6 ms·

To me the real bad news is that I'm scared shitless to develop and commercialize anything now. No invention is truely innovative, not a single product on the m

To me the real bad news is that I'm scared shitless to develop and commercialize anything now. No invention is truely innovative, not a single product on the market today is truely original. We're all influenced by the same factors and we're all trying to push the same limits in technology. I don't have nearly the means to go to court against a company like Apple (or any company at all for that matter). If I launch my product today, I would be afraid of being successful, because I know I'll be bullied by others. And when patent lawsuits can win you a Billion dollars, patent bullies are happy and waiting for me. But yeah, I agree patents are a driving force behind innovation...

danmaz74 14y ago
I hope this madness in US patents policies gets fixed. But if it doesn't, it could be an opportunity for Europe... http://blog.hashtagify.me/2011/08/04/european-startups-and-us-software-patents-threat-or-opportunity/ http://blog.hashtagify.me/2011/08/04/european-startups-and-u...
- AhtiK 14y ago
  One experiment could be excluding Texas when selling to US. That could take care of most of the patent troll court filings and move you down in their prioritized attack list. AFAIK yet IANAL, if you have no customers in Texas then a company can't bring you to Texas court. Unfortunately this does not help with more "legitimate" cases from real software companies.
  - danmaz74 14y ago
    This is an interesting point; but is it feasible with web products? We would need a lawyer here... and the sad truth is that the only real winners here are lawyers.
  - josteink 14y ago
    The 1 billion dollar lawsuit was in California. Ignoring Texas wont help. Software patents is a US problem. Chances is it will be a driving force in taking innovation elsewhere.
    - AhtiK 14y ago
      Agreed on US problem. Innovation could be still developed in US, just all the customers must be non-US. I could be wrong but this has been my assumption. Some of these non-US customers could be selling back to the US customers and if the number of these resellers is huge enough it's much harder to take them down. Highly sci-fi speculation. This sci-fi could be quickly shut down with the US import restrictions.
      - curiouscats 14y ago
        I would love to see the innovation leave the USA. It is horrible policy that has turned most innovation efforts into stupid legal crap instead of productive enterprises. But I haven't seen anything about other countries taking advantage of the USA's failing. Is there evidence of that? Where? It would certainly be the wise thing for others to do. We need innovation. If the USA is going to make innovators lives a hell of courtrooms just give us somewhere else to send the innovators and let them create elsewhere. The USA can sit in its self imposed innovation free zone if it wants.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      This one was in Cali, but Apple isn't a patent troll (or at least not your traditional, no-products patent troll). Regular run of the mill patent trolls like to file in East Texas.
      - CWuestefeld 14y ago
        Voted back up to positive territory. What was with the downvotes? This is informative, and he's right -- Apple might be patent assholes, but they're not patent trolls.
        masklinn 14y ago
        > Apple might be patent assholes, but they're not patent trolls. That is very nicely put.
taligent 14y ago
You do know that lawsuits are based on actual damages right ? So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with you is ridiculous. The real ones to worry are the Lodsys of the world who sue you for just less than what it would cost to hire a lawyer e.g. $1000. Those companies serve no purpose and need to be regulated out of existence.
- cageface 14y ago
  So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with you is ridiculous. Unless you're a small German café or something: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-sue-small-german-cafe-logo-205037880.html http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-s... But why let inconvenient facts get between you and your religion?
  - taligent 14y ago
    Religion ? Nice. Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Also a cease and desist isn't a lawsuit. This is well established law.
    - cageface 14y ago
      Clearly you can't be too small for Apple to consider "bothering" with you. And if this all really about values and not money, as Tim Cook claims, why should it make any difference how big you are?
    - jellicle 14y ago
      >Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Nope.
      - freehunter 14y ago
        Great rebuttal. I think I missed your sources though.
nostrademons 14y ago
"I would be afraid of being successful, because I know I'll be bullied by others." Getting sued for patent infringement is one of those first-world problems I'd love to have, because it means you're big & threatening enough to be worth suing. Your strategy there, if you're still a startup and don't have a huge legal team, is to get bought by a big company with a huge legal team that would be hurt if the aggressor wins in court. See: Google, YouTube, and the Viacom lawsuit.
- coopdog 14y ago
  Great problem except there goes your leverage for the negotiation Also shows the effect of patents on the market, the little guys either get bought for cheap or destroyed as soon as they have any sort of success
  - nostrademons 14y ago
    The point is that the lawsuit is your leverage for the negotiation. The acquirer doesn't want to see you lose the lawsuit any more than you want to lose it, because it would set a precedent that would make their own products infringing. And since they're bigger than you, they have more to lose, and hence more of an incentive to win. I've long suspected that Google bought YouTube for the lawsuit. If Viacom had won, it would set a legal precedent that would basically make Google's business model illegal. And Viacom would likely have won, suing a tiny 14-person startup. So Google's only option was to buy the lawsuit (and the company along with it), so they could use their own legal defense team to win in court.
    - talmand 14y ago
      I think you're out on a limb a bit with this one. For most people and companies a lawsuit would most likely be considered a liability. Granted that there are exceptions like the YouTube example you propose, but you can't assume the same for every little startup that gets sued.
- curiouscats 14y ago
  It isn't so great if as soon as you go earn your living a bully comes and takes what you earned. Yes, when you have nothing before your job, you might see that person walking away with a paycheck and think I wish I could be the target of some bully. Once it happens it ain't so great.
sageikosa 14y ago
Just term anything you do as a "game", game-mechanics are not patentable.
- sp332 14y ago
  Source?
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Don't really have one. After some more research, apparently its sort of a gray area filled by anecdotes, pithy observations (such as my own), and snow about copyrights and trade-dress.
- lukifer 14y ago
  Game mechanics can't be copyrighted; unfortunately, there is very little that can't be patented.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

danmaz74 14y ago

I hope this madness in US patents policies gets fixed. But if it doesn't, it could be an opportunity for Europe... http://blog.hashtagify.me/2011/08/04/european-startups-and-us-software-patents-threat-or-opportunity/ http://blog.hashtagify.me/2011/08/04/european-startups-and-u...

