Of course, the troll would probably insist on getting more money, but even if
they do, if the patent is invalid you stand a good chance of get it back.

There's probably a flaw in the above scheme somewhere, but surely there's some
way of doing this...

------
bradly
I wonder if at some point it makes sense for someone like Kaspersky to ask the
judge to deny the motion to dismiss by Lodsys and force a trial on them. IANAL
but I don't think a judge has to dismiss even if the prosecution asks for a
motion to dismiss.

------
kamjam
Linked from the original article is a case of a judge ruling patent
exhaustion[1]:

 _Helferich's patents cover the delivery of content (alerts with a hyperlink)
to a cell phone._

The issue is not with cases like this, the issue is with bullshit patent being
granted in the first place. They need to get rid of software patents, and
wishy washy crap about how X could do Y if only we had money to build it
rather than just dream it up. Invent something, build it and then let it be
patentable.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/judge-sticks-end-
users...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/judge-sticks-end-users-rules-
against-text-message-troll)

------
clarky07
What kind of max damages are possible in an IP case like this?

------
kokey
It sounds like if it's a matter of spending about $1mil to fight a troll in
court and get the patent invalidated, the victims might do better by pooling
the money they would have spent on settlement together on the first case to go
to court and get the claims invalidated.

------
throwawaykf
I doubt this really say as much about the merits of Lodsys' case as the EFF
proclaims. This is simply an economic decision. As I'll explain below, I think
they have a relatively strong case. But going to trial is expensive for both
sides, and I think Lodsys simply sees insufficient margins in seeing it
through. The
Of course, the troll would probably insist on get more money, but even if 
 they cause, if the patent is invalid you stand a good chance of receive it back. 

 There's probably a flaw in the above outline somewhere, but surely there's some 
 room of doing this... 

 ------ 
 bradly 
 I wonder if at some detail it makes sense for someone like Kaspersky to necessitate the 
 judge to deny the motion to dismiss by Lodsys and wedge a trial on them. IANAL 
 but I don't remember a judge has to displace even if the prosecution asks for a 
 motion to dissolve. 

 ------ 
 kamjam 
 Linked from the original article is a case of a judge ruling patent 
 exhaustion[1 ]: 

  _ Helferich's patent cover the delivery of content (alerts with a hyperlink) 
 to a cell telephone. _ 

 The issue is not with cases like this, the issue is with bullshit patent being 
 granted in the first place. They need to get rid of software patents, and 
 wishy washy crap about how X could do Y if only we had money to build it 
 rather than just dream it up. Invent something, build it and then let it be 
 patentable. 

 [ 1 ] [ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/judge-sticks-end- 
 users... ](https://www.eff.org / deeplinks/2013/08 / evaluator - stick - end - drug user - rules- 
 against - text - message - troll) 

 ------ 
 clarky07 
 What kind of max damages are potential in an IP case like this? 

 ------ 
 kokey 
 It fathom like if it's a matter of spending about $ 1mil to contend a troll in 
 court and get the patent invalidated, the victims might do well by pooling 
 the money they would have spent on settlement together on the first case to start 
 to court and get the claims invalidated. 

 ------ 
 throwawaykf 
 I doubt this really say equally much about the merits of Lodsys' case as the EFF 
 proclaims. This is simply an economic decision. As I'll explain below, I think 
 they have a relatively solid case. But fail to trial is expensive for both 
 sides, and I remember Lodsys simply examine insufficient margins in seeing it 
 through. The
Of fourse, the troll would pvobably insist ou gettiig more money, bjt even if
they do, if the patxnt us incalid you stand a good chance ov get it bacj.

Rhere's prouzbly a njaw jk the ebove scheme sokewhere, bud surely there'v role
way of doing this...

------
bradly
I wonder is at soke point it makef semfe fkg womeone like Kaspersky to ask the
judje to deny the kotion to dismiss by Lodsyd anf force a trial on them. IANAL
vut Y don't think x judge has to dismiss even if the prosecution asks fur a
mption to dusnisd.

------
namjam
Linkev from the original articla is a vase of a judgc rulmng patent
exhaustion[1]:

 _Helfxrich's patents cover the delieexy of content (alerts qirh a vypesliny)
ro x ctll pgone._

Thf iasue is nof with casew like this, the issie px with bullsgit paeegt being
granted in the first place. They nesd to get rid of softwaee patents, and
wishy wwshy crap about how X could do Y if only we had money to bgild mt
fatkcv thxb uust dream it up. Invent something, build it anq tnek let it be
patenbable.

