'Patent Trolls' & Technological Trickery

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3722509.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3722509.stm</a><br /><br /></div>The BBC has an interesting article up about possible reforms to the US Patent system: <br /><br /><i>"Mad cap patents ranging from protecting a method of painting by dipping a baby's bottom into paint or a system for keeping track of people queuing for the bathroom may soon be a thing of the past if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has its way. Such patents, while humorous, clearly show both how broken the American patent system and how lax standards are hurting innovation when it comes to business, the Commission says. "The intellectual property system was designed to create incentives for people to innovate by giving them, for want of a better word, a monopoly on their ideas for a certain period of time," FTC commissioner Mozelle Thompson told BBC News Online. "But we have seen instances where companies use that monopoly in an anti-competitive way, sometimes to prevent other products from getting to market, to prevent people from sharing ideas and to prevent the kind of innovation that the patent system is really trying to spur on.""</i><br /><br />No, patents being used to stifle innovation? 8O Really? Get outahere! :wink: It's good to see that the system is being reformed, as apparently over half of all US patents should have not been awarded in the fist place.<br /><br /><i>"An added problem is the growth of so called 'patent trolls' who can be likened to modern day highway robbers cashing in on the problem. These are lawyers and investors who buy cheaply or assume control over paper patents, mistakenly granted largely to failed companies, explains David Simon, computer firm Intel's chief patent counsel. The trolls can use these patents to threaten to shut down the entire computing industry with a court order injunction, no matter how minor the feature that has been patented is. Mr Simon cites one case where a patent troll claimed a patent they had bought for about $50,000 was infringed by all of Intel's microprocessors from the Pentium II onwards and that they were seeking $7 billion in damages. In the end, the case was thrown out by the court, but it still cost Intel $3m to fight it, Mr Simon says."</i><br /><br />Ouch. The sooner the Patent systems works as intended, the better.

[bjornkeizers]

the case was thrown out by the court, but it still cost Intel $3m to fight it, Mr Simon says."[/i]

Ouch. The sooner the Patent systems works as intended, the better.

Agreed. Courts have bettert things to do then entertain BS claims. They should shoot bottomfeeders like that in the face to prvent this

[Pony99CA]

the case was thrown out by the court, but it still cost Intel $3m to fight it, Mr Simon says."[/i]

Ouch. The sooner the Patent systems works as intended, the better.
Agreed. Courts have bettert things to do then entertain BS claims. They should shoot bottomfeeders like that in the face to prvent this
That's why I'm in favor of a modified "loser pays" system. Whoever loses the lawsuit should have to pay court costs. They should also have to pay the winning side's attorney fees, with a cap determined by how much their attorney fees are (or would have been, in the case of contingency suits). That limit prevents one side from throwing in a multi-million dollar legal team just to scare off people from suing because of the huge attorney bills they'd face if they lost.

In the Intel case, the losers would have to foot at least part of Intel's $3 million legal fees.

Steve

[bjornkeizers]

I'm all for patents; as long as they're specific ones. Not the kind of patents we recently discussed (the one about PPC's storing credit card info and such) It's clear the lawyers are only after money with those; not protecting intellectual rights.

IMO, these people are the lowest form of life. At least an actual shark makes an honest living. You don't see them screwing each other over silly patents... These people are only doing it to get rich off someone else's hard work - and they're clogging up the courts as a result, which costs *ME* money. I can't understands why courts would even entertain such silly claims like that..

I'm all for loser pays!

[Kacey Green]

As long as the algorithm for how much the user pays is fair, I'd be all for looser pays, although about that part "If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you."

I'd go further to say, that looser pays if they are the plaintiff

[Pony99CA]

As long as the algorithm for how much the user pays is fair, I'd be all for looser pays, although about that part "If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you."
The free attorney is for criminal cases, not civil, so the point is not applicable.

I'd go further to say, that looser pays if they are the plaintiff
No, if the defendent loses, a jury (or judge) obviously felt they did something wrong, so the suit was justified. The plantiff should therefore be entitled to reimbursement for the necessity of suing.

Steve

P.S. The word is loser; looser is an adjective meaning "more loose". I'm seeing this more and more on the Internet lately, and it's become a pet peeve of mine (one of the many :-D).

