
 How Newegg crushed the “shopping cart” patent and saved online retail - govind201
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/
======
dankohn1
I founded NetMarket [1], which actually did build the first shopping cart on
the web in August 1994, 5 months before OpenMarket launched and filed their
application. I was deposed in the 2004 Amazon case due to an email Amazon
discovered from Open Market to NetMarket demonstrating that they were aware of
our site. Unfortunately, I didn't have screen shots or source code
definitively demonstrating our work, and Amazon decided to settle for $40 M.

My congratulations to Newegg for their courage and resolve in standing up to
Soverain. At NetMarket, we were proud of ourselves for figuring out after a
few days that we couldn't put the state of the shopping cart items in the URL,
since you lost it with the back button, and so we needed to use a state ID in
the URL as a key to the database. The idea that this was patentable was and is
absurd.

[1] [http://news.cnet.com/E-commerce-
turns-10/2100-1023_3-5304683...](http://news.cnet.com/E-commerce-
turns-10/2100-1023_3-5304683.html)

~~~
robomartin
I'm interested in learning more. Are you saying that one should deliberately
take and store screen shots to document the chronological use of various
technologies? Would screen shots have been pivotal or simply one more checkbox
item?

~~~
ynniv
The lack of durable documentation of prior art is a large part of what keeps
frivilous software patents valid. It would be difficult to establish the date
and authenticity of screenshots, tho. You're usually looking for printed
material like magazines or manuals.

------
pg
These were Open Market's patents? OM tried to get us to license one of them in
about 1997. They didn't try very hard though. I told the OM guy who called me
that I thought the patent was invalid, and he said "ok" and then asked if we
were hiring.

~~~
rudyfink
Yes, Soverain's patents were originally from OM. I think the path was roughly
something like this: OM->Divine Interventures->(holding entities)->Soverain.

'492 assignment history:
[http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=59...](http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=5909492)

'314 assignment history:
[http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=57...](http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=5715314)

Soverain patents by assignment:
[http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=asn...](http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=asne&reel=&frame=&pat=&pub=&asnr=&asnri=&asne=soverain&asnei=&asns=)

------
NelsonMinar
It seems unfair somehow that our whole industry benefits from Newegg
individually taking on the risk and expense of bringing a patent to litigation
and appeal. Maybe more patents would be challenged if there were more
cooperative efforts to bust bad patents.

~~~
rohamg
Dont worry about that: developing a reputation for aggressively fighting
patent trolls has the effect of dissuading trolls from targeting newegg in the
first place. Trolls are likely to target others for a quick settlement rather
than risk losing their golden goose at trial (as happened here).

~~~
alex_c
And this long-term view is, I suspect, how NewEgg justifies the short-term
risk of losing a trial. Never negotiate with terrorists.

~~~
lubujackson
SOYLENT TERRORISM IS CORPORATE PEOPLE!

~~~
pjscott
If you think "Don't negotiate with terrorists" is just overdramatizing, then
you've misread. It's actually a reference to an interesting bit of theory
about deterrence. A country which has a history of negotiating with terrorists
will tend to get more terrorists making demands of them. Conversely, a country
which steadfastly refuses to ever negotiate, _even when this hurts them,_ will
not get as many terrorist demands.

This kind of reasoning also applies to border skirmishes, contract disputes,
and patent trolls.

------
Whitespace
It seems that almost all patent troll cases are tried in the East District of
Texas because that district had strongly favored plaintiffs. I'm then curious:
if a US company refused to do business with Texas citizens -- citing an
inhospitable litigation environment or some such -- could they still be
brought to court in EDTX?

Continuing the thought experiment, what if companies continued to do business
but added a surcharge to products shipped to troll-favorable districts? It
seems that the jurors in those areas would be more intimately aware of patent
trolls if they had to pay a 1% extra fee when they ordered Avon products.

I'm sure some companies do such a thing and just bundle it up with the cost of
the product itself, but I'm curious if any companies took a more forceful
stance.

~~~
bstpierre
It's a Federal court -- you can't avoid jurisdiction just by not doing
business in TX.

