

Vermont Attorney General Sues Patent Troll - ilamont
http://greenmountainip.com/breaking-vermont-attorney-general-sues-patent-troll/

======
will_brown
I commented on this very patent troll here:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5708624>

"some of the more egregious (maybe unlawful) examples but it will become more
common."

Maybe on one end I was right about unlawful, on the other end I may have been
wrong that this will become more common depending on how this case goes in
what the AG describes as "a-first-of-its-kind lawsuit."

Kudos to the AG here, but I think the "victims" of the patent troll should
seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited
to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to
mention challenging the patent itself).

~~~
bspatafora
> I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by
> filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference
> with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the
> patent itself).

I don't think it's reasonable to expect all or even many of the victims to
have the resources to devote to challenging this kind of thing, especially
considering that MPHJ Technology is certainly not the only patent troll out
there. Having a state AG take action makes it more of a fair fight.

~~~
will_brown
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the individuals have legal
rights in addition to the AG, it is not as though the AG can not move forward
because an individual party is enforcing their legal rights.

As far as resources, you are correct, that is why the troll in this case went
after end users, because they are less likely to have the resources to defend
or initiate a legal action; however, the manufacturers of the copy machines
have standing and resources to protect their IP and business interests that
the troll is tortiously interfering with, same with the retailers.

------
mullingitover
In a less ethically bankrupt legal profession that I'm imagining, there's a
thing called a Bar. The Bar has an ethics board, and they immediately take
notice of goings-on like this troll's tactics. They quickly strip him of his
authority to practice law, because his behavior is wantonly unethical (though
technically legal), and it's disastrous to the reputation of the entire legal
profession. (Also, in this hypothetical world, the legal profession cares
about it's reputation.)

------
larrys
Here is the actual complaint:

[http://www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/Vermont%20v%20MPHJ%2...](http://www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/Vermont%20v%20MPHJ%20Technologies%20Complaint.pdf)

~~~
kcbanner
The list of shell companies is amazing.

~~~
mkehrt
I'm a little concerned that it only goes up to J.

------
larrys
A quick scan shows that at least one of the claims made by the attorney
general seems a bit dubious:

"Targeting small businesses that were unlikely to have the resources to fight
patent-litigation, or even to pay patent counsel".

When has that ever mattered in any legal proceeding anymore than ignorance of
the law being used to counter some legal process?

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
That choice of prioritization of targets could reasonably be interpreted as
circumstantial evidence of fraud, because it bears strong semblance to how
certain criminals behave (e.g. people who steal from old ladies).

Common sense for honest folk suggests you go after people with money when you
have a legitimate claim -- in other words, go after the large businesses whose
violation of your rights will look embarrassing under the bright lights of a
courtroom. The alleged troll is choosing the opposite strategy.

~~~
larrys
Agree with the "deep pockets" as standard operating practice in law suits but
there are definitely cases where people without deep pockets are sued and
there is no fraud just the same.

Next, I'm not defending their actions (trolls that is) however there is no
supporting evidence in the complaint (that would come out at trial of course)
as to what constitutes a "small business" which is interpreted in various
ways.

"That choice of prioritization of targets"

We don't know that other than what the AG has said. There is no list of all
the targets so we don't know whether 100% of them are two person businesses
(for example) or not.

One of the claims that the attorney general makes is that the defendants
"can't pay for patent counsel" in other words can't pay (I'm assuming) to even
ask a question of an attorney (a simple consult).

Of course we all know what is going on here (looks and quacks like a duck) I
guess it just bothers me a bit that the attorney general appears to be using
language to gain points with voters by appearing to be fighting for the little
guy. Because that gains sympathy and political capital. I wouldn't be
surprised at all if the trolls also targeted businesses (that while "small")
had employees and could easily afford to pay for legal advice (add: even if
just randomly, by accident or intentionally "shit at the fan").

~~~
scott_s
If the Attorney General _is_ fighting for "the little guy", then I have no
problem if he gains political capital while doing so.

The larger point is that the trolls are clearly trying to find companies that
are unlikely to fight back, even if they sometimes miss. Yes, that kind of
behavior does not mean their _must_ be fraud, but it's an indicator.

------
larrys
Not sure why, other than to evoke some kind of emotional reaction, why it
matters that "at least two of these businesses are non-profits that assist
developmentally disabled Vermonters".

~~~
dublinben
AFAIK, patents are supposed to prevent unlicensed _commercial_ activity. Non-
profits don't (generally) engage in commercial activity.

~~~
larrys
Not the case apparently:

[http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/01/lancor-sues-
non...](http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/01/lancor-sues-non-profit-
charity-olpc-for-20-million/)

