5 ms·
If the administration is able to concoct and pass a set of laws that can actually systematically identify and lock down patent trolls but not companies like ARM
by hkmurakami 13y ago
If the administration is able to concoct and pass a set of laws that can actually systematically identify and lock down patent trolls but not companies like ARM, it would be an amazing development. Yet this litigation dance is clearly the trolls' domain of expertise. I'm afraid that any rules passed would be adroitly evaded by the trolls and "evolved" shell companies that say, take to putting on a camoflage guise like that of Intellectual Ventures (IV).
In addition, the president plans to ask Congress to pass legislation that would allow sanctions on litigants who file lawsuits deemed abusive by courts, officials said.
I wonder if "litigants" actually points to "people" rather than entities.
The president has taken a dim view of certain patent-holding firms. In February, he said some firms "don't actually produce anything themselves. They're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea to see if they can extort some money out of them."
As we all know, companies like ARM don't "make" anything. But they are a legitimate operation by all means. But on the surface, IV might look like a legitimate operation too, with their research staff and everything. And once legislation passes, the now simple shell companies will surely take on a new form that will be more difficult to discern from their legitimate counterparts.
The fact that the administration wants to make this change is amazing. I love it. Yet I have to be skeptical, not only for the aforementioned reasons but also due to our political gridlock. I'm afraid that any legislation that does pass will be laden with intentional loopholes for the trolls to exploit.
I am hopeful yet fearful.
- spullara 13y agoEven if the only outcome was to identify the root company and individuals profiting from the suit it would help. It would then be easier to craft ToS of that would exclude them from the internet entirely. In the interim, get your company to adopt the Innovators Patent Agreement: https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement
- tptacek 13y agoHow much of ARMH's IP licensing is based on patents, versus other forms of IP?
- jjuliano 13y agoI would like to know, why ARM is perceived as a patent troll? And what about companies that sell IP's?
- coob 13y agoARM is not a patent troll and the GP post is not inferring that, in fact precisely the opposite. ARM could not exist without IP protection.
- bryanlarsen 13y agoMost companies with a business model similar to ARM can rely on copyright law. There are a large number of software firms with a business model similar to ARM. As far as I'm concerned, patent trolls are such a cost to society that if ARM was collateral damage, I'd be willing to sacrifice them. If ARM lost their patent protections, it would neither destroy ARM as a company, nor would it destroy ARM as an architecture. In fact, ARM as an architecture would become strengthened. ARM as a company would still survive, although a huge hole would be blown in their earnings. You would still need a copyright license from ARM to produce chips containing A15 or any of the other cores designed by ARM; it's only cores that weren't designed by ARM (Krait for example), that would no longer have to pay ARM.
- gyardley 13y agoGridlock generally occurs when one of the two parties is opposed to a bill, but here the President is following Republican initiatives - in the Senate, John Cornyn's 'Patent Abuse Reduction Act', and in the House, Jason Chaffetz's 'Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act'. Since this issue seems to have some bipartisan support behind it, perhaps something will actually get done.
- metageek 13y agoARM doesn't make anything physical--but neither do most software companies. ARM makes products that their customers actually want. Patent trolls don't.
- mapt 13y agoNotably though ARM could survive under a regime with dramatically shortened patent protection (5 years), which would be an unsatisfactory but necessary compromise until we can work out a system for prior art, examination, and code that doesn't destroy innovation.