<i>My company TMSOFT was recently sued by Lodsys in the eastern district of Texas.</i><p>Again with this "eastern district of Texas". Might there be a way for the tech community to punish this podunk little area for letting themselves become a thorn in everyone's side? Refuse to ship or sell there? Put something in the TOS that refuses all support for products used there? Seems like something needs to be done to get the attention of the residents of this area and let them know that their local court has been usurped by trolls and is creating a national nuisance. If they all woke up one morning to find that Netflix was out and they couldn't even google why, it might get their attention.
IANAL and I don't have any business to sue, but my mind wanders about "creative" approaches to patent trolls.<p>1. I live in Houston, which is a reasonable drive from the eastern district of Texas. If I got sued, I'd probably show up in court just to make them show up in court.<p>2. I wonder if a layered defense would work? "Every problem in computer science can be solved by yet another level of indirection." I've read about holding company structures where Company A holds the trademarks, code, IP, etc. for a business and then licenses it for use by Company B. Company B is a shell that passes back everything to Company A. The only one doing business potentially "making, using or selling" the potentially patented IP is Company B, which can string the troll along, then close up business overnight and reappear as Company C, with new licensing agreements from Company A. Probably doesn't work long term, but it sure would slow them down.<p>3. What about "patent troll delayers" as a service? These would be people who live near the court that are given, say, 0.01% of the company. As "owners" of the company, they may appear in court pro se, without hiring a lawyer. I think there are requirements to be in the patent bar before appearing in patent trials, so pro se is not an option, but just showing up, acting pissed off, and demanding your rights might gum up enough of the court's docket to be some major friction in the troll's process. We aren't talking about million dollar judgements here, just enough friction to cost more than the settlement amount they were looking for. Imagine if the federal judge had to take time to throw out pro se defendants in hundreds of cases. There goes the court's schedule, and it would make great television.
I'm against conceptual patents like these. I feel they are too abstract, monopolize a common functionality/method, and hurt competition. Way to go Todd Moore, even if they settled for $5, fight what you believe in!<p>A general abstract patent that I can think of in relation is one I researched recently that Comcast filed, patenting online video playlists[0].<p>[0] <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22video+playlist%22&OS=%22video+playlist%22&RS=%22video+playlist%22" rel="nofollow">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...</a>
Patent Trolls are one of the reasons I've kept my small business under the radar and rely on word of mouth or known clients to spread it.<p>I just can't afford it, and I'd rather open source the whole damn thing over giving some random slimeball in texas a dime.<p>I've read about Patent Litigation/Troll Insurance, has anyone tried this? Recommendations?
I generally support the fight against patent trolls, yet one of my biggest frustrations is that way too frequently the nature of discussion online regarding this issue obscures or even hinders substantive legal discussion about ways to actually reform the patent system.<p>Unfortunately, it seems as if there is some of that going on here. Lost among all the valid criticism of Lodsys in the linked article is the actual motion to dismiss their claim. Rather than take the opportunity to challenge Lodsys' patent on validity grounds, which is what would really be needed to push meaningful reform, the author's attorney has chosen to pursue relatively unimportant civil procedure and state law defenses that seem a) unlikely to succeed (although IANYL) and that b) will do absolutely nothing to affect the state of patent law in this country either way.<p>The defendant here isn't paying the "troll toll" because he doesn't want to cough up that money and believes he's in the right. Many of us probably agree with that belief. But it seems a bit disingenuous to write an article championing patent reform yet explicitly avoid the opportunity to take a real stand on that issue all while asking others to put their skin in the game to fight the good fight. Perhaps my time in IP law has left me cynical, so I've asked the author in his comments to address this and I'll update this post if he responds...
I am currently in the same situation. (I posted here on HN a while back: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5272575" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5272575</a>)<p>The author was lucky enough to find a lawyer that will defend him pro bono, but in my case (and I assume many other cases that we don't hear about), the cost of defending is more expensive than settling. The problem is that it is really cheap for patent trolls to file a lawsuit, since they basically copy and paste the claim, which is most likely to be too poorly written to stand a chance in court. I wish the court had a strict approval process.
Here is a simple suggestion to end the lawsuit madness: The loosing party must bear all costs of the process. This is how it works in Germany. Added benefit: The expected value for suing people over the most ridiculous things is suddenly negative.
This sound like "We don't negotiate with ... no not terrorists ... trolls !"<p>@Lodsys: if you are suing patents because of a pod-cast: you are a not only a patent troll, you are a troll in every regard !
I am not very familiar with USA's legal system, but is there no way to sue the troll after winning the trial so that they pay your legal expenses? I know this is possible in some European countries.
Also, is there no way to file criminal charges for harassment (or something similar) against this kinds of companies?