Slashdot Mirror
Doubleclick Cofounder Responds to Patent Troll by Filing Extortion Lawsuit
New submitter kintamanimatt writes with news that someone other than newegg is fighting back against patent trolls, despite the business case for settling. This time, however, one of the founders of the Doubleclick ad network has decided to use his personal money to not only fight a patent troll attacking his new startup, but to strike back at them under the RICO act. "'There's a lot of outrageous stories, but everyone's so damn afraid of coming forward — It's like going against the Mafia,' he [Kevin O'Connor] said. But the idea that trolls may retaliate against those who speak out is overblown, he thinks. 'If they want to try to teach me a lesson, go for it. This will be my retirement. I'll fight them.' The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately, apologized, and gave financial compensation to the troll. The offer was 'good until close of business that day.'"
Then again, I hate them both and if they beat the shit out of each other, all the better.
are the consumers who end up paying for both sides.
Someone needs to not only go after the trolls, but go after the law license of the Attorneys representing them as well. Get a couple of lawyers disbarred and watch the lawsuits end!
Can we please donate money as charity to the cause?
I am not from USA, but i'd give my 1$.
And how they track and use the data they accumulate.
But they are a far more benign cancer and in fact do help pay for the intarwebs as we know it.
Patent trolls, on the other hand, do absolutely nothing positive for technology, the internet or the world and no, they do not protect inventors.
Patent trolls are an extremely malignant force and raise the cost of doing business for legitimate companies tremendously.
Doubleclick= annoying.
Patent trolls= criminal.
I am amazed that anyone with the capacity to use the internet states that they believe otherwise.
Yay Doubleclick?
So a guy who got rich by assuming illegitimate rights over peoples personal info, is mad that another entity is trying to get rich by assuming illegitimate rights over a process that appears to sell that personal info. Mafioso's all around.
please don't sue.
Hate speech is not a crime in the United States. You are free to express all the hatred that you want. Some schools have administrative penalties for hate speech, but the courts have thrown out many of those policies. Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities. There is silliness from both sides here.
The troll screwed up this time. $50K?!?! To O'Connor, that's like $20 is to most of us. It might get more expensive? As is $150K, less than 0.1% of his net worth? I don't think he's scared.
So folks are hesitant to fight because a court ruling in favor of the Trolls would set precedence.
There is also the resources consumed in a protracted fight coupled with the above that makes it seem kinda suicidal.
On the other hand one good win could loose the flood waters and lead to some kind of reform.
I just don't see that happening as too many are making bank on the status quo.
Rick B.
This reminds me of the Order by Judge Wright in California federal district court, where he slammed Prenda Law, the infamous copyright trolls, and stated that they resembled a RICO organization. THAT PATENT TROLLS ARE FACING THE SAME MUSIC IS A GOOD THING !!!!
"[Though] Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO (a reference to federal criminal statutes regarding 'racketeer-influenced and corrupt organizations'). The federal agency eleven decks up (the U.S. Attorney's office on the 13th floor of the Los Angeles federal courthouse) is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage."
'It's like going against the Mafia,' [Kevin O'Connor] said.
The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges
It's telling that they object to being called patent trolls, but are ok with being compared to the Mafia :)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
This is a strong arm tactic commonly used by criminals. It is done by the mafia, it is done by prison gangs. Of course it is not without precedent in the economy. For example, in the music/entertainment world aggressive lawyers have long beaten down artists. All those nice office buildings around the West Hollywood and Beverly Hills area are full of lawyers. Another example, I once had a rug cleaning guy, who was really a lawyer, come into my apartment to clean a rug. After I signed his work order and he immediately started to threaten to take me to court unless I paid $400 (which was 1000% the cost of the cleaning). Being an athletic lady I snatched the work order out of his hands, shredded it, and flushed it down the toilet. I then threatened to scream "rape". Anyways, the point is it is not good enough to just have computer skills to become an internet entrepreneur, you need some well rounded skills such a law. In Babson College's entrepreneurial program they require students take a law courses since they know starting a business is full of legal landmines and shakedowns. Also be ready to kick a bully in the gonads.
And the winners are the lawyers on both sides.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
This is like a fight to the death between Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. No matter who loses, I win! *gets popcorn*
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Someday I really need to submit my patent for my business process of securing patents for things I have no intention of manufacturing and then attempting to enforce those patents against others.
"and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately"
Threatening criminal charges to gain the upper hand in a civil case is against the rules of ethics for attorneys. Every state has its own flavor of rules but they are derived from the ABA model rules.
Mr. O'Connor should immediately file a complaint with the (every) state bar in which this attorney is licensed.
Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities.
Extortion is not a "completely legal activity". Furthermore neither is barratry and racketeering, both of which arguably apply in the case of patent trolls.
Except patent trolls aren't actually committing crimes, and therefore aren't criminal.
