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

Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 127 posts

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#21

Post by nitrogen »

lorddoig wrote: post #3

We shouldn't blame patent trolls for acting the way they do in the same way that we shouldn't blame banks and stockbrokers for acting the way they do. If there is big money to be made, and it's legal, somebody is going to do it - and if it's not you, well, your loss. This is, and always has been, a problem of bad legislation . It is a structural problem in the system . The human race would save so much time, money, a…

The human race would save so much time, money, and energy if it tackled problems at their root instead of dossing around in the details, oblivious to the actual issue.

Nobody's oblivious to the actual issue; it's just that the root of the problem is inaccessibly mired in a tangled web of lobbying networks, conflicting interests, and impenetrable committees.

Opportunists are just as guilty of making the world worse as the laws that enable them.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#22

Post by [deleted] »

georgemcbay wrote: post #19

At this point I honestly believe the only way the patent system gets any better is by becoming so overbearing that it collapses under its own weight. The lobbying machine in place to protect patents essentially as they are now (with maybe some token changes to look like progress) is way too big and way too strong for reform otherwise. So in that sense, I'm happy about this.

[deleted]

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#23

Post by larrys »

jeffdavis wrote: post #15

The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls. I define "patent troll" as an entity that has a sliver of a chance of winning, but 100% chance that they will impose high costs on the defendant at little cost to themselves. They use this assymetry as a form of legal extortion. They limit their downside by holding few assets aside…

The "definition" of a patent troll (per google search):

"A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity, is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question."

This is always the definition that I understood.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#24

Post by fleitz »

larrys wrote: post #23
jeffdavis wrote: post #15

The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls. I define "patent troll" as an entity that has a sliver of a chance of winning, but 100% chance that they will impose high costs on the defendant at little cost to themselves. They use this assymetry as a form of legal extortion. They limit their downside by holding few assets aside…

The "definition" of a patent troll (per google search): "A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity, is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question." This is always the definition that I understood.

So sort of like Universities?

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#25

Post by ghayes »

rayiner wrote: post #17

I don't know if it's fair to call VirnetX a "patent troll." They're an NPE, but there's no indication that they're abusing the process or trying to get a low-ball settlement just to avoid actually going to court. Furthermore, the patents aren't just something they churned out. The technology in question was developed by SAIC for the CIA. SAIC is a major defense contractor and R&D company: http://www.washingtonpost.co…

> VirnetX is a company some call a "patent troll" because its only business is now patent enforcement.

I believe this viewpoint is shared by a number of people. Specifically, that a litigious NPE is, by colloquial definition, a "patent troll." There is a conversation to be had as to whether the practice is good or bad, or if they are acting more appropriately than their peer group, but I think the term fits in this case.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#26

Post by bediger4000 »

georgemcbay wrote: post #19

At this point I honestly believe the only way the patent system gets any better is by becoming so overbearing that it collapses under its own weight. The lobbying machine in place to protect patents essentially as they are now (with maybe some token changes to look like progress) is way too big and way too strong for reform otherwise. So in that sense, I'm happy about this.

That was my emotional reaction too, but my thought was different. I saw the article and thought, "Maybe if 2 or 3 more trolls win big against Google, Microsoft and GM or GE, we'll see some legislative action."

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#27

Post by rmrfrmrf »

jeffdavis wrote: post #15

The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls. I define "patent troll" as an entity that has a sliver of a chance of winning, but 100% chance that they will impose high costs on the defendant at little cost to themselves. They use this assymetry as a form of legal extortion. They limit their downside by holding few assets aside…

Your definition is wrong.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#28

Post by lorddoig »

nitrogen wrote: post #21
lorddoig wrote: post #3

We shouldn't blame patent trolls for acting the way they do in the same way that we shouldn't blame banks and stockbrokers for acting the way they do. If there is big money to be made, and it's legal, somebody is going to do it - and if it's not you, well, your loss. This is, and always has been, a problem of bad legislation . It is a structural problem in the system . The human race would save so much time, money, a…

The human race would save so much time, money, and energy if it tackled problems at their root instead of dossing around in the details, oblivious to the actual issue. Nobody's oblivious to the actual issue; it's just that the root of the problem is inaccessibly mired in a tangled web of lobbying networks, conflicting interests, and impenetrable committees. Opportunists are just as guilty of making the world worse as…

Nonsense.

Opportunists are faced with the decision "Should I attempt to make a bucketload of cash, and secure my family's - and my stakeholders families' - future, or should I take a moral stance, make no money, and console myself in poverty because I'm a 'good' person?"

Contrarily, lawmakers have all of the tools required to make a better system, and yet choose not to, for the same indecipherable reasons so many political decisions are made.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#29

Post by ScottBurson »

ghayes wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: post #17

I don't know if it's fair to call VirnetX a "patent troll." They're an NPE, but there's no indication that they're abusing the process or trying to get a low-ball settlement just to avoid actually going to court. Furthermore, the patents aren't just something they churned out. The technology in question was developed by SAIC for the CIA. SAIC is a major defense contractor and R&D company: http://www.washingtonpost.co…

> VirnetX is a company some call a "patent troll" because its only business is now patent enforcement. I believe this viewpoint is shared by a number of people. Specifically, that a litigious NPE is, by colloquial definition, a "patent troll." There is a conversation to be had as to whether the practice is good or bad, or if they are acting more appropriately than their peer group, but I think the term fits in this c…

The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a number of people is hardly an argument for its validity.

We need to understand what we're fighting. Defining a patent troll as any NPE who files an infringement suit is clearly too broad, because the only way to prevent trolling under that definition is to shut down the patent system. As long as patents are issued, and can be bought and sold, it will be possible for NPEs to own them. Furthermore, independent inventors, of whom I believe there are still a few left, and whom I think we all believe the patent system should protect if it protects anyone, are generally NPEs.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#30

Post by ScottBurson »

larrys wrote: post #23
jeffdavis wrote: post #15

The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls. I define "patent troll" as an entity that has a sliver of a chance of winning, but 100% chance that they will impose high costs on the defendant at little cost to themselves. They use this assymetry as a form of legal extortion. They limit their downside by holding few assets aside…

The "definition" of a patent troll (per google search): "A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity, is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question." This is always the definition that I understood.

It is a common definition, but a very unfortunate one. See my reply to 'ghayes upthread.
Post reply on HN