JNG’s Comments

• Jan 30th, 2014 @ 10:19am

  Re:

  on Patent Reform Needs Fee Shifting Provisions, Because Judges Almost Never Award Attorneys' Fees
  this "study" uses the same flawed methodology
  
  it starts from the premise that the "denominator" (3400) is the number of patent cases; it is NOT
  
  the number of ACTUAL decisions where fees were requested is a fraction of that figure, so dividing actual favorable opinions (208) by the number of cases instead of number of actual fee requests (unknown) is just plain irresponsible if not fraud
• Jan 30th, 2014 @ 8:03am

  Re:

  on Patent Reform Needs Fee Shifting Provisions, Because Judges Almost Never Award Attorneys' Fees
  the folks who "want reform" are defendants who argue that they've been mistreated, and they've been publishing fake numbers suggesting results like "we only got 6 out of 997 decisions in our favor"
  
  The 997 number is bogus as I suggested some time back; that's number of cases, not number of fee decisions; but that real fact takes a back seat to the nice hyperbolic "6 out of 997" headline
  
  and now of course it turns out the numerator of that ratio is wrong too
  
  if serial infringers want "fee shifting" to alter behavior, they should let contingency fee plaintiffs collect back their 40% they paid to their attorneys to bring the lawsuit
  
  but that never happens either, so the argument is again just an illusory premise that purports to be "fair" to both sides
• Jan 30th, 2014 @ 7:05am

  Re: Fee awards

  on Patent Reform Needs Fee Shifting Provisions, Because Judges Almost Never Award Attorneys' Fees
  so what you're telling me is that the 114 represents both defendants AND plaintiffs, which is kind of hilarious given the squawking from accused infringers that they are the only ones being victimized
  
  the truth is, the term "exceptional" means just that; MENSA says "exceptional" is 2%
  
  so if you use the term in its normal sense, 21 out of 135 denials is hardly... "exceptional"
• Jan 30th, 2014 @ 4:55am

  (untitled comment)

  on Patent Reform Needs Fee Shifting Provisions, Because Judges Almost Never Award Attorneys' Fees
  The geniuses at Lex Machina are off quite a bit:
  
  https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/7047157b-4bdc-0d48-bdfd-5cf37351b5d2
  
  21 cases, not 6
  
  also, the fact that there are 997 cases doesn't mean there were 997 requests for attorneys fees; in many cases defendant knows there is no chance of getting, doesn't file
  
  until they confirm 976 "denials" of fees, I would not be so quick to accept their data - it could be 200 cases, in which case finding 10% "exceptional" is consistent with the useage of that term in ordinary parlance
• Jan 28th, 2014 @ 1:44am

  (untitled comment)

  on Prince Sues 22 Fans For $1 Million Each For Linking To Bootlegs In Laughably Confused Complaint
  Methinks you SEVERELY misunderestimate the caliber and horsepower he is bringing to the table here:
  
  http://www.kayescholer.com/professionals/trotter_rhonda
  
  this is not some random rookie who doesn't know what she is doing - these folks play for keeps
• Jul 12th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

  Netflix nonsense

  on Should Those Sued In Bogus Patent Infringement Cases Be Able To Recover Legal Fees?
  I am the inventor and the person that Netflix tries to malign in their papers. If you want to see the whole story and then make your own judgement, please see my post at:
  
  http://nicdagreek.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/07/setting-the-record-straight.html
  
  After you read what happened I think you have a different opinion about the merits of their request here.