41–50 of 60 posts
It strikes me that a large number of patents would evaporate if this standard were more universally applied.
By way of comparison, if I threatened to file bogus nuisance suits hoping for quick settlements for anything other than patent infringement, I very well could be held liable (and disbarred) under all manner of existing precedents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become. Patent portfolios don't work against trolls that don't have any business other than patent extortion. > Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases…
How would you legally define "software patent"? If you figure it out, please let the Supreme Court, the CAFC and the USPTO know, because currently nobody really knows. As for "ammunition", look up the Berkeley Patent Survey [1]. The only damning thing you'll find in there, though, is that entrepreneurs in software on average don't think they present a competitive advantage, so "only" 60% of software startups file for…
Software patent: A patent that can be infringed by executing a software program on a general purpose computer.
> It's actually only 25% of all software startups in the survey, but 67% of VC-backed startups.
Which does tell you something, doesn't it? Unless VC-backed startups are an incredibly small percentage of startups, the patents filed by non-VC-backed startups would have to be significantly smaller than 24% (I assume 25% was a typo, see table on page 1277 of the report). Moreover, given the stark contrast in the numbers, query whether the VCs are interested in patents as patents vs. interested in them as a method for weeding out uncommitted startup founders.
But I'm less concerned about the number of patents software startups are applying for. If nobody was applying for software patents at all, obviously the patent system wouldn't be doing any good there, but it wouldn't really be the strongest call for abolishing them -- no harm no foul, right? The problem isn't (just) the lack of usefulness or cost effectiveness of patents to innovators, it's the harm created by mass producing land mines. Because if software startups aren't getting many software patents, but the number of software patents being issued keeps going up, guess who is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become. Patent portfolios don't work against trolls that don't have any business other than patent extortion. > Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases…
> What we really need is to start a PAC to abolish software patents and have everyone contribute money to it Can we really outspend IBM and Microsoft? I saw something on hacker news last week that said a relatively minor patent reform bill died in the house thanks to those two companies (and 3M and many others but mainly IBM and Microsoft). Name. and shame.
I'm repeating myself, but in every single one of these patent trolling cases: Name. And. Shame. Eileen Shapiro. The headline should be: "FindTheBest destroys 'matchmaking' patent, pushes RICO case against patent troll Eileen Shapiro." (I'm assuming she's not the only one involved, but they've got her name in there.) Don't let these people hide behind the names of their patent companies. Let them become famous for the…
Name. And. Shame. I wish some enterprising young kids in the tech community could work out a technical or collective solution to the problem of patent trolls. They would be asking for punishment, to be sure. But I bet there are some really cool things that can be done here. * One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of s…
You might find this interesting: John Walker, one of the Autodesk founders, tried to popularize the same idea in the early 90s:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html
Unfortunately, too many companies didn't want to give up the option to sue and the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you legally define "software patent"? If you figure it out, please let the Supreme Court, the CAFC and the USPTO know, because currently nobody really knows. As for "ammunition", look up the Berkeley Patent Survey [1]. The only damning thing you'll find in there, though, is that entrepreneurs in software on average don't think they present a competitive advantage, so "only" 60% of software startups file for…
> How would you legally define "software patent"? Software patent: A patent that can be infringed by executing a software program on a general purpose computer. > It's actually only 25% of all software startups in the survey, but 67% of VC-backed startups. Which does tell you something, doesn't it? Unless VC-backed startups are an incredibly small percentage of startups, the patents filed by non-VC-backed startups wo…
Ever wonder why all the jurists all over the world have not stumbled upon such a simple and elegant definition? Herein lies just one problem: your definition of software patents may also include:
- Control systems for automotive, industrial and robotic systems.
- Signal processing methods for digital communications, audio processing, speech processing, image processing, video processing, automated control systems, and so on.
- Microcode in processors
- Embedded firmware in appliances and devices.
- Mechanical watch designs. They are simply mechanical implementations of algorithms.
- Digital circuits, chips and hardware that implements any of the above.
The software / hardware equivalence makes simple definitions impossible.
> Which does tell you something, doesn't it?
It could tell me many things, depending on what assumptions I may apply. Let's see how many you disagree with.
- The majority of software startups are not doing anything particularly technically innovative.
- The (vast) majority of the software industry as a whole is not doing anything particularly technically innovative.
- Patents are expensive to apply for and get, something a startup can't often afford.
- Patents don't provide enough protection for software products anyway.
(The last two are actually borne out by the study.)
> query whether the VCs are interested in patents vs. interested in them as a method for weeding out uncommitted startup founders.
Why wonder when there are studies on the subject? It's called "signaling". Of course VCs have no interest in IP itself, only what it means for their ROI. But if there's no funding, there's no startup, let alone innovation, so for many founders it's a necessary evil.
> Because if software startups aren't getting many software patents, but the number of software patents being issued keeps going up, guess who is.
Again, why guess when there are studies :-) If you believe James Bessen it's actually manufacturing, industrial and semiconductor firms. (See his "A generation of software patents" paper. Flawed study, IMO, but a useful starting point.) If the answer surprises you, maybe you should consider that "software patents" are not easy to define.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name. And. Shame. I wish some enterprising young kids in the tech community could work out a technical or collective solution to the problem of patent trolls. They would be asking for punishment, to be sure. But I bet there are some really cool things that can be done here. * One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of s…
> subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. You might find this interesting: John Walker, one of the Autodesk founders, tried to popularize the same idea in the early 90s: http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html Unfortunately, too many companies didn't want to give up the option to sue and t…
the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds.
Wouldn't that get rid of the troll? Also, would it be possible to seek legal expenses from the shell corporation's creditors?
Unfortunately they still paid a big price in legal fees. Can anyone tell me what the downsides are to a loser-pays-the-fees system? I heard it's used in the UK but not in the US. What gives?
There's a downside to the UK system. You have to pay the costs, even if you win, if: i) You're offered an out of court settlement and ii) You reject it and iii) the settlement is more than the damages you are awarded by the court This is to make sure that people try to settle things before going to court. And I'm not sure how it would work for a non-practising entity. A company that has no assets apart from the paten…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become. Patent portfolios don't work against trolls that don't have any business other than patent extortion. > Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases…
How would you legally define "software patent"? If you figure it out, please let the Supreme Court, the CAFC and the USPTO know, because currently nobody really knows. As for "ammunition", look up the Berkeley Patent Survey [1]. The only damning thing you'll find in there, though, is that entrepreneurs in software on average don't think they present a competitive advantage, so "only" 60% of software startups file for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. You might find this interesting: John Walker, one of the Autodesk founders, tried to popularize the same idea in the early 90s: http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html Unfortunately, too many companies didn't want to give up the option to sue and t…
Thanks for the link. the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds. Wouldn't that get rid of the troll? Also, would it be possible to seek legal expenses from the shell corporation's creditors?