Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
1–10 of 285 posts
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#2I've noticed a Techcrunch comment that makes this fight about software patents and states that forbiding them would be a good solution. I think that's a very wrong view to take. The software patent fight is worth fighting, but do not conflate the two issues. Abuse by patent trolls or non-practicing entities can happen even without software patents.
The law patch that shuts down patent trolls will have no effect on software patents, and vice-versa.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#3I don't see anything game-changing about their approach. Fighting instead of settling should definitely be praised, but the only differences between this legal challenge and any of the previous ones are the result of recent changes in the law or the judiciary, which are beyond Cloudflare's control. Nothing suggests that patent-trolling itself as a "game" is going to shift or go away after this, and until that is made to happen, it's going to be as lucrative as ever.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#4I've never heard a good argument against this so I'll say it here: Require that the plaintiff in this cases show demonstrable, actual, and quantifiable loss by the activity of the defendant. It seems like such a no-brainer that a business suing for damage to it's business prospects after someone stole their idea would have to actually show how it was damaged. Even allowing very flimsy evidence would do a lot to dissuade most trolls, because as every article points out, they don't make anything. And if they don't make or sell a product, then patent or not, they haven't lost anything or been damaged in any way.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#5I don't see anything game-changing about their approach. Fighting instead of settling should definitely be praised, but the only differences between this legal challenge and any of the previous ones are the result of recent changes in the law or the judiciary, which are beyond Cloudflare's control. Nothing suggests that patent-trolling itself as a "game" is going to shift or go away after this, and until that is made…
I believe they were implying that by going after the firm through legislative attacks, ethics evaluations, and also working to invalidate patents that they were not sued for violating, as opposed to just showing up in court and defending the suit as filed, constitutes "game changing".
I think it would be more accurate to say that they are fighting back more creatively than you might think they could at first glance.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#6I don't see anything game-changing about their approach. Fighting instead of settling should definitely be praised, but the only differences between this legal challenge and any of the previous ones are the result of recent changes in the law or the judiciary, which are beyond Cloudflare's control. Nothing suggests that patent-trolling itself as a "game" is going to shift or go away after this, and until that is made…
Then perhaps you missed one of the novel ideas Cloudflare is also filing a complaint with the ethics committee. And their talking to reporters.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#7I've noticed a Techcrunch comment that makes this fight about software patents and states that forbiding them would be a good solution. I think that's a very wrong view to take. The software patent fight is worth fighting, but do not conflate the two issues. Abuse by patent trolls or non-practicing entities can happen even without software patents. The law patch that shuts down patent trolls will have no effect on so…
I don't think many do conflate the two, I think most people just don't see value in software patents.
Software is great because it has no cost to copy, so when someone creates a new algorithm it can be put in use everywhere applicable rapidly. This pace of advancement is so awesomely powerful that many do not appreciate how much positive change it can bring or how different the world was just a few years ago. An advancement in algorithms becomes and advancement for humanity pretty quickly.
Software patents are the exact opposite of this.
I will take it one step further and claim that patents on the whole are bad. I don't think they do what most Americans think they do in terms of incentivizing inventors or protecting small business.
EDIT - Also software is already covered by copyright, why does this IP deserve two kinds of protection and most other IP gets 1 or 0 kinds of protection.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#8I'm not a fan of the argument that if Blackbird weren't a NPE it'd be okay because Cloudflare could then aim it's 150 strong patent portfolio cannon back at them. It's basically saying incumbents like Cloudflare don't really want to fix the system, they want to keep the untenable 'cold war' status quo which protects them but burdens new entrants.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#9I've never heard a good argument against this so I'll say it here: Require that the plaintiff in this cases show demonstrable, actual , and quantifiable loss by the activity of the defendant. It seems like such a no-brainer that a business suing for damage to it's business prospects after someone stole their idea would have to actually show how it was damaged. Even allowing very flimsy evidence would do a lot to diss…
Patents are not about damages. A patent is a limited-time monopoly to an idea that you can then extract value from. Inventing something, patenting it, and then licensing it out is exactly the business model patents are supposed to enable. Companies that don't make anything are perfectly valid under this model. The real solution is to either make sure prior art and non-obviousness requirements are properly enforced or just dismantle the whole thing as unworkable.
Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game
#10I've never heard a good argument against this so I'll say it here: Require that the plaintiff in this cases show demonstrable, actual , and quantifiable loss by the activity of the defendant. It seems like such a no-brainer that a business suing for damage to it's business prospects after someone stole their idea would have to actually show how it was damaged. Even allowing very flimsy evidence would do a lot to diss…
Let's say I invent something really useful but also very difficult for an individual to take advantage of, like a new kind of airplane nosecone that shaves 10% off fuel costs for very large airplanes. Now, I'm not in the airplane business, and getting into it would take many, many millions of dollars. Probably the only way for me to make money on this would be to go to Boeing or some similar company and license my patent to them. Boom, I get my millions and everybody's happy.
If I were required to show actual loss, Boeing would see my new patent, just implement it without even bothering to talk to me, and when I tried to sue them, they'd say "you don't make anything, you have no losses," and they'd be right.