4 ms·
The article mentions that it is hard to invalidate patents with prior art and that the patent holders will say that it is a narrower scope than previous patents
by jetti 14y ago
The article mentions that it is hard to invalidate patents with prior art and that the patent holders will say that it is a narrower scope than previous patents. If that is the case, I can't see how this isn't extortion. There is no way that these "companies" could know the kind of network that the companies they are sending letters to use. They may be just guessing that they are even using a scanner. They are just mass mailing threats and hoping for money back.
Also, how is it even legal to target the users of technology in a patent infringement case like this? Wouldn't the manufactures (of hardware AND software) be the ones that would need to license the patent, not end users? I get why you would target the end user but is that legal/valid?
- scott_s 14y agoI agree that it is extortion in spirit. But I wonder if patent trolls can be prosecuted on current extortion laws, as their defense would be "We're just trying to enforce our lawful patents." If prosecutors would not want to try, then I wonder how we could change extortion laws to include this practice.
- jetti 14y agoI agree with you on what their defense would likely be. But with something like this, there is no real way of knowing for sure if companies are infringing on their patents without knowledge of their network and what devices they have. It is entirely possible that they sent this to companies who haven't used these features. The problem is that I can't see prosecutors taking these companies on. I would imagine that a Federal prosecutor would be the one taking them on, which to me, makes it even less likely that it will happen.
- neurotech1 14y agoAgreed. Sending out these demand letters without a good faith belief of actual infringement, especially bulk-mail form, which could be considered as evidence of not taking reasonable care in preparation, should be considered extortion. IANAL but one option might be a federal civil RICO suit, and see if the DoJ will get involved.
- neurotech1 14y agoIANAL but wouldn't it be easier to convict on mail fraud first. Corporate "accounts receivable" type scams have been convicted before of mail fraud. The scammers send an invoice to a corporation, and if it looks routine, it gets paid without a second thought. Sooner or later, some patent troll is going to be dumb enough to send out "Unpaid License Fee" letters and set a precedence on the extortion charge.
- joshkaufman 14y agoGetty Images has been doing this with stock photography license claims for years: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/ http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/
- larrys 14y agoMost important to keep in mind is that this activity is targeted toward businesses (and for that matter not exactly "mom" and "pop" types either). It's more difficult getting someone to prosecute this type of borderline activity against business then the same thing against individuals. Especially if they have a leg to stand on and are being operated by attorneys who know how to word things to avoid potential problems.
- ihsw 14y agoStrict legality and validity are irrelevant -- proving the legality and validity would be an expensive and time-consuming process for the targets of these claims and most lawyers would agree that settlement is always preferable. 9/10 someone may win the suit against a patent troll but the cost of proof ($$$$) is extremely bitter to taste.
- jetti 14y agoWhich is such a shame. Until that changes these patent trolls have no motivation to stop what they are doing.