Slashdot Mirror
A Federal Judge's Decision Could End Patent Trolling (computerworld.com)
"Forcing law firms to pay defendants' legal bills could undermine the business model of patent trolls," reports Computerworld. whoever57 writes: Patent trolls rely on the fact that they have no assets and, if they lose a case, they can fold the company that owned the patent and sued, thus avoiding paying any of the defendant's legal bills. However in a recent case, the judge told the winning defendant that it can claim its legal bills from the law firm. The decision is based on the plaintiff's law firm using a contract under which it would take a portion of any judgment, making it more than just counsel, but instead a partner with the plaintiff. This will likely result in law firms wanting to be paid up front, instead of offering a contingency-based fee.
The federal judge's decision "attacks the heart of the patent-troll system," according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."
The federal judge's decision "attacks the heart of the patent-troll system," according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."
For starters, this decision is non-precedential. It was issued by a District court, and not the Federal Circuit or SCOTUS.
Secondly, per a Law360 article, the reason for the attorneys fees award against the law firm was, per a law360 article:
The court awarded attorneys’ fees against AlphaCap and its counsel, Gutride Safier LLP, on the theory that AlphaCap and Gutride Safier multiplied the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously,” McCrary wrote. “The record, however, establishes that it was Gust and its counsel, not AlphaCap and Gutride Safier, who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceeding.”
Thus, this ruling has nothing to do with patent trolling being dealt a death blow, but rather unscrupulous counsel being punished.
Not an exaggeraion, IMHO.
Yes, it is an exaggeration. I once met a Rwandan woman who, as a child, hid in a crawlspace while her mother was raped and then hacked to death with a machete. Her mother was one of 800,000 Rwandans who died that way. Dealing with an annoying patent lawsuit is not worse than genocidal mass murder.
I'm not a lawyer, but my best friend since college is. We're both Americans. I probably know more about how the US legal system really works as a result of this friendship than how almost all non-lawyers do. The truth is that judges don't like to award court costs nor do lawyers really like it when they do this because it discourages lawsuits and lawyers and judges both think that the system is fine just like it is and having fewer lawsuits is actually bad. Some judges won't ever award costs to the winner. Some will only do so to send a message to people they think really abuse the system. It seems to me that this is considered to be an unusual situation rather than something that will set a precedent. Also, judges often ignore anything they feel like, so the fact that court costs got awarded in case A doesn't at all mean that they will be in case B in front of a different judge even if the circumstances that led to the awarded are essentially identically.
Here's an example. Suppose you have neighbor who doesn't like you and the neighbor sues you for something really stupid and asks for a huge monetary award. Suppose that you win, but the case is extraordinarily difficult and time consuming and you end up ruined financially from having to pay the costs to defend yourself against this frivolous lawsuit. You can probably count on one hand the number of judges and lawyers who actually feel sorry for you. From their perspective the system worked perfectly. You got sued for something bogus and you won. The fact that it destroyed you financially to defend yourself is not their concern. Not at all.
"The other just takes money, which is worse?"
Your money is obtained in exchange for your time (*).
Your time is your life.
Therefore, taking your money is taking (a part) of your life.
Theft and murder are different faces of the same die...
(*) Yes, ignoring silverspoons and welfare dependents. However their money still represents a portion of someone's life, just not their own.
--- Mercutio was right.
That's true the law firm was held liable for costs based in the actions of this law firm, the same reasoning doesn't apply to other patent suites generally. HOWEVER, 90% of patent trolling is done by just a handful of law firms, who all pretty much act the same way. So the reasoning does apply to the vast majority of patent troll suits.