4 ms·

As long as the patent is valid there is nothing racketeering about it.

shmerl 5y ago
You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent trolls don't have valid patents. And if even if they are "valid", the patent system is so messed up, that they have to be invalid in reality. Trolls' method is exactly racketeering because it's extorting money using threat tactics. "You don't want something worse happening to you? Better pay up XYZ amount!". It's not going get much more classic protection racket than that. Except they threaten not with beating you up, but with you spending millions on court cases. I'd say trolls getting jail time for this garbage should be a good medicine for them.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Without knowing the content of the patents(merely that they are valid) - would you be able to differentiate between a patent troll and someone with a great patent that wants their hard work licensed instead of taken for free?
  - coldpie 5y ago
    Who is taking anything for free? Do you think people go read through the patent database to get product ideas? If I create a product and bring it to market without any knowledge of your patent, why should I pay you just because you invented it earlier and then sat on it?
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      I don't think any judge is going to care much if you say you didn't read their patent before infringing on their patent.
      - gpm 5y ago
        They will, intentional infringement is worse than accidental infringement, but both are illegal. (not a lawyer...)
        oh_sigh 5y ago
        Sure, but I meant that it won't materially affect the finding of whether infringement occurred, willful or accidental.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        That wasn't the question. It was whether hard work is being taken for free.
        oh_sigh 5y ago
        I know what the question was since I literally asked it
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      It's not _just_ because you invented it earlier, you also have to disclose it in a way that makes it workable. The disclosure is supposed to drive innovation and use of innovations; that's the patent deal, the monopoly is "paid" for with disclosure. Aside, in the UK there's compulsory licensing (UKPA Section 48x to prevent people from inventing stuff and refusing to license it (at reasonable terms), too.
      - nrdvana 5y ago
        > “The disclosure is supposed to drive innovation” And that is the grand joke of the patent system.
      - coldpie 5y ago
        I would be surprised if this happened even once in the history of the patent system, and I feel confident stating it has never happened in the past 50 years. Patents do not drive innovation, they restrict it and erect barriers to entry.
- rhino369 5y ago
  >You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent trolls don't have valid patents. Right, but law actually presumes they are valid. Which is why its tough to go after a troll for asserting a valid patent.
treeman79 5y ago
Had a professor who wat was at big company. Forget which. IBM came in with a list of patents that were being violated. Professor went through the list and managed to document fully how each one didn’t apply to company. One of which was for pythagorean theorem. They had another meeting to go over it with IBM to show results. Not impressed IBM said fine you don’t violate those. We have a hundred thousand more patents. Are you buying a license for these, or should we go find more that you “violate” Company purchased a license. This was 20 years ago.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  That is basically just a rephrasing of, "This is an awfully nice store you got here. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    I've always wondered if sublicensing was a way to get around this. Instead of owning the core technology itself, set up an offshore holding company to own the technology rights, then "license" them out. The main company probably can't be sued since they have a legal contract for the tech and if they go after the holding company, fine, the parent company can then "license" tech from another, similar holding company.
    - shmerl 5y ago
      If you compare patents to weapons, the above is like privateering. For big companies there is also MAD analogy.
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        So I think what I'm talking about his more of a decoy than a privateer. I think of privateering as plausible deniability in attacking someone. Whereas, what I'm suggesting is more structuring a business such that they can't be sued for patent infringement since they don't own the technology that is allegedly infringing. So if your company receives a cease-and-desist letter, your lawyers can respond with a contract from Core Technology LLC granting you license to use the technology as you deem if, and that the Patent Troll needs to contact Core Technology LLC if they have patent issues. In the mean time, you can stop licensing from Core Technology LLC and instead move to a new vendor, Core Technology II LLC, who offers an improved product anyway. The goal being to make it not worth pursuing your business.

You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent trolls don't have valid patents. And if even if they are "valid", the patent system is so messed up, that they have to be invalid in reality. Trolls' method is exactly racketeering because it's extorting money using threat tactics. "You don't want something worse happening to you? Better pay up XYZ amount!". It's not going get much more classic protection racket than that. Except they threaten not with beating you up, but with you spending millions on court cases. I'd say trolls getting jail time for this garbage should be a good medicine for them.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Without knowing the content of the patents(merely that they are valid) - would you be able to differentiate between a patent troll and someone with a great patent that wants their hard work licensed instead of taken for free?
- coldpie 5y ago
  Who is taking anything for free? Do you think people go read through the patent database to get product ideas? If I create a product and bring it to market without any knowledge of your patent, why should I pay you just because you invented it earlier and then sat on it?
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    I don't think any judge is going to care much if you say you didn't read their patent before infringing on their patent.
    - gpm 5y ago
      They will, intentional infringement is worse than accidental infringement, but both are illegal. (not a lawyer...)
      - oh_sigh 5y ago
        Sure, but I meant that it won't materially affect the finding of whether infringement occurred, willful or accidental.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        That wasn't the question. It was whether hard work is being taken for free.
        oh_sigh 5y ago
        I know what the question was since I literally asked it
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    It's not _just_ because you invented it earlier, you also have to disclose it in a way that makes it workable. The disclosure is supposed to drive innovation and use of innovations; that's the patent deal, the monopoly is "paid" for with disclosure. Aside, in the UK there's compulsory licensing (UKPA Section 48x to prevent people from inventing stuff and refusing to license it (at reasonable terms), too.
    - nrdvana 5y ago
      > “The disclosure is supposed to drive innovation” And that is the grand joke of the patent system.
    - coldpie 5y ago
      I would be surprised if this happened even once in the history of the patent system, and I feel confident stating it has never happened in the past 50 years. Patents do not drive innovation, they restrict it and erect barriers to entry.
rhino369 5y ago
>You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent trolls don't have valid patents. Right, but law actually presumes they are valid. Which is why its tough to go after a troll for asserting a valid patent.

treeman79 5y ago

Had a professor who wat was at big company. Forget which. IBM came in with a list of patents that were being violated. Professor went through the list and managed to document fully how each one didn’t apply to company. One of which was for pythagorean theorem. They had another meeting to go over it with IBM to show results. Not impressed IBM said fine you don’t violate those. We have a hundred thousand more patents. Are you buying a license for these, or should we go find more that you “violate” Company purchased a license. This was 20 years ago.

jjeaff 5y ago
That is basically just a rephrasing of, "This is an awfully nice store you got here. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it."
- mywittyname 5y ago
  I've always wondered if sublicensing was a way to get around this. Instead of owning the core technology itself, set up an offshore holding company to own the technology rights, then "license" them out. The main company probably can't be sued since they have a legal contract for the tech and if they go after the holding company, fine, the parent company can then "license" tech from another, similar holding company.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    If you compare patents to weapons, the above is like privateering. For big companies there is also MAD analogy.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      So I think what I'm talking about his more of a decoy than a privateer. I think of privateering as plausible deniability in attacking someone. Whereas, what I'm suggesting is more structuring a business such that they can't be sued for patent infringement since they don't own the technology that is allegedly infringing. So if your company receives a cease-and-desist letter, your lawyers can respond with a contract from Core Technology LLC granting you license to use the technology as you deem if, and that the Patent Troll needs to contact Core Technology LLC if they have patent issues. In the mean time, you can stop licensing from Core Technology LLC and instead move to a new vendor, Core Technology II LLC, who offers an improved product anyway. The goal being to make it not worth pursuing your business.