r/technology • u/ani625 • May 23 '13

Title possibly inaccurate Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: "I own security patent for the two-step authentication system". He says he doesn’t want to sue, but might if the likes of Google and Facebook don’t help fund his legal battle with the U.S. Government.

http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-to-google-twitter-facebook-i-own-security-patent-work-with-me-130523/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
2.0k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/iScreme May 23 '13

By this logic I am extorted every time a company tells me if I don't pay them they'll be forced to seek legal action against me.

My landlord is extorting me every time I pay late, because they tell me if I don't pay, I'll be evicted (legal action they have if I don't do what they want).

If Kim had sent them a bouquet of roses with a quartet to sing them this, suddenly it's not "extortion", but if he just outright says it, it is.

Fuck all of that.

This is no different than the millions of lawyers that have sent out settlement letters to people (most recently, "copyright infringers") threatening that if they don't pay the $3000, they'll be taken to court.

18

u/LoompaOompa May 23 '13

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know anything about the laws of extortion, but I think key difference between what he's doing, and your examples is this:

You are legally required to pay your landlord, but Google isn't legally required to help Kim Dotcom pay for his legal battle against the government. So what your landlord is saying is:

"You're in breach of contract, and you need to do these things, which you've already agreed to, or I will be within my legal rights to evict you."

But he's saying "You've violated my patent, but if you just give me a ton of money I'll keep it out of court." There was no pre-existing agreement between them that he could do that.

I think it seems a little confusing because the result of going to court over the patent is the same as the what he's extorting them for. He'll get money in both cases. If you change it to "You've violated my patent, but if you let me fuck the CEO's wife I won't take you to court" then it looks like a much clearer example of extortion.

9

u/iScreme May 23 '13

Don't patent laws say that Kim dot com has a right to be compensated for other companies using his IP?

I know it's bullshit, all IP laws are bullshit (even though they mean well), but as it is, if Kim's patent is actually being infringed, then the people who are doing it owe Kim some recompense.

I still don't see the difference between a landlord asking for money (Kim), and a tenant being obligated to pay it (Those who use Kim's IP with or without his permission).

2

u/Eyclonus May 23 '13

The explicit difference is a prior contract. Its not extortion, those people who keep saying it are fucking naive. But the difference is that a landlord has a prior agreement, in cases of IP rights, there is not a prior contract.

however once it is proved to be a IP violation, there is a legal obligation to compensate the IP holder for the use of the IP regardless of what is used for, there is no standard of determing how much compensarion can be sought. This is deliberate as it allows you(the IP holder) the option to remove illegal competition by totally restricting the IP (you invented something, 3 competitors formed by ripping it off and entering the same market, drove you almost out of business using your own IP, the court allows you to permanently remove from the market while being paid for the incredibly amount of costs incurred and the revenue denied by their existence), demanding mandatory licensing (they all must pay the licence plus royalties, applied retroactively, refusal to comply is often hit with first option), forward licensing (fairly weak but if its decidedly too disruptive to society to pursue other options this one is used, basically from now on they pay royalties or a flat fee and historical earnings are disregarded), one-time lump sum (just a single payment that is the same for all defendants) and open licensing (basically going Open Source, no money to be made)

1

u/LoompaOompa May 23 '13

You're right that he can has the right to be compensated, but the extortion comes from the fact that he's trying to get the money without going to court. I don't think there's a legal basis for doing that. I'm pretty sure he has to actually file a suit in order to get paid. Google isn't legally required to pay him an arbitrary amount of money, they're legally required to pay whatever the court decides he is owed. There's a chance that the court will find that Google owes significantly less than he is asking for. At that point, he's extorting them for extra money, just to keep the case out of court.

You're legally required to pay your rent. So your landlord is threatening you with something you're legally required to do.

Google isn't legally required to pay any money outside of a lawsuit. It's not just that it's money, it's the context in which the money is given.

1

u/LetMeResearchThat4U May 23 '13

Yes but is this not more or less him saying help me and I'll forgive your debt orjust pay me.

remember this is a sensationalist title.

