LG Patent Lawsuit Backfires, As It Ends Up On The Hook For Infringement
from the nuclear-war dept
We’ve seen this happen quite a few times: when a company files a patent infringement lawsuit against another operating company, patent nuclear war breaks out, with the sued coming turning around suing the original company back for patent infringement. These sorts of “mutually assured destruction” scenarios are often what keep big patent battles in check. But, in this latest case, sent in by a bunch of you, it looks like the first strike completely failed, while the retaliation hit hard. It started with LG filing a lawsuit against AU Optronics (AUO), claiming patent infringement. AUO, in turn, sued LG for patent infringement of its own patents. The end result? The court found that LG infringed on AUO’s patents, but AUO did not infringe on LG’s patents. Perhaps LG will be a bit more careful before filing patent lawsuits in the future. Now AUO is seeking an injunction against LG’s displays, and LG will likely have to pay out a substantial sum to AUO.
Comments on “LG Patent Lawsuit Backfires, As It Ends Up On The Hook For Infringement”
Karma’s a beach 🙂
“Lifes Good” for AUO on that beach … 🙂
And in the end, the consumers pay for it no matter who “wins”
In the end, the lawyers win.
Consumers can wait 17-20 years for the patents to expire. Or they can buy second hand. Or they can buy from someone other than LG. Patents and attorneys fees are part of the cost of buying tech. Just as taxes on businesses impact the cost of what they are selling. Advertising, etc.
You already pay 30-80% [margin] more than the company paid to make it.
Consumers ultimately have the upper hand. They ultimately will pay or not pay for a product. It amazes me that people still buy Sony, however. I guess rootkits don’t matter to Joe Buying Public.
Re: Re: Re:
“Consumers can wait 17-20 years for the patents to expire.”
Which I think is ridiculously long.
Re: Re: Re:
“Consumers ultimately have the upper hand.”
But companies have charts and graphs showing the cut off lines that consumers will and will not pay. and monopolies and attorney fees will invariably end up costing consumers more. Just because the consumer can choose not to buy doesn’t make it right to overcharge them and monopolize the market.
Talk about an Epic Fail. Maybe next time they’ll make sure the entity they sue doesn’t have any patents in their arsenal.
There is no real way to check who has what patents. Holding companies and all
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. The only way you can be sure of not getting hit with a countersuit is to not sue anyone over patent infringement in the first place. So LG should just keep their lawyers in their pants.
Hilarious. If only this happened more often. Penalties for patent infringement should be double when you initiate the lawsuit and are found guilty of infringement yourself.
I agree. Those who seek punishment against those for not holding up to a standard should be punished two fold for not holding themselves up to their own standard.
the real loss...
no matter who wins or who loses the lawyers get the R&D money,we get higher prices and no one gets any innovation.massive F A I L !!!!
Re: the real loss...
The lawyers get to research new ways to sue people and make money.
You know what I don’t understand. I don’t understand how a patent troll can sue for patent infringement. If you are a non practicing entity how can you claim damages? What damages can you claim? You’re not selling anything. I know in this case there are no patent trolls involved, but I’m just referring to the cases where patent trolls do sue.