4 ms·

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 e

by 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]

by potench 14y ago

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]