[HN Gopher] Ask HN: I was hit with a patent troll lawsuit, how d...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: I was hit with a patent troll lawsuit, how do I deal with
it?
This particular patent troll has filed lawsuits with at least a
dozen of my competitors in the past year. Some were voluntarily
dismissed, some ongoing, rest unknown (based on my limited research
skills). The patent in question involves downloading a remote
database to a mobile device used as a lookup table when scanning a
QR code. Yeah... I'm a one person company and have no idea what to
do.
Author : jblake
Score : 626 points
Date : 2021-06-21 14:48 UTC (8 hours ago)
| hiidrew wrote:
| Not sure of your age but I'm acquaintances with an individual
| that was in a similar situation when he was 22. Met in-person and
| dressed as scrappy as possbile, like a broke college student that
| doesn't care about their appearance. Ended up settling for $1,000
| and exiting with a sale to Ford
| slim wrote:
| Ignore them unless you live in US or EU in which case follow the
| advice of people living there
| dt3ft wrote:
| Why are we calling these "patent trolls"? They use the system we
| all built (or the one we tolerate) and pursue profits as per the
| "rules of the game". Instead of fighting this one case at a time,
| shouldn't we be organizing and pushing for the "rules of the
| game" to be changed and get this over with once and for all?
|
| By the way, I strongly believe that software patents should not
| exist.
| belter wrote:
| We call them patent trolls because they follow the rules of the
| game but behave unethically.
|
| I have seen US companies convince employees to move to another
| state. Real reason was dismissal laws were more convenient for
| the company. After a 3 to 4 months they closed their offices.
| So all within the rules of the game, but unethical. Or the
| "hire to fire" practices. Within the rules of the game also...
| relaunched wrote:
| Talk to a lawyer. But, here's some things to know -
|
| 1) Willful infringement is worse than infringing.
|
| 2) Patent trolls are trying to earn money - some money is better
| than no money.
|
| 3) In most legal scenarios, you want to get out of the conflict
| as cheaply as possible - vindication is very expensive.
| wyager wrote:
| > vindication is very expensive
|
| While true, this is unfortunate, because it means that patent
| trolls continue to get away with this behavior.
|
| I think society today is insufficiently aggressive and
| vengeful. The social utility of vengefulness is precisely that
| it allows for n-tit-for-tat strategies to punish social
| defectors like patent trolls.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > I think society today is insufficiently aggressive and
| vengeful.
|
| Sure, the society with one of the largest per capita prison
| populations in the world is insufficiently vengeful.
| munificent wrote:
| The historical structures that lead to the US's
| incarceration rate are not based on vengeance. They are in
| place to preserve existing pre-Emancipation power
| structures and continue to provide a source of unpaid
| labor.
| wyager wrote:
| The government is not the same thing as society. The
| government is more than willing to burn money pursuing
| people who break its rules, to pretty significant effect,
| but individuals and private companies presently lack the
| requisite sense of pride/aggression/honor/whatever.
|
| One obvious source of this problem is that n-tit-for-tat
| behavior in humans is moderated by testosterone levels,
| which have been declining precipitously. 100 years ago you
| had personal vendettas between CEOs driving corporate
| policy, which is unironically good for society because it
| encourages real non-kayfabeized competition and the
| punishment of antisocial corporate behavior.
| saxonww wrote:
| When you're directing vengeance at the wrong problems, then
| yes.
| laurent123456 wrote:
| Yes, and there's no reason to think that if society was
| more aggressive and vengeful, vengeance would be directed
| towards anybody but the most vulnerable. Patent trolls
| would do just fine in that kind of world.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > I think society today is insufficiently aggressive and
| vengeful.
|
| I don't think vengefulness is the right thing to look at. I
| imagine large corporations with armies of lawyers might be
| glad to invest in winning enough lawsuits that other patent
| trolls are scared off. Small companies don't have the
| resources to do that.
|
| Both the large companies and the small companies are making
| decisions on the basis of profit. Vengefulness isn't likely
| to be a motive in itself.
| wyager wrote:
| > Vengefulness isn't likely to be a motive in itself.
|
| I know - I'm saying it should be. Vengeance is a critical
| social regulator in human societies, but it has been damped
| to the point of total dysfunction.
|
| The biological instinct for vengeance solves a social
| coordination problem - namely, the stability of altruistic
| punishment, where you make a sacrifice (such as spending
| resources fighting someone who wronged you rather than
| capitulating and moving on) to protect other people.
|
| Modern liberal capitalism has done too good a job of
| suppressing higher-order social optimization instincts like
| vengeance, while leaving first-order selfish optimization
| instincts like profit-seeking in place. I don't think this
| is necessarily an inherent problem in capitalism, but the
| current implementation won't let you do things like this in
| most cases. If you go after a patent troll instead of
| settling, your shareholders will sue you.
| admissionsguy wrote:
| Curious, why is it expensive?
|
| Is it similar to the process of getting the patent itself where
| most companies pay $$$ for lawyers, but a determined technical
| (and legally literate) person can do it themselves with not
| that much effort (like I did)? Or is there some sort of
| gatekeeping or statutory fees that must be paid?
| relaunched wrote:
| It's more expensive than getting a patent, which you can do
| yourself.
|
| Courts have procedures, and it many juris dictions, they
| require you to be represented by an attorney. While I'm not
| an attorney, I've been the the process enough to know a few
| of the steps:
|
| 1) demand letter(s) and responses
|
| 2) negotiations, w/o a mediator
|
| 3) drafting and filing of the complaint
|
| 4) motions w/ responses
|
| 5) negotiations w/ a mediator
|
| 6) interrogatories
|
| 7) discovery
|
| 8) depositions
|
| 9) pre-trial hearings / more motions
|
| 10) presiding judge led mediation (sometimes the judge wants
| to give it a shot)
|
| 11) trial
|
| The entire process can take years - especially when one party
| is on a tight budget (dragging it out can be strategic).
|
| So, there are quite a lot of steps and in the US, very few
| statuettes allow for legal fee recovery, so it might not be
| available.
| pnw wrote:
| In my most recent case, we settled the patent lawsuit for
| approximately 10% of the estimated cost to litigate, which
| was well into six figures.
|
| If we had chosen to litigate, it would have taken years,
| been very stressful and possibly created issues with future
| company financings etc.
|
| And even if we had won - the NPE has zero assets to attach
| so you always bear the legal cost.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| > the NPE has zero assets to attach so you always bear
| the legal cost.
|
| I've vaguely heard of this so it might not be directly
| relevant, but I've heard of "performance bonds" or the
| like being mandated for litigants. Basically the idea is
| that the litigant has to put up a sum of money to
| continue the lawsuit so that they don't get the free
| optionality of collect-if-win / have-no-assets-if-lose
| scenario.
| triceratops wrote:
| > In most legal scenarios, you want to get out of the conflict
| as cheaply as possible - vindication is very expensive.
|
| Sorry but no. Patent trolls are no better than ransomware
| gangs. If you pay them once, they'll be back for another
| helping tomorrow.
| indymike wrote:
| Without knowing who is suing, what patent, and how they are
| claiming your are infringing it is difficult to say anything
| other than get a lawyer.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Special what patent would be helpful and interesting.
| erik998 wrote:
| readup on lotnet.com
|
| Lawsuits from Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs, sometimes called
| "patent trolls") can be a drain on resources for any company.
| With software a primary PAE target, and software becoming an
| integral part of all industries -- putting nearly all companies
| at risk of being sued.
|
| That's why leading companies have come together to form a
| collaborative, voluntary community to reduce this risk - one that
| grows in importance as the economic environment becomes
| increasingly uncertain.
| cryptica wrote:
| >> I'm a one person company and have no idea what to do.
|
| Re-launch your company as a blockchain DAO then leave the
| country. What kind of retarded legal system facilitates this BS?
| Why would anyone want to live in such place?
|
| Anyone who has any self-respect and has had to work hard for
| their money would never consider taking any of this crap.
|
| Or if you really like your country (I.e. the land and its
| people), you can shut down your business and join the communist
| revolution. With the current anti-competitive climate, it's
| probably only a few years away. Just wait for Gen-Z to receive a
| decade or so of persistent crony-capitalist beatings and you'll
| be able to find enough disgruntled comrades to help you fix your
| situation.
| ccvannorman wrote:
| Is this a legitimate solution, assuming leaving the country is
| viable? Can you give an example of a company sued by a patent
| troll that left/DAO'd and is now successful with the same
| product, unhurt by the troll?
| cryptica wrote:
| I don't know any but it should be possible in theory.
|
| It's difficult to imagine how someone would go about suing a
| DAO. Who would they sue? There is no legal entity to
| represent a DAO, all the rules of the business are defined in
| the code, the participants are all in different countries and
| they're not necessarily owners of the DAO (the DAO is
| autonomous; it owns itself), DAO members don't even have any
| legal agreements with each other and they might even be
| anonymous.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Maybe contact EFF?
|
| https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance
|
| Probably a long shot, but you might get somewhere.
| zero_deg_kevin wrote:
| Lawyer up and prepare for an unsatisfying result. Unless you've
| got deep pockets and a lot of time, they've already won.
| belter wrote:
| Patent trolls are in my top 3 list of most despised entities. Its
| the whole hypocrisy of their way of living, cobbled together with
| their parasitic nature.
|
| Some years ago, worked for a US based startup that went public.
| When they got to a valuation of around 1 billion, they got hit by
| a patent troll. Completely bogus claim, but at the time the CEO
| just decided to settle and avoid the risks and financial stress
| of prolonged litigation.
|
| As you stated you are a small business I would start by doing the
| following four things :
|
| 1) Read the Wikipedia pages about these morons. It is a good
| overview of what you are up against:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
|
| 2) This network claims to have helped small business owners. Not
| sure if its the case but worth checking out:
| https://lotnet.com/
|
| 3) Some of the recommendations here, are worth checking out as
| part of your check list:
|
| "How to Fight--and Win--Against Patent Trolls"
|
| https://www.inc.com/magazine/202004/minda-zetlin/patent-trol...
|
| 4) Respond only through an attorney. Also as
| stated in the article above, only agree to talk to
| lawyers where the initial consultation is free of charge.
