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

Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

unionsquareventures.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

#71

Post by jhancock »

alain94040 wrote: post #16
zaphar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that patents hold a valuable place in certain areas of research and development, but there are also areas in which patents are crippling development. I hear people say this but they never give an example. Can you name an area of research and development where patents hold a valuable position? I myself have trouble coming up with any and I'm curious what others think.

Conventional wisdom says that pharma qualifies. Labs wouldn't spend the resources if anyone could come up with generic drugs once the hard work of finding out which drug works is done.

That is conventional wisdom. However, if we pulled the patents from pharmas, the demand for drugs would not go away. I suspect things would open up and researchers would share and open-source their work. The total research may actually increase, but just get distributed very differently, much like software changed from Enterprise to open source processes. Of course this won't happen any time soon as making such a change would destroy the market caps of pharma corps.

Re: Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

#72

Post by joe_the_user »

Retric wrote: post #56
phil wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still problems. For example, if USV is typical and 1/3 of venture-backed companies are being attacked by patent trolls, then the premiums for this insurance would have to be extremely high -- enough to cover a third of the cost of defending a typical case.

The assumption is if you have few assets and the insurance then there would be little reason to litigate. Which would drive down the cost of the insurance.

Actually,

Here is where insurance can actually increase litigation: a person without assets often isn't worth suing but a person with the deep pockets of an insurance company can become worth suing.

I still think it's good idea to create an anti-patent legal pool but it's important to understand all the angles...

Re: Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

#73

Post by Retric »

joe_the_user wrote: post #72
Retric wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption is if you have few assets and the insurance then there would be little reason to litigate. Which would drive down the cost of the insurance.

Actually, Here is where insurance can actually increase litigation: a person without assets often isn't worth suing but a person with the deep pockets of an insurance company can become worth suing. I still think it's good idea to create an anti-patent legal pool but it's important to understand all the angles...

The pool would only cover the cost of litigation not the cost of the settlement. So there is nothing additional to gain gain from suing. (Other than an attempt to put the legal pool out of buissness but that could be extremely cost prohibitive.)

The problem would be maintaining a reputation as someone willing to pay for long legal battles.

Re: Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

#74

Post by joe_the_user »

Retric wrote: post #73
joe_the_user wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Here is where insurance can actually increase litigation: a person without assets often isn't worth suing but a person with the deep pockets of an insurance company can become worth suing. I still think it's good idea to create an anti-patent legal pool but it's important to understand all the angles...

The pool would only cover the cost of litigation not the cost of the settlement. So there is nothing additional to gain gain from suing. (Other than an attempt to put the legal pool out of buissness but that could be extremely cost prohibitive.) The problem would be maintaining a reputation as someone willing to pay for long legal battles.

In some jurisdictions, especially TEXAS, a person appealing a verdict once had to post a bond equivalent to the settlement. Thus being able to fight and being able to settle were linked. I don't know if Texas still has this stricture in place, however. It seems really dodgey but it is perhaps one of many reasons the state is a favorite of patent trolls.

Re: Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

#75

Post by Retric »

joe_the_user wrote: post #74
Retric wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pool would only cover the cost of litigation not the cost of the settlement. So there is nothing additional to gain gain from suing. (Other than an attempt to put the legal pool out of buissness but that could be extremely cost prohibitive.) The problem would be maintaining a reputation as someone willing to pay for long legal battles.

In some jurisdictions, especially TEXAS, a person appealing a verdict once had to post a bond equivalent to the settlement. Thus being able to fight and being able to settle were linked. I don't know if Texas still has this stricture in place, however. It seems really dodgey but it is perhaps one of many reasons the state is a favorite of patent trolls.

I think patents are tried in federal court so state regulations don't apply but if it did that could be a major problem.

Re: Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

#76

Post by ZeroGravitas »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #65
noonespecial wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How it could work is to find a judge who thinks patent cases like this are ambulance chasers, and then ensure that all the suits against you are relocated into her court. If you have a friendly judge then it becomes much easier to play chicken. How exactly do you do this? I've been wondering. It seems trolls are able to get these cases heard in disproportionate numbers by a strange little puppet court down in east te…

As a patent holder you are allowed to sue in any jurisdiction where your invention is made, sold, or used. So the trolls naturally pick a friendly court.

Has anyone tried boycotting this area of Texas? It would be amusing for PR purposes alone. Would they be able to run their courts without access to Microsoft products?

Re: Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls.

#77

Post by gjm11 »

tptacek wrote: post #70
gjm11 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are some steps missing in your argument. It seems to go something like this: (1) CR found the issue, spotted a business model, patented all the best solutions, and told the world. (2) Without patents, CR wouldn't have done this. (3) So without patents, no one would have done it. (4) So without patents, we'd all be silently vulnerable to a very general, very clever side-channel attack. The step from (1)…

Regarding (2) to (3): sorry, I think it is --- in large part --- the fact that CRI is just much much smarter . They're a peculiar company: they do real-world implementation and high quality research. Yes, there are Dan Bernsteins and Dan Bleichenbachers in the world, but for the most part those people don't get a lot of exposure to custom hardware. Regarding (1) to (2): sure, maybe CRI would have published even witho…

If CRI really are that much smarter, then in a world without CRI the bad guys would probably never have thought of differential power attacks, in which case it wouldn't matter that they aren't there.

I don't think "maybe CRI would have published even without compensation" is at all the same as "maybe I'd do my job part-time for free". In a world in which CRI couldn't patent anti-DPA measures, I'm betting they'd still be able to get paid plenty well for doing crypto. A fair number of super-smart crypto people are, after all, and they don't all have CRI's patent portfolio. So the analogy is more "maybe I'd publish interesting and useful crypto stuff for free even though it isn't what I'm getting paid for". Which, in fact, you do.

(If you're inclined to object that what you publish for free is not innovative on the scale of the discovery of DPA attacks, let me remind you that you just claimed that CRI are much much smarter than you are.)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not positively claiming that the world would be better with a patent system in which CRI couldn't have got the patents they have. I don't know whether it would. I just don't think your argument supports your claims very well on this point.

Post reply on HN