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

Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#61

Post by scott_s »

rayiner wrote: post #58
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #44

I'm surprised there isn't an EFF-like non-profit that provides pro-bono patent defense to start-ups, against patent trolls. I would donate to that organization. I've seen a lot of horseshit patents asserted against start-ups. If there was an organization that followed the troll around and offered defense services against all of their defendants, it would make trolling a lot harder, and might reduce the numbers of the…

> I'm surprised there isn't an EFF-like non-profit that provides pro-bono patent defense to start-ups, against patent trolls. I would donate to that organization. I'm sympathetic to the plight of startups having to deal with the trolliest of trolls, but give me a break. There are so many worthier avenues for pro-bono legal work than helping out for-profit companies.

I find the "please do not invest time or money in that Good Thing you care about because there are these other Good Things over there that are more important" sentiment to be toxic. There are lots of people, and lots of Good Things that need to be done. Letting people do the things that appeal to them just may be the best approach.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#62

Post by rayiner »

scott_s wrote: post #61
rayiner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised there isn't an EFF-like non-profit that provides pro-bono patent defense to start-ups, against patent trolls. I would donate to that organization. I'm sympathetic to the plight of startups having to deal with the trolliest of trolls, but give me a break. There are so many worthier avenues for pro-bono legal work than helping out for-profit companies.

I find the "please do not invest time or money in that Good Thing you care about because there are these other Good Things over there that are more important" sentiment to be toxic. There are lots of people, and lots of Good Things that need to be done. Letting people do the things that appeal to them just may be the best approach.

There's a difference between saying "invest in this worthy public cause instead of this other worthy public cause" and saying "I think it's stupid to donate for the benefit of for-profit enterprise." You're entitled to do it, of course, and I'm entitled to think it's a waste of money. A startup is a business. It exists to make money for its founders and investors. It shouldn't be seen as a charitable cause.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#63

Post by scott_s »

rayiner wrote: post #62
scott_s wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the "please do not invest time or money in that Good Thing you care about because there are these other Good Things over there that are more important" sentiment to be toxic. There are lots of people, and lots of Good Things that need to be done. Letting people do the things that appeal to them just may be the best approach.

There's a difference between saying "invest in this worthy public cause instead of this other worthy public cause" and saying "I think it's stupid to donate for the benefit of for-profit enterprise." You're entitled to do it, of course, and I'm entitled to think it's a waste of money. A startup is a business. It exists to make money for its founders and investors. It shouldn't be seen as a charitable cause.

That ignores the viewpoint that the phenomenon of patent trolls imposes a cost on society itself, by slowing down innovation in general. Efforts such as this are a stop-gap until we can figure out the laws and policies which can eliminate them.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#64

Post by jackweirdy »

scott_s wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between saying "invest in this worthy public cause instead of this other worthy public cause" and saying "I think it's stupid to donate for the benefit of for-profit enterprise." You're entitled to do it, of course, and I'm entitled to think it's a waste of money. A startup is a business. It exists to make money for its founders and investors. It shouldn't be seen as a charitable cause.

That ignores the viewpoint that the phenomenon of patent trolls imposes a cost on society itself, by slowing down innovation in general. Efforts such as this are a stop-gap until we can figure out the laws and policies which can eliminate them.

Not to mention the cost of slowing down the legal system, as in TX and DE. Courts have tended to side with plaintiffs, so all the trolls go there.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#65

Post by rayiner »

scott_s wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between saying "invest in this worthy public cause instead of this other worthy public cause" and saying "I think it's stupid to donate for the benefit of for-profit enterprise." You're entitled to do it, of course, and I'm entitled to think it's a waste of money. A startup is a business. It exists to make money for its founders and investors. It shouldn't be seen as a charitable cause.

That ignores the viewpoint that the phenomenon of patent trolls imposes a cost on society itself, by slowing down innovation in general. Efforts such as this are a stop-gap until we can figure out the laws and policies which can eliminate them.

By that reasoning, you can justify subsidizing any for-profit business, on the grounds that nearly all of them generate some consumer surplus. If you're worried about innovation, cut out the middle man and donate to a university or non-profit R&D lab.

