decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
"So, for Lodsys, there's no place to run" | 300 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"So, for Lodsys, there's no place to run"
Authored by: PJ on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT
This isn't about money that way. It's about
crushing these four stupid patents, so they
can't be used to hustle money from Oracle,
to put it plainly.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"So, for Lodsys, there's no place to run"
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 08:53 PM EDT

Companies like this are set up for litigation.

It's almost certain that they only have enough money in their accounts to pay
their expected initial attorney fees. If more is needed, an additional
"investment" is made.
They are essentially judgment proof.

This is pretty much illegal. A corporation should be capitalized for its
expected business activities. But it's impossible to prove they should have
known the patent were invalid (there is a presumption of validity if they are
granted) or didn't apply (after all, they got to trial, which demonstrates there
was some question / circular reasoning).

This is only four patents out of millions. Squashing these patents has a
negligible impact on the rest. There are no expenses to Lodsys besides some
legal fees, and those can minimal if losing costs nothing beyond the few tens of
thousands left in the accounts to avoid looking completely like a front.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Running to a place outside the US is not an option
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT
Software patent trolls of this type simply can't survive outside the US. It is the only place on the planet where
  • software is patentable;
  • legal costs are not routinely awarded and are significant enough to constitute effective extortion;
  • the absence of effective consumer law and market regulation means companies have the freedom to issue baseless threats without being called to immediate account;
  • where the laws regulating corporations are loose enough to permit these kinds of shenanigans with shell corporations.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )