Startups Realizing That Patent Trolls Are An Existential Threat
from the time-to-fix-the-problem dept
Most people used to think that patent trolls tended to focus on bigger companies -- those with huge bank accounts who'd rather pay the troll off than deal with a lawsuit. But over the last few years, we've been hearing more and more stories about startups hit by patent trolls, who are taking advantage of the fact that a patent lawsuit -- win or lose -- would almost certainly kill the company. One common tactic? Wait until a startup announces a round of fundraising and then pounce -- knowing that the company (a) has some money and (b) has little time to deal with a lawsuit. Finally, this issue is getting some attention. Crain's recently had a piece on patent trolls going "downmarket" after startups, which has some quotes from startup execs (many who want to remain anonymous to avoid further attacks). One of whom is actually fighting the troll:"I have more lawyers than I have employees," said the entrepreneur, who asked to remain anonymous for fear he would be the target of even more lawsuits.That entrepreneur noted that he's stopped paying himself a salary, and his legal bills ($50,000 per month) were rivaling his overall payroll of $63,000 per month. But he's fighting the troll on principle.
But, of course, even if he wins, he's not going to get that money back:
Young companies that are looking for venture capital are most likely to settle, so goes the conventional wisdom, because they have limited cash and worry that a lawsuit will scare off investors. It's cheap to bring a lawsuit, but expensive—$2.5 million on average—to defend against one. Not surprisingly, the majority of patent suits are settled out of court.This is part of the reason why the SHIELD Act would be a useful step. While there are still many, many problems with patent trolling, at least it would make it possible to go after trolls for legal fees when the trolls lose.
"The system is so stacked against me," said the e-commerce entrepreneur. "To prove I'm right, it will cost me more money than I have raised in my company's existence. If I win, I don't get the money back, and if I lose, I owe triple damages."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: innovations, patents, startups
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just a problem with trolls but with American courts in general
Patent trolling is a symptom of a bigger problem in that the justice system is broken and is often misused as a club to beat up those who do not have the means to defend themselves.
It's sad really. Many mornings I wake up and wonder what country I'm living in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just a problem with trolls but with American courts in general
If someone is breaking into your house or threatening you, you just leave them alone and wait for them to leave, otherwise you break the law.
Another example is that story where a young child at school climbed up a tree that straddled the school property and went over the fence to the sidewalk.
The teachers were instructed to leave the child stuck in the tree because if they attempted to help the child and the child got hurt, then they would be liable. Police would not help either. On the other hand, letting the child attempt to get out of the tree and getting hurt would only leave the child responsible.
Some passer-by saw the child in the tree all alone and the child was calling for help. With no teachers outside, the stranger helped the child down and walked the child to the school.
He got charged with trespassing and kidnapping a child.
Welcome to the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just a problem with trolls but with American courts in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just a problem with trolls but with American courts in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just a problem with trolls but with American courts in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why so expensive?
Can anyone point me to a breakdown of the costs somewhere please?
$2,500,000 just to go to court is ridiculous...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why so expensive?
Part of the problem is that you can no longer just go straight to court. You have to go through a series of settlement conferences that have the goal of getting you to settle out before you actually hit the courtroom. In practice, however, they're just another way to drag the process out more and increase your lawyers' billable hours.
What I'd like to see is a "Plaintiff Pays" system, where if someone wants to sue another person, they have to put up the money for both parties. If the plaintiff wins, they're going to get the money back in the judgement. If they lose, then the defendant isn't being punished for defending themselves.
I'm sure that right there would fix most frivolous lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why so expensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why so expensive?
If I was sued for patent infringement, I literally would not be able to afford to take it to court... and that's where the average person is screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why so expensive?
The costs would also have to be split exactly 50/50, and the defendant could of course opt-out and choose to pay his own legal bills... and pay whatever he wants.
The whole point is that a rich plaintiff should not be able to browbeat a poor defendant in to settling just becuase the defendant can't afford the legal costs of continuing the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why so expensive?
I'm guessing "layer" fees was a typo but apropos since people are being screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why so expensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Age doesn't appear to be an issue here. Even if it was I'd be inclined to believe that it's the OLDER people (the ones who've had time to accrue wealth and power) who are abusing the young(er) owners of start-ups.
It is completely about the patent system and the way that over broad patents give grounds to sue innovators.
And moron back at you for not reading the damn article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Giving away your own IP is commendable and certainly doesn't make someone "the issue".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
startups
I believe the courts are involved in this as it gives them huge sums of money in court fees and that is just sad and should be outed for all to see.
saying that , it could be rather easy to make money for almost everyone if they have a few basic ideas that sound improbable right now or so broad that they cover almost every business in existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes, it's all broken..
Change must start at a fundamental level. Many had hope with Obama's election, and although he can not be a king, he could have done a lot more to keep people inspired. His actions and words quickly became 'safe' and well rehearsed after his election. If only he hadn't played it safe, maybe he could have continued to motivate young people to do something positive for society. Instead, he probably ended up crushing all hope anyone had. After all, if the election of Obama can't change much, what can!?
Want to fix society? Start punishing those who are greedy and immoral at an interpersonal level, instead of sucking up to them to get your daily bowl of food. When society's rules have changed, the government will change to reflect that.
And start raising your kids to be moral, instead of competitive. I know, your kids are soooo special, and sooo much better than everyone who ever walking the earth before. BUT, raising such self-centered, egotistical, members of society further compounds the problems. While I'm NOT at all religious, I can't help but think that religion has traditionally served the very function that we now need (destruction of the ego and imposition of morality).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea
NPE's would then find their patent portfolio's completely worthless. There would be no way of monetizing except via licensing.
It's still a rough idea, but I'm thinking of some way of removing the extortion-by-legal-system that currently exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's an idea
The problem is that two people can't invent the same thing under modern patent law: the first person to invent something gets all the rights to that invention, even if someone else invents the same thing completely on his own.
If I come up with a solution to a problem completely independently of someone else, I should have the right to utilize my solution without paying someone else for my invention.
Fix that, and you've cured the patent system overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Existential Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
partnership
patent US 8,613,269 B2
www.transportationdesigners.com/designer/portfolio/shehterpavel/three/109
The project is under - working drawings.
The next stage - production and testing of prototypes.
1. Changing the design of the head unit existing engine.
Result - 2x magnification power without increasing fuel consumption.
Reducing the number of parts, weight and size of the head and the engine block.
2. Production of the new engine.
Torque 6100 Nm at 100 rev / min.
Power 5000kwt / 10000 rev / min.
Engine weight - 57 kg.
Maximum speed - 20 000 rev / min
Dimensions 870 x 440 x 440 mm.
Shehter Pavel
shehterpol@hotmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]