
TV maker Vizio may finally get paid after beating 17th patent troll - nkurz
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/24/tv-maker-vizio-may-finally-get-paid-after-beating-17th-patent-troll/
======
dikaiosune
It's really too bad that it's so difficult to recoup these costs, especially
in patent cases. It would be quite the disincentive to NPEs if they had to
make a double-or-nothing bet every time they litigated over a patent they
didn't actually use.

That is to say nothing of the insanity of US patents and the concomitant
trolls, but it would be a small change for the good if the NPEs/trolls had to
pay fees if they lost.

~~~
ploxiln
I just wish the court system was faster and less expensive.

It would be fine if you paid a lawyer for a day or two of preparation, walked
into the court room about a month after the case was officially brought, and
had the stupid patent suits thrown out after a couple of hours in there. "Wow
that's a fancy lawyer you brought. Too bad this patent is clearly bullshit.
NEXT"

EDIT: also, cheers to Vizio and NewEgg, for never settling

~~~
Lorento
A small part of the problem is non-lawyers not being allowed to offer legal
advice. So for trivial cases, you get people paying thousands for a lawyer to
tell them what stackexchange would have done for free in any other field.

~~~
rtpg
so saying IANAL is a legal disclaimer? What exactly are the repercussions of
this concept?

I thought people were allowed to self-represent at least...

~~~
nitrogen
Corporations are not allowed to self-represent; they must use a lawyer (at
least in some jurisdictions).

------
jeswin
As in this case, and many others, Intellectual Ventures are the world's
leading patent scumbags. One of the financial backers of the said company is
Bill Gates; for all the good he purportedly does he really never believed in
innovation (and has always hampered it -add).

~~~
throwawaykf05
While IV may or may not be scumbags, I highly doubt they were involved here
(as I said elsewhere:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9439950](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9439950))

Joe Mullin has notoriously poor understanding of patents (and I'm being
charitable here, else I'd say he writes deliberately misleading language to
pander to these types of crowds - his earlier work certainly betrays a more
nuanced understanding of patents). Acquiring patents from somebody does not
make you a shell company of theirs. The types of shell companies these
entities use exist literally only on paper. Apart from their IP assets (which
also exist only on paper), the only thing they have is a PO box, which they
share with thousands others. They have no offices and no employees, let alone
a website.

On the topic of Bill Gates, he literally enabled the computer revolution.
Without Microsoft, we'd be in an industry ruled by hardware makers, each a
mini-Apple, with their own walled-garden ecosystems that would not
interoperate with any others. It's just that he happened to disagree with the
most popular religion around these parts that has earned him the ire he gets.

~~~
scott_karana
> Without Microsoft, we'd be in an industry ruled by hardware makers, each a
> mini-Apple, with their own walled-garden ecosystems that would not
> interoperate with any others

Yes, IBM, the incumbent company with the largest market share, _definitely_
tried to start a walled garden. /sarcasm

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer)

~~~
throwawaykf05
IBM actually came late to the PC (or microcomputers as they were known then)
game, but the world it entered was full of walled gardens. However due to its
lateness, it was forced to make architectural decisions that made future
cloning easy. But you do know that the "IBM PC compatible" clones that made
the PC a standard and commoditized hardware were reverse-engineered, right? As
in, without IBM's approval? If IBM wanted a truly open system, people would
not have had to reverse the BIOS.

Microsoft's masterstroke was in foregoing exclusive licensing to IBM for lower
royalties, and then making the same software available on all computers,
thereby creating a standard platform that more software could be written for.
The true value of a machine is in the software, and as more and more software
is written, more and more value is created (which MS was perfectly positioned
to capture a large chunk of), whereas hardware becomes fungible, causing
hardware makers to enter a race to the bottom. This made hardware cheaper and
more accessible, leading to even more software being created. I doubt any
other company drove that shift as much as MS did. Certainly not IBM, which
didn't even realize what was happening at the time, and if it did, it
certainly would have fought its own commoditization.

------
linuxhansl
The only way out is "loser pays, always, period".

Don't have a strong case with risk of losing? Don't go to court!

Have no money but a very strong case? Good. Go to court, you'll get your cost
back if/when you win.

That alone would end many of the - shall we say - speculative lawsuits.

