3 ms·

CSIRO is not a troll, per se, but in court they walk like a troll and talk like a troll. Among other things, they seek royalty payments so big you would think t

CSIRO is not a troll, per se, but in court they walk like a troll and talk like a troll. Among other things, they seek royalty payments so big you would think that they had actually invented the whole of 802.11, and they do, in fact, claim that WiFi would not "work" without their inventions. Let's not forget that the standard prescribes a functionality and not an implementation. I say this as someone who has been personally involved in some of the patent litigation being discussed here.

nikdaheratik 10y ago
Of course a patent lawyer is going to talk up their claims as much as possible to get a good deal. And patent law is tilted towards the plaintiff to such an extent that it encourages a shotgun approach in order to get something through that will allow them to seek damages. This is why it's hard for courts to sort out legitimate claimants from non-producing entities that are trying to just make a buck from real companies. The main difference is NPEs target smaller companies and then talk up their claims in the initial phases, then try to settle out of court as quickly as possible so they don't incur alot of expense and can avoid discovery, which is where their patents may get knocked out completely.
- staticautomatic 10y ago
  Trolls who target small players in the hopes of raking in small settlements all over the place are a real evil, to be sure. But from my perspective working on this sort of litigation for a living, the real threat is actually damages in cases involving standard-essential patents, and that's where the troll line starts to blur. Plaintiffs like CSIRO may not be trolls, per se, but they use the same hired gun damages experts that the trolls do (like Ocean Tomo). The amount of money they seek is completely untenable in the context of standard essential patents, if only because our phones and computers would cost astronomically more money if everyone holding one of the thousands of allegedly standard-essential patents got the kind of money plaintiffs like CSIRO ask for in these cases. As an aside, patents don't really get "knocked out" in discovery. They get knocked out by defendants filing IPRs, seeking re-exam by the PTO, and occasionally at trial. It's unbelievably rare for a judge to invalidate a patent on summary judgment (which happens post-discovery).

nikdaheratik 10y ago

Of course a patent lawyer is going to talk up their claims as much as possible to get a good deal. And patent law is tilted towards the plaintiff to such an extent that it encourages a shotgun approach in order to get something through that will allow them to seek damages. This is why it's hard for courts to sort out legitimate claimants from non-producing entities that are trying to just make a buck from real companies. The main difference is NPEs target smaller companies and then talk up their claims in the initial phases, then try to settle out of court as quickly as possible so they don't incur alot of expense and can avoid discovery, which is where their patents may get knocked out completely.

staticautomatic 10y ago
Trolls who target small players in the hopes of raking in small settlements all over the place are a real evil, to be sure. But from my perspective working on this sort of litigation for a living, the real threat is actually damages in cases involving standard-essential patents, and that's where the troll line starts to blur. Plaintiffs like CSIRO may not be trolls, per se, but they use the same hired gun damages experts that the trolls do (like Ocean Tomo). The amount of money they seek is completely untenable in the context of standard essential patents, if only because our phones and computers would cost astronomically more money if everyone holding one of the thousands of allegedly standard-essential patents got the kind of money plaintiffs like CSIRO ask for in these cases. As an aside, patents don't really get "knocked out" in discovery. They get knocked out by defendants filing IPRs, seeking re-exam by the PTO, and occasionally at trial. It's unbelievably rare for a judge to invalidate a patent on summary judgment (which happens post-discovery).