Live data from Hacker News

Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

blog.comma.ai

111–120 of 318 posts

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#111
post #42
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly recommend that you read https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514 . It explains the economic reasons why it is hard to get collective action to happen. It also explains why any government organization organized for collective action in time is likely to undergo regulatory capture, meaning that the people you wanted to regulate are in control of the regulations and manipulate them for their…

Do you mind summarising the key points of the book?

A public good is a good which, if it is provisioned, is available to all regardless of how much they contributed to its provisioning. There are many, many examples of public goods, but I'll use clean air as an example.

The problem with public goods is that it is only in your personal interest to contribute to the extent that you personally reap the reward from your contribution. So, for example, catalytic converters cost about $1500. If you live in a city, you personally benefit more than $1500 in life quality from the fact that everyone around you has a catalytic converter. But if your catalytic converter goes, you don't benefit $1500 from YOUR catalytic converter. And so almost nobody would, without some other motivation, bother spending $1500 on a catalytic converter.

And yet, public goods do get provisioned. Here are the basic ways.

1. A single large entity benefits enough from the good to provision it for everyone else, who gets to free ride. The book calls this, the exploitation of the large by the small. If ever you see someone arguing that some big country or company should do something nice for everyone, they're hoping for this.

2. A small group combined can provision it. This usually results in complex negotiations, cheating, and so on as each tries to do the minimum necessary. The history of negotiations within OPEC on controlling the supply of oil is a good example.

3. A fundamentally coercive organization which exists for some other reason can ensure the provisioning of it. For my catalytic converter example, that is the government. If you fail to have a $1500 catalytic converter, the government will take steps up to and including putting you in jail.

4. People seem willing to put a small amount of energy out for a good cause. For example a lot of people are willing to put the energy out to vote, even though your personal vote is unlikely to swing any election in your lifetime. Some people are willing to put a lot of energy out.

5. The good may wind up provisioned for some other reason. For example open source software is a public good, which programmers voluntarily create and maintain for a wide variety of reasons. But very few programmers are creating it out of some notion of acting to maximize the common good.

But that is a very short take with very few examples. The book is quite readable and offers a lot more on all of this.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#112
If I was carefully looking for prior art to invalidate the patent, I'd look at Verizon's patent portfolio:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hum_(system)

Their Hum product seems to do exactly what the patent troll claims to own a patent on. It plugs into the OBD2 port and calls emergency services after a collision.

Also, Nissan patented something very similar in 2004:

US Patent for Vehicle emergency notification system and related method Patent (Patent # 7,323,972)

https://patents.justia.com/patent/7323972

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#113
post #90

There needs to be an anti-patent-troll membership organization. You pay a fee relative to some metric and the organization acts as insurance against parent trolls by fully defending any patent lawsuits that are obviously unjustified. And to keep costs low, membership in this organization would be public to deter patent trolls from even trying to sue a member in the first place.

Run the numbers: Assuming you need a legal staff of 20 with avg cost 500k per. So that’s 10 million per year. Double it for rent, SGA, etc. we’re at 20 million per year. Offer a protection package at 10k per year, you need 2000 paying customers. Since all the lawyers are on staff, you can have them invalidating patents when not defending case. If you structure it like a mutual insurance company, you could return a po…

Really good idea to bring it to yc - they know how much legal fights like these have cost across all of the cohorts.

And obviously they would pitch it internally to all existing + future startups.

Maybe this is what ends this garbage once and for all?

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#114
post #68
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time Congress took on comprehensive regulatory/legal reform of patents, the result was https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/the-court/about-the-court/cou... . Most of the problems with software patents trace back, in one way or another, to that court. What makes you think the current broken legislative system has a chance at a reform that makes things better in a way that you'd like?

>What makes you think the current broken legislative system has a chance at a reform that makes things better in a way that you'd like That's a false premise.

Obviously I don't think that premise false, else I wouldn't have said it.

You say you want regulatory/legal reform. Do you not think this starts with legislation? Do you not think that this requires action by the current legislative system? Do you think that the current legislative system is not broken?

Very importantly, patents are federal law. That means federal legislation. That means Congress. An institution that about 93% of Americans have fairly low confidence in. (See https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-... for a source.)

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#115
post #95
post #90

There needs to be an anti-patent-troll membership organization. You pay a fee relative to some metric and the organization acts as insurance against parent trolls by fully defending any patent lawsuits that are obviously unjustified. And to keep costs low, membership in this organization would be public to deter patent trolls from even trying to sue a member in the first place.

Here’s John Walker’s proposal for that in 1993 after getting extorted by the XOR patent troll: https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html I think the problem is that most of the major companies are comfortable writing it off as a cost of doing business and don’t want to give up the possibility of using strategic patent suits themselves.

> don’t want to give up the possibility of using strategic patent suits themselves

This is a highly under-appreciated aspect of the patent world. Companies that buy and own lots of patents do so defensively. Big companies even enter into patent cross-licensing agreements with each other, where they basically say "I know you probably infringe on my patents and I probably infringe on yours, but we'll make a deal and indemnify each other". But they want to maintain those patents to harass upstart companies that would threaten their core business, so when the trolls come along, they just pay to license and move on.

One of the few examples of a big company fighting patent trolls is Intuit vs encryption patent trolls, of all things. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/intuit-beats-web...

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#116
post #112

If I was carefully looking for prior art to invalidate the patent, I'd look at Verizon's patent portfolio: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hum_(system) Their Hum product seems to do exactly what the patent troll claims to own a patent on. It plugs into the OBD2 port and calls emergency services after a collision. Also, Nissan patented something very similar in 2004: US Patent for Vehicle emergency notification system…

Really great finds!

George posted a comment here but it’s unclear if he’s monitoring the thread.

You should reach out by email to the stoppatenttrolls@comma.ai address mentioned in the OP.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#117
post #36

Kind of interesting that the patent troll going after them used to be a patent agent ~15 years ago. I wonder how common that is?

I assume patent trolls buy old patents at a discount and then try to find companies to attack with them.

Yep happened to me. The parent company was an e-cigarette business and they use the profits to buy random patents that have nothing to do with their core business. It was like getting a shakedown call from a mobster.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#118
post #90

There needs to be an anti-patent-troll membership organization. You pay a fee relative to some metric and the organization acts as insurance against parent trolls by fully defending any patent lawsuits that are obviously unjustified. And to keep costs low, membership in this organization would be public to deter patent trolls from even trying to sue a member in the first place.

Run the numbers: Assuming you need a legal staff of 20 with avg cost 500k per. So that’s 10 million per year. Double it for rent, SGA, etc. we’re at 20 million per year. Offer a protection package at 10k per year, you need 2000 paying customers. Since all the lawyers are on staff, you can have them invalidating patents when not defending case. If you structure it like a mutual insurance company, you could return a po…

Just make sure you include a way for the rest of us non founders to donate to the cause!

Time to start building a neural net to invalidate patent trolls.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#120

I suspect this is more common than one might think especially for smaller companies that have enough cash/revenue to be collectable but too small to afford litigation or to take a principled stance like comma.ai plans to do. Ten years ago my business was a pioneer in smartphone/flip-phone enabled home-automation. We had barely been in business for a few months and doing ~$4k in monthly sales. A troll claimed he owned…

Yes. There are zillions of these completely frivolous patents and trademarks out there.
Post reply on HN