6 ms·

I'm aware that there are allegedly "bad" IPRs including the OpenSky case. The alleged "extortion" here is that VLSI, a non-practicing entity, I believe backed b

I'm aware that there are allegedly "bad" IPRs including the OpenSky case. The alleged "extortion" here is that VLSI, a non-practicing entity, I believe backed by a hedge fund, would lose their 20-year government monopoly and no longer be able to seek billions of dollars in court. I have no idea who or what OpenSky is, and I don't weigh in on huge corporate cases like VLSI v. Intel where everyone has plenty of money for their own representation. But it's really wild to me that this alleged "abuse" (that could lead to the loss of... a patent) immediately got the attention of officials, who are taking rapid action. Yet there are thousands of victims of patent troll extortion every year. These extortions are real, and documented, and hurt businesses that are much much smaller than VLSI. (and operate actual businesses, which AFAIK VLSI does not). But here's the value proposition: It's just not wrong to challenge a government subsidy or monopoly. Period. Especially on computer software and hardware, because they're often wrongly granted. Even if you accept that the OpenSky situation is the moral equivalent of patent trolling (I absolutely do not), it's happened to patent owners ONE time. (Maybe a few others, but it's a count-on-your-fingers thing). I wish people extorted by patent trolls for real money got 1/100th the attention of the tiny numbers of patent owners who lost (or almost lost) their patent monopolies.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pclmulqdq 3y ago
> But here's the value proposition: It's just not wrong to challenge a government subsidy or monopoly. Period. Especially on computer software and hardware, because they're often wrongly granted. I see where you're coming from, but I would suggest that this is pretty much an extremist point of view on intellectual property protections. It's easy to say that the online shopping cart is a dumb patent (because it is, and the Supreme Court generally agrees with you), but I think you would be hard pressed to argue against the societal value of patents on integrated circuit technologies, which can take $billions to develop, provide tremendous societal value, and have strategic implications. Still, that does clarify the viewpoint of the piece to some degree - it suggests that you and the EFF are in favor of "patent accelerationism": make the system so shitty for participants that they abandon it entirely. The system is definitely shitty now, but I don't really see anyone abandoning it. By the way, VLSI is the remains of a real technology company that went out of business... because its IP was blatantly copied. They had no choice but to sell out to a patent troll.
- freejazz 3y ago
  >By the way, VLSI is the remains of a real technology company that went out of business... because its IP was blatantly copied. They had no choice but to sell out to a patent troll. Ding ding ding - people don't seem to understand how the business model actually works... real inventors have to sell out, because unless they sell their stake in a litigation to a financier, they outright cannot afford to litigate an infringement case against one of the big companies that infringed their products and then refused to license
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    This. A patent is a ticket to a court battle. If you can't afford the court battle then the patent is worthless. All this talk of "small, inventor-led businesses" is bullcrap because no small business can afford to enforce a patent.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Your arguments contradict each other. If the patent system actually protects innovation, why did VLSI's IP get successfully copied?
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    Well, Intel eventually paid for it (a $2.1 billion judgment settled for an undisclosed sum). Without a patent system, they would have just gotten away with ripping these guys off for free.
- TimPC 3y ago
  They aren't making a noticeable change to the system at all. This method challenges roughly 350 patents a year while roughly 300,000 patents are granted per year. That's in the area of 0.1% of all patents. I think these numbers are very consistent with the predominant use case being the challenging of bad patents and there are very few examples of people trying to overturn good patents.
  - 3y ago
mr_toad 3y ago
> But it's really wild to me that this alleged "abuse" (that could lead to the loss of... a patent) immediately got the attention of officials, who are taking rapid action. Yet there are thousands of victims of patent troll extortion every year. These extortions are real, and documented, and hurt businesses that are much much smaller than VLSI. (and operate actual businesses, which AFAIK VLSI does not). Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pclmulqdq 3y ago

> But here's the value proposition: It's just not wrong to challenge a government subsidy or monopoly. Period. Especially on computer software and hardware, because they're often wrongly granted. I see where you're coming from, but I would suggest that this is pretty much an extremist point of view on intellectual property protections. It's easy to say that the online shopping cart is a dumb patent (because it is, and the Supreme Court generally agrees with you), but I think you would be hard pressed to argue against the societal value of patents on integrated circuit technologies, which can take $billions to develop, provide tremendous societal value, and have strategic implications. Still, that does clarify the viewpoint of the piece to some degree - it suggests that you and the EFF are in favor of "patent accelerationism": make the system so shitty for participants that they abandon it entirely. The system is definitely shitty now, but I don't really see anyone abandoning it. By the way, VLSI is the remains of a real technology company that went out of business... because its IP was blatantly copied. They had no choice but to sell out to a patent troll.

freejazz 3y ago
>By the way, VLSI is the remains of a real technology company that went out of business... because its IP was blatantly copied. They had no choice but to sell out to a patent troll. Ding ding ding - people don't seem to understand how the business model actually works... real inventors have to sell out, because unless they sell their stake in a litigation to a financier, they outright cannot afford to litigate an infringement case against one of the big companies that infringed their products and then refused to license
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  This. A patent is a ticket to a court battle. If you can't afford the court battle then the patent is worthless. All this talk of "small, inventor-led businesses" is bullcrap because no small business can afford to enforce a patent.
tsimionescu 3y ago
Your arguments contradict each other. If the patent system actually protects innovation, why did VLSI's IP get successfully copied?
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Well, Intel eventually paid for it (a $2.1 billion judgment settled for an undisclosed sum). Without a patent system, they would have just gotten away with ripping these guys off for free.
TimPC 3y ago
They aren't making a noticeable change to the system at all. This method challenges roughly 350 patents a year while roughly 300,000 patents are granted per year. That's in the area of 0.1% of all patents. I think these numbers are very consistent with the predominant use case being the challenging of bad patents and there are very few examples of people trying to overturn good patents.
- 3y ago

mr_toad 3y ago

> But it's really wild to me that this alleged "abuse" (that could lead to the loss of... a patent) immediately got the attention of officials, who are taking rapid action. Yet there are thousands of victims of patent troll extortion every year. These extortions are real, and documented, and hurt businesses that are much much smaller than VLSI. (and operate actual businesses, which AFAIK VLSI does not). Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers.