There's a new Randall Smith in town

General discussion area for tube amps.

Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal

User avatar
JMFahey
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina

Re: There's a new Randall Smith in town

Post by JMFahey »

RockinRocket wrote:Well I can tell right now that is false. I watch a lot of Shark Tank. Lots of companies win lawsuits for patent infringement. What about that 15 million dollar Nintendo 3d stereoscopic 3D lawsuit?
You are confirming the core of what I posted, which is:
All a patent does is give you the right to sue someone in
a civil action.
and it still holds true.

If you (or I) infringe a Nintendo Patent, they will *destroy* you/us because they can spend 1000X in Lawyers what any of us can afford.

Now if the exact same Patent is awarded to you and they infringe it, they will still destroy you
because they can spend 1000X in Lawyers what you can afford.
So what seems to be the determining factor?

a) a Patent in your name

b) an army of Lawyers and heavy Economic power

pick one :(

That said, rather than going by a TV show, if you are interested read Don Lancaster's full article on Patents, very interesting.

As a practical example, I can mention a case where a private individual did win in Court against a monster Corporation: Engineer Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper .

Newspaper headlines and TV shows would just state:
Kearns received approximately US$ 30 million in compensation for Chrysler's patent infringement.
because it's a wonderful attention getter news ... and is true.

So far so good, but the full text is:
Kearns mostly acted as his own attorney in the subsequent suit against Chrysler, even questioning witnesses on the stand. The Chrysler verdict was decided in 1992, and was a victory for Kearns. Chrysler was ordered to pay Kearns US$18.7 million with interest.[7] Chrysler appealed the court decision, but the Federal Circuit let the judgment stand.[8] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[9] By 1995, after spending over US$ 10 million in legal fees,[10] Kearns received approximately US$ 30 million in compensation for Chrysler's patent infringement.[7]
sort of confirming that rather than the Patent itself, heavyweight Legal power and deep pockets are the key :(

10 Million Dollars in advance, before the Judge sentence !!!! Wow !!!!!
Wonder if the average Inventor can engage in such battles.

To boot, he was no average Joe in the street either, he had been
member of the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the U.S. CIA, during World War II.
and I bet he knew a couple important guys here and there.

That would sure help ;)
Last edited by JMFahey on Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
matt h
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 2:26 am
Location: New England

Re: There's a new Randall Smith in town

Post by matt h »

(deleted)
Last edited by matt h on Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RockinRocket
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:23 am

Re: There's a new Randall Smith in town

Post by RockinRocket »

JMFahey wrote:
RockinRocket wrote:Well I can tell right now that is false. I watch a lot of Shark Tank. Lots of companies win lawsuits for patent infringement. What about that 15 million dollar Nintendo 3d stereoscopic 3D lawsuit?
You are confirming the core of what I posted, which is:
All a patent does is give you the right to sue someone in
a civil action.
and it still holds true.

If you (or I) infringe a Nintendo Patent, they will *destroy* you/us because they can spend 1000X in Lawyers what any of us can afford.
Well no this was Nintendo being sued by the patent holder..
Post Reply