8 ms·

I've been through similar situations. The "find a lawyer" comments are less than helpful, since you probably don't know where to begin and most lawyers will ha

I've been through similar situations. The "find a lawyer" comments are less than helpful, since you probably don't know where to begin and most lawyers will happily take your money without necessarily having an expedient path to resolution for a small one-person company. So here's what you do: Write to each of your competitors, explain the situation and ask for a referral to their lawyers. You'd be surprised how many are more than willing to make a referral against a troll Also search around for any other attorneys who have filed against this troll and contact them as well. They should all be willing to do an initial call for free. You are trying to find an attorney who has a successful blueprint for dealing with this particular troll, ideally this particular claim. If the attorney is able to leverage their prior work or knowledge, your costs are greatly reduced. Also, if the troll has unsuccessful experience with a particular attorney they may just give up. Good luck!

foobarbazetc 5y ago
Also, just to add to that: a lot of the “good” lawyers will just ghost a one man operation or small business. Dealing with this kind of thing is a nightmare. You have to find someone who does EFF type stuff.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  > will just ghost a one man operation or small business I didn't understand this phrase. Does that mean the "good" lawyer is just a false front and the real business is handled by somebody else?
  - bitwize 5y ago
    To "ghost" someone is to avoid them without a response. The term probably came from personal relationships (e.g., a woman you were dating starts "ghosting" you). It was previously considered rude but is now appropriate to avoid potentially toxic personal or professional relationships.
    - kian 5y ago
      Pretty sure it's still considered rude.
      - gnulinux 5y ago
        I have never met a single person in my life who didn't ghost multiple people especially in business and dating. Like I receive 10 messages from LinkedIn everyday from recruiters trying to hire me when I'm not on the job market and trying to focus on my job and hobbies. What am I supposed to do? It's clearly rude to ghost friends, acquaintances, business partners etc. But if someone reached out to you with the intention of doing business with you, I think it's ok to ghost them if you're 100% not interested. Am I wrong?
        iudqnolq 5y ago
        I think it's only ghosting if you break off a conversation, not if you never start one. If I send you Viagra spam and you don't reply that's clearly not ghosting.
        MereInterest 5y ago
        I think "ghosting" is also used when one person breaks off a conversation, but the other person continues the conversation despite the conversation being broken off. At that point, an obnoxiously persistent person may conclude that that are being ghosted, rather than noticing that the conversation was over.
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        Ignoring some recruiter you've never heard of isn't 'ghosting'. 'Ghosting' is when someone you know, and have a reasonable expectation will take your calls, suddenly stops taking them, without explanation. It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic interest.
        N00bN00b 5y ago
  - Zircom 5y ago
    Ghosting means to avoid or stop responding to someone. So he's implying that lawyers may just not even respond since such a small company isn't worth their time, or possibly even just take their money and then "ghost" them after that.
    - ARandomerDude 5y ago
      Ah, got it. As in, to disappear like a ghost. Thanks!
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- treeman79 5y ago
  Yep. Got injured/poisoned by a mega company. Gross negligence. But it’s a complicated case. No lawyer will touch it. Sometimes your just screwed.
kkielhofner 5y ago
I generally appreciate the altruism of this advice but there's a huge risk in that the competitors likely won't set aside the spirit of competition, whatever they've spent/done to deal with this, etc to help out a competitor. I, personally, would not risk this approach.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  What's the risk here? That they would purposefully send you to a malicious lawyer? That seems kind of unlikely. Especially if the patent troll has also sued them
  - kkielhofner 5y ago
    The risk, as I see it, is multi-fold: - There's definitely no privilege with a competitor. The only people you should provide ANY detail or discussion on any of this are your attorneys. Full stop. That includes this post and discussion. - You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in. Many will be happy to dance on your grave... - Business can be absolutely ruthless. I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them (or who knows what). Business doesn't have to go full "Art of War" but to many people that's exactly what it is.
    - dmabram 5y ago
      There are multiple means of contacting a competitor, you don't even have to identify yourself or your business. You can have someone else do it on your behalf. All they have to say is "I know a company being sued by troll X over patent Y. I can see that your company was in a similar situation. Would you be willing to refer me to your attorney in this matter?" How much more you choose to share is up to you.
    - gamblor956 5y ago
      There's definitely no privilege with a competitor. Telling a competitor that you are being sued by a patent troll does not impair confidentiality. And if they are a true competitor, it is very likely that they have also been sued by the patent troll, or are next on the list, and may join in multi-party litigation against the troll. You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in. Maybe in your particular industry or geographic niche its dog-eat-dog.But especially outside of tech, most companies will band together against outsider threats. I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them The only way this would happen without backfiring on the plotter is if they were already targeted by the troll and lost. Businesses aren't as ruthless as you seem to think they are. They are run by real people, and they and act like people. The kind of ruthlessness you describe is something you see at the largest levels (i.e., Amazon and Apple) where sociopathy is a virtue rather than a hindrance, and even those companies will band together against patent trolls.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
duxup 5y ago
I understand how 'find a lawyer' is less than helpful but isn't your advice just 'find a lawyer ... that your competitors suggest'. Competitors who by default do not have your best interests in mind. Is there any real difference / likelihood of a good outcome there? Ultimately I see little difference in the potential of "most lawyers will happily take your money without necessarily having an expedient path to resolution for a small one-person company".
- dmabram 5y ago
  Probably because you haven't dealt with many lawyers :-). Yes, there's a huge difference. The advice is geared towards finding a lawyer who can achieve an optimal outcome at lowest cost. Any competent IP attorney can accept the case. The difference in cost is multiple orders of magnitude. At worst some of your competitors will ignore your request. But like I said, I have been through similar situations. Without delving into too many details, I had competitors who had no reason to help go so far beyond just a referral that years later I am still grateful. Once you've been burned by one of these trolls, you have a bit of a bond with other victims I guess.
- mh8h 5y ago
  In the case of a patent troll, the competitors are probably also on the future target list. It's in their interest to help fight this troll.
  - duxup 5y ago
    Or they already paid / cut a deal... This idea that they might care is just an assumption.
  - matmann2001 5y ago
    I know it's just TV, but this situation played out differently on Silicon Valley. Instead, the competitors hopped to the front of the line to pay off the patent troll before a successful case emboldened the troll to raise their price. Has anyone actually heard of things playing out this way in reality?
jabo 5y ago
Don’t law firms avoid taking on competing companies as clients to avoid any form of conflict of interest?
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  Yes, this is a key difference between the US "law firm" system and the UK barrister "chambers" system. The first is focused on profits (and survival). The second seeks to reduce the inherent commercial conflict of interest during difficult cases.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    I think most law firms would represent competing companies in separate cases. Conflict of interest is more representing multiple parties in the same case or issue. E.g. I once had a lawyer review a severance agreement before I signed it, since it had non-compete language in it. He had to be sure that his firm didn't already have a relationship with the employer. If there's no common interest in the case, lawyers are expected to be able to maintain confidentiality. Same as an accountant who might have two competing businesses as clients. But, IANAL.
- wvenable 5y ago
  Law firms cannot act for a party they've acted against (and vice-versa) without a waiver from their existing client. It can be costly for a firm if they make that mistake. They can, however, take on competing companies for a single action if they all agree. It's probably best if the firm didn't have a prior relationship with any of them. (Not a lawyer but I am a software developer who's built a legal conflict of interest search system)
blazespin 5y ago
On top of that, setting a shared google doc on how to deal with it would be helpful for future folks.
tamrix 5y ago
This is the modern equivalent of a laywer chasing an Ambulance down the street.

foobarbazetc 5y ago

Also, just to add to that: a lot of the “good” lawyers will just ghost a one man operation or small business. Dealing with this kind of thing is a nightmare. You have to find someone who does EFF type stuff.

ARandomerDude 5y ago
> will just ghost a one man operation or small business I didn't understand this phrase. Does that mean the "good" lawyer is just a false front and the real business is handled by somebody else?
- bitwize 5y ago
  To "ghost" someone is to avoid them without a response. The term probably came from personal relationships (e.g., a woman you were dating starts "ghosting" you). It was previously considered rude but is now appropriate to avoid potentially toxic personal or professional relationships.
  - kian 5y ago
    Pretty sure it's still considered rude.
    - gnulinux 5y ago
      I have never met a single person in my life who didn't ghost multiple people especially in business and dating. Like I receive 10 messages from LinkedIn everyday from recruiters trying to hire me when I'm not on the job market and trying to focus on my job and hobbies. What am I supposed to do? It's clearly rude to ghost friends, acquaintances, business partners etc. But if someone reached out to you with the intention of doing business with you, I think it's ok to ghost them if you're 100% not interested. Am I wrong?
      - iudqnolq 5y ago
        I think it's only ghosting if you break off a conversation, not if you never start one. If I send you Viagra spam and you don't reply that's clearly not ghosting.
        MereInterest 5y ago
        I think "ghosting" is also used when one person breaks off a conversation, but the other person continues the conversation despite the conversation being broken off. At that point, an obnoxiously persistent person may conclude that that are being ghosted, rather than noticing that the conversation was over.
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        Ignoring some recruiter you've never heard of isn't 'ghosting'. 'Ghosting' is when someone you know, and have a reasonable expectation will take your calls, suddenly stops taking them, without explanation. It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic interest.
        N00bN00b 5y ago
- Zircom 5y ago
  Ghosting means to avoid or stop responding to someone. So he's implying that lawyers may just not even respond since such a small company isn't worth their time, or possibly even just take their money and then "ghost" them after that.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    Ah, got it. As in, to disappear like a ghost. Thanks!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
treeman79 5y ago
Yep. Got injured/poisoned by a mega company. Gross negligence. But it’s a complicated case. No lawyer will touch it. Sometimes your just screwed.

kkielhofner 5y ago

I generally appreciate the altruism of this advice but there's a huge risk in that the competitors likely won't set aside the spirit of competition, whatever they've spent/done to deal with this, etc to help out a competitor. I, personally, would not risk this approach.

thatguy0900 5y ago
What's the risk here? That they would purposefully send you to a malicious lawyer? That seems kind of unlikely. Especially if the patent troll has also sued them
- kkielhofner 5y ago
  The risk, as I see it, is multi-fold: - There's definitely no privilege with a competitor. The only people you should provide ANY detail or discussion on any of this are your attorneys. Full stop. That includes this post and discussion. - You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in. Many will be happy to dance on your grave... - Business can be absolutely ruthless. I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them (or who knows what). Business doesn't have to go full "Art of War" but to many people that's exactly what it is.
  - dmabram 5y ago
    There are multiple means of contacting a competitor, you don't even have to identify yourself or your business. You can have someone else do it on your behalf. All they have to say is "I know a company being sued by troll X over patent Y. I can see that your company was in a similar situation. Would you be willing to refer me to your attorney in this matter?" How much more you choose to share is up to you.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    There's definitely no privilege with a competitor. Telling a competitor that you are being sued by a patent troll does not impair confidentiality. And if they are a true competitor, it is very likely that they have also been sued by the patent troll, or are next on the list, and may join in multi-party litigation against the troll. You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in. Maybe in your particular industry or geographic niche its dog-eat-dog.But especially outside of tech, most companies will band together against outsider threats. I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them The only way this would happen without backfiring on the plotter is if they were already targeted by the troll and lost. Businesses aren't as ruthless as you seem to think they are. They are run by real people, and they and act like people. The kind of ruthlessness you describe is something you see at the largest levels (i.e., Amazon and Apple) where sociopathy is a virtue rather than a hindrance, and even those companies will band together against patent trolls.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

duxup 5y ago

I understand how 'find a lawyer' is less than helpful but isn't your advice just 'find a lawyer ... that your competitors suggest'. Competitors who by default do not have your best interests in mind. Is there any real difference / likelihood of a good outcome there? Ultimately I see little difference in the potential of "most lawyers will happily take your money without necessarily having an expedient path to resolution for a small one-person company".

dmabram 5y ago
Probably because you haven't dealt with many lawyers :-). Yes, there's a huge difference. The advice is geared towards finding a lawyer who can achieve an optimal outcome at lowest cost. Any competent IP attorney can accept the case. The difference in cost is multiple orders of magnitude. At worst some of your competitors will ignore your request. But like I said, I have been through similar situations. Without delving into too many details, I had competitors who had no reason to help go so far beyond just a referral that years later I am still grateful. Once you've been burned by one of these trolls, you have a bit of a bond with other victims I guess.
mh8h 5y ago
In the case of a patent troll, the competitors are probably also on the future target list. It's in their interest to help fight this troll.
- duxup 5y ago
  Or they already paid / cut a deal... This idea that they might care is just an assumption.
- matmann2001 5y ago
  I know it's just TV, but this situation played out differently on Silicon Valley. Instead, the competitors hopped to the front of the line to pay off the patent troll before a successful case emboldened the troll to raise their price. Has anyone actually heard of things playing out this way in reality?

jabo 5y ago

Don’t law firms avoid taking on competing companies as clients to avoid any form of conflict of interest?

throwaway2037 5y ago
Yes, this is a key difference between the US "law firm" system and the UK barrister "chambers" system. The first is focused on profits (and survival). The second seeks to reduce the inherent commercial conflict of interest during difficult cases.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I think most law firms would represent competing companies in separate cases. Conflict of interest is more representing multiple parties in the same case or issue. E.g. I once had a lawyer review a severance agreement before I signed it, since it had non-compete language in it. He had to be sure that his firm didn't already have a relationship with the employer. If there's no common interest in the case, lawyers are expected to be able to maintain confidentiality. Same as an accountant who might have two competing businesses as clients. But, IANAL.
wvenable 5y ago
Law firms cannot act for a party they've acted against (and vice-versa) without a waiver from their existing client. It can be costly for a firm if they make that mistake. They can, however, take on competing companies for a single action if they all agree. It's probably best if the firm didn't have a prior relationship with any of them. (Not a lawyer but I am a software developer who's built a legal conflict of interest search system)

blazespin 5y ago

On top of that, setting a shared google doc on how to deal with it would be helpful for future folks.

tamrix 5y ago

This is the modern equivalent of a laywer chasing an Ambulance down the street.