That is VERY debatable. In many cases they arguably are committing one or more of: extortion, barratry and/or racketeering. In many/most cases they are simply creating nuisance lawsuits in the hopes of coercing a settlement without any actual time in court. What they are doing is functionally the equivalent of some thug going into a retail store and saying "nice store - shame if anything bad would happen to it". Technically saying that is legal but in reality they are committing a crime. Patent trolls are really no different.
Really? Politicians focus on sugary drink portion sizes and intervening in foreign civil wars, but can't be bothered to address a widespread racketeering hustle the destroys innovation?
By the way, here's an example of a modern day patent troll as profiled by the NY Times. A real class act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/has-patent-will-sue-an-alert-to-corporate-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent' and threatened to file criminal charges — unless they settled the civil case immediately, apologized, and gave financial compensation to the troll.
"Subsequently, the patent troll crouched on his hands and knees behind O'Conner's legs. The attorney then shoved Mr. O'Conner, who fell backwards over the patent troll. Then the attorney climbed atop Mr. O'Conner's chest, took hold of each of his wrists and forced Mr. O'Conner to strike himself about the head and shoulders, all the while screaming, "Stop hittin' yourself, O'Conner! Stop hittin' yourself!""
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
unless they settled the civil case immediately, apologized, and gave financial compensation to the troll. The offer was 'good until close of business that day.'
I hope he refers them to the response in the matter of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971):
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Not really. If he nominally wins, even if it does cost him 20 times as much, it will also cost the patent troll a similar amount. Any other patent troll would go after easier targets.
> As you pointed out $50k is a drop in the bucket. But is $300k? $500k?
Yes, when you have a billion dollars and you're pissed, no amount ending in "k" is scary. On the extreme high side, a million dollars, that's well under 1% of his money.
Let's guess the average net worth in the US is about $50,000. 0.1% of that is $50. So a million dollars to this guy is like $50 to the average person.
* DoubleClick sold for $3 billion. I'm guessing O'Connor has about a billion.
It IS a hate crime.. against trolls. Poor species of bridge and cave dweling creatures should never be compared to someone as vile and disgusting as patent attorneys.
Okay, the headline was somewhat misleading, but does anyone on this site even read the summary anymore, or have we devolved to commenting based only on the headlines?
This time, however, one of the founders of the Doubleclick ad network has decided to use his personal money to not only fight a patent troll attacking his new startup
Half the posts here are about whether Doubleclick is the lesser of the two evils, but the guy doesn't work at Doubleclick any more, and Doubleclick isn't involved in the lawsuit in any way shape or form. This is like saying "Yay Paypal" because of what Elon Musk is doing with Space-X.
The patent troll's attorney also made the claim that calling someone a 'patent troll' was actually a 'hate crime' under 'Ninth Circuit precedent'
Unless the patent troll's attorney has a credible claim, this sounds like a personal case against said lawyer, and possibly grounds for the state bar association to sanction his license for incompetence or, if he knew he was lying, an ethics violation.
If the patent troll's attorney did have a credible claim then the 9th circuit needs to clarify the ruling in question.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2005-11-06
How much money do you think we could raise by donating a dollar each to terminating lawyers? Don't forget this includes most politicans and the god damn bottom feaders who call themselves "Lawmakers".
Once this is working, why not expand it to include CEO's and such? It might make them pay more attention to things and keep their companies out of trouble if they were subjected to Death for crimes. Forget the fucking courts. If there's not enough money, nobody good will take the commision and it will help clear out the damn idiots.
Serious question here, Why in hell do we need "Lawmakers" instead of Statesmen who help keep the peace?
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
I guess evil will win
Someone who purchases a patent solely for the purpose of extracting legal settlements IS engaging in a form of racketeering. The legal system merely has not caught up to what is actually occuring.
Translation: "I acknowledge that the legal definition of racketeering isn't what's going on here, but I'm still going to say it's a form of racketeering and the laws just aren't right."
And while that may be a fine policy argument to change the legal definition of rackeetering, when someone points out as I did that, no, it's not rackeetering, calling them a troll is a childish response.
Particularly when you then admit they're entirely correct.
In many cases there is no reasonable argument that the "defendant" infringes because the patent should never have been granted in the first place.
I don't think you understand the concept of the burden of proof. The burden is on the defendant to show that a patent should never have been granted, as patents are presumed valid. As a result, the plaintiff can't possibly fail to make a prima facie case of infringement in the complaint "because the patent should never have been granted".
The mere fact that they own a particular patent is insufficient. There has to be a reasonable argument that somehow the defendant might possibly infringe on said patent.
Yes, and that's separate from invalidity. You can tell because the words "infringement" and "invalid" are spelled and pronounced differently. I never said that "owning a particular patent is sufficient", I said that "they own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, then the suit isn't groundless." The point of the former clause is that if you don't own the patents, then you can't bring suit, even if the defendant gleefully infringes while flipping off your mom. Remember Righthaven and the copyright suits? But that's merely one predicate, rather than this goalpost-shifting you're engaging in.
