New Bill Would Require Patent Trolls To Pay Defendants' Attorneys

Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sudden outbreak of common sense?

Re:Hmm by butalearner · 2013-02-28 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Almost. Of course, this bill is full of weasel words so it'll never pass, and we're still dancing around the two things we need:
1) Software patent reform.
2) Loser pays for every kind of lawsuit, not just patent troll suits. You know, like every other sane country on the planet.
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 05:25 · Score: 1

Yes, but loser pays isn't a panacea for our problems, the fact is that if you don't win, that's not necessarily because you didn't have a case, if your attorneys weren't as good or you didn't have experts that were as good, you can still lose. Not to mention the times when you just have bad luck.
For a major corporation, settling midway through or paying the fees isn't that big of a deal, but for those of us that aren't billionaires, loser pays represents a very real deterrent to taking advantage of the legal system where one can't afford the possibility of losing.
Re:Hmm by dc29A · 2013-02-28 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even if this law passes, it won't work because the patent office keeps granting vague patent after vague patent.
Re:Hmm by butalearner · 2013-02-28 05:43 · Score: 1

Yes, but loser pays isn't a panacea for our problems.
If it was perfect, then it'd already be law. But it's almost certainly better than what we've got if the point is to stop frivolous lawsuits.

loser pays represents a very real deterrent to taking advantage of the legal system where one can't afford the possibility of losing.
I assume you don't mean "exploiting" because that's exactly the point. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Re:Hmm by subanark · 2013-02-28 05:50 · Score: 2

It is a big deal to those corporations. Although settling isn't that big of a deal, the money they pay the patent trolls only empower them to buy more patents and sue more companies. Also, there are some really gutsy patent trolls that don't settle and instead try to get the jury to pay the off big. "Members of the jury, the sale of the companies product is in use by their product. For this reason we want a mere 5% of the total sales of their devices" (They say this in an industry where the profit margin is 5%). And this is assuming that the patent trolls don't prove willful infringement.
These corporations have the big bucks, they have the lobying power to push this law though, and those patent trolls have finally become annoying enough to hurt them. What I fear is that the patent trolls will find the inventors and offer to back license the patent and represent them in court for a mere 90% of the payoff.
Re:Hmm by Stiletto · 2013-02-28 06:16 · Score: 2

Loser pays is a terrible idea, unless you can guarantee that the legal system 100% of the time accurately determines who is wrong (as opposed to who has the best/most lawyers). As a person with limited resources, I would never be able to risk suing a corporation over something, because, even if I had a 1% chance of losing, that chance would mean instant bankruptcy for me. Similarly, corporations would have even more incentive to use bogus lawsuits to extract settlement money from individuals who would never be able to afford to pay both sides' lawyers.
Re:Hmm by tnk1 · 2013-02-28 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, he means a legitimate small player *making use of the system as it was intended under the concept of equal protection under the law*. Having money is not supposed to be a prerequisite for obtaining justice in the US, at least in theory, of course.
I should be able to sue Apple or Samsung or some other multinational and if my case is correct and proven under the law, I not only deserve to win, I am supposed to win.
The fact that patent trolls can weasel into the space left for the small guy to have his voice heard doesn't mean that that method becomes expendable. It means we need a solution that filters patent trolls out better.
I agree that trolls need to be stopped. My own organization have been extorted by them. They're a parasitic entity made possible by government rules that would not exist without a broken patent system. However, fix the patent system, don't simply carpet bomb any requests from people who don't have money.
Re:Hmm by AK+Marc · 2013-02-28 06:30 · Score: 2

NPEs didn't pay enough bribes last election cycle.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Hmm by AK+Marc · 2013-02-28 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Loser pays is a terrible idea, unless you can guarantee that the legal system 100% of the time accurately determines who is wrong (as opposed to who has the best/most lawyers).

Without loser pays, anyone who gets sued already lost. You get to pay millions to prove your innocence. So there's a loss for being innocent. Loser pays fixes that. What would you propose to protect the innocent from frivolous lawsuits?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Hmm by Anne+Thwacks · 2013-02-28 07:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Loser Pays applies to virtually the entire rest of the galaxy, and, while not perfect, it is way better than the Loonie Tunes US approach. Here in the UK, it applies to both criminal and civil law in 100% of cases, unless the judge decides the loser was partly to blame - eg deliberately made himself look guilty to attract a law suit.

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Re:Hmm by viperidaenz · 2013-02-28 07:29 · Score: 1

And here comes the new insurance market: Indemnity insurance to cover lost lawsuits.
Re:Hmm by andydread · 2013-02-28 08:11 · Score: 1

From what I understand the people who don't have money will not be affected here because they are the original inventor and only people with money purchase patents from corporations to sue other corporations. If you sat down in a barn and came up with a neat idea that you patented and YOU are registered as the original inventor then this law would not apply to you because you obviously did not acquire the patent you are the actual inventor.
Re:Hmm by andydread · 2013-02-28 08:22 · Score: 1

if you look at the bill it seems this is not loser pays for everybody. Its if you purchase patents from corporations, produce nothing, then sue people you have to first put up a bond. How many entities do you know of that 1) Purchases patents from corporations, and 2) Produce nothing, and 3) Sue people over said purchased patents? These people are trolls. think about it. If you are a small guy and you came up with some new invention and patent it then you would be the original inventor on that patent. This law would not apply to you because you didn't meet condition 1)
Re:Hmm by tnk1 · 2013-02-28 08:27 · Score: 1

I am mostly in favor of this provision, but honestly, we need to be very careful about putting pricetags on justice to fight the other implied pricetags. I would prefer, personally, that the patent system be corrected, instead of a band aid like this be applied. We need to make it easier to quickly dismiss these cases as frivolous, as opposed to simply upping the ante. Because ultimately, if the patent troll is big enough, they *will* be able to post the bond, and the extortion will continue.
Re:Hmm by gstrickler · 2013-02-28 09:35 · Score: 1

Loser pays as a statutory requirement is a bad idea. However, loser pays should be an allowed option in every civil case, something that the judge/jury can impose when the circumstances warrant it. When the plaintiff has presented a good case, but still loses, loser pays could be unnecessarily punitive.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Hmm by s.petry · 2013-02-28 09:42 · Score: 1

I call bullshit!
In almost every civil action there is something called a counter suit. What is my option when you shut down my business because of an alleged patent infringement? What do I counter sue for? Nothing, because there is no protection from arbitrary and ambiguous patents or lawsuits using such patents. Even in cases where a patent has been invalidated during the trial process, the defendant has tremendous losses. Those losses can not be recouped. If I pay a troll and the patent gets invalidated, I could sue for my payment to be returned but not for the legal fees that got me to pay them in the first place.
That is absolutely not working as intended, and is not how the rest of the galaxy works. If you have doubts, go ahead and sue me for wrongful death of someone and I'll counter sue you for defamation, slander, and libel. Guess who will walk out of court owing money. Go ahead, I triple dog dare you.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Hmm by gmanterry · 2013-02-28 10:04 · Score: 1

This could never pass as it is way too logical. I believe this rule should apply to all litigation, civil and criminal. Why should the government be allowed to bankrupt an individual by accusing him (or her) of a crime that they did not commit? If the government loses it should pay the defendant's legal expenses and vice versa. It would add further punishment to those convicted of crimes.

