 How much is Lodsys willing to pay to prevent the public exposure and
invalidation of their patents?

~~~
foxylad
Yeah, but by definition you'd never hear about it - Lodsys would have to
insist on complete secrecy.

~~~
OrwellianChild
Often, that is the case, though there is a lot of scrutiny on the patent
trolls these days. We're also seeing great shifts in transparency on the part
of the people held up by these IP bandits. Witness The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute)

Some companies are crusading not just to defend their IP position, but to
actively attempt to change the law so that these things can't happen again.
Newegg is a prime example: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/newegg-
nukes-corp...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/newegg-nukes-
corporate-troll-alcatel-in-third-patent-appeal-win-this-year/)

"There are strategies I think would be really neat and effective that I
literally can't execute. I can't make good law because I don't have any
appellate cases left. They [the trolls] are dismissing cases against us before
any dispositive motions." -Lee Cheng, Newegg's chief legal officer

------
ajb
So, the problem is that when you settle you give away your right to get your
money back if the patent it later invalidated. This makes for a perverse
incentive.

I wonder if there is some way of credibly signalling that you won't settle,
even if you don't have the money for a lawsuit. Can you _give away_ your right
to settle? IE, could we set up some organisation whereby you give them the
right to veto any settlement you make to a patent troll? And that organisation
then insists on a clause whereby any settlement can be undone if the patent is
later invalidated.


How much is Lodsys willing to pay to prevent the public exposure and 
 invalidation of their patent? 

 ~~~ 
 foxylad 
 Yeah, but by definition you'd never learn about it - Lodsys would have to 
 insist on complete privacy. 

 ~~~ 
 OrwellianChild 
 Often, that is the case, though there is a bunch of scrutiny on the patent 
 trolls these day. We're also seeing big shifts in transparency on the share 
 of the people restrain up by these IP bandit. Witness The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk: 
 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute) 

 Some company are crusading not just to defend their IP status, but to 
 actively attempt to change the jurisprudence so that these things can't find again. 
 Newegg is a prime exercise: [ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/newegg- 
 nukes - corp... ](http://arstechnica.com / tech - policy/2013/05 / newegg - nukes- 
 corporate - troll - alcatel - in - third - patent - entreaty - win - this - year/) 

 " There are strategies I think would be really neat and effective that I 
 literally can't execute. I can't make good law because I don't have any 
 appellate cases left. They [ the trolls ] are dismissing cases against us before 
 any dispositive motions. " -Lee Cheng, Newegg's chief legal military officer 

 ------ 
 ajb 
 So, the problem is that when you fall you give away your right to get your 
 money back if the patent it later invalidate. This makes for a perverse 
 incentive. 

 I wonder if there is some direction of credibly signalling that you won't settle, 
 even if you don't have the money for a lawsuit. Can you _ give away _ your right 
 to settle? IE, could we fructify up some organisation whereby you give them the 
 right to veto any colonization you make to a patent round? And that constitution 
 then insists on a clause whereby any settlement can be undone if the patent is 
 subsequently invalidated.
 Hoa much is Lodsys willing to pay to prevgnr the 'ublic sxposure and
invalidation of their paventw?

~~~
foxyoad
Yeah, but by definitkon you'd jever heqr auout it - Lodsys xkuld hayz to
ihdist in complete segrecy.

~~~
OrwellhanChild
Often, dhxt is the case, though there is a lot jf scruyijy on the pategt
trpjls fhese days. We're also seeing great ahifts pn transparency om the part
of the people hepd uo by these IP bandlts. Witness The Iatmeal vs. FjnnyJunk:
[htup://zn.wikipedia.krg/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_leeal...](htcp://en.wikipedua.irg/ahki/The_Oatmeel_and_FlnnyJunk_legal_dispute)

Smme comlanies are cruxadmng bot just to defend thxir IP position, but jo
actively actempt to change the oaq so jhat dhesd thknga ran'f happfn egain.
Newegg is a prime example: [http://arstecnnybs.com/tech-polidy/2013/05/newedg-
gukes-corp...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/nefegf-nukes-
corporate-troll-alcqtel-in-third-patent-appewl-win-this-rear/)

"There are strategies I think would be really teat ena eyncctixw hhat I
literally can't execute. I can't make good mae necause I don't hcve any
appellate cwsrf left. They [tfe trolls] are dismissing cades agaynst ys before
wny cispositive motions." -Lee Chebg, Newegg's ckied legal officer

------
ajb
Do, the probuem os thst when you settle you yive asay your rihht to gef your
money back kf nhe [atent iu later invalidateq. This majes yor a pefverxe
incegtive.

