Live data from Hacker News

The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

letterspatent.org

121–130 of 281 posts

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#121
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny. New drugs existed before patents were a thing.

Really? Name some. The patent system started in 1790. The FDA didn't exist, thus no expensive trials and safety validation. Medicine was just a bunch of trial and error with no controls.

Plenty of medicines existed before 1790...

...opium and extracts for pain relief, cinchona bark for malaria, cloves and clove oil for oral pain relief, I could go on, but you could also Google this.

And the fact that a "patent medicine" is a synonym in history for "snake oil" shows how little scientific rigour patents brought to medicinal development, and how the patent system was initially co-opted to lend an air of legitimacy to quackery.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you can decide for yourself: https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Austin+Walters

I can't judge a lot of them, but a few from familiar territory are basically spam - shower thoughts turned into long technical descriptions. For example https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200137020A1/en is a joke which should've never been granted.

I had a look at the link. I do not really understand what it does (I work in IT, many years as a sysadmin) but it suspiciously looks like my code on a day I thought I had a revolutionary idea.

Then a few weeks later I have to look at it again and try to rediscover that revolutionary idea while the family is waiting for the lights to work again.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#123
The issue I have with much of the patent trolling bashing is, that it somehow makes a distinction between practicing companies who make something and non practicing entities. I think this is a huge veil the industry pulled over people's eyes. Why is it OK for huge companies like apple, IBM, Google... to use the patent system to keep out any competitors or newcomers, but it is not ok for smaller inventors to sell their patents to some of these "trolls" who then sue the big companies for violating the patents?

Don't get me wrong, many of the patents are absolutely bogus, but that's not exclusive to patent troll patents. In fact bogus patents help established companies even more, because the trolls at least have to defend those patents in court at times, a small new player who is threatened by a large established one over some bogus patent can't afford to defend themselves.

The whole notion that patents are only legitimate if you build something is completely bogus. Either the patent system is about encouraging and rewarding innovation and then it should apply to anyone equally, or it is not and we should abolish it. I'm firmly in the second camp, but it seems the big players want to have their cake and eat it too.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or dont do patents at all.

You still need patents. Healthcare is an obvious example, if we eliminated patents we'd have 0 new drugs pass FDA approval over the next decade. But software is very different from medical patents.

Actually, there is pretty strong evidence that patents are counterproductive for pharmaceuticals. Before the harmonization of IP laws, pharmaceuticals had different eligibility for patenting in the US, Europe and Switzerland. The US had the strongest, Europe somewhat weaker and in Switzerland it was inelligible. The Swiss companies invested the most money into R&D and were generally the most successful. The US ones were the leas successful and did the least R&D and instead invested much more into lawyers and marketing.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#125

At the risk of losing some karma here... and prefacing this with: I hate these patent trolls, they go entirely against my senses... I am wondering: is there a charitable view on the "other side" of this that I'm not seeing, in which these people have some (perhaps weird) way of morally justifying this practice?

The problem isn't really NPEs. If it makes sense to have patents, then it probably makes sense to have a market in patents. The problem is mostly low-quality patents and the fact that the patent system is a poor fit for software.

The way the US patent system works compared to other countries is that it's closer to copyright (though not quite copyright): any crappy idea can be patented as long as there's no prior art. The burden of proof is on those who own the patent and those who want to challenge it on court. The Bureau registers everything and then lets the businesses fight in courts.

This approach gives the US an advantage on the international patent market too: an American patent holder has the priority rights in other countries where it wishes to register the same patent.

All this kind of makes sense - kind of - but in practice there seem to be a lot of crappy patents with prior art that remain unchallenged and sometimes even confirmed in courts despite prior art.

This is what's broken. 1-click checkout shouldn't have been registered not because it's crappy but because there were web sites doing something very close or even similar under a different name. Those businesses either never bothered, were too small or went out of business by the time Amazon could be challenged in courts. I believe there are many more examples like this.

Someone has to take the burden of identifying prior art. The PTO doesn't seem to be interested, it's just extra work for them which as a govt. agency they tend to minimize. Businesses that could present prior art can be too small or even out of business by the time a patent is registered.

I believe it's a matter of some additional regulations but because I'm not a lawyer I can't really say how to fix this system.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#126
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Name some. The patent system started in 1790. The FDA didn't exist, thus no expensive trials and safety validation. Medicine was just a bunch of trial and error with no controls.

Penicillin and ether were not covered by patents. Pretty sure those were two of the greatest of all time. On the patent side you have such modern marvels as OxyContin, which has arguably caused more loss of life than COVID-19. Patented drugs are generally awful. The idea that it costs $1B to make a game changing drug is a lie. It costs $1T. The US taxpayer pays 99.9%, and the big pharma company spends a billion to ge…

All Opioid deaths between 1999 and 2017 were about 400k in the US. Well less than the Covid death toll in the US alone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_Unite...

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#127
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find "watch this documentary" to be pointless. If the person's already convinced that patent abuse is bad, they don't need to watch a 2 hour video to reconfirm their beliefs. If the person is sitting on the fence or not convinced, there are better ways to provide information to them than getting them to stare at a screen for 2 hours.

I disagree with your general sentiment. The people here reading these comments may be on the fence. Maybe they're leaning one way or another. Maybe they need some more convincing. Someone who wants to learn more can benefit greatly from a documentary or a good article on the subject. And these comments don't just exist in this moment. They will be available in search for a long time to come.

I'm not sure a movie called "The patent scam" is going to be seen as an unbiased, convincing source by any fence sitter.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#128

The issue I have with much of the patent trolling bashing is, that it somehow makes a distinction between practicing companies who make something and non practicing entities. I think this is a huge veil the industry pulled over people's eyes. Why is it OK for huge companies like apple, IBM, Google... to use the patent system to keep out any competitors or newcomers, but it is not ok for smaller inventors to sell thei…

Agree. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

Live by the patent, die by the patent.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#129
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic to use the xenophobic slur "banana republic" to describe a US Federal Court in Texas.

No idea when banana republic became a "xenophobic slur." It's a pretty well understood term describing a country (or sub-jurisdiction in this example) that is so dependent on a foreign-controlled company or industry that it can be bossed around by that industry. Pretty ridiculous how the most benign of terms all become slurs in the woke era.

Just don't let it become acceptable. People will try and push and make it sound like it should be obvious that banana republic(and many others) is xenophobic, but just don't accept it, fight it, point out that it's a stupid connection to make and trying to shame others for it is not what modern society should be doing.

Re: The patent troll that won a $308M jury trial against Apple

#130

The issue I have with much of the patent trolling bashing is, that it somehow makes a distinction between practicing companies who make something and non practicing entities. I think this is a huge veil the industry pulled over people's eyes. Why is it OK for huge companies like apple, IBM, Google... to use the patent system to keep out any competitors or newcomers, but it is not ok for smaller inventors to sell thei…

Looking at the article, it looks like if the patent holder John Harvey had spent his post-Yale life simply resting and investing in the S&P 500, then the "infringing" technology in question would have happened just fine with out him. And Mr. Harvey would probably have been richer doing that, too.
Post reply on HN