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

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#71

Post by teachingaway »

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…

Since we won on jurisdiction, the patent itself wasn't a big part of the story.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#72

Post by teachingaway »

monochromatic wrote: post #69
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Its about context. If this were claim construction brief, just looking at one random figure would be totally wrong. But a proper and careful analysis of the claims would be a snoozefest. I wanted to tell a story celebrating the hard work of these wonderful students.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#73

Post by will_brown »

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.

First, I am not sure if the EFF defends such suits, but I believe they challenge the validity of patents held by various patent trolls.

Secondly, 481 days ago I proposed the idea of a crowdfunding website for the purpose of posting demand letters from trolls, allowing donations to challange specific patents if goals were meet Did not receive much interest from HN at the time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5573778

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#74

Post by AnthonyMouse »

vertex-four wrote: post #56
mseebach wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what "externalise" means. When a cost is externalised, it's taken on involuntarily by society at large. Since contributing to this organisation would be voluntary, that's clearly not what happens. VCs and investors aren't creating the cost (so they can't externalise it), patent trolls are, and they do externalise it. Everybody is worse off when a startup (regardless of VCs and other investors) sinks hours…

How far do we go down this road? What else should we be donating for businesses to do? Should we be donating their electricity costs, healthcare costs, should we be donating our time as volunteers for them to run? If investors want to join together to create such an organisation, let them, but (1) it really shouldn't be a non-profit (its entire purpose is to act as a legal arm for for-profit business), and (2) asking…

> Should we be donating their electricity costs, healthcare costs, should we be donating our time as volunteers for them to run?

Is there some point you were expecting a line to be crossed? "For profit" is an arbitrary designation created by the tax code. Should we not support researchers trying to cure cancer or generate clean energy because they anticipate turning a profit if they succeed?

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#75

Post by vertex-four »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74
vertex-four wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far do we go down this road? What else should we be donating for businesses to do? Should we be donating their electricity costs, healthcare costs, should we be donating our time as volunteers for them to run? If investors want to join together to create such an organisation, let them, but (1) it really shouldn't be a non-profit (its entire purpose is to act as a legal arm for for-profit business), and (2) asking…

> Should we be donating their electricity costs, healthcare costs, should we be donating our time as volunteers for them to run? Is there some point you were expecting a line to be crossed? "For profit" is an arbitrary designation created by the tax code. Should we not support researchers trying to cure cancer or generate clean energy because they anticipate turning a profit if they succeed?

If they anticipate turning a profit, why should I donate to them instead of investing in them or Kickstarting them? Why would I give them money to get... absolutely nothing out of it, but to make them richer?

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#76

Post by AnthonyMouse »

vertex-four wrote: post #75
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we be donating their electricity costs, healthcare costs, should we be donating our time as volunteers for them to run? Is there some point you were expecting a line to be crossed? "For profit" is an arbitrary designation created by the tax code. Should we not support researchers trying to cure cancer or generate clean energy because they anticipate turning a profit if they succeed?

If they anticipate turning a profit, why should I donate to them instead of investing in them or Kickstarting them? Why would I give them money to get... absolutely nothing out of it, but to make them richer?

For the same reasons that you might donate time or money to anything. Why should you tutor some disadvantaged kid for free without having an agreement that you get a percentage of future earnings? Why pay taxes or vote for the continued existence of taxes?

Because donors turning a profit isn't the point. Most startups fail. Getting a percentage of something which is probably going to turn out worthless is less important than shifting the ecosystem away from one in which promising startups are destroyed by trolls.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#77

Post by chc »

rayiner wrote: post #70
scott_s wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have trouble understanding why that would be your line in the sand. For-profit versus nonprofit is a statutory distinction rooted in tax law. By using that to decide whom you will support, you are essentially saying that the Internal Revenue Service is your moral compass. There are non-profits that do nothing at all to better the world, and there are for-profit companies with a very strong sense of social responsibility.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#78

Post by rayiner »

chc wrote: post #77
rayiner wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have trouble understanding why that would be your line in the sand. For-profit versus nonprofit is a statutory distinction rooted in tax law. By using that to decide whom you will support, you are essentially saying that the Internal Revenue Service is your moral compass. There are non-profits that do nothing at all to better the world, and there are for-profit companies with a very strong sense of social responsib…

I think motivation matters and I think intention matters. At the end of the day, the motivation of a for-profit enterprise is making money for owners and shareholders. When push comes to shove, making money will win out over a "strong sense of social responsibility." It's a somewhat philosophical position, but I always perceive "corporate social responsibility" to be fundamentally compromised. Working within that framework always leads to elephants in the room, and things that everyone thinks that nobody says, and people ignoring where the money really comes from.

For profit business needs to exist to make all the shiny toys we all enjoy, but public service needs to be at least a little insulated from business, lest it turn into farce and lip service.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#79

Post by throwawaykf05 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #48
throwawaykf05 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, your implication that patents are only supposed to protect the weak from the strong is incorrect. That is a common ex post-facto rationalization of patents, but not the only one. Simply preventing copying by a competitor, regardless of size, is perfectly fine. Even then, empirical evidence suggests that the use of patents by small firms against large ones is not as "extremely rare" as you think it is. From h…

Small entities filing lawsuits is good because it means small entities are using patents. Large entities filing lawsuits is good because it means large entities are using patents. The underlying assumption is that patent litigation is a good thing for the plaintiffs involved. It's like trying to use the number of patents issued to measure the innovation attributable to patents. Litigation isn't a sign of success, it'…

Strawman. Those statistics were to refute grandparents assumptions about how patents are used in the real world, not to assert that litigation is a "success".

Litigation is a failure, but a failure of negotiation, not of the system. On mobile, so can't find the Lemley study now, but something like 1% of issued patents are ever litigated, and a big fraction of even those settle out of court. The large majority are typically licensed without involving litigation -- thousands of practicing entities, including well-known firms like Qualcomm, ARM, Microsoft, etc. routinely license patents as part of their business without suing others, because lawsuits are as expensive to practicing licensors as to potential infringers. It's only when parties cannot agree on the validity or value of patents that lawsuits occur, and statistics indicate this is rare.

There's no evidence of "systemic failure" of patent litigation, unless you uncritically accept media reports without evidence or are simply biased against patents.

Re: Law Students Fend Off a Patent Troll

#80

Post by FloydGondolli »

teachingaway wrote: post #59
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.

>> There are so many worthier avenues for pro-bono legal work than helping out for-profit companies. I have a handful of students who want to be patent lawyers. Should I make them work on death penalty or civil rights cases?

There are dozens of pro bono clinics in the Bay Area and around the state that provide advice and legal assistance to low-income Californians. Volunteers (law students and lawyers) are critical to their mission. Check out www.californiaprobono.org. BTW, I agree with your sentiment. The very translation of the term "pro bono publico" from its Latin precludes work for for-profit enterprises, IMO.
Post reply on HN