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

Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

blog.comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 318 posts

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#211

Post by mschuster91 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #158
ummonk wrote: 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.

The Japanese video game industry does this in an ad-hoc way. Smaller game studios ask bigger companies, like Nintendo, to register some patents in their stead so the bigger companies can keep them safe with their elite team of lawyers. The bigger companies like Nintendo in turn gatekeep the patents from trolls and abusers, letting the industry at-large use the patents for a greater good while suing anyone who doesn't…

So basically because the official environment (laws and courts) doesn't do its job, large private entities end up taking over in what is essentially a protection racket. Sounds a bit too much like the Mafia IMHO.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#212

Post by Bellamy »

ummonk wrote: 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.

Not a bad idea!

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#213

Post by denton-scratch »

ummonk wrote: 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.

There's sense in making it like insurance.

Litigation is notoriously risky; the cost of settling is usually orders of magnitude less than the gain of winning. In that respect, it resembles the kind of thing insurers specialize in. So this is simply a specialist insurer, whose USP is that if they think they can invalidate a patent, they go for it.

I'd have thought that deterring patent trolls is the opposite of what they ought to do; I imagine something more like a honeypot operation - every effort is taken to ensure members look just like ordinary marks and suckers.

It could cause strains if someone came after a member with a valid patent. The club would decline their claim, they'd have to settle and redesign their product, and they might go bust.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#214

Post by belter »

ummonk wrote: 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.

Trolling Effects - https://trollingeffects.org/

LOT Network - https://lotnet.com/

"Patent Trolls and You: EFF Virtual Boot Camp for App Developers" - https://youtu.be/X6eaDSd54_c

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#215

Post by denton-scratch »

nspattak wrote: post #205
huhtenberg wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 10k a year this is very unlikely to work. Few startups will pay that to protect against a threat that, practically speaking, is very rather unlikely. The fee needs to be an order of magnitude lower. Incidentally it will open up this service to a much wider range of companies, so it may actually be easier to pull off.

one does not need to start with 20 people, if one doesn't have enough paying customers either...

They don't really need to employ lawyers at all. It's just an insurance club. They need an actuary, an accountant and a clerk. They can pay law-firms to do the lawyering, and contract researchers to dig up prior art. That way, the main costs arise on a per-case basis - only the office staff are fixed costs.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#216

Post by hnhamdani2 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #211
Dalewyn wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Japanese video game industry does this in an ad-hoc way. Smaller game studios ask bigger companies, like Nintendo, to register some patents in their stead so the bigger companies can keep them safe with their elite team of lawyers. The bigger companies like Nintendo in turn gatekeep the patents from trolls and abusers, letting the industry at-large use the patents for a greater good while suing anyone who doesn't…

So basically because the official environment (laws and courts) doesn't do its job, large private entities end up taking over in what is essentially a protection racket. Sounds a bit too much like the Mafia IMHO.

The more you realize that for Japanese society, it's been the same as how it was since a long time. Zaibatus/Keiretsu is just a modern evolution of feudal era Daimyo/Samurai. As a rule of of thumb, they're trying to good for the masses but indeed they are (benevolent) dictator in some ways.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#217

Post by denton-scratch »

bloak wrote: post #196
matthewheath wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In England, the losing side usually pays at least a large portion (if not all) of the costs of the winning side. 100% cost awards are rare, but generally the costs burden is placed on whoever loses. This seems to reduce frivolous lawsuits (depending on who is suing/being sued) but you can ask for a cost capping order to limit the amount you have to pay out if you lose, which partially helps address the issue of "they…

An important detail: it shouldn't be (and as far as I know isn't) the loser who pays but the party who behaved unreasonably. For example, if you damage someone's property, offer to pay £100, but they refuse your offer and instead sue you and win .... £100, then you won't be paying their legal costs. In fact, they may have to pay your costs because they were being unreasonable in bringing the case to court after you h…

I trhink it's more complicated than that (IANAL). Isn't it most common to make such a settlement offer "without prejudice"? Then the fact that offer was made can't be brought up in court, so it can't affect the costs ruling.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#218

Post by ENGNR »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #184
wombatpm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I like it, although you left out the part where your other business arm researches potential troll lawsuits before they happen and goes after companies who don't pay you protection money. /s

It's true, it needs to be a social enterprise that ultimately makes itself redundant. What if a % of all revenue went into a warchest that built over time, and if it ever achieves the goal (of eliminating themselves) it got paid out to current shareholders

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#219

Post by denton-scratch »

labrador wrote: post #3

I always thought Hotz an interesting character. This paragraph adds to that impression: "What he didn’t take into account is that comma isn’t run by rational actors in suits sitting on a committee. It’s run by me, George Hotz. I’m willing to lose $1M before I give him $10k. We will hire an amazing legal team, fight this, and while doing so invalidate his patents so they can’t be used against anyone else. Not because…

> I find that relatable.

Me too - nobody would accuse me of being a rational actor.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#220

Post by denton-scratch »

aidenn0 wrote: post #54
thfuran wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that considerably more of today's ills would be solved by more collective action.

We definitely need more collective action, but a lot of evil happens because people in positions of power hesitate to do the right thing out of a sense of fiduciary duty. Collective action could align the incentives better, but leaders willing to risk some of the company's assets to do the right thing should, IMO, also be encouraged.

Hmm. Fiduciary duty isn't a "sense"; it's a legal obligation on anyone who occupies a position of trust. I can't see how being aware of your legal obligations causes "a lot of evil".
Post reply on HN