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

The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#21

Post by rhizome »

cwp wrote: post #12

This article gives me an idea. Theoretically, problem with trolls is that they can't be counter-sued because they're non-practicing entities, ie. they're not technology companies. But build.com isn't a technology company either, they just happen to use it in their operations. From the article: "There was one for transferring data through a network, another for using images on a website, another for having a computer…

And hey, there are "business method" patents as well as technology patents. Could we get a patent on sending threatening letters? How about a patent on shell companies

Yes, of course. This has been the go-to joke in these stories since at least SCOX v. IBM (8+ years).

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#22

Post by ScottBurson »

I think the trolls are making a strategic error by piling on (when more trolls sue a victim that has demonstrated a willingness to settle).

Once it becomes clear that settling is as risky as going to court -- because if you settle, you'll be faced with more suits from other trolls -- the calculation changes. Business owners may as well take their chances in court.

I would love to see some business owners defending themselves pro se, on a shoestring budget, and winning.

Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#23

Post by blindhippo »

One of the interesting themes in the article is "we can't afford to go to court". Not to detract from the main issue of patent reform but perhaps America should look into making it's legal system a bit more user friendly.

It should be completely viable for a smaller entity to take on one of these "bogus" claims in court and not go bankrupt doing it. Smacking these claims down in court might go a long way towards preventing future shakedowns.

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#24

Post by ScottBurson »

ScottBurson wrote: post #22

I think the trolls are making a strategic error by piling on (when more trolls sue a victim that has demonstrated a willingness to settle). Once it becomes clear that settling is as risky as going to court -- because if you settle, you'll be faced with more suits from other trolls -- the calculation changes. Business owners may as well take their chances in court. I would love to see some business owners defending th…

Here, alas, is why that probably won't work: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-a-rogue-appea...

Previous discussion on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4594122

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#25

Post by rayiner »

astrodust wrote: post #9
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First: if an inventor comes up with some idea but decides that instead of producing products based on their invention waits for other people to come up with the same idea and get money from them (or has someone do it by proxity), then is that actually something we want to encourage? The idea is that the original inventor publishes the secret sauce via the required public disclosures and people either license the te…

I find it extremely unlikely that someone can conceive of and take the time patent something so novel that someone, somewhere, hasn't already tried it at least once. In those rare cases, it should be a requirement to produce a detailed description of the method by which the desired result is achieved, and that the patent would cover that specific method. "Attaching a computer to a database" is not a method. A very sp…

That's exactly what a patent is! You don't patent "communicating wirelessly between two devices." That's a result. Instead, you patent something like OFDM, a particular, novel, way of achieving that result. Infringement is only found if someone else not only achieves the same result, but does so in substantially the same way. Even further, the scope of that way is cabined by prior art--you only get to claim protection over the parts of that mechanism that are actually novel.

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#26

Post by genwin »

ScottBurson wrote: post #22

I think the trolls are making a strategic error by piling on (when more trolls sue a victim that has demonstrated a willingness to settle). Once it becomes clear that settling is as risky as going to court -- because if you settle, you'll be faced with more suits from other trolls -- the calculation changes. Business owners may as well take their chances in court. I would love to see some business owners defending th…

My understanding is that you'll be sued in a particular part of Texas where juries greatly favor the patent trolls. It seems that currently you can depend on losing if you don't settle.

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#27

Post by zalzane »

This is probably the biggest barrier preventing me from starting a business.

I know that if I ended up getting hit with NPE patent infringement claims, I'd probably just buy a gun and go shoot up their office.

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#28

Post by shasta »

rayiner wrote: post #25
astrodust wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it extremely unlikely that someone can conceive of and take the time patent something so novel that someone, somewhere, hasn't already tried it at least once. In those rare cases, it should be a requirement to produce a detailed description of the method by which the desired result is achieved, and that the patent would cover that specific method. "Attaching a computer to a database" is not a method. A very sp…

That's exactly what a patent is! You don't patent "communicating wirelessly between two devices." That's a result. Instead, you patent something like OFDM, a particular, novel, way of achieving that result. Infringement is only found if someone else not only achieves the same result, but does so in substantially the same way. Even further, the scope of that way is cabined by prior art--you only get to claim protectio…

...in theory...

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#29

Post by marcosdumay »

lowboy wrote: post #15
JoshTriplett wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unintended consequence of well-intentioned legislation I'd question both of your adjectives there. This seems like an intended consequence of heavily lobbied legislation, as evidenced by the reactions to any attempts to change this system.

I think parent was referring to the inception of the patent system, which was well-intentioned. This is different from the trolls lobbying to keep the status quo, which is definitely not well-intentioned.

I still disagree. Since inception patent law is heavily lobbied (except that in some cases lobby didn't have a name yet), and legislators refuse to fix its very visible flaws.

About the same patter repeated on every country.

Re: The Real Toll of Patent Trolls

#30

Post by rayiner »

blindhippo wrote: post #23

One of the interesting themes in the article is "we can't afford to go to court". Not to detract from the main issue of patent reform but perhaps America should look into making it's legal system a bit more user friendly. It should be completely viable for a smaller entity to take on one of these "bogus" claims in court and not go bankrupt doing it. Smacking these claims down in court might go a long way towards prev…

Nothing prevents you from representing yourself. Maybe this is an easy way to disrupt patent trolling: a "how to" guide for taking an obviously stupid claim out in summary judgment.
Post reply on HN