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."
Will probably be a Vizio
Wherever You Go, There You Are
A large company would be able to financially destroy an individual, depending on the outcome.
You may think you have a valid case. But could you pay for the legal fees of Sony/Visio/Target/AMD if you lose?
Suppose you bought a car which had a significant safety defect. You sue the car company. After a spending a million dollars on lawyers and experts, the company's lawyers convince the judge that you filed suit in the wrong court, so you lose. Now you owe the car company a million bucks. That type of outcome would happen often enough that it would be very, very rare for anyone to sue someone with more money than they have.
Instead, the fees are based on fairness- if you file a frivolous suit, you can plan on being ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Also, if you clearly CAUSE a suit, you can be ordered to pay the other party's costs. As an example, suppose you write to the car company asking them to fix the defect, at a cost of $350. They give you the run around for two years, promising to fix it but they never fix it. They admit it's a problem, they admit they caused the problem, but they just won't fix it without being sued. In such a case, you'd probably be awarded costs (and possibly treble damages).
I shall add to your anecdote.
I had a 22" Visio mounted in my Freightliner, (large American style tractor-trailer for those unfamiliar) it survived 7 years of vibration, hard shocks (potholes, bad roads), dust, moisture and extremes in temperatures. I used it another year after I retired and then gave it to my son. He sold it after buying a new TV about a year later.
The only two problems it ever had were:
1: about three years after I put it in the truck, a large capacitor came unglued from the board and broke its connection. I re-soldered it in the back while my student drove. (the ultimate mobile TV repair?)
2: at the six year mark, it developed a yellowish discoloration at the bottom center of the screen. It was only noticeable when viewed from an angle or from strait on if it was displaying a blank screen. It was difficult to see strait on with anything moving on the screen (DVD, computer game).
I was very impressed with its performance as it lived through total hellish abuse and continued to function for years afterward. It may even still be working. I certainly wouldn't be surprised!
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Simple way to level things -- make the compensatory stakes (not counting fines) the smaller of the two sets of legal fees. That way the small person has nothing to lose if they are in the right, and an acceptable cost if they are not. Similarly, the big corp. has nothing to lose from frivolous lawsuits, and loses its mightily intimidating club when it is in the wrong.
I come here for the love
$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.
Another solution is to make "winning" and "losing" non-binary. So if the defendant offers to settle for $2M, the plaintiff refuses the settlement, and the case goes to trial and the judgement is only $1M, then the plaintiff won, but should still be considered the "loser" since they refused a more than reasonable pre-trial settlement. This offer of judgement reform has been implemented in US Federal courts, and in some states.
>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
Simple way to level things is what is used in Germany - fees are limited to a fixed small percentage of the value being argued about, but if you demand a large amount and get only a small amount, you actually count as the loser (so a large corporation suing you for 100 million dollars and awarded $100 would actually pay 99.9999% of the total cost).
In the case of patent trolls demanding huge money, even if they are rewarded a small amount, they would have to pay all the cost.