I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't legally sue someone.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Can you verify you are being serious here?

Because, 30 minutes ago you didn't even know what a patent troll was.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Right. I scanned through the article and got the gist of it.

Do they own the patents or not? Seems pretty clear cut to me. If they do, they are legally entitled to sue. If they dont then it is a bullshit lawsuit.

_________________

What are you arguing then?

_________________

They are trolls, and they aren't entitled to compensation because even they know these patents aren't enforceable or applicable. I can sue you for slander and libel right now if I want. It doesn't mean I'm entitled to anything or that I'm not trolling for you to settle.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I suppose the courts will decide if they are entitled to anything or not.

And if you sued me for slander or libel I would let it go to court and win my case.

_________________

I would consider this issue on the same level as cyber-squatting, and hasn't that been outlawed as well?

_________________

At great expense to yourself. If you had the option of either paying your lawyer up front $3,000 to take the case or give me $500 which would you choose?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'd pay the lawyer. I'm sure there is some provision for a countersuit on frivolous lawsuits.

_________________

Sounds like you now understand why they are trolls and why they aren't entitled to compensation.

You are now just saying "Someone should be allowed to file a frivolous lawsuit".

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Rick, but if the patent is legally in place, the trolls deserve compensation. I hate patent trolls, and pretty much the entire patent system as it stands today... but patents do serve a purpose. And as it stands today, the trolls are doing what they are legally allowed to do.

Sure you can. If the person is actually using the patent, it's good. If they bought it with the idea to sue someone later, its not.


I didnt say or imply it was. Im saying if Blackmail was legal, you'd be arguing that its ok because its legal

No, they at least have a case. THey might lose in court but they do have a patent case. In your fake case against me, you are just making up slander and libel. Slander is spoken word so that doesnt make sense. Libel wouldnt apply because I dont think there are statements that hurt your character and I dont think your real name is Boilermaker Rick.... MAybe it is

_________________

Patents purpose is not to make people with no inclination to use them rich.

The law is wrong. I dont think anyone is arguing the legality.

And?

Who is saying frivolous lawsuits can't be filed?

However, you are wrong they deserve compensation. They deserve compensation if they win. What they are doing is extortion. Now, maybe it is somewhat legal extortion but that doesn't mean I have to think it is right or fair.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. I'm not playing ifs, they legally own patents. They are suing people that are using them. Maybe it isnt morally right but it is legal.

_________________

I think that depends on what federal judge you got the case in front of. This is a topic I know intimately. I raised over $2 million in venture capital for a firm called IPDN (previously Microtome) that foresaw e-readers and digital downloads as far back as the 80s and developed a family of process patents covering the field.

Obviously, we didn't have the resources to get into a legal battle with the likes of Samsung or Motorola, but from their standpoint it should make more sense to pay a nominal licesning fee. That was supposed to be our business model. You are free to call it "extortion" if you like, but the patents are legitimate and took much time, effort, and money to develop. The case law supporting their validity can be found in the courts upholding similar process patents in the agricultural field.

Unfortunately, the patent developer went behind the back of the Board of Directors and tried to bully a company called iOmega. We didn't have the funds to follow through.

It was also through my association with this firm that I had the misfortune to meet the most vile cocksucker with whom I have ever had a business relationship, a real douchebag of a professor from SIU named Pierre Barrette. At one Board meeting in St. Louis he provided all the directors with copies of Who Moved My Cheese. After the meeting I packed up my shit and got ready to head out to the airport. As I was walking out he called, "Bob, you forgot your book." I said, "No, I didn't. School's out. I don't take reading assignments these days."

_________________
His mind is not for rent to any God or government.

You don't seem to understand that they don't really have a case. They simply tie up the legal system and make it expensive for both sides. They attack people and companies without major cash flow and simply tie them up in litigation. I could do the same thing to you. When you are looking at either $10,000 of legal bills or a $500 check to Boilermaker Troll Inc. you'll pay the $500.

If they have a case, then they aren't patent trolls! You seem to think patent trolling and patent enforcement are the same thing. They aren't.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'm not telling you to think it is. I'm just saying that the people are legally in their rights to do so. If the courts decide they are right they should be compensated.

People are complaining that they buy up these patents from failing companies. That happens all the time in business, people buy buildings and machinery from failing compaines. THey use it to make money. Same thing here. It just is a dirty sort of way to do it.

_________________

Its not a What if game.

You are espousing the idea "if it's legal= it's fair"


I disagree.

Thanks your honor!! I didnt know you were a judge.

_________________

Dont tell the Judge this. Rick is well versed in all matters of the law. These people have no case.

_________________

Not close to the same thing.

Unless the companies are not actually after the buildings and hoping for a lawsuit settlement.

Its not Rick.

In this particular instance, they dont have a case. Legal minds outside of the CSFMB have confirmed this.

But if he settles, every other podcast is fucked, dont you think?

Thats why I think they'll all (Mohr, Maron, NPR )get together and fight it

You keep going back to "They have the right to sue". I have the right to sue you for anything I want. It doesn't mean it isn't extortion, wrong, and I don't deserve payment. You started this whole saying something like "They own a patent, they deserve to be paid". That is wrong. These are easily frivolous lawsuits. These people only want to settle. They will use any possible way to extend them into litigation for years.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Well, I know what a patent troll is and didn't say "Don't want to read about it" so I have that going for me.

The definition of a patent troll is pretty straight forward. You still seem to think it is the same as patent enforcer. If JORR's company truly did develop something that could stand up in court then he isn't a patent troll. Much of this litigation has no actual chance of being enforced and they spread it all around knowing they'll get some money.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Well I hope they all manage to get enough of you to donate to their cause and put up the good fight and that they win their case.

_________________

It's exhausting going at it with RPB and Brick.

_________________

Much of it? I thought none of them had a case. So some of the trolls are right and some are wrong? Now I'm even more confused...

_________________