--
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
Re:Hmm by HiThere · 2013-02-28 11:38 · Score: 1

While you are correct, you are too limited. It's not just the patent system, it's the entire legal system that is broken. The patent system and the copyright system are currently the most broken parts, but they are far from the only broken parts.
Principles:
1) Justice should be fast. Justice delayed is justice denied.
2) Justice shoule not depend on the relative wealth of the two parties EXCEPT that the accused party should be allowed to offer injured party sufficient wealth to "make them whole". There should be NO requirement that any offer be accepted.
3) Justice should not encourage the continued commission of the offenses.
4) Legally imposed penalties should be proportional to the damages caused.
To me these principles seem uncontroversial, though some of the conclusions I draw from them, especially the third, are relatively controversial.
P.S.: Despite the 4th principle, I am not in favor of the death penalty. Or of extremely long sentences. Or sentences that cause physical pain.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Hmm by norpy · 2013-02-28 13:42 · Score: 1

Yes, but loser pays isn't a panacea for our problems, the fact is that if you don't win, that's not necessarily because you didn't have a case, if your attorneys weren't as good or you didn't have experts that were as good, you can still lose. Not to mention the times when you just have bad luck.
This is why most countries that have loser pays legal costs don't just automatically award them but it is automatically considered, otherwise a large entity could hire entire law firms and then lose on purpose to bankrupt their opponents.
For example in Australia when AFACT (local puppet for the MPAA) took our 3rd largest ISP to court for encouraging piracy by refusing to forward MPAA nastygrams to customers iinet were only awarded something like 75% of legal costs.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure comes down to how legitimate your case was and how able to wear the costs you are.
Re:Hmm by Maow · 2013-02-28 13:54 · Score: 2

Loser Pays applies to virtually the entire rest of the galaxy, and, while not perfect, it is way better than the Loonie Tunes US approach. Here in the UK, it applies to both criminal and civil law in 100% of cases, unless the judge decides the loser was partly to blame - eg deliberately made himself look guilty to attract a law suit.
Wait, if I'm charged with a criminal offence in the UK, and found not guilty, I get my lawyers fees reimbursed by Her Majesty?
I don't think it works that way in Canada; I'd be quite interested if you could clarify that.
We do of course have loser pays in civil proceedings, unless judge decides otherwise, and on a fee schedule applied by the judge.
Re:Hmm by delt0r · 2013-02-28 22:28 · Score: 1

This is not true. In the 4 countries I have lived in, the loser pays only in special circumstances. Typically only when they have really pissed off the Judge.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Hmm by chrismcb · 2013-02-28 23:07 · Score: 1

The problem isn't software patents. The problem is patents given out for trivial and obvious things. I was watching a rerun of Shark Tank, where the guy had a patent for what amounted to a hole in the pocket (for the wires to go through) So the problem isn't just with software patents
Re:Hmm by DedTV · 2013-03-01 08:25 · Score: 1

That's already a pretty big business in "loser pays" countries. In Germany about half the Adult Population has legal insurance.
Wouldn't work very well for patent trolls though. Insuring a patent troll for legal fees would be like selling life insurance at a terminal cancer ward.
Re:Hmm by DedTV · 2013-03-01 08:40 · Score: 1

On the flip side of that, we actually do have a loser provision in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 39.
The most frequent beneficiary of that rule in the last few years has been Westboro Baptist Church. They've used it to make people who sued them for protesting their kids' funeral pay them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Yeah, great system.
Re:Hmm by redlemming · 2013-03-01 12:11 · Score: 1

You're dancing around the most important thing we need: legal ethics reform.
Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system. Over the long term this conflict of interest has created many problems within the US legal system, the broken patent and copyright laws being just two of the more obvious ones.
This is not to say that all lawyers are unethical. There are some highly ethical lawyers, but it appears they are badly outnumbered.
Take care of legal ethics reform, and software patent reform will become a real possibility. Ignore the legal ethics issues and 1) you'll never get patent reform, and 2) "loser pays" will be abused just as badly as the current system.
The proposed law seems like yet another attempt to side-step the core problem. Not surprising, considering that most legislators are legal professionals (and also considering that the American Bar Association is the most powerful lobbying group in the country), but not where we need to be going as a society.

original assignee.. by helobugz · 2013-02-28 04:52 · Score: 1

But what if I sell/assign an invention to a patent troll right off the bat before it issues...?

Re:original assignee.. by denis-The-menace · 2013-02-28 04:54 · Score: 1

Not your problem since it is sold.
It's the Troll's problem.

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Re:original assignee.. by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-02-28 04:59 · Score: 1

Or the trolls just start rolling their own bogus patents.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:original assignee.. by Joce640k · 2013-02-28 05:01 · Score: 1

They still have to exploit the patent, ie. make a product.
nb. This assumes the Slashdot summary is accurate and there's no hidden loopholes.

--
No sig today...
Re:original assignee.. by firex726 · 2013-02-28 05:04 · Score: 1

I believe in order to sell a patent you would have to wait till it's actually issued. You could do the negotiations ahead of time, then when it's issued to you, hand it over.
Re:original assignee.. by retchdog · 2013-02-28 05:34 · Score: 1

My pending patent has already been assigned to my superiors. I'm not sure exactly how this is implemented, but i think the point of the law is to allow this kind of thing (it's how capitalism is supposed to work, after all) while stopping the kind of patent troll which buys up a collection of older, tactically useful, patents for pennies and then spams lawsuits with them.
A non-practicing entity could still acquire patents and troll with them, if they were the original assignee. So, it's a conservative law; it attacks only the most flagrant case of trolling, while giving the benefit of doubt elsewhere. Upon a few seconds of reflection, one realizes that this is a good thing.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:original assignee.. by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-02-28 06:08 · Score: 1

They still have to exploit the patent, ie. make a product.
nb. This assumes the Slashdot summary is accurate and there's no hidden loopholes.
But that product doesn't have to actually *work*.

Also, they'd probably only have to offer the product for sale. Actual customers wouldn't be necessary.

Or two separate patent trolls get into the business of building products and selling exactly one each to each other for $1,000,000. If the law tries to prevent this, they use 3 trolls and a few shell corporations so they are all classified "Practicing Entities".

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:original assignee.. by InfiniteWisdom · 2013-02-28 09:30 · Score: 1

If they did that they would get around this law, but that does raise the bar significantly compared to just buying up junk patents and using them to sue people.

A better bill by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 04:53 · Score: 1

would require patent trolls' attorneys to go unpaid.

Re:A better bill by Lord+Apathy · 2013-02-28 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I like this bill but I would take it a step farther. If the patent troll loses, not only do they have to pay the defense, they need to compensate the poor SOB they sued, AND they need to lose access to the original patent they where suing over.

