Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the like-a-ray-of-sunshine dept.

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.

Source: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3153924/technology-law-regulation/a-potentially-fatal-blow-against-patent-trolls.html


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:52AM (#451970)

    ALLAHLAHLAHLAHLAHLAHLAHLAH

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:53AM (#451971)

    There are ways for attorneys to work around this on future cases. To stop patent trolls, the actual patent system needs fixing.

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:45PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:45PM (#452057) Journal

      To stop patent trolls, the actual patent system needs fixing.

      (Nod.) Needs doing. However,

      a federal judge on Dec. 19 crafted a novel tactic to curb patent trolls

      Which is arguably a good thing in the absence of patent system reform.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:11PM

        by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:11PM (#452110) Homepage
        Unless it just makes patents more expensive, and therefore less available to the little guy who needs protection (e.g. intermittent windscreen wiper), and therefore just plays into the hands of the big guys who already have far too much power, and influence.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:28AM

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:28AM (#452362) Journal

          Unless it just makes patents more expensive, and therefore less available to the little guy who needs protection (e.g. intermittent windscreen wiper)

          He was done wrong, and wasn't a troll at all; his invention was stolen by Ford and he had a right to his rights...

          But I think the idea was to make patent trolling more expensive, not patents themselves.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:55PM (#452064)

      Indeed. Want to kill patent trolls? Kill USPTO.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jasassin on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:55AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:55AM (#451972) Homepage Journal

    That is interesting, because the lawyers representing the patent troll, according to Bruno, had already told the firm that suing the patent troll was pointless because it had no money, making it judgment-proof. That statement helped convince the judge to go after the law firm’s funds, Bruno said.

    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

      by VLM (445) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:59PM (#452012)

      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.

  • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:14AM

    by theluggage (1797) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:14AM (#451977)

    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.

    Uh oh.. wouldn't that logic apply to all sorts of no-win-no-fee arrangements? Probably a good idea, but I really can't see the ambulance-chasing industry letting that one lie...

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by weeds on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:19PM

    by weeds (611) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:19PM (#452017) Journal

    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.

    Clearly an insult to reptiles everywhere.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:29PM (#452023)

    to slow their slimy, reptilian-like existence.

    So what are they, slimy or reptilian-like? Both at the same time is not possible, as reptilians are not slimy.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:56PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:56PM (#452037) Homepage Journal

      They would be if you had a wank on them. Not that I'm advising, condoning, or understanding such behavior.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:50PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:50PM (#452097)

      So what are they, slimy or reptilian-like? Both at the same time is not possible, as reptilians are not slimy.

      They aren't? What about when they're crawling around in swamps?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:50PM (#452034)

    potentially fatal blow != won't finish off patent trolls

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by jasassin on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:01PM

      by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:01PM (#452210) Homepage Journal

      potentially fatal blow != won't finish off patent trolls

      Did you mean: potentially fatal blow != will finish off patent trolls

      Hmmm.. Is this Lennart?

      --
      jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:17PM (#452080)

    I'll believe it when the Federal Circuit Court doesn't overturn it. Of course, they will overturn it as soon as it gets appealed, because they're a bunch of patent lawyers protecting their turf. It's why they've rolled back most of the Supreme Court decisions that have been restricting patent trolling, and have even been sticking their oar in copyright cases. And, in another decade or so, the Supreme Court will get around to slapping them down again, and which point we'll rinse and repeat.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:24PM (#452270)

      No such think as Federal Circuit court...you probably mean Federal Appeals Court....

      Accuracy counts.

  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:06PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:06PM (#452187)

    How dare those "pure evil", "slimy, reptilian-like existence" patent "trolls" parasite off our perfected system of tax evasion and resource grabbing?

    Don't they realize that as patent cases land in courts, more and more people become aware of the ridiculousness of the actual patents?

    Can't they understand researchers are digging through the court records and are revealing our carefully built corporate structures are but schemes to steal money from innovators, scientist, researchers and the public?

    Is there no honor among thieves?!

    --
    compiling...