

What the Courts Did to Curb Patent Trolling for Now - nkurz
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/what-the-courts-did-to-curb-patent-trollingfor-now/383138/?single_page=true

======
sytelus
The idea that trolls are scared by having to pay legal cost if they lose is
not correct. Trolls set themselves up as disposable shell companies. If they
lose case, they simply go bankrupt and get exit without actually paying
anything to anyone. We need to do much much more than what Supreme Court has
done to stop trolling.

~~~
themartorana
True - and perhaps not allowing bankruptcy dismissal would be a good start.
After all, there's precedent now - you can't dismiss student loans at
bankruptcy proceedings, maybe corporations shouldn't be allowed to dismiss
court-ordered payments at bankruptcy.

I understand the difficulty in implementation, mind you, but you're right
about how the shell companies are set up, and the disincentive needs to be
able to follow the humans, not the companies.

~~~
talmand
While true, if the law is changed to allow certain entities to go after the
personal holdings of an individual because of the actions of a corporation
then you'll have severely disrupted one of the main reasons to incorporate.
That could have far reaching consequences that we can't even begin to imagine
how bad it would be. If such a thing happened and I had corporations of
whatever, I would immediately seek to re-incorporate somewhere else if I had
the means. If I did not have the means, I would seriously consider taking what
I have and removing myself from the corporation at the first sign of any
possible legal troubles. That's whether I'm completely innocent of the
accusations or not.

~~~
marcosdumay
Corporations exist for shielding against the consequences of honest risk
taking, not immoral acts.

Yet, the legal system is almost completely random, and may bankrupt anybody
that is forced to participate in it. I understand where you are comming from,
but you are asking for the wrong reform.

~~~
talmand
I didn't ask for any reform in my post, are you referring to the post I
responded to?

I would say that corporations exist for shielding against any negative
consequences whether they are risks, immoral, and/or illegal acts. They
protect people in the corporation who may or may not have had anything to do
with said acts. The reason I would not change that is because what is
considered a risk today may be considered immoral tomorrow, what is considered
immoral tomorrow may be considered illegal after that. Since we live in a
society that is more than happy to discredit and attack based on patterns of
the past that may or may not be relevant today, then such protections are
warranted.

------
spacemanmatt
Of _course_ Microsoft could let the gate slam shut after they got their
rulings that facilitate their $1B/yr tax on Samsung and other Android vendors.

~~~
gretful
What? You don't expect them to act in a moral fashion, do you? Business is a
game, and most business people play it like a game: how far can I go and still
be within the rules?

When morality is divorced from business, this is what you get. I don't see it
changing anytime soon.

