Sentences with phrase «over the patent troll»

While reading about Newegg's victory over patent troll Soverain Software over the weekend, I was reminded of the Three Billy Goats Gruff fairy tale I read to my children just a week ago.

Joining the ever - increasing crowd of lawmakers who are angry over the patent troll problem, Senator Chuck Schumer has introduced new legislation targeting the issue: the Patent Quality Improvement Act.

Later, President Obama expressed his concern over patent trolls and called for reform.

Not exact matches

Spangenberg — who over the years has been on the receiving end of «troll» criticism for his patent fortune — recently pursued a more interesting path involving use of his patent knowledge to target what many of the populist - minded would judge to be an unfair stranglehold over pricing.

The Harvard Business Review found, «patent trolls cost defendant firms $ 29 billion per year in direct out - of - pocket costs; in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $ 60 billion in firm wealth each year.

If a business does come under attack by a troll threatening a lawsuit over potential patent infringement, the business owner needs a less costly way to fight back.

Research shows that patent trolls cost defendant firms $ 29 billion per year in direct out - of - pocket costs; in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $ 60 billion in firm wealth each year.

(A recent study by three Boston University researchers found that patent trolls have cost publicly traded companies an average of $ 83 - billion annually over the past four years, more than a quarter of all U.S. industrial research and development spending during that period.)

The way litigation in general works in the U.S. (such as the «American Rule» of no recovery of legal fees except under narrow circumstances) creates some opportunities for trolls, but with respect to the two concerns of this coalition of tech companies over the UPC, the German framework — which, again, would affect the whole of Europe based on the proposed rules of procedure — has terrible shortcomings in areas in which defendants in U.S. patent cases are actually in better shape.

«We accumulated over 22 litigation victories against patent trolls,» Huang said.

Ireson agrees that rather than fight with patent trolls over claims that could cost substantial money to litigate, companies should settle quickly and move forward.

That fact only adds to the credibility of that industry group because it shows that some of its members, such as Apple, are more interested in obtaining sales bans over patents than others, such as Google and Samsung, yet they all agree that the current proposal would make Europe a patent trolls» paradise and hurt all innovative operating companies.

Little of this will come as a surprise to those who have followed the debate over U.S. patent policy in recent years, which has seen Congress propose multiple measures to curb the role of patent trolls, but deliver no new laws since 2011.

Even taking the «troll» issue off the table, for example, the increase in patent litigation over mobile device technology is apparent even to the casual observer.

Supposedly this is to address «patent trolls» which sue companies over patents.

Netflix, among others, has also been sued for its download content feature, by Blackbird Technologies, a patent trolling / squatting firm, over the patent governing downloadable video content.

Guest: it's referred to as a patent troll because it doesn't do anything but sue over patents.

Recent public comments by Apple show that the Cupertino gadget company has reason to believe it's the most popular target of so - called «patent trolls,» companies whose only business is suing over patents.

Another interesting «troll» stat, one not revealed in Apple's filings: Samsung, a company that has been sued by arch-rival Apple over patents, is the trolls» fifth most popular target.

Negotiations over how to appropriately address patent trolls — companies that buy up patents and then leach cash from inventors by threatening infringement lawsuits — have repeatedly bedeviled Senate staffers working on the issue.

In the meantime, recent news stories mean the frustration over the patent system is likely to mount: this week, a patent troll obtained a judgment worth potentially hundreds of millions against Google over old Lycos patents, while the cable industry sued to stop what it calls a troll's «illegal conspiracy.»

As the report notes, the median damages awarded to patent trolls tripled that of practicing entities over the last four years.

Just when it looked like a grand compromise was finally coming together, Senate negotiations over a major bill designed to curb abusive patent trolling have fallen apart.

Indeed, over 60 universities (paywall) have sold patents to infamous patent troll Intellectual Ventures.

The company, which does little actual inventing on its own, is also spending millions to grow its lobbying footprint in Washington at a time of increased public outrage over so - called patent - trolling.

The reason EFF has supported the Innovation Act over the last couple years is because we think it does a great job of targeting patent trolls and other bad actors without implicating good actors.

Over 100 institutions have endorsed a whitepaper warning of the dangers of licensing to non-practicing entities (unfortunately, many of those same institutions have sold patents to notorious troll Intellectual Ventures).

With Congress in gridlock over proposed patent reform legislation and four Justices concerned about the potential threat of both patent trolls and business methods to innovation, you can expect many more petitions to the Supreme Court to address these issues.

Over the last few years, the tech sector has seen a shocking increase in activity by litigious, so - called patent trolls.

It does not include protection for end users, consumers and small businesses attacked by patent trolls over widely available technologies.

The question of how to limit the activities of patent trolls (aka patent assertion entities (PAEs) or non-practicing entities (NPEs)-RRB- has been a hot topic over the past several years.

A «patent trolling» company has filed a suit against Apple over voicemail technology used within iPad and iPhone products.

He's now being called a «Patent Troll» by some for filing over a billion dollars worth of Blockchain patents.

Although there was a small decline in litigation in 2014, patent trolling exploded over the past decade and remains at historically high levels.

Until we get it, that «Damoclean sword» will continue to hang over small businesses that dare become successful enough to attract the attention of patent trolls.

Janet Dhillon from J.C. Penney (which has the terrible misfortune of being located in the patent - troll - friendly Eastern District of Texas) explained that in the last four years her company has been hit with over two dozen patent lawsuits — all from patent trolls.

Since 2005, the number of patent troll lawsuits per year has skyrocketed — a four-fold increase to over 5,000 lawsuits every year.

This week, EFF joined over 5,600 individuals in a letter (PDF) pressing the Senate for meaningful patent reform — reform that goes beyond the current Senate proposals and provides strong fixes to the patent troll problem.

In the meantime, app developers all over the world, many of who can not afford legal counsel, face the uncertainty long - felt by the victims of patent trolls and are left wondering what they can and should do to protect themselves.

These individuals represent over 900 inventors, 700 investors, and well over 1300 entrepreneurs who drive the innovation economy — yet are suffering billions of dollars in losses at the hands of patent trolls and rampant litigation.

In combination with other evidence, this confirms a massive and sustained increase in patent trolling over the past five to ten years.

Remember Lodsys, the patent troll that began suing a bunch of indie iOS developers back in 2011 over their use of in - app purchases?