Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wins $1.3 Million From Patent Troll

Posted by timothy on from the may-the-bridge-collapse-upon-you-and-your-family dept.

An anonymous reader writes Earlier this year, Google sued Beneficial Innovations for breach of contract, ostensibly in defense of its Doubleclick ad technology clients against whom Beneficial Innovations had filed suits despite Google having already paid licensing fees for the technology. Following Google's jury trial win, the company was originally awarded only 'nominal damages of $1 and a judicial order stopping Beneficial from going after more Doubleclick customers.' Now, however, the presiding judge has ruled that Google is entitled to some attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.3 million (PDF).

35 comments

  1. Justice for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with money. Lots of money.

  2. Judicial Order by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    So you need a judicial order now to stop lawyers from suing people who have paid to use someone patents?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Judicial Order by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Short version: yes, how else are you going to practically enforce that provision?

      The long version touches on due process, and how summary dismissals aren't enough of a disincentive, but I think if you tried to imagine the full narrative yourself, you'd see the same problems.

    2. Re:Judicial Order by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      Assuming the summary is correct (I'm not new here, I swear), you need to read more carefully. The jury made it so that Google's clients couldn't be sued for infringing patents that Google had already paid to license. The judicial order was simply for Google to receive attorneys' fees.

    3. Re:Judicial Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And pretty soon someone will sue to remove the judicial order so you need another ruling to stop that.

      From there, it's lawsuits all the way down.

    4. Re:Judicial Order by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      People who continuously pay $1.3 million settlements can't afford lawyers and court fees after a while.

    5. Re:Judicial Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the $1 - they also won a $1 settlement in addition to the 1.3 million dollars in legal fees. Can you believe it takes 1.3 million dollars in legal fees to argue a clear cut case of "we licensed this tech and use it in our advertising; our customers don't use it - they are customers of ours and WE use it" (straight up breach of contact). As always, the lawyers win. They got $1.3 million (just on the Google side of the case). Google gets $1 and the right to feel good.

    6. Re:Judicial Order by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The incentive is to prosecute the troll lawyers for barratry. Too bad DAs only selectively administer the law when it comes to keeping their colleagues in line.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    7. Re:Judicial Order by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      assuming they ever pay. I've been involved in a few court ordered settlements before and have never seen a penny. In all cases the offender simply made it more expensive to get the money than the money was worth. It's a very easy thing to do. It's unfortunately Judges aren't more sympathetic in these sorts of cases.

    8. Re:Judicial Order by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      If there is a true free market in legal services, someone should go to them and say "I will be the lawyer in your losing case for only $500k in legal fees!"

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    9. Re:Judicial Order by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yes, but now that's something that's executively enforceable. The cops CAN come knock down your door over it, and the state use of force would be justified.

      Our whole legal system is a giant fence that's designed to protect you from someone bigger, more numerous, and better armed from messing with you, until we're good and sure that it's better off that someone did.

    10. Re: Judicial Order by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think Google would even notice $1.3M. I'm sure their nazgul legal team will spare no expense to see that these trolls pay every penny so that other trolls think twice before trying to rip off Google out its customers.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    11. Re: Judicial Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can file for their bank account to be levied. Another court case. People always pay before that exposure of assets. Of course you need to file and serve again.

    12. Re:Judicial Order by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I've been involved in a few court ordered settlements before and have never seen a penny.

      Today's your lucky day!

    13. Re:Judicial Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the $1 - they also won a $1 settlement in addition to the 1.3 million dollars in legal fees. Can you believe it takes 1.3 million dollars in legal fees to argue a clear cut case [...]

      Correction: It took $1.3 million dollars for Google to do that, because Google doesn't fuck around. Their lawyers will bury you, and then you'll pay their lawyers for the burial fees.

    14. Re:Judicial Order by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Yes, but now that's something that's executively enforceable. The cops CAN come knock down your door over it, and the state use of force would be justified.

      But they wont. Trust me, I tried, they don't care. You can go to court, but just to file is $1k and if there's any legal work at all you're in the tens of thousands immediately. AND, in the end, even if you do win, they will likely just file bankruptcy and laugh at you.

    15. Re:Judicial Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently Google is paying for a patent license. If the troll doesn't pay the legal fees, Google can withhold its payments. Google may also be able to claim the patents outright.

