
We’re all trolls now: Patent ‘rat’s nest’ is worse than you think - iProject
http://gigaom.com/mobile/were-all-trolls-now-why-the-patent-rats-nest-is-worse-than-you-think/
======
monochromatic
> top patent lawyers are leaving firms at which they made $4 -$5 million a
> year

As a patent lawyer, I'm not sure I'm aware of any patent lawyers making that
kind of money [from a law firm, I mean].

~~~
Udo
It's very offtopic, but I'd be interested to know what drove you to HN as a
patent lawyer. I can see your account is well established, so I'm guessing
it's not just to spontaneously chime in during patent discussions. Are you
specializing in technology cases or are you partly a developer, too?

~~~
monochromatic
To some extent, every patent lawyer specializes in technology. As for
participating here... well, I'm a lawyer by vocation but a nerd by avocation.
I like the discussions here, even though I'm at best an amateur coder.

------
lucidquiet
I have a feeling this will turn a lot more innovators into patent lawyers.
This is probably the first time in my career that I want to start writing (as
in more than once) my congressman. Not to mention that if Apple, Google, and
Amazon are acting out of fear what hope does the little guy have?

~~~
soup10
I think "acting out of fear" is hyperbole for making a "logical business
decision". It's not like these guys are strangers to the patent business
(remember 1-Click?). One thing to remember about the little guy is, he doesn't
have any money, so he's not worth going after.

My impression is that the scenario where 'big tech company/patent troll' sues
'unprofitable start-up' out of existence is pretty rare.

~~~
lucidquiet
I tend to agree with the "logical business decision", but what this means (I'm
just speculating really), is that when a business reaches profitability, or
taps a growth market, then the potential profit vs legal costs will turn on.
Which means that IV and Big Name companies can strong arm the up-start company
to either join their patent trolling or turn over some percentage. For what
amounts to flimsy and obvious software ideas/patents.

------
stcredzero
An exercise for hardy souls: Go into the patent database, and do a search for
video or television over the Internet. (Networks, packet switched networks.)
Note the number of patents that show up. Start reading them. Note how many of
these are obviously pure trolls. It's just endless.

~~~
monochromatic
How can one know from reading a patent whether it's a "pure troll?"

~~~
CUR10US
Ask: How is the patent being used?

If the patent holder is not manufacturing a product but is threatening to sue
others based on the patent, it's trolling.

IV manufactures nothing. However, through shell corporations, they threaten to
sue others. This motivates their targets to participate in the IV pools and IV
takes a cut.

This idea of threatening enforcement where the patent holder has no intent to
ever manufacture is not something new. But no one ever liked it when it
happened. That's because it serves no apparent purpose in bringing products to
the market.

What makes IV unique is that Myrvold used his own money to start IV and start
acquiring patents from patent holders in bulk. This was no small investment.
His idea is to make trolling a business. Instead of trying to fix a problem,
he has opted to exacerbate it for his own profit. He is engaging in exactly
the type of conduct companies like the one he worked for had to be in constant
fear of: the small inventor who will never be successful in the marketplace
but who has received some patents that she can, at her discretion, enforce
against some large companies that are successful in the marketplace.

For an interesting approach to how patents might be used, consult the history
of Hans Bessemer. He produced some of the most valuable intellectual property
in America's history. He made Carnegie the world's wealthiest individual.

Also, note that Paul Allen, one of the wealthiest men on the planet, tried
some pure patent trolling a number of years ago. Why? He failed miserably. But
what drives someone to try this?

~~~
monochromatic
I'll ask again then. How can one know _from reading a patent_ whether or not
it's a pure troll?

~~~
CUR10US
Patents don't troll. People do. For example, people who run companies, like
the shell companies IV incorporates.

It's not the patent that reveals trolling. Rather, what indicates trolling are
the actions of the person running the company that controls the patent.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.

~~~
monochromatic
No, I think we understand each other. I was replying to a comment about
reading a patent to see if it was a "pure troll" which is impossible.

------
fpgeek
This is, of course, the tragedy of our software patent situation. Changing the
system is so difficult that all of the companies who have the greatest
interest in advocating for change end up picking up patents to defend
themselves... and we know the rest.

------
petegrif
This is a horrible article. It makes no effort to seriously examine the
issues. It is just a rant. If this is what passes for journalism then god help
us all.

~~~
lucidquiet
This can probably be said for nearly all "journalism" in the US.

------
reader5000
The problem is the patent system and their apparent working definition of
patentability. When Amazon can patent one-click purchasing or whoever can
patent in-app purchasing, the government's definition of patentability is
severely broken. From what I can tell the patent office just googles the
claim's buzzwords for hits prior to the filing date and if nothing is found
the patent is granted. They don't even try to get into obviousness / novelty /
subject matter.

Ultimately I guess it's an issue that directly affects very few people, and
indirectly hits the software consumer in the form of slightly(?) increased
prices and less feature availability.

~~~
monochromatic
> from what I can tell . . .

This is really not how it works.

~~~
chris_j
Would you mind expanding on how a prior art search works? It might be of great
interest to folks here.

~~~
btn
The USPTO publishes its operating manual for examiners on its website. All of
chapter 900 deals with prior art and searches for it, but an overview of the
process can be found in these sections:

904:
[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0900_904...](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0900_904.htm)
904.02:
[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0900_904...](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0900_904.htm)

The process examiners use for a specific patent is also documented by them in
the file wrapper for every application and is available in PAIR:
<http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair>

------
mlinksva
My favorite 'rat's nest' synonym is Gordian knot.

------
sabat
How is this not racketeering?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
It _is_ racketeering! But who's going to stop them?

