Slashdot Mirror


Bill Would Force Patent Trolls To Pay Defendants' Legal Bills

First time accepted submitter TrueSatan writes "With support from the EFF's Defend Freedom Project two Republican congressmen seek to introduce a bill called the 'Shield Act' which, if passed, would enable judges to award costs to defendants if they are found to be the victims of frivolous patent litigation. From the article: 'A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives attempts to deter frivolous patent litigation by forcing unsuccessful patent plaintiffs to cover defendants' legal costs. Introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act is limited to patents related to computer hardware and software.'"

56 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Rep. != Republican by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " two Republican congressmen seek to introduce a bill"
    "Introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT),"

    So the parties are officially merged now?

    1. Re:Rep. != Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone. We are hoping that nobody notices.

    2. Re:Rep. != Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      representative

    3. Re:Rep. != Republican by Therad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry citizen, the Ministry of Truth will soon fix this incorrect article..

    4. Re:Rep. != Republican by f3rret · · Score: 3, Funny

      Reptile obviously, turns out David Icke was right after all, didn't you see the article on slashdot a few days ago?

      You might have missed it though, the reptiles didn't let it stay up for long.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    5. Re:Rep. != Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry citizen, the Ministry of Truth will soon fix this correct article..

    6. Re:Rep. != Republican by 228e2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry citizen, the Ministry of Love will soon fix this incorrect citizen..

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    7. Re:Rep. != Republican by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

      No one particularly likes the Reptiles, but they keep voting for them. If you don't, the wrong lizard might get in...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    8. Re:Rep. != Republican by pdabbadabba · · Score: 5, Informative

      A representative is a type of congressman; a congressman can be either a representative (i.e., a congressman sitting in the House of Representatives) or a senator (a congressman who sits in the Senate).

    9. Re:Rep. != Republican by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Introduced by a Democrat and co-sponsored by a Republican is a good thing. It might have a better chance of getting through committees and the Senate, even though this looks a lot like election year posturing.

      Actually, it's a bad thing. Whenever those two parties agree, only one thing is certain: the American public are going to get screwed. This is one of the worst possible patent reform laws that could realistically be passed. Anyone who truly understands intellectual property would know that the way to prevent patent trolls is through fixing the loopholes that they take advantage of. This means:

      • Pass laws that strengthen the doctrine of laches so that those who should reasonably have known that patent infringement was taking place have about a one year window to bring a lawsuit, or else they can never sue that particular plaintiff again. Patent trolls almost invariably wait to sue until the alleged patent violator can no longer realistically remove the functionality or engineer around it, and until the alleged patent violator's sales volume is high enough to make it a very expensive case if they lose. Remove that incentive, and you cut trolls off at the knees.
      • Pass laws that absolutely require a functioning implementation created by the plaintiff, not just a description of that implementation, before the plaintiff actually gains the right to sue. At the core of patent trolling is suing over ideas with no concrete implementations. Remove that ability, and you deal the trolls a death blow.
      • Pass laws that redefine obviousness more broadly so that if anyone unaffiliated with the patent holder published a paper suggesting a similar solution prior to the earlier of A. the patent approval date or B. the date at which the patent holder first released a product exemplifying the patent, the patent can be invalidated by a simple administrative process. Redefine obviousness to mean "obvious to an expert in the field, given the problem it attempts to solve", not "obvious to a person with average skills, without being told the problem it attempts to solve". This would, of course, eliminate 99% of software patents, but given that 99% of software patents are patently crap, that would undoubtedly be a good improvement.
      • Pass laws that allow anyone to challenge a patent through an administrative process at any time, by paying a fee not to exceed $100, and by providing evidence of prior art that should have invalidated the patent, had it been considered when the patent was originally evaluated.
      • Pass laws that mandate a longer public comment period after a patent is published, extending up to the date at which the patent is actually approved, in which the general public is allowed to discuss the patent and submit additional prior art at a convenient website.
      • Pass laws that reduce the duration of patents depending on the rate of progress in the industry. The software industry goes through complete design cycles every four or five years. If patents lasted only four or five years, it would greatly reduce the ability of a patent to cripple the industry.
      • Pass laws that limit the ability to sell patents such that a company who buys a patent can only sue over that patent if they continued to manufacture a product or provide a service that exemplified that patent for at least a year or two after the purchase of the patent (or if they are actively manufacturing or providing such a product or service at the time of the lawsuit, during that initial period of time). This greatly reduces the viability of holding companies that exist solely to monetize patents.
      • Make patents expire automatically if the patent holder ceases to manufacture products or make services available that exemplify the patent for a period of a year or more. This basically eliminates the viability of holding companies that exist solely to monetize patents.
      • Ideally, pass laws that r
      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Please FIX the system dont PATCH it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please FIX the system don't PATCH it!

