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
Your comment seems to presume there is Justice in this world... | 195 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Your comment seems to presume there is Justice in this world...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 02:10 AM EDT
In this business of Patent Wars and Trolls, all I see is
Kafkaesque trials and corruption. Justice is rare, fleeting
or illusory.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So the Lycos Patents are Worthless?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 03:14 AM EDT
In suing back, I presume they would have to go after the CEO [personally -
piercing the veil], not the company (on the basis that the CEO ought to be
directing the company (which makes the [old] British designation of
"Managing /Director/" a much better title) and be aware of what the
company is doing, and ought to be directing it away from vexatious litigation;
but then again, if that /is/ the articles of the company (doing vexatious
litigation)...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Or how about doing something like the judges did with Prenda...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 03:58 AM EDT
...require them to put up the defences estimated legal fees (plus some) in
escrow until the trial is over. Once the trial is over, and the defendants are
found not to infringe, or the patents are found invalid (by the USPTO or by the
court), then the money goes to the defendant.

And then, if it comes down to "Company X put them up to it," why
couldn't a judge drag Company X into the courthouse and hold them to monetary
reparation as well?

If these trolls (and the companies tasking them with the attack orders) have
nothing to loose, then I don't see an end to this foolishness. (if there is no
negative consequence to their abuse of patent law, then how can anyone (on
either side of the fence) be expected to take patent law seriously?)

If the judges can do this to "people" like Prenda, then why can't they
do it to these patent trolls as well? Is there a difference in the way patent
law is written making this option impossible?

And what about forcing these troll entities to expose the company(ies) that put
them up to it (if that be the case)? Do judges not have the option of doing
this at the request of the defendant?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Lycos Patents not worthless...watch the money!!! (and the anti-trust!)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 11:18 AM EDT
That is, while I think and hope the Lycos patents are invalid, and will be ruled
so, thanks in part to Groklaw, Vringo has made them valuable.

Now, I don't have any evidence for my suppositions below, and they aren't
necessarily true, but let's see where they lead us.

In particular, suppose one of the principals of Vringo is an ex Microsoft exec,
or a friend of a microsoft exec. A prior agreement on a handshake is entirely
possible, with the basic terms that "if you make enough trouble for google,
we will make it worth your while".

Now, even without my supposition, the settlement with Microsoft looks a lot like
a progress payment (they are in fact making trouble for Google), and an
incentive bonus in the future to do as much damage as possible to Google. 20 to
1 leverage for damage to Google is cheap...especially when there is no apparent
risk to Microsoft, since the funding machanism for Vringo involves having a
legal settlement "extracted", and because Vringo will obviously be
broke in the unlikely event that Google is awarded their legal costs.

Microsoft also knows that for them to assert those patents would be like
superman touching Kryptonite...so they are much more valuable in Vringo's
hands.

Disclaimer: I don't think any of this is acceptable corporate behavior, and I
hope that the resolution (maybe coupled with some help from IBM going after SCO)
actually touches Bill Gates and his "Win at all costs" culture.

All those amicus briefs in Oracle versus Google may indicate a critical mass for
reform has been reached, similar to the formation of the SEC after the 1929
stock crash, or the FDA after the president got food poisoning in the beginning
of the 20th century.

(Christenson)



[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

was the suit against Bing even real?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 02:54 PM EDT
I'm just wondering whether the suit was merely a smokescreen
to make it look like Vringo is independent of (ie, not in
cahoots with) Microsoft and to create a seemingly good reason
for the transfer of the 6 patents and the $1 mil via the
settlement.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Vexatious litigation? Doesn't seem possible
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 03 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT

So long as the Law views patents as "if the patent was granted, it's valid" then vexatious litigation over valid patents does not seem possible.

The Law was recently changed to have the defendant recover costs in cases where the patent seems to not apply - but vexatious litigation seems to be totally off the table when it comes to claims of patent infringement.

Just my humble layman opinion from observation.

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 )