| I have no affiliation with this company but you might
| want to start your search here:
| https://www.priorilegal.com/intellectual-property/patent/patent-
| trolls
|
| At extreme case, consider closing the company and incorporating
| in Europe. It will probably change in a few years, but for the
| moment, litigation is cheaper and courts have a lot more common
| sense.
|
| Good luck and remember ... IANAL
| robocat wrote:
| Presumably patent trolls often hit when they have the most
| leverage and the company has the least time and the most money
| e.g. during due diligence or just before IPO?
| dzabriskie wrote:
| To expose the entire patent troll ecosystem, HN should find a way
| to cloud source a database of patent lawsuits.
|
| Maybe include data points like -
|
| - the patent in question
|
| - the troll behind the suit
|
| - the defending IP litigator (so others can know where to turn
| when the troll goes after their next victim)
|
| - the outcome of the suit - settled, won, lost, costs, penalties,
| etc
|
| The more information that becomes available to combat these
| trolls, the better.
|
| Perhaps a site like this could run completely off donations, by
| saving money in legal expenses. Or maybe monetize allowing IP
| litigators to list their services in a directory. Maybe allow
| users to review IP litigators and link them to
| successful/unsuccessful cases and outcomes?
| kleinsch wrote:
| Dealt with something similar. Talk to a lawyer, they'll tell you
| to settle.
|
| It sucks, but when you're small that's how this works. Fighting
| these could be a multi year process that costs tons of money and
| may require you to personally show up in court. Do you want to
| bet the future of your company and spend hundreds of hours of
| your life fighting this? Or do you give them a few thousand to go
| away?
| fallingfrog wrote:
| You should start a patent troll trade association, so when one of
| you is attacked you can pool your resources and counter sue.
|
| Or maybe start a patent troll insurance company with similar
| goals. Make yourselves an unappealing target.
| mtnGoat wrote:
| when this happened to me, they didn't send the letter certified
| and misspelled my name on the letter(which gave away who sold my
| info to them). Thus, by my reckoning, i never got the letter and
| was unaware, though i did know they were suing many others. Lucky
| for me one of those others prevailed in court and crushed the
| troll. Sadly the suit almost bankrupted the company that won, but
| in the end they proved they wont take crap from trolls.
| pnw wrote:
| I've been through this multiple times. Plenty of good advice here
| about getting lawyers and getting your industry together to fight
| the suit in a joint action.
|
| Having said and tried all that personally, I've usually got my
| lawyer to negotiate it down to a smaller sum of a few thousand
| dollars and paid it. It simply wasn't worth paying orders of
| magnitude more than that for a legal process in which the outcome
| was unsure and that would take years.
|
| Did I like it? Hell no but it was the best possible outcome at
| the time.
|
| The secret to a good negotiation is getting your lawyers to call
| them and basically plead poverty. If you don't have substantial
| revenue or assets in your corporation, the NPE isn't dumb enough
| to keep spending time chasing you. In my case they were suing
| massive multinational corporations and also tiny startups with
| the same sized lawsuit.
|
| The NPE are usually some random inventor who sold their 90's era
| patent to some shitty lawyers, with an equally random person
| trying to 'negotiate' the settlements. It's better to let your
| lawyers deal with them than getting your hands dirty yourself.
| DethNinja wrote:
| If don't mind, could you tell how much revenue your company was
| generating while it was sued?
|
| I assumed they wouldn't touch companies less than 100k revenue
| but if they do, I think I might want to get some patent troll
| insurance.
| williesleg wrote:
| Just ignore it. By acknowledging it you're engaging with them.
| They're looking for low hanging fruit.
| LightG wrote:
| A pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
| bombcar wrote:
| You may want to reach out to some of your competitors and try to
| find the lawyers they used (especially the dismissed ones). If
| there are any court records they may show this.
| berdon wrote:
| I second this thought. Everyone hates patent trolls and it's
| very possible some of these companies might relish another
| opportunity to force this one to "lose".
| Tpsoc wrote:
| Or depending on the industry, your competitors might be happy
| to see one less competitor.
| lovecg wrote:
| They're a one person company, and I assume their
| competitors are not exactly Google and Facebook either.
| Surely there's enough market share at that level to allow
| for some compassion and basic human decency? Not everyone
| has to be ruthless 100% of the time
| orzig wrote:
| Bad idea for the sake of discussion: Why not represent yourself,
| make the whole process as public as possible (marketing to offset
| the cost of time), and do everything you can to asymmetrically
| use their lawyer's time? Even if you end up settling, they might
| come to the table a little more eager to get it over with
| neilk wrote:
| Because this is a distraction from your business, and
| distracting you IS their business. Every hour spent on legal
| affairs, playing on their turf, weakens you and strengthens
| them.
|
| Patent trolls have no reputation to ruin, so you can't shame
| them by being very public.
|
| Unless this is a particularly outrageous case or you are a very
| well-known person I doubt you can get much marketing benefit
| from a public fight.
| lovecg wrote:
| Going public works if a) you own the newspaper or b) your story
| can pull some serious societal heart strings. Unfortunately the
| public at large is largely ignorant to the mess that the
| software patents are, it's hard to see this getting traction.
|
| Also representing yourself is not quite like in the movies.
| There's typically no sympathetic judge willing to bend the
| rules, etc. etc. The bureaucratic machine is quite efficient at
| following the letter of the law, so you're putting yourself at
| a disadvantage by being a non-professional.
| robomartin wrote:
| I'll inject a related question here:
|
| Does anyone have experience with the LOT network [0]?
|
| If so, is this useful, recommended or advisable for small
| startups?
|
| As for the OP. I wonder if joining LOT at this point might have
| any value for you.
|
| Political: The patent troll industry is yet another example of
| how much our politicians have failed us. I see them as scam
| artists who would be bad car sales people and ambulance chasers
| had they not gone into politics. All they care about is votes.
| Everything else does not affect their fitness function,
| therefore, they tend to ignore things that are actually important
| to real people.
|
| [0] https://lotnet.com/
| sonthonax wrote:
| Would it be possible to create a corporate structure around a
| patent to disincentivize trolling?
|
| Like if you set up a limited liability company that owns the code
| that's allegedly infringing on the patent, that then licenses out
| the offending code to you. But you structure the actual company
| as something you're buying a infringing service for a nominal fee
| under an SLA.
|
| If that shell company has no assets, and you publicise that to
| the troll, that would be a major disincentive to actually suing
| you.
| rpaddock wrote:
| Has anyone taken out a patent on being a patent troll?
|
| Do that then sue all the patent trolls for infringing on the
| patent for being a patent troll...
| 0z8 wrote:
| I don't think there's a loophole there. If you're making,
| selling, or using technology that is patented by another party,
| you're infringing, even if you aren't the creator of that
| technology.
| sonthonax wrote:
| What is the threshold for indirect patent infringement? For
| instance, I don't fear being sued personally for using
| Microsoft office (which I'm sure infringes on something).
| 0z8 wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but as far as I understand there's no
| threshold or legal distinction between direct and indirect.
| It's all direct.
|
| There's the angle of "how much $ can I extract" that comes
| into play, which is based on damages incurred from
| infringement. If you're not making money or preventing the
| patent holder from making money, you're not worth
| harassing.
| rhino369 wrote:
| You can be sued for Office functionality. And you'd
| probably be the direct infringer.
|
| It's just an inefficient way to sue people and Microsoft
| would likely step in.
|
| But it's common to get sued for using functionality in open
| source software.
| vnchr wrote:
| There's still the potential for extorting a settlement based on
| the business value of the patent to the operating company. But
| it does seem like that would mitigate risks to other assets,
| like you said.
| MikeDelta wrote:
| I see a lot of articles online when searching for "QR database
| download patent lawsuit". It seems patent trolls are very active
| in the QR field.
|
| Such a shame for innovations in this area. I hope something can
| be done, but I am sceptical.
|
| Can you work around the patent?
| acomjean wrote:
| I have no advice on how to deal with this, but I looked at the
| company site, and am having a hard time figuring out how a simple
| scan/ lookup can be patentable. Bar coded scans at cash registers
| have been doing this for decades.
|
| I suspect this will start to hurt US capitalism. who wants to
| start a company only to get sued at every turn.
| dathinab wrote:
| Hm this is basically on the level of patenting pulling your
| wallet out of your green pocket to pay for a coffee at a street
| food shop.
|
| Or cutting wood with a knife to then use it to build a chair.
|
| I.e. while you need the result of the first part to do the second
| part, how you do the first part and how you do the second part
| are completely unrelated.
|
| Honestly given the large degree of economical damage such patent
| trolling does it's sad to see that laws hasn't been updated to
| involve serve penalties for anyone trying to abuse the patent
| system (if it's clear that it's an abuse like in this case).
|
| Like if it's such a obvious case like this:
|
| 1) Hold the suing person responsible for all financial costs of
| the defender, and a penalty and personal consequences for lawyer
| suing.
|
| 2) Make it a crime a create "deceptive" patents. Which are not
| clear in what they patent or clearly (for a person with knowledge
| of the topic) patent trivial or obvious things which should never
| bee palatable.
|
| 3) Make the patent office earn more money from catching clearly
| bad patents then from passing them through.
|
| Through only if it's "clear" abuse, whatever that means.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| How about requiring a jury of "peers" who actually know the
| first thing about the subject matter when these things do go to
| court.
| wiseleo wrote:
| I've tried to get onto a jury panel for IP cases. Defense
| attorneys do not want anyone with IP and computer skills
| anywhere near that panel. The easiest way to skip a jury is
| to claim forensic expertise. Judge William Alsup (Oracle vs.
| Google) is famous because he actually has sufficient CS
| understanding to tell when someone lies.
| https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-
| googl...
| dathinab wrote:
| That is also a good idea, but I would prefer if patent trolls
| don't even try to go to court.
|
| Sadly with many countries law system even if you are in the
| right they opponent still can drive you to ruine before they
| lose.
|
| So the penalties (for trolling company and lawyer) must be to
| a point that they won't want to risk abusing the patent
| system.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Having a jury that knows something about software patents,
| or about the domain, is emphatically _not_ a good idea.
