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

51–60 of 127 posts

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

#51

Post by lutorm »

jackowayed wrote: post #33
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…

If it was developed for the CIA, why aren't the resulting patents owned by the government?

It's not clear if this particular "invention" was developed for CIA, but there are also different types of government contracts, some of which assign IP to the government, some of which do not.

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

#52

Post by crazy1van »

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…

> This is, and always has been, a problem of bad legislation.

Exactly. The legislation and regulatory apparatus built around it allow people to claim exclusivity on ideas and techniques that are already obvious to most people in the field. This must be fixed with legislation.

Calling companies trolls on internet forums unread by the vast majority of citizens really doesn't help the cause. These companies make their living enforcing patents. They aren't going to stop because people say mean things about them. They are going to stop when the law makes their business obsolete.

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

Natsu wrote: post #43
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree it's a common viewpoint, I'm just saying it's not very useful to call every NPE a patent troll. It lumps universities together with companies that seek nuisance settlements using the cost of litigation as leverage. In general, the law allows you to sell your cause of action to someone else. For example, many investors who had suits against big banks over mortgage-backed securities sold their causes o…

> I just think it's not very useful to call every NPE a troll. Simple explanation: if they make their money from suing people, it's a troll.

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by wutbrodo »

ScottBurson wrote: post #29
ghayes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ow…

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

This is actually _exactly_ how language works, and that's precisely what's under discussion here: whether the term patent troll is accurate.

There's a different discussion to be had (which rayiner is also alluding to in his comment) about whether this definition has negative side-effects (like being too broad), but being clear on the terms being used in a discussion is important.

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

#55

Post by brudgers »

lutorm wrote: post #51
jackowayed wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was developed for the CIA, why aren't the resulting patents owned by the government?

It's not clear if this particular "invention" was developed for CIA, but there are also different types of government contracts, some of which assign IP to the government, some of which do not.

[IANAL]

My understanding is that the US Federal government cannot be sued for patent infringement. If correct, there would be no value for it to acquire patent rights and if the technology was to be controlled, classifying the design would be better than filing patents.

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

#56

Post by rayiner »

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.

The problem with this definition is that one of the purposes of the patent system is to enable companies that don't produce products but rather produce R&D.

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

#58

Post by bsder »

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…

> I don't know if it's fair to call VirnetX a "patent troll."

Filing in East Texas pretty much defines you as a patent troll. If you have a real case, you don't have to go to East Texas to litigate it.

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

#59

Post by tekacs »

crazy1van wrote: post #47
Natsu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just think it's not very useful to call every NPE a troll. Simple explanation: if they make their money from suing people, it's a troll.

Debating the finer points of what constitutes a troll really isn't helpful. It takes the focus off of the real debate -- improving the patent system.

Meta-comments[1] explaining that the conversation above isn't useful aren't useful. They take the focus off of the real debate -- that which people choose to talk about in the comment thread. Ignoring comments is easy.

proceeds to take own advice

[1]: such as this one, but this wouldn't be necessary if folks didn't find it necessary to waste space dictating what's worth talking about.

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

#60

Post by ScottBurson »

adventured wrote: post #46
ScottBurson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is an excellent and fortunate definition. If all you do is hold patents, sue people and companies, and do not make anything or sell goods or services, you're a patent troll. And that's exactly the label that should be slapped on this company. Hopefully we can get all entities that fit the definition of a patent troll abolished. Also fortunately it's inevitable that the patent troll business will be destroyed. It w…

So you believe that independent inventors and universities are causing great economic damage? Why?

In my mind, the people who are doing damage are those who are taking advantage of the fact that defending oneself against a patent infringement suit is expensive, by suing small businesses with little or no regard to whether they actually infringe; and those taking advantage of low-quality patents that should never have been issued, like the infamous scan-to-email patent.

I think that by equating trolls with NPEs, you are losing an important distinction between the ones doing this damage and entities with valid patents that took real R&D to develop, and who are enforcing them against actual infringers. I don't know how you can say that the latter group don't deserve to be able to enforce their patent rights, unless you want to discard the entire patent system.

In any case I don't think your proposal is going to fly. In contrast, we almost had a bill pass Congress to limit the worst abuses. I still don't understand why this failed.

Post reply on HN