    The patent system is so badly broken that it kills innovation for generations..
    Patent trolls are just an sideffect, and they won't stop just of risk of paying some money in 1 case out of 10...

    1. Re:Please FIX the system dont PATCH it by Irishman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I definitely agree with this comment but I think that the bill being proposed is something that should be expanded far beyond patents. Allowing judges to force the plaintiffs to pay for an unsuccessful suit against the defendants in all cases would help limit spurious legal cases. If groups like RIAA had to pay when they lost the case against someone, it would go a long way to reduce these legal manoeuvres against people who cannot afford it.

    2. Re:Please FIX the system dont PATCH it by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      NA they will just form companies for the purpose of bringing the suit assign the rights to the company in a very specific way and have no downside. Forming a corp only cost a few hundred bucks after all.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Please FIX the system dont PATCH it by Mikkeles · · Score: 2

      Since that company now has the rights, they could be judicially re-assigned to the defendant in lieu of payment on a failed suit.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    4. Re:Please FIX the system dont PATCH it by AlecC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the UK, where allocation of costs against losing litigants is common, there is a concept of constructive support. If a body can be shown to have been funding an action, then they can become liable for costs laid against the litigant they were funding. Precisely to avoid this sort of blocking. Obviously, the support has to be shown to the court's satisfaction, but that is usually straightforward.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    5. Re:Please FIX the system dont PATCH it by AlecC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The court has first to determine that the case was frivolous (assuming the law is properly drafted). Courts are familiar with the idea of honest but wrong complainants, and would not wish to punish them. Insofar as the court has an interest - which they are supposed not to, but obviously do - they would not wish to have the strangling effect that you describe, because it would reduce their work. So i don't think you need worry about the court classifying every loser as frivolous.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  3. Heh, the bill isn't bad by gcnaddict · · Score: 5, Insightful

    6 ‘‘ 285A. Recovery of litigation costs for computer
    7 hardware and software patent
    8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 285, in
    9 an action disputing the validity or alleging the infringe-
    10 ment of a computer hardware or software patent, upon
    11 making a determination that the party alleging the in-
    12 fringement of the patent did not have a reasonable likeli-
    13 hood of succeeding,
    the court may award the recovery of
    14 full costs to the prevailing party, including reasonable at-
    15 torney’s fees, other than the United States.

    The language allows the judge presiding over the case to effectively determine whether the case was a frivolous case, meaning there's a decent chance that this won't deter legitimate patent suits. That said, only time will tell.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Heh, the bill isn't bad by Compulawyer · · Score: 2

      The cases interpreting Section 285 already do this. This legislation is unnecessary.

      --

      Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

    2. Re:Heh, the bill isn't bad by gcnaddict · · Score: 2

      The legislation appears intended to cause potential plaintiffs to reconsider, with the secondary benefit of codifying an already-implemented tactic.

      I agree with you in that the legislation should be unnecessary, but perhaps it's needed as a deterrent.

      --
      Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Heh, the bill isn't bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason it's unnecessary is that the law already allows the judge to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs and attorney fees if he determines that the lawsuit was frivolous. This law, like many others, is a purely political move with no purpose but to create redundant legislation. The problem is that redundancy in the law can actually create ambiguity in its meaning. Neither patent trolls nor their victims will actually be affected by this one, except that the lawyers on both sides will get to play with the law's meaning more and, of course, bill for it.

