ElPaso Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,453
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
Story: "X-Plane creator being sued by 'patent troll' for patent infringement"
- Thread starter ElPaso Pilot
- Start date
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
I signed the petition..
But, Google needs to do something more to protect and indemnify its customers. Android developers (especially ones using android SDK and Google technologies/services) and Android Handset manufacturers are facing the wrath of patent trolls and Google is playing the honey badger of handset companies.
But, Google needs to do something more to protect and indemnify its customers. Android developers (especially ones using android SDK and Google technologies/services) and Android Handset manufacturers are facing the wrath of patent trolls and Google is playing the honey badger of handset companies.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yet another argument for "loser pays"
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think it was maybe even the same people who sued a bunch of iOS app developers, even though they had licensed their technology to Apple and the developers were using it through Apple's SDK. Luckily, Apple put the smack down on 'em. Steve Jobs may have loved making great products, but he also could hold a grudge like nobody else, and Apple Legal is very large and powerful as a result.
I hate patent trolls.
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
I think it was maybe even the same people who sued a bunch of iOS app developers, even though they had licensed their technology to Apple and the developers were using it through Apple's SDK. Luckily, Apple put the smack down on 'em. Steve Jobs may have loved making great products, but he also could hold a grudge like nobody else, and Apple Legal is very large and powerful as a result.
I hate patent trolls.
I hate 'em too!
Microsoft and Apple both don't take trash from trolls and if they need to protect their customers they often indemnify them as well as work on all the cross licensing for them.
I realize google is trying to strong arm trolls in some respects by ignoring them, but that sure costs their developers in the end.
lose lose situation, hope Xplane gets all the signatures they need and people keep this patent miss in the limelight.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
X-Plane needs to implead google as a third party defendant.
The problem with that is that it leaves the big guys free to steal from the little guys.
It seems more of a problem with the patent system than the legal system. Checking a license status with a server should not be a patentable idea, but the patent was granted and the "inventor" is entitled to sue.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
How so?
Loser pays would be the most significant big-business handout of the decade. A lot of cases eventually come down to who can throw the most money at it, and a small shop or single inventor is going to come down on the "not that much" side of this very often.
Keep in mind it doesn't solve the problem, Uniloc (the "troll" in this case) straight up beat Microsoft in a legal battle in 2011 for 388 million.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Let's take the instant case as an example. Uniloc is suing Laminar Research. Because of a technicality, they have a valid cause of action. They spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers and legal costs because they know they have a slam-dunk case. Maybe their claim is only worth $10,000, but the lawyers rack up the hours because they know the loser will pay.
Take a look at the civil rights lawsuits as an example. There was a local one where an inmate sued because the prison wouldn't deliver his porn. He won, so the prison was ordered to deliver his porn, and pay $50,000 in legal fees.
How about the other Mass case where the inmate sued for a sex change operation? The court ordered the prison to pay for the operation and pay the lawyers.
If the other guy is going to end up footing the bill, whether due to the merits of the case or some technicality, there is no motive to keep costs down.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Rather than a straight loser pays system, there needs to be a "before it goes to trial" trial where no lawyers are allowed at all. The plantiff presents his or her case sans lawyers to a judge/board. The defendant the same - sans lawyers. The board/judge then decides if they have a valid claim. The plantiff gets his say, the defendant is allowed to rebut No objections, no continuances, no witnesses, no cross examination. Then they may proceed to the where legal teams are involved and then a loser pays system can be adopted.
Last edited:
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
This assumes the judge has a clue... Patent cases aren't the study of law.
USPTO needs to stop allowing absurd patents and some systems shouldn't be patentable - so the process has to start there.
(i'm looking at you amazon one click lol)
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
For patent cases it goes before people who have a clue. For other things like, "My 80 year old vagina is worth 3.6 million dollars and I'm too stupid to know not to put hot things next to it" I think a judge/board could handle those.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Plenty of ways to deal with that, like reversal of payment upon a valid settlement offer.
So, let's use your situation: I sue you for $100k in damages (it's only $10k in real damages, but you buff it up a bit). You immediately offer me a cheque for $10k. You decide to go to trial to shoot the moon so to speak.
Verdict comes back, and the award is for $9k...now we look at costs.
From the beginning until you made the reasonable offer (evidenced by the fact that the offer exceeded the final verdict for damages), you owe me my legal costs. From that point forward, I owe you your legal costs, and you bear your own. In fact in some jurisdictions, they apply a post-settlement-offer multiplier to the costs, so I would owe you for 2x your legals costs.
Let's see how that works out:
You owe me for 1 day...let's round up to 10 hours...you had fantastic lawyers at $1,000/hr, so $10,000. Add to that the $9,000 verdict and grand total, you owe me $19,000.
Now, for the year and a half of preparing for trial, the time at trial, all the court costs associated with the trial, the depositions and discovery, and all that stuff, you're into it for $250k let's say.
At the end of the day, I write you a cheque fro $231k under this loser-pays model. And if they apply a 2x multiplier for post settlement costs, then you write me a cheque for $481k. Plus, of course you paid your lawyers another $250k...
Yep, that's a boon to the big guy for sure. Your scenario doesn't really encourage going to the wall, does it?
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
My friend the stutterer will have a great time suing the slick car salesman who told him the former taxi was driven to church by a little old lady on Sundays.
That was more of a "YOUR consultants told you the coffee was hotter than everybody else's and could cause serious burns, so we'll award one day of profits from your coffee to the defendant who would have settled for the $20,000 she actually incurred in medical expenses".
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Carfax?
