tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1014836436084091825..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Trolls? We won't have no stinkin' trolls!: Commission "fails to see" the UPC's problem with trollsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2106665382899786882014-01-17T16:39:35.568+00:002014-01-17T16:39:35.568+00:00MaxDrei @ 15:06
Thanks for the tip, but I at leas...MaxDrei @ 15:06<br /><br />Thanks for the tip, but I at least can pretty much tell directly from your post and do not need another anon to tell me the obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10435123481229102032014-01-17T15:06:09.575+00:002014-01-17T15:06:09.575+00:00I think Anonymous in his silence (acquiescence?) m...I think Anonymous in his silence (acquiescence?) makes my case. <br /><br />All he can say in reply is that, when I put "strong" in quotes, and when I refer to "dice", I reveal myself as biassed.<br /><br />Readers, thanks to anon, you are now in a better position to decide, how much weight to put on what I wrote above.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30203942119080793792014-01-17T13:19:35.663+00:002014-01-17T13:19:35.663+00:00"Strong" in quotes,...
Loaded language o..."Strong" in quotes,...<br />Loaded language of "dice are loaded",...<br /><br />Sorry MaxDrei, your bias is too overwhelming for me to give any credence to your views.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68216079805750634132014-01-17T11:16:41.509+00:002014-01-17T11:16:41.509+00:00Good question from Stephen Adams. Here is my attem...Good question from Stephen Adams. Here is my attempt at an answer.<br /><br />Many Americans are very proud of their uniquely "strong" patent system which they say is the reason why, in science and Technology, the USA is the world-leader.<br /><br />What does "strong" mean? Perhaps:<br /><br />1. patent owners can threaten infringement proceedings with no downside cost risk except to pay their own lawyers. No "loser pays" tisk of having to pay costs to the winner.<br /><br />2. But their own lawyers can work on a contingency (no win, no fee) basis<br /><br />3. Patent presumed valid, to the extent that only evidence of invalidity that is "clear and convincing" can prejudice enforceability.<br /><br />4. triple damages awarded against those who "wilfully" infringe.<br /><br />You might well now conclude that the dice are loaded and see how lucrative it can be to threaten big companies with infringement proceedings in the USA. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1773025363312772032014-01-17T10:39:32.719+00:002014-01-17T10:39:32.719+00:00As a non-lawyer, I would appreciate some clarifica...As a non-lawyer, I would appreciate some clarification of this situation. You write:<br />> On Monday, New York's attorney general, Eric Scheniderman, reached a civil settlement with MPHJ Technology Investments LLC which calls for new guidelines to ensure that patent assertion entities (PAE) do not abuse the litigation system by vaguely threatening with no specificity as to what claims of their patents they say are infringed or by failing to disclose their actual identity.<br />I am amazed that such an agreement was in fact required. I am aware that in the UK there is provision for a defendant to counter-claim on the basis of "groundless threat". Does the US not have a similar course of action available? Surely any warning which lacked the information for a third party to understand clearly what they are supposed to have infringed is, by definition, groundless?<br />If there is a genuine difference in the manner in which patent holders can communicate to alleged infringers their intention to enforce their rights, perhaps this is one of the reasons why patent trolls have caught on in the US but not in Europe? <br />Perhaps it is slightly off-topic, but I would be interested to hear others' comments.<br />Thank youStephen Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1427905743884653312014-01-16T09:26:01.377+00:002014-01-16T09:26:01.377+00:00Thanks for that observation, Robot. It helps to re...Thanks for that observation, Robot. It helps to reveal to readers in England that elsewhere in the EU an SME takes it for granted that, up to now, it does enjoy full "access to justice". What would English SME's make of that, I wonder, if they only knew? MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44133120532646694652014-01-16T08:22:18.985+00:002014-01-16T08:22:18.985+00:00@Maxdrei: I come from a EU state where litigation ...@Maxdrei: I come from a EU state where litigation costs are even lower than in Germany, that's why the UPC could really create an issue of "access to justice" here.I'm a robotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76712655746252000742014-01-15T14:16:52.163+00:002014-01-15T14:16:52.163+00:00Hi Robot. As you imply, access to justice is a bi...Hi Robot. As you imply, access to justice is a big thing in England, true. What is the use of Rolls-Royce fact-finding if only Big Corp can afford it?<br /><br />But here in Germany, litigation is not a last but a first resort. Your neighbour has upset you? Get satisfaction! Take a lawyer (there are swarms of them competing for work) and sue the beggar! Remember Hugh Laddie explaining to us that the English courts are not a "branch of Social Services"? Which country do you think he had in mind when he said that? Patent attorneys here are flabbergasted by the (to them) humungeous costs of patent litigation in England. It is as much as I can do to explain to them why the cost is sometimes worth it (more than 95% of cases settle within a year of starting the dispute, less than a third of trialled cases go to appeal, definitive road map of the proven facts available within a year, upon which all the judges in all the other EPC jurisdictions can base their Decisions). So, as of now: horses for courses, choose the jurisdiction to fit. With the UPC: who knows?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34306367387141165182014-01-15T12:12:01.895+00:002014-01-15T12:12:01.895+00:00@MaxDrei:
