Don't mess with Martha (Stewart): Patent troll's suit met with countersuit

[Renew Deal]

Looks like Lodsys, one of the most notorious of patent trolls in IT, broke that rule when it went after no less a target than Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia.

The lifestyle company came out swinging with a countersuit when a patent claim was lodged against four of the company's iPad magazine apps. It's an expensive and difficult fight, but one that may spare not only Martha Stewart a lot of hassle, but a great many other victims of Lodsys as well.

It also looks like more patent troll victims are electing to come out swinging now that they know they're not alone in this fight.
<snip>

Eventually, bigger firms ended up in the crosshairs of various patent trolls and started fighting back. When Newegg was sued for using a patent that allegedly covered online shopping cart technology, the online retailer fought back. (The troll, an outfit named Soverain Software, has since tried to overturn the defeat by insisting, of all things, that a typo in the court documents is in their favor.)
<snip>

http://www.infoworld.com/t/intellectual-property/dont-mess-martha-stewart-patent-trolls-suit-met-countersuit-227646

The entire article is worth reading. We should keep in mind that DU was one of the first organizations to fight back and bascially ended the existence of Righthaven.

[BlueStreak]

1. I've ben working on a patent troll case the past 6 months. it is absurd.

This troll claims that they essentially own rights to any electronic commercial transaction conducted on the Internet.

The thing is that they will always bail out before letting the thing go to trial because once they get a judgment against their position, they can no longer use it to extort anyone. So if you fight it, they will eventually go away, but the legal process is terribly expensive. To get to the point that it can go to trial, I bet the defendants (in my case, 7 companies working as a team) have probably spent at least $2.5M in legal fees and other expenses.

[Renew Deal]

2. Wouldn't lawyers take on a case like that because they are likely to win?

Or do they have to countersue to "win"

[BlueStreak]

3. I'm not sure I follow you. This is never done on contingency

Lawyers may take accident cases on contingency (they work for free, but get a big percentage of any settlement.) In the case of patent trolls, you don't expect to win a lot of money in the counter-suit. What you are going for is a declaration that the troll's claims are invalid, or that the patent itself is invalid. That puts the troll out of business, at least on that claim. These cases can drag on for years. No lawyer would ever take that on contingency.

[Renew Deal]

4. OK

I don't really know how lawyers get paid.

[BlueStreak]

5. Several ways

The ones with the big ads looking for people with accident claims are often working on contingency. If they think you have a valid claim, then they will take your case for no money down, but a big percentage of any settlement you get by winning in court, or more frequently, by negotiating a settlement out of court. Here's a page that describes that:

http://thompsonhall.com/contingency-fees/

It is isn't a simple case, then you will normally pay the lawyer by the hour (or by the 10-minute segment).

If you use lawyers a lot, then you will probably pay your lawyer a monthly retainer, which is a guarantee of a minimum income to the lawyer even if you have no work for him or her that month. In exchange, the lawyer treats you as a high-priority client.

If you are a large corporation, you will typically have corporate lawyers on staff paid under a regular salary. They will handle routine issues, but you will still probably hire outside counsel for the difficult cases.

[Downwinder]

6. I don't understand how you can patent a process that you never

develop, implement or produce. Isn't that an idea? That would be like Jules Verne having a patent on submarines or Chester Gould having a patent on iPhones.

[BlueStreak]

7. One would think so, but that's the way the system is

And remember that Jefferson was in favor of a very short time for patents -- 4 years if I recall. The idea is to give the inventor a fair hard start, but if the inventor doesn't get moving, then others would be free to take it forward. Now we have exactly the opposite incentives.

And the founders were largely against big inheritances. They saw the problems cause when old money turned European families into aristocracy. They wanted people to be able to pass along enough money to their heirs to get them started, but not so much as to give the old money an unfair advantage.

Like everything else, people pick and choose the founders ideas they want to keep.

[Downwinder]

8. At least we cut off lobbyists from getting

CopyRight residuals for language they submitted for laws.