I just spoke with a friend about a time when his company was approached by a patent troll.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).<p>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.<p>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.<p>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 <i>require</i> 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 <i>useful</i> for its original purpose, which was to put the knowledge into the public domain when the patent expires.<p>[1] I wouldn't swear to the dates; they're from memory. The approximate order/scale is correct, though.
Can anyone here give (and defend) an example of a good patent? By that I mean one that is non-obvious, novel, and clear enough to be able to be used to build the claimed invention.
On a related note, this is one of the reasons I prefer to use, and make, Apache 2.0-licensed software. Its terms are similar to those of BSD and MIT but it also includes a patent licensing clause.
What if the startup uses a scorched-earth policy? Fight 'til the money runs out, liquidating your assets and closing down the business piece by piece, then if the troll wins, they get nothing because it's all been spent on lawyers and there's nothing left for them to take.
Patent protection rackets have been used for more than a business model: they have been used as tools to pressure large companies into entering partnership agreements.<p>Please see the second item of the list: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5479381" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5479381</a>
Given the article's opening paragraphs (small businesses and startups falling prey to the trolls), I'm surprised there hasn't been an organized attempt to inform people of the problem. Maybe I don't know about it and the author doesn't mention it, but it seems like there should be a website that categorizes the various players and their actions, with forums so victims and potential victims can share their experiences. Once you have all the data being collected in one place, then you can get the word out (how?) so that people know to check online even before checking with their lawyer. It seems like patent trolling is something that could be partially defeated with better and more widespread information.
What's more important that even companies which actually produce something are also engaging in patent protection racket. Such as MS, Apple and others. That's why the term "troll" (i.e. racketeer) is not exactly the same as NPE.
I see ads all the time on TV and billboards for DUI and settlement and disability lawyers. "Get the result you deserve." I think many of them are national firms, although they look local.<p>It seems that patent troll victims would be a great area for a firm to break into.
It is very easy to say that a company should fight a patent lawsuit instead of paying it up but that's not always possible. In many cases pragmatism is going to be better than fighting in court for a small business, especially if the likely court costs for the battle are going to exceed your businesses accumulated lifetime revenue.
Are open web APIs becoming the new IT patents? <a href="http://api500.com/post/46951162382/apis-are-the-new-patents" rel="nofollow">http://api500.com/post/46951162382/apis-are-the-new-patents</a>