My understanding is that it's the trolls that open offices in Tyler just so
that they can file the suit in that district. I.e. the plaintiff is dragging
the defendant into TX, and the defendant can't avoid that court.

~~~
rayiner
Any court, federal or otherwise, has to have personal jurisdiction over the
defendant
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction#Principle...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction#Principles_of_personal_jurisdiction_in_the_United_States)).
The rules are somewhat complex, but it should at least theoretically be
possible to avoid being hauled into court in EDTX by not doing business there,
blocking customers from there, etc.

------
robomartin
From the article:

"The American justice system has issues, but it fundamentally works. The jury
system is sound. Juries are people of good will and have common sense."

This system "fundamentally works" if you have the money to make it work for
you. Most individuals, small and medium businesses simply cannot afford the
cost of seeking justice. In my opinion this is true of civil, business an
criminal law.

Example:

Back when I was younger and far dumber I client stiffed me for about $125K of
work. Of course, off I went to a lawyer. By the time I spent about $8,000 in
legal fees I realized that all I was doing was paying for my attorney and
their attorney to write what I came to call "love letters" to each other. I
called them "love letters" because every time they wrote one, regardless of
content, they got paid handsomely by both parties. I decided to lick my wounds
and move on. Good thing I did. The client ultimately filed for bankruptcy
protection and stiffed a bunch of other businesses out of hundreds of
thousands of dollars. They formed a new corp pretty much in parallel and have
been operating ever since.

Would money have made a difference here? Maybe. Don't know. I had a similar
situation with a large (multi-billion dollar global corp) that cause us huge
damage. There was simply no way to go after them without putting-up at least
$500K in the bank for legal fees. Not a fight I could have considered. And so,
even though they were decidedly in the wrong, they, effectively, "wrote their
own laws" or were able to ignore them because they could fight a fight I
couldn't even begin to consider.

What I do know is that it sure felt like there was a huge asymmetry in
justice. It's almost like one can exist in this parallel universe where the
practical result was that laws simply were not applied in the same way to
those with less money to "buy" justice.

------
glesica
I love the non-lawyerly language... "screw them, seriously, screw them". So
refreshing to hear a corporate guy speak like a human being instead of a
highly trained PR bot.

~~~
ttar
It's the Chinese way :)

------
lukejduncan
> That was OpenMarket, a software company that originally created these
> patents before going out of business in 2001.

Whenever exec's talk about needing to file patents for "self defense" I always
think of cases like this. I don't know anything about OpenMarket, but I'm
guessing they had similar logic. Then they go belly-up and these toxic patents
make their way into a trolls portfolio.

No matter the company, IMHO, it's generally best to abstain from any patent
fishing expeditions.

~~~
DavidAdams
I actually worked for Open Market briefly back in 1998. Don't blame me,
though. Open Market acquired my company, ShopSite, but they were already on a
downward trajectory by that time, and I left to start another company before
the year was out.

But I can report that the company was quite proud of its shopping cart patent,
and its patent portfolio in general, largely because they felt that it
protected them and established them as a major player in the nascent but
growing e-commerce market. There was a sense, though, even then, that the
patent was pure bullshit. I never heard any contemplation of using the patent
offensively, and from what I can recall there was a feeling that if that were
to happen, the same thing would happen to Open Market that happened to this
patent troll. That is to say, that it wouldn't stand up.

Indeed, this is a good cautionary tale as to the havoc that "defensive"
patents can wreak once they get into the hands of trolls.

------
bentoner
_The company won't hire law firms that take on patent troll cases, and its top
lawyer, Lee Cheng, is vocal about his view that others should take the same
approach._

Is there a site somewhere listing which firms represent patent trolls?

~~~
eksith
If there is a site, it will need to keep changing almost weekly. Trolls are
notorious for closing up shop and starting new companies with new names and
hiding behind subsidiaries. Likewise legal offices that work with them are
very tight-lipped.

It's the software litigation equivalent of defending terrorists after all.

If a name is sold to another company and the index hadn't been updated, the
new company and name will be at risk for misdirected rage.

------
arbuge
Comparing patent trolls to bacteria would be an unforgivable and entirely
unwarranted insult to bacteria everywhere. Even the plague bacterium deserves
better.