| They will second-guess the evidence, ignore the attorneys '
| pleadings and the judges instructions, and pull a verdict
| out of their ass, because "they know better".
| vasco wrote:
| The easiest and most cost effective way, though not one that
| minimises risk the most, is to have you (if you're technical
| which I assume you are since you say you're a 1 person company)
| analyse the claims in the patent and figure out why it doesn't
| apply to your tech, based on the tiniest detail that is different
| between your implementation and their claims. Then reply to them
| saying you've had your engineers review the claims and none of
| them apply, and thank them for giving you the chance to license
| their IP, but that in this case it's not going to be necessary.
| I've seen this work a handful of times and it minimizes lawyer
| fees.
|
| If they come back to you insisting that you're infringing or if
| you don't have the capacity to do this analysis, or if your
| analysis is that you indeed do what the patent describes in the
| same way, I would involve a lawyer. But I wouldn't do it right
| out of the gate for the first look at the claims as this is your
| easiest way out.
| zoobab wrote:
| The price to pay for not lobbying enough to software patent
| abolition. In the US, the STRONGER patent act and in the EU the
| UPC are 2 projects to validate software patents.
|
| You can contact me at zoobab at gmail.com, we have has similar
| requests from small players in the US and in thr EU.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| Usual disclaimer: I am not an attorney.
|
| Have they actually served you with any notice, potential
| licensing terms, legal documents of any kind? For clarification,
| are they a NPE (non-practicing entity)?
|
| Anyway, I've worked on pretty much every side of the patent
| system in the United States (assuming you're there). While I
| (fortunately) haven't been presented with your exact scenario I
| suggest:
|
| - You need to hire a patent attorney immediately (it doesn't
| sound like you have one).
|
| - Get them up to speed on the situation.
|
| - They can advise you on what to do.
|
| The advice I've been given in the past essentially boils down to:
|
| 1) Have your attorney immediately respond with a letter
| containing any/all of the following: likely prior art, issues
| with their patent, why it doesn't apply to you, any circumvention
| measures you've taken, etc, etc.
|
| 2) Meet their terms. It sounds like this probably isn't a viable
| option for you.
|
| #1 serves several purposes:
|
| 1) Letting the other party know you have a patent attorney.
|
| 2) You (and they) understand the landscape and have a prepared
| response.
|
| 3) You aren't just some naive rube that will be (that) easily
| intimidated.
|
| 4) If they're looking for a quick rollover, settlement, licensing
| terms, etc that won't happen here.
|
| For you it sounds like most of this will be a bluff.
|
| Ideally they'll move on to a different target. However based on
| what you've described they sound very aggressive and well funded
| so that's probably not what will happen here if it comes to that.
|
| As you probably know these kinds of things often come down to who
| has the last dollar and it sounds like that will be you.
|
| The worst case scenario is you end up with a judgement against
| you and the cops show up and seize company assets. Don't mess
| around with this and let it get to that.
|
| Good luck.
| jblake wrote:
| Thank you. I have not personally been served, I found out about
| it via emails from two different patent attorney firms offering
| their services, with the lawsuit attached as a courtesy. The
| lawsuit looks legit to me. I live in Tahoe so don't get mail
| but will check today and also check with my registered agent in
| Reno.
|
| Can you recommend me a patent attorney? Any idea on how much
| this could cost?
| scruffyherder wrote:
| You need to see if you have been served, as it'll require a
| signature, not just something in the mail.
|
| It's patent so you can't file an anti slapp, but until you
| have been properly served you need to find hearing dates and
| BE THERE, and demand a dismissal based on improper service.
| The court will almost always dismiss it, have you served
| right then and there but it does drag the clock.
|
| Also get a lawyer don't listen to strange people like me on
| the internet. Most likely it'll involve some posturing and
| mediation or a settlement.
|
| Also what will happen is your lawyer will send them a request
| to serve them on your behalf. It's only the beginning. Things
| drag slow for months then speed and slow down.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| Wow, that's a (really sleazy) angle I haven't heard of
| before. I wouldn't respond (at all) to any unsolicited
| e-mails from random groups offering their "services" in this
| matter. This sounds almost like a patent version of the car
| warranty scam - "Warning - this is our last notice. You may
| be responsible for all repairs!" Yeah, ok...
|
| Unfortunately the patent attorneys I've worked with are in
| very large international firms with a price tag that goes
| along with that. I can provide some recommendations but I
| suspect (and please don't take this the wrong way) they won't
| be of much use to you.
| pnw wrote:
| It's not uncommon, it's happened to me twice.
|
| Basically an NPE files a lot of lawsuits at once, legal
| companies are monitoring the lawsuits and will proactively
| reach out to potential customers.
|
| In my case the firms that reached out were mostly tier one
| national law firms and they were very familiar with the
| NPE. And like the OP I was unaware of the lawsuit because
| they served our corporate agent in Delaware. So it was
| quite useful.
| rhino369 wrote:
| I wouldn't respond to people cold emailing either.
|
| However, the difference between this and the warranty scam
| is that the complaint they are attaching is 100% real.
|
| It's more like a mechanic emailing you saying, hey I notice
| your car was broken down on the side of the road.
| ajb wrote:
| That sounds strange. If you have really been sued you may be
| able to find out on PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/)
| jblake wrote:
| Yes, my case is on Pacer.
| [deleted]
| brudgers wrote:
| Hire one of the attorneys who got the case dismissed.
| rawtxapp wrote:
| Like many said contacting a lawyer is a good idea, also consider
| joining the LOT Network, it's like protection against patent
| trolls by sharing patents.
| rpaddock wrote:
| I'm posting this mostly because it was the next thing that came
| up in my feed, after seeing your Troll dilemma. The editorial
| comment may be relevant to your case.
|
| Mouser, a large distributor in the Electronic industry is being
| sued by a Troll.
|
| I hope that Mouser chooses to no longer carry the claimed
| infringing part.
|
| How is there any logic to the troll suing the very company
| getting their product out to the world?
|
| https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/micron-mouser-sued-germany...
| dmabram wrote:
| I've been through similar situations. The "find a lawyer"
| comments are less than helpful, since you probably don't know
| where to begin and most lawyers will happily take your money
| without necessarily having an expedient path to resolution for a
| small one-person company. So here's what you do:
|
| Write to each of your competitors, explain the situation and ask
| for a referral to their lawyers. You'd be surprised how many are
| more than willing to make a referral against a troll Also search
| around for any other attorneys who have filed against this troll
| and contact them as well. They should all be willing to do an
| initial call for free.
|
| You are trying to find an attorney who has a successful blueprint
| for dealing with this particular troll, ideally this particular
| claim. If the attorney is able to leverage their prior work or
| knowledge, your costs are greatly reduced. Also, if the troll has
| unsuccessful experience with a particular attorney they may just
| give up. Good luck!
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| Also, just to add to that: a lot of the "good" lawyers will
| just ghost a one man operation or small business.
|
| Dealing with this kind of thing is a nightmare. You have to
| find someone who does EFF type stuff.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Yep. Got injured/poisoned by a mega company. Gross
| negligence. But it's a complicated case. No lawyer will touch
| it. Sometimes your just screwed.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| > will just ghost a one man operation or small business
|
| I didn't understand this phrase. Does that mean the "good"
| lawyer is just a false front and the real business is handled
| by somebody else?
| bitwize wrote:
| To "ghost" someone is to avoid them without a response. The
| term probably came from personal relationships (e.g., a
| woman you were dating starts "ghosting" you). It was
| previously considered rude but is now appropriate to avoid
| potentially toxic personal or professional relationships.
| kian wrote:
| Pretty sure it's still considered rude.
| bitwize wrote:
| You're obviously not a woman who has had to deal with
| potentially threatening people in your love life. Among
| women ghosting is 100% a legitimate way to refuse a
| second/third/etc. date. In business, companies routinely
| ghost candidates they're not interested in because of the
| hassle and risk in interacting with candidates who are
| clearly no-hires. You don't owe _anyone_ with whom you do
| not have a solid established relationship an interaction.
| technothrasher wrote:
| > Among women ghosting is 100% a legitimate way to refuse
| a second/third/etc. date.
|
| Even back in the prehistoric times of my dating days,
| which was before I recall the term "ghosting" existed, it
| wasn't an uncommon thing. It might have been
| disappointing on occasion, but I never found it "rude".
| It wasn't very hard to take the hint and move on.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| It's a word we need to stop using. Along with "Flexing".
|
| I had this one English teacher who squashed any interest
| in writing after I took his class. He was known as Red
| because that's what color our papers were when he was
| finished grading them.
|
| He did say a few thing that felt right. One was just
| don't use cliches. The other was don't use slang.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Shakespeare would probably have some strong, formerly
| slang, words to say about your English teacher's take on
| using slang. Today's synonyms are yesterdays slang, and
| arguing against embracing the fluidity of language is
| just saying dead old white guys have a monopoly on
| inventing words.
| gnulinux wrote:
| I have never met a single person in my life who didn't
| ghost multiple people especially in business and dating.
| Like I receive 10 messages from LinkedIn everyday from
| recruiters trying to hire me when I'm not on the job
| market and trying to focus on my job and hobbies. What am
| I supposed to do?
|
| It's clearly rude to ghost friends, acquaintances,
| business partners etc. But if someone reached out to you
| with the intention of doing business with you, I think
| it's ok to ghost them if you're 100% not interested. Am I
| wrong?
| iudqnolq wrote:
| I think it's only ghosting if you break off a
| conversation, not if you never start one. If I send you
| Viagra spam and you don't reply that's clearly not
| ghosting.
| MereInterest wrote:
| I think "ghosting" is also used when one person breaks
| off a conversation, but the other person continues the
| conversation despite the conversation being broken off.
| At that point, an obnoxiously persistent person may
| conclude that that are being ghosted, rather than
| noticing that the conversation was over.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Ignoring some recruiter you've never heard of isn't
| 'ghosting'. 'Ghosting' is when someone you know, and have
| a reasonable expectation will take your calls, suddenly
| stops taking them, without explanation.
|
| It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic
| interest.
| N00bN00b wrote:
| >It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic
| interest.
|
| Language isn't fixed, the meaning of words, especially
| "new" words (and ghosting is a new verb) changes over
| time. That was the original meaning, but it's now applied
| to all relationships.
|
| >Ghosting is by no means limited to long-term romantic
| relationships. Informal dating relationships,
| friendships, even work relationships may end with a form
| of ghosting.
|
| https://www.psycom.net/what-is-ghosting
|
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ghosting
| denton-scratch wrote:
| I was unclear (in the interest of brevity:-)
|
| For clarity, I didn't mean that ghosting was _only_ to do
| with dumping partners. I suppose I was suggesting that
| that 's the canonical example.
| Zircom wrote:
| Ghosting means to avoid or stop responding to someone. So
| he's implying that lawyers may just not even respond since
| such a small company isn't worth their time, or possibly
| even just take their money and then "ghost" them after
| that.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Ah, got it. As in, _to disappear like a ghost_. Thanks!
| kkielhofner wrote:
| I generally appreciate the altruism of this advice but there's
| a huge risk in that the competitors likely won't set aside the
| spirit of competition, whatever they've spent/done to deal with
| this, etc to help out a competitor.
|
| I, personally, would not risk this approach.
| eloff wrote:
| Honestly if a competitor came to me for help with a patent
| troll who'd previously targeted me, I'd bend over backwards
| to assist. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
| FabHK wrote:
| > The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
|
| This could also mean that the patent troll (the enemy of
| your competitor) is your friend.
| foolinaround wrote:
| simple but insightful... never thought of it this way!
| kkielhofner wrote:
| As I've noted in other comments many people see business as
| war. There are good examples in business but the history of
| war has even better examples. Time and time again "the
| enemy of my enemy is my friend" can work until one enemy is
| vanquished.
|
| In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all
| the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade
| anyway. Stalin just used it to buy time to ramp up the
| Soviet military. From what I recall it's likely Hitler
| assumed this as well and used the pact to delay dealing
| with the Soviets militarily and focus on his Western front
| to snatch up as much of Europe as possible.
|
| Obviously a very dramatic example but as it applies here
| there's a very good chance that even if a competitor seems
| helpful, etc at first they could very well leverage the
| entire scenario to their advantage eventually (somehow).
| mullen wrote:
| > In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while
| all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade
| anyway. Stalin just used it to buy time to ramp up the
| Soviet military. From what I recall it's likely Hitler
| assumed this as well and used the pact to delay dealing
| with the Soviets militarily and focus on his Western
| front to snatch up as much of Europe as possible.
|
| Not true at all. 1) Stalin was caught off guard by the
| invasion. We know this because he holded up in his
| private residence for a few days afterwards until the
| Politburo came visited him and asked him what he was
| going to do.
|
| 2) The Russian military was not tactically or
| strategically ready when the Germans attacked. We know
| this because the Russians lost millions of soldiers by
| encirclement in the days and weeks after the start of the
| war. If Russian military had been ready, it would have
| been in much better position(s).
|
| 3) Stalin had purged thousands of quality officers and
| NCOs from the Russian military. You can't have a good
| military without a professional, respected and well
| maintained NCOs core. If Stalin thought the Germans would
| really attack, he would have built up a professional
| officer and NCO core.
|
| The three things that really saved Russia are January,
| February and the willingness of the Russian people to do
| anything for Russia, regardless of who is in charge.
| freedomben wrote:
| I think it really depends on the size here. In my
| personal experience most small businesses aren't
| ruthlessly competitive. That seems to happen once you
| grow to a size where there are clear lines between the
| management classes (upper, lower) and worker class.
|
| It's a roll of the dice for sure, but I'd take that roll
| over a cold call of a lawyer.
| eloff wrote:
| > Time and time again "the enemy of my enemy is my
| friend" can work until one enemy is vanquished.
|
| That is partly true, but in this case the patent troll is
| not vanquished and so doesn't apply.
|
| Often competition is not that cutthroat. It's not usually
| a zero sum game. There are definitely outcomes where your
| competitors even add net value by legitimizing the
| market, educating potential customers, providing a source
| of ideas, etc. My general philosophy here is the world is
| big enough for all of us, I don't treat it as war, and
| don't seek to crush competitors - I seek to make my users
| and employees happy. That's it. Being competitor focused
| is an error, at least in a high margin business.
|
| > In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while
| all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade
| anyway.
|
| By accounts I've seen, Stalin was genuinely surprised and
| caught off guard by the invasion.
|
| Not sure how this thread turned to Hitler so quickly.
| What's that internet law called?
| corytheboyd wrote:
| It's weird to me how people try to frame competitors as the
| enemy in the software industry. These are people just like
| you, probably going through the exact same problems you are
| at your company. Also, most companies (FAANG is not most
| companies) settle into a niche anyway, which leaves room in
| the market for competitors. Vilifying competition just makes
| no sense, and it's honestly a little creepy to me.
|
| I'm probably wrong, whatever, let me know I guess. I'm not
| running a company, I've just observed the SF companies I
| worked at for years. Opinions my own.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| What's the risk here? That they would purposefully send you
| to a malicious lawyer? That seems kind of unlikely.
| Especially if the patent troll has also sued them
| kkielhofner wrote:
| The risk, as I see it, is multi-fold:
|
| - There's definitely no privilege with a competitor. The
| only people you should provide ANY detail or discussion on
| any of this are your attorneys. Full stop. That includes
| this post and discussion.
|
| - You signal to your competitors the very weak and
| vulnerable position you're in. Many will be happy to dance
| on your grave...
|
| - Business can be absolutely ruthless. I wouldn't put it
| past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the
| troll to let the troll take you out for them (or who knows
| what).
|
| Business doesn't have to go full "Art of War" but to many
| people that's exactly what it is.
| dmabram wrote:
| There are multiple means of contacting a competitor, you
| don't even have to identify yourself or your business.
| You can have someone else do it on your behalf. All they
| have to say is "I know a company being sued by troll X
| over patent Y. I can see that your company was in a
| similar situation. Would you be willing to refer me to
| your attorney in this matter?" How much more you choose
| to share is up to you.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _There 's definitely no privilege with a competitor._
|
| Telling a competitor that you are being sued by a patent
| troll does not impair confidentiality. And if they are a
| true competitor, it is very likely that they have also
| been sued by the patent troll, or are next on the list,
| and may join in multi-party litigation against the troll.
|
| _You signal to your competitors the very weak and
| vulnerable position you 're in._
|
| Maybe in your particular industry or geographic niche its
| dog-eat-dog.But especially outside of tech, most
| companies will band together against outsider threats.
|
| _I wouldn 't put it past some Machiavellian type
| competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you
| out for them_
|
| The only way this would happen without backfiring on the
| plotter is if they were _already targeted_ by the troll
| and lost.
|
| Businesses aren't as ruthless as you seem to think they
| are. They are run by real people, and they and act like
| people. The kind of ruthlessness you describe is
| something you see at the largest levels (i.e., Amazon and
| Apple) where sociopathy is a virtue rather than a
| hindrance, and even those companies will band together
| against patent trolls.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| "Successful" businesses are ruthless at any size. Due to
| litigation, etc we have internal documents and records
| dating back to the 80s that demonstrate how ruthless
| Microsoft (as one example) was even at a time when they
| were relatively small.
|
| I'm not saying this is always the case. I'm saying that
| unless you're completely desperate or absolutely know
| otherwise it's the safer assumption.
| [deleted]
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Not sure why you were downvoted.
|
| I nice worked for a Big 5 company. I'm not aware of
| Machiavellian efforts to destroy competitors; they just
| bought them.
|
| I've worked for an international software company with
| ~1,500 staff. I do not think our management were inclined
| to collaborate with their competitors unneccessarily;
| they had a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
|
| I've worked for two small-town website developers, with
| say 10 staff. There's four or five competitors in this
| town. My management were happy to collaborate with
| competitors to stage conferences; but I know in both
| cases they wanted to crush them.
|
| None of these jobs was in SV, or even in the US.
|
| I note the story about IBM's threats (above); so my
| limited view is that aggressive behaviour between
| companies occurs across the range of scale.
|
| Incidentally: it doesn't make you seem weak and
| defenceless that you seek a collaborator in fighting a
| patent troll. The trolls are backed by venture capital;
| you are a sole trader. That you are considering defying
| them is courageous.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| It appears that you're both being downvoted for taking
| the exceptional case (Microsoft in the 1980s) and
| applying it to all businesses today.
|
| Even taking into account the different business culture
| of the 1980s, Microsoft's early ruthlessness is well
| known precisely because it was not the norm then, and
| certainly not the norm now.
| restingrobot wrote:
| I think you're drastically overestimating the competitive
| nature of business. I don't know your personal
| experience, but this sounds like a naive perspective. The
| number one thing a business cares about is the bottom
| line. None of these options specifically help the bottom
| line, especially considering that OP is a one person
| shop. There is simply no way they are big enough to
| matter to a large company, (why would they worry about
| this if they had large pockets), and other small
| companies wouldn't take the risk of themselves getting
| sued. The advice was to see if the same troller targeted
| someone else, and I absolutely would help my competitor
| take down a patent troll.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| I really enjoy and appreciate the sentiment expressed in
| posts like these. I wish my experience more closely
| matched the decency and reasonableness expressed here.
| Unfortunately it doesn't.
|
| The OP has been provided with copies of lawsuits that
| sound like they may have been resolved one way or
| another. OP doesn't sound like they have any resources to
| assist in the matter.
|
| This would likely incur additional expense on their part
| (as OP is unlikely to contribute much to the legal fight)
| and enable a competitor. One immediate impact to the
| bottom line and potential future impact by saving another
| competitor in the field.
|
| Assuming the competitors are currently or have incurred
| expense in dealing with it, the only reason left (as I
| see it) would be altruism on their part in banding
| together with a competitor.
|
| There aren't many examples of this actually happening for
| a reason.
| restingrobot wrote:
| >Assuming the competitors are currently or have incurred
| expense in dealing with it, the only reason left (as I
| see it) would be altruism on their part in banding
| together with a competitor.
|
| Its not just altruism. If you expend resources on
| something, you want to get the most value out of it as
| possible. It would be extending the value of their
| investment into lawyers/settlement/etc. to band together
| and get a possible reversal of judgement/recompense.
