5 ms·

It hasn't been challenged yet, and it likely wont be. Basically, Facebook (and other companies) patent stuff so if they are sued they can counter sue. Essential

It hasn't been challenged yet, and it likely wont be. Basically, Facebook (and other companies) patent stuff so if they are sued they can counter sue. Essentially, causing a kind of nuclear war for the companies (think Apple and Samsung). The whole point is to avoid conflict. Even if it's not enforceable it might cost a few hundred thousand to million dollars to fight it.

dilap 9y ago
and non-nuclear-powers (companies w/o a large portfolio of patents) just get arbitrarily fucked? what a system!
- PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
  The best solution, given these nukes are artificial, is to get rid of them. With real world nukes, you can't put the genie back into the bottle, but in this case you can remove the government distortion that is causing this arms race.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    Having legal "nukes" can also be a good thing, even for David when they're going against Goliath. I was recently involved with a legal dispute with a large corporate landlord. I was able to line up enough potential illegal civil and criminal acts that I'm pretty sure their lawyers just decided it would cheaper to settle with me.
    - black_puppydog 9y ago
      that's nice. doesn't really inform the decision on software "nukes" though, does it? it might be that regulation/'distortion' is appropriate in one case, but not the other...
- MichaelMoser123 9y ago
  I think these companies just don't get involved in nuclear confrontations of this kind - it's a costly buiseness; this is a game for the big suckers. You still might want to get a few patents of your own in order to prop up your own valuation. (If you want to be bought out by a bigger player)
  - alxlaz 9y ago
    These companies unwillingly get involved in nuclear confrontations of this kind as soon as one of their products ends up looking remotely like it could eat some of the big suckers' lunch.
  - _jal 9y ago
    BigCos routinely use patents against small players. It isn't a huge war only because the small player can't fight back in kind.
    - _rpd 9y ago
      On the contrary, patents are one of the few mechanisms available to small players that 'BigCos' respect.
- rhino369 9y ago
  In some ways, patents losely correlate with R&D spend. So when a new play enters a mature field, they'll lack patents and end up having to license patents from companies that did the hard R&D. It's a way of allowing R&D externalities to be captured. The system doesn't work all that well, but that is the intent.
  - soVeryTired 9y ago
    Except when some douchebag grants a patent on the double click, or a phone with rounded corners.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  That's how MAD worked during Cold War as well, isn't it?
- shubb 9y ago
  Can happen. I once worked for a large engineering company and a startup competitor emerged with a cool new innovation. We very explicitly discussed that we would either aquire them or use the patents portfolio to shut them down.
icantdrive55 9y ago
I wish patents/trademark fees were tied to a companies, or individual's income. A poor guy with a good idea gets a few patents at reduced costs. A big company should be charged an exponential sum of their gross sales. For instance, my patent fees, because I'm poor, would be no more than $100. Facebook would be charged, say three 3 million at this stage in the game. It just might prevent frivolous patents? Plus, it would level out the playing field for newcommers? (I looked into patent fees a few years ago, and was shocked over the fees. I contacted the Patent Office, and they were kind. They didn't offer much in discounts. While I'm on my box, I would like to see America tie all fees/fines to income.)

dilap 9y ago

and non-nuclear-powers (companies w/o a large portfolio of patents) just get arbitrarily fucked? what a system!

PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
The best solution, given these nukes are artificial, is to get rid of them. With real world nukes, you can't put the genie back into the bottle, but in this case you can remove the government distortion that is causing this arms race.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Having legal "nukes" can also be a good thing, even for David when they're going against Goliath. I was recently involved with a legal dispute with a large corporate landlord. I was able to line up enough potential illegal civil and criminal acts that I'm pretty sure their lawyers just decided it would cheaper to settle with me.
  - black_puppydog 9y ago
    that's nice. doesn't really inform the decision on software "nukes" though, does it? it might be that regulation/'distortion' is appropriate in one case, but not the other...
MichaelMoser123 9y ago
I think these companies just don't get involved in nuclear confrontations of this kind - it's a costly buiseness; this is a game for the big suckers. You still might want to get a few patents of your own in order to prop up your own valuation. (If you want to be bought out by a bigger player)
- alxlaz 9y ago
  These companies unwillingly get involved in nuclear confrontations of this kind as soon as one of their products ends up looking remotely like it could eat some of the big suckers' lunch.
- _jal 9y ago
  BigCos routinely use patents against small players. It isn't a huge war only because the small player can't fight back in kind.
  - _rpd 9y ago
    On the contrary, patents are one of the few mechanisms available to small players that 'BigCos' respect.
rhino369 9y ago
In some ways, patents losely correlate with R&D spend. So when a new play enters a mature field, they'll lack patents and end up having to license patents from companies that did the hard R&D. It's a way of allowing R&D externalities to be captured. The system doesn't work all that well, but that is the intent.
- soVeryTired 9y ago
  Except when some douchebag grants a patent on the double click, or a phone with rounded corners.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
That's how MAD worked during Cold War as well, isn't it?
shubb 9y ago
Can happen. I once worked for a large engineering company and a startup competitor emerged with a cool new innovation. We very explicitly discussed that we would either aquire them or use the patents portfolio to shut them down.

icantdrive55 9y ago

I wish patents/trademark fees were tied to a companies, or individual's income. A poor guy with a good idea gets a few patents at reduced costs. A big company should be charged an exponential sum of their gross sales. For instance, my patent fees, because I'm poor, would be no more than $100. Facebook would be charged, say three 3 million at this stage in the game. It just might prevent frivolous patents? Plus, it would level out the playing field for newcommers? (I looked into patent fees a few years ago, and was shocked over the fees. I contacted the Patent Office, and they were kind. They didn't offer much in discounts. While I'm on my box, I would like to see America tie all fees/fines to income.)