Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah. Patent trolls acquire portfolios of vague patents, and then mass-file suits against companies that might plausibly be argued to be infringing those patents, in the hopes that the company settles to make them go away. Filing is cheap for the plaintiff (patent troll).
If the defendant (the company accuded of infringement) fights the case, they have to spend a ton of money on expert witnesses, discovery, etc.
Under this proposal, the defendant would, in addition to the usual expenses, also have to contribute to the patent troll's war chest.
If the patent troll and the legal firm representing them, you could end up with the following situation
The plaintiff gains $50,000 every time they file and lose a case in this system.
Is the burden of proof not on the plaintiff? I thought it was almost always intrinsically harder to prosecute a patent case than to defend. Broadly, aren't differences usually easier to spot than similarities?
Of course, kick-backs of any sort would have to be heavily regulated and harshly punished.
It is fairly hard to prosecute a patent case and win if the defendant fights you. But if the defendant doesn't defend themselves pretty easy to win, it's a civil case so the standard is preponderance of evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt (disclaimer: ianal).
Why don't we start with getting this proposal implemented robustly since it seems to be a hard prerequisite, and see where we end up at that point?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link