| There is definitely something to gain from taking down
| the troll, including recouping any initial settlement.
| jabo wrote:
| Don't law firms avoid taking on competing companies as clients
| to avoid any form of conflict of interest?
| wvenable wrote:
| Law firms cannot act for a party they've acted against (and
| vice-versa) without a waiver from their existing client. It
| can be costly for a firm if they make that mistake.
|
| They can, however, take on competing companies for a single
| action if they all agree. It's probably best if the firm
| didn't have a prior relationship with any of them.
|
| (Not a lawyer but I am a software developer who's built a
| legal conflict of interest search system)
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Yes, this is a key difference between the US "law firm"
| system and the UK barrister "chambers" system. The first is
| focused on profits (and survival). The second seeks to reduce
| the inherent _commercial_ conflict of interest during
| difficult cases.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I think most law firms would represent competing companies
| in separate cases. Conflict of interest is more
| representing multiple parties in the same case or issue.
|
| E.g. I once had a lawyer review a severance agreement
| before I signed it, since it had non-compete language in
| it. He had to be sure that his firm didn't already have a
| relationship with the employer.
|
| If there's no common interest in the case, lawyers are
| expected to be able to maintain confidentiality. Same as an
| accountant who might have two competing businesses as
| clients.
|
| But, IANAL.
| [deleted]
| duxup wrote:
| I understand how 'find a lawyer' is less than helpful but isn't
| your advice just 'find a lawyer ... that your competitors
| suggest'. Competitors who by default do not have your best
| interests in mind.
|
| Is there any real difference / likelihood of a good outcome
| there?
|
| Ultimately I see little difference in the potential of "most
| lawyers will happily take your money without necessarily having
| an expedient path to resolution for a small one-person
| company".
| Rantenki wrote:
| In this case, your competitors DO have your best interests in
| mind. They have to understand that they are next on the list
| of troll targets, since they are offering a product that
| likely uses similar technologies.
| duxup wrote:
| Unless they already made a deal or hope that it drives
| their competitor out of business while they deal with it on
| their own.
|
| There's no reason to assume they'll be cooperative.
| mh8h wrote:
| In the case of a patent troll, the competitors are probably
| also on the future target list. It's in their interest to
| help fight this troll.
| matmann2001 wrote:
| I know it's just TV, but this situation played out
| differently on Silicon Valley. Instead, the competitors
| hopped to the front of the line to pay off the patent troll
| before a successful case emboldened the troll to raise
| their price. Has anyone actually heard of things playing
| out this way in reality?
| jusssi wrote:
| I wonder if paying the troll wouldn't just get them more
| trolls, now that they appear to be a soft target?
| duxup wrote:
| Or they already paid / cut a deal...
|
| This idea that they might care is just an assumption.
| dahart wrote:
| There is a _huge_ world of difference between cold calling
| lawyers from the phone book and getting a referral to someone
| who's dealt with the same situation and had the outcome you
| seek. This becomes clear if you ever try to 'find a lawyer'
| without guidance.
|
| > Competitors who by default do not have your best interests
| in mind.
|
| FWIW 'competitors' are not enemies or out to sink you in all
| but the most extreme cases. Two things that are definitely a
| bigger danger to a small startup are: yourself, and patent
| trolls.
| dmabram wrote:
| Probably because you haven't dealt with many lawyers :-).
| Yes, there's a huge difference. The advice is geared towards
| finding a lawyer who can achieve an optimal outcome at lowest
| cost. Any competent IP attorney can accept the case. The
| difference in cost is multiple orders of magnitude.
|
| At worst some of your competitors will ignore your request.
| But like I said, I have been through similar situations.
| Without delving into too many details, I had competitors who
| had no reason to help go so far beyond just a referral that
| years later I am still grateful. Once you've been burned by
| one of these trolls, you have a bit of a bond with other
| victims I guess.
| fencepost wrote:
| _isn 't your advice just 'find a lawyer ... that your
| competitors suggest'. Competitors who by default do not have
| your best interests in mind._
|
| Just because you're nominally competitors serving the same
| market doesn't mean you can't work nicely together. In many
| cases the true competition is 'people who don't understand
| how much they need our products.'
| blazespin wrote:
| On top of that, setting a shared google doc on how to deal with
| it would be helpful for future folks.
| bitwize wrote:
| There are basically two ways to respond.
|
| 1) roll over and show your belly, and pay up
|
| 2) get a patent attorney and fight.
|
| Depending on the size and resources of the patent troll, you may
| intimidate them out of pursuing the matter just by lawyering up.
| No one wants protracted litigation, not even vexatious litigants,
| for whom the fear of litigation is far more profitable than the
| actual court proceedings. It's money in your pocket if you can
| get your victims to spook and settle. Muggers work the same way:
| they don't want a fight, they want you to get scared and hand
| over your wallet.
|
| I'm not saying that option two is best for you. That depends on
| _your_ resources. But it 's something to consider.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Third option:
|
| Negotiate a settlement before the lawyer you hire files their
| appearance. That conversation should be minimal with low
| expectations.
|
| Fourth option:
|
| Compared to the cost of most litigation its cheaper to hire a
| full time corporate counsel to handle the litigation (if you
| can afford it).
| spockz wrote:
| I'm not a patent expert. How much is a specific patent like this
| worth of the generic pattern is available since ages and it is
| called "cache" or "offline mode"?
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Don't ask for legal advice on the internet, and ignore any advice
| other than "talk to an attorney". You're more likely to be harmed
| than helped by anything you hear on an open forum.
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Searching on here returns some results for people asking about
| how to find an IP lawyer:
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?q=ip+lawyer
|
| Might give you a starting point to see some people that have been
| suggested in the past
| swang wrote:
| just curious, how do they even know you were even "violating"
| their patent? or does something like saving a JSON count as a
| "remote database?"
|
| or they sniff your app with some MITM proxy?
| Andrew_Russell wrote:
| I am an IP litigator, and I have dealt with patent trolls
| repeatedly. I have taken these kinds of cases pro bono in the
| past for small companies (including through the EFF attorney
| referral list, https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance), and I
| know that others have as well.
|
| There are definitely low-cost and pro bono (free) options out
| there for very small businesses. The EFF attorney referral list
| is a good place to start.
|
| I'm also happy to talk it through with you if you'd like more
| specific information - my contact information is here:
| https://shawkeller.com/attorneys/andrew-e-russell/
| meowface wrote:
| Thank you for your service.
| MAMAMassakali wrote:
| You're super cool!!
|
| Also wanted to ask, how can a software guy get into IP law?
| socks wrote:
| As a software guy married to a lawyer, be careful what you
| wish for. The legal industry seems hell bent on inefficiency
| and fuzzy regulations.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Get a law degree.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Or work at a patent office (I only know of the USPTO that
| does plain software patents, there a thing everywhere but
| it's complicated) ...
| kkielhofner wrote:
| Wow, this is fantastic information and an amazing offer!
| RedditKon wrote:
| Good guy counsel
| whynotkeithberg wrote:
| Awesome!! I hope you're able to help OP out if they call on
| you. Good luck to everyone who gets involved in this!
| brodouevencode wrote:
| Good Guy ~Greg~ Andrew
| gaws wrote:
| I'm blown away by your willingness to take on these cases pro
| bono. There are too many greedy lawyers out there who put money
| over people.
| p1necone wrote:
| I wouldn't call it greedy in all cases. Hard to be altruistic
| when doing so would mean you couldn't pay your rent/bills.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| > There are too many greedy lawyers out there who put money
| over people.
|
| Name one
| durkie wrote:
| Can confirm! We got a patent troll lawsuit a few years ago as
| well, and were connected with a great pro-bono lawyer through
| EFF.
| wangarific wrote:
| This is amazing, you are awesome for doing this.
| major505 wrote:
| I'm curious. Can you counter sue a company like that? Since
| they do affect productive companies, that must be some law
| against that...
| coldpie wrote:
| I think these days inter partes review is the way these
| trolls are slain.
| chalst wrote:
| Not familiar with this idea, I searched and found this
|
| https://www.gearhartlaw.com/2016-9-8-a-way-to-defeat-a-
| troll...
|
| IIUC, inter partes review is a relatively recent (9 y.o.?)
| patent law practice that allows 3rd parties to challenge
| patents directly to the patent office any time between
| patent award and expiry. I had thought there was only a
| short period this could be done after award of the patent.
| nceqs3 wrote:
| Yeah but it costs 20k
| bdowling wrote:
| It's more than that. The fee to request the IPR is
| $19,000, plus $375 for each claim in excess of 20. If the
| USPTO decides to institute the IPR, the post-institution
| fee is $22,500, plus $750 for each claim in excess of 20.
| [0] Attorney's fees will be far more than these amounts.
|
| [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
| bin/retrieveECFR?n=37y1.0.1.3.12#se...
| rolph wrote:
| perhaps patenting the entire process of, or a critical
| component of patent trolling, would be feasible
| zem wrote:
| prior art:
| http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20140301
| crucialfelix wrote:
| It's usually cheaper to settle than to go to court. A company
| I worked for got hit (apparently using TLS violates their
| patent. Even though it's the browser that initiated the
| connection). Company simply paid up because it was cheaper.
| desine wrote:
| Unfortunately this is one of those instances where looking
| out for oneself (in a business sense) does more harm to
| society than eating the costs and fighting the battle.
|
| IANASBO (I am not a Small Business Owner) so I can't say I
| wouldn't necessarily do any different, sadly. But I like to
| think I would.
| erik998 wrote:
| lotnet.com Lawsuits from Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs,
| sometimes called "patent trolls") can be a drain on resources
| for any company. With software a primary PAE target, and
| software becoming an integral part of all industries --
| putting nearly all companies at risk of being sued.
|
| That's why leading companies have come together to form a
| collaborative, voluntary community to reduce this risk - one
| that grows in importance as the economic environment becomes
| increasingly uncertain.
| shmerl wrote:
| You'd think it should be a law against racketeering
| (something like RICO). Some tried to use that against patent
| trolls, but it didn't work.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| We just need a "well duh!" Doctrine on the patent. If you
| can ask and answer it as an intern interview question (e.g.