We need to see alot more of this happening - hopefully this will show people
there is another way to go, i.e. never ever settle with a patent troll, no
matter how scary the alternative may seem to be. 3 patents invalidated but
thousands to go. It is disgusting that these trolls managed to collect so much
money before their garbage patents were ruled as such.

~~~
waqf
You will never win by directing your anger at the people who are just
responding to the incentives provided by the system.

~~~
mfringel
They are willfully responding, and that makes all the difference in the world.

~~~
monochromatic
What does that even mean?

~~~
svachalek
They are not robots, they make choices. If I offered money to steal babies,
that's an incentive. If someone did it and tried to defend themselves by
saying "I was just responding to the incentive" that does not make them any
less reprehensible.

~~~
rdwallis
Sadly, when people are offered money to steal babies they steal babies.[1] The
moral outrage is important because it increases the cost of the action but
removing the incentive is generally a more effective way to change behavior.

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/china/21570762-curb-
widespread...](http://www.economist.com/news/china/21570762-curb-widespread-
trafficking-abducted-children-officials-and-parents-are-turning-social)

------
robomartin
We need more of this. A lot more. We also need to stigmatize law-firms willing
to take-on patent troll clients.

Looking at the companies who got sued by these trolls one can only wonder why
it is that these companies don't unite to create a legal and financial
firewall of sorts to go against trolls each and every time they stick their
heads out of the slime they live in. All you really need is for trolls to be
summarily destroyed for a few years to create the conditions for change.

I have not bought anything from Newegg in a long, long time. Sometimes I
almost instinctively just buy through Amazon. Now it will be different.
Because I admire, respect and appreciate what Newegg did here I will do my
small part and move whatever business I can their way. It's my own little way
of saying "thank you" to a company that didn't just stand-up for themselves
but rather for all of us.

Maybe if enough of us chose to vote with our cash more companies might be
convinced to fight trolls rather than cave in.

------
kissickas
Great news. I was surprised to read that in a way similar to the Apple case
against Samsung, the judge (in the Apple case, it was the foreman) told the
jury to completely ignore the validity of the patents in District Court. It
still makes absolutely no sense to me, so if someone could fill me in I would
appreciate it.

I read that the judge said jurors would be confused... is this normal in any
other type of case? Not a satisfying explanation.

~~~
unavoidable
No, I think you may be confusing some things here. Sometimes judges give
juries instructions to ignore a particular part of a case when making findings
for another part of the case. This makes it easier to rule on a case when it
goes to appeal. For a patent trial, often the judge will instruct the juries
to consider the issue of infringement alone, assuming that the underlying
patents are valid, and then consider the validity question separately.

So on appeal, the appellate court can overturn a specific finding (i.e. one of
the underlying claims are invalid) but not overrule the overall finding (i.e.
the infringement finding is still valid because they found that if certain
other claims were valid then the defendant did infringe).

This is obviously more complicated in practice because juries are supposed to
only decide issues of fact and not issues of law - but in some cases it's
difficult to say exactly what is law and what is fact. This is especially so
in patent law, where the actual letters patent are supposed to be interpreted
in light of the relevant patent legislation, and often turns on interpretation
of words (which are questions of law).

This is, by the way, why patent trolls like jury trials. It's easy to bog down
processes in these trials and confuse the jury.

As for the Samsumg case, that's complicated by a generally ignorant foreman
who seems to have convinced fellow jurors that his interpretation of the law
was correct.

------
Glayden
Kudos to Newegg, but this system is sooo very broken and badly in need of
reform.

Large established and heavily profitable organizations like Newegg might be
able to pull this off, but what about all the small startups that are forced
into bankruptcy by settling when the trolls come knocking? They don't have the
resources to put up a fight. If larger companies tend to fight the tedious and
expensive legal battles or avoid getting harassed by other companies by
building up their own stash of patents that they can use to retaliate, in the
long term what it really does is incentivize companies to go after larger
numbers of smaller fish that can't put up a fight.

------
c0nfused
To celebrate this I am going to go buy some expensive electronics from newegg.

~~~
Cryode
I was gonna say, I might not shop around to save $3 next time NewEgg has
something I want. Kudos to them.

~~~
peejaybee
I'll go one better -- I'm not going to shop around at all next time I want
something NewEgg has.

------
creamyhorror
A victory for common sense, the tech industry, and right-thinking citizens
everywhere. May the gods of the market continue to smile upon Newegg (a
prosperous Lunar New Year to them!).

Points of interest to me:

Lee Cheng: _And we'll take a case through trial as a matter of principle
because we want to accomplish the purpose of making good law. Like eBay did,
like Quanta did when they challenged LG. It's part of our duty as a good
corporate citizen to try to accelerate the rationalization of patent law._

This guy talks like a crusader for just law instead of an executive or
business owner. You'd pretty never hear this from anyone in a public company,
it just wouldn't be possible. More's the pity that most people can't really
achieve big results like this; we have to retain ownership of our businesses
in order to really live out our principles.

-

A commenter on Ars, on why no one else fought Soverain to the end:

 _I think the problem from most defendants' perspective is that they can just
pass the costs along to their customers without facing any strategic
disadvantage. Compared to its competitors, does Newegg winning this lawsuit
give them any competitive advantage? After all, their competitors are no
longer subject to paying for the invalidated settlements either.

By paying the settlements, the companies reinforce an awful system, but they
also don't need to face the volatility and potential cost of a jury-trial in
districts cherry-picked by the trolls. By going to trial, the defendant only
stands to maintain patent troll cost parity with their competitors (if they
win and invalidate their competitors' settlements)- or they lose and get hit
with a judgment that could be extremely costly.

Further, in most organizations, management risks the ire of their shareholders
should they elect to go to trial and lose. They're again put in a situation
where their personal risks outweigh any benefits they stand to gain. Even for
executives that consider themselves ethical, they can still rationalize that
minimizing risk to the shareholders is the ethical decision._

-

This seems true enough - from a (rational) game-theoretic perspective, why
should any victim really fight hard to overcome a troll, if in doing so they
risk big losses, and don't gain any advantage over their competition _even if
they win_? The main potential upside is that consumers and potential partners
will view them more favorably and give them more business (as is happening
now), but this is a very unreliable bet to make. The downsides of "doing the
right thing" are very likely greater than the upsides.

The main motivator to fight the trolls has to be personal principle, and even
then the principled person has to balance it against the real risks to his
company and lifestyle. Newegg had the gumption and muscle to see the case to
its end, but it was the lucky one, the one-in-a-hundred with the right
attributes (principled owners, private ownership, deep pockets). We're not
likely to see this kind of thing happen very often, with the odds stacked
against what should be the right outcome.

And that's all the more reason to salute Lee Cheng, Fred Chang, and James Wu
and their victory against profiteers in a flawed system. CEO Fred Chang
probably deserves as many, if not more, accolades as Lee Cheng, for deciding
as the major shareholder to take this battle to its end.

~~~
ScottBurson
I understand that the recent pattern has been that settling with one troll
brings more out of the woodwork.

Once that becomes common knowledge, I think it has to change the calculation.
Settling is no longer about how much the troll in front of you is asking for;
it's about the unknown number behind them in line, as well.

While it certainly sucks to have to bet your company to get these trolls to go
away, if the alternative is for dozens of them to bleed you slowly dry, the
bet may seem more worth taking.

~~~
creamyhorror
Indeed, and this increased risk would make it an even greater imperative for
potential victims to form or support a patent-busting cooperative as suggested
by several commenters already - much like how some prey animals form defensive
herds against hunting packs. Hopefully cases like these will push companies to
band together and not remain tight-lipped like they were on the Soverain case
(until Newegg broke the chain).

There's a coalition for the open Internet, why not a coalition for fair
innovation in technology? (Perhaps in collaboration with the EFF's Defend
Innovation initiative?)[1]

[1] <https://defendinnovation.org/>

edit: Interesting trivia from a legal news site:

<http://www.americanlawyer.com/digestTAL.jsp?id=1358711387829>

 _In Tuesday's decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that three of Soverain's
core patents are invalid on obviousness grounds. "The district court's
conclusion that a prima facie case of obviousness was not met is not explained
by the court by Soverain, and does not accord with the record," the appellate
panel ruled. "[T]he trial record contains extensive testimony of the experts
for both sides, discussing every claimed element of the patented subject
matter and the prior art system."_