--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Re:A better bill by Lord+Apathy · 2013-02-28 10:26 · Score: 1

No, its perfectly fair. Most patent trolls are lawyers anyway. A lot of them know they are just fishing for free money, Don't have any sympathy for them.
Lets say you and your friends get together and circle jerk every Friday night. Now then, I'm a patent troll that has filed a patent on circle jerking. Now a patent on circle jerking is stupid, I know that, and you know that but my plan is to sue you and your friends anyway hoping you will settle. Now you decide to fight my patent so we go to court.
To go to court you have to hire a lawyer and do research to prove that circle jerking is in the public domain or at least covered by prior art. All this will take time and money to do. You will also lose time that could be used in more productive things, like circle jerking on Friday night with your friends.
During this time you will not be allowed to profit off of your activities. I'm not sure how you could profit off of circle jerking with your friends on a Friday night. Maybe something involving a web cam, youtube, and a paypal account. Any way, you would not be able to profit off of this and any profits you had before could be seized if you lose the lawsuit.
Under my proposal if I lost, I would have to pay for your defense, pay you for your time and the lost of any profit for your activites. Plus I could no longer sue anyone that likes to sit around with their friends on the Friday night and circle jerk for pleasure or profit.
See, makes perfect sense.

--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

Worse for small folks? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2013-02-28 04:55 · Score: 2

Seems to me that this will just encourage greater extortion of small shops - those that can't afford to even consider taking a case to court.

Re:Worse for small folks? by alen · 2013-02-28 04:57 · Score: 1

they can't afford court right now either
Re:Worse for small folks? by HaZardman27 · 2013-02-28 04:58 · Score: 1

They only have to pay if it's deemed that they haven't done anything to use the patent and aren't the original owners of the patent. How many legitimate (aren't patent trolls) small shops are buying up patents and sitting on them?

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Re:Worse for small folks? by Chemisor · 2013-02-28 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

A small shop can not afford to take a case to court even without paying the defendant's lawyers. An IP lawsuit costs millions of dollars to pursue; more money than any normal person will make in his entire working lifetime. The courts are for the big fish. For the rest of us, any involvement with them leads to bankrupcy.
Re:Worse for small folks? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2013-02-28 05:01 · Score: 2

Correct. But this makes it worse for them inthat they will be increasingly targeted by NPEs who don't want to take the risk of going to court with one of the big players.
Re:Worse for small folks? by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-28 05:31 · Score: 1

Small patent trolls won't be able to go to court? My heart weeps.
Re:Worse for small folks? by Psyborgue · 2013-02-28 05:56 · Score: 5, Informative

That depends. Some lawyers are willing to take defense cases on a contingent fee basis. I was sued once for defamation. Because the case was filed in a state where there were strong anti-SLAPP laws, my, normally 500/hr lawyers took the case for (mostly) free with a relatively small retainer. They were so confident the case was bs, had no chance of winning, and that they could get paid through the anti-SLAPP statute, they were willing to take the small risk of losing. The case ended up costing the plaintiff probably close to half a million by the time the dust settled (the judge even granted them a 1.5x multiplier for their risk). The point is there are lawyers out there who are willing to take these sorts of cases if there are statutes out there that will allow them to get paid. I think this sounds like a good law, even for the small guys.
Re:Worse for small folks? by andydread · 2013-02-28 08:34 · Score: 1

A small shop is not a NPE. A small shop is not suing people with patents purchased from corporations without having any products or plans for products what-so-ever. A small shop doesn't procure unmanned offices in the Eastern District of Texas. A small shop can sue for infringments on their own patents without putting up the bond. What the law says is you just cant purchase patents, have no intent to produce anything, and sue world+dog without putting up a bond first. Nothing is stopping you from inventing the latest JupiterJack in your garage, filing the patent, and attempt to license your invention to manufacturers and suing infringers. That is an inventor not an NPE. NPE's buy patents then license them. They invent nothing. nothing at all.
Re:Worse for small folks? by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-02-28 14:21 · Score: 2

And there you have the REAL reason why this law is being proposed and why it will pass. It's for the benefit of lawyers. This law ensures that more lawyers will get paid, essentially extending the anti-SLAPP environment to patents, and for the same reasons. If there are any benefits to inventors or the real economy, it's purely coincidental.
Re:Worse for small folks? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2013-02-28 15:21 · Score: 1

I'm really puzzled - everyone seems to interpret my post in the way you have, but I meant the opposite: NPEs will be targeting smaller companies that can't fight them with greater frequency than they are now.

Congress is better than Marvel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 04:57 · Score: 3, Funny

S.H.I.E.L.D.
"Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate"
"Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes"

I think congress pulled a fast one on Marvel and beat them hands down!

AC experimenter and I give a rats ass to anyone who cares!

Re:Congress is better than Marvel? by nametaken · 2013-02-28 05:46 · Score: 1

Oh damn, now we need a legislative working group for a bill to shield people from copyright suits.
Maybe call 'em... the Justice League?
Re:Congress is better than Marvel? by bluefoxlucid · 2013-02-28 09:23 · Score: 1

BULLET. Titanium nitride tipped to penetrate your SHIELD.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Write your representative by characterZer0 · 2013-02-28 05:03 · Score: 1

Bill page at Thomas

Find your house rep

--
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.

Weird sensation... by Joce640k · 2013-02-28 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why am I having a hard time believing this is real and has a hope of being passed into law?

Am I really so cynical/jaded that a good-sounding idea from government and/or lawmakers just feels like some sort of a trap? It say something about how the world's been run lately.

--
No sig today...

Re:Weird sensation... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 05:14 · Score: 1

Why am I having a hard time believing this is real and has a hope of being passed into law?
I haven't been able to verify the bill. According to Thomas the house is only up to H.R. 777. Still, this is a possibility. It protects entrenched power from upstarts, which is the kind of laws that easily pass.
Re:Weird sensation... by MickLinux · 2013-02-28 05:23 · Score: 1

Me being a pessimist, I figure it could be real, and could be quite likely to pass.
It should put the nail it the coffin of those annoying inventors applying for patents, and keep the patents where they should be, in the hands of the overlords.
If this law is tailored to the job, not only will you have to be able to afford to go round after round of appeal, but if you lose on any of them, you face instant financial ruin. So then if the ones you sue don't come to terms, then your goose is cooked before you begin.
Not that the intent of Patent law wasn't to do as the constitution states... but any time you have a law that goes against natural law [and for someone to own another person's thoughts, methods, or skills does go against natural law], it's going to wreak destruction.
Come, Lord Jesus!

