6 ms·
My bias is that I think patents are over-used, over-granted & over-litigated. I think the system is fundamentally broken in favor of incumbents, lawyers, the we
by netcan 11y ago
My bias is that I think patents are over-used, over-granted & over-litigated. I think the system is fundamentally broken in favor of incumbents, lawyers, the wealthy. Between the brokenness of the systems these days, and some fundamental mistakes in original the assumptions about what a patent system would do, I think it makes a mockery of the stated intention of patents, to promote innovation. On patent trolls, I think they're an ugly boil that pops up when the underlying system is bad and the running of that system is worse.
So FWIW.. I have an opinion going in. Disclosed.
All that (verbosely) said, I can't join into the delighted cheering wen I hear about a broken and unfair legal system where "my" side is getting the better of it.
This whole system of cherry picking courts, maneuvering, intimidation… When the normal legal strategy is to bury the opponent in legal bills for years while psychologically piling on weight via drawn out legal processes, we (anywhere, I'm not american) do not have a judicious legal system. It's not fair. It's not justice. It's not doing a good job and it's there for lawyers and their wealthy clients. Newegg might be in the right, but that's not why they're winning. They have more money, or better lawyers or whatnot.
What if you don't have the money, disposition or bad ass legal team to fight back, in a bullshit rules fight?
I'm offended.
- lukasm 11y agoPart of the problem is lack of English rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee...
- chillydawg 11y agoIt's not that much better in London. Just older buildings, more wigs and less obvious corruption.
- sokoloff 11y agolukasm is presumably referring to the "loser pays" aspect.
- arethuza 11y ago"loser pays" does have some disadvantages though - it can actually act to prolong litigation as people will know that if they give up they will face an immediate bill for the other sides costs so they will continue in the small hope they will win.
- lowpro 11y agoAnd lose... If they have to pay the other side if they lose, there would be a lot less lawsuits, so in the end it probably evens out in terms of strain on the legal system.
- arethuza 11y agoThis claims that the percentage of turnover paid on litigation costs for UK companies is actually higher than it is for US ones: http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_management/2005/05/disadvantages_o-2.html http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_ma... NB My wife is a specialist commercial litigation lawyer in the UK and I had discussed this issue with her after seeing it mentioned on HN and she pointed out a lot of issues with "loser pays".
- TeMPOraL 11y agoWould you mind sharing those issues your wife pointed out?
- arethuza 11y agoWell, it was a while ago and was probably over a shared bottle of wine... :-) It was one of those occasions where I probably made some comment about how daft the US legal situation sounded to me and she lectured me with a long list of issues with "loser pays" - as she is far brighter than I am I probably didn't quite appreciate the subtleties other than not to remind myself not to make sweeping statements about the legal system around her...
- 11y ago
- arca_vorago 11y agoPlease clarify what you mean by this.
- Qwertious 11y agoEnglish rule = loser pays winner's legal costs. If patent trolls had to pay the legal fees of the other side, if/when the other side won, then the patent trolls would be unprofitable.
- gleenn 11y agoYou're right, the fact that the reason Newegg has money allows them to go after these people. So the system sucks. But why is this not a victory of something big with resources doing the right thing even though it might cost them? Winning a battle when the war is unjust doesn't make the people fighting offensive; it also doesn't make the unjust war anymore appetizing. So be offended, but perhaps in another thread about technology patents.
- netcan 11y agoIt's a moderate victory, potentially for potential victims of patent trolling. I have no criticism for Newegg. They're acting well, and others might benefit from that too. I just don't normally have much dealing with the judicial process. When I look in and hear about something out of general interest like this topic/article I get disgusted and worried. The judiciary is important and it's very bad, offensively so.
- StavrosK 11y agoPeople aren't cheering because the legal system is doing its job, they're cheering because Newegg is, as you say, in the right, and it's winning. I don't think there's a single person here cheering who isn't doing it with the unspoken proviso of "the justice system might be fucked up, but at least the good guys are winning this time". It would be irresponsible not to cheer and applaud Newegg for fighting for the side of morality.
- netcan 11y agoJust to clarify, I'm not criticizing Newegg. I'm just somewhat disgusted at what this story and others illuminates about the legal system.
- xof 11y agosorry, but did you read the article? newegg isn't suing for punitive damages, it's suing for a judicial ruling that Rosewill products are not violating the patent troll. this closure would benefit some 20+ other parties that are currently being sued for carrying Rosewill products.
- mikeash 11y agoI think just about everybody cheering already knows this stuff about the legal system, so the story illuminates nothing for us. The one new thing it shows is that the good guys are, for once, using the broken system to smack the bad guys around instead of vice versa.
- mattlutze 11y agoIn the US, the success of big-pocket troll-crackers is a a body of legal precedence that smaller defendants can use to more easily defend themselves. If you don't have the money or bad-ass legal team to break new legal ground, you cheer from your soul that big firms with the money and bad-ass legal team are going to go and do it for you. That's why I'm encouraged.
- morninj 11y agoThat's often true, but this action is limited to the patents belonging to Newegg and the troll. It won't create legal precedent that other companies can use to slay trolls.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoBut surely it would invalidate the troll's patent in question?
- morninj 11y agoNope. Take a look at the complaint (linked in the article)--specifically on the last page.
- josaka 11y agoThis is correct. They only ask for a judgment that they do not infringe, not that the patent is invalid. They may have done this b/c 1) it's cheaper; 2) they don't want to pay for free-riding by others who will benefit from them taking out this patent; or 3) they want to file for an administrative agency review of the patent's validity, which must be done before you seek such a ruling in court.
- ohitsdom 11y agoFrom the article: "Newegg's lawsuit asks only for a judicial ruling of non-infringement, not money damages." What is not fair about this?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]