Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Patent Trolls
Anonymous Coward writes "Forbes is reporting that the Supreme Court has just limited the power of patent trolls to obtain permanent injunctions against infringers as a matter of course. The court has ruled that the principles of equity apply, meaning that a court considering slapping an injunction on the infringer must consider how much damage is really being done ... which in the case of EBay's Buy It Now feature, isn't much, since the company that owns this so-called patent only has it for the purposes of suing other people." From the article: "The high court's decision deals a blow to patent trolls, which are notorious for using the threat of permanent injunction to extort hefty fees in licensing negotiations as well as huge settlements from companies they have accused of infringing. Often, those settlements can be far greater than the value of the infringing technology: Recall the $612.5 million that Canada's Research in Motion forked over to patent-holding company NTP to avoid the shutting down of its popular BlackBerry service."
The problem with the "patent trolls" idea is that it's all but indistinguishable from the "small inventor with few resources" one in many cases.
This ruling does mean that if you're a small-time inventor that couldn't afford to implement your idea yourself, you can freely be ripped off by large corps that can, with impunity, since you wouldn't have made a lot of money without a major partner in any case.
Tell me again how patents are protecting the inventor against large corporations?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Yeah, I agree with Whiney.
Has anyone else noticed how "troll" is being used interchangebly with "lawyer" lately?
Come on, let's be fair to the trolls. It's down right insulting to push them that low. You should call someone a lawyer if that's really what they are, don't try to sugar coat it with "troll."
My work here is dung.
This is clearly not true.
:) (Sorry...)
So, it's patently untrue?
I'm not sure what you mean - but if you're saying Creative was another "Patent Troll", then I don't think you're correct.
Patent troll companies generally do not produce technology, just sit on patent portfolios. While Creative's suit has no merit, Creative have been selling mp3 players for far longer then Apple has (they even bought out a 'nano' branded model first!).
Oh - and there's another big patent threat to the iPod out there - the click wheel patent... and the company who owns that patent produces real (if crap) technology products too.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
This is positive even if it hurts the small inventor. This person I know works as a copyright lawyer. Coincidentally for Microsoft. Her job is to find vague ideas that have not been patented and patent them in as many countries as possible with the broadest most vague wording that could possibly hold up in court. Microsoft's idea is that 20 years down the road each patent will pay off itself 100 fold. So why is it okay to do something that hurts the small investor? Because now the small investor can't be sued when they come out with a breakthrough product simply because it infringes upon some BS patent held by a company with zero intentions of ever doing anything with it... well, except for using it to hold a small inventor hostage and take all his/her possessions.
All you need now is a new law, allowing patents to be annulled early if they are being misused. Physical property can be confiscated if it is misused, and proponents of the term "intellectual property" like to think that ideas can be owned like physical property, so why the hell not?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"What do you call 1000 trolls buried up to their necks in sand?"
"A good start."
You got it wrong.
"What do you call 1000 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?"
"Not enough sand."