"some of the more egregious (maybe unlawful) examples but it will become more common."
Maybe on one end I was right about unlawful, on the other end I may have been wrong that this will become more common depending on how this case goes in what the AG describes as "a-first-of-its-kind lawsuit."
Kudos to the AG here, but I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).
> I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).
I don't think it's reasonable to expect all or even many of the victims to have the resources to devote to challenging this kind of thing, especially considering that MPHJ Technology is certainly not the only patent troll out there. Having a state AG take action makes it more of a fair fight.
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the individuals have legal rights in addition to the AG, it is not as though the AG can not move forward because an individual party is enforcing their legal rights.
As far as resources, you are correct, that is why the troll in this case went after end users, because they are less likely to have the resources to defend or initiate a legal action; however, the manufacturers of the copy machines have standing and resources to protect their IP and business interests that the troll is tortiously interfering with, same with the retailers.
Exactly. I am pleasantly surprised to see the AG taking up causes for his citizens. I remember a time when my parents wrote complaints to their AG. Perhaps those aren't such bygone actions.
[IANAL] Oh, probably. What will be really interesting is if the AG tries to pierce the corporate veil, under the notion that the troll created the corporation for express purposes of fraud.
I can not confirm, the link to the "Complaint" simply takes me to the same memo/press release. The Complaint would indicate who the AG has named as the defendant(s).
However, even if the Company is a shell and does not even own the patent in question, this will still set precedent vis-a-vis this troll's behavior, and if the troll loses rest assure another shell company will not try to enforce the same patent in the same manner at least in this state. Again that assumes the AG obtains a favorable decision. Separately, like I mention above the victims may want to take this opportunity to challenge the patent itself, if not file a civil cause of action for damages.
In a less ethically bankrupt legal profession that I'm imagining, there's a thing called a Bar. The Bar has an ethics board, and they immediately take notice of goings-on like this troll's tactics. They quickly strip him of his authority to practice law, because his behavior is wantonly unethical (though technically legal), and it's disastrous to the reputation of the entire legal profession. (Also, in this hypothetical world, the legal profession cares about it's reputation.)
That choice of prioritization of targets could reasonably be interpreted as circumstantial evidence of fraud, because it bears strong semblance to how certain criminals behave (e.g. people who steal from old ladies).
Common sense for honest folk suggests you go after people with money when you have a legitimate claim -- in other words, go after the large businesses whose violation of your rights will look embarrassing under the bright lights of a courtroom. The alleged troll is choosing the opposite strategy.
Agree with the "deep pockets" as standard operating practice in law suits but there are definitely cases where people without deep pockets are sued and there is no fraud just the same.
Next, I'm not defending their actions (trolls that is) however there is no supporting evidence in the complaint (that would come out at trial of course) as to what constitutes a "small business" which is interpreted in various ways.
"That choice of prioritization of targets"
We don't know that other than what the AG has said. There is no list of all the targets so we don't know whether 100% of them are two person businesses (for example) or not.
One of the claims that the attorney general makes is that the defendants "can't pay for patent counsel" in other words can't pay (I'm assuming) to even ask a question of an attorney (a simple consult).
Of course we all know what is going on here (looks and quacks like a duck) I guess it just bothers me a bit that the attorney general appears to be using language to gain points with voters by appearing to be fighting for the little guy. Because that gains sympathy and political capital. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the trolls also targeted businesses (that while "small") had employees and could easily afford to pay for legal advice (add: even if just randomly, by accident or intentionally "shit at the fan").
If the Attorney General is fighting for "the little guy", then I have no problem if he gains political capital while doing so.
The larger point is that the trolls are clearly trying to find companies that are unlikely to fight back, even if they sometimes miss. Yes, that kind of behavior does not mean their must be fraud, but it's an indicator.
> I guess it just bothers me a bit that the attorney general appears to be using language to gain points with voters by appearing to be fighting for the little guy.
Alternatively he could have been made aware of the problem by reports from lots of little guys and decided to act, since that is his job.
Not sure why, other than to evoke some kind of emotional reaction, why it matters that "at least two of these businesses are non-profits that assist developmentally disabled Vermonters".
If you ever have to go to court, you'll see pretty quickly that emotional appeal is very powerful. Even though its not technically supposed to work that way - in reality it works because humans are emotional creatures - not robots.
The linked text is a press release, not the actual suit. So, I'm not surprised that the Attorney General would make an emotional appeal in a press release.
"some of the more egregious (maybe unlawful) examples but it will become more common."
Maybe on one end I was right about unlawful, on the other end I may have been wrong that this will become more common depending on how this case goes in what the AG describes as "a-first-of-its-kind lawsuit."
Kudos to the AG here, but I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).