6 ms·

And they are entirely one sided. Try suing Google for patent or trademark infringement. I've seen the attempts: it's impossible to get justice. The entire syste

And they are entirely one sided. Try suing Google for patent or trademark infringement. I've seen the attempts: it's impossible to get justice. The entire system is rigged and serves as yet another way for powerful interests to extract value from productive members of society.

freejazz 7y ago
Right, but this is because institutions like Google use their power to weaken patent rights.
- thayne 7y ago
  As long as it suits them. I think the bigger reason is that in many civil cases (not just IP) it ultimately comes down to who is willing to pay more for lawyers and legal fees.
  - freejazz 7y ago
    As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights).
    - randoramax 7y ago
      As a non-litigator, i call BS. Facts don't matter much when it comes to justice. Try suing a small businesses LLC for some wrong doing: they'll file bankruptcy and you'll never see your money.
      - ska 7y ago
        That's sort of the point of an LLC, though, so you can't really fault it. True, if it's a one-person shop the friction to fold it up isn't very high but you should factor that into your deal analysis.
      - ta1234567890 7y ago
        As someone who has been personally sued after my company went bankrupt, I can tell you that it is not as simple as you paint it. Although I wish it was. Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct company as well as legal claims to go after the company officers. Then after bankruptcy they can try to use whatever information, assets and claims they acquired, to sue the company officials personally.
        MegaButts 7y ago
        > Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct company as well as legal claims to go after the company officers. Then after bankruptcy they can try to use whatever information, assets and claims they acquired, to sue the company officials personally. What on Earth could make someone so angry to go through the hassle of doing this?
        ta1234567890 7y ago
        Not necessarily angry, but greedy maybe. Although at this point your guess is just as good as mine. Unfortunaty this guy has a lot of money and some sort of personal agenda against my cofounder and I. Hopefully we can sort it out. Otherwise we are looking at personal bankruptcy. Make sure to stay away from assholes and never sign a contract that says you (your company), will cover the other party's legal expenses.
        MegaButts 7y ago
        I obviously don't know the situation as well as you, but this feels more like being vindictive than greedy. Whatever the case, I wish you luck.
        7y ago
    - ska 7y ago
      Facts alone don't help you if you can't afford to play long enough. These things are rarely clear cut, and anyone with deeper pockets than you can use that to their advantage quite easily. In a way it's best to get into an IP disagreement with someone having roughly the same resources as you, as you can both see the path that only makes lawyers happy and agree to avoid it.
      - freejazz 7y ago
        That is all true, but money cannot change facts. If there is no factual basis for a claim, you lose on the first motion. I'm not sure what about that you don't get. Expensive lawyers can do many things, but they cannot change the factual basis of a litigation and whether or not it supports a claim.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights). The problem is that patent cases are intrinsically prohibitively expensive. It's the nature of them, not a result of some recent regulatory change advocated by Google. Especially when there are companies that hold many thousands of patents, any of which can be claimed in combination and cause the defense to incur significant costs even if the claims or their applicability ultimately turn out to be bunk. And you're bankrupt before you can prove it. The result is that large companies can destroy small practicing inventors with legal fees at will, which is naturally what they do if the small practicing inventor attempts to assert their patent. To avoid this is to not practice your own invention so you can't yourself be sued for infringement. Which implies that the patent system is only useful to trolls and large incumbents and is actively harmful to small practicing inventors, who can't usefully assert their own patents against the incumbents but can have the large incumbents assert their patents against the small inventor.
      - freejazz 7y ago
        Seeing as you thought this out, surely you thought out the alternative that is somehow better for inventors? I'd like to know what conclusion you came to regarding that

freejazz 7y ago

Right, but this is because institutions like Google use their power to weaken patent rights.

thayne 7y ago
As long as it suits them. I think the bigger reason is that in many civil cases (not just IP) it ultimately comes down to who is willing to pay more for lawyers and legal fees.
- freejazz 7y ago
  As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights).
  - randoramax 7y ago
    As a non-litigator, i call BS. Facts don't matter much when it comes to justice. Try suing a small businesses LLC for some wrong doing: they'll file bankruptcy and you'll never see your money.
    - ska 7y ago
      That's sort of the point of an LLC, though, so you can't really fault it. True, if it's a one-person shop the friction to fold it up isn't very high but you should factor that into your deal analysis.
    - ta1234567890 7y ago
      As someone who has been personally sued after my company went bankrupt, I can tell you that it is not as simple as you paint it. Although I wish it was. Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct company as well as legal claims to go after the company officers. Then after bankruptcy they can try to use whatever information, assets and claims they acquired, to sue the company officials personally.
      - MegaButts 7y ago
        > Some more detail: during bankruptcy, anyone that had business with the company can either file an adversary proceeding (essentially a lawsuit within bankruptcy court), and/or can do depositions/discovery (2004 examinations). They can also buys assets of the defunct company as well as legal claims to go after the company officers. Then after bankruptcy they can try to use whatever information, assets and claims they acquired, to sue the company officials personally. What on Earth could make someone so angry to go through the hassle of doing this?
        ta1234567890 7y ago
        Not necessarily angry, but greedy maybe. Although at this point your guess is just as good as mine. Unfortunaty this guy has a lot of money and some sort of personal agenda against my cofounder and I. Hopefully we can sort it out. Otherwise we are looking at personal bankruptcy. Make sure to stay away from assholes and never sign a contract that says you (your company), will cover the other party's legal expenses.
        MegaButts 7y ago
        I obviously don't know the situation as well as you, but this feels more like being vindictive than greedy. Whatever the case, I wish you luck.
        7y ago
  - ska 7y ago
    Facts alone don't help you if you can't afford to play long enough. These things are rarely clear cut, and anyone with deeper pockets than you can use that to their advantage quite easily. In a way it's best to get into an IP disagreement with someone having roughly the same resources as you, as you can both see the path that only makes lawyers happy and agree to avoid it.
    - freejazz 7y ago
      That is all true, but money cannot change facts. If there is no factual basis for a claim, you lose on the first motion. I'm not sure what about that you don't get. Expensive lawyers can do many things, but they cannot change the factual basis of a litigation and whether or not it supports a claim.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights). The problem is that patent cases are intrinsically prohibitively expensive. It's the nature of them, not a result of some recent regulatory change advocated by Google. Especially when there are companies that hold many thousands of patents, any of which can be claimed in combination and cause the defense to incur significant costs even if the claims or their applicability ultimately turn out to be bunk. And you're bankrupt before you can prove it. The result is that large companies can destroy small practicing inventors with legal fees at will, which is naturally what they do if the small practicing inventor attempts to assert their patent. To avoid this is to not practice your own invention so you can't yourself be sued for infringement. Which implies that the patent system is only useful to trolls and large incumbents and is actively harmful to small practicing inventors, who can't usefully assert their own patents against the incumbents but can have the large incumbents assert their patents against the small inventor.
    - freejazz 7y ago
      Seeing as you thought this out, surely you thought out the alternative that is somehow better for inventors? I'd like to know what conclusion you came to regarding that