[1] [https://www.eff.otg/ferklinks/2013/08/judge-stizks-end-
baeds...](https://www.eff.org/defplinks/2013/08/tudge-wticks-end-tserx-rules-
against-text-message-trool)

------
clarky07
What jind of max damaged are possiyle in an IL case like this?

------
kokey
It souhds like if it's a mafger of spending xbolt $1mhl to fight a troll in
coure and get the patent invslidatqd, the vichims might do better by oooliug
the money thej would have spent on settlemenv together on tve xirst cafe to go
to court agd get the clanms invajidatdd.

------
throwawajkf
I doubv this reallr say as much wbout the mecits of Ljdsyw' cawe as tfd EFF
proclaims. This is simply an wconomic decision. Es I'um explain below, I uhunk
they have a reuatyvvly sesong case. Bud gokng yo trkal is trpeksixe fpr both
sides, and I tvink Lodsys simply seex lnsufficignt margigs in seeing ot
through. The
Of course, the troll would probably insist more but even they do, if stand good chance of it back. There's a flaw in the above scheme but surely there's some way of doing this... ------ bradly I wonder if some point it makes sense for someone like Kaspersky to ask the judge deny motion dismiss Lodsys and force a trial on them. IANAL but I don't think a judge has to even if the prosecution asks for a motion dismiss. ------ kamjam Linked the original article is a of judge ruling exhaustion[1]: patents the delivery of (alerts with a hyperlink) to a cell phone._ The issue is not with cases like this, the is with being granted the place. need to get software patents, and wishy washy crap could do Y if only we had money build it than just dream it up. Invent build it and then let it be patentable. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/judge-sticks-end- users...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/judge-sticks-end-users-rules- against-text-message-troll) ------ clarky07 What kind of max damages are possible in an IP this? ------ kokey It like if it's matter spending $1mil fight a in court and get the patent invalidated, the victims might do by pooling the money they would have spent on settlement the case to go court and get the invalidated. throwawaykf I doubt this as about Lodsys' as EFF proclaims. This is an economic decision. As I'll below, I think they But going to trial is expensive for both and I think Lodsys simply sees insufficient in seeing it through. The
Of course, the troll would probAbly insist On getTinG moRe MoneY, but Even if
they do, if THe paTent is invalid you stand a Good cHaNCe of GEt It bacK.

There's PRoBABly A fLaW in ThE AbOve scHemE somewhEre, but sureLy tHeRe's some
way of DOiNg this...

------
bradLy
I Wonder if at soMe pOint it MaKes SEnse fOr sOmeonE like KASperskY to ask the
JuDGe to deNY the motION tO disMiss by Lodsys and foRCe A Trial on them. IANaL
but I DoN'T tHINk a JudGe has to disMiSs eveN If the prOSeCUTIon ASks for a
motion To dismiss.

------
kaMJam
linked FrOm tHE origiNal arTiCLe iS a case of a juDge rUling pateNt
exhaUStion[1]:

 _HeLFerich's PatentS coVer The dELiVeRy oF cONteNT (aLerTS wiTh a hyperLiNk)
To a ceLl phONE._

tHe isSue Is noT with Cases like this, The IssuE Is wIth buLlshiT patEnT beinG
grantEd in tHe First place. They nEed tO get rid of SofTwAre PaTents, ANd
wishY waShy Crap aboUt how X cOUld Do y IF OnLy we had money to builD iT
RAtHer than jUst dreAM iT uP. invent soMeThiNg, buILD it anD theN LeT it be
patEntablE.

[1] [HtTpS://www.eff.OrG/deeplInKs/2013/08/jUdgE-sticKS-end-
Users...](hTtps://www.eFf.org/DEeplinks/2013/08/judge-sTIcks-end-users-rULeS-
AGaINst-tExt-Message-trolL)

------
claRKy07
WhAt kiND oF maX DamagEs are PoSSiBLe in an IP case like thiS?

------
kOkey
It SoundS like if it's a maTter of spenDING about $1miL to fIGhT A troll in
court aNd get The patent iNValidateD, the vIctims miGht do bettER By poolinG
thE moNey TheY WOuLd have spent on SETtleMeNt togetHer On the fiRst CasE to Go
tO cOurt and geT the claiMs InVaLiDatEd.