  4. SHIELD? by KazW · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think we can make a good guess about which movies these congressmen may have watched recently...

    --
    Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
  5. Garunteed Backfire by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now instead of no-name or proxy companies holding giants hostage, the giants themselves will become the hostage takers, violating patents left and right, and daring any little guy patent holders to try, just try, to take em to court. Then when the giant outspends I mean wins the court case, the lil guy is now really fookered cause he had to the giant's lawyer bill for its high profile team of super expensive attorneys.....

    Result: no lil guy will ever take on a giant that violates his patents, and when he contacts the company for any kind of settlement or sale offer, they'll just brush him off.

    Ya this is a great idea.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:Garunteed Backfire by Necroloth · · Score: 2

      little guys don't tend to go for the big corps unless they know they have a solid foundation... why on earth would you otherwise? I think this has been brought to life with the Apple/Samsung debacle.

    2. Re:Garunteed Backfire by dokc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now instead of no-name or proxy companies holding giants hostage, the giants themselves will become the hostage takers, violating patents left and right, and daring any little guy patent holders to try, just try, to take em to court. Then when the giant outspends I mean wins the court case, the lil guy is now really fookered cause he had to the giant's lawyer bill for its high profile team of super expensive attorneys.....

      Result: no lil guy will ever take on a giant that violates his patents, and when he contacts the company for any kind of settlement or sale offer, they'll just brush him off.

      Ya this is a great idea.

      I don't see any difference to current situation.

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    3. Re:Garunteed Backfire by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The bill gives the judge discretion to determine if it was a frivolous lawsuit, so if judges use that discretion properly (admittedly, subject to question), people who sue and lose won't be assessed the costs if the suit was at least a reasonable one.

    4. Re:Garunteed Backfire by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if they get a judge to agree that the little guys suit was frivolous, yeah. This legislation doesn't mandate loser pays, it gives judges the option to enforce loser pays if they determine that the plaintiff knew the suit was likely to lose when they brought it.

      And if you reply by saying that the big corp will just buy out the judge too - well, there's your problem. No matter what legislation is passed, you can't have justice if the officers of the court are corrupt. That's not a problem with this legislation, it's a problem with the legal system as a whole.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  6. Re:Does this include Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft has mostly used their patents defensively so I don't think they've included in this

    True but their proxy companies would probably go down faster with this bill.

    , nor Apple.

    What the fuck are you smoking? Did you miss the whole Samsung shitfest?

    Google, on the other hand, will be on hot waters especially with the recent purchase of Motorola Mobility.

    Er, this isn't a retroactive bill ... not to mention legal costs (while big numbers to us) don't mean a whole lot to a company like Google. $40 million in lawyer fees? Drop in the bucket.

  7. Hmmm by Coisiche · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Much as I'd like to believe that this is the result of politicians actually having a good idea, I suspect it's nothing but a negotiation ploy because they want bigger payments from corporations who draw a large revenue stream from the questionable use of patents.

  8. Wrong Problem - More Unnecessary Legislation by Compulawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Section 285 of the Patent Act of 1952 (35 U.S.C. 285) already permits judges to declare patent cases to be "exceptional" and award appropriate relief. From the defendant's perspective, a case can be declared exceptional if the plaintiff cannot show that at least one claim of the patent in suit covers the device or process accused of infringing the patent. This section is regularly used by defendants to obtain attorneys fees and costs.

    Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 1927 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code also provides bases for the same relief.

    The problem with patent trolls is not the inability of defendants to get costs. It is that trolls often wage licensing campaigns by bringing highly questionable claims but set the costs of licenses below the cost to defend an action in court. Companies typically choose to go the economical route and take a license.

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  9. Re:Does this include Microsoft? by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google, on the other hand, will be on hot waters especially with the recent purchase of Motorola Mobility.

    Er, this isn't a retroactive bill ... not to mention legal costs (while big numbers to us) don't mean a whole lot to a company like Google. $40 million in lawyer fees? Drop in the bucket.

