Slashdot Mirror
Vizio, Destroyer of Patent Trolls
An anonymous reader writes: We read about a lot of patent troll cases. Some are successful and some are not, but many such cases are decided before ever going to court. It's how the patent troll operates — they know exactly how high litigation costs are. Even without a legal leg to stand on, they can ask for settlements that make better financial sense for the target to accept, rather than dumping just as much money into attorney's fees for an uncertain outcome. Fortunately, some companies fight back. TV-maker Vizio is one of these, and they've successfully defended against 16 different patent trolls, some with multiple claims. In addition, they're going on the offensive, trying to wrest legal fees from the plaintiffs for their spurious claims. "For the first time, it stands a real chance, in a case where it spent more than $1 million to win. Two recent Supreme Court decisions make it easier for victorious defendants to collect fees in patent cases. The TV maker is up against a storied patent plaintiffs' firm, Chicago-based Niro, Haller & Niro, that has fought for Oplus tooth and nail. ... For Vizio, the company feels that it's on the verge of getting vindication for a long-standing policy of not backing down to patent trolls."
The appeals courts generally rule on the LAW, not on the FACTS. So when they overturn a decision they frequently remand it with an instruction (not a request) to decide it in accordance with a specific understanding of the law.
Why send it back rather than just deciding the outcome of the case? Because the appellant ruling on the law may or may not change the outcome of a case. Imagine someone confessed to a murder, and there were also witnesses. The appellant court might rule that as a matter of law the confession is not admissible. They'd remand the case to be tried without the confession. The murderer might well still be convicted based on witness testimony and other evidence. The appeals court doesn't hear from witnesses, they just rule on points of law. The trial court would need to judge guilt or innocence, while following the appellant court's instruction to not play the confession for the jury.
$200 per/hour? A first year associate at most corporate law firms bills around $350 an hour, particularly in IP. Most IP partners bill at approximately $750 - $900 per hour.
That isn't true at all. I know because I have represented many people on a contingency fee basis. However, like most patent attorneys, before representing someone on a contingency basis, I make sure that a) their patent is good, and b) there is money to be made from enforcing the patent.
However, most patent lawyers will not represent a patent holder in an IPR proceeding on a contingency basis. Because IPR proceedings are now the norm, any patent holder must have a warchest of several hundred thousand dollars to bring any suit against an infringer. If a "loser pay" system is implemented, the patent holder would need to have several million in the bank before bringing suit. This allows large corporations to stonewall and bankrupt patent holders.
>Yeah, yeah, yeah, McDonald's Coffee case. There was something there legally that wasn't reported in the media or if it was, it went over everyone's head.
Things most people miss.
The manager of that McDonald's refused to pick up 50% of the initial ER bill. ( Literally, all they had to do, was sign a piece of paper, and that would have been that. I've forgotten the dollar amount, but even doubling it, to allow for the cost of having a lawyer examine it, would have been far cheaper, than the resulting lawsuit.)
McDonald's corporate had cited that specific McDonald's for violating their policy on how hot coffee should be served at, several times, before this specific incident occurred.
Need I mention her third degree burns, in an area of the body that is extremely difficult to treat.
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
That's how it works in the UK. It's been like that for a long time.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
McDonalds claims their customers like the coffee at a higher temp (175-180) since they often commute and don't drink it for a while.
I guess you don't commute either. Most people who get coffee at a drive through start drinking it immediately.
From the article;
Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
That is an admission of guilt and recklessness by McDonald's,
They finally changed their policy
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
Similarly, I also don't blame knives for being "too sharp" when I drop one on my foot ...
You miss the point that a sharp knife will not cause damage if used correctly. Coffee at 180 degrees would burn the mouth of consumed.
This might be one of the reasons that Tim Horton's actually puts in the cream and sugar so you don't have to on the car.