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:Weird sensation... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 05:37 · Score: 4, Informative

If this law is tailored to the job, not only will you have to be able to afford to go round after round of appeal, but if you lose on any of them, you face instant financial ruin.
If it's actually *your* patent, or if you're actively using the patent to do something other than suing people, then the requirements to post bond and pay the defense costs don't apply.
Re:Weird sensation... by Sqr(twg) · 2013-02-28 05:37 · Score: 2

Really, all that's needed for this to pass is that the patent trolls decide it would be cheaper to pay the defendants' legal fees than to buy a few senators to oppose the bill...
Re:Weird sensation... by Antipater · 2013-02-28 06:00 · Score: 3, Informative

In that case Joe is the original inventor/assignee and thus exempt from the law.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:Weird sensation... by interval1066 · 2013-02-28 06:17 · Score: 2

Remember the thing about "unintended consequences".
I absolutely agree, few laws get passed that don't screw some one else somewhere. But this is at least a step in the right direction. This action has been a long time coming and hopefully won't have many bad side effects.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:Weird sensation... by MozeeToby · 2013-02-28 06:18 · Score: 1

My question is what prevents this:
Company X is our patent troll, decides to sue someone.
Company X's owners establish Company Y with just enough money to litigate their side of the case
Company X sells the rights to a patent to Company Y for a pittance
Company Y Sues and loses
Compnay Y Has no holdings beyond the now largely useless bogus patent so it dissolves
Company X loses nothing except the patent, which again, is now largely useless
If Company Y wins, they sell the patent back to Company X and the owners cash out.
Re:Weird sensation... by tnk1 · 2013-02-28 06:20 · Score: 1

It is probably not a power grab, actually. Working in a business where my company has been threatened by patent trolls (and we settled), the fact that trolls can simply extort settlements out of producing companies is all the motive required.
There's no need for a move like this to move forward some sort of sinister agenda: there is plenty of money and uncertainty to be saved in simply ending this practice on it's own merits alone.
Re:Weird sensation... by lpp · 2013-02-28 06:39 · Score: 1

IANAL but I suspect that in a case like this the judge would pierce the corporate veil since Company Y is clearly just an attempt to circumvent the intent of the law with a legal fiction. Specifically that Company Y is truly acting independently when in fact it is acting purely within the parameters dictated by Company X and purely within the interests of Company X.
Re:Weird sensation... by Dahamma · 2013-02-28 07:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, I don't know where they got the HR 845 from. The bill is real, though:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hr6245:
Re:Weird sensation... by viperidaenz · 2013-02-28 07:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Company Y doesn't have the money to post bond, so can't continue.
Re:Weird sensation... by erroneus · 2013-02-28 08:36 · Score: 1

These NPEs are a serious threat to large patent holders. Normally, patent holders come to some sort of agreement. In the case of NPEs, there is almost no negotiating. These large patent holders invariably have a lobby or two which they contribute to. NPEs? Not so much.
Re:Weird sensation... by nedlohs · 2013-02-28 08:58 · Score: 1

Do you know what a bond is (in this context)?
Re:Weird sensation... by InfiniteWisdom · 2013-02-28 09:22 · Score: 2

If you are the inventor you are not a "non-practicing entity" and the law doesn't apply to you.
Re:Weird sensation... by Theaetetus · 2013-02-28 09:24 · Score: 2

My question is what prevents this:
Company X is our patent troll, decides to sue someone.
Company X's owners establish Company Y with just enough money to litigate their side of the case
Company X sells the rights to a patent to Company Y for a pittance
Company Y Sues and
wins... Company Z, the infringer, points to the pittance as being Company Y's valuation of the patent, and offers to pay a reasonable royalty of 5% of said pittance. The judge, finding this unbelievably clever, agrees. Company X's owners sob in the corner. :)
Re:Weird sensation... by kryliss · 2013-02-28 09:35 · Score: 1

Because when you are hit with a hammer a thousand times why would you honestly believe that hit #1001 will be with a balloon?

--
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
Re:Weird sensation... by HiThere · 2013-02-28 11:27 · Score: 1

*IF* the description given is an accurate statement of the details of what the law says, then you are correct. However, as someone else pointed out, this is the preamble, and thus not an effective part of the law, only of the propaganda about the law.
OTOH, we don't know what will be proposed as the body (and if we did, we aren't lawyers, or not most of us), so we don't know what the law actually says, only what it claims are it's intentions.
For that matter, after it's introduced on the floor it will be subject to ammendments. So even if it were currently ideal, we wouldn't know what it would mean by the time it was passed.
That said, this looks like the kind of law that would benefit many large corporations, who dislike paying the patent trolls as much as anyone else does. So the real question is "How will it benefit those without deep pockets?" If the bar to getting your legal expenses covered is too high, then it will only benefit the wealthy...just how wealthy depends on where the bar is set.
OTOH, if the trolls can't get enough money to cover their expenses, they'll go into another line of work. So protecting the moderately wealthy might be all that's required to protect everybody.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Weird sensation... by modmans2ndcoming · 2013-02-28 12:09 · Score: 1

The requirement for the court costs of the defendant to be bonded out prior to trial means your scenario would not be beneficial to Company X.
Re:Weird sensation... by yurtinus · 2013-02-28 13:07 · Score: 1

Surely you could be bothered to at least read TFS.... I mean, it has fewer words than you wrote! According to TFS, it expressly excludes the original inventor (or assignee) from these restrictions.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Weird sensation... by greg1104 · 2013-02-28 13:45 · Score: 1

If I were being sued by a NPE troll with this sort of protection available, I would run up positively epic legal fees beating them into the ground. Get the right sort of bloodthirsty patent attorney involved, and they'd help--they're the ones getting the money after all. It is surely cheaper to just byy the senators; the ones in the US sell out pretty cheap now.
Re:Weird sensation... by sl149q · 2013-02-28 14:47 · Score: 1

Court awarded legal fees are usually (at least in Canada) based on a court determined scale and typically are well below what you actually will have paid.
This keeps abuses to a minimum.
Re:Weird sensation... by Brannoncyll · 2013-02-28 16:23 · Score: 1

If this law is tailored to the job, not only will you have to be able to afford to go round after round of appeal, but if you lose on any of them, you face instant financial ruin.
If it's actually *your* patent, or if you're actively using the patent to do something other than suing people, then the requirements to post bond and pay the defense costs don't apply.
Maybe, but there are so many patents out there, and many are so broadly written, that it is almost impossible to know whether you actually have a valid patent or not. I read recently that there are more patents being released in a year in the mobile market alone (IIRC) that it would take more patent lawyers than exist in the entire US just to give all of them more than a cursory glance. Anyone fighting to uphold their patent is stepping into a very dangerous minefield - if you are a small company anyway. Larger companies will just reach a licensing settlement, but small companies will just be trodden on and destroyed.
Re:Weird sensation... by bluefoxlucid · 2013-03-01 01:45 · Score: 1

Well good. Finally some sanity.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Weird sensation... by bobcote · 2013-03-01 07:00 · Score: 1

While I understand the motivation, this will backfire. How will a little guy be able to pay the bill when he or she has to sue IBM or Ford for a patent infringement. A new troll will develop. One who will pay for the legal fees in exchange for a modest percentage of the profits. And with an endless appeals process - that could end up in the millions.
Re:Weird sensation... by DedTV · 2013-03-01 07:21 · Score: 1

Probably because the article links to some Lexis Nexus paywall site rather than say, the EFF Article that not only links to the full text of the bill but also has a handy link to Congressional contact info.
It's easy to be cynical. On our end it seems like Congress has it's head up it's ass. But I've actually talked to several Congressmen and from their end, it's the American people who have their heads stuck in their ass because none of them get involved beyond maybe going to a polling place every few years.
Many of them do keep to the idea their job is to represent their constituents (other than the nutbags like Barton and Akin). Some will even go so far as to vote contrary to their own beliefs or loyalties if enough people within their district ask it of them.
The problem is that most of the time the only ones who give a crap about any pending legislation are those with a vested interest in the outcome. When those are the only constituents who voice an opinion, they're the ones get represented.
So if people get involved and actually voice their support for this one, it could turn out like SOPA and PIPA which many people thought would pass regardless of how bad they were or how many people told the internet they hated them.
Re:Weird sensation... by DedTV · 2013-03-01 07:24 · Score: 1

Aaaaaand the link to the text of the bill in the EFF article is dead. Here's a currently live one

Re:Great by EvanED · 2013-02-28 05:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, because every bill that is introduced in the House passes.

