9 ms·

These patent trolls are greedy, extractive, and contribute nothing to society while wasting vast public and private legal resources. Fuck. Them. Excellent work

by aduffy 2y ago

These patent trolls are greedy, extractive, and contribute nothing to society while wasting vast public and private legal resources. Fuck. Them. Excellent work to the entire litigation team at Cloudflare.

schlipity 2y ago
Are these patent trolls doing anything that normal companies with patents that try to monetize them don't do?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  No, but the argument would be that normal companies are doing something that patent trolls are: selling a product besides patents
- lfmunoz4 2y ago
  You would hope companies have patents based on something actually innovative. For software this is never the case. I think all software patents are bs.
- harrison_clarke 2y ago
  it's what they don't do. a troll doesn't play any role in developing the tech they hold patents for, they just extract rent when someone stumbles into a similar solution if a company doesn't develop products, but they actively license their patents to those that do, that's still patents working as intended, and not trolling. they're still helping to get the tech developed, rather than stifling it (i think there are a lot of problems with software patents even when used as intended by real companies. mainly, they last too long)
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    I dunno, this line of reasoning doesn’t feel right to me. A company making products did develop the technology. They were awarded a patent. That patent was an asset. That asset was sold presumably for the benefit of the people behind the original company. That the resulting asset owner wasn’t the originator doesn’t feel like it should make any difference here? Software patents are a scourge, I’m just not sure the reasoning there holds.
    - datadrivenangel 2y ago
      from a strict logic perspective, you're right. The issue is widespread bad behavior from patent trolls, given that the cost of mass filing patent infringement claims that barely apply is so much lower than the expected settlement, and the cost of a successful defense is likely higher than the request settlement. The incentive is to get a portfolio of overly broad patents and then shake down almost entirely unrelated companies.
      - petesergeant 2y ago
        For sure, the whole thing sucks
    - zamalek 2y ago
      > Software patents are a scourge, The reason is because they aren't being used as they were intended: patents are _supposed_ to be a way to give inventors/entrepreneurs a window to build a market with their idea. Let's say that you have some truly amazing invention that frobnicates foos 50x faster than anyone else, and you plan to take it to market. What would prevent the likes of Amazon from copying your idea with all the resources at their disposal? Patents. Patents as an asset is exactly the problem. Your entire first paragraph is built on this faulted perspective - the assumption that how we actually use patents is aligned with how they were designed to be used. They are supposed to foster small businesses, not destroy them. Software patents are a scourge only because patents as a whole have become a scourge.
      - UIUC_06 2y ago
        [dead]
      - petesergeant 2y ago
        > The reason is because they aren't being used as they were intended: patents are _supposed_ to be a way to give inventors/entrepreneurs a window to build a market with their idea. If I invent something, I should surely be able to license its production if I don’t want to be in the production game myself. The alternative reduces to the absurd very quickly. If I invent a better system for making ball bearings, it’s not reasonable to say I should only benefit from it if I then personally raise the capital and experience to start a ball bearing manufacturing plant.
- ajkjk 2y ago
  yes
- hansvm 2y ago
  The two normal arguments are: 1. Patent trolls don't actually produce anything. They just extract rent from other companies. 2. The patents they choose tend to be extremely bad -- overly broad, should never have been granted, had prior art, the tech never existed, .... They use the fact that they're able to sue cheaply to bully people into settling on bogus claims. Point (1) doesn't seem bad to me. It's kind of like how truck driving is separate from truck insurance. Having specialists capable of monetizing patents allows, in theory, inventors to invent and immediately sell for estimated lifetime patent value, minus a discount associated with the troll's costs and desired profits. Without trolls, in theory, you'd have fewer inventors because they'd also need to be/hire experts in marketing, litigation, .... Point (2) is the one that bothers me the most, and my impression is that it's a very common problem. Oh, and to your question, most companies use patents for mutually assured destruction and as a form of signalling that important people should want to work there, not to directly monetize. Monetizing patents is less common.
