Predictive Text Patent Troll Tries To Shake Down Wikipedia (techdirt.com) 48
martiniturbide writes: WordLogic (patent troll) claims it has the rights of the concept of predictive text writing and went after the Wikimedia foundation. WordLogic offered a "discounted, lump sum fee of $30,000 in exchange for a paid-up one-time license," an easy win they thought, but Wikimedia fought back. "Wikimedia notes that (1) WordLogic's patents are invalid due to prior art, (2) that they are invalid for not covering patentable subject matter, and (3) that anyway, it doesn't even infringe on the patents if they were valid," reports Techdirt. Now we are waiting to see what will happen. Will the patent troll desist, or will it push forward?
I think Wikimedia should offer to settle (Score:2)
Their pending lawsuit against the patent troll to recover $300k in legal fees. I figure, if the troll pays up just 10%, or $30k, that's a real bargain.
Re:I think Wikimedia should offer to settle (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary underlying cause is the American legal system is much too expensive, and "justice" has nothing to do with it.
2 CSB. Back in the 90s while watching Cops I got so pissed off when the cop arrested someone for no good reason and said "let the judge figure it out". Meanwhile, the guy that I didn't see did anything wrong is going to spend at least 1 night in jail, and possibly months. Plus they have to come up with legal fees, which is a cost they'll never get back even if the judge throws out the arrest.
Worked for a startup in '04. Went to a mandatory meeting where we were told "everybody infringes on everybody else's patents. The person who wins is the person with the biggest stack of paper they can slap down on the table.
Re:I think Wikimedia should offer to settle (Score:4, Interesting)
You're not following because the 300k don't exist. It's "legal fees we anticipate having to recover". If the patent troll wants to strongarm someone, they oughta see it tried on them.
It's not a real discount. It's all just mugging the patent troll.
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably get away with paying a mobster $10K to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Up to this point in time, the legal fees have not even approached $30k, never mind $300k, because that's just the very beginning of the case, the initial filing. So even if Wikimedia were to pay full legal fees right now, they'll still come up ahead on the $30k settlement. $300k is the figure it would cost if the lawsuit isn't settled promptly but goes to court and through all the proceedings. Obviously in this case the $30k settlement is off the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Not following. They paid $300k in legal fees to fight this bogus claim. If they settle for $30k they still lost $270k.
Do American courts never award costs to a defendant?
Re: (Score:2)
Only in extreme cases, but generally no.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in extreme cases, but generally no.
Wow. That's not a good system.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That's not a good system.
It certainly deters the poor from suing the rich, and allows the rich to sue the poor with impunity.
tl;dr: It's working as intended.
Re: (Score:1)
Their pending lawsuit against the patent troll to recover $300k in legal fees. I figure, if the troll pays up just 10%, or $30k, that's a real bargain.
Absolutely not. They should burn the troll to the ground. Wipe them out.
Re:I think Wikimedia should offer to settle (Score:4, Interesting)
Patent trolls don't pay up. If they lose, the go poof and the lawyers open up a new installment of the same spiel. Why do you think patent trolls are by definition shell corporations that have zero assets and certainly no human being in them that you could shake down for money?
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls don't pay up. If they lose, the go poof and the lawyers open up a new installment of the same spiel. Why do you think patent trolls are by definition shell corporations that have zero assets and certainly no human being in them that you could shake down for money?
Defendants need to get even more aggressive. That pattern is definitely well-established, and it's not legal. It should be fairly easy to convince a judge to pierce the corporate veil when encountering that pattern. It's just that nobody tries.
Re: (Score:2)
Will it or won't it? Why are you asking us? (Score:1)
Are we placing bets?
T9 (Score:2)
I thought Motorola owned T9 predictive text. Didn't Apple and Motorolla go at it 10 years ago?
Re: T9 (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that kind of predictive text. They're claiming they own the idea of auto complete search boxes. I wonder if they're suing Google too.
Re: (Score:2)
They're claiming they own the idea of auto complete search boxes. I wonder if they're suing Google too.
Patent trolls usually go after what they perceive as soft targets, extract settlements, then work their way up to bigger and bigger marks, using earlier settlements as justifications to extract bigger settlements. "You don't want to fight us boyo, Wikimedia Foundation already settled, and their lawyers are really smart, so obviously we have an ironclad case and we'd win in court, give us the money, quick."
Here's hoping these fools try their nonsense with NewEgg. Assuming Wikipedia doesn't give them the Ne
Re: (Score:2)
wait a minute. Wasn't it "T4: Litigation Day" with a digitally rejuvenated Schwarzenegger?
Are you John C
onner
onnolly
arson
hawk
Not the smartest move... (Score:5, Interesting)
Trying to pull patent crap on what is basically a huge pile of research nerds.
