Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to Inventor

April 24, 2009 -

Yesterday GamePolitics broke the news that a New Jersey inventor has sued Sony, PDP/Electro Source and several of the firms' attorneys, alleging that he was hoodwinked in a complex patent litigation deal.

One of the central issues in the case is a $150,000 payment made by PDP/Electrosource to the Plaintiff, Craig Thorner. While PDP/Electrosource negotiated the deal with Thorner, who had no attorney, Sony actually funneled the money to PDP. It's complicated, but both companies appear to have believed that acquiring an option on force feedback controller patents developed by Thorner would gain them an advantage in high stakes patent litigation involving Immersion, Corp. It certainly didn't help Sony, which suffered an $82 million judgment in the case.

If the deal sounds a little shady to you, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, who presided over Immersion vs. Sony, apparently thought so, too. GamePolitics has obtained a partial transcript of a November, 2005 hearing in which she sharply questions Sony attorneys about the $150,000 payment to Thorner:

Judge: ...What money of Electrosource's went from Electrosource to Mr. Thorner in consideration for that license agreement?

Sony Attorney #1: ...if you're asking what money Electrosource paid above and beyond the amount that Sony paid...

Judge: ...$150,000 moved to... Mr. Thorner. That $150,000 was from Sony. That was Sony's money, correct?

Sony Attorney #1: ...I don't want to split hairs... Sony paid $150,000 to Electrosource. And in exchange Sony became a third-party beneficiary under the Electrosource/Thorner license...

Judge: Wait. Wait. Help me out a little bit here... $150,000 moves from Sony through Electrosource formally... to Mr. Thorner?

Sony Attorney #1: ...[Sony] felt it was highly beneficial to have Electrosource negotiate with Mr. Thorner because if Mr. Thorner was speaking to Sony directly, perhaps he would ask for a much, much higher number, which was the belief...

Judge: And Sony's incapable of saying no?

Sony Attorney #1:...As far as that transaction goes, it's an absolutely legitimate transaction for Sony. They would have - if they got sued, they would have paid 50 times more in legal fees alone...

Judge: So in this deal, Electrosource parts with none of its own money... and it gets this license agreement on very favorable terms... and Sony chooses to use this very oblique route to get this option on a license because Sony's afraid that Mr. Thorner's going to stick them up for a whole bunch more money?...

Sony Attorney #2: Your honor, this is like a huge win for lawyers to get for Sony this kind of option at this price. It's ridiculous.

Judge: Why didn't they write it down in a clear way... Look, this is a huge corporation supposedly getting something important to it, going through this strange process through arguably incompetent lawyers... They set themselves up for a fight... they set themselves up for litigation... and Mr. Thorner is going to make Sony in that fight pay a heck of a lot more than $150,000 to win... It's Sony's position that Mr. Thorner had no idea where the money was coming from?

Sony Attorney #2: Absolutely...

Judge: So the idea was to trick Mr. Thorner into a [patent licensing] commitment to Sony that Mr. Thorner sort of didn't know about or didn't fully grasp....

Sony Attorney #2: ....So this is one of the cheapest insurance policies - I'm doing this over 40 years - that I've ever seen gotten for a client...

 

GP: As Law.com reports, five months after this hearing Judge Wilkins would rule against Sony's motion to set aside Immersion's huge win. Her assessment that sleazy business was afoot is unmistakeable:

[Judge Wilkins ruled that]Thorner was an unreliable witness and that there was strong evidence -- supported by testimony and internal Sony documents -- that Sony paid $150,000 for Thorner's testimony.


Comments

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

While it's not ethical, I don't understand - what laws have been broken here? Thorner didn't retain a lawyer - and he should have known better. Pretty much a case of caveat emptor, isn't it?

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

If I'm reading it correctly (I could be wrong) and they didn't so much intend to fleece Throrner on the licensing deal as they intended to secure favorable testimony from him, let's see: witness tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury and suborning perjury (assuming his testimony was false and the laywers knew that it was false) for starters.

If I'm wrong and they were more interested in ripping him off, there's fraud and misrepresentaion.

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

I'm not so sure their intent was as much to screw Thorner over on his patent license than it was to get him on their good side so he would tesitfy favorably for them. He got a decent bribe, not a rotten deal.

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to Inventor

The apparent attitude of the lawyers in this excerpt seems strange to me. It's as if they're crowing about Sony's shady dealings. To paraphrase it as I read it:

Judge: So, you admit that your client deliberately set out to mislead Mr. Thorner, using his lack of representation and general naivete, and succeeded.

Sony lawyer: Yep. What a rube!

Judge: In this egregiously underhanded deal, your client tricked Mr. Thorner into granting them rights at a "ridiculously"--your own word, counsel--low price. In effect, your client conspired with Electrosource to defraud Mr. Thorner.

Sony lawyer: Oh, yeah--it was epic. I've never seen anyone get taken so bad.

 

Merits and legality of the deal aside...these guys were arguing for Sony?

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

There's another way of looking at it.

Thorner was a businessman as well.  Just not as good a one as might be expected. 

Thorner would most likely try to fleece as big a company as Sony for as much as he could get.  It's in Sony's interests to keep the amount down.  There's nothing wrong with either of these positions.  All negotiations are based on this conflict.  The trick is to obscure the minimum you're willing to accept and bluff the other party into thinking it's much higher. 

