Judge Orders Failed Copyright Troll to Forfeit 'All' Copyrights

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/judge-orders-failed-copyright-troll-to-forfeit-all-copyrights.ars

by hansbo • 14 years ago

80 9 14 years ago

zdw• 14 years ago

Interesting that he's going to auction off the copyrights that they have...

I've held the view for a long time that copyrights, patents, and other "intellectual property" should be treated like physical property, specifically real estate.

Imagine, in trade for having exclusive rights to something, you would pay tax commensurate with the amount of revenue you derive for it. You could even keep an idea protected in perpetuity, assuming the tax is progressively structured so that the general public benefits from you doing so.

aaronblohowiak• 14 years ago

>you would pay tax commensurate with the amount of revenue you derive for it

that's what income tax is.

Jebus• 14 years ago

Just a correction: "ideas" per se cannot be protected. Only inventions (patents) and IP (copyright)

rcfox• 14 years ago

Works (poetry, prose, songs, art, source code, etc.) are protected by copyright.

Inventions and processes can be protected by patents.

Names and branding can be protected by trademarks.

Secrets can be protected as trade secrets, often in the form of non-disclosure agreements.

vibrunazo• 14 years ago

> But if someone does defend himself, the law allows the prevailing party in an infringement case to be awarded its legal fees and costs, even if it were the defendant.

I know it's a common strategy for patent trolls and extortionists in the US to count on the fact that the defendant cannot afford to defend themselves and would lose money even if they win the case. So small developers usually settle before going to court even on bogus patents.

Is it a different when applied to patents than to copyright? So on which cases are the defendant actually awarded its costs? Which ones are not? What's the difference? Is this case in the article maybe an exemplary case that might change how judges award defendants with its costs? Could this help set patent trolls back from suing small developers?

heretohelp• 14 years ago

In either case, costs recovered as a defendant are not guaranteed but they're more likely to get dropped into your lap via court order with copyright than with patents speaking anecdotally. It's safe to assume you'll have to sue for costs.

ComputerGuru• 14 years ago

The real difference is that it's expensive as hell to get a patent in the first place, even if you're an independent inventor.

I just finished writing and filing my own - for normal entities, a normal patent is around $2000 dollars to file with the USPTO, for "small entity" inventors its $600. But that's before the ~two years it takes for the USPTO to review your case and the costs of fixing and refiling. With rush fees, and to get the USPTO to actually review your application in this lifetime (just kidding.. well kinda), add another 10k.

If you want to go with a lawyer (and these days, unless you're willing to literally spend months drafting your application and researching previous claims, it's really hard to avoid) you'll spend anywhere from $5k for a basic patent to $20k for something building on existing tech for a "real world" product.

Whereas copyright is a) instantaneous and self-evident (you don't need to "file" for copyright) and b) actually a much more powerful protection. With patents from small inventors, you have a lot more at stake (enough that it was worth it to go through that process), a lot more has already been invested (so there's more to protect), but simultaneously protecting it against bogus claims is also more expensive.

Joakal• 14 years ago

The copyright owner can't give the bare right to sue? What about those legal firms sending DMCAs on behalf of copyright owner(s)?

wl• 14 years ago

It's a standard attorney-client relationship. The attorney acts as a representative for the client in legal matters. Just like an employee represents a company when they go to work.

What's the difference here? Righthaven tried to acquire some right to sue people for itself and they would pay royalties to the original copyright holder if they won. If Righthaven represented clients instead of becoming plaintiffs themselves, they might have had a workable business model.

Judge Orders Failed Copyright Troll to Forfeit 'All' Copyrights

Related Stories