> I'm surprised there isn't an EFF-like non-profit that provides pro-bono patent defense to start-ups, against patent trolls. I would donate to that organization.
I'm sympathetic to the plight of startups having to deal with the trolliest of trolls, but give me a break. There are so many worthier avenues for pro-bono legal work than helping out for-profit companies.
I find the "please do not invest time or money in that Good Thing you care about because there are these other Good Things over there that are more important" sentiment to be toxic. There are lots of people, and lots of Good Things that need to be done. Letting people do the things that appeal to them just may be the best approach.
There's a difference between saying "invest in this worthy public cause instead of this other worthy public cause" and saying "I think it's stupid to donate for the benefit of for-profit enterprise." You're entitled to do it, of course, and I'm entitled to think it's a waste of money. A startup is a business. It exists to make money for its founders and investors. It shouldn't be seen as a charitable cause.
That ignores the viewpoint that the phenomenon of patent trolls imposes a cost on society itself, by slowing down innovation in general. Efforts such as this are a stop-gap until we can figure out the laws and policies which can eliminate them.
By that reasoning, you can justify subsidizing any for-profit business, on the grounds that nearly all of them generate some consumer surplus. If you're worried about innovation, cut out the middle man and donate to a university or non-profit R&D lab.
Don't get me wrong. I spent my engineering career at small and startup tech companies, and I think they're an amazing part of the ecosystem. But let's be real: they're for-profit businesses, funded by rich investors, and usually run and staffed by privileged, educated people. They can fend for themselves. There's so many people out there who cannot, who are far more worthy of our public support.
I think your argument ignores that such legal assistance would be for small companies or individuals whose enterprise would face an existential threat. Giving money to a university or existing R&D lab would not have the same effect, since the enterprises I'm talking about are new entities in the economy. Because of patent trolls, they may cease to exist. Innovation in principle (such as that that comes from universities) is very different from innovation in practice (such as that which comes from companies).
I agree that many people out there are "more deserving." But take, for example, these students and their professor. Their expertise is in patent law. I find it plausible that the most positive impact they can have on society involves applying their expertise.
To me, the for-profit versus non-profit distinction is far more relevant than the small entity versus large entity distinction. I have nothing against profit-seeking investors, but I don't think they deserve charity.
I have trouble understanding why that would be your line in the sand. For-profit versus nonprofit is a statutory distinction rooted in tax law. By using that to decide whom you will support, you are essentially saying that the Internal Revenue Service is your moral compass. There are non-profits that do nothing at all to better the world, and there are for-profit companies with a very strong sense of social responsibility.
I think motivation matters and I think intention matters. At the end of the day, the motivation of a for-profit enterprise is making money for owners and shareholders. When push comes to shove, making money will win out over a "strong sense of social responsibility." It's a somewhat philosophical position, but I always perceive "corporate social responsibility" to be fundamentally compromised. Working within that framework always leads to elephants in the room, and things that everyone thinks that nobody says, and people ignoring where the money really comes from.
For profit business needs to exist to make all the shiny toys we all enjoy, but public service needs to be at least a little insulated from business, lest it turn into farce and lip service.
There are dozens of pro bono clinics in the Bay Area and around the state that provide advice and legal assistance to low-income Californians. Volunteers (law students and lawyers) are critical to their mission. Check out www.californiaprobono.org. BTW, I agree with your sentiment. The very translation of the term "pro bono publico" from its Latin precludes work for for-profit enterprises, IMO.
I'm sympathetic to the plight of startups having to deal with the trolliest of trolls, but give me a break. There are so many worthier avenues for pro-bono legal work than helping out for-profit companies.