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!
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?
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.
Simple - don't use websites that have doubleclick's content. It is your choice after all.
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.
... Or use Adblock, or add "127.0.0.1 ...doubleclick.net" to hosts (lot of work for all subdomains, wildcards not supported), or use "squid" with a blacklist for ad-domains, or use any other solution that suits you better ...
Trolling is a art!
Try and step away from the personalities involved for a moment. In this particular situation who is in the right, and who is the scum-bag criminal?
Personally I hope the patent troll gets pummelled into a greasy spot on the courtroom floor, and a precedent is set that applies for all other patent trolls. So, uncharacteristically, I'm rooting for doubleclick.
'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?
"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
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.
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-