12 ms·
In 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 do
by mattlutze 11y ago
In 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.