They pass more frequently than when bills which are not introduced.

"substantial investment" by arcctgx · 2013-02-28 05:05 · Score: 2

Does filing a lawsuit count as a "substantial investment in exploiting the patent"?

Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by Bob9113 · 2013-02-28 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

The bill is designed to particularly have a chilling effect on 'shotgun' litigation tactics by NPEs, in which they sue numerous defendants on a patent with only a vague case for infringement.

So to achieve that, instead of addressing shotgun litigation by any litigant, they create an inhibition to all NPEs. That would include things like the The Open Invention Network, and would exempt practicing entities like SCO. Does that sound right?

This legislation would create unequal patent protection for big corps versus independent inventors. Once a patent is sold by its original inventor, it can only subsequently be sold to big corps or it loses some of its power. This means big corps will have an advantage compared to independent inventors, who will have less ability to market their inventions.

If the problem is shotgun patent enforcement, regulate shotgun patent enforcement. If the problem is overbroad patents, narrow the allowed scope of patents. Address the real problem with equal treatment for all litigants under the law. Don't create a preferred class for big incumbent corps and inhibit independent competition.

This is nothing more than another land grab by big incumbents who use our government to inhibit free market competition.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Re:Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-28 05:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes. The Open Invention Network shouldn't be suing people on flimsy grounds either.
Not to mention that the OIN has members like Google. If one of their members is a practicing entity, the OIN can likely make a good argument that they are as well.
Re:Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by IP_Troll · 2013-02-28 05:39 · Score: 5, Informative

No that sounds completely wrong.

1. The Open Invention Network actively licenses the patents it holds, so it would not be considered an NPE.
2. The SCO litigation was about copyright, not patent.
3. Your statement about unequal protection is false, a non sequitur, and illogical. Big corporations do not "own" the patents it. A shell company in a tax haven like Ireland owns the patents and license them back to the parent, and other licensees. If the Open Invention Network is considered an NPE then so are these shell companies.
4. Attorneys fees to a defendant are already allowed in many types of cases when it is determined that the plaintiff had no business filing suit, including patent litigation. Revising the patent law so that a bond has to be placed before the suit can go forward ensures the wrongfully accused defendant will actually get paid and the plaintiff can't just vanish after they lose, thus leaving the defendant with the attorneys fees.

Your visceral knee jerk reaction to a concept that you do not understand is absurd.
Re:Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by Java+Pimp · 2013-02-28 05:58 · Score: 2

But then a NPE could enlist a more shady company as a "member" (think SCO) and make the same argument.

--
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Re:Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by jedidiah · 2013-02-28 06:33 · Score: 1

A loss at trial does not imply "flimsy grounds".
That is the basic problem with any sort of "loser pays" approach. It primarily just increases the cost of litigation. It will probably not just be restricted to "evil people".
Measures intended to "punish evil people" don't really address the root of the issue. They just sound good to the masses. It's the perfect sort of "feel good and do nothing" measure.
Ultimately, they just open the door for bad ideas that end up victimizing "nice people" sooner or later.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by erice · 2013-02-28 06:48 · Score: 1

No that sounds completely wrong.
1. The Open Invention Network actively licenses the patents it holds, so it would not be considered an NPE.
Licensing patents to others is what patent trolls do. It would not meet the criteria of "substantial investment in exploiting the patent".
I think the original inventor would need to be part of the network in order to avoid the NPE classification.
Re:Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by IP_Troll · 2013-02-28 07:29 · Score: 1

That is completely wrong and the word inventor doesn't mean what you think it means.

Assuming you are right, if the inventor "needs to be part of the network" then 99% of patent holding companies would be NPEs, because as I said before - Big corporations do not "own" the patents. A shell company in a tax haven like Ireland owns the patents and license them back to the parent, and other licensees. If the Open Invention Network is considered an NPE then so are these shell companies.
Re:Regulate Bad Patents, Not Independents by Bryansix · 2013-02-28 08:51 · Score: 1

You act like increasing the cost of litigation is a bad thing.

It's a good start... by alittle158 · 2013-02-28 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about just barring the eastern district of Texas from hearing any cases on patents?...

--
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem

Small is an advantage by sjbe · 2013-02-28 05:11 · Score: 2

Correct. But this makes it worse for them inthat they will be increasingly targeted by NPEs who don't want to take the risk of going to court with one of the big players.

Unlikely. The reason they don't usually go after the small companies is because they are small, i.e. they have no money. There is little point in spending much money trying to extort a tiny settlement out of a company that the NPE may very well bankrupt in the process. If I'm a small company I would basically say "bring it on". They'll spend more money on lawyers than they would win in a settlement and even if they did win they probably would get nothing because the company would declare bankruptcy.

Re:Small is an advantage by viperidaenz · 2013-02-28 08:09 · Score: 1

Unless they want to use you as a "win" to extort settlements easier from their future victims.

Hurray for the big guys! by michaelcole · 2013-02-28 05:13 · Score: 1

Hurray! Patent reform finally arrives for those who make "substantial investment in exploiting the patent". Apple, Google, IBM, Oracle be saved! Now get back to work!

Why is this not for everything? by Skapare · 2013-02-28 05:15 · Score: 1

While patent lawsuits are particularly important, why is it that we have to make a new law for this at all? Shouldn't we have this for all lawsuits across the board? It can still be allowed for judges to decide in specific cases if the situation does not warrant this requirement. But overall it should normally be the way it is done.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Re:Why is this not for everything? by wvmarle · 2013-02-28 05:30 · Score: 1

Is it in all civil cases so that loser pays winner's cost, and court cost?
In that case it would indeed be quite reasonable that when initiating a law suit, the plaintiff should post some kind of guarantee that they will pay loser's cost (preferably a fixed amount based on type of lawsuit etc, so that this is known before the suit is initiated and not dependent on the mood of the judge). That might make actually getting the money afterwards a little less impossible.
OTOH this can not reasonably be asked from defendant, who usually doesn't even want to go to court to begin with.
Re:Why is this not for everything? by SydShamino · 2013-02-28 05:57 · Score: 1