| how to cache a QR code database)
| oh_sigh wrote:
| As long as the patent is valid there is nothing
| racketeering about it.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Had a professor who wat was at big company. Forget which.
| IBM came in with a list of patents that were being
| violated. Professor went through the list and managed to
| document fully how each one didn't apply to company. One
| of which was for pythagorean theorem.
|
| They had another meeting to go over it with IBM to show
| results. Not impressed IBM said fine you don't violate
| those. We have a hundred thousand more patents.
|
| Are you buying a license for these, or should we go find
| more that you "violate"
|
| Company purchased a license.
|
| This was 20 years ago.
| ldargin wrote:
| I read that story quite some time ago. The company was
| Sun Microsystems.
|
| Edit: A link to that story:
| https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
| ddlsmurf wrote:
| Why wouldn't they just go "fine, let's deal with your
| next batch in court, good luck keeping them" ?
| ta1234567890 wrote:
| Because it was probably more expensive (and risky) to go
| to court and spend a ton of money on lawyers than just
| pay the license and be done with it.
| ddlsmurf wrote:
| But if the licence is that cheap, they're showing their
| hand, the difference between a protection scheme and IP
| protection here is incredibly murky. Even if you didn't
| aim to help others not be bullied around, going for a
| settlement seems the smarter option.
| jjeaff wrote:
| That is basically just a rephrasing of, "This is an
| awfully nice store you got here. Would be a shame if
| something were to happen to it."
| mywittyname wrote:
| I've always wondered if sublicensing was a way to get
| around this. Instead of owning the core technology
| itself, set up an offshore holding company to own the
| technology rights, then "license" them out. The main
| company probably can't be sued since they have a legal
| contract for the tech and if they go after the holding
| company, fine, the parent company can then "license" tech
| from another, similar holding company.
| shmerl wrote:
| If you compare patents to weapons, the above is like
| privateering. For big companies there is also MAD
| analogy.
| mywittyname wrote:
| So I think what I'm talking about his more of a decoy
| than a privateer. I think of privateering as plausible
| deniability in attacking someone.
|
| Whereas, what I'm suggesting is more structuring a
| business such that they can't be sued for patent
| infringement since they don't own the technology that is
| allegedly infringing. So if your company receives a
| cease-and-desist letter, your lawyers can respond with a
| contract from Core Technology LLC granting you license to
| use the technology as you deem if, and that the Patent
| Troll needs to contact Core Technology LLC if they have
| patent issues.
|
| In the mean time, you can stop licensing from Core
| Technology LLC and instead move to a new vendor, Core
| Technology II LLC, who offers an improved product anyway.
|
| The goal being to make it not worth pursuing your
| business.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Yeah, that's not how that works, sorry.
|
| You don't have to "own" tech in order to infringe a
| patent. Making a product that includes the technology
| protected by the patent, or selling it without there
| being a license (eg you buy it offshore where they're not
| covered by a particular patent, but you sell it where
| there is a patent covering that tech).
|
| None of that matters in USA, as the threat of a lawsuit
| is threat of massive costs; ostensibly it doesn't matter
| that the court would award costs of a few $thousand
| against you if the lawyers to get you through the case
| cost $100,000s.
|
| This is my personal opinion and not legal advice.
| shmerl wrote:
| You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent
| trolls don't have valid patents. And if even if they are
| "valid", the patent system is so messed up, that they
| have to be invalid in reality.
|
| Trolls' method is exactly racketeering because it's
| extorting money using threat tactics. _" You don't want
| something worse happening to you? Better pay up XYZ
| amount!"_. It's not going get much more classic
| protection racket than that. Except they threaten not
| with beating you up, but with you spending millions on
| court cases. I'd say trolls getting jail time for this
| garbage should be a good medicine for them.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Without knowing the content of the patents(merely that
| they are valid) - would you be able to differentiate
| between a patent troll and someone with a great patent
| that wants their hard work licensed instead of taken for
| free?
| coldpie wrote:
| Who is taking anything for free? Do you think people go
| read through the patent database to get product ideas? If
| I create a product and bring it to market without any
| knowledge of your patent, why should I pay you just
| because you invented it earlier and then sat on it?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I don't think any judge is going to care much if you say
| you didn't read their patent before infringing on their
| patent.
| gpm wrote:
| They will, intentional infringement is worse than
| accidental infringement, but both are illegal. (not a
| lawyer...)
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Sure, but I meant that it won't materially affect the
| finding of whether infringement occurred, willful or
| accidental.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's not _just_ because you invented it earlier, you also
| have to disclose it in a way that makes it workable. The
| disclosure is supposed to drive innovation and use of
| innovations; that's the patent deal, the monopoly is
| "paid" for with disclosure.
|
| Aside, in the UK there's compulsory licensing (UKPA
| Section 48x to prevent people from inventing stuff and
| refusing to license it (at reasonable terms), too.
| rhino369 wrote:
| >You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent
| trolls don't have valid patents.
|
| Right, but law actually presumes they are valid. Which is
| why its tough to go after a troll for asserting a valid
| patent.
| Trias11 wrote:
| Giving away the idea to drug lord might work.
|
| When troll will try to annoy the new owner - the troll will
| be dealt with in the way he deserves.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Can you counter sue? Absolutely!
|
| But, as I tell my kids: Just because you're right doesn't
| mean you won't go bankrupt proving it in a court of law.
| iajrz wrote:
| the court can remain unconvinced longer than you can stay
| solvent
| jbb_hn wrote:
| Thanks for helping to restore my faith in humanity.
| pbreit wrote:
| And see if you can interest Cloudflare:
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/26/cloudflare-rallies-the-tro...
| mraza007 wrote:
| HN never fails to amazes me this is one of the best community
| where people from all backgrounds can take part in discussion
|
| And I wish all the best
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| Looking forward to the day a patent troll comments on a
| discussion
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Largest "patent troll" in history was brainchild of and
| founded by former Microsoft CTO. The person who coined the
| term "patent troll" helped him start the company. He came
| from Intel. The saddest part of the idea of "trolling" as a
| "business" is that it has spread into other areas, outside
| IT. "Patent trolling" is easy to spot when the patents are
| software patents as so many software patent are low
| quality. However, the patent quality problem is not nearly
| as acute in other industries.
|
| There are in fact legitimate small inventors who must
| approach large companies, and that situation predates the
| hardware and software industries, but it was software and
| hardware people that created this idea of the "patent
| troll". If there was a "bad" situation that existed before
| Intellectual Ventures was founded, no solution was offered
| by those who were negatively affected. Rather, the approach
| taken was "If you can't beat `em, join `em." One could
| argue, as a result, the situation went from bad to worse.
| rot13xor wrote:
| If the patents are legitimate it seems like a business
| model similar to debt collectors or "cash now for
| annuity" companies. A small company might have a winnable
| case of damages but doesn't have the resources or risk
| appetite to take the case to trial. It's a rational
| decision to sell off the claim to another company for X%
| of the expected value and let them take risk of enforcing
| the claim.
| gpm wrote:
| Taking a look around this thread should make it clear
| that even if patents are legitimate, many patent trolls
| are not. They are frequently going after entities that
| are not actually infringing, or threatening people with
| obviously invalid patents, because the legal system makes
| it cheaper to pay the troll than go to court, even if you
| will win.
|
| (But you probably have a point that if patents are
| legitimate than an otherwise ethical patent troll would
| also be legitimate)
| hvis wrote:
| > But you probably have a point that if patents are
| legitimate than an otherwise ethical patent troll would
| also be legitimate
|
| I'm not sure it's possible to be an "ethical" patent
| troll. It is a structure explicitly chosen to minimize
| any collateral in case their patents are thrown out in
| court, claims are invalidated, and they have to pay to
| for the counterpart's expenses (and which point the
| company is simply dissolved, with little to no damage to
| the owners).
|
| If somebody is so sure their patents are valid, let them
| form a "real" company which utilizes said patents to
| bring in revenue, and let _that_ company go to court with
| competitors and bear the risk of having to pay for
| frivolous lawsuits.
|
| Not that I think that that software should ever be
| patentable, of course.
| gpm wrote:
| Step 1 for being an ethical patent troll would be having
| enough assets that you aren't just a judgement proof
| vehicle for lawsuits, but there's no reason that isn't
| possible. A diverse portfolio of legitimate patents, a
| healthy bank account, and voila.
|
| There are a variety of reasons why forming a "real
| company" that produces products might not be practical.
| For example you might be in a field where the startup
| costs for a competitive company is in the billions
| (silicon manufacturing), or that is a natural monopoly
| already monopolized by one or two big companies
| (operating systems). Your competitors also have patents
| on things that you would need to be competitive and for
| whatever reason you aren't willing to license them.
|
| Or really you might just not be well suited to running a
| company, bad at managing people or whatever, and if
| patents are legitimate it seems like they are legitimate
| regardless of whether or not you want to start a company.
|
| (PS. I'm generally against patents, and strongly against
| software patents, but that's neither here nor there on
| whether or not patent trolls are legitimate _under the
| assumption that patents are_ )
| ethbr0 wrote:
| People take enough cheap shots at adtech folks, when they
| offer their perspective.
|
| I assume the patent troll approach would be that they're
| returning value to their investors, while following the law
| as it stands.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Was in adtech for awhile. Glad to be out of it. Lots of
| neat problems to solve. But yeah it was super creepy
| silexia wrote:
| I hope the entire patent system is simply dissolved.
| Patents are an artificial restriction on free trade that
| prevents competition and put profits in the pockets of
| the greedy undeserving.
| elcomet wrote:
| But don't you believe it encourages innovation ? That's
| the main argument in favor of patents
| worik wrote:
| Patents have their uses. Trade secrets are worse.
|
| We should not through out the baby with the bathwater....
