Slashdot Mirror
Suing Open Source Startups - A New Scam?
Anonymous Crowhead asks: "I'm posting this anonymously for reasons that will soon be obvious. We're a fairly new startup company who specialize in products, and we have a policy of making all our software Open Source. A while ago, we received an notice from a company claiming that we were violating some of their patents, and that they had found this out by looking at our code. They gave us one of the two options - either make the product closed source and sign up for a percentage of the profits with them, or provide them with a stake in our company. Our legal advisors felt that it might be wise for us to settle, but we decided to press them further for details of the infringement and refused to yield. We haven't heard from them since - so either we called their bluff, or they've gone to come back with more legal firepower. No matter what, we feel that this is a scary precedent. Have any other entrepreneurs around here experienced anything similar? Is this one of the after-effects of the SCO episode - to go after unwitting small startups who cannot fight back? Personally, this was a nightmare for our company, and we are not aware of any patents that we may be violating."
Did i get this right - they didn't tell you what patents you are supposed to be violating?
In that case their claims don't sound very credible IMHO.
Truly. It's not as if patents are secret. They should give you the Patent number and then if there's any case at all, you can answer it.
Our legal advisors felt that it might be wise for us to settle, but we decided to press them further for details of the infringement and refused to yield...
So your legal advisors advised you to settle without further details? Something is not right about this story.
Like The SCO Group did?
I'm sure IBM has sunk close to $10M into the SCO litigation by now, and after that, a year and a half in court and two court orders, SCO *still* hasn't said just what their beef is.
With any luck, Judge Kimball will grant IBM's motion for Partial Summary Judgement and put the whole copyright fiaSCO to rest once and for all (barring appeal). If not, IBM could spend another $10M before SCO's bluff is fully "called".
Granted, that's a much more complex situation, and there is still a faint glimmer of a flicker of a possibility that SCO, somewhere, somehow, will actually find something IBM did wrong (not on the copyright question, I don't think, but perhaps on the contracts), but the point is that you very well can spend a lot of cash calling their bluff.
Might as well at least make them file a formal complaint, I suppose.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That said, if it's a patent, the patent is public information. They should have to provide the number of the patent that you have infringed, and proof of their ownership of said patent. It should then be easy enough to get the relevant info from the Patent Office. There's no incentive for you to settle until they do those 2 things. They *could* try to directly file a legal case, but it looks like they are out for a quick buck, and they are just hoping to scare you into a bad call.
CC
No, there's no point in making veiled (and probably idle) threats.
It's in your best interests to remain polite. The company might come back with a legitimate patent infringement. Just because you're not aware that you've infringed on a patent doesn't mean you haven't done so. There are patented algorithms (the "marching cubes" algorithm for voxel rendering comes to mind). Even if you independently develop such an algorithm, you'd be infringing the patent by using it.
Now, if you never hear from them again after challenging them and feel you have a moral obligation to strike back (on behalf of future victims or something)...and after you've done your research and you're sure that the company isn't legit...then you should contact a lawyer and see what he or she suggests as a course of action.
And if you're not willing to retain a lawyer, then what are you going to do? Call them names? Idle threats won't stop them. Do something useful about it, or just forget it and move on.
I am speaking from direct personal experience on this one. When we got the hit with the lawsuit (99% bogus, you got that, Mark?), I was so angry that I was ready to fight til the end of time. Fortunately, my attorney sat me down and explained how this scam works and then said, 'If you want to waste about a year of your time and also pay for my son's tuition at a nice private school, let's fight back. Otherwise, pay these clowns their money and you can get back to the business of making and selling products.'
He was right I -- but I can still feel my blood pressure go up every time I think about it.
Maybe while they're at it they should fire their legal counsel and get someone with a little more backbone.
It's common for lawyers to present a cost benefit analysis of this type of situation and quite often they will encourage a settlement, similar to the way a family pays off kidnappers to free a hostage or a retail business pays protection money to some street gang.
One wonders whether there is in fact a conspiracy in the legal world to encourage settlements, because if people challenged every questionable lawsuit that came down the pike, perhaps there would ultimately be fewer such suits, just as if all businesses refused to pay protection money there would be no protection racket (albeit, after some bouts of violence) and there would be no incentive to kidnap hostages either.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
And what is it that is obvious?
New startup that specializes in products
Our legal advisors felt that it might be wise for us to settle
but we decided to press them further for details of the infringement and refused to yield
we feel that this is a scary precedent
Have any other entrepreneurs around here experienced anything similar?
to go after unwitting small startups who cannot fight back?
Personally, this was a nightmare for our company
we are not aware of any patents that we may be violating.
This reads like it was written by a psychologist to scare us out of starting an open-source company (note the use of language to make as many people identify with the text as possible combined with the implicit transfer of fear). That is what is obvious.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Which country are you based in? if you are UK based, as some of your remarks suggest, I might give you a little consultation time for free. I do patents and IP, BTW.
Stop asking the IANAL /. crowd for legal advice: it's a serious waste of time as many of the reponses so far demonstrate.
The signature of this company suggests a scam: if I was representing someone with a strong patent I would be only too happy to give the patent number and relevant claims. But I certainly wouldn't refuse to divulge the patent and get snotty: that suggests lack of confidence on their part, and a tactically misjudged aggressive response.
On the other hand it may be just their litigative style and say nothing of the merits. Dunno, insufficient information.
You dont say whether your lawyer is an IP specialist: this matters, a generalist is fine for routine contracts, your building lease and employment law but you must know when to consult a specialist. your lawyer maybe out of his depth and not willing to admit it to you. He may worry about losing face and having you go elsewhere for legal services, whatever. Get someone with relevant experience if he hasn't got it: ask him to find you someone. I'm an IP lawyer but if a client asks me about tax law I wont bullshit: I'll refer them or find out myself from a specialist.
As one poster said: the temptation to push it all the way in outrage is understandable. this will cost you a fortune but the most pragmatic solution may be to enter some sort of agreement. But to do so without knowing the true strenght of their case is absurd. If their patent is weak and the prior art plentiful you may get them to agree to go away period, or with a very poor deal. I might be tempted just to say "bring it on".
You're playing poker: understand that and you are some of the way to understanding your predicament.
Your approach so far suggest diffidence and a lack of confidence, both you and your lawyer - while it's difficult to assess the dynamics of the parties from a /. posting you seem to be at risk of making bad decisions from a lack of proper guidance: get a specialist lawyer. Dont 'ask /.'. Really.
mail me offline for some advice: david atsign geeklawyer [dot] org
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal