6 ms·

> Every time a company settles it just funds the trolls to wreak more havoc. This is especially true for companies larger than $100 million in revenue. I’m look

> Every time a company settles it just funds the trolls to wreak more havoc. This is especially true for companies larger than $100 million in revenue. I’m looking at you Texas Instruments, VIA Technologies, Renesas, ASUS, Caterpillar, Nuvision International, and Netgear, just to name a few of the companies that have dealt with Jason Nguyen’s Altair Logix. When you roll over and pay the trolls it hurts smaller companies terribly. I wonder if those companies consider this a "feature"?

kbenson 5y ago
That was my first thought too. In this way, it serves a similar purpose to overly strict regulation, which is also something smaller companies have a much harder time dealing with than larger ones (and encouraging regulation of a specific area is a well known tactic of larger companies to raise the bar of entry to the market). That's not to say all regulation is bad, just that like most things that have beneficial ways to be used, it can be abused by some to negative effect also.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
The company I work for also had a patent troll, who got settled by much bigger companies in the trolls favor. They found a previous concept that would invalidate their expensive patent(s). They tried to settle with 0€. The lawyer of HQ didn't agree and changed it so they had to pay 1 CAD. Just because they could. Ps. It was accepted ofc.
- robocat 5y ago
  If the settlement were 0€, it could have been paid with a zero euro bank note: https://www.banknoteworld.com/zero-euro/ https://www.banknoteworld.com/zero-euro/
  - dqv 5y ago
    But then they would be settling for at least 1.72€!
- rcxdude 5y ago
  A nominal fee is pretty common in contracts, it tends to be more binding than zero costs (because an important part of contract law is that both sides benefit from the contract).
- franga2000 5y ago
  Am I understanding correctly that you (your company) found prior art and chose to settle instead of presenting it in court and killing the patent? Any idea why? Isn't there some law that automatically awards you legal fees in the case of a frivolous lawsuit?
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    You don't present it "to court" because that might be decided by a jury of unsophisticated people. You file an Inter Partes Review, which goes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and is cheaper (note I didn't say "cheap"). The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" model like other countries. You can file for attorney's fees, but the barriers are higher.
    - freejazz 5y ago
      It's called an invalidity counterclaim.
      - AlbertCory 5y ago
        ??? what are you disputing here? IPRs, or defending against an infringement suit, or what?
        burnished 5y ago
        Doesn't look like a dispute? I think they were trying to supply you with a phrase that slipped your mind.
        AlbertCory 5y ago
        the question is the antecedent basis of "it"
        freejazz 5y ago
        You don't need to get an IPR, you just make an invalidity counterclaim. IPRs may or may not be desirable for a number of reasons.
- stordoff 5y ago
  $1 is probably a peppercorn payment[1]. A contract for 0€ may well fail to be a valid contract due to a lack of consideration - both sides must offer something of value to the other for a contract to be binding. It's possible that the rest of the settlement would provide valid consideration, but a nominal payment removes any doubt from the situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    a settlement is not a contract
    - freejazz 5y ago
      Settlement agreements are contracts. No one would agree (hmm, funny word, right) to a settlement if it wasn't legally binding.
    - JamisonM 5y ago
      Seems wild to me to assert that a settlement is not a contract. What is the basis for this?
  - freejazz 5y ago
    Peppercorn payments don't actually happen in the real world. Consideration is never an issue in actual contract litigation and in this case, settling something in exchange for any other benefit (no countersuit, etc) would suffice as consideration.
    - jonas21 5y ago
      I can report that they do actually happen in the real world. I've signed two contracts in the past year that had consideration of $1 written into them (and actually made the $1 payment). Are they necessary? I have no idea, but real lawyers wrote the contracts and apparently thought it was good to have that in there.
N00bN00b 5y ago
Ugly. So it's just a "protection fee" in a sense. Wouldn't surprise me if that's true. You just won't find it written down anywhere.
TheRealDunkirk 5y ago
A big company like TI is probably on both sides of these things, all the time, and it all washes out for them. In fact, I think you could divide the "big" companies from the "small" ones -- in this context -- not by revenue -- but by whether or not they are pursuing anyone else on patents.

kbenson 5y ago

That was my first thought too. In this way, it serves a similar purpose to overly strict regulation, which is also something smaller companies have a much harder time dealing with than larger ones (and encouraging regulation of a specific area is a well known tactic of larger companies to raise the bar of entry to the market). That's not to say all regulation is bad, just that like most things that have beneficial ways to be used, it can be abused by some to negative effect also.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

The company I work for also had a patent troll, who got settled by much bigger companies in the trolls favor. They found a previous concept that would invalidate their expensive patent(s). They tried to settle with 0€. The lawyer of HQ didn't agree and changed it so they had to pay 1 CAD. Just because they could. Ps. It was accepted ofc.

robocat 5y ago
If the settlement were 0€, it could have been paid with a zero euro bank note: https://www.banknoteworld.com/zero-euro/ https://www.banknoteworld.com/zero-euro/
- dqv 5y ago
  But then they would be settling for at least 1.72€!
rcxdude 5y ago
A nominal fee is pretty common in contracts, it tends to be more binding than zero costs (because an important part of contract law is that both sides benefit from the contract).
franga2000 5y ago
Am I understanding correctly that you (your company) found prior art and chose to settle instead of presenting it in court and killing the patent? Any idea why? Isn't there some law that automatically awards you legal fees in the case of a frivolous lawsuit?
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  You don't present it "to court" because that might be decided by a jury of unsophisticated people. You file an Inter Partes Review, which goes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and is cheaper (note I didn't say "cheap"). The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" model like other countries. You can file for attorney's fees, but the barriers are higher.
  - freejazz 5y ago
    It's called an invalidity counterclaim.
    - AlbertCory 5y ago
      ??? what are you disputing here? IPRs, or defending against an infringement suit, or what?
      - burnished 5y ago
        Doesn't look like a dispute? I think they were trying to supply you with a phrase that slipped your mind.
        AlbertCory 5y ago
        the question is the antecedent basis of "it"
        freejazz 5y ago
        You don't need to get an IPR, you just make an invalidity counterclaim. IPRs may or may not be desirable for a number of reasons.
stordoff 5y ago
$1 is probably a peppercorn payment[1]. A contract for 0€ may well fail to be a valid contract due to a lack of consideration - both sides must offer something of value to the other for a contract to be binding. It's possible that the rest of the settlement would provide valid consideration, but a nominal payment removes any doubt from the situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)
- fsckboy 5y ago
  a settlement is not a contract
  - freejazz 5y ago
    Settlement agreements are contracts. No one would agree (hmm, funny word, right) to a settlement if it wasn't legally binding.
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    Seems wild to me to assert that a settlement is not a contract. What is the basis for this?
- freejazz 5y ago
  Peppercorn payments don't actually happen in the real world. Consideration is never an issue in actual contract litigation and in this case, settling something in exchange for any other benefit (no countersuit, etc) would suffice as consideration.
  - jonas21 5y ago
    I can report that they do actually happen in the real world. I've signed two contracts in the past year that had consideration of $1 written into them (and actually made the $1 payment). Are they necessary? I have no idea, but real lawyers wrote the contracts and apparently thought it was good to have that in there.

N00bN00b 5y ago

Ugly. So it's just a "protection fee" in a sense. Wouldn't surprise me if that's true. You just won't find it written down anywhere.

TheRealDunkirk 5y ago

A big company like TI is probably on both sides of these things, all the time, and it all washes out for them. In fact, I think you could divide the "big" companies from the "small" ones -- in this context -- not by revenue -- but by whether or not they are pursuing anyone else on patents.