5 ms·

I've proposed this a couple of times on HN. I think the solution to these issues is for someone of note to start an organization dedicated to fighting patent t

I've proposed this a couple of times on HN. I think the solution to these issues is for someone of note to start an organization dedicated to fighting patent troll cases. To be considered for protection you have to become a member and pay annual dues. Such an organization could potentially raise hundreds of millions of dollars and have top-notch legal horsepower available. It's mission would be to defend members and, in all cases, seek the invalidation of the patents in question. If something like that existed, trolls would know that the potential consequence of trying to enforce bullshit patents would be huge financial losses and the potential invalidation of their bullshit patents. How many trolls would go up against an organization with 10, 20, 50 or 100 million dollars available to take-on a case? I am saddened to say that it is an arms race. Given that, true entrepreneurs and startups need bigger guns. It would behoove VC's and virtually all entrepreneurs and startups to help fund and support such an entity. It would be like patent reform approached in a very different way. Knowing that the "nuclear option" is on the table could very well bring reason to a landscape that is simply full of land-mines. There would have to be a mechanism through which companies of a certain size (Google, Apple, etc.) are excluded from receiving free services from this organization. They would, however, be expected to support it with generous donations. If the large players in the tech would each donated ten million dollars a year (a rounding error in their revenue stream) to such an entity, the organization could easily raise hundreds of millions in no time at all.

vellum 14y ago
Good idea, but how would you determine who is a "patent troll"? Some of them are more obvious, like i2z. But 1-click is also a bullshit patent. Big companies like Amazon like to use patents both defensively and offensively. They're not going to contribute to the legal fund if it could be used against them. I think the idea is more workable if you start with recruiting small to mid-size companies + VCs. The big companies are more likely to join on a case by case basis, especially with someone else taking point.
- robomartin 14y ago
  The organization would have to put into place a process through which requests for help from members are evaluated. If the lawsuit in question is determined to fit the stated mission, purpose and standards of the organization they take over. There could also be staged levels of paid assistance whereby the organization might handle the case at a much-reduced cost when compared to going through other avenues. I don't have all the answers. Legal minds far more capable than mine would design a set of rules and options that would make this a true resource and, to use the term again, a "nuclear option" against trolls. I don't have a problem with the reasonable enforcement of legitimate patents, but the bullshit patents need a way to hurt those using them to troll in a major way. All you need is a few cases of trolls getting utterly destroyed in court for the environment to change completely.
modarts 14y ago
"They [Google, Apple, etc.] would, however, be expected to support it with generous donations. If the large players in the tech would each donated ten million dollars a year (a rounding error in their revenue stream) to such an entity, the organization could easily raise hundreds of millions in no time at all." Based on my admittedly limited perspective, it seems that the Googles and Apples of the world actually benefit from having smaller companies getting picked off by patent trolls, by reducing the strength of their competition. Why would they want to fight on behalf of their competitors?
creamyhorror 14y ago
In a similar vein, I feel what's needed is a patent evaluation committee supported by an industrywide organization and possessing some legal standing. It could set down principles by which its members would abide, mediate or arbitrate between them in cases of disputes over patents (according to sane pre-established rules), and defend against non-members seeking to attack members via patents (your idea). Even better if it could seek out bullshit patents to take them down and send a signal. Or volunteer resources to the USPTO to help evaluate patent applications (with a layer of neutrality/anonymity of course). What's needed is (fair) industry input in patent granting, so there isn't a disconnect between what's obvious to USPTO reviewers and to industry members. Better yet, the organization would be much better positioned to throw up prior art for the USPTO, which would go a long way towards throwing out spurious patents. Pipe dream, I know. Maybe the EFF needs a new branch.
darkarmani 14y ago
Isn't the problem that it is so asymmetrical? They could still bleed the money out of your large fund.

vellum 14y ago

Good idea, but how would you determine who is a "patent troll"? Some of them are more obvious, like i2z. But 1-click is also a bullshit patent. Big companies like Amazon like to use patents both defensively and offensively. They're not going to contribute to the legal fund if it could be used against them. I think the idea is more workable if you start with recruiting small to mid-size companies + VCs. The big companies are more likely to join on a case by case basis, especially with someone else taking point.

robomartin 14y ago
The organization would have to put into place a process through which requests for help from members are evaluated. If the lawsuit in question is determined to fit the stated mission, purpose and standards of the organization they take over. There could also be staged levels of paid assistance whereby the organization might handle the case at a much-reduced cost when compared to going through other avenues. I don't have all the answers. Legal minds far more capable than mine would design a set of rules and options that would make this a true resource and, to use the term again, a "nuclear option" against trolls. I don't have a problem with the reasonable enforcement of legitimate patents, but the bullshit patents need a way to hurt those using them to troll in a major way. All you need is a few cases of trolls getting utterly destroyed in court for the environment to change completely.

modarts 14y ago

"They [Google, Apple, etc.] would, however, be expected to support it with generous donations. If the large players in the tech would each donated ten million dollars a year (a rounding error in their revenue stream) to such an entity, the organization could easily raise hundreds of millions in no time at all." Based on my admittedly limited perspective, it seems that the Googles and Apples of the world actually benefit from having smaller companies getting picked off by patent trolls, by reducing the strength of their competition. Why would they want to fight on behalf of their competitors?

creamyhorror 14y ago

In a similar vein, I feel what's needed is a patent evaluation committee supported by an industrywide organization and possessing some legal standing. It could set down principles by which its members would abide, mediate or arbitrate between them in cases of disputes over patents (according to sane pre-established rules), and defend against non-members seeking to attack members via patents (your idea). Even better if it could seek out bullshit patents to take them down and send a signal. Or volunteer resources to the USPTO to help evaluate patent applications (with a layer of neutrality/anonymity of course). What's needed is (fair) industry input in patent granting, so there isn't a disconnect between what's obvious to USPTO reviewers and to industry members. Better yet, the organization would be much better positioned to throw up prior art for the USPTO, which would go a long way towards throwing out spurious patents. Pipe dream, I know. Maybe the EFF needs a new branch.

darkarmani 14y ago

Isn't the problem that it is so asymmetrical? They could still bleed the money out of your large fund.