eid, Diwali, Purim, or anything else | for that matter. | dylan604 wrote: | Why is it that those that don't get so offended when | someone wishes them good tidings from their practices? | azinman2 wrote: | Seems a bit extreme to be literally offended, and I'm not | even Christian. | beervirus wrote: | > outrageous prices ranging from $200 to $600 per hour and some | asking for a $25k retainer upfront! | | I hate to tell you this, but that's not at all outrageous. And | you get what you pay for. | abhinav22 wrote: | For a small business, heck for most of us, that's too much | schleck8 wrote: | I'm not in law so I don't know how the price is calculated, | but how can this be fair when the highest neurosurgeon wage | is 192 usd per hour on ziprecruiter? | beervirus wrote: | Maybe the decent neurosurgeons aren't on ziprecruiter, I | dunno. But $200/hour is absolutely nothing for a lawyer. | Even a smallish/midsize firm is going to be billing out | first-year associates higher than that. $600/hour is pretty | ordinary. | | And just to be clear, this is what the law firm charges for | a lawyer's time. It's not the take home pay for the lawyer. | schleck8 wrote: | > And just to be clear, this is what the law firm charges | for a lawyer's time. It's not the take home pay for the | lawyer | | Ah, that makes more sense. I know someone who worked in | finance. Her employer charged clients 500 euros per hour | for her work and she saw around a fifth of that | silexia wrote: | Most surgeons are self employed. Employees usually make | less than business owners. I know personally several | surgeons earning around $5 million per year. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-26 23:00 UTC)