3 ms·
Unfortunately, this is doing to stack up the deck against individual small inventors. This guy would've had to start a car company in order not to be liable fo
by cooldeal 14y ago
Unfortunately, this is doing to stack up the deck against individual small inventors.
This guy would've had to start a car company in order not to be liable for millions in legal fees if he lost?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
Somehow I think the big companies will exploit this, and start violating NDAs and real patents willy nilly, since the bar has been raised for them.
But the patent trolls are doing enough damage too, I am not sure if it's worth hurting a few real deserving inventors.
- h4pless 14y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but the article states that if the plaintiff is the inventor or original assignee, they would qualify as a practicing patent holder and would not be liable for paying the defendants fees. In Kearns' case, he would not be liable for paying defendants fees because he was the original inventor of the technology.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ramblerman 14y ago"The bill would allow patent defendants to file a motion seeking to have a judge rule that the patent owner is a certain type of "non-practicing entity"—although the bill doesn't use that term. If the motion is successful, the lawsuit can still proceed, but if the patent-holding company loses, it will be on the hook for legal costs." a) I doubt your example of Robert Keans, who is actually an inventor and not a patent troll would be found to be the latter by most judges. b) If the motion is successful, you can still pull out and save the costs. You did lose, but you didn't go broke trying. So It's probably not quite as dramatic for the little guy, as you suggest.