  3. Is this really a win? by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    despite Google having already paid licensing fees for the technology.

    Since Google is paying the patent troll licensing fees, this doesn't sound much like a win.

    The article also doesn't explain why someone would sue even though they were being paid. Did Beneficial Innovations (OMG, even the name is trolling) not realize these customers were covered?

    1. Re:Is this really a win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The article also doesn't explain why someone would sue even though they were being paid. Did Beneficial Innovations (OMG, even the name is trolling) not realize these customers were covered?

      If I'm reading the follow through articles right, Google and Beneficial reached an agreement about Google using the patents. This included terms about Google's customers using Google products based on those patents. Beneficial tried to argue that some organisations were using the patent-involving products outside the terms of the agreement with Google, and so were violating the patents themselves. They tried to sue those organisations, so Google stepped in to slap them down.

  4. Google was defending customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    a.
    Google is the prevailing party because it
    has obtained a greater relief on the
    contract
    Google was not an original party but interven
    ed in this case on behalf of the Accused
    Google Customers, who were sued by Beneficial
    for allegedly infrin
    ging the ’702 and ’943
    Patents. In its Complaint for Intervention, G
    oogle answered Beneficial’s infringement claims
    against the Accused Google Custom
    ers, raising, among other things
    , “license” and “exhaustion” as
    affirmative defenses.

    1. Re:Google was defending customers by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Formatting text like that *always* makes it look like attempted poetry.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  5. Not really over patents by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative
    This was a breach of contract suit over a settlement between Google and Beneficial, under which Beneficial wasn't supposed to bring infringement suits against Google customers. They did, hence the breach. The settlement included a provision under which a prevailing party could get attorney's fees after a breach, and this was just the judge awarding those fees.

    That's not to say that there aren't people winning money from patent trolls - there are, in other cases, and the lower standard for awarding fees to the defendant is a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Octane Fitness last April. But this isn't one of those - this is more like Google suing the guy who paints the fences at the Googleplex for doing a shitty job, and then getting attorney's fees under their existing contract.

    1. Re:Not really over patents by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Google paid the [legal] protection money for its affiliates, and the racket still smashed in the windows of the affiliates' shops.

      Any two-bit thug can tell you how that works out.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. That's all? by mbone · · Score: 2

    Just $ 1.3 million for attorney's fees? And I've been telling clients they should have $ 3 million set aside for fees if they want to pursue a patent lawsuit.

    But, I guess this is more breach of contract than a real patent suit, so maybe the "low" fees aren't too surprising.

    1. Re:That's all? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Just $ 1.3 million for attorney's fees? And I've been telling clients they should have $ 3 million set aside for fees if they want to pursue a patent lawsuit.

      But, I guess this is more breach of contract than a real patent suit, so maybe the "low" fees aren't too surprising.

      That - this suit didn't really have anything to do with patents, there was no claim construction or Markman hearing, there weren't prior art searches, invalidity contentions, expert reports, etc. It was just a straightforward breach of contract.

  7. Against a *doubleclick* technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks, this is doubleclick. For once, I say "yay troll". Charge *huge* licensing fees.

    This is like watching a lawyer sue a lawyer.

    1. Re:Against a *doubleclick* technique by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      So we let douchebags get away with being douchebags because we don't like the douchebags they're being douchebags to?

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re: Against a *doubleclick* technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The douchebag enemy of my douchebag enemy is my douchebag friend

  8. found money by Cardoor · · Score: 2

    google winning a $1.3mm award is like you or me finding a crumpled $5 bill on the ground on the way to the liquor store

    1. Re:found money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not much to Google, but it sends a message to the troll.

    2. Re: found money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. As stated before, most trolls cant continue pay 3m for their cases. 3,6,9,12. You get it adds up and this method may reduce some bottom feeders claims.

  9. I would argue relief is takeover by swschrad · · Score: 1

    "you, troll, die! all assets to the defendant. if this is not effected within 5 business days, this court will personally come after your sorry ass with an Elfin sword."

    something like that.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  10. Summary wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google didn't "win" anything. They were paid $1.3m for attorney's fees, but paid over $100k out of pocket for expert witnesses. So, even though they "won", they still lost over $100k.

  11. found money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, it's a fiver. Good enough for MD40...