5 ms·

As I read it, the judge found the defendant's remark to be a sign of wilfulness and systematic disregard for patent rules. The article suggests that the judge

by sk5t 15y ago

As I read it, the judge found the defendant's remark to be a sign of wilfulness and systematic disregard for patent rules. The article suggests that the judge isn't authorized to tack on damages for this, but I question whether this is entirely correct. Kind of like flipping off the judge at sentencing is a good way to test the limits of judicial discretion.

sk5t 15y ago
Also, I am baffled by the strong anti-patent bias in the comments--as if folks assume every suit is a troll at work.
- ak217 15y ago
  Every suit filed by companies from outside Eastern Texas in that court (or by companies who set up shop there for the sole purpose of being in that district) is definitely a troll at work.
  - tzs 15y ago
    That's massively wrong. Did you do any research at all before making that claim? edit: could the down voters explain why, please? All you have to do is look at a list of cases from EDT to see that ak217's claim that there is no non-troll patent suits filed by companies outside the district is idiotic.
    - Volpe 15y ago
      It's not about fact, it's about disagreement. You disagreed, and no one likes you disagreeing about that. Down Vote! It's a nice replication of U.S style democracy, empower the people who agree with you, and disenfranchise those that don't. Thanks pg for such an awesome replication!
    - Natsu 15y ago
      You're right. There are plenty who aren't NPEs who are just forum shopping. It will be interesting to see how the AIA changes things, given that you won't just be able to sue dozens of people for infringing the same patent and consolidate the cases. But they probably still will be able to set up shop in Marshall, TX.
- pseudonym 15y ago
  I won't go so far as to say "anti-patent", but both Techdirt and it's userbase are...extremely jaded towards most patent disputes. Additionally, the focus of the site is almost exclusively on the damage and retardation that results from attempting to apply non-tech rules in a tech-dominated society. In essence, pointing out every instance of the buggy-whip salesmen attempting to outlaw and regulate the car industry. So yeah. Techdirt is great, but considering how infrequently appropriate trademark/copyright suits are posted on there, the bias is very liberal and should be taken with a grain of salt. (Personally, I read Techdirt, but I almost invariably come away feeling depressed at all of the backwards rulings and inherently trollish lawsuits, like that whole timezone thing from this morning.)
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  The patent in question is hardware and it might be legitimate. However, those who use patents for legitimate reasons should have done something to the trolls. Not the victims - other, good patent holders. Now if their dear patent system would be get thrown away (and it is already massively discouraged), who is responsible? They are, but they never did anything.
wisty 15y ago
On the other hand, do you wonder why CEOs of tech companies are afraid of lobbying against patents? Imagine if you had told the press "Patents are bullshit. Nobody reads them except lawyers. Our engineers are told not to read them, because then we would pay more damages. We are probably infringing on dozens of patents every time we flush a toilet, let alone release a new product, but so is everyone else. We just pay the lawyers to keep other lawyers off our tail, and hope for the best. Business still goes on, but the same is true in North Korea - it's in spite of government regulations, not because of them". Imagine then, you get sued by a competitor for infringing on their patent. In response, you threaten to sue them back, for some of their inevitable infringements on your patents. You can bet that your statement will be paraded around in front of the judge in both cases, as evidence that your patent is bullshit, and evidence that you were willfully infringing. I'm not saying all patents are bad. Drugs need patents, so they can pay for the huge costs of testing them to comply with the FDA, and you need this process to stop companies selling dangerous quack medicine (or just stuff that hasn't been tested properly). OK, there are some elements of the drug approval process that are a little broken, but you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When it comes to software patents, what you have floating in the tub is not, figuratively speaking, a baby.
- mentat 15y ago
  I similar version to that would not show willfulness in infringement, just not active investigation of whether one was or not. The criticisms of the system would not in themselves create evidence of willfulness. Given I haven't read the CEO's statements to see whether they are similar to this or not. If they are then this is definitely a problem. If he says something like, "No one reads them, not even the lawyers" then it would still be damning.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    You don't have to wonder what this guy said. Per the article, the CEO said that patent infringement is "being taken too seriously sometimes."
    - 15y ago
Natsu 15y ago
The patent rules are unfair. You can't really protect yourself from infringement claims. Using that comment as a reason for enhanced damages was quite harsh, given that all he said was that in the US, people sue a lot. Let's review how you're supposed to avoid infringing on anyone's patents. Maybe then it will be clear that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you read patents, any infringement is willful (you should've known). If you don't read patents, you don't know what was out there and somebody will sue you with one of those method of doing business online type patents (they're not quite that generic, but they're damned close). If you reinvent an idea that someone patented first, that doesn't qualify as proof of obviousness. And there are groups of people buying up patents for the sole purpose of suing over them. So even if you do your best to do nothing wrong, you can still get sued. Big companies used to have a deterrent: keep a huge portfolio and promise mutual destruction to any other large company that sues you. Now, with the NPE model, it's turned into a free-for-all and billions of dollars are being wasted in lawsuits.

