[hn_throwaway_99]

I think it's important to point out that the author is CEO of edisonlf.com, a law firm focused on suing IP infringers. I don't really think that cheapens any of his advice, and heck, he may have even decided to start the Edison business after dealing with so much infringement in his toy business. Still, he's not a disinterested party and he should have disclosed this more clearly in his article.

[627467]

It does change the subtext of the whole article. Thank you for highlighting it.

It does read more like an article on "list of legal accessories you can add to a physical product to propup the chances in a IP lawsuit"... While smart, can't help but think this goes against the spirit of IP law.

[GavinMcG]

I think it was just distinguishing the different sorts of IP. There's no multiplier effect; they're distinct types/instances of infringement.

[mannykannot]

As these legal accessories are a response to people who have no respect for the spirit of IP law, I, personally, am not particularly concerned by this. It has been attempts to get round the spirit of the law that has brought these accessories into existence.

[bdowling]

> CEO of edisonlf.com, a law firm

Their web site makes it clear that they are not a law firm, they are a litigation finance firm. As I understand it, litigation financing takes away some of the financial risk from plaintiffs and/or attorneys by allowing them to borrow against a future return from a judgment or settlement. For plaintiffs, they can get access to money when a normal bank would not loan against an uncertain recovery. For law firms, they may be able to take cases on contingency without having to advance all of the costs of litigation. Loans are non-recourse, meaning that if the plaintiff loses, then the lender is not repaid and has no way to collect. As you might expect, the interest rates on these types of loans are incredibly high.

[dmurray]

I would think of it as closer to an equity investment: they provide some of the capital and share in some of the upside. And they likely provide some of the things equity investors do: strategic advice, domain knowledge, access to their network, all of which may or may not have value.

In some jurisdictions they may need to structure and describe it as a loan. But a non-recourse high-interest variable-payback-schedule loan is really blurring the lines between equity and debt no matter what you call it.

[bdowling]

> ... blurring the lines between equity and debt no matter what you call it.

I agree that calling litigation financing a loan may be misleading because it could look more like debt or equity, depending on the structure. If the premium is fixed, then it looks like a zero-coupon corporate bond, except with uncertain maturity. If the premium is a percentage of the recovered amount, then it looks more like a stock investment.

The structure will probably also depend on the entity being funded (a corporate entity, a law firm, or an individual plaintiff). For a law firm, there are ethical restrictions on fee-sharing with non-lawyers. For individuals, there may be consumer protection laws that apply. Also, if the structure looks like a loan then laws regulating lenders may apply.

I'm not an expert in this, I just know enough to know it's complicated.

[jacobwilliamroy]

It is literally litigation financing. As in "I don't have enough money to pay my lawyer, but my lawyer doesn't want to work on contingency, so please LEND me some money to pay upfront and I will pay you back later... if everything works out..."

It's litigation financing. It does exactly what it says it is.

[vinceguidry]

You didn’t seem to grasp parent’s point. Debt and equity aren’t apples and oranges, they’re Fuji and Honeycrisp. What makes debt attractive as a lender is recourse, taking that away removes the incentive to lend without other reasons, reasons which invariably look a lot like the ones you would employ in the decision making process to take an equity stake.

[parenthesis]

Yes, debt and equity shade into each other with things like preference shares and convertible bonds.

[krageon]

Regardless of the technical details, they have a vested interest in their own advice.

[mihaaly]

It is interesting to see articles about how to protect your 6 years old product - being on the noble mission of training next generation of engineers - when you played with this kind of toy ca. 35 years ago. Probably the fact that it was sold out in days of launch may - at least partially - be attributed to the fact that parents knew this kind of toy quite a bit already by heart... ...and of course due to the fact that this idea is well tested by time already.

[lultimouomo]

The knock-offs he shows in the article don't just copy the flake form-factor though; they are blatant copies of the models and the marketing material. It's not just making a composable brick set; it's copying a Lego model piece by piece.

[nullc]

> the author is CEO of edisonlf.com, a law firm

The article says "I am not a lawyer", so he cannot be CEO of a lawfirm, at least not in the US.

( https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili... )

[jaimex2]

kudos to him even more then for explaining how to keep the legal costs down.

[dgudkov]

To me your comment promotes edisonlf.com more than the article because after reading the article and before reading your comment I had no idea about edisonlf.com.

[donmcronald]

> I am not a lawyer

It's hilarious to me because that seems like the type of statement a lawyer would tell you to make. It's concise and doesn't offer any information beyond being the exact truth.

I read the article and wouldn't have realized he has any affiliation, so it's not like he's schilling real hard or anything. There's a couple good points too. I've never heard of a provisional patent before.

[quietbritishjim]

That is an extremely common disclaimer for a non-lawyer to give, to the point that it has its own initialism IANAL, which is slightly unfortunate but very widely understood.

I think the implication is pretty clear: if need this information for a real practical purpose make sure you consult someone who actually is a lawyer.

[mordae]

Nope. In some countries, you'd be held liable if someone misunderstood you and acted as if they were given a real legal advice.

Sometimes this also applies to other professions.

[mannykannot]

I think you have a one-off error with regard to which post you are replying to.