Massive Patent Troll Lodsys Drops Its Bogus Patent Lawsuit Which Was Filed To Silence A Critic
from the what-happens-when-they-can-defend-themselves dept
Back in July, we wrote about how notorious patent troll Lodsys -- a "company" (and I use that term very, very loosely) that was set up with some patents from Intellectual Ventures, and has been going around threatening and suing a ton of app developers -- sued Todd Moore's company TMSOFT. The incredible thing here was that Lodsys's lawyer actually admitted to Moore's lawyer that the reason Lodsys had targeted Moore was that Moore had called Lodsys a patent troll on his podcast. In other words, the patent lawsuit had almost nothing to do with patent infringement, but rather was pretty clearly a SLAPP suit, designed to shut up a critic. And, incredibly, Lodsys more or less admitted this.Moore was lucky to team up with Dan Ravicher from PUBPAT who represented him pro bono. While I don't always agree with Ravicher on a variety of patent issues, I respect the work he's done over the years to fight bad patents, and he is one of the few patent lawyers out there who will work on cases like this. Because he didn't have to pay legal fees, Moore could actually fight back, and Lodsys and its lawyers must have known that they were going to lose big time, and with Texas' strong anti-SLAPP law on the books, it was going to cost them. So, it's little surprise to see that Lodsys quickly agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice without Moore having to pay anything. They did get three concessions out of him, though. He had to agree not to sue to invalidate Lodsys' patents, to dismiss his own counterclaims against Lodsys (i.e., the anti-SLAPP stuff) and then make a donation to charity.
The charity bit seems weird, but the guess from Ravicher is that if Moore had turned down the offer, it would be used by Lodsys in court to suggest that Moore wasn't being reasonable, since the case could be ended with just a small donation to a charity (in this case, the Make-a-Wish foundation, after Lodsys rejected both EFF and PUBPAT).
But the latter part of Moore's discussion of what happened reveals why patent trolling is such a big business: this whole thing cost Lodsys next to nothing. Moore fought back because it cost him next to nothing too, but that was only because Ravicher was willing to work pro bono. If Ravicher had charged regular rates, just this month or so of activity would have cost a significant amount:
The total costs to my company would have been $190,000. And that’s just for the initial response to this lawsuit. We hadn't even gotten to court which would have increased that amount into millions. Remember that it only cost Lodsys about $450 to file the lawsuit. This is why small businesses will usually always settle. It’s just not worth it to fight. And even if you could win and get awarded your attorneys fees and costs, which are very rare, you probably won’t see a dime of that money.Many of the lawyers representing patent trolls do so on a contingency basis -- they get paid a cut of whatever comes in -- so the costs to the trolls really is basically just the actual filing costs, while the cost to do even the most minimal defense, as was the case here where it was a slam dunk, quickly jumps into the six figures and beyond. That's a pretty graphic demonstration of why the system is completely and totally broken.
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: patent trolling, patents, slapp, texas, todd moore
Companies: lodsys, tmsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OKAY, we KNOW it's broken! Now tell us how to FIX it!
"cost to do even the most minimal defense" -- Mmm, no, anyone in business should be able to write up a credible defense in an afternoon. This is just incompetence abdicating to lawyers as if you MUST have members of the basically corrupt medieval guild speak for you. -- But for "minimal" all one really need do is get a jury trial and yell like hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Settlement offers are generally not admissible in court. See FRE 408.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We want... a shrubbery!"
I think they also threatened to say, Ni!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would greatly level the playing field and actually make the justice system just.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lets assume that IV etc have made several 10s of millions of people very very angry (or cost them employment etc).
1 in 5 americans suffer from some sort of mental illness.
Big question is...how many of those would be prepared to go after these parasites for revenge?..............
Not a good idea to make that many enemies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Claims Invalid
This patent, and the 7,620,565 patent had terminal disclaimers, which indicate that they expired when patent 5,999,908 expired -- which looks like August 6, 2012. And Lodsys is still sending out communications "offering" to "license." (You can't license an expired patent)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]