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."

Comments

Thanks EditorDave!

[Notabadguy]

The recent rash of clickbait on Slashdot made me expect this headline to be, "Could a Federal Judge's Decision End Patent Trolling?"

Thanks for not being a shitposting assclown. May your peers follow your example.

Is THAT really "pure evil"?

[mi]

patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."

Not to deny that abuse of the patent-system is wrong, but things like murdering a girl after raping her seem evil of considerably higher purity.

Re:Is THAT really "pure evil"?

[MightyMartian]

I think each shows a kind of pure evil in its own way. Yes, as a matter of degrees some sociopath with a law degree who uses his intellect and education to fuck over entire industries isn't committing an act quite as evil as a psychopathic pedophile that rapes and murders a child.

Or, maybe in some cases patent trolls and murderers same degree of evil.

GREAT decision.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's logical, it's practical, it has no downsides I can imagine. Why can't we have more common sense judgment like this?

Exaggerate much?

[sjbe]

according to the article, which adds that patent trolls are "the best evidence that pure evil exists."

Really? That's a little hyperbolic don't you think? Yes patent trolls are a very bad thing but let's not exaggerate their impact or how much they matter. They certainly are not evil on the scale of slavery or war or genocide or any number of other horrific crimes. I'm tempted to make some snarky Trump joke since he is (not kidding) better evidence for pure evil than patent trolls but even that would be an unfair comparison given some of the real evils of the world.

Patent trolls are extortionists and leeches on society and terrible human beings but the "best evidence that pure evil exists"? No. No they are not.

Re:Exaggerate much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh. If we're really going to get pedantic about this stupid shit, then "pure evil" doesn't represent the magnitude of evil but rather how much it is diluted by other factors. Thus it is certainly possibly for a small scale evil to be just as pure as a large one.

Also: the parent poster was talking about the economic impact of patent trolls, and while the harm which that sort of thing causes may not be as obvious as genocide it can potentially be just as severe. Drug patents kill people every day. How many people? How does that weigh against people who benefit from drug patents? How much impact do trolls have on drugs patents? I don't know, but these things are important even if they're not as dramatic as your example.

Re:Exaggerate much?

[swb]

My wife works in a business licensing IP and I hear some of the opposite side of the story. The nature of their product is such that it can't be made and distributed in any centralized way, so the business model is mostly licensing the product to producers who then participate in selling and marketing it locally under a common brand name.

Anyway, they occasionally get knocked off by producers. Sometimes its licensees who keep making it after their agreement expires, sometimes its producers who outright knock it off, making their own tooling.

They *could* sue all of them for patent infringement, but it's just not practical. In some cases the patent is close to expiration, in some cases its mostly a negotiating ploy to renew the license under more favorable terms.

Anyway, I would argue that it's not that simple to just "threaten to sue" -- you have to have a case you can win, it's expensive to bring even a winning lawsuit and it can have a chilling effect on other business partners who may see an eagerness to sue as a reason to not do business with you or to demand other concessions which could damage profitability.

And a lot of times if you do threaten, you have to follow through. Businesses are often run by egomanics who don't want to be pushed around, even when they're in the wrong. They'll spot a false threat from a mile away and will view failure to follow through accordingly.

Messed up morality

[sjbe]

A patent troll however is a totally sane and calculating individual according to any textbook. However he does his actions anyways. That is pure evil.

You seriously think patent trolls are as bad as genocide? Slavery? Premeditated murder? You need to sort out your priorities mate because if you really believe patent trolls are the worst of all evils then you have some seriously messed up notions about the world and ethics.

Re:Messed up morality

[MightyMartian]

How about trying to keep breast cancer tests as expensive as possible for personal profit?

https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Re:Messed up morality

[Anonymous Coward]

how about having to pay for medical care at all?

Re:Messed up morality

[MightyMartian]

I think every member of a society should balance personal motives such as profit, against the greater good. Making a life-saving test extraordinarily expensive, and then pursuing anyone who develops a lower cost variant, particularly when the "test" as it were is simply identifying pre-existing and non-made-made genes, thus potentially harming thousands of people who the test's costs mean they cannot be tested cannot be justified save as a purely selfish and, dare I say it, sociopathic act. We should be doing all we can to get sociopaths out of any kind of corporate governance, not allowing them to game the system to our detriment and to their gain.