If I understand this right, Judge Davis simply ignored all Newegg's testimony
about prior art and ruled that they hadn't even made a prima facie case for
obviousness. Thankfully the Court of Appeals didn't think so. I wonder if
Davis was simply leaving the issue of patent validity to a higher court to
decide, or if he really had a good legal reason to ignore prior art and the
evidence for obviousness. The Soverain lawyer's blogpost provides an inside
view on the 2010 case:
[http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2010/08/j...](http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2010/08/jmol-
rulings-in-soverain-v-newegg-damages-experts-future-royalties-jmol-standards-
obviousness-etc.html)

In the end the jury's $2.5m award might not even have covered Soverain's legal
costs, meaning that it wasn't a win for them either - more of a draw.

Reading the fresh Appeals opinion is interesting too:
[http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-
orders/...](http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-
orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF)

 _Precedent agrees with Newegg that a person of ordinary skill[2] could have
adapted the CompuServe order command to known browser capabilities when these
capabilities became commonplace, and that it was obvious to do so. The product
identifier message term does not distinguish the shopping cart claims from the
prior art CompuServe Mall._

Clearly sensible reasoning, not misled by technicalities and sophistry - I
like it. The opinion is basically a no-nonsense slap-down of Soverain's
arguments and Davis's ruling, which will no doubt restore your confidence in
the justice system a little. It was surprisingly easy for a layman like me to
read, too.

------
cfontes
This phrase alone makes me want to buy stuff there...

"For Newegg's chief legal officer Lee Cheng, it's a huge validation of the
strategy the company decided to pursue back in 2007: not to settle with patent
trolls. Ever."

------
DanBC
Surprising that so many companies paid so much money before NewEgg found and
used the Compuserve prior art.

And it's a shame there isn't much cooperation between people attacked by
patent trolls. It feels like there could be benefits of scale if you have 5
firms cooperating against a troll.

~~~
shmerl
Yeah, a very obvious idea comes to mind - all affected by the same patent
troll should pool resources to support at least one steadfast fighter in order
to bust the troll, instead of spreading resources thin.

------
chris_wot
After a troll loses, do they have repay all money they gained from others?

~~~
csense
You never know, one of those extorted licensees might not just be in it for
the litigation immunity -- they might actually be using that ancient
software...

~~~
illuminate
Then they would pre-license and not need the litigation?

------
michaelwww
I'm in the market for a new PC and now I'm definitely buying from Newegg.

~~~
shmerl
I use them all the time when I need to buy some computer hardware. Except in
cases when they don't have what I need. They have excellent customer service
and return policy. And seeing that they have strong stance against patent
trolls gives another good reason to support them.

------
s0rce
I'm pretty amazed that the lawyers/consultants somehow came up with the
Compuserve Mall as evidence.

~~~
ams6110
Nothing is really new in software anymore. It only seems that way to people
who are too young to recognize the old ideas that are being recycled.

~~~
DigitalJack

       What has been is what will be, 
       and what has been done is what will be done, 
       and there is nothing new under the sun.
    
       (Ec 1:9)

------
joshfraser
Every internet retailer owes Newegg a really nice gift basket right now.

~~~
mhartl
I suppose that means they'd be putting all their baskets in one Newegg.

~~~
creamyhorror
I think I just gave you your 7000th karmapoint for that comment.

~~~
mhartl
Looks like it. Thanks!

------
Claudus
Really glad to see this, these costs to pay patent trolls would have been
passed along to the consumer in some way.

Good job, Newegg!

------
likeclockwork
I can't even believe there WAS a shopping cart patent.

I mean, what?

How else are you supposed to do it?

I mean.. seriously? They patented the concept of keeping track of things a
customer intends to buy?

If no one had ever done this before, how many people would arrive a this
solution tomorrow?

It's not hard to implement and absurdly obvious to even think of.

~~~
chetan_prasad
these patent trolls are everywhere, whats worse is even the big names in the
industry are doing similar things!!!

patents if anything should allow innovation but not be a bump on the way to
innovation!!!