What you propose would make it nearly impossible for a private citizen to ever, ever again sue a corporate citizen. Big corporations have dozens of lawyers on staff, so they can easily rack up "millions" of dollars of work on a lawsuit. (Of course, if the suit were never filed, those lawyers would have instead racked up millions of dollars of work doing something else as they are salaried employees.) With the chilling effect of you having to pay those fines if you lose the lawsuit, why would you, a mere citizen with a lawyer working on a small retainer and a percent of your winnings (if any) ever risk destroying your financial life to file your suit?
Unfortunately, the existing system means that citizens can file trivial suits alongside citizens that file the important suits protecting private citizens from corporations. But your proposal eliminates both types.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Why is this not for everything? by BitZtream · 2013-02-28 07:30 · Score: 1

Simple solution to that is that all fees are based on the cost of a single lawyer and one paralegal regardless of other factors. Never allow larger fees to be collected.
Lawyers set their own rates and then sue for that amount. Much like congress, when you set your own fees and people don't have an actual choice in the matter, you tend to set your fees ridiculously high, well beyond your worth.
Time to cap lawyers fees as well.
Of course, there is absolutely 0% chance of that happening because ... congress is full of ... you guessed it, lawyers.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Why is this not for everything? by GodInHell · 2013-02-28 07:38 · Score: 1

What he proposes is what the law is throughout most of the globe. The exceptional state (the U.S.) has what is called "the American Rule" that each side bears their own Court costs and Attorneys' fees unless there is an agreement to the contrary. -Adam

Re:While you are at it... by stevejf · 2013-02-28 05:18 · Score: 2

Oh you mean like the Federal Circuit?

Loser Pays... by tmshort · 2013-02-28 05:24 · Score: 2

So, why doesn't this apply to all civil lawsuits? This is how it works in many countries thus their courts aren't tied up as bad as ours (i.e. American).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loser_pays

Re:Loser Pays... by erice · 2013-02-28 07:03 · Score: 1

So, why doesn't this apply to all civil lawsuits? This is how it works in many countries thus their courts aren't tied up as bad as ours (i.e. American).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loser_pays
Justice is imperfect. If the little guy who is in the right sues a big corporation and loses, he could be bankrupted by the big corporation's legal fees.
Re:Loser Pays... by BitZtream · 2013-02-28 07:32 · Score: 1

Because congress is made of lawyers, and no lawyer wants less lawsuits because that means less money. Loser pays is bad for the people who decide the laws so they certainly aren't going to make it a law now are they?

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Loser Pays... by Kupfernigk · 2013-02-28 07:44 · Score: 1

It is in much of Europe. You're not suggesting that the freedom loving democratic USA has more corruption in Government than us Euro-weenies, are you?
The last British government (you know, the American(Murdoch)-Australian(Blair) one was heading down the same route, but amazingly most British judges are rather sensible and tend to discourage frivolous and exploitative lawsuits; companies that have tried it have gone bankrupt or even had the Law Society feeling their collars. Perhaps we should send you some redcoats like we did in 1814.
Yes, this is not intended to be taken seriously.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

It's all in the wording... by Frosty+Piss · 2013-02-28 05:24 · Score: 1

Why am I having a hard time believing this is real and has a hope of being passed into law?

And even if it does become law, the wording is ambiguous:

...and that has not made its own 'substantial investment in exploiting the patent.'

What *exactly* does this mean? I'm sure that Patent Trolls can work the language to their advantage, especially in
South Texas, or where ever the local Media are cleaning up on Patent Troll cases...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:It's all in the wording... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-02-28 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

The preamble to the bill isn't the bill itself. My guess is that there is or will be wording within the fine print that will spell out exactly what that is.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:It's all in the wording... by PoolOfThought · 2013-02-28 08:51 · Score: 1

You're wasting your breath. It's just like patents. The title and tiny summary at the beginning isn't the patent... the claims are the patent. But guess what, a large percent of the people I hear complaining about patents didn't bother reading what is actually claimed. Why would those same people who were complaining about patents read the contents of a law to see what it actually says when they can just stick with being lazy and bitching about the summary of the law instead?

--
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
Re:It's all in the wording... by HiThere · 2013-02-28 11:17 · Score: 1

You can guess that, but frequently the details specified don't do anything reasonably described by the preamble.
We'll have to wait and see, but I'm pessimistic.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:only half the surface area by Splab · 2013-02-28 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Geesus christ, whats with the negative vibes coming from the Slashdot crowd???

No, they do not fix everything at once, so fucking what? They are at least trying to fix part of the problem.

Yeah would be nice to have all the worlds problems solved in one go, but you know what, it's much easier to fix it if we solve it one step at a time.

Re:SCO == Entertainment! by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-28 05:32 · Score: 1

SCO wasn't a non practicing entity.

Your logic is faulty by s.petry · 2013-02-28 05:35 · Score: 2

Small shops are not out there filing lawsuits against numerous alleged patent infringing companies. Generally they are the targets of that approach. The bill would allow the targets of patent trolls the ability to recoup losses that they currently have no ability to recoup. Currently the defendants either pay the troll, or pay for lawyers to fight. There is no recovery currently for any part of the trial. The current methods of patent trolls are extortionist.

You phrase the problem like the patent trolls are the victims. That is absolutely not the case.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Re:Your logic is faulty by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2013-02-28 15:22 · Score: 1

I still don't see how I gave this impression - it's the opposite of what I meant. NPEs will stop targeting big companies because they couldn't afford to lose. Instead they'l target many small companies who can't afford to go to court in the first place.
Re:Your logic is faulty by s.petry · 2013-03-01 05:54 · Score: 1

If the person suing you has to pay for your defense, you at least have bargaining collateral as a small company. Currently there is nothing that you can do if you are a victim of a patent troll case to recoup your losses. A slice of cake is better than no cake in this case.
To be very frank, this is not a real fix. The system has been absolutely broken by deregulation and lobbyist written laws that were rubber stamped. It needs a do-over to fix it (or completely undo the damage that was done by putting back regulation and dismantling laws aimed at protecting monopolies). Since the reality is that the real fix won't happen, we have to move step by step to assemble the system back to the way it was intended to work. Apathy will not make things better, in case that's where your mind goes. Apathy makes things worse when dealing with corruption.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Your logic is faulty by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2013-03-01 07:26 · Score: 1

But the plaintiff only pays on loss -- that means that the defendant still has to front any costs - even though the plaintiff will hold the money in escrow just in case they lose. I see this as causing a shift away from NPEs targeting big companies with deep pockets (and expensive lawyers), and towards small companies that will be left with little choice.
Agreed as to the rest of your comment, though.

EFF piggy bank of infinite funding? by shentino · 2013-02-28 05:36 · Score: 1

If this allows reimbursement of attorney's fees for patent troll attacks, will it induce charities like the EFF to bankroll a defense attorney if it can recover its legal fees from the plaintiff?

just another club to protect large corporations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 05:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

Why am I having a hard time believing this is real and has a hope of being passed into law?

Because you haven't realized that if this was passed then large companies who've stolen an idea from a non-corporation inventor before he/she has obtained funding to manufacturer his/her idea will use the threat of large-company-size legal bills to browbeat the independent inventor into forgoing a suit and settling for peanuts instead of what they would have paid if they had to license the invention from another large corporation.

*I* would have a hard time believing this *won't* be passed into law.