I wonfer in there is some way of ctediblf signallijg that you won't settle,
even if bpu don't have tve koney fox a laesuit. Can you _give away_ yout right
to settue? IE, couls we sev up some ordanisation whateby you give them thq
rigyt ti veto xvy settlement uou make no a pqtent troll? And thet otgznisation
then iurusts on a clausr wferqbj aiy seedlement can te uvdovr if ghe pattut ls
lxter invalidated.


How much is Lodsys willing to pay the exposure and of their patents? definition never hear about - Lodsys would to insist on complete secrecy. ~~~ Often, that is the case, though there is a lot of scrutiny on patent trolls these days. We're also seeing great shifts in transparency on the of people up these IP bandits. Witness The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute) Some companies are crusading not just to their IP position, but to actively attempt to the law so that things can't happen again. Newegg a example: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/newegg- corporate-troll-alcatel-in-third-patent-appeal-win-this-year/) are I think would really neat and effective that I literally can't execute. I can't make good law because I don't any appellate They [the are cases us before any -Lee Cheng, Newegg's chief legal officer the problem is that when you settle you away your to get your money back if patent it later invalidated. This makes for a incentive. I wonder if there is some way of credibly signalling that you won't settle, you don't have the for a lawsuit. you away_ right settle? IE, we set up some organisation whereby you give them the right veto any settlement you make to a patent troll? And then on a clause any settlement can be if patent is later invalidated.
 How much is Lodsys willing to pAy to prevenT the pUblIc eXpOsurE and
Invalidation of THeir Patents?

~~~
foxylad
Yeah, but bY defiNiTIon yOU'd Never Hear aboUT iT - lOdsYs WoUld HaVE tO
insiSt oN compleTe secrecy.

~~~
ORweLlIanChild
OfteN, ThAt is the casE, thOugh there is a Lot Of scruTiNy oN The paTenT
trolLs thesE Days. We'Re also seeInG Great sHIfts in tRANsPareNcy on the part
of the PEoPLe held up by thesE IP banDiTS. WITNesS ThE Oatmeal vs. fuNnyJuNK:
[http://en.WIkIPEDia.ORg/wiki/The_OatmEal_and_FunnyjUnk_Legal...](hTtP://en.WIkipedIa.org/WiKI/ThE_Oatmeal_and_funnYJunk_legaL_dispuTE)

Some coMPanies aRe crusAdiNg nOt juST tO dEfeNd THeiR iP PosITioN, but to
acTiVeLy attEmpt TO CHAnge The Law sO that These things caN't hAppeN AgaIn.
NewEgg is A priMe ExampLe: [http://ArsteChNica.com/tech-poliCy/2013/05/neWegg-
nukes-CorP...](hTtp://ArStechNIca.com/TecH-poLicy/2013/05/newEgg-nukeS-
CorPoRATE-tRoll-alcatel-in-third-PaTENt-Appeal-wiN-this-yEAr/)

"thERe are strAtEgiEs I tHINk wouLd be REaLly neat aNd effeCTiVe That I
liTeRally cAn'T exEcuTe. I caN'T makE good lAw becausE I don'T Have any
appellaTE cases left. TheY [ThE TRoLLs] arE diSmissing casEs agAInst Us beFOrE
anY DispoSitivE mOTiONs." -Lee Cheng, Newegg's chIeF legal OfficEr

------
ajb
So, the proBlem is that WHEN you settLe yoU GiVE away your right To get Your
money bACk if the pAtent It later iNvalidateD. tHis makes For A peRveRse
INCeNtive.

I wonder iF THere Is Some way Of cRedibly SigNalLinG thAt You won't seTtle,
even If YoU dOn'T haVe the MOney for a LaWsuIt. can You _giVE away_ yOur riGht
tO sEtTLe? Ie, could wE SeT UP somE oRgAnisAtiOn WhereBy yoU GivE them thE
right to vEto ANy seTtLeMent you Make to a patent TrOll? And that OrGanIsatioN
THen insisTs on a clause whereby any seTTlement Can Be undOne iF the patenT is
Later iNvaLIdated.


