3 ms·

What if I buy all the land around your house and sue you every time you cross through it to go to the shops or take your kids to school? Would you consider that

What if I buy all the land around your house and sue you every time you cross through it to go to the shops or take your kids to school? Would you consider that fair?

rayiner 14y ago
So note that in your example it's irrelevant whether one person or many people own the property around your house--no matter what you have to trespass on someone's land to go to the shops, etc. Moreover, in that hypothetical, you certainly got your house for a bargain basement price precisely because it didn't have access to a public road. "Access to a public road" isn't one of the features of the property that you paid for. So why should you get to have your cake and eat it too? In your example, you want something you didn't buy: access to a public road. I have three ways to monetize my property right with respect to you. I can sell you an easement across my land, I can lease you an easement across my land, or I can sue you for trespass and collect a nominal damages everytime you pass my land. The latter is somewhat inefficient, but all are totally legitimate--they are all just ways to transact in property rights between the two of us.
- potench 14y ago
  What I don't understand is how you protect yourself as it doesn't seem feasible to wallow through preexisting patents hoping to not find a patent that may not exist. It appears as though these companies wait until you're most vulnerable (have successfully implemented something patented) before suing. I understand that you're saying some companies have legitimate claim to base their entire business around lawsuits for patents; but their profitability relies on a business model that seems to promote laying in wait under a bridge until the victim is most vulnerable... Like a troll.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You have to understand how the system is supposed to work. Imagine a world in where all patents are valid and legitimate. You're right that even in such a world, it's not practical to just troll through existing patents. So you proceed blithly ahead until someone realizes: "hey, this guy is making a lot of money and I think he should've gotten a license from us." They send an e-mail saying: "hey, you owe us some money." The recipient says: "oh, I think you're right." They do negotiate a license, and go on their merry way. This isn't "waiting under a bridge until the 'victim' is most vulnerable." Rather, it's like "lazy loading" of libraries. You avoid doing the work of determining what patents need to be licensed until the last possible moment. But the retroactive effect of any demand/suit should be similar to just having licensed that patent in the first place. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing illegitimate about only going after people with deep pockets in pursuing patent infringements. I don't sue the neighbor's kid for cutting through my property, but I'd probably sue anyone who drove a truck through it! Using terms of "victim" and "vulnerable" are really inapropos here. A lawsuit is not an "attack." It's a "hey, I think you owe me some money." These are businesses all trying to make profit off inventions. If the patents in question are valid and legitimate (and I think a lot of them might not be, to be fair!) then there is no illegitimacy in a non-practicing entity suing to enforce their patent rights, because ultimately those rights derive from the original inventor. The NPE might not "create anything of value," but the inventor did, and the NPE bought out the inventor. Now, to be fair, lawsuits are in inefficient way to transact in property rights, even if they are a legitimate way. Most people who believe in the patent regime think we need to develop things like patent markets to make it easier for companies to find and license patents without resorting to lawsuits.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
liuliu 14y ago
You are falling into the trap. Intellectual inventions simply shouldn't have full property right.
- rayiner 14y ago
  If you accept that patents should fully be property, as the current law does, then lawsuits by non-practicing entities are not a sign of a problem with the system. Lawsuits are just one of the ways to enforce and monetize property rights. Now, you may think that intellectual inventions shouldn't be the subject of property rights. That's an entirely defensible position, but it's also a totally separate issue.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Wow, you take a biased view of this subject. You're right that IF you accept patents as full property, THEN this is not a problem. But that is an if that many here - including myself - are not inclined to grant. And if you DON'T grant it, then this is very much not fine. You acknowledge this, sort of, but only when using the loaded language intellectual inventions to describe patents. This deliberately ignores the fact that a major complaint about the current patent system is the proliferation of patents which claim "invention" status to things that should not be called inventions. You then go on to call the question of whether patents should be property a totally separate issue. I agree that it is totally separate from the line of argument that you want to pursue. But, given the opinions of most people on this site, it is actually the central issue. Your sophistry about property laws is actually the side issue that should be ignored in favor of what is really important. The key question is this, is the rapid proliferation of lawsuits from non-practicing entities a problem? In fact evidence suggests that the companies being sued are generally ones that are creating real innovation, economic development, and jobs. The companies doing most of the suing are creating a tax on innovation. If you look at who is paying the costs, and who is capturing the profits, by and large the patent system is failing to incentivize actual innovation, and is rewarding useless legal activity. When you look at it in this light, the activity of the non-practicing entities is absolutely the greatest source of the gap between what the patent system theoretically should be doing, and what it actually is doing. Therefore the rapid proliferation of lawsuits by non-practicing entities is direct evidence that our bad patent system is rapidly becoming worse. Now, like a good lawyer, I expect you to take apart and criticize everything that I've said. After all you're paid to come to the conclusion you've decided in advance to, rather than to find the correct answer. Truth, for a lawyer in an argument, is merely one source of rhetorical ammunition. I admit it. I am not a lawyer. In a war of words, you'll win. But I honestly believe that the ideas that I am putting forth are correct. And the ideas that you are putting forth are dangerous ideas that currently cost our economy tens of billions per year. Furthermore those costs are rapidly mounting. For decades now, Silicon Valley has been the world capital for tech startups. Some day, hopefully a long time from now, this will end and Silicon Valley will pass into history. But it could end much sooner, and worsening patent laws are on the short list of things that could end it quickly.

