5 ms·

I guess I will remove my lurker hat as I am familiar with this situation. The article leaves out a lot of context. The Western District of Texas includes Waco,

I guess I will remove my lurker hat as I am familiar with this situation. The article leaves out a lot of context. The Western District of Texas includes Waco, Austin, and other areas. It's worth understanding the history of patent cases in this district to understand what partially motivated Albright to "advertise" his court to patent litigants. Prior to Albright's appointment, none of the judges in the Western District wanted patent cases. They openly and repeatedly said so. Patent cases were unreasonably slow in the district, and the judges essentially said "we don't like or want these types of cases." As a former patent litigator, Albright wanted to make clear that the Western District now has a judge who welcomes those cases, as opposed to shunning them. It's also his area of expertise, and attorneys frequently complain that most judges are ill-equipped to conduct patent cases due to the specialization of that area the law. The notion that Albright is a "patent troll" friend is incorrect. The clients he has represented are all there in public court filings. He has represented big tech (including Facebook). He has represented pharma companies. He has represented small companies. He has been on both the plaintiff and defendant side. I believe that most attorneys do not consider him to be pro "patent troll." Apple is the primary litigant that wants to transfer out of Texas courts. The judge is only part of the reason. They also really want California juries.

jojobas 6y ago
Can a judge reject a case because he doesn't "want" it? It's their job after all.
- hayksaakian 6y ago
  They can pre-empt being assigned in the first place to avoid the situation.
- xeromal 6y ago
  The supreme court does it all the time so I assume the lower courts can too
- silexia 6y ago
  They should not legally be allowed to... But unfortunately attorneys get to decide what is legal and what is not.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
On the one hand, I would really appreciate it if the judge had good technical knowledge of the field such as this judge. On the other hand, he’s invested in a system that many of us aren’t very happy with. Patent litigation is a game for corporate elephants, and when the elephants fight the grass gets trampled.
Nitramp 6y ago
> The notion that Albright is a "patent troll" friend is incorrect. [...] There's the problem of possibly being too friendly towards patent trolls. But there's also the problem of supporting and encouraging frivolous patent litigation overall. Patent lawyers (and apparently now judges) don't really care who wins. Their business thrives if there's simply more litigation around patents. They'll see companies file more patents, need more consultation, and work on more cases. In that light, whether Mr Albright worked for either side doesn't really make a difference. The point is that his specialization is set to gain from more litigation. More litigation comes from more patent trolls, so questions regarding the impartiality are appropriate.
- silexia 6y ago
  I have personal experience with patent trolls. I had a patent lawsuit filed against my company in Texas (we are entirely based in California) that was very distracting and slowed down our innovation. What was the lawsuit over? A BS patent that was used in dozens of other lawsuits claiming ownership over the process of selling things online. Patents should be completely eliminated, all they are is an artificial restriction on trade that leaves bad monopolies in place. If we aren't going to ban patents, we should at least add very heavy penalties on BS patents and patent trolls to discourage the worst abuses that have become commonplace. And judges like Albright should be disbarred and possibly even criminally prosecuted.
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    As someone not really aware of this things : how would you then protect innovation/research if not with a patent?
    - PeterStuer 6y ago
      Can we take this a step back? Why do you feel it needs protection? Innovation thrives in places that have little patent enforcement and thrived long before patents became a thing.
column 6y ago
Ca-li-fornia judges, we're undeniable Fine, fresh, fierce, we got it on lock West Coast represent, now put your hands up Oooh oh oooh
- sizzle 6y ago
  I like the way you think

jojobas 6y ago

Can a judge reject a case because he doesn't "want" it? It's their job after all.

hayksaakian 6y ago
They can pre-empt being assigned in the first place to avoid the situation.
xeromal 6y ago
The supreme court does it all the time so I assume the lower courts can too
silexia 6y ago
They should not legally be allowed to... But unfortunately attorneys get to decide what is legal and what is not.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

On the one hand, I would really appreciate it if the judge had good technical knowledge of the field such as this judge. On the other hand, he’s invested in a system that many of us aren’t very happy with. Patent litigation is a game for corporate elephants, and when the elephants fight the grass gets trampled.

Nitramp 6y ago

> The notion that Albright is a "patent troll" friend is incorrect. [...] There's the problem of possibly being too friendly towards patent trolls. But there's also the problem of supporting and encouraging frivolous patent litigation overall. Patent lawyers (and apparently now judges) don't really care who wins. Their business thrives if there's simply more litigation around patents. They'll see companies file more patents, need more consultation, and work on more cases. In that light, whether Mr Albright worked for either side doesn't really make a difference. The point is that his specialization is set to gain from more litigation. More litigation comes from more patent trolls, so questions regarding the impartiality are appropriate.

silexia 6y ago
I have personal experience with patent trolls. I had a patent lawsuit filed against my company in Texas (we are entirely based in California) that was very distracting and slowed down our innovation. What was the lawsuit over? A BS patent that was used in dozens of other lawsuits claiming ownership over the process of selling things online. Patents should be completely eliminated, all they are is an artificial restriction on trade that leaves bad monopolies in place. If we aren't going to ban patents, we should at least add very heavy penalties on BS patents and patent trolls to discourage the worst abuses that have become commonplace. And judges like Albright should be disbarred and possibly even criminally prosecuted.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  As someone not really aware of this things : how would you then protect innovation/research if not with a patent?
  - PeterStuer 6y ago
    Can we take this a step back? Why do you feel it needs protection? Innovation thrives in places that have little patent enforcement and thrived long before patents became a thing.

column 6y ago

Ca-li-fornia judges, we're undeniable Fine, fresh, fierce, we got it on lock West Coast represent, now put your hands up Oooh oh oooh

sizzle 6y ago
I like the way you think