3 ms·
It probably wouldn't have been cheaper. The settlement would likely look like a fixed fee for previous use + yearly fee for X years before renegotiation, renego
by DistractionRect 3y ago
It probably wouldn't have been cheaper. The settlement would likely look like a fixed fee for previous use + yearly fee for X years before renegotiation, renegotiated y times before the patent expired.
It's likely that over the lifetime of the patent, the total cost would have been more than the cost to fight it, and as the a sibling pointed out, settling begets more suits + settlements. It adds up fast.
This isn't Cloudflare being "good," it's in their best interest to fight frivolous suits.
- gkiely 3y agoWhy did none of the other companies listed in the article fight it, if this is the case?
- nightpool 3y agoMaybe Sable saw Cloudflare as a juicier target, since the other companies listed are all hardware manufactures and don't operate a large consumer business like Cloudflare (leading to very, very different usage numbers). Or maybe Cloudflare thought that they had a better chance at trial against hardware patents, since they don't make router hardware themselves.