by sk5t 15y ago

sk5t 15y ago

Also, I am baffled by the strong anti-patent bias in the comments--as if folks assume every suit is a troll at work.

ak217 15y ago
Every suit filed by companies from outside Eastern Texas in that court (or by companies who set up shop there for the sole purpose of being in that district) is definitely a troll at work.
- tzs 15y ago
  That's massively wrong. Did you do any research at all before making that claim? edit: could the down voters explain why, please? All you have to do is look at a list of cases from EDT to see that ak217's claim that there is no non-troll patent suits filed by companies outside the district is idiotic.
  - Volpe 15y ago
    It's not about fact, it's about disagreement. You disagreed, and no one likes you disagreeing about that. Down Vote! It's a nice replication of U.S style democracy, empower the people who agree with you, and disenfranchise those that don't. Thanks pg for such an awesome replication!
  - Natsu 15y ago
    You're right. There are plenty who aren't NPEs who are just forum shopping. It will be interesting to see how the AIA changes things, given that you won't just be able to sue dozens of people for infringing the same patent and consolidate the cases. But they probably still will be able to set up shop in Marshall, TX.
pseudonym 15y ago
I won't go so far as to say "anti-patent", but both Techdirt and it's userbase are...extremely jaded towards most patent disputes. Additionally, the focus of the site is almost exclusively on the damage and retardation that results from attempting to apply non-tech rules in a tech-dominated society. In essence, pointing out every instance of the buggy-whip salesmen attempting to outlaw and regulate the car industry. So yeah. Techdirt is great, but considering how infrequently appropriate trademark/copyright suits are posted on there, the bias is very liberal and should be taken with a grain of salt. (Personally, I read Techdirt, but I almost invariably come away feeling depressed at all of the backwards rulings and inherently trollish lawsuits, like that whole timezone thing from this morning.)
guard-of-terra 15y ago
The patent in question is hardware and it might be legitimate. However, those who use patents for legitimate reasons should have done something to the trolls. Not the victims - other, good patent holders. Now if their dear patent system would be get thrown away (and it is already massively discouraged), who is responsible? They are, but they never did anything.

wisty 15y ago

On the other hand, do you wonder why CEOs of tech companies are afraid of lobbying against patents? Imagine if you had told the press "Patents are bullshit. Nobody reads them except lawyers. Our engineers are told not to read them, because then we would pay more damages. We are probably infringing on dozens of patents every time we flush a toilet, let alone release a new product, but so is everyone else. We just pay the lawyers to keep other lawyers off our tail, and hope for the best. Business still goes on, but the same is true in North Korea - it's in spite of government regulations, not because of them". Imagine then, you get sued by a competitor for infringing on their patent. In response, you threaten to sue them back, for some of their inevitable infringements on your patents. You can bet that your statement will be paraded around in front of the judge in both cases, as evidence that your patent is bullshit, and evidence that you were willfully infringing. I'm not saying all patents are bad. Drugs need patents, so they can pay for the huge costs of testing them to comply with the FDA, and you need this process to stop companies selling dangerous quack medicine (or just stuff that hasn't been tested properly). OK, there are some elements of the drug approval process that are a little broken, but you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When it comes to software patents, what you have floating in the tub is not, figuratively speaking, a baby.

mentat 15y ago
I similar version to that would not show willfulness in infringement, just not active investigation of whether one was or not. The criticisms of the system would not in themselves create evidence of willfulness. Given I haven't read the CEO's statements to see whether they are similar to this or not. If they are then this is definitely a problem. If he says something like, "No one reads them, not even the lawyers" then it would still be damning.
- Natsu 15y ago
  You don't have to wonder what this guy said. Per the article, the CEO said that patent infringement is "being taken too seriously sometimes."
  - 15y ago

Natsu 15y ago

The patent rules are unfair. You can't really protect yourself from infringement claims. Using that comment as a reason for enhanced damages was quite harsh, given that all he said was that in the US, people sue a lot. Let's review how you're supposed to avoid infringing on anyone's patents. Maybe then it will be clear that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you read patents, any infringement is willful (you should've known). If you don't read patents, you don't know what was out there and somebody will sue you with one of those method of doing business online type patents (they're not quite that generic, but they're damned close). If you reinvent an idea that someone patented first, that doesn't qualify as proof of obviousness. And there are groups of people buying up patents for the sole purpose of suing over them. So even if you do your best to do nothing wrong, you can still get sued. Big companies used to have a deterrent: keep a huge portfolio and promise mutual destruction to any other large company that sues you. Now, with the NPE model, it's turned into a free-for-all and billions of dollars are being wasted in lawsuits.