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

Un-fucking-believable

furbo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Un-fucking-believable

#11

Post by zmmmmm »

mullingitover wrote: post #2

> Patents are like trademarks, you have to protect them after you get them (by collecting licensing fees, even if it’s a small one.) Unfuckingbelievable indeed. He needs to fire his lawyer.

In fact, the whole patent troll problem is partly because patents are not like this. They can buy up all kinds of junk and wait until there's broad industry adoption of some concept and submarine everyone. Although it would open a whole different can of worms, we might actually be better off if patents were like that because it would at least bring things to a head very fast.

Re: Un-fucking-believable

#13

Post by swilliams »

pyre wrote: post #3
mullingitover wrote: post #2

> Patents are like trademarks, you have to protect them after you get them (by collecting licensing fees, even if it’s a small one.) Unfuckingbelievable indeed. He needs to fire his lawyer.

It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.

Yeah, he found that out after posting that blog. https://twitter.com/chockenberry/status/474704755348881408

Re: Un-fucking-believable

#16

Post by tzs »

Alupis wrote: post #8
grrowl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Craig hold a patent (not unreasonable in this day and age); Ricci was made aware Craig held that patent; They amicably settled for a reasonable, and small, amount. What's the problem here? Spend your efforts writing to your members of parliament or donating to anti-patent organisations.

"amicably" and "reasonable" by the patent holder's terms... Your parent comment has a good point.

The licensee says it was "very amicable" in his tweet on the matter, cited elsewhere in this discussion.

Re: Un-fucking-believable

#18

Post by pyre »

mullingitover wrote: post #10
pyre wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.

I'd really like to see a cite for this claim. I looked and could find zero reference to a patent holder's responsibility to enforce in order to maintain a patent's validity. AFAIK a patent holder is free to enforce their patent as they see fit, just as a copyright holder can. Otherwise there could be no such thing as a purely defensive patent, no? Edit: Here we go[1]. So a patent holder can lose their ability to coll…

I didn't meant that it would make legal action impossible, but that it might affect the outcome. E.g.:

- You collect a super small licensing fee from one entity and are attempting to extract a super large settlement from another.

- You (provably in court) know that Apple is infringing, but only decide to pursue action against Microsoft. This could affect, for example, you damage claims (i.e. your claims that MS owes you 'back dated' licensing fees).

Post reply on HN