4 ms·

IMHO, this should not be dealt with at a company level, since the shell company is arguably not engaged in any economic activity: their juridical entity is, ess

by weland 12y ago

IMHO, this should not be dealt with at a company level, since the shell company is arguably not engaged in any economic activity: their juridical entity is, essentially, worthless. Instead, given the toxic economic climate the people behind it create, this should be transported into criminal charges brought against the make-believe CEOs behind the shell companies that specifically engage in patent trolling. They're arguably pulling a con against a system designed by the state for something completely different, and their con should be treated no differently than, say, tax evasion. I think the only reason why companies like these continue to flourish is that the people behind them are entirely safe. No legal system will be able to close down as many companies as they can open. So jail the motherfuckers, or otherwise forbid them to take part in the economic system, and it's bound to stop.

edanm 12y ago
If everyone agrees that it's a "con", as you put it, wouldn't it be easier to just change the rules to prevent it happening, instead of letting it still happen but criminalizing people who do it? There's a system, there are rules. Some people have found ways to utilize those rules which many of us think are bad. The solution should be to change the system and the rules, not criminalize more people for doing something that is currently entirely legal.
- weland 12y ago
  I'm not sure if that could be worked out in a fair manner. Holding patents as a nearly-bankrupt company that's essentially out of business is not necessarily to be forbidden -- it can still be used constructively, e.g. by licensing them free of charge to non-profit organizations in order to relieve some of the uncertainty of potential donors. Just like with extortion, the fact that it can be punished is pretty much the best deterrent we have. Of course, the real solution would be to stop all this software patent nonsense, but that's so last year.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    How about a licensing requirement for non-earning, non implementing companies? If they don't have revenues that haven't been awarded by a judge, require them to license according to a schedule determined by a regulatory board.
    - weland 12y ago
      Hm, good point. My difficulty was this: if a company holds patents that it is not exploiting, all they're doing is adding unneeded pressure on competitors who have to think twice about implementing something similar because you never know when the other guys might sue. On the other hand, it also seems unfair to force patents away from companies that, while having financial difficulties, would also actually like to exploit those patents and simply need some time to find additional income sources. This would actually be a good idea: such companies should be required to either present a good schedule for how they intend to actively use the patents they hold, with the implementation of that schedule supervised by a third-party (maybe state?) representative. Companies that fail to implement their patents should be subject to limitations that discourage them from using the patents in an anti-competitive fashion, or simply for financial gains that do not result in any implementation. There could be a ton of variations on this theme. For instance, companies could be required to pay a certain fee for each patent they hold, that decreases if the patent is actually implemented and increases (possibly to impractical amounts) for every year that it is not implemented. This way, companies would be discouraged from hoarding patents, while actively offering an incentive for implementing technology they claim to be patentable.
mcherm 12y ago
> this should be transported into criminal charges brought against the make-believe CEOs behind the shell companies Ah, but the original proposal was for individuals to file lawsuits. Individuals cannot press criminal charges -- only the state (in the form of the prosecutor's office) can do that. And the state can not (and SHOULD NOT) use that power to go after individuals because we don't like those people, or because we don't like who they work for, or because we don't like what the companies they work for do. THAT would be abuse of power.
- dtech 12y ago
  It is fairly common, even necessary, for justice to go after the key figures of businesses that engage in criminal behavior (e.g. Maffia, money laundering companies). Otherwise it would be a type of behavior for which no-one can be held (individually) accountable.
- ivanca 12y ago
  Working as a lawyer for an extortionist company of this sort does makes you an extortionist. And this is how it works many times, otherwise hitmen could just claim that they were only doing their work for a company.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
metaphorm 12y ago
I agree with your interpretation. I've seen some legal experts try to argue in favor of the RICO laws being used to prosecute the owners of patent troll companies for engaging in what amounts to racketeering and extortion.
aragot 12y ago
Moreover, patent lawsuits have a high probability of engaging a single programmer's responsibility, since all contracts engage the programmer not to use derivative works of anything else and not to use patented work. So I would think it's only fair if the counter penalty were directed at the CEO in person instead of the patent troll.

by weland 12y ago

edanm 12y ago

If everyone agrees that it's a "con", as you put it, wouldn't it be easier to just change the rules to prevent it happening, instead of letting it still happen but criminalizing people who do it? There's a system, there are rules. Some people have found ways to utilize those rules which many of us think are bad. The solution should be to change the system and the rules, not criminalize more people for doing something that is currently entirely legal.

weland 12y ago
I'm not sure if that could be worked out in a fair manner. Holding patents as a nearly-bankrupt company that's essentially out of business is not necessarily to be forbidden -- it can still be used constructively, e.g. by licensing them free of charge to non-profit organizations in order to relieve some of the uncertainty of potential donors. Just like with extortion, the fact that it can be punished is pretty much the best deterrent we have. Of course, the real solution would be to stop all this software patent nonsense, but that's so last year.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  How about a licensing requirement for non-earning, non implementing companies? If they don't have revenues that haven't been awarded by a judge, require them to license according to a schedule determined by a regulatory board.
  - weland 12y ago
    Hm, good point. My difficulty was this: if a company holds patents that it is not exploiting, all they're doing is adding unneeded pressure on competitors who have to think twice about implementing something similar because you never know when the other guys might sue. On the other hand, it also seems unfair to force patents away from companies that, while having financial difficulties, would also actually like to exploit those patents and simply need some time to find additional income sources. This would actually be a good idea: such companies should be required to either present a good schedule for how they intend to actively use the patents they hold, with the implementation of that schedule supervised by a third-party (maybe state?) representative. Companies that fail to implement their patents should be subject to limitations that discourage them from using the patents in an anti-competitive fashion, or simply for financial gains that do not result in any implementation. There could be a ton of variations on this theme. For instance, companies could be required to pay a certain fee for each patent they hold, that decreases if the patent is actually implemented and increases (possibly to impractical amounts) for every year that it is not implemented. This way, companies would be discouraged from hoarding patents, while actively offering an incentive for implementing technology they claim to be patentable.

mcherm 12y ago

> this should be transported into criminal charges brought against the make-believe CEOs behind the shell companies Ah, but the original proposal was for individuals to file lawsuits. Individuals cannot press criminal charges -- only the state (in the form of the prosecutor's office) can do that. And the state can not (and SHOULD NOT) use that power to go after individuals because we don't like those people, or because we don't like who they work for, or because we don't like what the companies they work for do. THAT would be abuse of power.

dtech 12y ago
It is fairly common, even necessary, for justice to go after the key figures of businesses that engage in criminal behavior (e.g. Maffia, money laundering companies). Otherwise it would be a type of behavior for which no-one can be held (individually) accountable.
ivanca 12y ago
Working as a lawyer for an extortionist company of this sort does makes you an extortionist. And this is how it works many times, otherwise hitmen could just claim that they were only doing their work for a company.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

metaphorm 12y ago

I agree with your interpretation. I've seen some legal experts try to argue in favor of the RICO laws being used to prosecute the owners of patent troll companies for engaging in what amounts to racketeering and extortion.

aragot 12y ago

Moreover, patent lawsuits have a high probability of engaging a single programmer's responsibility, since all contracts engage the programmer not to use derivative works of anything else and not to use patented work. So I would think it's only fair if the counter penalty were directed at the CEO in person instead of the patent troll.