Comments on: New York Times tangles with patent trolls

By: James

James — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:43:54 +0000

Six or so multi billion dollar company’s ban together and pool their money to fight one little guy who was forced to sue each company individually at his cost and you call him a troll because he has a legal right to his inventions?!

Maybe he should be suing THEM under the Civil Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Further, I find it very hard to believe that Helferich is claiming he owns the hyperlink. That sounds more like hyper headline reporting to me.

By: pkj

pkj — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:46:11 +0000

Taz – thats an interesting thought but all it would take is for the “troll” to offer a very cheap deal to the first company to sign up (they do this all the time by the way) and thus transform from troll to true IP company.

By: pkj

pkj — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:43:49 +0000

Well, it certainly would disenfranchise small inventors who have their ideas stolen by large companies. I can see it now – MS will contend that they always spend 10x more than anybody else attacking “spurious” legislation so the independant SW company must but up $10M. I’m sure you can get all of the big companies to sign up.

By: tazm0n

tazm0n — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:30:49 +0000

I think one thing that is always missing from this debate is noting the differences between patent troll companies and true IP companies. The fact that an IP company doesn’t actually “make anything” doesn’t automatically make it a patent troll.

Take X2Y from an earlier post (X2Y v. Intel), from what I’ve about them, they have several licensees that do make products based on their patents. Now they are after Intel because allegedly Intel has incorporated X2Y’s patented technology without paying for the license and suddenly X2Y is a patent troll?

I’m all for ridding the courts of frivolous suits. but we should be careful not to kill off innovation by these quick judgments on what defines a patent troll.

By: bobpuffer

bobpuffer — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:39:08 +0000

I believe a preliminary hearing should determine just cause for requiring a patent holder to post a bond equal to the calculated legal costs of the challenger. This would deter a lot of spurious litigation and allow us all to use “digital common sense” methods without fear of taxation.

By: bobpuffer

bobpuffer — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:37:06 +0000

I believe that a preliminary hearing should determine if the owner of a patent should be forced to post a bond equal to the anticipated legal expenses of the one challenging its authenticity. Perhaps that would clear up a lot of spurious litigation and free people up to use “digital common sense” methods without fear of being taxed.

By: gyanzone

gyanzone — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:16:33 +0000

I agree with Wei. Whatever is making the court trails costly have to be made cheap. This will encourage companies to afford the patent trails and this will a detrimental factor for the Trolls. The end result could either be that justice will be served, or Trolls cannot pull a fast (illegitimate) one on the companies.

By: Andrew Braae

Andrew Braae — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:23:42 +0000

“In the larger picture, the troll cases raise questions about the state of America’s innovation policies.”

I don’t think it raises any questions.

It simply confirms that there is no question but that current patent law is utterly, barking mad.

By: pkj

pkj — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:50:24 +0000

So – if you have a truly brilliant invention but suck at business and marketing I can steal it. Or, if I’m Microsoft and I can just put it in my OS and force you out of business, I can steal it.

Your solution doesn’t work Ronald. Besides – history if rife with important inventors who liked doing just that – inventing important new things. Inventions are different from products. If you invent new things that are important to society you should be encouraged – it moves us all forward.

By: pkj

pkj — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:47:19 +0000

There are no honorary fees. And how do you know the case isn’t genuine until after the Jury rules?