56 percent of all patent lawsuits are made by patent trolls
Summary: According to a new, comprehensive report by Lex Machina, more than half of all patent lawsuits in the US now come from patent trolls.
Patent lawsuits are used as weapons in business wars between companies such as Oracle vs. Google and Apple vs. Samsung. Behind the intellectual property (IP) headlines, however, Lex Machina, a Silicon Valley startup, has found that patent troll lawsuits have increased from 24 percent of cases filed in 2007 to 56% in 2012.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a "patent troll uses patents as legal weapons, instead of actually creating any new products or coming up with new ideas." They collect their patents for pennies on the dollar from companies down on their luck. Since the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) has a bad habit of issuing very broad patents for ideas that are neither new nor revolutionary, it's easy for a patent troll, which typically has no other business, to send out threatening letters to anyone who might conceivably infringe their patents. These letters usually threaten a lawsuit unless the alleged infringer agrees to pay a licensing fee. These charges can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Patent trolling is a very successful business.
Lex Machina, which started as a Stanford University Law School and Computer Science department project, has found that:
"Cases filed by monetizers [i.e. trolls] rarely proceed to trial, usually settling early in the case. 75 percent of terminated cases filed by monetizers ended in a settlement, as did 72 percent of terminated cases filed by operating companies. Less than 1 percent of monetizer cases were decided at or after trial, and less than 2 percent of monetizer cases were decided on summary judgment. Of the summary judgment cases, the authors did not find a single decision in which the monetizer prevailed. Of the trial determinations, monetizers won half of the time, though this represented only 0.3 percent of all terminated monetizer cases."
That's actually worse than it sounds. You see, most patent troll shakedowns never get to trial. Lex Machina states, "Much monetization behavior, such as bargaining, posturing and payment, concludes without any party filing a lawsuit." As a result, the authors conclude that "increasing anecdotal evidence suggests that patent litigation represents only the tip of the iceberg, and that the vast majority of patent monetization activity never progresses to the point at which a patent infringement lawsuit is filed."
Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at Columbia University, and the chairman of Software Freedom Law Center, agreed with Lex Machina's conclusions. "I think they are consistent with the experience of those who work in the area," said Moglen, "They show why community defense [such as the Open Invention Network patent defense consortium] is so important, and why in the end it will be so effective at preventing rent-seeking behavior by these entities."
Why do businesses pay rather than fight? Because it's cheaper to pay up than fight. By 2008, the average patent judgment had risen to a mind-boggling $17.8-million. The cost of losing has only gone up since then. True, as Lex Machina has shown, the odds are vastly against you losing; but even if you win, it's costly to fight a patent troll.
The American Intellectual Property Law Association reported in 2011 that if you defend against a less than $1-million patent shakedown, your total legal bill will average $650,000. The costs, of course, only shoot upward as the amounts go upward. Matthew Bye, Google's senior competition counsel, wrote on April 5 that patent trolls cost the U.S. economy nearly $30 billion a year.
With numbers like that, is it any wonder that so many Android companies have settled with Microsoft rather than fighting their patent claims in court? Is it really so surprising that so few companies, such as RackSpace, are taking patent trolls head on?
The only real solution is a total reform of the utterly broken patent system in the US. Patents were meant to encourage innovation. Today, they only discourage it.
Related Stories:
- Google: It's time to take action against patent trolls, privateering
- Rackspace targets patent troll to stop the lawsuits
- Judge hands Web patent troll Eolas a shovel, orders it to dig own grave
- Windows 8’s Halloween surprise: Metro patent lawsuit
- CNET: How much is that patent lawsuit going to cost you?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
apple is trolling
Microsoft and "patent troll"
"With numbers like that, is it any wonder that so many Android companies have settled with Microsoft rather than fighting their patent claims in court?"
"So few Android companies"? Even I know better than that. One example is Motorola mobile which was acquired by Google. If Microsoft is a "patent troll", then Motorola is 10x more and since it's owned by Google, that makes Google a "patent troll". Just look up the numerous lawsuits Motorola mobile has filed against Microsoft in Germany. They even succeeded once in banning all Microsoft product from being sold in the market. But Microsoft doesn't stand back and not attack "patent trolls". They actually fight and take care of the situation.
My point is don't one company should not call other companies "patent trolls" without looking in the mirror first.
Notice...
Microsoft has sued Google
56 percent of all patent lawsuits are made by patent trolls
Nobody's laughing
Instead of sounding funny, you just made yourself look pathetic.
Grow up.
56%? Probably more like 99.99999999%
A source of inspiration amidst all the Trolling: Newegg
--Ed--
A little secret ...
Let me let you in on a little secret ...
Once lawyers leave law school we TOTALLY IGNORE law professors. Law professors basically are "ivory tower academics" who deal almost exclusively in theoretical situations.
Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently said that the Supreme Court hardly ever reads articles, etc., by law professors because they don't find them useful.
I bet they've read the GPL.
Are you over-generalizing?
GPL is a license, not an academic paper
Rude and irrelevant.
"Law professors basically are "ivory tower academics" who deal almost exclusively in theoretical situations."
And yet not only has Eben Moglen, a Law Professor, written the GPL, but he also acts as pro-bono legal counsel for (say) Debian. That's not being an "ivory tower academic" by any stretch.
So I conclude that Rick_R is wrong and that your comment is beside the point.
RE: "A little secret ..."
"Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently said that the Supreme Court hardly ever reads articles, etc., by law professors because they don't find them useful."
His reading list is most likely provided by the Koch brothers. For example:
"Court Kills Limits on Corporate Politicking
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html#
And yet...
Steven, were you sleeping?
"The only real solution is a total reform of the utterly broken patent system in the US."
I thought that the America Invents Act of 2011 fixed everything. And you didn't even mention it in the article. :/
P.S. The whole software patent mess was created by U.S. courts and, most likely, will have to be fixed by the courts (if it ever does get fixed).
Nope
Patent trolls can win lawsuits, others rarely do
I had some patents I recently sold out to a patent troll. They included some inovative software that a large firm after having a presentation on it (but not trying to negotiate for the patent) placed into an open source package for Linux. Now if I had tried to sue the firm, I could expect to need a million or two to get to decision at a minimum, since that wasn't going to happen and the firm would not negotiate, sell to a troll.
This is an expected result
So, monetizing your IP is evil?
Many patent owners never create products, but sell the patents to other companies. So, you've by default called the little guy a troll.
Way over generalized for the smell test. Steven's credibility at it's normal level, non-existent
Re: So, monetizing your IP is evil?