It's like trying to rob people in a NRA meeting with a knife.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be great if litigation was primarily a research issue, but nonprofits aren't known for having the most robust legal support. Patent trolls are the devil.
Re:Not the smartest move... (Score:5, Informative)
That would be great if litigation was primarily a research issue, but nonprofits aren't known for having the most robust legal support. Patent trolls are the devil.
Nonprofits?
LOL.
https://wikimediafoundation.or... [wikimediafoundation.org]
To make it easy for you:
Cash and cash equivalents $73,900,242
This is like showing up to the NRA meeting with a wet noodle.
Re:Not the smartest move... (Score:5, Funny)
>This is like showing up to the NRA meeting with a wet noodle.
Isn't that the primary reason for going to an NRA meeting?
Re: (Score:2)
"You can take my gun when you pry it out of my ... oooh!"
Re: (Score:2)
Because non-profit organisations aren't allowed to have any money saved up for next year, of course....
Wikimedia is very much a non-profit. (Score:2)
Wikimedia does not have an income. Their site makes no money - they are almost entirely funded by donations.
They are so well known that they are able to cover costs and have a good reserve - but that doesn't mean that they aren't a non-profit. And as the document you linked shows, that $74mm represents less than one years expenses.
Re: Wikimedia is very much a non-profit. (Score:3)
A nonprofit is a corporate arrangement where the owners cannot take profits, but the company can save all kinds of money. I showed their cash - it represents around 1/4 their actual worth. They have plenty of money, and easily enough to defeat this lawsuit.
My point with "nonprofit" is that it's not equivalent to "poor".
Re: (Score:2)
What do assets have to do with their nonprofit status? I'm genuinely confused why you seem so smug about this.
Re: (Score:2)
With the difference that you can't hurt a spectre, and patent trolls are hardly more than that. If they win, the money is siphoned away to security. If they lose, they will close shop before you can squeeze a dime out of them.
It's like appearing at a NRA meeting as a hologram. If they try to shoot you, all they do is waste ammo and ruin their furniture.
I guess (Score:5, Funny)
Meta (Score:4, Interesting)
Out to Clean their Clocks... (Score:5, Interesting)
How refreshing it is to find an organization such as Wikimedia that responds by showing that not only are they not interested in spending $X for a license, they are willing to spend 10X, 20X, or more to invalidate the patents.
Read the attached documentcloud doc -- Wikimedia filed a DJ (Declaratory Judgement) action in Federal Court, asking the Court to declare the four patents invalid and not infringed. (Preparing and filing the DJ probably cost more than the proposed license fee -- I think they're serious about this!)
This puts Wikimedia in the driver's seat (and they're driving an effing tank), and Wordlogic in the position of
Going to be an interesting one to watch.
Streisand Effect (Score:4, Interesting)
This battle will make for an interesting Wikipedia article.
Wikimedia should (Score:2)
Techdirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill (Score:1)
> reports Techdirt
So basically I have to go dig and find the actual facts, because the source is not a news site. At least there were no typos from the /. editors, so progress?
Classical three legal arguments... (Score:3)
First. My dog doesn't bite, so it cannot have bitten you.
Second. My dog was with me the whole night when you say you were bitten, so it cannot have bitten you that night.
Third. In any case, I have no dog.
Re: (Score:1)
First. My dog doesn't bite, so it cannot have bitten you.
Second. My dog was with me the whole night when you say you were bitten, so it cannot have bitten you that night.
Third. In any case, I have no dog.
I think you are very confused or possible stupid person. The argument 3 would be: And you have not been bitten.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope WordLogic Win (Score:2)
Question about patent trolls (Score:2)
So is it OK for big companies that "might" be doing research on a patent to pick on whoever is "infringing". I'm sure the answer should be no, but I hope that whatever changes that might come to patents are completely taking care of the little trolls and the big trolls. This troll sounds little from the brief read, but if it had been Apple who owned this patent, I feel like it would have been a huge problem for wikipedia because some huge company can just spin up a group of 5 guys to say they are working on
I Gotcher Stock Raht Cheer! (Score:3)
Wordlogic [ptui]: what a bunch of pukes. Check out their stock: man, talk about a worthless penny stock!
https://www.marketwatch.com/in... [marketwatch.com]
And such a great record they have too:
http://thepatentinvestor.com/2... [thepatentinvestor.com]
[quote]For example, a year ago, WordLogic announced a licensing agreement with undisclosed private backers who supposedly were setting up an operating company assisted by Nirvana Canada, a software development and marketing firm founded by former Microsoft program manager Sandeep Mittal. [/quote]
Sandeep Mittai, eh? Tch, I thought he had better sense ... and morals.
Their PR department is hard at work too, and a fine bunch of liars they are as well.
https://investorshub.advfn.com... [advfn.com]
RICO (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
With an opening like that? I can't resist!
"Because it's not RICO, dammit!" [popehat.com]