4 ms·

I do this open-related law thing for a living. I know fellow specialists, and there aren't that many of us. I'm not aware of any colleague in private practice

I do this open-related law thing for a living. I know fellow specialists, and there aren't that many of us. I'm not aware of any colleague in private practice specializing in open software license enforcement as such. Even staff attorneys at open source foundations that enforce split their time across advisory, compliance, and other matters. And those foundations don't do so many enforcement claims anyway, in absolute terms. If you know an exception, that's great, please connect me. kyle@kemitchell.com. If they're actually specialized in high-stakes copyright litigation among firms with legal budgets in the millions, there's no need. I know those folks. I wouldn't refer small or solo firms at their rates. I'd suggest they may not be adequately adjusting for scale. Nobody sees the whole industry. As for the view from my own two eyes, I have absolutely billed solo-developer clients for work on settlements and license deals following license violations who were happy to pay and came away with a nice profit. I have also seen developers drive lucrative deals pointing out violations of license terms without any attorney assistance at all.

notyourday 5y ago
Yes, it works for an attorney. It does not work for a solo developer/small developers that hire the attorney.
- anaisbetts 5y ago
  Are you seriously explaining litigation costs to a quite well-known attorney working in this space?
  - notyourday 5y ago
    > Are you seriously explaining litigation costs to a quite well-known attorney working in this space? Yes, I am. The attorney's goals are not aligned with developer's goals because developer pays the attorney, not that the attorney pays the developer. Attorney makes money from developer(s) regardless of a developer(s) making money off the violation. It is bonkers that seemingly educated people do not understand this. Fighting IP battles from a perspective of a little party that has IP against a giant that is violating little party's IP is a fool's errand. Rarely the fool wins. That's why there's no market for litigation financing in IP like it exists for litigation financing of ambulance chasing.
    - kemitchell 5y ago
      Google "contingent fee". Then "copyright act registration attorneys fees".
      - notyourday 5y ago
        > Google "contingent fee". Then "copyright act registration attorneys fees" I don't need to - you, as an attorney, are not going to take every case on contingency. You are only going to take cases that you think you are going to win and you are likely to collect. In most of cases you would require a minimum payment from a client. In those cases the client will probably be fucked.

notyourday 5y ago

Yes, it works for an attorney. It does not work for a solo developer/small developers that hire the attorney.

anaisbetts 5y ago
Are you seriously explaining litigation costs to a quite well-known attorney working in this space?
- notyourday 5y ago
  > Are you seriously explaining litigation costs to a quite well-known attorney working in this space? Yes, I am. The attorney's goals are not aligned with developer's goals because developer pays the attorney, not that the attorney pays the developer. Attorney makes money from developer(s) regardless of a developer(s) making money off the violation. It is bonkers that seemingly educated people do not understand this. Fighting IP battles from a perspective of a little party that has IP against a giant that is violating little party's IP is a fool's errand. Rarely the fool wins. That's why there's no market for litigation financing in IP like it exists for litigation financing of ambulance chasing.
  - kemitchell 5y ago
    Google "contingent fee". Then "copyright act registration attorneys fees".
    - notyourday 5y ago
      > Google "contingent fee". Then "copyright act registration attorneys fees" I don't need to - you, as an attorney, are not going to take every case on contingency. You are only going to take cases that you think you are going to win and you are likely to collect. In most of cases you would require a minimum payment from a client. In those cases the client will probably be fucked.