Sony's lawyers are being perfectly honest about it because they're genuinely proud of their clever negotiation, and while there may be some reservations about the ethics, but legally they're of the opinion they did absolutely nothing wrong.  They may be right. 

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to Inventor

It does seem a little strange, but I think I understand what they were getting at. They were saying, "Yeah, look at what a good deal we got, we kinda pulled one over on him!" What they were implying was, "But we're sure that we would have never got that sweet of a deal if we were dealing directly with the patent holder."

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to Inventor

exactly right, and i would add with the caveat that sony intentionally involved a third party in order to deceive thorner, who sounds like he might not've even known he was dealing with sony.

the worst part is they might've gotten away with it except that they got greedy and apparently none of the money ever made it to the guy.

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

I think they're trying to play up the deal as negotiating tactics, where in reality its kinda fraud, due to the misleading nature of it all.

www.20sidedwoman.blogspot.com

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

Ya that's kinda what I got out of it too, particularly with lawyer two.  All seemed very odd.

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

And he seemed proud of himself for it. "We screwed this dolt gewd!" Sony has no problem admiting they took him for a ride. To me, it seems almost (forgive me if I'm oversimplifying) they're arguing whether to blame Sony's underhandedness or Thorner's stupidity.

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

What I don't get is that Thorner's documents explicitly state Sony would have an option to license on the same terms as Electrosource.  It wasn't like they were hiding that Sony would be taking the option.

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to Inventor

And Sony's incapable of saying no?

Maybe, maybe not. But they sure are incapable of saying 'Uncle'

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Judge Zings Sony's Lawyers Over $150K Payment to ...

Judging by their treatment of their products, I'd put my money on "not."

They're the perfect example of Yahtzee Croshaw's "dick in the pudding" analogy.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

How do you feel about Amazon buying Twitch?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IanCBroke my EA boycott to pick up Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare. Loving it. Still hate EA though. But i like Popcap. Gah.08/30/2014 - 6:01am
MaskedPixelantehttp://m.tickld.com/x/something-you-never-realized-about-guardians-of-the-galaxy Right in the feels.08/29/2014 - 6:56pm
AvalongodAgain I think we're conflating the issue of whether Sarkeesian's claims are beyond critique (no they're not) and whether its ever appropriate to use sexist language, let alone physical threats on a woman to intimidate her (no it isn't)08/29/2014 - 5:04pm
prh99Trolling her or trying to assail her integrity just draws more attention (Streisand effect?). Which is really not what the trolls want, so the only way to win (if there is a win to be had) is not to play/troll.08/29/2014 - 5:02pm
prh99Who cares, just don't watch the damn videos if you don't like her. Personally, I don't care as far as she is concerned as long there are interesting games to be played.08/29/2014 - 4:34pm
Andrew EisenZip - And yet, you can't cite a single, solitary example. (And no one said you hated anyone. Along those lines, no one claimed Sarkeesian was perfect either.)08/29/2014 - 3:51pm
Andrew EisenSaint's Row: Gat Out of Hell was just announced for PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360 and Xbox One making it the 150th game For Everything But Wii U! Congratulations Deep Silver!08/29/2014 - 3:49pm
ZippyDSMleeI do not hate them jsut think its mostly hyperlobe.08/29/2014 - 3:40pm
Andrew EisenSleaker - I'd say that's likely. From my experience, most who have a problem with Sarkeesian's videos either want to hate them in the first place (for whatever reason) or honestly misunderstand what they're about and what they're saying.08/29/2014 - 3:16pm
james_fudgeWe appreciate your support :)08/29/2014 - 2:55pm
TechnogeekIt gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, the gaming community is not statistically indistinguishable from consisting entirely of people that your average Xbox Live caricature would look at and go "maybe you should tone it down a little bit".08/29/2014 - 2:49pm
TechnogeekI just want to say that while I've disagreed with the staff of this site on several occasions, it's still good to see that they're not automatically dismissing Anita's videos as a "misandrist scam" or whatever the preferred dismissive term is these days.08/29/2014 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightZippy, So you can't find even one?08/29/2014 - 1:04pm
ZippyDSMleeAndrew Eisen:Right because shes prefect and never exaggerates... *rolls eyes*08/29/2014 - 12:53pm
SleakerAnd honestly, nearly all of the games she references, or images she depicts I've always cringed at and wondered why they were included in games to begin with, from pinups through explicit sexual depictions or direct abuse. I think it's cheap storytelling.08/29/2014 - 12:35pm
Sleaker@AE - aren't most people fundamentally misunderstanding her at this point? haha.. On a related note I think a lot of the backlash is coming from males that think she is telling them their 'Generic Male Fantasy' is bad and wrong.08/29/2014 - 12:33pm
Andrew EisenAnd no, I don't think the female community would be upset over the performance of a case study in and of itself. Possibly the mostivations behind such a study, the methodology or conclusions but not the mere idea of a case study.08/29/2014 - 12:29pm
Andrew EisenAmusingly, these videos aren't saying you can't/shouldn't use tropes or that sexual representations are inherently problematic so those are very silly things to have a problem with and indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the series.08/29/2014 - 12:29pm
SleakerDo you think the female community would get extremely angry over a male doing a case study on the negative impact of sex-novels and their unrealistic depiction of males and how widespread they are in american culture?08/29/2014 - 12:25pm
SleakerThe other thing that people might find problematic is that they see no problem with sexual representations of females (or males) in games. And realistically, why is there anything wrong with sexual representations in fiction?08/29/2014 - 12:24pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician