2 ms·

There are several errors in your analysis, while it IS accurate that "suing IBM" is difficult for a small inventor. First, patent trolls have a very simple bus

There are several errors in your analysis, while it IS accurate that "suing IBM" is difficult for a small inventor. First, patent trolls have a very simple business model (and I heard this from a former troll): - Don't even sue the real easy marks, the ones who will just write a check for $50,000 to make you go away. Just threatening them is enough. - Sue the slighter harder targets. For these, you have to actually file a suit. They will settle with you, and you'll demand more than $50K because they made you work a little. - (This step is optional) Sue the real hard targets, like Google, who will file an IPR (inter-partes reexamination) to try to invalidate your patent. Again, many times you'll end up with a settlement out of this. - (also optional): go to trial, and hope for a gigantic jury verdict. Buy a lottery ticket, in other words. Now your statement "Patents are written so broad that they are essentially meaningless." is nonsense. "So broad" means that they apply to lots of products, and the jury just has to decide one of the claims applies to yours. So, your "small inventor" might get some money by selling to the patent troll, but it might not be from defeating IBM, and it won't be 100% of the money.

cycomanic 4y ago
I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. Regarding the broadness of patents, my point is they don't advance technology or the sciences (the oft stated goal of patents), because they try to cover everything without revealing anything (a goal given to me by several patent attorneys in the patenting process). So what is their purpose?
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. As I agreed. However, you're wrong that a troll necessarily goes after the infringer you know about, and in fact they may not even bother. Secondly, "broadness" is a term of art in patents. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean "advancing technology." It means the scope of things covered by the claims.

cycomanic 4y ago

I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. Regarding the broadness of patents, my point is they don't advance technology or the sciences (the oft stated goal of patents), because they try to cover everything without revealing anything (a goal given to me by several patent attorneys in the patenting process). So what is their purpose?

AlbertCory 4y ago
> I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. As I agreed. However, you're wrong that a troll necessarily goes after the infringer you know about, and in fact they may not even bother. Secondly, "broadness" is a term of art in patents. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean "advancing technology." It means the scope of things covered by the claims.