
"Patent Trolls" Threaten to Drain Silicon Valley Startups [video] - RougeFemme
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Patent-Trolls-Threaten-to-Drain-Silicon-Valley-Startups-233570431.html
======
tehabe
I wonder, is there still someone who believes that patents are protecting the
small inventors and companies?

At least in the software and IT business it seems (it is clear to me) the
other way around. Patents are protecting the incumbents and big companies, who
can afford legal experts to defend themselves.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
It does nearly never protect small inventors and small companies. In the
current time of big lawsuits and big money for lawyers, big is what succeeds.
Small companies either:

\- can not afford to patent everything they do \- can not afford to find
potential infringing companies \- can not afford patent lawsuits

Even when they patent, and even when they know, that some other company
infringes their patent, they just are not able to take the risk of patent
lawsuits. In the case of a big other company it also can be the same as
suicide. There is an anecdote, that one big company (everybody knows) send
their patent lawyers to a small company, saying, they are infringing their
patent X. The small company proved to the lawyers, they did not. But those
hard-boiled lawyers just said: Look, we have X-thousand patents. We will find
many others, you infringe and sue you, unless you pay us now for this patent!
They paid, of course!

The patent system has become like highwaymen -- many see the big money without
effort -- and it is. Those that are robbed, oftentimes are the real creative
persons. And so, the patent system just has become the opposite to what it
pretends to be. And of course, patent-attorneys, lawyers and even politicians
defend a corrupted system, because they benefit from it.

Best example is Bill Gates: In his early time he stated, that patents on
software would harm the software industry. Today he is one of the biggest
proponent of the system, since his company today is big and he things it would
profit from it. But in the end, even for M$, I doubt.

~~~
perlpimp
Couldn't RICO be used in such cases? It is racketeering at best if this is
worded like that.

------
sergiotapia
Stop building things within the US, it's patent system is broken.

~~~
shawnreilly
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
> "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
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.

------
Cort3z
The patent system is broken. There should be some restrictions where a company
cannot make money from suing based on a patent without them actually producing
the product themselves. That way you know that the people owning the patent at
least are capable of making what they have a patent for. If that is not the
case then they should expedite the expiration of the patent where they would
loose it in a certain amount of years if they were not able to produce that
product in that time.

The patent is meant to be a legal monopoly for outstanding innovations for a
set amount of time, not as a revenue models for lawyers.

~~~
nimble
> outstanding innovations

Which proposal from your first paragraph is going to ensure outstanding-ness
of inventions? I recall company lawyers making the rounds asking us to write
down any possible inventions among the things we'd already built. I don't
remember the lawyers ever asking whether those possible inventions were
outstanding.

------
yetanotherphd
I think we should simply abolish software patents.

Software engineering simply isn't a deep field, and most interesting ideas are
not really inventions in the same way that a new hardware device might be.
Sure there are some interesting and cool patents like SURF and SIFT, but they
are a tiny minority.

------
phalina
Just out of curiosity, are start ups in other countries like Canada and Europe
subject to patent trolling as well or do patent trolls avoid suing outside of
America?

------
mlinksva
Startups should be [http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/content/frequently-
ask...](http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/content/frequently-asked-
questions#how-can-I-start) upon formation.

Won't help immediately, probably won't help much anytime soon. But the network
effect has to start somewhere, and at least joining now commits startup to
doing right thing.

~~~
lxmorj
They might want to get commit@defensivepatentlicense.com rather than
@gmail.com...

------
bsg75
Perhaps an oversimplification, but what would be the ramifications if patent
law was altered to cover the inventor (or inventing body) _only_. "Prior art"
becomes unpatentable, and the only legal argument occurs when there is a
dispute about shared IP.

Would this effectively eliminate patents-as-a-business model, and still
protect inventors who create _new_ ides, be they physical or digital?

------
SheepSlapper
The irony of paying a well known patent troll to get rid of other patent
trolls can't be lost on the people at Ditto, right?

...Right?

~~~
PythonicAlpha
I think, that was the only chance, they saw.

But that's what a patent-troll is for: Being paid. They are like highwaymen,
they want to be paid, for what, is not important. If the money is OK, they
will even go on their own kind.

------
chaostheory
Reminds me of old school mafias and their protection rackets. I'm surprised
patent trolls didn't start doing this sooner.

------
altrego99
Hate sites which start playing audio without prompting.

------
cheesylard
Anyone have a mirror for the video?

------
wissler
Fallout from the recently enacted and ironically titled "America Invents Act":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_inve...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent)

~~~
Pxtl
The global move to "first to file" seems basically an admission that the
patent system is completely ideologically bankrupt and is nothing more than
regulatory capture for cutting-edge industries and a jobs program for lawyers.

The paper matters more than the invention. What a world.

~~~
wissler
Of course it is completely ideologically bankrupt, but so is virtually
everything else about our political and cultural institutions. Not a whole lot
has changed on this front since Galileo was thrown into prison, at least not
in terms of ideological fundamentals.

