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

251–260 of 318 posts

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#251

Post by savrajsingh »

denton-scratch wrote: post #223
mirzap wrote: post #166

I always admired George, his simplicity and vision. But after this I respect him even more: 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 becau…

It's possible that the "lose $1M before I give him $10k" schtick is bluster. If you're facing a fight with someone, then convincing them that you're crazy, and that you're prepared to risk everything to beat them, might make them run away. Incidentally, can you invalidate a patent, so the troll can't use it any more, if the troll declines to defend the patent? Can they just walk away, and then assert it against some…

From my understanding, you have to go to court to invalidate an issued patent

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#252

Post by rakoo »

wombatpm wrote: post #110
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.

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…

It's like patent trolls are a parasitic industry acting against the betterment of society and they should be fought by public instances paid for by everyone

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#254

Post by 7373737373 »

omginternets wrote: post #94
dqpb wrote: post #75

Is there a path toward criminal lawsuits against patent trolls?

I believe a lawsuit is always a civil case. Do you mean criminal charges? I think the bar is pretty high for that (like, fraud or conspiracy).

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

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#255

Post by 7373737373 »

sometimeshuman wrote: post #78

"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." This stance is admirable but comma.ai is partly owned by investors. Isn't he obliged to find the lowest cost solution to this ? Or is George Hotz planning to spend his personal money on the lawsuit ?

Are you implying submitting to these greedy fucks is low cost?

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#256

Post by denton-scratch »

savrajsingh wrote: post #251
denton-scratch wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that the "lose $1M before I give him $10k" schtick is bluster. If you're facing a fight with someone, then convincing them that you're crazy, and that you're prepared to risk everything to beat them, might make them run away. Incidentally, can you invalidate a patent, so the troll can't use it any more, if the troll declines to defend the patent? Can they just walk away, and then assert it against some…

From my understanding, you have to go to court to invalidate an issued patent

Yes, that's my understanding too. But if the party asserting the patent decides not to defend it, and drops their claim against you specifically, can you go ahead and invalidate the patent in court? If you can, and there's no defence, then presumably the patent is invalidated by default.

But it seems rather odd; in normal civil proceedings, you have an adversary against whom you allege some kind of wrongdoing. Who is your adversary if you are attacking a patent that nobody cares to defend? Can you bring a case against the patent itself?

I understand that in parts of the USA, the police can sue a car, a house, or a sackful of cash, so it's not beyond reason.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#257

Post by Varqu »

linuxhansl wrote: post #45

In every western country - except the US and England - the loser pays for the cost of the trial (all parties' lawyer fees + the court). Just this reduces frivolous lawsuits. If you have a good case, sure, go ahead. If your case is weak, you run a real risk paying not only for your lawyers but the other side as well. (Note that there are disadvantages to loser-pays as well. Image you legitimately want to sue corporati…

Yeah, at least patent related cases should follow this rule. But not sure if the US legal systems adapts it any time soon.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#258

Post by acomjean »

agounaris wrote: post #198

What I don't understand with patent trolls is how this will even go a trial? How does this work? There is a random lawsuit therefore you'll either have to pay or go to a trial? Who accepted the lawsuit in the first place and based on what legal ground?

Basically they say you are violating their patent. You can license it for $X and then everything is good. If you don't license it we will sue you for patent infringement.

The problem is typically defending yourself cost you a lot more money than it would be to just pay the $X. In other countries if you defended yourself and won, the loser would have to pay your cost, but not in the US making it a less risky venture.

Often times small companies are quite busy and just pay the license fee to make the trolls go away. Unfortunately that just ends up creating more trolls.

There are ways to invalidate a patent, but the US Patent Office that granted the bad patent is immune from any financial liability from the damage their bad patent caused, so the US Patent Office keeps granting them.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#259

Post by ChrisLomont »

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 tons of them. Google patent lawsuit insurance.

Re: Patent Trolls Inbound: Our First Lawsuit

#260

Post by wombatpm »

koheripbal wrote: post #242
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…

Returning unused premium makes it a "mutual" insurance company, legally. This has specific legal and tax implications. One of the big constraints of insurance companies is the differing laws in each state and province, so don't underestimate the corporate/legal/tax/accounting/operational/compliance reporting/etc costs in EACH jurisdiction.

Good point. Although the thing you are insuring against is federal lawsuits. So maybe a different structure like a non-profit?
Post reply on HN