Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#31

Post by mjevans »

badminton1 wrote: post #28

Patent law needs reform. If you analyze the life of important inventors and innovators of the 20th century, there has always been some patent pain involved that is not in the interest of the "greater good". The reason America didn't have a significant air force for WW1 compared to other powers was in part due to the legal battles between Wright and Curtiss. The government intervened in the patent driven battle so pla…

I can't even recall a single time when patents have helped 'the little guy'. The only case that I can think of offhand involve manufacturers holding out until the patent expires, even if it is a decrease in public safety.

I think the most simple, and best, reform for /patents/ is elimination.

While I'm on the subject, returning to the 15 year copyright and 15 more IF you pay a lot to renew sounds like a good starting point for that discussion.

Trademarks should have something similar (a slowly rising fee over time) but be allowed to exist as long as that fee is paid; that's a consumer protection mechanism.

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#32

Post by bitmapbrother »

jacquesm wrote: post #5

Google is taking a leaf out of the Mafia playbook here. Classy. Nice start-up you have there. Would be a shame if one of these pesky trolls sued you. But if you join our organization as a partner you will be protected.

Not really. With the Mafia you don't have a choice. If you don't need the protection then you need not apply.

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#33

Post by astrodust »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #5

Google is taking a leaf out of the Mafia playbook here. Classy. Nice start-up you have there. Would be a shame if one of these pesky trolls sued you. But if you join our organization as a partner you will be protected.

Not really. With the Mafia you don't have a choice. If you don't need the protection then you need not apply.

The problem is everyone needs protection because it's often just a matter of time before your number comes up.

You send email with attachments? Over the internet? Patented.

You send video? Over the internet? Patented.

There's so many utterly trash patents of the form "X but on the internet" or "X but on mobile phones" that these trolls will try and enforce.

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#34

Post by rl3 »

jacquesm wrote: post #5

Google is taking a leaf out of the Mafia playbook here. Classy. Nice start-up you have there. Would be a shame if one of these pesky trolls sued you. But if you join our organization as a partner you will be protected.

Giving the actual Mafia equity stakes would be more effective—at least versus NPEs. Who better to fully understand all those shell companies?

Thing is, the joke's on us if most NPEs turn out to actually be fronts for Mob operations.

Either way, I'm calling this strategy the Joe Pesci defense.

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#35

Post by icantdrive55 »

Tanegashima wrote: post #29
dis-sys wrote: post #6

so.. patent laws are so broken that patent trolls are everywhere suing startups to get $ from them. google now has a business that can directly benefit from such increasing number of patent trolls. sounds not very inspiring to me. who is always on the losing side? average small companies. who is screwing the economy & innovation and show no sign of change? governments who refuse to actually reform such a 100+ years o…

The problem, is not the law, the problem is the bureau. They keep attributing patents that are obvious and meaningless.

How about this:

1. Every US citizen, or entity(corporation) is allowed one free patent. (Most would never fill out the paperwork)

2. After the first patent, the fee goes to whatever it is now? Last I looked it was around $260 to $2500 if you do it all yourself.

3. People (corporations) are allowed twenty patents at the normal price.

4. That 21st patent goes up to 1 million. Then the next patent is based on minimum of 1 million, plus an exponential fee determined by company Market Value.

I think, even Microsoft, would look at a 500 million patent fee closely? Actually, I wish all governmental fees/fines were based on income.

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#36

Post by michaelmrose »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
jezclaremurugan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a distinction here - the Mafia protects people from itself - but Google doesn't itself sue startups.

But the upside is similar: If nobody sues Google still has the equity and Google needs the trolls to stay around to make sure people will buy into this program.

I think Google needs the startups to survive so that they can have innovative companies to buy in the future. Taking equity in the future is a way to pay for protection that will enable said companies to survive without having to pay out of pocket for said survival.

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#38

Post by michaelmrose »

mjevans wrote: post #31
badminton1 wrote: post #28

Patent law needs reform. If you analyze the life of important inventors and innovators of the 20th century, there has always been some patent pain involved that is not in the interest of the "greater good". The reason America didn't have a significant air force for WW1 compared to other powers was in part due to the legal battles between Wright and Curtiss. The government intervened in the patent driven battle so pla…

I can't even recall a single time when patents have helped 'the little guy'. The only case that I can think of offhand involve manufacturers holding out until the patent expires, even if it is a decrease in public safety. I think the most simple, and best, reform for /patents/ is elimination. While I'm on the subject, returning to the 15 year copyright and 15 more IF you pay a lot to renew sounds like a good starting…

Trademarks protect buyers and ought to remain indefinite. Spot on otherwise though.

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#39

Post by reitanqild »

caf wrote: post #27
jacquesm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because obviously if that equity turns out to be worth a very large amount of money and the company is never sued Google is not going to turn around and say 'oh, sorry for this vastly disproportionate payment, here is your repayment'. In fact, the best outcome for Google would be if nobody ever got sued. (That's also the best outcome for the companies but there is no way of knowing if they would have gotten sued…

How is that different to "You paid an awful lot of fire insurance premiums over the years but never had a fire" ? The insurance company certainly isn't giving you a refund either. It seems to me that if the equity turns out to be worth a lot, then the value of the protection is greater as well - the potential losses are likely to pretty closely track the company's value.

Supporting you here:

I see this as somebody inside google trying to do a oldschool google win-win (provide better results - make healthy profits).

As long as the equity stake is reasonable this sounds like a great deal. To me this isn't the mafia but the security company teaming up with you.

Seems like a giant win for everyone but the trolls,

Re: PatentShield helps startups fight patent litigation in return for equity

#40

Post by nl »

samaparicio wrote: post #13
jshmrsn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say I pay into this fund, then I get sued for patent infringement. How does the fund decide whether this lawsuit is trolling or legitimate? Or would the fund pay for all patent lawsuits?

There are several ways of reaching a distributed consensus about that, like proof of stake. It is also conceivable that it would be in the fund's interest to defend all lawsuits. That would provide the largest deterrent, since the lion's share of today's suits are without merit, and the cost of defense would be considered the operating cost of the fund. What the trolls exploit is the assymetry between a defendant wit…

That would provide the largest deterrent, since the lion's share of today's suits are without merit

Doesn't this depend on what "without merit" means? It seems unlikely they are "without merit" in the legal sense, since then they would be thrown out at the first hearing.

If you mean they are from patent trolls aka non-practicing entities, then it seems wrong too. I see coverage of tens of cases by NPEs per year, but the entire patent law-suite field must be much bigger than that.

There are probably better sources than this PWC report[1], but it identifies 477 out of 2281 (ie, 21%) cases since 1996 in the districts where NPEs file cases involving NPEs. Their definition of NPE includes universities though, which I don't think is what people generally think of when they think of "patent trolls".

If "without merit" means that they almost always lose, then this doesn't seem right either. The success rate for patent cases varies, but seems around 25-35%. That's far from "lion's share without merit"

[1] https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/ass...

Post reply on HN