  - cloverich 2y ago
    The argument against your argument in (1) is that if the incentive is to patent and sell to someone who will not market the patented invention either, it still isn't promoting the development of the product. It is actually _hindering_ the development of the product, because now whoever does develop the product has to pay an additional tax. Its literally antithetical to the concept of patents (I am _assuming_ they exist to spur R&D development primarily). Another argument against your argument in (1), is to allow the scenario to exist only where the purchaser of the patent can prove they are marketing and selling it. That is still not ideal imho, but at least it eliminates outright patent trolls. HN is I think particularly sensitive because it has a lot of programmers and product development folks, who know that a good idea or even plan on its own isn't very valuable. I'd guess most of us have more good ideas floating around than we'll ever have the time or money to develop on our own. Its the execution and delivery of good ideas that is valuable; patents in our eyes make the easy part easier and the hard part harder.
    - hansvm 2y ago
      Except, if it really serves just to hinder development and as an additional tax then it wasn't a valid patent to begin with and falls under point (2). Valid patents have to work (couldn't patent transistors in 1820), be new (which, as you mention, isn't the hard part in turning ideas into value), _be non-obvious_ (this is the point that pushes your idea from (1) to (2); if somebody else were likely to spontaneously have the idea then it wasn't a valid patent to begin with, and if they weren't then the "additional tax" is a tax on a product they otherwise could never have made), and include clear instructions (from the patent, reasonable competitors ought to be able to instantiate the idea -- if they can't, it's yet again invalid). I do like what you're getting at though; the goal is to encourage actual inventions to actually be used. The patent mechanism attempts to do so by granting temporary monopolies (even with no real value via trolls), then guaranteeing that the invention is available for use afterward. You might be able to come up with another legislative mechanism encouraging real use of the patent before its expiry, and if it actually worked that'd probably be a good thing.
- hadlock 2y ago
  >Are these patent trolls doing anything that normal companies with patents that try to monetize them don't do? The important distinction here, in my opinion, is that investors bought a dead company along with it's IP for the explicit purpose of suing companies as that was their profit motive. Had there been an existing company that was actively building/selling routers, then yes they would have been using the patents as intended - to protect their business. In this case the company who owns the patents, was using them in a weaponized fashion.
pfisherman 2y ago
Heard an interesting counterpoint to this from a patent attorney. In the IP ecosystem patent trolls serve as a sort of check on the big companies - the apex predators - to stop them from willfully infringing on your patents and then bankrupting you in litigation. While you as a startup may not have the resources to go after them in court; your IP assets in the hands of a competent and aggressive patent troll could be a very big problem for Big Co. So in that sense they are also kind of like a parasite that infects the apex predators who eat tainted meat.
- stefan_ 2y ago
  Nice idea, except no one you mentioned spends their time doing patents. It's just big companies who are told by consultants to beef up their patent portfolio, and when they fail like Caspian, the remains are snatched up by bottom feeders who go around harassing others, preferably of course startups and others with no real resources.
  - pfisherman 2y ago
    The big companies beefing up their portfolios is more of a defensive measure from what I have been told. The threat of a countersuit makes IP litigation among peers a game of mutually assured destruction. Funny quote from a VC friend “patents are a sport of kings.” But defensive portfolios are not a concern for patent trolls. They can’t be countered for infringement because they don’t make anything! But you are not wrong that they can be like gnats that suck the blood from startups. In one car I heard of some a patent troll engaged in behavior bordering on criminal extortion - threatening mom and pops businesses for using printers and fax machines. All I am saying is that they play a role in balancing and maintaining the health of the IP ecosystem.
    - psd1 2y ago
      Could we patent a method for extracting settlements by means of a patent claim?
      - 2y ago