He could always write his reasons out and have it read aloud by the board.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Lost his fingers in a drinking accident
...and has no friends to write it out for him...and had his voice box removed from smoking so speech to text won't work...and can't see in order to type with his tongue...
Wait, how is he driving?
supernovae
Line Up and Wait
hahahaha this made my day
But, I still doubt there are judges who understand the patents in place entirely just as the people at the USPTO don't really understand the patents they just authorized.
Last edited:
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
I'm getting confused. Why do I decide to go to court to shoot for the moon? I just made an offer. Wouldn't you be the one shooting for the moon?
Also, if I'm paying my lawyer $1000/hour for day one, why do I add that amount to the judgment and and it over to you?
I'm honestly trying to understand your proposal.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
All his friends are lawyers, and you won't let them help.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sorry, I reversed some stuff...
OK, I run over your foot. You suffer ~$10k in damages, right?
You sue me for $1m. I immediately offer you a settlement for $25k for your pain and for your legal fees to this point. You say "Screw you, I want my million, let's see what a jury has to say 'bout this!"
At that point, let's say that each of us has spent $10k in legal fees to get here...
Now, we go to trial. Each of us spends $250k in legal fees in depositions, trail prep, bribing the judge and jurors etc. All the normal fees that go into a trial.
Jury returns and says that I owe you $11k in damages for your foot. We clear so far?
So: I owe you $11k + the $10k you spent in legal fees up until the settlement offer. That offer is deemed a legitimate offer because it exceeded the ultimate award. OK, so I now officially owe you $21k.
However, because I made a legitimate offer (and we'll ignore the multiplier concept here), you owe me $250k for my post-offer legal fees. You could have settled at that point and gotten more than you ultimately did, so you reversed the payment of the fees.
So, we offset the $21k I owe you against the $250k you now owe me, and you write a cheque for $239k to me. Plus, of course, you also write a cheque to your lawyers for another $250k. Shoulda settled, shouldn't you?
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
All his friends are lawyers, and you won't let them help.
Dear God...if all his friends are lawyers, can't someone please put him out of his misery?
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
OK, same scenario, but your offer was $12K. I've got $10K in damages and $10K in legal fees. If I accept your offer, I pay my lawyer $10K and I keep $2K to cover my $10 damages.
I refuse.
Continue as above, your offer that didn't cover my actual damages plus legal fees is still deemed legitimate because it exceeded the judgment awarded by the jury, so now I owe you $250K.
Oh, and since I now owe the hospital $10K, my lawyer $250K and you $250K, I'm heading down to the bankruptcy attorney.
livitup
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 357
- Location
- Southern Northern Virginia
- Display Name
Display name:
livitup
But shouldn't the other party pay your bankruptcy lawyer's fees, since it was them running over your foot that drove you into bankruptcy?
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,866
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Its actually the legislative system. Congress needs to write the law that affords the protection so this junk will stop.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Since other countries apparently have a different system for payment of litigation expenses than ours, it would be interesting to learn more out how they do it, and how it works out in practice.
Ateaist
Pre-takeoff checklist
Actually, the United States has a different system for payment of legal expenses than has generally been described here. The default rule in all states and in the Federal system is that each party pays its own legal costs. That is true whether the case is for patent infringement, or for a tort like the foot that was ran over. Now there are exceptions to this rule, such as statutory attorney's fees in the case of willful patent infringement, or the prevailing inmate in the porn and sex change cases as those were entitled to recover attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Awards Act (those cases were both brought under 42 USC section 1983). You can also agree to payment of attorney's fees as part of a contract.
But the bottom line is that most examples here are incorrect, in that they would not result in an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
Also, please stop using the McDonald's coffee case as an example of a broken litigation system, without first having all the facts. The McDonald's case is a good example of how the system is supposed to work...
Ateaist
Pre-takeoff checklist
Except for the no lawyer part, this is exactly what takes place today. Typically the first step that happens after a lawsuit has been filed is that the defendant files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The motion is reviewed by the judge, who decides whether there is a valid claim and whether the suit can be maintained.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Yeah, but the defendant end up incurring legal costs even if it does get dismissed. The defendant should never incur any out of pocket costs on a dismissal.
Ateaist
Pre-takeoff checklist
Except if the defendant is a corporation or other business organization. It's the rule in federal as well as in most (if not all) state courts that a business organization must be represented by licensed outside counsel and cannot represent itself.
It would also be a problem, of course, if the individual being sued is a minor or mentally incapacitated, in which case s(he) would have to be represented by someone.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
That, basically, comes down to the fact that yes, you are permitted to represent yourself in court proceedings. However, a corporation (or LLC) is a separate legal entity, and as such, to represent one requires that you be licensed to practice law.
If you're a sole proprietorship, you can represent yourself regardless of whether it's a personal or business matter.
It also does not matter if it's a business or non-profit for a corporation, still need to be licensed.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Also, please stop using the McDonald's coffee case as an example of a broken litigation system, without first having all the facts. The McDonald's case is a good example of how the system is supposed to work...
Agreed. My understanding is that the coffee was excessively hot to the point of being dangerous. (I'm not taking a position on whether the size of the award was appropriate, however.)
ElPaso Pilot
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,453
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
The case is documented in many locations, but I'll take the easiest.
Somehow, the facts don't live up to the hype some people assign to the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
<background>
If you're talking about the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case it would behoove you to read what actually happened.'
Edit: ElPaso has pretty much the whole thing 2 posts above.
Last edited:
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
I believe the jury chose that figure because it represented the profits McDonald's made on coffee each day.
