

Judge Orders Failed Copyright Troll to Forfeit 'All' Copyrights - hansbo
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/judge-orders-failed-copyright-troll-to-forfeit-all-copyrights.ars

======
vibrunazo
> But if someone does defend himself, the law allows the prevailing party in
> an infringement case to be awarded its legal fees and costs, even if it were
> the defendant.

I know it's a common strategy for patent trolls and extortionists in the US to
count on the fact that the defendant cannot afford to defend themselves and
would lose money even if they win the case. So small developers usually settle
before going to court even on bogus patents.

Is it a different when applied to patents than to copyright? So on which cases
are the defendant actually awarded its costs? Which ones are not? What's the
difference? Is this case in the article maybe an exemplary case that might
change how judges award defendants with its costs? Could this help set patent
trolls back from suing small developers?

~~~
ComputerGuru
The real difference is that it's expensive as hell to get a patent in the
first place, even if you're an independent inventor.

I just finished writing and filing my own - for normal entities, a normal
patent is around $2000 dollars to file with the USPTO, for "small entity"
inventors its $600. But that's before the ~two years it takes for the USPTO to
review your case and the costs of fixing and refiling. With rush fees, and to
get the USPTO to actually review your application in this lifetime (just
kidding.. well kinda), add another 10k.

If you want to go with a lawyer (and these days, unless you're willing to
literally spend _months_ drafting your application and researching previous
claims, it's really hard to avoid) you'll spend anywhere from $5k for a basic
patent to $20k for something building on existing tech for a "real world"
product.

Whereas copyright is a) instantaneous and self-evident (you don't need to
"file" for copyright) and b) actually a much more powerful protection. With
patents from small inventors, you have a lot more at stake (enough that it was
worth it to go through that process), a lot more has already been invested (so
there's more to protect), but simultaneously protecting it against bogus
claims is also more expensive.

------
zdw
Interesting that he's going to auction off the copyrights that they have...

I've held the view for a long time that copyrights, patents, and other
"intellectual property" should be treated like physical property, specifically
real estate.

Imagine, in trade for having exclusive rights to something, you would pay tax
commensurate with the amount of revenue you derive for it. You could even keep
an idea protected in perpetuity, assuming the tax is progressively structured
so that the general public benefits from you doing so.

~~~
Jebus
Just a correction: "ideas" per se cannot be protected. Only inventions
(patents) and IP (copyright)

~~~
rcfox
Works (poetry, prose, songs, art, source code, etc.) are protected by
copyright.

Inventions and processes can be protected by patents.

Names and branding can be protected by trademarks.

Secrets can be protected as trade secrets, often in the form of non-disclosure
agreements.

------
Joakal
The copyright owner can't give the bare right to sue? What about those legal
firms sending DMCAs on behalf of copyright owner(s)?

~~~
wl
It's a standard attorney-client relationship. The attorney acts as a
representative for the client in legal matters. Just like an employee
represents a company when they go to work.

What's the difference here? Righthaven tried to acquire some right to sue
people for itself and they would pay royalties to the original copyright
holder if they won. If Righthaven represented clients instead of becoming
plaintiffs themselves, they might have had a workable business model.

