The Patent Pledge • Hacker News Board

Re: The Patent Pledge

#11

Post by samgro » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:05 PM UTC

I have a PG question for PG: what problem does this solve?

I see 2 problems currently.

1. Microsoft suing Android makers, and other similar examples, where large companies burn billions of dollars of our economy over something pointless.

2. Patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures and their shell companies suing startups.

How does this solve either of these problems? Who really needs this?

Re: The Patent Pledge

#12

Post by danmaz74 » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:06 PM UTC

I appreciate the good intention of this proposal, but it doesn't really make so much sense. Tech startups are small businesses, but their goal is to grow. With that pledge you could only grow up to 24 employees, and what then? You're ready to be slaughtered?

This problem needs to be fixed at its root, with a different law.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#13

Post by pg » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:06 PM UTC

bpm140 wrote: post #2

PG suggests that this won't stop the trolls but it might deter more traditional companies. Does anyone have stats on who is doing the most damage to early companies? Given the press, it's easy to think that trolls are the biggest offenders by an order of magnitude. Is there data that suggests otherwise?

The two types of attacks are so different that it's hard to compare them. Patent trolls attack more victims, but all they want is money. Attacks by competitors are much rarer, but more damaging when they do happen.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#14

Post by TrevorBurnham » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:07 PM UTC

gphil wrote: post #4

The content of the pledge seems to indicate that there are a lot of (or at least some) cases where large companies are suing very small companies (< 25 people) over patent infringement. Is this the case? I've only heard about the patent litigation between the tech giants, and not anything about small firms getting sued by larger ones. Are there any recent/high profile examples of this that I missed? Or is it just som…

The recent This American Life ep "When Patents Attack" (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...) started with a segment on a startup called Fototime, which was very small (certainly under 25 people) and had to settle a patent suit at great expense. (As part of the settlement agreement, they aren't allowed to say how much; only that it was just short of what would have caused them to file for bankruptcy.)

Re: The Patent Pledge

#15

Post by monochromatic » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:08 PM UTC

bpm140 wrote: post #2

PG suggests that this won't stop the trolls but it might deter more traditional companies. Does anyone have stats on who is doing the most damage to early companies? Given the press, it's easy to think that trolls are the biggest offenders by an order of magnitude. Is there data that suggests otherwise?

I'd be surprised if the trolls (except Lodsys) are causing a lot of grief for companies under 25 employees. They seem to be more interested in a smaller number of bigger scores.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#16

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:08 PM UTC

bpm140 wrote: post #2

PG suggests that this won't stop the trolls but it might deter more traditional companies. Does anyone have stats on who is doing the most damage to early companies? Given the press, it's easy to think that trolls are the biggest offenders by an order of magnitude. Is there data that suggests otherwise?

[deleted]

Re: The Patent Pledge

#17

Post by kirillzubovsky » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

bpm140 wrote: post #2

PG suggests that this won't stop the trolls but it might deter more traditional companies. Does anyone have stats on who is doing the most damage to early companies? Given the press, it's easy to think that trolls are the biggest offenders by an order of magnitude. Is there data that suggests otherwise?

Indirectly, this pledge my also help to slow down the trolls. Trolls buy up patents in order to sue or resell. Startups have no money to pay up, so the only option is to resell. But, if a potential acquirer has pledged not to use patents against small companies, buying them off from trolls wouldn't make for a good public image. As a result, trolls won't press on the patent holders, at least until they are acquired by a company that is capable of paying the bill.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#18

Post by mnemonicsloth » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

bpm140 wrote: post #2

PG suggests that this won't stop the trolls but it might deter more traditional companies. Does anyone have stats on who is doing the most damage to early companies? Given the press, it's easy to think that trolls are the biggest offenders by an order of magnitude. Is there data that suggests otherwise?

There's such a huge variance in the value startups create that it probably doesn't matter.

It only takes one obscure archival services contractor to sue Google out of existence in 1999.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#19

Post by james-fend » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:11 PM UTC

bpm140 wrote: post #2

PG suggests that this won't stop the trolls but it might deter more traditional companies. Does anyone have stats on who is doing the most damage to early companies? Given the press, it's easy to think that trolls are the biggest offenders by an order of magnitude. Is there data that suggests otherwise?

I was thinking the same. It'd be hard to find stats as alot of the litigation is under a 'no speak about it' type of clause.

But operating a single-founder startup myself, I am alot more worried about the patent trolls than big companies right now.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#20

Post by jessriedel » Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 8:12 PM UTC

From what I understand, the key points of software patent reform would be (a) significantly raise the bar of "non-obvious" and (b) shorten software patent lifetimes. The related issues of small companies being at a disadvantage (due to economies of scale with litigation and patent portfolios) seems rather orthogonal.

Since this pledge would only address this issue of secondary importance, which seems a lot less salient to the public, I can't imagine it getting off the ground.