I guessed that the attorneys' fees ...@MaxDrei:<br /><br />I guessed that the attorneys' fees and court fees for a UPC case will be much higher than for a European national (non-UK) case now.<br /><br />I just raised an issue of access to justice: when litigation costs are high (e.g. as in US), "poor" parties are forced to settle.I'm a robotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78578241979311778232014-01-15T10:58:06.938+00:002014-01-15T10:58:06.938+00:00I agree, it is jarring indeed to see the EU Commis...I agree, it is jarring indeed to see the EU Commission seemingly deny any responsibility for the complex child that is the UPC. Without the EU commission's involvement would the UPC have been agreed upon (albeit by international agreement)? <br /><br />And now that we have it (internationally agreed upon), where does the responsibility lie for its success? Should EU resources be used to support an internationl (non-EU) agreement?<br /><br />And surely, if the UPC is not a child of the EU, then its name should be changed, dropping the "U" (whether that is Union, or Unified or Unitary), else it would be misleading indicating it is of the EU, when seemingly it is not?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56860240820285582122014-01-15T10:49:18.032+00:002014-01-15T10:49:18.032+00:00Hi Robot. That your actual real life experience o...Hi Robot. That your actual real life experience of the German system of patent litigation, is it? Or are you just supposing?<br /><br />When issues are joined, the District Court judge fixes the "value of the case". That fixed value determines the sum of money you will pay to the other side, if you lose. If the set value is low, so too is the cost figure. <br /><br />But high or low, if you win you get your injunction. That is what concerns the likes of Google, that the German system is skewed too far in favour of SME patent owners.<br /><br />MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10723213127679390822014-01-15T10:28:22.426+00:002014-01-15T10:28:22.426+00:00The real problem of the UPC is that it is very com...The real problem of the UPC is that it is very complex and so it will be very expensive for small defendant (e.g. SMEs), who will be then forced to settle to avoid larger expenses.I'm a robotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6841461621494809562014-01-15T09:09:59.318+00:002014-01-15T09:09:59.318+00:00The UPC appears to be based broadly on the existin...The UPC appears to be based broadly on the existing German system of local Courts hearing infringement cases and a central court deciding on validity. Germany is also the engineering power house of Europe with a strong SME culture. Despite this, the troll problem is largely non-existent. In the US, there is no real system of "loser pays" hence the speculative litigation situation where it is cheaper for a defendant to settle rather than fight even a rock-solid case. Why should the UPC lead to a sudden troll Problem for European industry. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81731060267988878852014-01-15T01:52:13.949+00:002014-01-15T01:52:13.949+00:00The "troll" problem is not going away be...The "troll" problem is not going away because it was never there.<br /><br />The United States Government Accountability Office took a neutral look "under the bridge" and found no such "Troll." <br /><br />See http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-465Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67200907021491880642014-01-14T22:45:47.784+00:002014-01-14T22:45:47.784+00:00What is IPCom if not a troll? It has been asserti...What is IPCom if not a troll? It has been asserting its European patents (acquired from Bosch) against Nokia for some years now. Nokia has had to spend millions to defend itself. But did not the UK Courts (no bifurcation there) find at least one patent infringed and not invalid? Does that not vindicate IPCom's position?<br /><br />The USA is uniquely hospitable to those trolls who blackmail patentees with patent claims that turn out in the end to be either invalid or not infringed. What are the unique features of US law? They include: the jury, the chaotic state of patent law on such elementary issues as eligibility under 101 and obviousness under 103, and the presumption of validity (such that it takes evidence that is as high as "clear and convincing" to secure a finding of invalidity) and, finally, punitive damages. None of these Troll-attractive factors is part of the European landscape.<br /><br />And anyway, isn't the troll problem in the USA going away now, with the success and bite of inter-partes re-examination at the USPTO?<br /><br />MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24926677072874568642014-01-14T21:48:28.781+00:002014-01-14T21:48:28.781+00:00The "Troll" problem is largely a mirage....The "Troll" problem is largely a mirage.<br /><br />Overhyped anti-property, anti-patentism on steroids.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57807446806098880492014-01-14T21:45:44.809+00:002014-01-14T21:45:44.809+00:00I wonder if this is an "American problem"...I wonder if this is an "American problem" because in the US there is no such thing as a use requirement, or if in the US, the maximization of business assets is typically a couple steps ahead of the rest of the world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57179138671695003712014-01-14T21:32:27.640+00:002014-01-14T21:32:27.640+00:00Interesting "factual information". Look...Interesting "factual information". Looks more like opinion, speculation and complete unsupported b0ll0cks to me, Mr Barnier. But at least you weren't involved in any way. Definitely not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53726879252356114992014-01-14T20:57:34.909+00:002014-01-14T20:57:34.909+00:00I find it interesting that the Patent Troll matter...I find it interesting that the Patent Troll matter didnt come up until the frauds around the US and foreign Location Based Services patents surfaced and the return of the subsidiary licensing rights were returned to me on Aug6th 2013 after 12 long years of the Standards World stealing my IP... <br /><br />It is amazing to me how many of you distinguished members of the Bar want this to not be true and who want to 'now set aside the rules of the TRIPS and other agreements' to stop me from being able to claim the first status on Earth as an IP Trillionaire.<br /><br />For the record, because of the IETF there is nothing my IP is not a part of today and you (the IP Kat Group) - and this BLOG would simply not exist in this form without the infringers... <br /><br />What no one say coming was Bernie and Congress' response in their creation of the IRC165 Fraud Loss statute with its 2009-09 extensions. <br /><br />So what is that great phrase? - Lets Get Ready to Rummmmmble. <br /><br />Todd Glassey - Owner Subsidiary Licensing - ALL US LOCATION BASED SERVICES controlled under US6370629TGlasseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11302362232700694887noreply@blogger.com