The kicker? If you fight back, it costs a ton in legal fees, and even if you win, you can’t recover those fees — because the LLC’s only asset is the patent itself.
Just insane to me we would take a step back like this.
The kicker? If you fight back, it costs a ton in legal fees, and even if you win, you can’t recover those fees — because the LLC’s only asset is the patent itself.
Just insane to me we would take a step back like this.
[0] See https://www.oncontracts.com/monster-cables-picked-the-wrong-... (self-cite).
Sumptuous!
> RE: Your letter, received April Fools' Day
> Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster's, in form or function, the better.
> Similarly, as I note further below, you omit reference to another patent Monster has held which appears, frankly to be fatal to your position. If you expect to persuade me, you had better start making full, open and honest disclosures
> It looks like when you sent this letter, you were operating on the premise that I am not smart enough to see through your deceptions or sophisticated enough to intelligently evaluate your claims; shame on you.
> You are welcome to point out any errors in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.
> It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw
Send out 1,000s of dubious demand letters which don't cost much. Some percent of those will settle with minimal effort on the troll's side. Profit.
Drop the ones that look expensive and hope they don't counter sue.
In some countries you can sue for "unjustifiable threats to begin patent infringement proceedings", but I was also thinking things like filing complaints with the relevant Bar associations. That sort of thing.
In other words, their real business model, the reason that they can be considered a "safe investment" is that they operate as an extortion racket at scale with the justice system itself as their (free) muscle.
1. You buy "litigation insurance."
2. You state that you are insured on your website.
3. The insurance company is required to defend in all patent cases that arise, so there is no doubt that you will be represented in court.
4. Nobody sues.
5. The insurance company makes a profit with no cost or risk.
I have no experience with this, and the only time I've gone and tried to get quoted for things like cyber liability, etc, the costs are incredible relative to the value of the business and revenues.
A patent troll will take a look at such a policy and do the bare minimum to give off the appearance of a ‘real’ company.
And then the insurance company will simply go “yep, that tracks”, with little incentive to investigate as it’s not in their best interest.
Probably ineffective too, as some part of your firm must hold the assets, and that's the part that gets sued
I am noting you have not said how this ended up. What does 'we ended up fighting it a bit because of "principles" of our founder.
It's for sure scummy, but from what I've read about patent trolls, usually they get to continue until they eventually run into someone principled (and bankrolled) and then they lose their patent due to prior art in many cases.
I've never heard of them getting in actual trouble.
The more people know that someone is doing unscrupulous things the more people can choose to not do business with that person or interact with them in a friendly matter.
Ideally this would lead to a scenario where they lose the means to continue to do unacceptable things and they would be forced to stop.
Given these parameters, how would making them a pariah change the functioning of the business?
They have friends, family, a community that they belong to.
Affecting their relationship with those things hurts them.
I'm kind of confused why 'name and shame' requires such an in-depth explanation. Patent trolls arent the first kind of social parasite to exist and their parasitism doesn't render them immune to all forms of pressure.
Social pressure is often one of the most effective ways of pressuring someone.
Plus, poor people cannot afford the litigation costs...
- Plutarch
Reality is in favor of the powerful and wealthy. It's practically a tautological statement that powerful people are more powerful than those who are not.
Poor people do have the option of seeking pro bono, contingency (lawyers paid from winnings or settlements), or other means, but they will still not have things like daycare / nanny for children, free time (still need to work to pay bills while trial is pending), prepared meals, staff to handle shopping / laundry / cleaning, or a billion other things that make the stress of going through the court system easier to bear.
You could probably say goodbye to pro bono or contingency work if you also had to prove you have the money to pay legal fees before you could go to court.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
-- Anatole France
It’s not that lawyers told me there wasn’t a case. Instead, they said it was “too complicated.” One attorney spent a week supposedly weighing my meticulously prepared case, only to dismiss it with a curt email: “Regrettably, we have too many other cases to manage additional workloads at this time.” After that, my emails went unanswered, my pleas seemingly silenced by convenience.
Apparently, lawyers today prefer the ripest, lowest hanging fruit, the easy cases promising easy profits. In our society, drowning in incompetence, there’s no shortage of simpler, safer bets. Yet, you’d think there would still be at least a few brave souls seeking justice, not only easy money, who would choose righteousness over profit, integrity over convenience. But I learned the hard way that righteousness rarely outweighs the bottom line.
I handed them an almost complete case, indexed, transcribed, painstakingly timestamped. They didn’t even bother to read it. Beyond the injustice, what wounds me most deeply is the realization that my father’s profound decency, the quiet dignity and unwavering ethics that defined his life, ultimately meant nothing in a system indifferent to such virtues. His goodness didn’t offer him protection or redemption in death. Perhaps it was naive to believe that it ever could.
This realization doesn’t just hurt, it isolates, minimizes, and disillusions. It deepens the bitterness of loss. Forgive me for venting my frustration this way, but it’s all I have left.
I’m sorry, Dad. I truly tried. Turns out, you were right about lawyers, too. I’m writing this with just a few weeks remaining in the statute of limitations. It doesn’t have to be like this, but all indications are that decency simply costs too much for those in power.
On the surface by stories related that certainly appears to be the case.
However we don't have any data (only anecdotes) on how many patents are pursued this way that are actually valid. And 'back in the old days' it used to be that you could have an actual patent and then get shafted by some large corporation simply because they could afford lawyers and you couldn't (meaning 'mr small inventor')
What I am saying in no way means I don't think there is probably abuse (there are enough anecdotes to think 'something is wrong here') but really we need the entire picture and dataset to decide that (in all fairness).
But they generally don't have a patent that covers anything real. Even ignoring the situations where the patent is indefensible through defects in process or due to prior art, the claims in these patents often don't actually read against the businesses being sued.
The problem is that it takes tens of thousands of dollars per patent to get an opinion from your own lawyers about whether the patents bear on your products or processes and you pretty much have to do that even if you never go to court.
If someone has (what you have called) 'a legitimate patent' then they have the right (whether they use the patent or not) to then pursue legal action to either stop use of the patent or to settle for money damages.
What companies don't like is someone coming along with the ability to engage legal help that they wouldn't be able to do with out the attorneys that are handling this (to gain a payoff for themselves which well attorneys do for other things).
However while this seems different than similar things that happen (with actual companies with legal resources) it's really just the same thing just by different parties.
If let's say General Electric has a patent on something and you use that patent GE can come after you (and probably will). Same as with large companies defending their IP (trademarks).
"GE defending a patent they use in their products" and "an LLC with one patent as an asset and no real business outside of defending said patent" are two entirely different situations, even if legally they're the "same."