    Google posted around $2.7 billion in profits for Q4 of 2011, so let's figure they make around $10 billion in profits per year.
    $40 million out of $10 billion in profit is like Joe Average taking home $50,000/yr and spending $200 on lawyer fees. (An imperfect analogy, but it shows how little Google's profit margin is hurt by lawyer fees.)

  10. Do it for all civil cases that are about money by captainpanic · · Score: 2

    A wants X amount of money from B. A loses the case, but B is still bankrupt from the costs of the case.

    I may be mistaken, but I think that in the Netherlands, if A loses, they always pay the entire costs of B too. That's the risk of suing someone for financial gain.

    1. Re:Do it for all civil cases that are about money by Bombur · · Score: 2

      Well, I do not know about the Netherlands, but in Germany the losing party always pays the winners fees.. Both in civil and in criminal cases.

    2. Re:Do it for all civil cases that are about money by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      How does that work when the person wronged is an individual of midling means(IE poor) and the one who did wrong is a huge company? Can the huge company bury the small guy in legal fees/bills?

      There needs to be a balance, and you can't always assume that the losing party was in the wrong, or at least to the extent that it shouldn't have been a court trial.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Do it for all civil cases that are about money by Sique · · Score: 2

      No, this doesn't work. At least in Germany, the lawyer's fees are determined by the valuation of the case. There is a table which lists for each case value how much the lawyers will earn at maximum, and the plaintiff is the one putting a value on his suit. So you can always block the attempts of the defendant to shock you with high costs because you are the one determining how much the case will cost you.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  11. I HAVE A GREAT IDEA!! by f3rret · · Score: 3, Funny

    Patent frivolous patent lawsuits and sue EVERYONE!

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  12. Oh noes! by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple might have to go back to innovating instead of what they've been doing the last 18 months. (Retina display being the last really clever thing I'd credit to Apple)
    Galaxy S3 folks, Apple are shitting themselves and rightfully so, S2 was good, S3 is great, genuinely good hardware - some great software too.

    Disclaimer: I've owned an iphone 3/3gs/4 and Galaxy S2 and S3.

    1. Re:Oh noes! by chenjeru · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do know that the retina display in the iPhone is designed an manufactured by Samsung, right? The only "innovative" thing Apple did was to lock the supply chain by buying every single one of them, making them unavailable for anyone else until manufacturing capacity ramped up.

      --
      Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
    2. Re:Oh noes! by dzym · · Score: 2

      Hard-coding a 4x scaler into an operating system is not particularly innovative.

    3. Re:Oh noes! by metrometro · · Score: 2

      Only Apple could get away with calling the decades-old progression towards more pixels per inch as "innovation" by giving it a fucking brand name. That fact that the displays are made by Samsung is just icing.

      Apple doesn't innovate. They tinker with existing forms and make them more pleasing. It's not a bad thing, it's incredibly profitable, but don't pretend that Apple is actually trying stuff that might not work. Apple's patent stuff campaign, you will note, is not aimed at innovators, but at companies that execute well at scale. In other words, companies like themselves.

      The uncritical consumer joy from an incremental change ("Retina!") that adds exactly zero functionality -- that's an innovation. Not one I particularly want to buy, though.

  13. Re:Does this include Microsoft? by evilRhino · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's fallacious to argue that money has similar opportunity costs in scale. $40 million could bribe a congressman to the tune of billions, whereas there is almost no legal opportunity to increase $200 to that degree.

  14. Might not help by jeti · · Score: 5, Informative

    Keep in mind that IP Ventures is said to use between 1600 and 1800 proxy companies for suing. Those companies are formally independent of IP Ventures, but the filings indicate that IP Ventures has a financial interest in the outcome (they get their share). If the legislation is not carefully crafted, the proxy companies can just go bankrupt and sell the patent(s) back to IP Ventures.

    Source: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack/

    1. Re:Might not help by ewieling · · Score: 2

      It seems that if the proxy companies go bankrupt they should be forced to hand over the patents to the winner as compensation.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    2. Re:Might not help by Jaysyn · · Score: 2

      The lawyers will probably know where the judge is leaning and have the transfer documentation ready to go at a moments notice. They'll sell/reassign the patent and fold in the time it takes to process the request.