by aduffy 2y ago

schlipity 2y ago

Are these patent trolls doing anything that normal companies with patents that try to monetize them don't do?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
No, but the argument would be that normal companies are doing something that patent trolls are: selling a product besides patents
lfmunoz4 2y ago
You would hope companies have patents based on something actually innovative. For software this is never the case. I think all software patents are bs.
harrison_clarke 2y ago
it's what they don't do. a troll doesn't play any role in developing the tech they hold patents for, they just extract rent when someone stumbles into a similar solution if a company doesn't develop products, but they actively license their patents to those that do, that's still patents working as intended, and not trolling. they're still helping to get the tech developed, rather than stifling it (i think there are a lot of problems with software patents even when used as intended by real companies. mainly, they last too long)
- petesergeant 2y ago
  I dunno, this line of reasoning doesn’t feel right to me. A company making products did develop the technology. They were awarded a patent. That patent was an asset. That asset was sold presumably for the benefit of the people behind the original company. That the resulting asset owner wasn’t the originator doesn’t feel like it should make any difference here? Software patents are a scourge, I’m just not sure the reasoning there holds.
  - datadrivenangel 2y ago
    from a strict logic perspective, you're right. The issue is widespread bad behavior from patent trolls, given that the cost of mass filing patent infringement claims that barely apply is so much lower than the expected settlement, and the cost of a successful defense is likely higher than the request settlement. The incentive is to get a portfolio of overly broad patents and then shake down almost entirely unrelated companies.
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      For sure, the whole thing sucks
  - zamalek 2y ago
    > Software patents are a scourge, The reason is because they aren't being used as they were intended: patents are _supposed_ to be a way to give inventors/entrepreneurs a window to build a market with their idea. Let's say that you have some truly amazing invention that frobnicates foos 50x faster than anyone else, and you plan to take it to market. What would prevent the likes of Amazon from copying your idea with all the resources at their disposal? Patents. Patents as an asset is exactly the problem. Your entire first paragraph is built on this faulted perspective - the assumption that how we actually use patents is aligned with how they were designed to be used. They are supposed to foster small businesses, not destroy them. Software patents are a scourge only because patents as a whole have become a scourge.
    - UIUC_06 2y ago
      [dead]
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      > The reason is because they aren't being used as they were intended: patents are _supposed_ to be a way to give inventors/entrepreneurs a window to build a market with their idea. If I invent something, I should surely be able to license its production if I don’t want to be in the production game myself. The alternative reduces to the absurd very quickly. If I invent a better system for making ball bearings, it’s not reasonable to say I should only benefit from it if I then personally raise the capital and experience to start a ball bearing manufacturing plant.
ajkjk 2y ago
yes
hansvm 2y ago
The two normal arguments are: 1. Patent trolls don't actually produce anything. They just extract rent from other companies. 2. The patents they choose tend to be extremely bad -- overly broad, should never have been granted, had prior art, the tech never existed, .... They use the fact that they're able to sue cheaply to bully people into settling on bogus claims. Point (1) doesn't seem bad to me. It's kind of like how truck driving is separate from truck insurance. Having specialists capable of monetizing patents allows, in theory, inventors to invent and immediately sell for estimated lifetime patent value, minus a discount associated with the troll's costs and desired profits. Without trolls, in theory, you'd have fewer inventors because they'd also need to be/hire experts in marketing, litigation, .... Point (2) is the one that bothers me the most, and my impression is that it's a very common problem. Oh, and to your question, most companies use patents for mutually assured destruction and as a form of signalling that important people should want to work there, not to directly monetize. Monetizing patents is less common.
- cloverich 2y ago
  The argument against your argument in (1) is that if the incentive is to patent and sell to someone who will not market the patented invention either, it still isn't promoting the development of the product. It is actually _hindering_ the development of the product, because now whoever does develop the product has to pay an additional tax. Its literally antithetical to the concept of patents (I am _assuming_ they exist to spur R&D development primarily). Another argument against your argument in (1), is to allow the scenario to exist only where the purchaser of the patent can prove they are marketing and selling it. That is still not ideal imho, but at least it eliminates outright patent trolls. HN is I think particularly sensitive because it has a lot of programmers and product development folks, who know that a good idea or even plan on its own isn't very valuable. I'd guess most of us have more good ideas floating around than we'll ever have the time or money to develop on our own. Its the execution and delivery of good ideas that is valuable; patents in our eyes make the easy part easier and the hard part harder.
  - hansvm 2y ago
    Except, if it really serves just to hinder development and as an additional tax then it wasn't a valid patent to begin with and falls under point (2). Valid patents have to work (couldn't patent transistors in 1820), be new (which, as you mention, isn't the hard part in turning ideas into value), _be non-obvious_ (this is the point that pushes your idea from (1) to (2); if somebody else were likely to spontaneously have the idea then it wasn't a valid patent to begin with, and if they weren't then the "additional tax" is a tax on a product they otherwise could never have made), and include clear instructions (from the patent, reasonable competitors ought to be able to instantiate the idea -- if they can't, it's yet again invalid). I do like what you're getting at though; the goal is to encourage actual inventions to actually be used. The patent mechanism attempts to do so by granting temporary monopolies (even with no real value via trolls), then guaranteeing that the invention is available for use afterward. You might be able to come up with another legislative mechanism encouraging real use of the patent before its expiry, and if it actually worked that'd probably be a good thing.
hadlock 2y ago
>Are these patent trolls doing anything that normal companies with patents that try to monetize them don't do? The important distinction here, in my opinion, is that investors bought a dead company along with it's IP for the explicit purpose of suing companies as that was their profit motive. Had there been an existing company that was actively building/selling routers, then yes they would have been using the patents as intended - to protect their business. In this case the company who owns the patents, was using them in a weaponized fashion.

pfisherman 2y ago

Heard an interesting counterpoint to this from a patent attorney. In the IP ecosystem patent trolls serve as a sort of check on the big companies - the apex predators - to stop them from willfully infringing on your patents and then bankrupting you in litigation. While you as a startup may not have the resources to go after them in court; your IP assets in the hands of a competent and aggressive patent troll could be a very big problem for Big Co. So in that sense they are also kind of like a parasite that infects the apex predators who eat tainted meat.

stefan_ 2y ago
Nice idea, except no one you mentioned spends their time doing patents. It's just big companies who are told by consultants to beef up their patent portfolio, and when they fail like Caspian, the remains are snatched up by bottom feeders who go around harassing others, preferably of course startups and others with no real resources.
- pfisherman 2y ago
  The big companies beefing up their portfolios is more of a defensive measure from what I have been told. The threat of a countersuit makes IP litigation among peers a game of mutually assured destruction. Funny quote from a VC friend “patents are a sport of kings.” But defensive portfolios are not a concern for patent trolls. They can’t be countered for infringement because they don’t make anything! But you are not wrong that they can be like gnats that suck the blood from startups. In one car I heard of some a patent troll engaged in behavior bordering on criminal extortion - threatening mom and pops businesses for using printers and fax machines. All I am saying is that they play a role in balancing and maintaining the health of the IP ecosystem.
  - psd1 2y ago
    Could we patent a method for extracting settlements by means of a patent claim?
    - 2y ago