Re:Messed up morality

[MightyMartian]

The problem being that no one makes money in a vacuum. The "self-made man" is a fantasy. The only self-made men I can think of are mountain men who live in the woods hundreds of miles from civilization, and even the historical mountain men still came down from the hills to trade pelts for knives.

Sorry mate, the society you live in allows you to make your money, gives you the protection necessary to keep it, gives you the infrastructure necessary for its creation and accumulation, so whether you like it or not, you have an inherent debt. Liberty is not absolute, but if you feel it is, then throw off your clothes, walk out of your house, head for the nearest vast forest and see how long you last as a "self-made man".

Re:Messed up morality

[silentcoder]

>Everything you do at work, for example, is "for personal profit". Would fewer or more women die, if the profiteer you are denouncing did not exist — and, consequently, his test was not available at any cost?

That scenario is impossible - and your claim is disproven by history. The correct counter-example is Jonas Salk. Created a vaccine that prevented one of the most debilitating diseases in human history (a disease which has killed at least one beloved US president by the way). Did not patent it. Did not even TRY to profit from it (was very happy with his middle-class professor's salary)... gave it to the world for free, and eradicated a disease entirely.

And since myriad are not staffed by gods knowing forbidden knowledge - had they not existed other researchers WOULD without any doubt have discovered those genes too - and NOT tried to see how many women they could kill.

You know what it's called when you tell somebody "give me a crapload of money or die ?" it's called robbery and extortion. It is definitely not called "doing honest business".

Personally liable, not the bloody company!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so now you create lots of shell law firms.

Until the courts go after people PERSONALLY (you know, like they do every time you get a ticket) there will be no change of behaviour.

Throwing a few lawyers in jail will do so much more for the profession than fining anyone.

AC

Here's a downside.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

it has no downsides I can imagine.

If generalized beyond patent trolling suits it could severely limit the ability of shallow-pocket plaintiffs to obtain legal council on a contingency fee basis to obtain redress for the torts that damaged, and perhaps impoverished, them.

The result would be that the legal system becomes accessible only to the rich.

Re:This seems to be an exception

[PPH]

This.

And since contingency fees are one tool that poor and middle class people use to obtain legal assistance, this decision will harm this group to a greater degree.

To continue with your example: I am quite wealthy, but live in an upper middle class neighborhood (not Warren Buffet, but same idea). So if I decide to file a frivolous lawsuit against a neighbor, I just pay my attorney for her time. So she has no risk. And if I lose, so what? I could wipe out my neighborhood with lawsuits even if my track record in court was 50%. They, on the other hand aren't in line to receive a big settlement. They are defendants, whose best outcome will be a 50% chance of being reimbursed for their expenses. Smart lawyers will avoid such clients, leaving them at a disadvantage in court.

Re:Actual invention

[silentcoder]

Aaah yes, steam engines, the number one argument against patents.

Watt gets the credit for inventing the steam engine - but he did nothing of the kind. Steam engines have been around since the ancient greeks. Getting progressively better over the centuries. By the 15th century there were more than a few steam powered mills in Britain.
What Watt did do was come up with a good mathematically concise way of measuring the amount of work a machine did, which allowed him to compare various designs for efficiency and come up with the best combination of known technologies at that time. Not a single one of the designs was his own - he merely figured out which designs for various parts were the best performing and then put them all together. Along with a wealthy financier -they then pushed steam power for trains.

Great inventions are never the work of one man or company - they are always the culmination of thousands of years of gradual improvement by thousands of people, and the INEVITABLE result of the state of human knowledge at any given time. Which is why, for any invention you wish to think off, you will find several competing claims as to who made it (besides whoever got the common credit) and generally at least 2 of them will have genuinely and independently come up with the same design without any knowledge of one another's work at teh same time.

Invention is a consequence of the collective history of all science, when the science reaches the point where an invention becomes possible it WILL happen - and it SEVERAL people will see the possibility.

So why does ONE of those people get a piece of paper saying the others aren't allowed to be rewarded for it ? Why does the government interfere with the market by giving one of those people a monopoly ?

The ostensible argument is - if you allow them to compete right away then (all) the inventors will keep the working of their products secret, which means the product could be lost when they go. This is certainly a concern - but patents are a very poor solution to that problem. Even if you do accept it, it has nothing to do with the absolutely ridiculous notion that ideas can be owned.