3 ms·
I just spoke with a friend about a time when his company was approached by a patent troll. The patent in question was granted in 2002 [1]. He had himself worke
by SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
I just spoke with a friend about a time when his company was approached by a patent troll.
The patent in question was granted in 2002 [1]. He had himself worked on the technology under "patent" in 1998, and was able to find someone who had published material as far back as 1995, and who was willing to send supporting documentation and to, if necessary, testify.
He talked with his attorney, who agreed the prior art he'd found was spot on, and that in legislation they'd be almost certain to win. But that it would cost ~$3m.
The patent trolls also were going after names such as Amazon, Facebook, and other huge companies. The troll was asking for $200k for a license from each company. As far as my friend knows, they ALL settled (or at least many of them had).
There were 15-20 names on that list. If they'd simply put the $200k-$300k of "licensing fees" into a common pot and used that money to fight the troll, then it would have done a small amount of good in defeating one troll's patent.
But really the whole system does need serious reform. His suggestion was to cause the patent trolls to have to PAY for legal fees if they lose a patent challenge, though that would just encourage them to sue from individual corporations that would declare bankruptcy on losing.
But I think software patents should simply be disallowed, or the bar raised (somehow?) to exclude anything vague and hand-wavy. One thought I've had was to require an implementation of the process being patented. Then it would be far harder to claim that your patent covers something only vaguely related, and the patent would actually be useful for its original purpose, which was to put the knowledge into the public domain when the patent expires.
[1] I wouldn't swear to the dates; they're from memory. The approximate order/scale is correct, though.
- shmerl 14y ago>But that it would cost ~$3m. Can you elaborate (if you have any idea) what this cost actually consists of?
- SomeCallMeTim 14y agoSorry, I don't know any more of the details. It was a casual conversation about patents and spurious lawsuits in general (they'd also been sued in a class-action, which they did fight and "win", in quotes only because apparently the attorneys for the plaintiffs are likely to appeal, meaning it's not over yet), and I've related what I remember from it. Though I will say this: He absolutely wanted to fight. He completely hated the concept of paying the extortion. But as a representative of a VC-backed company, he couldn't in good faith spend $3M on a lawsuit that could be put to rest for $200k.
- shmerl 14y agoCould he pool resources with others affected by the same troll? Busting these patents would benefit all these victims, and coming up with $3M from many sources would be easier than pulling this through alone.
- SomeCallMeTim 14y agoThat was the essence of my suggestion above.
- shmerl 14y agoI mean, what prevented them from doing it, lack of trust in choosing one fighter?
- SomeCallMeTim 14y agoI don't know. May have been simply lack of time to try to contact all the legal resources on the list, or some may have settled already. EDIT: To be clear, he was telling me about this LONG after it had happened, so I don't even know whether he considered the option at the time.
- csense 14y agoIf it's such an open-and-shut case, why hire a high-powered firm that'll cost $3M instead of some kid fresh out of law school who wants to make a name for himself and is willing to take ramen wages?
- SomeCallMeTim 14y agoIf it were a small start-up, that would one approach. Problem is that kid may screw things up and lose the case. Maybe not, but we're talking a VC-backed company with a board of directors and such. He did tell me that, looking at the list of other companies being sued, he felt that his company had "reached the big time." (The odds you've heard of his company are not very good -- I wouldn't have heard of it except that I know him, though I did run across it in an article in the last couple of months.) The concept of hiring someone on the cheap to fight it isn't really one of the options on the table when you have investors and a board to keep happy.
- binarymax 14y agoIf there is hard evidence of prior art, then filing an ex parte reexaminiation[1] is certainly not $3M. [1] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2210.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2210.html
- SomeCallMeTim 14y agoI thought Blackberry/RIM actually WON one of those, but then ended up paying $300M anyway? The press reporting was unclear, but that's what it seemed like had happened, which never made any sense to me. Maybe it was still pending an appeal by the patent holder? Again, I don't know enough of the specifics. I'll ping him and see if they did that.
- jacques_chester 14y agoThe one reform this suggests is a requirement to list who else has has licensed a patent, or who has been sent a letter of "offer".