Re:just another club to protect large corporations by Stiletto · 2013-02-28 06:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

The "lone inventor around the corner" using his patent to fight the big corporations is kind of a myth nowadays. Patents are used to stifle innovation and protect entrenched businesses, not to prevent corporations from stealing the little guy's ideas. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of patent-holders are corporations.
Re:just another club to protect large corporations by viperidaenz · 2013-02-28 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unless the non-corporation inventor has their name as the inventor of the patent, then this bill doesn't apply.
Its to protect large companies from patent trolls.
Requiring the bond to be posted first stops shell companies just going bankrupt to avoid payment if they fail.
Re:just another club to protect large corporations by MojoRilla · 2013-02-28 07:53 · Score: 2

Here is a counter example:

A friend of mine invented Buzzy to take the pain out of shots. If she didn't have patents, the idea would have been stolen long before now.
Re:just another club to protect large corporations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 08:35 · Score: 1

http://www.google.com/patents/US20080086187
To be blunt there have been 'butterfly' sex toys almost exactly like this for a long time, gel wings that can be warmed and cooled, multiple vibration speeds, hypo-allergenic materials...
Firstly, where did she get this idea? Secondly... how is this patentable?
The patent was much harder to find than it should have been and boils down to three basic clauses, the rest is basically bullshit to make it sound novel.
a) providing a device comprising a casing having an application area, at least a portion of the application area constructed to contact a subject's skin;
b) providing a thermal source contained within the casing, the thermal source capable of being cooled, and cooling the thermal source;
c) providing a vibrational source contained within the casing, the vibrational source capable of producing vibration;
Re:just another club to protect large corporations by greg1104 · 2013-02-28 13:40 · Score: 1

The novel part is that the very first claim is for "a device for reducing the pain associated with a needle stick" with that construction. There are vibrators with similar design elements, but I can't recall seeing anyone suggest there was a spot you could put one to make needles hurt less before.
Re:just another club to protect large corporations by bdwebb · 2013-02-28 13:41 · Score: 1

The problem is that is one patent amongst millions of other trash patents, the majority of which are owned by corporate entities.
Re:just another club to protect large corporations by chrismcb · 2013-02-28 23:04 · Score: 1

Patents are used to stifle innovation and protect entrenched businesses, not to prevent corporations from stealing the little guy's ideas. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of patent-holders are corporations.
Patents aren't used to "stifle innovation" but they are used to protect entrenched business, as well as the little guy. Yes more corporations own patents, because they have more money to do R&D. But patents can still protect the little guy. But they aren't designed to protect the "little" guy. They are designed to protect the inventor, with the hopes that the inventor will invent, and invent more.

Little guy by EmperorOfCanada · 2013-02-28 05:47 · Score: 2

I love that they have singled out patent trolls as opposed to making it hard for some basement inventor to defend himself. Bravo!

Re:Little guy by delt0r · 2013-02-28 22:31 · Score: 1

Basement inventors can't defend themselves. They never could. The years of legal battle means its game over even if your not already bankrupt.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Have they been reading my blog? by gurps_npc · 2013-02-28 05:50 · Score: 1

Granted, I was talking about DMCA takedown notices, but it is the same concept: relevant blog post

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

WTF? by s.petry · 2013-02-28 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Wow, did you read anything at all or did you see "patent" and just start posting? If you read anything and are posting, you must be a shill. If you didn't read, shame on you. "loser" in this case is limited to a defendant where it's deemed that the company initiating the suit is a troll. The wording in the article states very clearly that if you are deemed a NPE (more on that in a moment) then you must pay a bond to cover the defendant's cost in order to pursue the case.

NPE: You are a widget maker, and competing with 10 other widget makers in the market place. Trollguy buys a patent for a screw that you use in your widget and he sues every one of you dirty widget makers for infringing on his patent for a widget-screw. He does not make widgets, did not invent a widget, and in fact his current business is buying patents and suing people. He would be by definition a NPE. As a NPE, he needs to bond the defendant's legal fees, for every one of those cases of alleged infringement, in order to pursue the cases.

That is a good thing!

In addition: If the infringement claim is dies in court you, Mister Widget, immediately recoup your legal fees by cashing in the bond.

Now if Joe's Widgets sues you for stealing their rounded corner widget design, they are not a NPE. They do not have to bond your legal fees. So the law does not harm normal competition and does not punish inventors. It's at least "some" protection from the current joke that has become patent trolling.

Since I have not fully read the Bill I can not claim that the wording is secure and clear enough to really do anything. Politicians are generally shitheads, and even the best written and intended Bills can get screwed up by their idiocy. That fact is rarely the Bill's fault, but rather the people's fault for voting in shitheads over and over and over again.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Bandaid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 05:54 · Score: 1

This is a Bandaid solution. It doesn't address the real problem - too many bad patents are being issued.

Re:Bandaid by RandomFactor · 2013-02-28 06:17 · Score: 1

When you put a bandaid on a cut...it still hurts, but it's better.

--
--- Mercutio was right.

Not Enough of a Disincentive by hemo_jr · 2013-02-28 06:30 · Score: 1

Having the plaintiffs in a false claim pay 1.5x to 2x the defendants costs would be better. Perhaps the assessing of higher costs could be left up to the court, if the lawsuit was determined to be egregious.

Re:only half the surface area by jedidiah · 2013-02-28 06:35 · Score: 1

It's a band aid on a bullet wound and nearly everyone here has enough of a clue to understand it.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Is everyone stupid? by Billy+the+Mountain · 2013-02-28 07:14 · Score: 1

I think that's right. It's the loophole you can drive a truck through. But hopefully this will inspire other more meaningful legislation.

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.

Re:SCO == Entertainment! by gstoddart · 2013-02-28 07:20 · Score: 1

SCO wasn't a non practicing entity.

Well, you have to clarify which SCO you meant. It's had several incarnations.

The SCO which sold software (Caldera Linux and some others) wasn't an NPE.

The litigious bastards which have been the last two (I think) iterations of SCO have in fact been NPEs in that they transferred their claims to a company who existed solely to sue.

There is no single entity which has continuously been SCO in all of this, and at least a few of them have been NPEs.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Not going to stop anything.. by BitZtream · 2013-02-28 07:34 · Score: 1

Companies can not patent anything. Only people can. Then it can be assigned to a company.

Before you talk about the subject like you have a clue, please to be getting a clue.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:Is everyone stupid? by rs1n · 2013-02-28 07:35 · Score: 1

Did you completely ignore the part where trolls now have to put aside money before they can proceed with their suit?

Notably, once a party is deemed to be an NPE early in the litigation, they will be required to post a bond to cover the defendants' litigation costs before going forward.

Even if they declare bankruptcy, there's money already set aside to help cover the defender's attorney fees.

Re:Is everyone stupid? by BitZtream · 2013-02-28 07:39 · Score: 1

This applies to ORIGINAL ASSIGNEES, of which no company can be since patents are only issued to PEOPLE NOT COMPANIES.

