3 ms·

There are a few different reasons I do not agree with this comment. For one, I refuse to subscribe to the idea that it's OK to run away from the problem and let

There are a few different reasons I do not agree with this comment. For one, I refuse to subscribe to the idea that it's OK to run away from the problem and let patent trolls win by default. I'm the kind of person that stands up for what they believe is right, and thus I would prefer to stand and fight a patent troll. I applaud the organizations out there that are taking a stand (NewEgg, Rackspace, etc). You win some, and you lose some, but in the end I think it's important that people take a stand for what they believe is right. Another reason I do not agree relates to fragmented markets/laws outside of the US. While I think many will agree that the US Patent System has many problems, the one thing it does do well is remain consistent. When you look at the landscape outside of the US, it becomes very fragmented and inconsistent. You may or may not have rights. You probably won't get sued by a patent troll, but you might get ripped off. As an example, consider the Samwer Brothers and their approach towards respecting intellectual property. Granted, this is the other (extreme) end of the spectrum, but it's something to consider. So while the US System does have some problems, there are also some positives that can actually work in your favor. My takeaway from the entire issue; Do your own due diligence. I'm not a Lawyer, but I do know how to search the USPTO Database for Prior Art. It's not rocket science, anyone can do it. If you are a founder, and you are worried, spend some time researching it. I recently made a pretty major UX change to one of my projects based on this advice. I identified a (Microsoft) patent that related to what I was building, and I made sure that my upcoming product does not infringe. Of course one cannot be expected to catch all prior art, but I believe it should still be included in the process at some level.

chill1 13y ago
> "I'm not a Lawyer, but I do know how to search the USPTO Database for Prior Art. It's not rocket science, anyone can do it. If you are a founder, and you are worried, spend some time researching it." You must be careful about doing research into patents yourself (as a founder or engineer). If it can be proven that you had prior knowledge of a patent, then you may be liable for treble damages. > "For one, I refuse to subscribe to the idea that it's OK to run away from the problem and let patent trolls win by default." Patent trolls "win" by extracting money from companies producing/doing actual things; see the recent Newegg case and many others. If you are thinking about creating a company or innovative product, and also decide to launch said company/product outside of the U.S., then you effectively deny them battle. You cannot lose a battle that you do not fight. "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." - Sun Tzu
- shawnreilly 13y ago
  From my understanding (which may be limited), treble damages only apply when someone willingly infringes on a patent. So this would be a scenario where someone identifies a patent that relates to what they're building, but they build it anyway. This is very different from identifying existing patents specifically to ensure one does not infringe. In this second scenario someone identifies a patent that relates to what they're building, so they modify what they're building as not to infringe. In some (extreme) cases, this might mean the project should be abandoned. In other (not so extreme) cases, this might mean you need to change one (or more) aspect(s) of the project. In any event, and aside from the legal aspects, I think it's a good exercise for anyone building something. You might avoid future legal issues, you might become more aware of where technology is going (vice a perspective built on currently released products), and it might help you innovate further. Brain food. I believe that patent trolls "win" when everyone is too scared to stand up for what they believe in. Plain and simple, if people don't take a stand, then things won't change. And I don't necessarily mean just taking a stand in court, I'm talking more about how we (as developers and innovators) react to the issue. I agree that leaving the US will probably lower your chances of becoming a patent troll victim, but everything is relative. Maybe you're building something truly novel and innovative and you want to protect it? Would this outweigh the risk of becoming a patent troll victim? I guess it depends on what (and where) you're building.

chill1 13y ago

> "I'm not a Lawyer, but I do know how to search the USPTO Database for Prior Art. It's not rocket science, anyone can do it. If you are a founder, and you are worried, spend some time researching it." You must be careful about doing research into patents yourself (as a founder or engineer). If it can be proven that you had prior knowledge of a patent, then you may be liable for treble damages. > "For one, I refuse to subscribe to the idea that it's OK to run away from the problem and let patent trolls win by default." Patent trolls "win" by extracting money from companies producing/doing actual things; see the recent Newegg case and many others. If you are thinking about creating a company or innovative product, and also decide to launch said company/product outside of the U.S., then you effectively deny them battle. You cannot lose a battle that you do not fight. "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." - Sun Tzu

shawnreilly 13y ago
From my understanding (which may be limited), treble damages only apply when someone willingly infringes on a patent. So this would be a scenario where someone identifies a patent that relates to what they're building, but they build it anyway. This is very different from identifying existing patents specifically to ensure one does not infringe. In this second scenario someone identifies a patent that relates to what they're building, so they modify what they're building as not to infringe. In some (extreme) cases, this might mean the project should be abandoned. In other (not so extreme) cases, this might mean you need to change one (or more) aspect(s) of the project. In any event, and aside from the legal aspects, I think it's a good exercise for anyone building something. You might avoid future legal issues, you might become more aware of where technology is going (vice a perspective built on currently released products), and it might help you innovate further. Brain food. I believe that patent trolls "win" when everyone is too scared to stand up for what they believe in. Plain and simple, if people don't take a stand, then things won't change. And I don't necessarily mean just taking a stand in court, I'm talking more about how we (as developers and innovators) react to the issue. I agree that leaving the US will probably lower your chances of becoming a patent troll victim, but everything is relative. Maybe you're building something truly novel and innovative and you want to protect it? Would this outweigh the risk of becoming a patent troll victim? I guess it depends on what (and where) you're building.