Don't get me wrong. I spent my engineering career at small and startup tech companies, and I think they're an amazing part of the ecosystem. But let's be real: they're for-profit businesses, funded by rich investors, and usually run and staffed by privileged, educated people. They can fend for themselves. There's so many people out there who cannot, who are far more worthy of our public support.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#66

Post by talmand »

josho wrote: post #6

I love this. But, am saddened that the troll hasn't lost. The troll is free to move on to the next mark, which likely won't have a free legal team behind them. I wonder if invalidating patents, that trolls commonly use, a good use of a law student's time?

I would imagine in most cases you can't invalidate a patent without going to trial. I could be wrong on this.

From what I've read, it seems if a patent troll feels they might lose the case they'll drop it. Why risk losing the patent when you can just move on to the next mark?

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#67

Post by scott_s »

rayiner wrote: post #65
scott_s wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ignores the viewpoint that the phenomenon of patent trolls imposes a cost on society itself, by slowing down innovation in general. Efforts such as this are a stop-gap until we can figure out the laws and policies which can eliminate them.

By that reasoning, you can justify subsidizing any for-profit business, on the grounds that nearly all of them generate some consumer surplus. If you're worried about innovation, cut out the middle man and donate to a university or non-profit R&D lab. Don't get me wrong. I spent my engineering career at small and startup tech companies, and I think they're an amazing part of the ecosystem. But let's be real: they're…

I think your argument ignores that such legal assistance would be for small companies or individuals whose enterprise would face an existential threat. Giving money to a university or existing R&D lab would not have the same effect, since the enterprises I'm talking about are new entities in the economy. Because of patent trolls, they may cease to exist. Innovation in principle (such as that that comes from universities) is very different from innovation in practice (such as that which comes from companies).

I agree that many people out there are "more deserving." But take, for example, these students and their professor. Their expertise is in patent law. I find it plausible that the most positive impact they can have on society involves applying their expertise.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#68

Post by monochromatic »

jtzhou wrote: post #42
monochromatic wrote: post #39

> The patent behind all these lawsuits is not particularly innovative. It claims something about sending notifications after an emergency phone call. Here’s the gist from one of the figures . . . . This is a little disingenuous. You know the patent doesn't cover the "gist" or any particular figure. It covers the claims (which you don't mention at all, even in passing). And for some reason, you don't even tell us what…

Primary sources are always useful, but so is some context from the writer. Reading the patent and the recent SCOTUS opinion, Alice v Cls Bank, it definitely looks to be invalid in the context of software implementation. I wouldn't call the writer "disingenuous." It would be difficult to argue for fee shifting as an exceptional case, because there has been only a few recent decisions and not consistent precedent yet .

If you can already tell whether or not a patent is invalid under Alice, congratulations, you're smarter than any patent attorney in the country.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#69

Post by monochromatic »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47
monochromatic wrote: post #39

> The patent behind all these lawsuits is not particularly innovative. It claims something about sending notifications after an emergency phone call. Here’s the gist from one of the figures . . . . This is a little disingenuous. You know the patent doesn't cover the "gist" or any particular figure. It covers the claims (which you don't mention at all, even in passing). And for some reason, you don't even tell us what…

> You know the patent doesn't cover the "gist" or any particular figure. It covers the claims It seems like whenever anyone criticizes a patent by summarizing it, someone points out that the patent is defined by the claims, but if anyone criticizes a patent by reading the claims, someone points out that the claims have to be read in the context of the rest of the patent.

You do have to read the claims in light of the specification. But I'd say that looking just at one random figure is more wrong than looking just at the claims in isolation.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#70

Post by rayiner »

scott_s wrote: post #67
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that reasoning, you can justify subsidizing any for-profit business, on the grounds that nearly all of them generate some consumer surplus. If you're worried about innovation, cut out the middle man and donate to a university or non-profit R&D lab. Don't get me wrong. I spent my engineering career at small and startup tech companies, and I think they're an amazing part of the ecosystem. But let's be real: they're…

I think your argument ignores that such legal assistance would be for small companies or individuals whose enterprise would face an existential threat. Giving money to a university or existing R&D lab would not have the same effect, since the enterprises I'm talking about are new entities in the economy. Because of patent trolls, they may cease to exist. Innovation in principle (such as that that comes from universit…

> small companies or individuals

To me, the for-profit versus non-profit distinction is far more relevant than the small entity versus large entity distinction. I have nothing against profit-seeking investors, but I don't think they deserve charity.

Post reply on HN