Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

My bias is that I think patents are over-used, over-granted & over-litigated. I think the system is fundamentally broken in favor of incumbents, lawyers, the wealthy. Between the brokenness of the systems these days, and some fundamental mistakes in original the assumptions about what a patent system would do, I think it makes a mockery of the stated intention of patents, to promote innovation. On patent trolls, I think they're an ugly boil that pops up when the underlying system is bad and the running of that system is worse.

So FWIW.. I have an opinion going in. Disclosed.

All that (verbosely) said, I can't join into the delighted cheering wen I hear about a broken and unfair legal system where "my" side is getting the better of it.

This whole system of cherry picking courts, maneuvering, intimidation… When the normal legal strategy is to bury the opponent in legal bills for years while psychologically piling on weight via drawn out legal processes, we (anywhere, I'm not american) do not have a judicious legal system. It's not fair. It's not justice. It's not doing a good job and it's there for lawyers and their wealthy clients. Newegg might be in the right, but that's not why they're winning. They have more money, or better lawyers or whatnot.

What if you don't have the money, disposition or bad ass legal team to fight back, in a bullshit rules fight?

I'm offended.

People aren't cheering because the legal system is doing its job, they're cheering because Newegg is, as you say, in the right, and it's winning.

I don't think there's a single person here cheering who isn't doing it with the unspoken proviso of "the justice system might be fucked up, but at least the good guys are winning this time".

It would be irresponsible not to cheer and applaud Newegg for fighting for the side of morality.

Just to clarify, I'm not criticizing Newegg. I'm just somewhat disgusted at what this story and others illuminates about the legal system.

sorry, but did you read the article? newegg isn't suing for punitive damages, it's suing for a judicial ruling that Rosewill products are not violating the patent troll. this closure would benefit some 20+ other parties that are currently being sued for carrying Rosewill products.

I think just about everybody cheering already knows this stuff about the legal system, so the story illuminates nothing for us. The one new thing it shows is that the good guys are, for once, using the broken system to smack the bad guys around instead of vice versa.

In the US, the success of big-pocket troll-crackers is a a body of legal precedence that smaller defendants can use to more easily defend themselves.

If you don't have the money or bad-ass legal team to break new legal ground, you cheer from your soul that big firms with the money and bad-ass legal team are going to go and do it for you.

That's why I'm encouraged.

That's often true, but this action is limited to the patents belonging to Newegg and the troll. It won't create legal precedent that other companies can use to slay trolls.

But surely it would invalidate the troll's patent in question?

Nope. Take a look at the complaint (linked in the article)--specifically on the last page.

This is correct. They only ask for a judgment that they do not infringe, not that the patent is invalid. They may have done this b/c 1) it's cheaper; 2) they don't want to pay for free-riding by others who will benefit from them taking out this patent; or 3) they want to file for an administrative agency review of the patent's validity, which must be done before you seek such a ruling in court.

From the article: "Newegg's lawsuit asks only for a judicial ruling of non-infringement, not money damages."

What is not fair about this?

As the OP wrote, that you have to have the financial wherewithal of a Newegg to have any hope of fighting these patent troll lawsuits.

That poor NPE troll is going to lose revenue because of this... so it is a money loss for them (so they claim it's not fair).

You're right, the fact that the reason Newegg has money allows them to go after these people. So the system sucks. But why is this not a victory of something big with resources doing the right thing even though it might cost them? Winning a battle when the war is unjust doesn't make the people fighting offensive; it also doesn't make the unjust war anymore appetizing. So be offended, but perhaps in another thread about technology patents.

It's a moderate victory, potentially for potential victims of patent trolling. I have no criticism for Newegg. They're acting well, and others might benefit from that too.

I just don't normally have much dealing with the judicial process. When I look in and hear about something out of general interest like this topic/article I get disgusted and worried. The judiciary is important and it's very bad, offensively so.

Part of the problem is lack of English rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee...

It's not that much better in London. Just older buildings, more wigs and less obvious corruption.

lukasm is presumably referring to the "loser pays" aspect.

"loser pays" does have some disadvantages though - it can actually act to prolong litigation as people will know that if they give up they will face an immediate bill for the other sides costs so they will continue in the small hope they will win.

Doesn't it favour the big guys, though? If I'm a mom-and-pop store and a big guy infringes on my product (for the sake or argument, let's say I have a genuinely good™ patent), were I to sue I'd face the prospect of having to pay however much money it costs them to buy the verdict. I simply would not sue in that case, even if I'd be justified in doing so.

And lose...

If they have to pay the other side if they lose, there would be a lot less lawsuits, so in the end it probably evens out in terms of strain on the legal system.

This claims that the percentage of turnover paid on litigation costs for UK companies is actually higher than it is for US ones:

http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_ma...

NB My wife is a specialist commercial litigation lawyer in the UK and I had discussed this issue with her after seeing it mentioned on HN and she pointed out a lot of issues with "loser pays".

Would you mind sharing those issues your wife pointed out?

Well, it was a while ago and was probably over a shared bottle of wine... :-)

It was one of those occasions where I probably made some comment about how daft the US legal situation sounded to me and she lectured me with a long list of issues with "loser pays" - as she is far brighter than I am I probably didn't quite appreciate the subtleties other than not to remind myself not to make sweeping statements about the legal system around her...

In the land of lawsuits it's worse for the poor, but that doesn't apply for patents.

It's more expensive to go to court.

Please clarify what you mean by this.

English rule = loser pays winner's legal costs. If patent trolls had to pay the legal fees of the other side, if/when the other side won, then the patent trolls would be unprofitable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com