4 ms·
Defending it != acquiring it. It seems reasonable that if your going to sue for X$ in damages you need to have an actual product in the market, or at least lic
by onemoreact 15y ago
Defending it != acquiring it. It seems reasonable that if your going to sue for X$ in damages you need to have an actual product in the market, or at least licence your patent to someone who actually makes it.
- polshaw 15y agoTake this case for example. Honeywell would simply throw together a crappy product and sell a couple of hundred of them just so they could put Nest out of business. There needs to be greater reform IMO.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- onemoreact 15y agoHoneywell has no choice but to licence their patents to Nest. The question is simply are the patents valid, did Nest infringe, and how much can Honeywell charge Nest. That said, if a company as large as Honeywell can only point to say 50,000$ in sales for their patent protected product it's hard for them to justify outrageous licencing fees.
- malandrew 15y agoI don't dispute this at all, but patent reform isn't going to achieve what we want overnight. Requiring a product in the market is at least a step in the direction of eroding the position of most patent trolls. Once we've achieved that, the next step is to further raise the bar for what is defensible.