[RLUG] have you heard the good news?

[Brian Chrisman]

Jeff Shippen wrote:

>What does it all mean?
>
>  
>

A lot of judges have apparently been saying that they don't have the 
authority to refuse an injunction when it appears a patent is being 
violated.  By granting the injunction, this means that the target 
company has to immediately stop using the 'technology' or they're 
criminally liable for violating a court order.  This all happens before 
a trial and before an actual ruling on the validity of the contested patent.
 From what I can tell, this supreme court decision tells the lower 
courts to consider the proper precedent rulings, which give the courts a 
four point test in patent cases as to whether to grant an injunction.
Supposedly part of the commentary in the decision targetted 
patent-hoarding lawyer companies which do not actually use patents 
themselves with the exception of suing people.
The supreme court acknolwedge that granting an injunction in many cases 
is basically pre-deciding a case, as the company being sued may be 
improperly crippled before an actual ruling on the patent's validity.
This can force a big company (like ebay or amazon) to settle an 
unjustified lawsuit not based on the merits of the patent, but based on 
the court's injunction.

One of the main problems I see with patent-hoarding lawyer companies, is 
that they basically apply an asymmetrical threat.  Since the patent 
system has basically been turned into a minefield, they incur no 
liability since they don't bother to enter the minefield.  Meanwhile, 
any company which actually wants to get something done is forced into 
the minefield in order to achieve anythign at all.
You don't see patent litigation between large companies very often, 
because they all have large patent portfolios... when it comes down to 
anything but core patents, they don't often resort to lawsuits, as a) it 
doesn't really accomplish anything and b) they're probably violating
With a patent-troll firm, since they don't build anything, they have no 
potential liability.

>Quoting n a <xequalsct at hotmail.com>:
>  
>
>http://opensourcepimp.com/open_source_u_s_supreme_court_deals_a_blow_to_patent_trolls
>
>_______________________________________________
>RLUG mailing list
>RLUG at rlug.org
>http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
>  
>