AhtiK 14y ago
One experiment could be excluding Texas when selling to US. That could take care of most of the patent troll court filings and move you down in their prioritized attack list. AFAIK yet IANAL, if you have no customers in Texas then a company can't bring you to Texas court. Unfortunately this does not help with more "legitimate" cases from real software companies.
- danmaz74 14y ago
  This is an interesting point; but is it feasible with web products? We would need a lawyer here... and the sad truth is that the only real winners here are lawyers.
- josteink 14y ago
  The 1 billion dollar lawsuit was in California. Ignoring Texas wont help. Software patents is a US problem. Chances is it will be a driving force in taking innovation elsewhere.
  - AhtiK 14y ago
    Agreed on US problem. Innovation could be still developed in US, just all the customers must be non-US. I could be wrong but this has been my assumption. Some of these non-US customers could be selling back to the US customers and if the number of these resellers is huge enough it's much harder to take them down. Highly sci-fi speculation. This sci-fi could be quickly shut down with the US import restrictions.
    - curiouscats 14y ago
      I would love to see the innovation leave the USA. It is horrible policy that has turned most innovation efforts into stupid legal crap instead of productive enterprises. But I haven't seen anything about other countries taking advantage of the USA's failing. Is there evidence of that? Where? It would certainly be the wise thing for others to do. We need innovation. If the USA is going to make innovators lives a hell of courtrooms just give us somewhere else to send the innovators and let them create elsewhere. The USA can sit in its self imposed innovation free zone if it wants.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    This one was in Cali, but Apple isn't a patent troll (or at least not your traditional, no-products patent troll). Regular run of the mill patent trolls like to file in East Texas.
    - CWuestefeld 14y ago
      Voted back up to positive territory. What was with the downvotes? This is informative, and he's right -- Apple might be patent assholes, but they're not patent trolls.
      - masklinn 14y ago
        > Apple might be patent assholes, but they're not patent trolls. That is very nicely put.

taligent 14y ago

You do know that lawsuits are based on actual damages right ? So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with you is ridiculous. The real ones to worry are the Lodsys of the world who sue you for just less than what it would cost to hire a lawyer e.g. $1000. Those companies serve no purpose and need to be regulated out of existence.

cageface 14y ago
So the idea that you would be sued for a billion dollars or a company like Apple would bother with you is ridiculous. Unless you're a small German café or something: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-sue-small-german-cafe-logo-205037880.html http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/apple-threatens-s... But why let inconvenient facts get between you and your religion?
- taligent 14y ago
  Religion ? Nice. Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Also a cease and desist isn't a lawsuit. This is well established law.
  - cageface 14y ago
    Clearly you can't be too small for Apple to consider "bothering" with you. And if this all really about values and not money, as Tim Cook claims, why should it make any difference how big you are?
  - jellicle 14y ago
    >Actually the FACT is that a company is required to defend their trademark as a condition of it being granted. Nope.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      Great rebuttal. I think I missed your sources though.

nostrademons 14y ago

"I would be afraid of being successful, because I know I'll be bullied by others." Getting sued for patent infringement is one of those first-world problems I'd love to have, because it means you're big & threatening enough to be worth suing. Your strategy there, if you're still a startup and don't have a huge legal team, is to get bought by a big company with a huge legal team that would be hurt if the aggressor wins in court. See: Google, YouTube, and the Viacom lawsuit.

coopdog 14y ago
Great problem except there goes your leverage for the negotiation Also shows the effect of patents on the market, the little guys either get bought for cheap or destroyed as soon as they have any sort of success
- nostrademons 14y ago
  The point is that the lawsuit is your leverage for the negotiation. The acquirer doesn't want to see you lose the lawsuit any more than you want to lose it, because it would set a precedent that would make their own products infringing. And since they're bigger than you, they have more to lose, and hence more of an incentive to win. I've long suspected that Google bought YouTube for the lawsuit. If Viacom had won, it would set a legal precedent that would basically make Google's business model illegal. And Viacom would likely have won, suing a tiny 14-person startup. So Google's only option was to buy the lawsuit (and the company along with it), so they could use their own legal defense team to win in court.
  - talmand 14y ago
    I think you're out on a limb a bit with this one. For most people and companies a lawsuit would most likely be considered a liability. Granted that there are exceptions like the YouTube example you propose, but you can't assume the same for every little startup that gets sued.
curiouscats 14y ago
It isn't so great if as soon as you go earn your living a bully comes and takes what you earned. Yes, when you have nothing before your job, you might see that person walking away with a paycheck and think I wish I could be the target of some bully. Once it happens it ain't so great.

sageikosa 14y ago

Just term anything you do as a "game", game-mechanics are not patentable.

sp332 14y ago
Source?
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Don't really have one. After some more research, apparently its sort of a gray area filled by anecdotes, pithy observations (such as my own), and snow about copyrights and trade-dress.
lukifer 14y ago
Game mechanics can't be copyrighted; unfortunately, there is very little that can't be patented.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]