4 ms·
Schadenfreude may amuse, but what we have here is not even a casino. It is a massive negative-sum (to the non-lawyer participants) game where winning usually tu
by __jal 11y ago
Schadenfreude may amuse, but what we have here is not even a casino. It is a massive negative-sum (to the non-lawyer participants) game where winning usually turns on procedural points having nothing relevant to do with the actual conflict. (If you disagree, then kindly explain the Eastern District Court of Texas.)
The result is this huge coercion machine that pretty much randomly chews up small companies and rewards attorneys and (somewhat randomly) large ones.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- magicalist 11y ago> It is a massive negative-sum (to the non-lawyer participants) To be fair, in this case Ericsson is a practicing entity and they probably have a salaried legal staff, so your specific criticisms don't really apply here. More just general patent criticisms: ease of acquisition, non-specificity, valuation on market and legal leverage instead of marginal value, (if any of the above patents are software patents) software patents in general, etc
- __jal 11y ago> Ericsson is a practicing entity and they probably have a salaried legal staff I didn't say anything about NPEs. Ericsson may have a stable of in-house patent litigators; it is one enterprise where that probably makes economic sense (I know Google has their own IP litigators). But most patent litigation that makes it to trial is handled by specialist firms.