Hacker News Reader

Comment by samaparicio | Hacker News Reader

There are several ways of reaching a distributed consensus about that, like proof of stake.

It is also conceivable that it would be in the fund's interest to defend all lawsuits. That would provide the largest deterrent, since the lion's share of today's suits are without merit, and the cost of defense would be considered the operating cost of the fund.

What the trolls exploit is the assymetry between a defendant without resources and their own resources which are solely dedicated to this.

Without all the licensing fees that startups pay to settle the alleged infringement the business model for trolls would stop working.

View on HN

That would provide the largest deterrent, since the lion's share of today's suits are without merit

Doesn't this depend on what "without merit" means? It seems unlikely they are "without merit" in the legal sense, since then they would be thrown out at the first hearing.

If you mean they are from patent trolls aka non-practicing entities, then it seems wrong too. I see coverage of tens of cases by NPEs per year, but the entire patent law-suite field must be much bigger than that.

There are probably better sources than this PWC report[1], but it identifies 477 out of 2281 (ie, 21%) cases since 1996 in the districts where NPEs file cases involving NPEs. Their definition of NPE includes universities though, which I don't think is what people generally think of when they think of "patent trolls".

If "without merit" means that they almost always lose, then this doesn't seem right either. The success rate for patent cases varies, but seems around 25-35%. That's far from "lion's share without merit"

[1] https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/ass...

Ars Technica reported last year that in 2015 over two thirds of patent lawsuits were filed by trolls and that of all patent lawsuits, 44% were filed in the Eastern District of Texas (where few others than trolls would be filing suits). The report says that although the numbers are up, the trolls' business might be down.

Ars: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/despite-law-chan...

Original statistic: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...

This is strange.

The total number of cases seems to line up between the two reports (5700 in 2015, not including PTAB).

But only 2281 cases involving NPEs were decided between 1996 and 2015[1]. If 66% are filed by NPEs, then this should be much more. Unless the vast majority are dropped I guess?

[1] https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/ass..., page 16

I guess a lot of cases involve settling before getting to court maybe?

Yes. Cases issued will not correspond to cases decided, since many cases settle. And there is a long time-lag from starting a case to ending it with a judgment.

> It seems unlikely they are "without merit" in the legal sense, since then they would be thrown out at the first hearing.

In all patent troll cases I've seen, a patent exists, and the defendant is actually infringing the patent. So there is some merit to the lawsuit.

The problem is that the "inventions" in the patents:

* are not novel, or

* are not non-obvious, or

* have not been described in sufficient detail to replicate without further research, or

* a combination of all of the above for various claims in the patent.

so the patent should never have been issued in the first place. But invalidating the patent in court is a tedious and expensive process. You need many expert witnesses debating what is novel, what is non-obvious, and what is sufficiently detailed, it's not something a judge can decide in 10 minutes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com