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I used to think Patents had their uses.
|
| I looked into just the fees to file a patent, and it's
| for middle class, upper class folks, institutions, and
| companies.
|
| The poor guy tinkering around in his wood shed is not
| filing patents.
|
| Maybe not throwing out all patents us a good idea? I
| don't know, but an American citizen (low income) all fees
| shouid be eliminated.
|
| I would like to see a limit on patents anyone can file,
| or a graduated fee structure?
|
| 1 patent free. (low income. $300 everyone else) 2 patent
| $500 3 patent $500,000 4 patent $1,000,000,000
|
| This would at least limit those guys patenting round
| corners?
| krastanov wrote:
| Are trade secrets really worse? My (uninformed,
| anecdotal, unsubstantiated) intuition is that reverse
| engineering, or even just the knowledge that something is
| possible, ensures that trade secrets are no barrier to
| progress. While patents definitely seem like a barrier.
| speedgoose wrote:
| It happens. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26759051
| HiroProtagonist wrote:
| This is very cool and generous of you Andrew.
| jblake wrote:
| Wow, thanks Andrew! I sent you an email with the lawsuit. I
| look forward to hearing from you. What an amazing community!!
| jblake wrote:
| I just spoke with Andrew and he was incredibly helpful and is
| going to help me out. Whew. Thank you Andrew and HN!!
| JGM_io wrote:
| Some way the two of you can do a blog or soenthing
| outlining the main points when dealing with such a threat?
| supernova87a wrote:
| Agreed -- it would be a service to the community that
| helped connect them if they could share some approaches /
| advice for others in a future similar situation!
| Havoc wrote:
| I have nothing useful to add beyond that I'm rooting for you.
|
| Patent troll is a evil move and against a one man double so
| bob33212 wrote:
| I would find an attorney that is willing to send a letter that
| states:
|
| "Thank you for your correspondence, I regret to inform you that
| you are mistaken in your understanding of my software. The
| methods of data transfer and QR code analysis are in no way
| covered by your patent. Even if my software was infringing on
| this patent, I think that your patent should be invalidated by
| prior art. Please see Patents, X,Y,Z as evidence of that." It
| doesn't matter what X,Y and Z are, you are just making them waste
| time on technical work.
|
| Basically you are saying. Lets go to court and let a judge look
| at all these detailed technical things and let the Judge decide
| if I owe anything or if you should have this patent at all.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I have been on both sides of patent lawsuits in the past, but I
| am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice.
|
| You need a lawyer, but a lot of lawyers do this sort of thing pro
| bono for small companies. The EFF has a list of attorneys who can
| help. Interview at least 5 of them - ask for references, ask
| about past successes in this space, and ask about your case at a
| high level (give the one-minute overview of the case and ask
| about their plan).
|
| The good news is that most software patents are invalid (thanks
| to the Alice decision* in 2014), and will be struck down in a
| process called inter partes review, which is a cheap way to
| challenge the validity of a patent through the USPTO. When you
| interview attorneys, you might want to ask prospective candidates
| about the validity of this patent and if they see this as a
| viable strategy.
|
| Another dynamic at play here is that in many patent proceedings,
| the loser pays attorneys fees. You may not end up paying a dime,
| even without a pro-bono lawyer. Trolls like threatening lawsuits
| to pressure you into a settlement, but there's a lot at risk for
| them if they actually sue you for infringement.
|
| *The full opinion on the Alice case is here, and is very
| interesting:
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
|
| EDIT: Also, if your lawyer suggests that you might be able to
| invalidate this patent, you may be able to band together with
| some of your competitors to share the cost of invalidating it.
| emedchill wrote:
| Contact a lawyer
| simongr3dal wrote:
| Sorry to hear, I just checked out the site in your profile and it
| looks like a great product.
|
| Consensus seems to be to contact a lawyer, and even if the EFF
| can't help you directly maybe they can get you in contact with
| the right kind of lawyer. Hope you find someone who can help you
| out.
| runjake wrote:
| Contact a lawyer who can help.
| davismwfl wrote:
| I don't know if they would help in this case, but maybe reach out
| to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org) and see if they
| have any recommendations.
|
| There are also some law firms in the US which will help against
| these types of suits without requiring you to fork over a large
| retainer. You'll have to research these but they are out there.
| pil4rin wrote:
| Get a lawyer. Their advice will probably be settle.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| You talk to a lawyer, not the internet. Do not ask HN, or Reddit,
| or any other community of random folks for legal advice.
| fallingknife wrote:
| You have to talk to a lawyer. No one other than a IP attorney
| experienced in dealing with patent trolls will be able to give
| you accurate advice on this.
|
| Also you should add "[ask HN]" to the beginning of your post.
|
| edit: A good way to find a lawyer is to talk to good lawyers you
| have worked with in the past. They will not be able to help you
| themself if they practice in a different area, but will likely
| have referrals for someone who does.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > Also you should add "[ask HN]" to the beginning of your post.
|
| I thought that was automatically appended? Just seemingly not
| in this case possibly because it doesn't end with a question
| mark.
| codefined wrote:
| Nope, just convention.
| stinos wrote:
| _A good way to find a lawyer is to talk to good lawyers you
| have worked with in the past._
|
| I.e. none for me. Is it that common to have worked with lawyers
| then? I honestly wouldn't know how to find a good lawyer. I
| don't even think I know anyone in person who ever needed a
| lawyer (not sure - it's not something which comes up often in
| conversations).
| lazide wrote:
| The alternative in my experience is to build a spreadsheet,
| take notes for each one, and start cold calling every lawyer
| you can find who specializes in the area. 10-15 at a minimum.
|
| You'll be using these consultations to learn the area and
| evaluate who you are dealing with, their style/approach, and
| level of competence. Ask a lot of questions.
|
| Things like 1) do they personally have experience with cases
| like this? 2) how did those cases end? 3) can they provide
| references? (If they start saying 'no because attorney client
| priviledge' they are generally bullshitting you. Don't fall
| for it. Run fast the other way.) 4) which legal principles
| are in play in your case, and what are the risks or
| advantages you have?
|
| Then do your independent research on #4 so you can evaluate
| yourself what is going on. Figure on this taking a week of
| solid work.
|
| Most lawyers will provide consultations for free as part of
| their public service obligations under the bar rules in many
| states. Some won't. I haven't had any luck with the ones who
| charge for consultations, and have had in some cases terrible
| advice (like just flat wrong in black and white areas of the
| law), that cost me major money when I relied on it.
| jblake wrote:
| You are not alone!
| zoobab wrote:
| President of FFII.org here, we received several requests
| from small companies here in Europe. You can contact me at
| zoobab at gmail.com. We are now busy with the 3rd attempt
| to impose software patents in the EU via the UPC.
| ghaff wrote:
| You specifically need a patent/IP lawyer. Someone else
| mentioned the EFF. You might also try the Software Freedom
| Law Center. They're specifically focused on open source but
| they might be able to point you in an appropriate
| direction.
| duped wrote:
| Most state bar associations have a website where you can
| search for whatever specialty you might need. You can also
| talk to your investors for advice, or ask around your
| community for recommendations.
| [deleted]
| fallingknife wrote:
| It's pretty common for someone doing business in the US. Do
| you have any friends from school who are lawyers? That could
| be a good start. Or someone else you know who has been
| involved in litigation. A Google search for IP lawyers in
| your area couldn't hurt either. You can usually get a little
| bit of free advice over the phone too.
| stinos wrote:
| Maybe the thing is I'm not in the US but in Western Europe.
| I'm not sure if it's representative but from seeing US
| movies/series (in so far those are representative), reading
| other comments here etc I do get the impression there's
| more of a 'lawyer up' culture in the US than here. Plus I'm
| perhaps also in the 'wrong' bubble. I.e. most people I know
| who own a business are simple one-man companies / contract
| workers, myself included and we don't have to deal with
| legal stuff ever. Which just makes me realize: I do have an
| accountant and he would obviously know laywers.
| ghaff wrote:
| Your accountant probably knows lawyers. He may not know
| patent lawyers however.
| jblake wrote:
| I've never worked with a lawyer before. How do I pick one?
| Should I pick one in my state - Nevada? Should I post the case
| details here? I guess I was hoping someone on HN had a
| connection or is an IP lawyer themself, as I have no idea how
| to pick a lawyer and no idea how much this could cost.
| scruffyherder wrote:
| First challenge on any and all lawsuits is diversity. Since
| you are the one being sued it better be Nevada, otherwise
| your lawyer will answer with a diversity challenge saying you
| don't do business where it was filed and ask for the case to
| be moved.
|
| Get ready for so many continuances and discovery requests. Do
| not delete anything, purposeful deletions can be taken as an
| admission of guilt.
|
| But I'm clearly not your lawyer or a lawyer just someone who
| has been sued.
|
| They always want to settle for precedent. Prior art is a
| harder thing than it should be, but you better find out
| everyone else they sued and make contact, assuming they
| aren't gagged.
|
| Sadly courts don't slammed down enough people as vexatious
| litigants, so here we are.
| [deleted]
| diffstrokes wrote:
| I work with a firm that has IP lawyers, they are mediocre and
| very expensive. I recommend calling local private practice IP
| lawyers and briefly describe your situation and ask for a 2
| hour consult. Speak with as many as possible and hire the one
| who seems the most helpful.
| lvspiff wrote:
| Go here and get a referral: https://nvbar.org/for-the-
| public/find-a-lawyer/lrs/
|
| You will likely schedule a time to sit down and discuss the
| letter and they might give you some indications of how to
| proceed.
|
| At that point if you want to continue forward a "retainer"
| fee will be collected. It could be thousands.
|
| From there good luck!
| takinola wrote:
| You can also see a lawyer you want to reach out to has been
| reviewed by previous clients
|
| https://www.avvo.com/
| syedkarim wrote:
| I haven't had any luck with this approach. In some cases, the
| good-lawyer-you-know will respect the intellect of a lawyer
| from another firm that has a specialty in IP law. And then the
| referral will get passed down to an associate partner who is
| just overseeing the work of junior lawyers. In that scenario,
| the referral from the good-lawyer-you-know had no real value.
|
| The other scenario is that the good-lawyer-you-know has a
| personal relationship with a practicing (as opposed to
| managing) IP lawyer. This may be a solo practitioner. But the
| problem with this approach is the the good-lawyer-you-know is
| relying on an instinctual assessment of the IP lawyer (I like
| this person; they seem smart), since the good-lawyer you know
| has not had a need to defend or litigate IP matters.
|
| My experience comes from working with a dozen different
| lawyers, with many being rereferred. I have had $1200/hour
| partners provide me with factually incorrect information (wrong
| about actual black-and-white law). And I have had lawyers
| provide me with $20,000 legal briefs I did not authorize or
| order.
|
| When it comes to litigation attorneys, I have had some success
| finding a lawyer through other founders who had been fighting
| lawsuits for years and hired/fired several lawyers to finally
| settle on the most competent. I have also had luck in finding
| legal specialists by becoming very well informed on the subject
| matter (reading lots of case law) and then interviewing random
| lawyers, who I usually came across through legal blog posts.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| Lawyers, like any other profession, are 95% incompetent.
|
| Finding the 5% that are competent is harder than it looks.
|
| And the hourly rate and/or physical location of said lawyer
| bares no correlation to competence level.
|
| And once you find that person they usually get scooped up and
| become GC for some VC funded startup or whatever because word
| travels.
| belter wrote:
| Agree. The same applies by the way, to International Tax
| Advisers and specially if you are doing business across
| several countries in EU.
|
| I paid 200 to 300 dollars per hour for International Tax
| Consultants, that were unable to understand the most common
| cross country tax scenarios, like "triangular taxation". At
| the same time, very cheap and experienced "regular
| accountants" provided, clear, concise and correct advice.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| Yeah, funnily enough my experience is based on
| international tax advice.
|
| No one actually knows anything about this, save for like
| 3 people world wide for each country pair.
|
| Lawyers will happily bill you for incorrect advice
| because their liability is limited to the amount
| invoiced. But you can end up with massive tax bills based
| on that bad advice.
|
| You can do better by reading the law and tax treaties
| yourself, then getting someone to verify your
| interpretation.
|
| Law is just code for humans.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| Also yes to good accountants.
|
| A lot of things you can pay a lawyer for business/tax/etc
| wise, your accountant can probably do better and cheaper.
|
| Accountants are under-appreciated. lol.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Are you saying that carpenters, electricians, pumblers,
| builders, cobblers, taxi drivers, nurses, and public school
| teachers are 95% incompetant? If so, please kindly provide
| anecdata. This is a positively ridiculous acusation.
| mywittyname wrote:
| My partner is a nurse by trade and has observed negligent
| behavior by medical professions _every single time_ we
| 've been to a hospital. Most of the time it is minor, but
| there have been times where she's had to speak up and get
| supervisors involved.
|
| I'd say that "95% of people exhibit incompetence at least
| once per shift" is not far from the truth. I've been in
| taxis where the driver has run redlights. I built a house
| so I know all about keeping tradesman honest.
| [deleted]
| cutemonster wrote:
| It's worse with lawyers, in that mistakes they make can
| go unnoticed for years or forever, so bad lawyers can
| still bring in lots of money to the company that provides
| them to you. Or so I think.
|
| And the same with doctors, unfortunately, when they don't
| meet the person they treated again, when there's no
| follow up if it worked or not.
|
| Plumbers, though, are different, in that then there's
| more feedback: does the water pipe still leak, or not? So
| they need to do something that actually works.
| admissionsguy wrote:
| I think if we relax the statement a bit, to something
| like
|
| "95% of all workers perform at the bare minimum required
| not to get fired or sued."
|
| - it becomes quite defensible. To someone used to high
| performance, that does look like incompetence.
|
| Also, it is much harder to fake it in typical trades than
| in "professions".
| jacobkg wrote:
| In my experience physicians are not 95% incompetent. Is
| there something inherently different about law from
| medicine? Or is more like how 95% of physicians couldn't
| help you with a specific problem because it's outside their
| specialty?
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| As someone who went through a tonne of so-called medical
| experts for a chronic condition I can say that, based on
| my experience, most people involved in medicine are
| incompetent. lol.
|
| You just have to bounce around until you hit someone who
| actually knows what they're talking about.
| cutemonster wrote:
| @foobarbazetc I and some others I know, share your
| experiences. This is in north western Europe btw.
| Shicholas wrote:
| another lawyer here, happy to talk nick@neonlaw.com. I do not
| have bandwidth to take your case, but I will do my best to
| provide any information I have that may be helpful.
| dathinab wrote:
| Consider contacting your competitors so that you can act
| together.
|
| Consider contacting organizations like the EFF.
| emeraldd wrote:
| Is the a rehash of the NeoMedia patent issue? Look up Michaels qr
| code patent lawsuit ...
| dt3ft wrote:
| Seems like that patent expired
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US6199048
| esens wrote:
| As someone who has dealt with this I suggest you figure out a way
| to avoid the patent. Read through the claims, figure out what
| combination of features they have patented and then change your
| product to avoid those features in that combination.
|
| You likely can either do something more advanced or something
| less advanced -- if you have the choice do the more advanced
| solution as you are then likely pushing your product even
| further.
|
| Fighting patents is for rich, established companies. You do not
| have the luxury.
|
| You should change your product immediately to avoid infringement,
| or even close to infringing. If you do this you can avoid
| damages/claims against you.
|
| Because you didn't know you were possibly infringing, you can
| avoid all claims/damages by immediately changing your product.
|
| When you respond to them, you should say you didn't realize you
| were possibly infringing as you were not aware of the patent, you
| should say that you do not believe you were infringing, but
| anyhow you have modified your product to clear up any possibility
| of claims of infringement going forward.
|
| You do not want to admit any guilt in anyway (actually the rule
| is NEVER admit guilt, always claim you believe you are not
| infringing), and you want to get away from these people because
| they are not worth your time.
|
| But if you do need to use this tech, you should try to license
| it, but while claiming you are not infringing and there are
| alternative methods you can adapt. This gives you the most
| powerful stance. Make sure they understand you are very small and
| thus not worth dragging this out. Offer them something for a one
| time fee if possible and get than done and move on.
|
| But avoiding the perception of infringing going forward is best.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| You are not a lawyer, do not give out legal advice. I'd almost
| hesitate to suggest you should stop giving out advice all
| together, given your ignorance...
| fncypants wrote:
| Absolutely do not take any of this advice of the parent. I am
| an IP litigator. I kill patents as my day job.
|
| The parent's advice assumes the players are reasonable people
| acting in good faith. In the case of patent trolls, they are
| often not acting in good faith. Most of the allegations are not
| good faith interpretations of the patent. There is no
| "perception of infringement" to begin with. They just want a
| quick payout and found a cost-efficient way to state a claim
| against a widely used technology so that they can threaten and
| file lawsuits in volume. Instead, find a good patent lawyer or
| a pro bono resource (like EFF or a colleague with experience)
| that can give you resources or advice to quickly dispose of it
| cheaply (or even for free), if you cannot afford fight it.
| Sometimes, it can even be cheaper to hire an excellent patent
| lawyer that can win the case early than it would be to pay off
| the patent troll. I have written many a response to a patent
| licensing demand letter, knowing exactly what to say for much
| less than settling, where they disappear and never sue. And if
| they have sued, sometimes they disappear as soon as lawyers
| they do not want to be up against show up in the case.
|
| In the instance of a good faith claim by a patent owner (even
| if wrong), there will be enough money at stake that it would be
| worth the cost to consult a good patent lawyer before doing a
| single thing.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > Fighting patents is for rich, established companies. You do
| not have the luxury.
|
| That is the impression I've formed.
| 7373737373 wrote:
| Is there a site/organization that names and shames the people
| doing this?
|
| Why is there no law that patents only hold when they are actively
| developed by their owner?
| nceqs3 wrote:
| You could always settle. How much are they asking for?
|
| Could you share the patent # they are trying to use?
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Yes, that is one of the options. They can also represent
| themselves, or hire a lawyer. What else could they also do? Run
| away to another country maybe?
| mchusma wrote:
| To clarify, in some jurisdictions in the US, businesses
| cannot represent themselves. Which is a travesty for
| companies like this guy, who doesn't even have that as an
| option. I don't actually know about patent law, I just have
| had an experience with a frivolous lawsuit for a low-ish
| dollar amount that it would cost more to defend than lose.
| Because we couldn't represent ourselves, we just had to let
| it go to default judgement.
| reasonabl_human wrote:
| What jurisdictions include such restrictions? Just curious,
| have never heard of this.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Actually, most states have restrictions against non-
| attorneys representing a business in court. (See for
| example for CA _Merco Construction Engineers v. Municipal
| Court_.)
|
| Otherwise however a _business_ can represent itself in
| court, so long as its representative is a practicing
| attorney. Many states (but not all) won 't require the
| attorney to be licensed in the state of litigation so
| long as they are licensed elsewhere.
|
| Also, all states will allow a business to represent
| itself in small claims courts, where attorneys are not
| allowed unless they happen to be an employee of the
| business.
| akersten wrote:
| By settling, they would be enabling the cycle of abuse. This is
| as good as "you could always pay the bitcoin ransom." OP needs
| to contact the EFF and knock this down in court - it's the only
| way to push back against insane software patents.
| kleinsch wrote:
| OP would have to spend tons of money and hundreds of hours
| fighting this, then still have a nonzero chance of losing and
| going out of business. Always easy to say that someone else
| should fight it.
| spicybright wrote:
| This ^
|
| Fighting it means legislative changes, not falling on your
| sword hoping you put a dent in their impenetrable armor.
| ufmace wrote:
| This is bad advice. OP is trying to start/run a business, not
| fix the world or satisfy somebody's justice quest. It's nice
| to do if you can, but your first responsibility is to
| yourself.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Basically telling him to do anything else is to request of
| him to do the policing of anti-social behavior in a broken
| system that enables it, at huge personal cost.
|
| Some people do. People like that are necessary. But not
| everybody is willing to take that responsibility and
| associated burden.
| jblake wrote:
| The case details does not detail an asking amount. I could post
| the case details here if people think that's a good idea. I
| suppose it's public information anyway.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| DO NOT do this. You probably also should have used a
| throwaway account and provided a lot less detail on the
| scenario. If your adversary finds this post (they likely
| will) your position and options are at a significant
| disadvantage.
| nceqs3 wrote:
| That's why I asked for the # because they are suing a
| number of other companies over the same patent.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-21 23:00 UTC)