3 ms·
In theory, yes. In practice, the big companies usually have a ton of vague questionable defensive patents that cover a huge space of "inventions", so even if t
by bheadmaster 4y ago
In theory, yes.
In practice, the big companies usually have a ton of vague questionable defensive patents that cover a huge space of "inventions", so even if the smaller companies try to sue, they will get avalanched by an array of patent suits that could potentially bankrupt the company.
- cptskippy 4y agoExactly. Companies file and retain patents that aren't defensible or questionable for defensive purposes. Perhaps the patents won't hold up in court but given enough of them you can bankrupt someone before they can prove them all invalid.
- kerkeslager 4y agoI'm all for reforming patents, but this seems like it's more a part of a larger set of problems with how civil suits are really only a tool for the big guys, namely: 1. With inadequate penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits, filing frivolous lawsuits becomes a strategy. I've unfortunately had a close friend be a victim of this strategy. I won't name my friend, but I will name that Jared Kushner's companies were the (repeated) plaintiff. If we close the loopholes around patents (and we should) it will only make the filing of frivolous lawsuits slightly less efficient, because the lawsuits will get thrown out quicker. Note that even if the lawsuits get thrown out, they still cost the defendants money to get them thrown out, so patent reform wouldn't even necessarily mean they can't file patent lawsuits, it just means the lawsuits might get thrown out slightly faster. 2. Justice isn't possible in civil suits where the plaintiff and defendant have disparate resources to pay for counsel.