3 ms·
> But in practice the "little guy" would need millions of dollars just to create the case and go after the "big guy". This is the exact problem that many paten
by throwawaykf05 11y ago
> But in practice the "little guy" would need millions of dollars just to create the case and go after the "big guy".
This is the exact problem that many patent trolls solve. If your patent is strong enough, they will take your case on "contingency" and take a (huge) cut of the winnings, if any. Patent trolls can help even the imbalance between the big guys and the little guys.
Not surprising then that the loudest complaints about patent trolls come from the "big guys". Unfortunately for them, multiple studies, including by the GAO and professors like Michael Risch and Coleen Chien show that there is no real patent troll litigation crisis. Fortunately for them, tech media is happy to regurgitate their PR for the rage-view value, and most people are happy to accept it uncritically.
- Nadya 11y agoNot... quite. People criticize the patent trolls that are using generic/obvious patents that somehow got approved when they should have been rejected. "Interface for opening a door by use of hand and twisting motion" (aka: a doorknob) Those types of patents. The ones worded ever so carefully as to try and sneak by being declined. When people refer to patent trolls they are mostly referring to the companies that purchase the rights to these kinds of patents and go on a litigation hunt of any big fish they find infringing to try and sucker out payments. I do not see it as patent trolling when someone who say... invented a jetpack and has a patent on the technology in use going through a firm to sue an infringing superbody who has infringed upon the patent to sell their jetpack because they can mass manufacture and undersell the small business. That's what I see as a "legitimate use" of patents. On the other hand, "Backpack to be worn to fly through the air through means of jet propulsion technology" (aka: jetpack with no working functionality patented) is not a legitimate patent in my eyes and is sat on to prevent anyone from making jetpacks because the moment they invent a jetpack they'd be sued. That's what stifles innovation.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoAs with my reply to monochromatic, I guess the issue here is the definition of the term "patent troll". People often use the term anytime a patent they don't like is asserted. However, studies suggest that patent trolls don't assert patents any worse or better than those that practicing entities assert. See for instance, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442 for a limited by illustrative empirical study which also references several other related papers. This study also indicates that NPEs are probably a significant avenue for assertion of patents from individual inventors. I will agree that there is a substantial patent quality problem, with a number of overly broad and poorly-defined patents being asserted by firms, non-practicing or otherwise. However, from my observation over almost a decade, I would also say that this problem is declining rapidly, as most of these patents were issued during a period when the PTO had no idea how to deal with them two decades ago.
- monochromatic 11y agoPatent trolls don't (traditionally anyway) do stuff on contingency. They buy patents, and then they monetize them.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoI have seen the term "patent troll" being applied to law firms who take patent cases on contingency. I guess the issue here is the definition of the term "patent troll". People tend to twist it freely to mean "somebody using some patents in a way that I don't like".
- monochromatic 11y agoToo true. "Non-practicing entity" feels like (and is, I guess) doublespeak, but at least it would make it clearer that a law firm doesn't qualify.