Dealing with this kind of thing is a nightmare. You have to find someone who does EFF type stuff.

I didn't understand this phrase. Does that mean the "good" lawyer is just a false front and the real business is handled by somebody else?

- Simply stopping to respond to requests without signaling in any way, that you are not interested in continuing the interaction is rude (aka ghosting).

- Signaling even just once that you would not like to continue the interaction (as clearly and polite as possible) and ignoring the other side from that point on is appropriate.

Even though you might not 'owe anyone' anything, humans typically have socially accepted behavior patterns. So the argument is less about what you must do and more about what the majority of people around you consider good style. However, these things might differ between cultures and social circles.

Even back in the prehistoric times of my dating days, which was before I recall the term "ghosting" existed, it wasn't an uncommon thing. It might have been disappointing on occasion, but I never found it "rude". It wasn't very hard to take the hint and move on.

I had this one English teacher who squashed any interest in writing after I took his class. He was known as Red because that's what color our papers were when he was finished grading them.

He did say a few thing that felt right. One was just don't use cliches. The other was don't use slang.

It's clearly rude to ghost friends, acquaintances, business partners etc. But if someone reached out to you with the intention of doing business with you, I think it's ok to ghost them if you're 100% not interested. Am I wrong?

It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic interest.

Language isn't fixed, the meaning of words, especially "new" words (and ghosting is a new verb) changes over time. That was the original meaning, but it's now applied to all relationships.

>Ghosting is by no means limited to long-term romantic relationships. Informal dating relationships, friendships, even work relationships may end with a form of ghosting.

https://www.psycom.net/what-is-ghosting

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ghosting

For clarity, I didn't mean that ghosting was only to do with dumping partners. I suppose I was suggesting that that's the canonical example.

They can, however, take on competing companies for a single action if they all agree. It's probably best if the firm didn't have a prior relationship with any of them.

(Not a lawyer but I am a software developer who's built a legal conflict of interest search system)

E.g. I once had a lawyer review a severance agreement before I signed it, since it had non-compete language in it. He had to be sure that his firm didn't already have a relationship with the employer.

If there's no common interest in the case, lawyers are expected to be able to maintain confidentiality. Same as an accountant who might have two competing businesses as clients.

But, IANAL.

I, personally, would not risk this approach.

This could also mean that the patent troll (the enemy of your competitor) is your friend.

In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway. Stalin just used it to buy time to ramp up the Soviet military. From what I recall it's likely Hitler assumed this as well and used the pact to delay dealing with the Soviets militarily and focus on his Western front to snatch up as much of Europe as possible.

Obviously a very dramatic example but as it applies here there's a very good chance that even if a competitor seems helpful, etc at first they could very well leverage the entire scenario to their advantage eventually (somehow).

It's a roll of the dice for sure, but I'd take that roll over a cold call of a lawyer.

That is partly true, but in this case the patent troll is not vanquished and so doesn't apply.

Often competition is not that cutthroat. It's not usually a zero sum game. There are definitely outcomes where your competitors even add net value by legitimizing the market, educating potential customers, providing a source of ideas, etc. My general philosophy here is the world is big enough for all of us, I don't treat it as war, and don't seek to crush competitors - I seek to make my users and employees happy. That's it. Being competitor focused is an error, at least in a high margin business.

> In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway.

By accounts I've seen, Stalin was genuinely surprised and caught off guard by the invasion.

Not sure how this thread turned to Hitler so quickly. What's that internet law called?

Not true at all. 1) Stalin was caught off guard by the invasion. We know this because he holded up in his private residence for a few days afterwards until the Politburo came visited him and asked him what he was going to do.

2) The Russian military was not tactically or strategically ready when the Germans attacked. We know this because the Russians lost millions of soldiers by encirclement in the days and weeks after the start of the war. If Russian military had been ready, it would have been in much better position(s).

3) Stalin had purged thousands of quality officers and NCOs from the Russian military. You can't have a good military without a professional, respected and well maintained NCOs core. If Stalin thought the Germans would really attack, he would have built up a professional officer and NCO core.