[Kacey Green]

my point was if the loser was being pursued by a big corp it could be a bad thing

this could be useful in all court cases everywhere to help with frivolous lawsuits

Edit, it wouldn't matter who was going after who if the algorithm of who pays what is good, and I'm sure all the lawyers would love this plan, they still get paid.

[Pony99CA]

Edit, it wouldn't matter who was going after who if the algorithm of who pays what is good, and I'm sure all the lawyers would love this plan, they still get paid.
Actually, I suspect lawyers would hate it. It's meant to discourage lawsuits by making people think twice about suing.

Steve

[bjornkeizers]

Yeah, right now every schmuck with a shark in a suit and a fifteen year old patent can sue big businesses. While the claims are 9 times out of 10 pure grade-A bull****, it's just easier and cheaper to pay a settlement then litigate... which could very well run into the millions of dollars. And lawyers know this.

***Post edited by moderator SJC for language.

[Kacey Green]

we'll have to suggest this to the powers that be :)

[Inventorb]

Yeah, right now every schmuck with a shark in a suit and a fifteen year old patent can sue big businesses. While the claims are 9 times out of 10 pure grade-A bull****, it's just easier and cheaper to pay a settlement then litigate... which could very well run into the millions of dollars. And lawyers know this.

***Post edited by moderator SJC for language.

I could find this conversation interesting once the personal opinions leave the conversation. And the intelligent alternatives are introduced. Just rambling is words from the heart not actual resolution.

Inventor

[Pony99CA]

Yeah, right now every schmuck with a shark in a suit and a fifteen year old patent can sue big businesses. While the claims are 9 times out of 10 pure grade-A bull****, it's just easier and cheaper to pay a settlement then litigate... which could very well run into the millions of dollars. And lawyers know this.
I could find this conversation interesting once the personal opinions leave the conversation. And the intelligent alternatives are introduced. Just rambling is words from the heart not actual resolution.
Ummm, hello! I did introduce an intelligent alternative to the current system --- my modified loser pays system. I have thought about it for quite a while. If you don't think it's a reasonable alternative, maybe you'd care to share why instead of insulting us.

And, while I agree that Bjorn was way over the top, his point isn't too far off. People do sue because they realize many companies will settle instead of going through the expense of litigation.

As for personal opinions leaving the discussion, did you read the tag line of this site? Specifically, pay attention to the "views, rants and raves" part. If you just want news with no opinion, try the New York Times.

Steve

[Inventorb]

[quote=Inventorb][quote=

And, while I agree that Bjorn was way over the top, his point isn't too far off. People do sue because they realize many companies will settle instead of going through the expense of litigation.

Steve

Steve

Please excuse me if I insulted anyone. That was not intention. My comments were made to get the upper echelon involved. This would have been very constructive. I was truly open for an intellectual experience, and conversation regarding these very issues. Oh well

Good Day
Inventor

[Inventorb]

the case was thrown out by the court, but it still cost Intel $3m to fight it, "[/i]


I personally believe most people are honorable. I truly believe that most people believe each side is correct. Some lawsuits are ridiculous. For the most part, I believe I am right and you are wrong. This prospective language references the First Amendment rights of all Americans. So let us go to court and have a neutral jury or judge tell us the answer.

2. Remember
Justice is never possible without a common standard that defines what’s right and what’s wrong.

America finds those standards in the Constitution and the U.S. code.

These in turn are founded on our values and moral codes.

A judiciary that rules by whim is not an agent of justice, but rather a way for injustice to triumph.

3. “Don’t pull rulings out of your hat: don’t play politics: base your decisions on the law.”

The Supreme Court – Monday December 4, 2000

If we use the paragraph 2 and 3 we will never have any problems. If we do not use paragraph 2 and 3 then you could be right or I could be right, or lets go outside and the last man standing will be right.

We must use the law, and court bases that are founders have brought to our country if justice is to prevail.

If you had an idea and you were absolute, that it should be your intellectual property.
Would you protect your property? On the other hand, would you just stand by and watch someone steal it?

Inventor

[Pony99CA]

Please excuse me if I insulted anyone. That was not intention. My comments were made to get the upper echelon involved.
Hmmm, so what are those of us who had been involved, the "lower echelon"? :evil:

If you want to discuss issues, jump in. It's not just up to us to make the discussion interesting; you have to play your part, too.

Steve