4 ms·

We couldn't sue because we didn't know what we would sue on. They wouldn't even tell us the patent numbers - so we didn't have the knowledge necessary to even f

by VanL 14y ago

We couldn't sue because we didn't know what we would sue on. They wouldn't even tell us the patent numbers - so we didn't have the knowledge necessary to even file a complaint. As for suing because of the forbearance agreement, they try to write these things so they are just on the side of the line, and it is really hard to make a RICO suit stick (see Cisco and Innovatio). We, of course, think that it is just BS. Now we are on record saying so. - Van (Rackspace VP of IP)

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Excellent reference, thanks Van. This comment from the judge in the WSJ coverage[1] of Cisco ""It is enough for now to determine that Innovatio at least has a plausible argument that its infringement claims are still viable," wrote Judge Holderman. The "licensing campaign is therefore not a sham," he said." So did Innovatio include the patent numbers? I have read in other cases that legal test for extortion was "credible but not actionable" threat of exposure. (Crosby vs Upshaw as an example, she wouldn't provide paternity data) FWIW I've added you to the list of technology companies being harmed by patent extortion (I try to keep my congressional representatives informed in order to disallow them the excuse that they had no idea how bad the problem is) [1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906004578288370005621206.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732490600457828...
- mitchellhislop 14y ago
  Could I talk you into sharing that list? I have been thinking I should be more proactive with my congresscritters. It seems I am always sending reactive messages.
robomartin 14y ago
IANAL, but, doesn't this at one point border on extortion? There's an implied threat to cause harm by force unless you do x. Again, not a lawyer. Maybe there are much finer points to consider before it becomes extortion.

by VanL 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Excellent reference, thanks Van. This comment from the judge in the WSJ coverage[1] of Cisco ""It is enough for now to determine that Innovatio at least has a plausible argument that its infringement claims are still viable," wrote Judge Holderman. The "licensing campaign is therefore not a sham," he said." So did Innovatio include the patent numbers? I have read in other cases that legal test for extortion was "credible but not actionable" threat of exposure. (Crosby vs Upshaw as an example, she wouldn't provide paternity data) FWIW I've added you to the list of technology companies being harmed by patent extortion (I try to keep my congressional representatives informed in order to disallow them the excuse that they had no idea how bad the problem is) [1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906004578288370005621206.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732490600457828...

mitchellhislop 14y ago
Could I talk you into sharing that list? I have been thinking I should be more proactive with my congresscritters. It seems I am always sending reactive messages.

robomartin 14y ago

IANAL, but, doesn't this at one point border on extortion? There's an implied threat to cause harm by force unless you do x. Again, not a lawyer. Maybe there are much finer points to consider before it becomes extortion.