      And piercing the corporate veil? Good luck with that - the standards are exceptionally high for getting at the original investors through multiple corporations, and these are not just corporations but lawyers with nothing better to do than cover their own asses. I don't see it happening.

      In that case the patents in question need to be held in escrow until the case is resolved.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  15. Re:Does this include Microsoft? by bjwest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You people think this is funny? This is EXACTLY how our political system works. It's perfectly legal for corporations to bribe our lawmakers to make decisions favorable to them, it's just called lobbying. Let Joe Shmoe try giving $200.00 to influence his representatives decision and see where he ends up.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  16. not enough by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the claims are truly frivolous the plaintiff should have to pay whatever they asked for in damages to compensate their intended victim for damage to their reputation. And it shouldn't just apply to trolls. The same should go for big sue-happy companies.

  17. Wait. Stop. (insert popcorn-eating .gif here) by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Be careful what you wish for, people!

    The bigger patent trolls have plenty of money.

    The small guy with a legitimate beef does not.

    Here's what you do -- imagine you're a patent troll with $30 billion at your disposal. Now pay your multiple genius lawyers to figure out ways around it.

    Now revise the law according to that before even bothering to pass it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  18. Re:Does this include Microsoft? by camperdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it is cleverly spent, it could work.

    However, let's not forget the scale. If $40 million buys billions (let's say 2 billion), then $200 buys $10,000. That could be a simple matter of taking the mayor for a good meal and discussing a zoning issue, or a vending permit.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  19. Ahem by kenp2002 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding, the court may award the recovery of full costs to the prevailing party, including reasonable attorney’s fees, other than the United States...

    All this bill does is give judges the ability to required the loser to pay up. The legal definition and use of the word MAY is very important. MAY gives the judge discretion, SHALL does not. IANALBMWIAPL and she says this effectively does nothing other then give a judge the same ability to require one side to pay up without having to dismiss the case with prejudice. Nothing more then giving the judge more tools to punish trolls.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  20. Re:Does this include Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeeeeeeeah, because poor, poor Apple had to defend themselves from those big mean companies that wanted to use THEIR simple geometric shapes that they invented. I remember growing up in my parents' icosahedral house, wishing, nay, PRAYING that someday, some wonderful, glorious company would invent a shape that was simple, four-sided, and comprised of two pairs of edges wherein each pair had the same length, as that would simplify our maintenance costs significantly.

    And because you shills still don't get it, we ARE fully aware that Motorola Mobility isn't owned by Google yet, nor were the lawsuits they filed before that announcement Google's lawsuits. So give it up already, we're not falling for it.

  21. I have a better idea by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Bill would force patent trolls *and their attorneys* to pay defendants' legal bills"

  22. Shell companies. by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    A truly *good* shell company will only have the rights to ONE patent, and only enough money assigned to it to feed the lawyers for the patent suit itself.

    There's deeper rules that try to prevent this sort of stuff, but it's complicated to work through. If I understand it right today, in many ways companies that are wholly(or mostly wholly) owned by another company are considered part of that company.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  23. In the cloud by tepples · · Score: 2

    We still use computers exactly as we did in the 60s, with only the very largest of companies being able to afford them.

    I see the sarcasm in your post, but unfortunately, the "in the cloud" and "post-PC" fads appear headed that way.

  24. Numbered companies by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    All that will do is cause the patent trolls to create a number company with no assets for each lawsuit. So when costs are awarded, they will be bust and the victim will still be burdened with all the costs.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  25. Re:When will the fix the real problem? by Entropius · · Score: 2

    Copyright != patent.

  26. Re:Does this include Microsoft? by Gripp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except in those cases it is considered bribery if an individual, or at the least a conflict of interest, if a small/medium business. NO one is "above" the law. We just make new ones the higher you get.

  27. Kickstarter by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Let Joe Shmoe try giving $200.00 to influence his representatives decision and see where he ends up.

    I think I've just had an idea for Kickstarter.