What if I buy all the land around your house and sue you every time you cross through it to go to the shops or take your kids to school? Would you consider that fair?

rayiner 14y ago

So note that in your example it's irrelevant whether one person or many people own the property around your house--no matter what you have to trespass on someone's land to go to the shops, etc. Moreover, in that hypothetical, you certainly got your house for a bargain basement price precisely because it didn't have access to a public road. "Access to a public road" isn't one of the features of the property that you paid for. So why should you get to have your cake and eat it too? In your example, you want something you didn't buy: access to a public road. I have three ways to monetize my property right with respect to you. I can sell you an easement across my land, I can lease you an easement across my land, or I can sue you for trespass and collect a nominal damages everytime you pass my land. The latter is somewhat inefficient, but all are totally legitimate--they are all just ways to transact in property rights between the two of us.

potench 14y ago
What I don't understand is how you protect yourself as it doesn't seem feasible to wallow through preexisting patents hoping to not find a patent that may not exist. It appears as though these companies wait until you're most vulnerable (have successfully implemented something patented) before suing. I understand that you're saying some companies have legitimate claim to base their entire business around lawsuits for patents; but their profitability relies on a business model that seems to promote laying in wait under a bridge until the victim is most vulnerable... Like a troll.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You have to understand how the system is supposed to work. Imagine a world in where all patents are valid and legitimate. You're right that even in such a world, it's not practical to just troll through existing patents. So you proceed blithly ahead until someone realizes: "hey, this guy is making a lot of money and I think he should've gotten a license from us." They send an e-mail saying: "hey, you owe us some money." The recipient says: "oh, I think you're right." They do negotiate a license, and go on their merry way. This isn't "waiting under a bridge until the 'victim' is most vulnerable." Rather, it's like "lazy loading" of libraries. You avoid doing the work of determining what patents need to be licensed until the last possible moment. But the retroactive effect of any demand/suit should be similar to just having licensed that patent in the first place. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing illegitimate about only going after people with deep pockets in pursuing patent infringements. I don't sue the neighbor's kid for cutting through my property, but I'd probably sue anyone who drove a truck through it! Using terms of "victim" and "vulnerable" are really inapropos here. A lawsuit is not an "attack." It's a "hey, I think you owe me some money." These are businesses all trying to make profit off inventions. If the patents in question are valid and legitimate (and I think a lot of them might not be, to be fair!) then there is no illegitimacy in a non-practicing entity suing to enforce their patent rights, because ultimately those rights derive from the original inventor. The NPE might not "create anything of value," but the inventor did, and the NPE bought out the inventor. Now, to be fair, lawsuits are in inefficient way to transact in property rights, even if they are a legitimate way. Most people who believe in the patent regime think we need to develop things like patent markets to make it easier for companies to find and license patents without resorting to lawsuits.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

liuliu 14y ago

You are falling into the trap. Intellectual inventions simply shouldn't have full property right.

rayiner 14y ago
If you accept that patents should fully be property, as the current law does, then lawsuits by non-practicing entities are not a sign of a problem with the system. Lawsuits are just one of the ways to enforce and monetize property rights. Now, you may think that intellectual inventions shouldn't be the subject of property rights. That's an entirely defensible position, but it's also a totally separate issue.
- btilly 14y ago
  Wow, you take a biased view of this subject. You're right that IF you accept patents as full property, THEN this is not a problem. But that is an if that many here - including myself - are not inclined to grant. And if you DON'T grant it, then this is very much not fine. You acknowledge this, sort of, but only when using the loaded language intellectual inventions to describe patents. This deliberately ignores the fact that a major complaint about the current patent system is the proliferation of patents which claim "invention" status to things that should not be called inventions. You then go on to call the question of whether patents should be property a totally separate issue. I agree that it is totally separate from the line of argument that you want to pursue. But, given the opinions of most people on this site, it is actually the central issue. Your sophistry about property laws is actually the side issue that should be ignored in favor of what is really important. The key question is this, is the rapid proliferation of lawsuits from non-practicing entities a problem? In fact evidence suggests that the companies being sued are generally ones that are creating real innovation, economic development, and jobs. The companies doing most of the suing are creating a tax on innovation. If you look at who is paying the costs, and who is capturing the profits, by and large the patent system is failing to incentivize actual innovation, and is rewarding useless legal activity. When you look at it in this light, the activity of the non-practicing entities is absolutely the greatest source of the gap between what the patent system theoretically should be doing, and what it actually is doing. Therefore the rapid proliferation of lawsuits by non-practicing entities is direct evidence that our bad patent system is rapidly becoming worse. Now, like a good lawyer, I expect you to take apart and criticize everything that I've said. After all you're paid to come to the conclusion you've decided in advance to, rather than to find the correct answer. Truth, for a lawyer in an argument, is merely one source of rhetorical ammunition. I admit it. I am not a lawyer. In a war of words, you'll win. But I honestly believe that the ideas that I am putting forth are correct. And the ideas that you are putting forth are dangerous ideas that currently cost our economy tens of billions per year. Furthermore those costs are rapidly mounting. For decades now, Silicon Valley has been the world capital for tech startups. Some day, hopefully a long time from now, this will end and Silicon Valley will pass into history. But it could end much sooner, and worsening patent laws are on the short list of things that could end it quickly.