I wrote an op-ed with Chief Judge Rader and Santa Clara law professor Colleen Chien in the New York Times this past year. It's here. I love the art work.
I'll write more about 285 shortly, and will not respond to comments here, but was dismayed at some of the comments this op-ed engendered. Some people have good disagreements and criticisms. But I read how I was a "West coast law professor" (check your geography, bud!) who had never litigated a contingent fee case (check my bio, bud!). Anyhow, more on the legal aspects of 285 shortly. I'm in the midst of reading a slew of cases for the next edition of one of my books and so am having too much fun with other things now…
Serious series on the myths of trolls at:
link to ipwatchdog.com
Yes, the same Steve Moore who championed the Taffas case.
So, trolls use a patent to extort a settlement to avoid litigation.
Well, then, why impose costs on them if they file a sufficient complaint, the patent is infringed, and the patent is valid? Should the tests in all cases be determined based on whether the complaint was a sham, or whether there is a pattern of vexatious litigation?
If trolls extorted lost cost settlements to avoid litigation, they would hardly be a problem to business from an financial point of view.
Further, you must know that the cost of litigation has a lot to do with how slow it is, a slowness that allows maxim delay tactics by the defense who always do everything to drive up litigation costs because that is the way of the defense bar. We really need to do something about that rather than deal with so-called trolls who never file suit.
Besides, if a patent is clearly invalid, we now have low cost IPR to deal with trolls.
Comments are closed.