<story><title>Troll-Killing Patent Reform One Step Closer</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/troll-killing-patent-reform-one-step-closer</url><text></text></story><parent_chain><item><author>rarw</author><text>As a lawyer I&amp;#x27;m always concerned about changes designed to make it harder to sue someone. You almost always end up with unintended consequences. Take for example the heightened pleading standard. This standard has been used with other case types in which the allegations are considered dangerous to one&amp;#x27;s reputation, like fraud or discrimination. In many situations, people with legitimate claims have been unable to overcome the heightened pleading standard, not because their claim is weak, but because the evidence required to plead the claim is difficult to come by.&lt;p&gt;Many of the changes suggested by the article can already be accomplished using existing procedural devices. The only provision I see as having any teeth is the one that deals with fee shifting. Fee shifting provisons are a big deal as recoving attorneys fees is very rare in the American legal system. Generally fee shifting provisions allow the winner to collect legal fees even if nominal damages (e.g. $1) are awarded. This greatly increases the risk of trolling since any loss, no matter how small, could equal hundreds or thousands (probably millions) of dollars in legal fees owed to the other side.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gbhn</author><text>Being careful in reforms is good, but I think the heightened pleading concern is not that big an issue here. The plaintiff is looking at their own patent and saying &amp;quot;this thing you did violated this part.&amp;quot; If they don&amp;#x27;t know enough to say that, they shouldn&amp;#x27;t be in court -- either the patent is so vague they can&amp;#x27;t figure out which piece of it you violated, or how you did so, or they know, but don&amp;#x27;t want to say because uncertainty is a much stronger extortion position. Either way, getting rid of this is a good step, and an appropriate one to the subject matter.</text></comment>
<story><title>Troll-Killing Patent Reform One Step Closer</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/troll-killing-patent-reform-one-step-closer</url><text></text></story><parent_chain><item><author>rarw</author><text>As a lawyer I&amp;#x27;m always concerned about changes designed to make it harder to sue someone. You almost always end up with unintended consequences. Take for example the heightened pleading standard. This standard has been used with other case types in which the allegations are considered dangerous to one&amp;#x27;s reputation, like fraud or discrimination. In many situations, people with legitimate claims have been unable to overcome the heightened pleading standard, not because their claim is weak, but because the evidence required to plead the claim is difficult to come by.&lt;p&gt;Many of the changes suggested by the article can already be accomplished using existing procedural devices. The only provision I see as having any teeth is the one that deals with fee shifting. Fee shifting provisons are a big deal as recoving attorneys fees is very rare in the American legal system. Generally fee shifting provisions allow the winner to collect legal fees even if nominal damages (e.g. $1) are awarded. This greatly increases the risk of trolling since any loss, no matter how small, could equal hundreds or thousands (probably millions) of dollars in legal fees owed to the other side.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lostinpoetics</author><text>&amp;gt; In many situations, people with legitimate claims have been unable to overcome the heightened pleading standard, not because their claim is weak, but because the evidence required to plead the claim is difficult to come by.&lt;p&gt;the &amp;quot;unless the information is not reasonable [sic] accessible&amp;quot; really takes a lot of the teeth out of this though</text></comment>