------
jessaustin
_...the patent-holding company was still able to hire another top law firm:
Quinn Emanuel. That same law firm has done loads of defense work for Google
and has become the search giant's go-to patent-troll killer; it's the same
firm that defended Samsung in its blockbuster showdown with Apple._

This reminds me of the classic pre-emptive divorce maneuver Tony Soprano
pulled:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Black_Males#Episod...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Black_Males#Episode_recap)

If you don't want to get sued by patent trolls, get all patent troll attorneys
on retainer.

------
dear
Someone should create a website as a meeting point for those affected by
patent trolls. Anyone affected can go on this website and look for their
"peers" so they can pool their resources to fight off the evils.

------
lubujackson
So the patents were invalidated because CompuServe did it first. The problem
doesn't seem to be in any way improved. If CompuServe held the patents, this
would still be a valid lawsuit, no?

~~~
DigitalJack
Compuserve's prior art was in 1984, so if they had patents on it, they'd have
expired in 2004.

I take your point though. Can you imagine having to pay royalties to
Compuserve over a shopping cart in 2003?

~~~
fpgeek
Not necessarily. 20 years from application only just became the law.
Compuserve would have been working under 17 years from grant. And, IIRC, they
could have been evil and kept filing follow-on claims to delay grant until a
time they though was advantageous (e.g. waiting until after Amazon became
big).

You'd think that's crazy, but the universal search patent Apple is bedeviling
Android with has a priority date that goes all the way back to 2000 (this is
why Google Desktop Search is not the vaporizing prior art it should be), but
wasn't actually issued until December 27, 2011! And if I understand the rules
correctly, absent successful invalidation that means we're stuck with Apple
"owning" universal search until almost 2029.

See: <http://www.google.com/patents/US8086604>

~~~
vonmoltke
> 20 years from application only just became the law.

It became effective June 8, 1995:
[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html#sect270...](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html#sect2701)

------
metaperl
How does Newegg recoup the loss of time and money involved in raising this
lawsuit?

Wouldnt it make sense for Hacker News to provide an affiliate URL to Newegg?
After all, you wouldnt be shopping there if it werent for YC notifying you of
their noble actions - YC is driving business to them and receiving no sales
commissions.

------
silentmars
Anyone else read the article, see the picture of Lee Cheng and say to
themselves, "damn I wish I was that guy"?

------
abcd_f
Does this reverse the payments made by Amazon et al to date? Or will this
troll lawyer lady keep sitting on the millions and looking for another way to
do the same thing? Like going after smaller potatoes, but in much large
numbers.

------
linuxhansl
Assuming Soverain does to have pay back prior settlements it was probably
still a very lucrative business in extortion.

Is there a legal way to make them pay for their prior litigation? Or to force
them to pay Neweggs legal fees?

~~~
talmand
I would imagine any monies that Soverain had collected have already been
dispersed to benefactors and is untouchable. Newegg could possibly sue to get
legal fees back but why bother? There's probably no money to be had.

------
damian2000
I wonder what percentage of lawyers are actually ethical and wouldn't
represent these trolls? Is there any blowback for their lawyers for
representing something that was obviously a sham from the very beginning?

------
Friedduck
Why hasn't there been a boycott of businesses in the East Texas district where
all these judgments originate? Or at least some social action against Texas to
try to shame them into behaving responsibly?

Could it gain traction?

~~~
talmand
So, you wish to punish an entire region of people because of the actions of a
few?

Seems reasonable.

------
hakaaaaak
The U.S. needs patent law/tort reform- something to stop this nonsense without
reputable companies having to pay millions to patent trolls. I'll definitely
make sure to buy from newegg next Christmas.

------
ck2
They did more to save online retail with just fighting a patent - they have
excellent customer service.

Not quite as good as Amazon but way up there.

------
d4vlx
Does anyone know if invalidating patents affects previous settlements? Could
the company that settled sue for their money back?

------
linuxhansl
It's a shame that prior art was even necessary here. Isn't this plainly
"obvious to anybody skilled in this field"?

------
nonamegiven
Why is East Texas a troll haven? Are companies donating money to schools or
paying bribes?

------
shmerl
Kudos to Newegg for being steadfast and busting another greedy patent troll.

------
dangayle
"Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that."

Best quote of the day

------
crag
I'll be shopping at Newegg, now.

