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

Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#11

Post by giancarlostoro »

We need to really make it painful to be a patent troll. Allow companies to band together and accuse a company for being a patent troll (list of patents as evidence and evidence of the ideas having existed prior to patent filings), if proven then their patents should be disbanded and the company fined. At the very least allow companies to band together to have invalid obscure patents from unknown companies that DO NOT EVEN INNOVATE taken down and voided.

Edit:

Once a patent has been proven invalid, it should be possible to sue for damages from being forced to pay the patent troll.

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#12

Post by WayneSmallman »

"Predatory ‘patent trolls’ could soon find it harder to operate in the United States. Legislation to curb frivolous patent lawsuits has regained momentum after lawmakers in the US Senate added a provision to stop university patent holders from being penalized along with the trolls." ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-seeks-to... ).

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#14

Post by krageon »

rplnt wrote: post #9
EggsOnToast wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like what's missing is a bad faith mechanic. Assuming it could be implemented in a way that's not terrible or outright ineffective, it would be interesting to see a legal framework for barring a party from filing patent suits if they accumulate enough verdicts that rule their case to be outrageous enough to earn them a black spot.

It exists in some/many/dunno European jurisdictions. If the claim fails in court, the party that lost will pay for all legal expenses (up to a limit). You still need money to defend yourself, but you'll get them back once the case is thrown out/won.

As a rule you won't actually get back all the expenses if the case takes a (few) year(s), it's more a symbolic amount.

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#15

Post by morinted »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

We need to really make it painful to be a patent troll. Allow companies to band together and accuse a company for being a patent troll (list of patents as evidence and evidence of the ideas having existed prior to patent filings), if proven then their patents should be disbanded and the company fined. At the very least allow companies to band together to have invalid obscure patents from unknown companies that DO NOT…

The first thing that came to mind was a new brand of patent troll companies that seek to invalidate a smaller company's patent by "proving" it invalid.

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#16

Post by mnw21cam »

EggsOnToast wrote: post #7
omginternets wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that this is asymmetric warfare. It's "cheap" for the patent troll to engage in countless procedures, each of which costs you the case if you fail, whereas it costs the defendant tens of thousands of dollars each time.

It sounds like what's missing is a bad faith mechanic. Assuming it could be implemented in a way that's not terrible or outright ineffective, it would be interesting to see a legal framework for barring a party from filing patent suits if they accumulate enough verdicts that rule their case to be outrageous enough to earn them a black spot.

I think the term you are looking for is "Vexatious litigant" [0]. People who are declared as such by a court must apply for permission (which is rarely given) before launching any court cases.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#17

Post by snarf21 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

We need to really make it painful to be a patent troll. Allow companies to band together and accuse a company for being a patent troll (list of patents as evidence and evidence of the ideas having existed prior to patent filings), if proven then their patents should be disbanded and the company fined. At the very least allow companies to band together to have invalid obscure patents from unknown companies that DO NOT…

We really need to fund USPTO better so some of these never get passed in the first place. I also think limiting the lifetime of "tech" patents removes most of this. Troll attacks must come very very quickly instead of just buying them up when start-ups go out of business for pennies so they can charge to "license" their pile of crap.

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#19

Post by zero_iq »

This case was discussed on HN a few days ago, and from the comments there it seems there may be prior art from a 1997 MUD, which has been previously used to defend against similar patents: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16505568

Does the USPTO have any route for third parties to proactively invalidate patents or somehow trigger their reinspection other than during actual litigation? (Maybe an open group to prioritise patents and pursue this could get crowdfunding?)

Re: Clicker Heroes maker compares new lawsuit from “patent troll” to extortion

#20

Post by [deleted] »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

We need to really make it painful to be a patent troll. Allow companies to band together and accuse a company for being a patent troll (list of patents as evidence and evidence of the ideas having existed prior to patent filings), if proven then their patents should be disbanded and the company fined. At the very least allow companies to band together to have invalid obscure patents from unknown companies that DO NOT…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN