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
A counter to Shield | 171 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Raising the Stakes in Patent Cases
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 11:17 AM EDT
When the law-makers are lawyers, what do you expect?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A counter to Shield
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 12:02 PM EDT

It very much seems to me to be a counter to the Shield Act. Half of what it is suggesting is already occuring with the Shield Act:

    If it's decided the patent is "patentedly obviously" invalid then the patent owner is up for a debt to pay the defense costs (at least to some extent).
But if said patent owner is able to prosecute their patent 10 times before a Court decides the patent was obviously invalid - and thereby require the defense to pay their costs - they are able to pad their pockets with well more then sufficient funds before they have to pay a defendant.

This suggestion only re-establishes the "status quo" that existed before the Shield Act was implemented:

    A greater likelihood defendants will decide to pay the license fee (whether or not the patent is valid, or they even infringe in the first place, or they even have a product/service that could come close to being considered as possibly infringing) rather then defend!
In my humble opinion: Terrible, terrible idea!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

More so then currently
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 02:33 PM EDT

If you're correct - and the counter to Shield is correct - then it's more then just a counter to Shield. It's an attempt to corrupt Shield.

It will actually pay them something they haven't previously had access to:

    Court Costs on top of trebble damages!
Wowsers. In the context of a recent lawsuit:
    1.x billion in damages plus (for example) 50 million in Court Costs
I hope Congress is paying attention.

RAS

[ 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 )