For years, patent trolls have been the best evidence that pure evil exists. And like most evil entities, they are almost impossible to stop. Even a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that was highly critical of patent trolls has done little to slow their slimy, reptilian-like existence. But a federal judge on Dec. 19 crafted a novel tactic to curb patent trolls when she slapped a half-million-dollar bill on the lawyers and said that they were personally responsible for paying it, not their client. This could truly be a game-changer.
This unusual decision could make lawyers hesitate to take patent trolls as clients. Part of the patent-troll economic model is based on lawyers taking a contingency fee, meaning that they take a percentage of whatever money is extracted from victims rather than being paid an hourly fee. This makes the lawyers more of a partner than a traditional contractor, which factored into the judge's decision.
The ruling may make lawyers say forget about contingency fees; we want upfront hourly fees. And patent trolls, unwilling or unable to do that, may forgo pursuing the most tenuous lawsuits. As a result, the patent-troll business model starts to crumble.
[...] Patent trolls directly threaten the industry of ideas. They dilute the value of legitimate patents while making honorable companies suspicious of legitimate patent complaints. This was never what patents were all about. They were designed to protect inventors who came up with truly innovative ways of doing things.
Patents need to get back to protecting inventors, not opportunists who conclude that what business needs today is more extortion. [Judge] Cote's decision won't finish off patent trolls, but it's a step in the right direction.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jasassin on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:55AM
The lawfirm itself said it was pointless, but they decided to waste the systems time. I love this. The guy gets to choose who he gets the money from. I'd go for the lawyers, wouldn't you?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:59PM
I'm not directly in the legal system, but from the outside it looks like the owner of the patent just told the judge that in his opinion the patent he owns is worthless, so he won't mind being ordered to sign it over to the victim.