mjewel, I am a big fan of your posts but I'd like to challenge your final sentence (above). If you have successfully protected your IP, either from infringement of your IP by others or against claims by others that your IP is infringing upon theirs, you have "won." The attorneys got paid for what the attorneys did for you. That's what attorneys do. Some companies, like Disney, Apple and Starbucks spend lots of money on attorneys fees protecting their trademarks. That is a cost of maintaining their IP, just as continually advertising and marketing their marks is a cost of maintaining their IP. No one is forcing them to do it. They could simply back off. But there is a cost of backing off. They have obviously weighed the relative costs and have decided that the costs of protecting their IP outweigh the costs of paying their attorneys. So who gets the "win"? Also, many large companies have in-house "rights administrators" that are their first line in fighting infringement. If the company's employees successfully do what they are hired to do, would you say no one really wins except the employees who otherwise would be out of a job? I know you are not anti-attorney and am not trying to pick on you, but statements like yours, which usually go by without comment, help foster the impression that somehow this whole process is driven by the attorneys. While I can think of some cases where I do believe that is true (particularly in a few patent cases my clients have faced), largely IP disputes arise because two companies have drawn lines in the sand. The attorneys are simply representing their respective clients and, in many cases, are even bringing an objectivity to the issues that their clients sometimes lack. I can't count the number of times that I have cautioned clients against a course of action that would have cost them a lot more in attorneys fees.
I'm not anti-attorney, I'm anti-litigation if at all possible. IP protection is really a game for the big dogs and the average person has no idea of the costs involved when it comes to IP protection. To start off, the big IP firms aren't usually interested in talking to the small or medium sized business owner - not even if they are prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. Six figures is not much in the IP world - and most of these large firms either have conflicts of interest, or don't want them in the future - (better to pass on a small case to protect the millions of dollars in future work). The last big dispute I had was about a year ago and the opposition was represented by a big firm with over a 1000 attorneys. While there case was extremely weak, they had a deep pocket client that was ready to spend 6 or 7 figures to make a point - i.e. you fight us and you may win, but we're going to force you to spend far more in legal fees than the domain is worth. It's an effective strategy. You have to protect your IP, but you have to choose your battles carefully. It's rare, or at least not expected, to have your attorney fees awarded to you even if you win your case in a US court - so when I say "win", I mean from a financial standpoint AND from the time you lose waiting while your case moves slowly through the court process. Get involved in a big dispute, and you can be waiting years for a final outcome. Use an attorney, avoid lengthy litigation if at all possible. Choose your attorney carefully - like any profession - there are bad ones out there. BTW, my oldest and closest friend is an attorney - too bad (for me) it's criminal law (absolutely worthless for IP advice, lol).