~~~
throwawaykf05
This trivializes the complexities and uncertainties involved in many lawsuits.
I know someone who was a juror on a case where the entire jury agreed that
real financial harm was done to the plaintiff, but could not return a verdict
awarding any damages because of how certain business relations were structured
and how the relevant laws applied to them.

~~~
mullingitover
As a juror, you're free to return any verdict you like. Here's the list of
juries who suffered consequences for returning the wrong verdict:

~~~
joshuapants
How do you establish what a wrong verdict is? Another jury? And then a jury
auditing that jury?

~~~
vacri
This is the basis of 'jury nullification'. You can't hold a jury responsible
for returning a 'wrong' verdict - that's why they're there in the first place.

------
throwawaykf05
The article says Pragmatus is a shell of Intellectual Ventures, and assumes so
because it acquired its patents from IV. Being familiar with how shells are
used by patent assertion entities, I highly doubt that is the case. For one,
these sort of shell companies don't bother with websites:
[http://www.pragmatus.com/](http://www.pragmatus.com/)

~~~
tluyben2
They got a special mention
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA)
so they must have a website! Good episode by the way.

~~~
throwawaykf05
While that was entertaining and accurate at a high level, John Oliver repeats
the same mistakes other media outlets make regarding the finer points of this
issue:

1\. He references the roundly debunked "Patent Trolls cost X trillion dollars"
study and accepts it as fact.

2\. He calls ED Texas "plaintiff friendly", which it hasn't been for a while
([http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919))
- these days it's popular because of other factors.

3\. He shows a video clip of that M-CAM guy, who's famous for claiming there's
a "patent on toast" (there's no such thing) in that NPR episode on patent
trolls. Which, BTW, had journalism worse than this clip. M-CAM is a
laughingstock of the IP licensing world as they appear to have no idea how
patents really work.

4\. The whole "trial lawyers killed patent reform" thing is a red herring if
you just stop a second to think about it. As Oliver himself says a few minutes
earlier, the whole patent troll business model is _avoiding_ trials by
settling for less than the cost of a lawsuit. In fact 97% of patent lawsuits,
patent troll or otherwise, settle without trial. Statistically, trial lawyers
have very little skin in the game. I don't know what really killed this patent
reform bill (my guess is the pharma lobby), but I'm really curious why people
decided to blame the trial lawyers.

------
hunterloftis
_US District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer published an opinion (PDF) detailing Oplus
' "overly aggressive" and "uncooperative" style of litigation that was
"outside the bounds of professional behavior."_

 _" At each step of the case, Vizio's credibility increased while Oplus
gathered rope to hang itself," she wrote. Yet Pfaelzer denied Vizio legal
fees. Now, the Federal Circuit has ruled (PDF) that Pfaelzer needs to
reconsider that decision._

Why, after such observations, would she deny Vizio legal fees?

~~~
cle
_She ruled that despite its behavior, Oplus ' infringement allegations were
not baseless and the case "followed an expected course of motion practice." As
a result, "there is little reason to believe" that Vizio incurred
significantly more litigation expenses than it would have otherwise, she
said._

 _" Oplus alleged sufficient facts to support its claims, gathered limited
discovery, and lost on summary judgment, as it would have even without its
misconduct," so attorneys' fees are not appropriate, the judge concluded._

[http://www.law360.com/articles/507269/vizio-denied-fees-
trol...](http://www.law360.com/articles/507269/vizio-denied-fees-troll-s-
attys-slammed-for-misconduct)

------
themartorana
Between Vizio fighting the good fight and Samsung 1984-ing my living room
conversations, I might start buying Vizio.

~~~
cbhl
FWIW, my Vizio TV applies firmware updates without asking me first (and tells
me about it on next boot), and their ToS is similarly liberal in what they
might collect: "including but not limited to the identity of your broadcast,
cable, or satellite television provider, the television programs and
commercials you view".

~~~
aorloff
Just don't give your TV an internet connection to report that data then.

~~~
psykovsky
Or proxy the connection, blocking the tracking/spying requests.

------
aptwebapps
If they prevail what are the odds that the troll can actually pay up?

~~~
jmaygarden
If the can't pay, then they should assign their patents to Vizio. Really, the
big law firm footing the bill on contingency is just as bad as the patent
troll shell companies. They have an identical profit motive.

------
jcoffland
The patent system is bankrupt of value. It needs nothing less than a complete
gutting. The amount of resources wasted by legitimate companies on patents is
atrocious.

------
tomohawk
Why not require companies pursuing claims such as this to put money in escrow,
up front, if they cannot concretely show that the company behind the suit has
sufficient assets? If the company pursuing the claim has no assets, then there
is little chance of accountability.

When you're sued, you often have to put aside money to cover the potential
cost due to losing. So, this seems reasonable.

------
source99
Why is it typically so difficult to recoup attorney's fees? Seems like it
should be more common but I guess it's not.

~~~
rhino369
Because the default in the US is for everyone to pay their own way. It is so
that poor can access the legal system. Otherwise only people with big pockets
could engage in litigation.

~~~
c0ur7n3y
The poor can access the legal system?

~~~
rhino369
Some would argue too much access. Contingency payment means a lot attorneys
troll for clients to sue anyone with money.

------
markhahn
and they do a good job on products - well worth prefering their stuff...