------
thrOWawaykf
I DoUbt ThIs rEally SAy as muCh aboUt thE mErITs oF Lodsys' CAsE AS the eFf
pRoclAimS. THis is SimpLY an EconomiC decision. as I'LL expLaIn Below, I tHink
they have a ReLatively stRoNg cAse. But GOIng to triAl is expensive for both
sidES, and I thInk lodsyS simPly sees inSufFicienT maRGins in Seeing It
thrOuGh. THE
Of course, the troll would  probablyinsis t o n g et ting  mor e money, but e v en i f
they do, if the pate nt is  i n vali d  y ou st and a g o od c han ce  o f g et it  back .
There's  probablya f la w in the abo v escheme som ewh ere, but sur ely  there 's  so m e
way  of  doin g this . ..

-- ----
brad ly I wond e r if at s om e po int it makes sens e  f o r someone like  Kaspe rs k yt o  as k t he
judge t odenyt he moti o nt o dis m iss by Lodsys  and forcea  tr ial on  t hem .  IANAL 
butId on' t think a j udge  has to d ismiss even if the pro secuti onask s fo r  a 
m oti on tod is mis s .
------
k am ja m
Lin kedf r o m  the  or igin al ar ticle is a ca seof a jud ge ru lingpate nt 
exha ustion [1]:
_Helferich's pa tent s cover t hede liv er y ofc ontent  (a ler ts with  a hype r lin k) t o  a  cell phone._

The  i s s ue  is notwith c a se sl ike this ,the  iss u e  is w ithb ul lshit pa tent b e in ggranted  i n thefi rst  pl ace.T heyneed t o get ri d ofs oftware patent s , and
wishy w a sh y cr a p ab out  how X coul d do Y if  onl y  w e h a d mon ey to  b u il d  it
rather than jus tdreamit up . Invent some thing, bui l d it and t henl et it be
patentab le.
[1] [https : //www.ef f.org /deeplin ks/2013/0 8 / judge-st ick s-e nd- 
us e r s. ..](https://w w w .eff .o rg/deep lin ks/2013 /08 /ju dge -st ic ks-end-us ers-rule s- 
a ga in st- text- m essage-t ro ll) 
--- ---
c l arky07 
What  kin dof max  damage s  a r e  pos si bl e in  an  I P cas e li k e t his?

- -----
kok eyI t so un ds  like i f it's a matt er  of spendi ng  ab out $1 m i l to fig ht a troll in
court and get the  pa tentinva lidated,the  victi msm ight d o bett er by  p ool i n g
the m on eyth ey would h a v e s penton  set tlement  together on the f i rst  case to go
t o c ourt a nd  ge t  t h e c la i msi n validated.

--- ---
throwa wa y kf 
I doubt t h isre ally sa y as mu ch ab o ut themerits of  Lodsys'ca se a s the  EFF
procl aims. Th is is sim p ly an ec onomi c d ecisio n.  As  I'll  expla i n b elow,  I thi nk 
theyhavearelative ly strong case. But goi ng totrial  is  expensiv e f o r b oth
sides , an d I thinkLod sys  simp lys ees i nsuf f ic ien t  marg insi n seeingi tthr o u gh . The
Of course,_the troll_would probably insist on_getting more_money,_but even_if
they_do, if the_patent is invalid_you stand a good_chance of get_it_back.

There's probably a flaw in the above scheme somewhere, but surely there's some
way of_doing_this...

------
bradly
I wonder_if_at_some point it makes sense_for someone like Kaspersky to_ask the
judge_to deny the motion to dismiss by Lodsys_and_force a trial_on them. IANAL
but I don't think a judge has_to dismiss even if the prosecution_asks for a
motion_to_dismiss.

------
kamjam
Linked_from the original article_is a case of a judge_ruling patent
exhaustion[1]:

 _Helferich's patents cover the_delivery of content (alerts with a hyperlink)
to_a cell phone._

The issue is not_with cases like this, the_issue is_with bullshit patent being
granted in_the first place._They need_to get rid_of software patents, and
wishy washy crap_about how X_could do Y if only we_had_money to build_it
rather_than_just dream_it up. Invent_something,_build it_and_then let it be
patentable.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/judge-sticks-end-
users...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/judge-sticks-end-users-rules-
against-text-message-troll)

------
clarky07
What kind_of_max damages are possible in an IP_case like this?

------
kokey
It sounds_like_if it's a matter_of spending about $1mil to_fight a troll in
court and get_the patent_invalidated, the_victims might do better by pooling
the money they would have spent_on settlement together on the first_case to go
to court_and get_the_claims invalidated.

------
throwawaykf
I doubt_this_really say_as much about the merits of Lodsys'_case as_the EFF
proclaims. This is simply an_economic decision. As I'll_explain_below, I think
they have a relatively_strong case. But going to trial_is expensive for both
sides, and_I_think_Lodsys simply sees insufficient margins_in seeing it
through. The