[Igor_Bratnikov]

As someone that has been on the defending side (legal representative) of a patent troll attack which is essentially the role MS is playing here it saddens you to see how low people can go with using the patent system. One of the case I analyzed was a patent that literally did not cover the technology and only a very loosely interpreting judge could interpret it as so. But the cost (at least 0.5 - 1 million dollars until a judge will even see your argument) are so staggering that we in fact encourage parties to throw around bs patents to racketeer money from parties that actually contribute positively to society by creating innovative products. Of course this also fuels the market for filing and selling/buying up bs patents.

The only way I can describe it is that its like a artery of someone that keeps eating bacon long after their doctor advised them to stop. The space keeps getting blocked up more and more. It is inevitable that serious problems are bound to occur and cause ever greater friction to innovation.

[fpp]

With direct patent troll cost (loss of company values) calculated for the last years by BU at about half a trillion plus blocking of innovation, loss of jobs and indirect costs to companies at one point society has to question the priorities: To make (very) few much richer and loosing whole industries or to create an environment where the whole economy can prosper. History has some good examples on that e.g. from the first industrial revolution that was led by the UK. After Prussia / Germany completely relaxed IP laws it became the leading industrial nation in Europe. The UK where strong special interest groups pushed through stringent IP & patent law lost it leadership role & dominance of the industry and has till today not been able to recover from that.

On patent trolls & the 500 billion: The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272) Abstract: In the past, non-practicing entities (NPEs) - firms that license patents without producing goods - have facilitated technology markets and increased rents for small inventors. Is this also true for today’s NPEs? Or are they “patent trolls” who opportunistically litigate over software patents with unpredictable boundaries? Using stock market event studies around patent lawsuit filings, we find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010, mostly from technology companies. Moreover, very little of this loss represents a transfer to small inventors. Instead, it implies reduced innovation incentives.

[Igor_Bratnikov]

Its quite the chance that that paper on Patent trolls was written by my Patent Law Prof from BU. Who takes in mind a well balanced view on this difficult subject.

Also some great TIL about German vs Uk innovation.

Even most patent attny's that are more than happy making money off this broken systems excesses agree that there many serious problems abound

[lotu]

That crazy cost is part of why I've been thinking we should have some equiviliant of a public defender for civil matters. The idea is the plaintiff would have to pay for the defendant's lawyer up to the cost he is paying for his lawyer, but only if the defendant chooses to use the presumably less good public defender. This wouldn't change anything when a large company or rich person is the defendant, as they won't want to user the public defender, unless the lawsuit was so frivolous the company would rather not spend any money on it. The biggest down sides would be when two ordinary people sue each other, I don't think this is a big deal because poor people tend not to sue other poor people outside of small claims court, and if they do they better be planing to get much more than twice their lawyer cost.

[away]

Why does it cost you that much money for a judge to see your argument?!

[Igor_Bratnikov]

Roughly it will take about a year minimum of lawyering until the argument reaches the desk of a judge. Especially since patents are federal cases. You have prepare arguments, answer all requests, prove jurisdiction, etc and take depositions of everything. A partners time is north of 500$ an hour that adds up verrry quickly when you have a team working for you

[away]

Well that sounds really harsh. Can't you just try to do most of it yourself instead of paying someone $500/hr? I mean you are innocent until proven guilty.

[scott_s]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle from criminal law. In the US, I believe that principle does not apply directly to civil law. A lawyer will have to explain if there is any mapping at all.

But, regarding the do-it-yourself-part, no, not really. First, the amount of work you have to do is a full-time job. Most people already have a full-time job, so it's not an option to deal with a civil case full-time. Second, there are many rules and regulations that a lay-person will just not know. It's not feasible for them to deal with a civil suit on their own. And, unlike criminal cases, in the US, you have no right to a lawyer for civil cases.

[nknight]

Not a lawyer (though at some point I should just say screw it and go to law school), but there's really no mapping as far as I know.

One of the things to remember about civil lawsuits are that the parties are generally treated as if they are on equal footing, and the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

The criminal justice system is setup to mitigate the advantage of the government over the accused in a case that could result in loss of freedom (or even loss of life). The civil "justice" system is there to resolve disputes between theoretically equal parties in cases that mostly come down to money.

In practice, of course, our adversarial system gets thrown completely out of whack by that same money, but for the moment, the law is what it is.