Additionally you do not get to make endless assumptions in favor of the plaintiff otherwise no suit could ever be considered groundless.
At summary judgement to dismiss a complaint, all factual disputes must be presumed in favor of the non-moving party. And suits can still be considered groundless if, even with those presumptions, the plaintiff still can't establish a prima facie case. For example, if it's undisputed that I don't own a patent, then even if we presume that the patent is valid and that you infringe, any suit by me would be groundless. Am I going too fast for you?
And yes, you get to make endless assumptions of any disputed facts at summary judgement, because that's how summary judgement works: "Even if my opponent is correct about every thing we disagree on, they still lose." If you didn't do that, then there's a possibility that the outcome could change if the fact turns a different way, and so you have to go to a full trial.
In some cases the patent trolls have legitimate cases. Often they do not and you can be damn sure they know (or should know) the difference. The legal system is not supposed to be a source of profit. It is supposed to resolve genuine disputes over material issues.
Licenses are a source of profit. If someone refuses to pay for a license that they're required to purchase, then it's a genuine dispute over material issues. That may result in profit, but it's the license that is the source of profit, not the legal system.
And many of these suits ARE groundless.
But if it isn't, then it's not extortion, and if it's not extortion, then there's no pattern of racketeering activity. But, oh, wait, following the statute is "speaking like a patent
I always wondered why nobody ever used this against unions when they go on strike. they are basically saying that we will harm you financially unless you give us money (or whatever). That is basically extortion in my book.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Curiously enough, some of the points made by 'anon' in the parent post here used to be part of some patent law systems in really ancient times (like 16th-18th centuries), but they were one by one abandoned, by court decisions or legislative amendments:
>> 1) Patent times are FAR too long in many cases and should not be renewable.
An early example of a time limit, fixed in 1623 in England, was 14 years from a really early time-point when patent grant took place -- which used to be almost immediately on application (compared with today's long process).
>> 2) Minor minor changes to the original patent should not result in a new patent.
One of the very early judges (even 16th century) said that small improvements were only like "a new button on an old coat" and refused to uphold the patent, setting a precedent that lasted a couple hundred years till overturned.
>> 3) Patents should only be issues where there is an actual product ... not a process.
Definition of invention used to be 'manner of new manufacture' in several countries, but that's gone now pretty much everywhere.
>> 4) Software falls under copyright and trademark laws and therefore patents do not apply.
The old definition (see 3) automatically excluded this kind of thing from patenting.
>> 5) If you have not created and sold a product to the public using said patent within 2 years of filing then you loose ALL rights to it.
For many decades (during the 19th & 20th c. in many countries, but not including US, I think) the patentee's failure to make & sell the invention used to be called an 'abuse of monopoly', it enabled others to claim the grant of (royalty-bearing) licenses by right, and it could also expose the patent to a risk of cancellation. So there was a way to achieve no exclusion from a patented invention if the patent holder wasn't doing anything about it.
it's of interest to ask 'who lobbied' for all of the changes that got rid of these old safeguards.
-wb-
Unjustifiable downmods ...
If you posted discussion, perhaps it would be otherwise. Instead, you pontificate. Zzzz ...
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
That's fine, this has nothing to do with Doubleclick. So Anonymous really doesn't know what the hell it's talking about.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Suing for hate speech makes about as much sense as trying to apply RICO to completely legal activities. There is silliness from both sides here.
I'm not sure what you consider a completely legal activity. Is it legal for me to threaten you with a lawsuit, and then file what is shown to be an illegal lawsuit? Is it legal for me to claim that I will have you charged with what sounds like a legitimate crime, if you don't comply? What the troll is doing might be legal, but if it is it sure skirts the boundaries of legalities. Makes the RICO claim much more likely.
"he pledged $1 million of his own money to fight the troll that went after his company"
One million is a drop in a bucket. A good legal team can burn through that in about three months. It will take a lot more than that to get through the 10,000 or so patents owned by the big trolls like Intellectual Ventures.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Sigh. Just more porn for the "the patent system is broke, man!" crowd. As an attorney myself (who makes most of my litigation fees defending clients against IP trolls), I assure you that the RICO Act can't be applied in this way. Whoever is taking DoubleClick's money to prosecute this case is the real criminal. I haven't researched the case law, but I'm nearly certain that this application of RICO has never resulted in a decision favoring a plaintiff. Sure, patent trolls are certainly abusers of the legal system (although, since the recent overhaul of the Patent Act, trolling has become a heckuva lot more difficult). But the aspects of the patent system that allow this type of abuse to occur are generally not specific to patent law. A patent troll, from a legal perspective, is no different than a person who makes a career of prosecuting slip-and-falls. If 10% of the problem is the concept of intellectual property as it exists today, 80% is rooted in fundamental characteristics of our legal system, which make it possible to extort money from victims by threatening them with frivolous lawsuits -- so long as the settlement is not significantly larger than the cost of a legal defense. Just ask the RIAA.