This is a really interesting topic and I can see both sides of the story. If you spend a ton of time and money to develop something, you really should reap the benefits of your work. You don't want to invest a fortune in creating something only to have another company swoop in and build a competing system using your work. However I also hate the idea of people running around with an attack lawyer, basically working the system.
Having been involved in lawsuits in the past I can tell you the entire system is geared towards settling out of court. So it's created a system where you threaten a big company with a huge lawsuit and most of the time their accountants will calculate whether or not it's cheaper to settle or to fight - and usually it's cheaper to just settle. That then encourages even more frivolous lawsuits because they know they'll get a settlement. Personally I would like to see US law changed to match most other countries and have loser pays laws. That way, if you have a good reason to sue and a better than average chance of winning, you'll go forward with it. But if you are being frivolous, you'll think twice because if you lose you're the one paying the legal expenses. Right now, if you have a lawyer who only gets paid if you win or get a settlement, they have every incentive to sue everyone they can find because they know big companies are going to settle rather than risk a long and expensive trial. -Paul On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > For the record, no, you don't paint yourself into corners like that. > A) a previous ruling that was settled and not appealed can't be reverted > due to a following ruling. Precedents establish protocols, but nothing can > be retroactive, or it'd be impossible to regulate anything. > B) even if it was the case, a friendly license of use under terms for a > royalty or for free can clear the lot, in any temporal term. > > Of course it's unlikely to happen, because shave sells solely due to its > unicity, but it's a pain in the ass at practically every level. Of course > seeing it challenged by a more versatile and modern system prompted the > whole thing, thinking it was done in any other vein is naive at best. > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Ed Manning <etmth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> All good points. >> >> One further thought (and again, I'm not out to defend Joe, his product, >> or his, uh, marketing style): I just read the article on the Disney suit. >> Now I'm no lawyer (do we have any on the list? would that be a good thing >> or not?) but I'm pretty sure that once he'd reached a settlement with >> Disney, he *obligated* himself, under the hurtful and dated system (how >> right that description is!), to "vigorously defend" his patent against all >> other potential infringers. That is, unless he now pursues legal action >> against anyone and everyone who has a similar product that isn't >> *explicitly* proven to be non-infringing, Disney could effectively argue >> that he wasn't really protecting his rights, but was only going after their >> deep pockets, and perhaps invalidate the settlement. And don't think that >> Disney wouldn't be that petty... >> >> My feeling is that if Yeti is going to mention names, they need to >> describe what led to the impasse. Was it a case of Joe's attorneys writing >> a nasty bigfoot letter out of nowhere, or was it a long, civilized >> conversation that ended in disagreement? For all we know, Joe may have >> invited them to high tea to discuss the matter and Yeti said, "Nar, come >> and get us, you *(%^&&%!" (For the record, I do not believe this is what >> transpired.) All I'm saying is that it's generally unfair to lay blame at >> a specific person's feet without some explanation. >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < >> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> To be honest, I'm happy the Yeti guys are mentioning context and names. >>> The patent crap too often goes on behind closed courtains, unless it's >>> Apple and Google battling it out on a global scale, and people don't >>> realise how hurtful and dated the system is. >>> >>> The fact that a "best obvious" solution is getting in the way of >>> development is NOT good for any of us, and that a small developer, because >>> Joe isn't a large evil corp, decides to attack a much better competitor >>> that could wipe his only succesful product off the market in the next two >>> years through patent walling instead of through quality and improvments to >>> a notoriously flawed and aging product doesn't paint him in a good light. >>> Is this the kind of small developer you want empowered? I can only speak >>> for myself, but I'll say no. >>> >>> There are many patents that are just first come first served deployments >>> of ideas that had been around, sometimes even implemented, for a long time, >>> this is on the edge of those cases, if not squarely within the domain. >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! > >