The original ASSIGNEE can take advantage of this law, NO ONE ELSE can, not even his own company if he assigned it to his own corp. He still could, but the company itself could not, nor can any other company he assigns the patent to.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:Is everyone stupid? by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2013-02-28 07:48 · Score: 1

Actual meaningful legislation? Why fly in the face of several decades precident?

Bad acronyms by Kupfernigk · 2013-02-28 07:48 · Score: 1

Unfortunately I make it the Saving HIgh-Tech INnovators From EgregIous Legal Disputes, or SHIT IN FEILD Bill. Spelling error apart, this is indeed likely to be as successful as trying to persuade bears not to poo in the woods.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:Is everyone stupid? by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2013-02-28 07:50 · Score: 1

Yes and I am sure that the bond will be only a small percentage of the fees, that judges will be able to wave the bond, and that judges in East Texas will be more then willing to do so.

Monkey wrench time. by andydread · 2013-02-28 07:50 · Score: 1

So what if this gets challenged by the trolls under the grounds that it may be unconstitutional. They may argue that if a patent is a property right like a house then as the new owner they should be able to enjoy the same priveleges as the previous owner. Or the may argue that the law discriminates against them as the new owners of the said property. Not sure how those arguments would hold up though.

Loser pays is a winner by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 07:57 · Score: 1

Loser Pays applies to virtually the entire rest of the galaxy, and, while not perfect, it is way better than the Loonie Tunes US approach. Here in the UK, it applies to both criminal and civil law in 100% of cases, unless the judge decides the loser was partly to blame - eg deliberately made himself look guilty to attract a law suit.

Yes. U.S. is virtually the only industrialized nation to not have a loser pays system. Thanks to the Trial Lawyers lobby and a legislature stuffed with lawyers we now routinely submit innocent companies and people to frivolous lawsuits.

Re:only half the surface area by v1 · 2013-02-28 09:12 · Score: 1

No, they do not fix everything at once, so fucking what? They are at least trying to fix part of the problem.
Yeah would be nice to have all the worlds problems solved in one go, but you know what, it's much easier to fix it if we solve it one step at a time.

Sometimes a partial fix can make a problem more difficult to completely fix. When they fix one part of a problem, the other parts that remain look much less severe and risk becoming "too low of a priority" / too minor of an issue to get fixed.

So in some cases it's best to get it all, like a weed, get the whole root not just a bit at a time or you'll be at it all day. I think this is such a case, where they should have fully addressed the issue. Now, they've lowered the urgency of the remaining problems, and lost a lot of momentum.

There was very little opposition, this really wasn't an issue where there was a big two-faction battle going on that required compromise. But that's what they did.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Re:only half the surface area by s.petry · 2013-02-28 09:46 · Score: 2

It requires a special kind of idiocy to claim that because you can't get a stitch now, you won't apply a band aid to slow down the bleeding.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

US tramples property rights again by iliketrash · 2013-02-28 10:32 · Score: 1

The United States government tramples property rights yet again. Slashdotters love it.

Re:US tramples property rights again by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-02-28 14:18 · Score: 2

Naming it "intellectual property" doesn't make it real property. Patents are not property. Patents are purely a legal fiction to grant a monopoly to some entity. Patents expire, vanishing into thin air. Property does not expire. And no, that doesn't mean patents should last infinitely long, either. They're a fiction. A badly constructed legally exploitable fiction. This law is trying to fix some of the fuckups in the current construction. There is no property involved.

Is this the bill from 2012? by mvlmvl · 2013-02-28 11:38 · Score: 1

If this is the bill, then it was introduced in August 2012 and since then died... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6245

Re:Is this the bill from 2012? by saveferrousoxide · 2013-03-14 06:14 · Score: 1

it isn't. it's this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2886 which also died in committee. This bill is likely to do exactly the same, unfortunately.

Re:Is everyone stupid? by Billy+the+Mountain · 2013-02-28 12:13 · Score: 1

Notably, once a party is deemed to be an NPE early in the litigation, they will be required to post a bond to cover the defendants' litigation costs before going forward.

Except that only idiot companies would be deemed to be an NPE. They would use their shell company to qualify as a non-NPE.

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.

YES! YES YES YES! PASS IT! by skaag · 2013-02-28 14:51 · Score: 1

Pass this into law immediately. Thank TSM for that.

--

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...

Why not go further? by manu0601 · 2013-02-28 15:34 · Score: 1

Why not go further, and only allow patent litigation between practicing entities?

Full text by squled · 2013-02-28 17:56 · Score: 1

A bill to amend chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, to provide for the recovery of patent litigation costs, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013".

SEC. 2. RECOVERY OF LITIGATION COSTS.

(a) AMENDMENT.-Chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 285 the following new section:

285A. Recovery of litigation costs

(a) IN GENERAL.-In an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent-

(1) a party asserting invalidity or noninfringement may move for judgment that the adverse party does not meet at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d);

(2) not later than 90 days after a party has moved for the judgment described in paragraph (1), the adverse party shall be provided an opportunity to prove such party meets at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d);

(3) as soon as practicable after the adverse party has been provided an opportunity to respond under paragraph (2), but not later than 120 days after a party has moved for the judgment described in paragraph (1), the court shall make a determination whether the adverse party meets at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d); and

(4) notwithstanding section 285, the Court shall award the recovery of full costs to any prevailing party asserting invalidity or noninfringement, including reasonable attorney's fees, other than the United States, upon the entry of a final judgment if the court determines that the adverse party did not meet at least one of the conditions described in subsection (d), unless the court finds that exceptional circumstances make an award unjust.

(b) BOND REQUIRED.-Any party that fails to meet a condition under subsection (a)(3) shall be required to post a bond in an amount determined by the court to cover the recovery of full costs described in subsection (a)(4).

(c) TIMING AND EFFECT OF PENDING MOTION.-

With respect to any motion made pursuant to subsection (a)(1) the following applies:

(1) In the case of a motion that is filed before the moving party's initial disclosure are due-

(A) the court shall limit any discovery to discovery that is necessary for the disposition of the motion; and

(B) the court may delay issuing any scheduling order until after ruling on the motion.

(2) In the case of a motion that is filed after the moving party's initial disclosures are due the court may delay ruling on the motion until after the entry of final judgment.

(3) In the case of a motion that is filed after the entry of final judgment, any such motion must be combined with a motion for fees to the prevailing party.

(d) CONDITION DEFINED.-For purposes of this section, a 'condition' means, with respect to the party alleging infringement, any of the following:

(1) ORIGINAL INVENTOR.-Such party is the inventor, a joint inventor, or in the case of a patent filed by and awarded to an assignee of the original inventor or joint inventor, the original assignee of the patent.

(2) EXPLOITATION OF THE PATENT.-Such party can provide documentation to the court of substantial investment made by such party in the exploitation of the patent through production or sale of an item covered by the patent.

(3) UNIVERSITY OR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ORGANIZATION.-Such party is-

(A) an institution of higher education (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); or

(B) a technology transfer organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate the commercialization of technology developed by one or more institutions of higher education.".

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-

The table of sections for chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, is amended

Slashdot Mirror

New Bill Would Require Patent Trolls To Pay Defendants' Attorneys

149 of 196 comments (clear)