The three things that really saved Russia are January, February and the willingness of the Russian people to do anything for Russia, regardless of who is in charge.

I’m probably wrong, whatever, let me know I guess. I’m not running a company, I’ve just observed the SF companies I worked at for years. Opinions my own.

- There's definitely no privilege with a competitor. The only people you should provide ANY detail or discussion on any of this are your attorneys. Full stop. That includes this post and discussion.

- You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in. Many will be happy to dance on your grave...

- Business can be absolutely ruthless. I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them (or who knows what).

Business doesn't have to go full "Art of War" but to many people that's exactly what it is.

The OP has been provided with copies of lawsuits that sound like they may have been resolved one way or another. OP doesn't sound like they have any resources to assist in the matter.

This would likely incur additional expense on their part (as OP is unlikely to contribute much to the legal fight) and enable a competitor. One immediate impact to the bottom line and potential future impact by saving another competitor in the field.

Assuming the competitors are currently or have incurred expense in dealing with it, the only reason left (as I see it) would be altruism on their part in banding together with a competitor.

There aren't many examples of this actually happening for a reason.

Its not just altruism. If you expend resources on something, you want to get the most value out of it as possible. It would be extending the value of their investment into lawyers/settlement/etc. to band together and get a possible reversal of judgement/recompense. There is definitely something to gain from taking down the troll, including recouping any initial settlement.

Telling a competitor that you are being sued by a patent troll does not impair confidentiality. And if they are a true competitor, it is very likely that they have also been sued by the patent troll, or are next on the list, and may join in multi-party litigation against the troll.

You signal to your competitors the very weak and vulnerable position you're in.

Maybe in your particular industry or geographic niche its dog-eat-dog.But especially outside of tech, most companies will band together against outsider threats.

I wouldn't put it past some Machiavellian type competitor to tip off the troll to let the troll take you out for them

The only way this would happen without backfiring on the plotter is if they were already targeted by the troll and lost.

Businesses aren't as ruthless as you seem to think they are. They are run by real people, and they and act like people. The kind of ruthlessness you describe is something you see at the largest levels (i.e., Amazon and Apple) where sociopathy is a virtue rather than a hindrance, and even those companies will band together against patent trolls.

I'm not saying this is always the case. I'm saying that unless you're completely desperate or absolutely know otherwise it's the safer assumption.

I nice worked for a Big 5 company. I'm not aware of Machiavellian efforts to destroy competitors; they just bought them.

I've worked for an international software company with ~1,500 staff. I do not think our management were inclined to collaborate with their competitors unneccessarily; they had a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

I've worked for two small-town website developers, with say 10 staff. There's four or five competitors in this town. My management were happy to collaborate with competitors to stage conferences; but I know in both cases they wanted to crush them.

None of these jobs was in SV, or even in the US.

I note the story about IBM's threats (above); so my limited view is that aggressive behaviour between companies occurs across the range of scale.

Incidentally: it doesn't make you seem weak and defenceless that you seek a collaborator in fighting a patent troll. The trolls are backed by venture capital; you are a sole trader. That you are considering defying them is courageous.

Even taking into account the different business culture of the 1980s, Microsoft's early ruthlessness is well known precisely because it was not the norm then, and certainly not the norm now.

Is there any real difference / likelihood of a good outcome there?

Ultimately I see little difference in the potential of "most lawyers will happily take your money without necessarily having an expedient path to resolution for a small one-person company".

At worst some of your competitors will ignore your request. But like I said, I have been through similar situations. Without delving into too many details, I had competitors who had no reason to help go so far beyond just a referral that years later I am still grateful. Once you've been burned by one of these trolls, you have a bit of a bond with other victims I guess.

> Competitors who by default do not have your best interests in mind.

FWIW ‘competitors’ are not enemies or out to sink you in all but the most extreme cases. Two things that are definitely a bigger danger to a small startup are: yourself, and patent trolls.

This idea that they might care is just an assumption.

Just because you're nominally competitors serving the same market doesn't mean you can't work nicely together. In many cases the true competition is 'people who don't understand how much they need our products.'

There's no reason to assume they'll be cooperative.