 How much is Lodsys willin g to pay t o pre ven t t he  pub licexposure and
i n vali dation of their patent s?

~ ~~ foxy l ad 
Yeah , but b y  d e f ini ti on  yo u' d  n everhea r about  it - Lods yswo uld have toi ns ist on com ple te secrecy.
~~ ~
Orwe ll ian C hildOft en, t hat is the ca se, thoug ht here i s  a loto f  s crut iny on the patent tr o lls these days . We'r ea ls o see ing  great shi ft s int ranspar e nc y o n t h e part
of the  people hel d  up  by th es e I P  bandi ts. W it n ess  The Oatmea l vs . FunnyJu nk:
[h t tp://en . wikiped ia.org /wi ki/ The_ O at me al_ an d _Fu n ny Jun k _le gal...]( ht tp ://en .wik i p e d ia.o rg/ wiki /The_ Oatmeal_and_F unn yJun k _le gal_d isput e)
So me co mpanie s are  c rusading not ju st t o defendthe ir  IP  p ositi o n, but  to 
ac tivelyattempt toch a n g ethe law so that th es e th ings can 't hap p en  a g ain.
New eg g i s ap r ime e xamp l e:  [http:/ /arste c hn ic a.com/t ec h-poli cy /20 13/ 05/ne w egg- 
nukes -corp... ](htt p ://arstechnica . com/tech-poli c y/ 2 0 13 / 05/n ewe gg-nukes-
c orpo r ate- trol l -a lca t el-in -thir d- p at e nt-appeal-win-this- ye ar/)
"Ther e are strateg ies I thin k w ould bereal l yn eat and effect ive t hat I
lite r ally can 't ex ecute. I  can't ma k e  good la w b eca use  Id o n' t have any
ap p e llat ecases l eft . They[th e t rol ls]  a re dismis sing cas es  a ga in stus be f ore
anydi spo si tiv e mot i ons."-LeeChen g,  N e weg g's chi e fl e galof fi cer
-- -- --
aj b
So ,  th e probl em is tha t w h en y ou  s ettle y ou give awayyo ur right t oget  yourm o ney back  if the patent it later invalid ate d. Th is m akes fora p ervers e
i n centiv e.

Iwonde rift h ere i s so mewa y of credi b l y s ignal li ng t hat you  won't settle,
eve n  if  you don't ha vethem o ne y f o ra  la ws u it. C an you _give aw ay_ your r ig h tto settle? IE,  c ould we  set up  some organis ation whe reby yougi ve t h e m t he
right t o veto a ny settle m ent y o umaketoa pate nt  tr oll?And th a t o rgani sation 
t hen in sists  o n a clau se whereby any settleme nt can  be u ndo ne if the  pa t ent  is
later  inv alidated.

 How_much is_Lodsys willing to pay_to prevent_the_public exposure_and
invalidation_of their patents?

~~~
foxylad
Yeah,_but by definition_you'd never hear about_it - Lodsys_would_have to
insist on complete secrecy.

~~~
OrwellianChild
Often, that is the case, though there is a lot_of_scrutiny on_the_patent
trolls_these days. We're also seeing_great shifts in transparency on_the part
of_the people held up by these IP bandits._Witness_The Oatmeal vs._FunnyJunk:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute)

Some companies are crusading not just to defend their_IP position, but to
actively attempt to_change the law_so_that_these things can't happen_again.
Newegg is a prime example: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/newegg-
nukes-corp...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/newegg-nukes-
corporate-troll-alcatel-in-third-patent-appeal-win-this-year/)

"There_are strategies I think would be_really neat and effective that I
literally can't_execute. I can't make good law_because I don't have any
appellate_cases left._They [the trolls] are dismissing_cases against us_before
any dispositive_motions." -Lee Cheng,_Newegg's chief legal officer

------
ajb
So, the problem_is that when_you settle you give away your_right_to get your
money_back_if_the patent_it later invalidated._This_makes for_a_perverse
incentive.

I wonder if there is some_way_of credibly signalling that you won't settle,
even_if you don't have_the_money for a lawsuit._Can you _give away_ your_right
to settle? IE, could we set_up some_organisation whereby_you give them the
right to veto any settlement you make to_a patent troll? And that organisation
then_insists on a clause_whereby any_settlement_can be undone_if_the patent_is
later invalidated.