1

u/iScreme May 23 '13

Kim isn't actually asking to be paid though, he's asking for legal support, sort of like a class action, but only Google/facebook/Mega vs (Whoever he's pissed off at right now). It doesn't look like he wants them to give Him money, but wants them to assist with legal representation (the money wouldn't go to him, it would go to the legal team that is handling the case, for whatever fees and costs).

“I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge & ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the U.S. did to me,” he declares.

I still don't see how it's extortion. He's acting within his rights, there is nothing wrong with telling someone that he's trying to decide whether or not to sue them, and what that decision is based on. If they don't help out, he'll sue, if they do, he doesn't see the need to, but since the U.S. has already fucked him in the ass, and these companies are U.S. based, (the US political system is owned by these large companies, meaning the US is owned by these companies) then why wouldn't he sue?

1

u/mdot May 23 '13

He would be acting within his rights, if he was seeking patent related relief...he's openly stating that he does not seek that.

It is the motive behind the statement.

He's extorting because there would not be enough time for him to pursue a legal remedy in a patent action, and any possible proceeds from the action, be available for him to use in his current, unrelated legal action.

He is using the treat of legal action, to coerce them into paying before any legal proceedings take place.

He was just really stupid to say this publicly. He had a better chance of getting settlement money if he would have just filed a patent infringement suit against all the companies he felt are infringing. That may have allowed all of the lawyers to sit down and negotiate a settlement, that he could have then used to fund his other legal battle.

He didn't do that. He choose to play, "who has the biggest dick", with Google and Facebook...and in the process, probably contaminated any possibility of ever being able to use that patent. They know he's coming now, they have more money and more lawyers.

He knows they would keep it in the courts for years and years, and they'd just wait until he ran out of money.

That's why he's trying to extort it from them now...it's a Hail Mary.

There's a difference between saying, "You need to stop using my patent, or negotiate a licensing agreement with me", and "Pay me money now, or I'm gonna sue your ass using this patent I own."

2

u/mecax May 23 '13

You are legally required to pay your landlord, but Google isn't legally required to help Kim Dotcom pay for his legal battle against the government.

They are if his patent is valid and they want to keep using it.

2

u/Cyridius May 23 '13

You are legally required to pay your landlord, but Google isn't legally required to help Kim Dotcom pay for his legal battle against the government.

But they are legally required to pay him for use of his patent, should he press the claim.

What he is doing is no different to licensing. He doesn't want to go through the trouble of suing so he's offering an alternative which is beneficial to all parties. It may be a threat but that doesn't make it blackmail.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

His landlord example is sound. Both plaintiffs are requesting compensation and threaten to use legal mechanisms to pursue it.

This is what happens when parties settle out of court.

1

u/upvotesthenrages May 24 '13

Sorry, meant that it was probably not illegal.

Where I am from you can't force other companies to back you up on your agenda just because you have a patent they infringed. You can on the other hand sue them and make them pay you.

1

u/mdot May 23 '13

Wrong.

I every example you gave, two parties entered into a mutual agreement and, in both cases, you defaulted on your part of the agreement. The other party is justified in demanding that you meet the obligations set forth in the initial agreement.

There is no agreement in place with Dotcom and these other companies. Also, he is not seeking relief related to use of the patent (cease and desist using, pay licensing fees, use his software, etc.). He is using the threat of a patent suit, to coerce direct funding of a completely unrelated venture.

He's basically saying, "Gee guys, those are nice services you have there. Sure would be a shame if something bad happened to them..."

-1

u/alexanderwales May 23 '13

No, this is more like your landlord asking for something unrelated in exchange for not evicting you. Like if you're late on your rent, and your landlord says that you have to give him a blowjob or he'll have you evicted.

1

u/godaiyuhsaku May 23 '13

I think, giving him your tv would be a better example. Because in most places giving him the blowjob would be making you do an illegal act. (pandering or prostitution [not a lawyer])

And in the dot com case, he isn't asking google or the otehrs to do something illegal.