Problem is, if he does this and pays out, this company has won again and won't stop there. They will then have a stronger case to go after more people using the same copy-protection system. Of course, I hope he doesn't bankrupt himself, but I'm glad he's putting up a fight.

 

Yes, you're right, of course.  It's really a tough situation.

Arent most of the politicians lawyers ?

 

Correlation doesn't equal causation. 

 

Knowledge is power. E.g., if you know how and are licensed to fly IFR, you can do more than a VFR pilot. When you are taught how to interpret statutes, you tend to become interested in their creation. Knowledge, though, carries a personal responsibility, and it can be abused by people who lack proper ethics. Just because you're licensed to fly through that weather doesn't mean you would be better off doing it.

___

 

Back to the discussion, there was a bit of good news that establishes better precedent for LR that came out today. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/business/two-rulings-may-curb-lawsuits-over-patents.html%C2'>

 

With a few exceptions, the American legal system requires that each party pay their own cost regardless of outcome. In patent suits, there is a section of a statute that allows legal fees to be shifted onto one of the parties if 1) they acted in subjective bad faith (i.e. knew they were trolling) and 2) the claim was objectively baseless. Proving 1 and 2, though, had been hard to do ... until now.

 

The Court's holding now allows these claims for fee shifting to the troll to be made with greater ease. As noted above, Trolls usually push companies to settle for less than the cost of litigation (Coase Theorum) regardless of the merit of their claim. A lower court now has more latitude to rule that a claim is in bad faith and baseless. If that happens, a company could litigate the claim against the troll, win, and then receive money from the troll for the cost of defending itself. At least that's the theory.

 

 

Problem is, if he does this and pays out, this company has won again and won't stop there.

 

Uniloc did win against Microsoft to the tune of $388 Million USD and they are currently suing companies with a lot deeper pockets than Laminar Research who are also currently defending themselves -- such as Square Enix, Gameloft, and EA.

 

I agree with Rob, Austin should settle this matter with Uniloc and put it behind him. And leave it to the larger companies to fight them in the courts.

Uniloc did win against Microsoft to the tune of $388 Million USD and they are currently suing companies with a lot deeper pockets than Laminar Research who are also currently defending themselves -- such as Square Enix, Gameloft, and EA.

 

I agree with Rob, Austin should settle this matter with Uniloc and put it behind him. And leave it to the larger companies to fight them in the courts.

 

Their case against Microsoft was overturned so they received nothing, but  looking at who all they are suing, Sony, Oracle, etc they have tasted blood and feel that eventually they will score a big payday. Or in the mean time nickle and dime themselves a few bucks. Looking thru their history, it might make sense for LR to settle. Austin could give them his plane.

The only way Austin and LR are going to have a chance in Court is to take it to a Jury (as UNILOC has requested), then file for a change of Venue away from Tyler, TX. The case has to be tried by a different Magistrate; one that isn't as sympathetic to UNILOC. That's part of the reason they're bum rushing anyone and everyone; the majority of their briefs have been filed in only one jurisdiction... the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

 

Sounds to me that there's a little Marsupial Court being held in the Eastern part of the Lone Star State; run by a Judge Roy Bean wannabe who I wouldn't doubt is stretching both his ethics and his digits, reaching for a little poke of each Settlement for UNILOC that comes across his docket. Unfortunately, a leech is a leech... regardless of Genome.

 

Ultimately, it's Austin's battle. It's his choice which way he wants to go.

One of the reasons for Austin not to settle, even if it bankrupts him, surely must be his ability to simply look himself in the mirror. Even if it meant losing XPlane it sounds like he'd feel he'd be losing something much more important by capitulating. I can respect that.

Very good video. Just visit these pages if you want to learn more about the ridiculous software patents system:

http://patentabsurdity.com/

http://endsoftpatents.org/

 

It's very expensive for the US economy ($29 Billions every year ?):

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/study-patent-trolls-cost-companies-29-billion-last-year/259070/

More on the case - a film team was visiting Austin last week:

 

http://vimeo.com/93143166

http://vimeo.com/93143918

http://vimeo.com/93144399

 

 

More about the patent scam here, Austin made a very good new video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xggxHI0w5I

 

 

http://www.thepatentscam.com/glimpse-1.html

 

 

Is the U.S. Patent system that broken? Forgive me for my ignorance, but why can't companies just deny the litigation and say "no, we're not going to pay you as the patent you're defending is BS?"

Just as anything in a Law system, you have to prove you're not guilty.... and that only takes a lot of time, effort and money....

 

I'm glad Austin keeps fighting that system, which is, in it's base, apparently worth having to control patents, but got highly corrupted and biased...

Just as anything in a Law system, you have to prove you're not guilty.... and that only takes a lot of time, effort and money....

 

Well, actually it should be the other way around, in theory. In a just law system, the burden to prove the wrongdoing should always be on the shoulder of the prosecutor, or the accuser. Looks like this is not the case. :smile:

Well, actually it should be the other way around, in theory. In a just law system, the burden to prove the wrongdoing should always be on the shoulder of the prosecutor, or the accuser. Looks like this is not the case. :smile:

 

Surely,  the courts decide who's the wrongdoer - not the plaintiff or the defender?.

No... most often it's money that decides.

Surely,  the courts decide who's the wrongdoer - not the plaintiff or the defender?.

 

This is what I actually meant:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

 

E.g. If a prosecutor accuses you of homicide, but neither you can provide an alibi, nor him can provide any proof against you, then you have to be declared not guilty. "The proof of burden is on him who declares".