New York Times’ 5-year fight with patent troll may cost millions

Even as belt-tightening has led the New York Times to close sections and shed reporters, the Gray Lady is spending large sums on legal bills to fight a patent troll that claims to own the rights to sending internet links via text message.

The Times has been fighting the case since 2010, arguing that the patent is unenforceable in part because the mobile phone companies that deliver the text messages have already paid the troll, known as Helferich Patent Licensing LLC, to license it.

Even though a federal court agreed with the New York Times and tossed the claims in 2013, the case sprang back to life last month after an appeals court ruled that the patent claims are not “exhausted.” Now the Times must brace for another round of litigation.

The five-year ordeal illustrates once again the dilemma that companies like the New York Times face when confronted by patent trolls: either pay for a dubious license (in this case for sending a text message), or pay even more to go through a legal meat-grinder.

The New York Times and its lawyers would not disclose how much the company is spending on the Helferich case, but this 2013 chart produced by the American Intellectual Property Law Association shows how much these lawsuits typically cost to defend (NPE stands for non-practicing entity, a synonym for patent troll):

Troll litigation costs

Given the length and complexity of the case — docket filings show Helferich has engaged in repeated procedural jousting, and even sought to obtain sanctions against the Times and its lawyers — it’s likely that the legal bills are already in the millions.

This situation, in turn, points to the economic asymmetry that makes patent trolling so effective in the first place.

“One of the business models many NPEs leverage is offering a settlement that will cost less than at trial,” said Michael Strapp, a patent lawyer at Goodwin Proctor, who has written a guide to defending against patent trolls.

Strapp added that, while there are too many variables to predict the cost of a given case, the process of discovery — in which companies have to turn over evidence in the form of documents and testimony — drives much of the cost. Patent trolls, meanwhile, are shielded from most of these costs since they are basically shell companies with little in the way of assets or discoverable documents.

Helferich’s business model has so far been effective enough to extract reported settlements of $750,000 from the likes of Apple and Disney.

As such, by choosing to fight (in 2012 a Times lawyer, Brian Buroker of Gibson Dunn, likened the demand to a “tax on the internet”), the Times may simply be paying more to prolong its legal misery.

The Times case, however, may provide further momentum for patent reform in Congress, where senators like John Cornyn (R-Tx) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have long backed measures to rein in patent trolls, in part by reforming the discovery process that makes it easy for trolls to extract settlements.

The case also comes at a time of growing scholarly evidence that patent trolls don’t result in innovation, as their defenders claim, but instead force productive companies to cut operations and R&D.

A lawyer for Helferich, whose operations appear to consist of no more than law offices in Arizona and Chicago, did not immediately return a request for comment.

The AllSeen Alliance changes its IP stance after Iotivity launch

After getting hammered on its intellectual property rights by Intel’s competing Iotivity standards effort, the AllSeen Alliance, which is promoting Qualcomm-backed AllJoyn protocol, is offering users a patent pledge. Essentially anyone who gets certified with the AllSeen Alliance logo also gets a pledge that none of the members of the alliance will sue for use of their technology.

Philip DesAutels, senior director of IoT at the Linux Foundation, which hosts the AllSeen Alliance, says that the 15 members of the Alliance had been working on this since last August, but it took time to get all 15 members to agree. They’ve agreed on the patent pledge, which means that those service, app or devices makers who get certified won’t get sued for patent infringement by member companies, and they will get to go through certification and to use the Designed for AllSeen logo without paying any licensing or membership fee.

To enforce this, if a member company decides to sue for infringement, all the other AllSeen member companies will defend the certified device, app or service maker against the suit-happy AllSeen Alliance member. It’s a bit different from the Open Interconnect Consortium’s Iotivity IP deal, which lets members license the protocol for free. But the OIC has been pushing that different program pretty hard, especially after it lost Broadcom, one of its founding members, after a dispute over intellectual property terms.

Yes, all of this is very much in the weeds, but these two organizations are fighting to establish a standard way for devices to communicate what they are and what they can do within a home network. Whichever one succeeds will be building what each hopes could become the equivalent of HTTP for the internet of things in the home.

And while each standards effort is led by a rival chip company DesAutels says they aren’t that far apart from a technical perspective. “There’s no technical reason we can’t come together right now,” he said. “I mean, there are things like OIC supports CoAP and AllJoyn can run over CoAP. There’s no reason it can’t, it’s just no one has done it. People don’t want a hodge-podge of stuff. They want one application to control their devices and we have to give them that.”

As for this patent pledge, it will take effect 90 days after being announced on Thursday, which means devices shipping with the AllSeen certification after April 29 will be protected.

Why Sony is way out on a limb with legal threats against Twitter

Sony is threatening Twitter with a lawsuit unless it removes accounts and tweets that have posted screenshots or excerpts from its hacked emails, but the legal basis for such threats is limited and so far Twitter has resisted Sony’s requests

Aereo: Round 2

Aereo is back in court with a brand new legal theory for why it should be allowed to continue to operate. If it prevails, the implications could be nearly as far-reaching as if it had won in the Supreme Court.

The Aereo anti-climax

The Aereo opinion throws a cloud over Cablevision without actually grappling with what many legal scholars and lower court judges have identified as the critical legal weakness in the Second Circuit’s holding in Cablevision.