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

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

letterspatent.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 281 posts

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

#191

Post by microtherion »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #39

This is a very sensationalized, editorialized opinion-piece article. I would like to see something more objective, and substantive. > So fast-forward a few years to 1981. Mr. Harvey sat down with an electrical engineer whose name was Jim Cuddihy. And together, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Cuddihy put together ground-breaking inventions in communications technology that were ahead of their time. It sounds like they made somethi…

All the language you're citing is how the plaintiff's lawyer describes the business. The other "licensees" are companies against whom they won lawsuits or who settled with them.

If they win this one, in the next lawsuit, they'll be able to describe Apple as one of their licensees, paying them hundreds of millions of dollars.

PMC is "licensing" technology the way the mob is providing fire protection.

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

#192

Post by dasudasu »

lend000 wrote: post #49
dasudasu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're a small startup with no sales trying to build a prototype, but you patented your idea so that you get a priority date, and also because a patent is the first thing investors want to see to know that your idea won't just be copied by anyone else. Now you just get run over by the big boys? Now you're in the same situation, but you sell your patent to another entity because you can't afford yourself to sue the…

I'd support a short (relative to the patent term) grace period to become a practicing entity. If you create a reduction to practice, you are a practicing entity. If you file a patent but can't actually build the thing (or maybe it can't be built) -- this happens all too often, by the way -- then I don't see why they should hold on to their failed patent, only for it to be scooped up by some patent troll for pennies o…

Execution can depend a lot on the amount of capital you have available in the first place.

Imagine a startup trying to develop a very expensive solid state LIDAR. They don't have the millions in funds to go to a fab and go into production. They do shitty prototypes. But they get some attention and are able to sell/license their patents. In this alternative universe where patent law is much weaker:

1. The big corp can choose to ignore you and not buy or license the patents. Their defense will be that you are a non-practising entity since you have no revenues or customers. There is a grace period? They make the bet that they can just wait you out.

2. You never patent the idea in the first place. There is no point as there is no way for you to profit from the idea. The world never get access to the tech.

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

#193

Post by cm2187 »

cycomanic wrote: post #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 thei…

And Apple is no stranger to bogus patents (eg the infamous round corner patent)

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

#194

Post by djohnston »

mitchdoogle wrote: post #103

I think we need a new definition of innovation. One that doesn't limit the potential of inventors and one that doesn't limit the future. We need shorter time spans for software given how quickly things change. We need a measure of societal good beyond dollars and cents. Our goal should be improving the life of people, not improving the profits of corporations.

I think it's mostly these NPE's. Start with companies filing hundreds of patents with no actual R&D

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

#195

Post by djohnston »

lelanthran wrote: post #158
mnadkvlb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dont have to publish them, keep them secret !! go sell your work as a secret if your work is so important, why do you have to publish it and then litigate anyone else who comes up with a similar techniques.

> You dont have to publish them, keep them secret !! go sell your work as a secret if your work is so important, why do you have to publish it and then litigate anyone else who comes up with a similar techniques. Because if you simply keep it secret then the people who patented it after they independently came up with it can sue YOU ! The lesser evil is to put it into the public domain; then no one can patent it and…

So why not do that? You're just creating minefields for people actually improving things. You won't get sued for having a shower thought and not doing anything with it.

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

#196

Post by shagie »

cm2187 wrote: post #193
cycomanic wrote: post #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 thei…

And Apple is no stranger to bogus patents (eg the infamous round corner patent)

That is a design patent that falls in the same category as the shape of a coke bottle and are related to ornamental design on an object that has practical utility.

They fall in a different subsection of patent law than the way to implement something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

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

#197

Post by [deleted] »

speedgoose wrote: post #89
lettergram wrote: post #87

I’ll give a contrary view point to most “patent trolls”. I’m an inventor (100+ Issued patents), I develop POCs and concepts well beyond my ability to productionize. That’s not to say I couldnt create a product, just that I don’t have the resources. However, I do have the resources to develop novel techniques. Does that mean I didn’t invent the process- no, I did invent a new process. I just didn’t build them into a p…

How can you invent so many things?

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by conjectures »

varjag wrote: post #153
mashpoe wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like to say that without patents there will be no incentive to advance technology, but if you're the one to come up with an idea then you already have a huge head start. If you don't make use of that head start, then you don't deserve it, and this applies to patents as well. Monopolies are bad, and competition is good. Everyone is already incentivized to come up with and implement ideas faster than their compe…

In practice you'll have a head start of maybe a year before a grifter in China replicates your three years of R&D and floods the market. And a copied product will always be cheaper as they don't have to amortise development costs. That's how technology worked before the patent systems, and the outcome was manufacturer secrecy - which generally sucked more than the patent system.

> In practice you'll have a head start of maybe a year before a grifter in China replicates your three years of R&D and floods the market.

So, not much different then?

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

#199

Post by [deleted] »

speedgoose wrote: post #89
lettergram wrote: post #87

I’ll give a contrary view point to most “patent trolls”. I’m an inventor (100+ Issued patents), I develop POCs and concepts well beyond my ability to productionize. That’s not to say I couldnt create a product, just that I don’t have the resources. However, I do have the resources to develop novel techniques. Does that mean I didn’t invent the process- no, I did invent a new process. I just didn’t build them into a p…

How can you invent so many things?

[deleted]

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

#200

Post by lettergram »

lelanthran wrote: post #158
mnadkvlb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dont have to publish them, keep them secret !! go sell your work as a secret if your work is so important, why do you have to publish it and then litigate anyone else who comes up with a similar techniques.

> You dont have to publish them, keep them secret !! go sell your work as a secret if your work is so important, why do you have to publish it and then litigate anyone else who comes up with a similar techniques. Because if you simply keep it secret then the people who patented it after they independently came up with it can sue YOU ! The lesser evil is to put it into the public domain; then no one can patent it and…

There’s a lot of hate in this thread, but this is the gist.

When you use a concept you have to patent it today. It’s unfortunate, but it’s reality. You can ignore patents out there, and later they will sue you (if your successful). And take a slice of your revenue.

If you have a lot of patents (like the big players). You then cross license and you’re good.

Do I think patent law needs reform, absolutely. It’s insane. Do I think you have to play the game - yes or you’re equally insane.

Post reply on HN