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

Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

betabeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#11

Post by mjdwitt »

bdhe wrote: post #9
cperciva wrote: post #2

a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…

... overdue account collections ... This is actually an interesting point. Both collection agents and patent trolls go about asking people to pony up the payment for goods (to put it colloquially) and they both do it on behalf of a third party, for whom doing it by themselves will involve a lot more of a hassles. The distinction comes in the fact that in the case of collection agents, the payments owed to the goods a…

I think that it's possibly an even more basic difference. Many people are still quite unclear to adamantly opposed to the concept of paying for an idea, which means the very purpose of patent trolls is at best ethically murky to these people.

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#12

Post by vogonj »

Woost wrote: post #10
vogonj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the service is ideas. if patents are, indeed, on non-obvious concepts, they can provide the spark for new inventions, and -- if you sign a licensing agreement with the patent troll -- you are paying them for the right to build, market, and sell something they invented. the question is whether the patent review process is working or not.

Ideas don't have a dollar value. I'm guessing that not one company who signs a licensing agreement with the patent troll does so because they want access to a library of ideas. They do it because they're working to build a real product, and the patent troll comes along and says "sign this and pay us or we'll make your life miserable and it will cost more"

or, if you look at it from their perspective, they came up with the idea, went to the trouble of formally describing it and filing paperwork so that it could be released to the public, and then another company either independently invented it or just read their description and built one.

say IV had the patent for a burr coffee grinder. even if they never build a non-prototype grinder, they went to the trouble of conceptualizing, prototyping, and writing down their idea for an invention so someone else could build it. that invention has merit, even if Intellectual Ventures doesn't build one.

the question is whether (ignoring particular types of inventions like computer software, which is legitimately tricky to reason about) all of the inventions are legitimately novel inventions which go through an inventive process of discovery (for lack of a better phrase), or whether they are rote improvements on concepts which are already state-of-the-art, or shots in the dark hoping to land some profitable patent litigation later. and nobody but Intellectual Ventures knows what their intention is.

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#13

Post by DougBTX »

elwin wrote: post #5
cperciva wrote: post #2

a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…

The purported purpose of patents is to increase the amount of useful stuff produced by the economy. The purpose of patent trolling is the opposite: the product stops getting produced, and the amount of useful stuff decreases. That makes patent trolling more harmful to consumers than normal patent lawsuits.

Being the devil's advocate: if a company can invent a product and earn a profit through licensing a patent for that product, is it not likley that they could reinvest more in product development by out sourcing the collection of licensing fees to a company which specialises in collecting license fees, and finding new licensees? And is this fee collecting company not a patent troll?

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#14

Post by VladRussian »

vogonj wrote: post #12
Woost wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideas don't have a dollar value. I'm guessing that not one company who signs a licensing agreement with the patent troll does so because they want access to a library of ideas. They do it because they're working to build a real product, and the patent troll comes along and says "sign this and pay us or we'll make your life miserable and it will cost more"

or, if you look at it from their perspective, they came up with the idea, went to the trouble of formally describing it and filing paperwork so that it could be released to the public, and then another company either independently invented it or just read their description and built one. say IV had the patent for a burr coffee grinder. even if they never build a non-prototype grinder, they went to the trouble of conc…

>if you look at it from their perspective, they came up with the idea, went to the trouble of formally describing it and filing paperwork so that it could be released to the public

they went for all this trouble only for such a noble cause?

>they went to the trouble of conceptualizing, prototyping, and writing down their idea for an invention so someone else could build it.

you just made my day.

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#15

Post by VladRussian »

vogonj wrote: post #6
duskwuff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, unlike other service businesses, a patent troll company generally provides no meaningful service to its clients -- its only product is typically "we won't sue you".

the service is ideas. if patents are, indeed, on non-obvious concepts, they can provide the spark for new inventions, and -- if you sign a licensing agreement with the patent troll -- you are paying them for the right to build, market, and sell something they invented. the question is whether the patent review process is working or not.

>the service is ideas.

the service is what i ask for. If i don't ask for it, it is extortion ("tax" when extorting entity is some kind of government)

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#16

Post by onwardly »

gojomo wrote: post #8

When the deal is complete, MMI will probably enjoy immunity under Google's protection-racket-fees. So IV has to race to collect from not-paid-up MMI before the deal closes.

Why couldn't Motorola just drag out the lawsuit then? Surely the pre-proceedings and a trial would take longer than it will for the Google/Motorola deal to go through.

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#17

Post by tzs »

elwin wrote: post #5
cperciva wrote: post #2

a company with no business model outside collecting patents Every time stories like this come up, there's a line like the above. And every time, I wonder: Why is this relevant? I could say equally well that Stripe is a company with no business model outside of taking money from credit cards; it doesn't mean that they're bad people. The fact is, companies out-source all the time; why is out-sourcing patent infringemen…

The purported purpose of patents is to increase the amount of useful stuff produced by the economy. The purpose of patent trolling is the opposite: the product stops getting produced, and the amount of useful stuff decreases. That makes patent trolling more harmful to consumers than normal patent lawsuits.

Patent trolls generally seek royalties or one-time license fees, rather then seeking to stop production. Patent owners seeking to shut down production are generally patent owners who are trying to stop a competitor.

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#18

Post by vogonj »

VladRussian wrote: post #15
vogonj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the service is ideas. if patents are, indeed, on non-obvious concepts, they can provide the spark for new inventions, and -- if you sign a licensing agreement with the patent troll -- you are paying them for the right to build, market, and sell something they invented. the question is whether the patent review process is working or not.

>the service is ideas. the service is what i ask for. If i don't ask for it, it is extortion ("tax" when extorting entity is some kind of government)

a) nice "taxation is theft" dig in there.

b) the entire purpose of the patent system is that ideas can be entered into a register and time-limited monopolies granted by the government in exchange for their public release at the end of the monopoly period.

the only weird part about non-practicing entities -- and I say this from the perspective of a Microsoft employee with no patent cubes yet to his name, who works in the same room as people with 15 -- is that they are effectively outsourcing the entire process of reducing their inventions to practice.

Re: Google Sues Itself With Help From Intellectual Ventures

#19

Post by vogonj »

VladRussian wrote: post #14
vogonj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or, if you look at it from their perspective, they came up with the idea, went to the trouble of formally describing it and filing paperwork so that it could be released to the public, and then another company either independently invented it or just read their description and built one. say IV had the patent for a burr coffee grinder. even if they never build a non-prototype grinder, they went to the trouble of conc…

>if you look at it from their perspective, they came up with the idea, went to the trouble of formally describing it and filing paperwork so that it could be released to the public they went for all this trouble only for such a noble cause? >they went to the trouble of conceptualizing, prototyping, and writing down their idea for an invention so someone else could build it. you just made my day.

no, obviously they went to the trouble for the licensing fees. but they did, as a side effect to the licensing fees, agree to make their invention freely-practicable -- as opposed to the default, where it would be protected by trade secret laws in perpetuity -- after their monopoly period ended.

so that's worth something, I guess.

Post reply on HN