4 ms·
> In other news, as an investor, this tells me Cloudflare is technologically ahead of the other older companies who apparently were not sure they could defend a
by throw16180339 2y ago
> In other news, as an investor, this tells me Cloudflare is technologically ahead of the other older companies who apparently were not sure they could defend against the claims.
This is the wrong takeaway. Litigation is expensive and uncertain, especially in the Western District of Texas. It's a troll friendly district with a troll friendly judge. These other companies paid up because it's a rational choice to do so. Cloudflare chose to fight, but it probably would have been cheaper to settle.
- ric2b 2y agoBut isn't the burden of proof, and thus most of the litigation costs, on the patent troll? The court can't just assume that you're violating their patent because they say so, they have to prove it to a reasonable level, right?
- throw16180339 2y ago> But isn't the burden of proof, and thus most of the litigation costs, on the patent troll? Litigants in the US are responsible for their own legal fees. It's quite common for patent trolls to ask for an amount that's cheaper than going to court. > The court can't just assume that you're violating their patent because they say so, they have to prove it to a reasonable level, right? They have to prove it, but the Western District of Texas is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs in patent lawsuits. Judge Albright handles about 40% of cases; he's biased as hell (https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/how-the-west-became-the-east-the-patent-litigation-explosion-in-the-western-district-of-texas/ https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/how-the-west-became-the-east...).