Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent trolls don't have valid patents. And if even if they are "valid", the patent system is so messed up, that they have to be invalid in reality.

Trolls' method is exactly racketeering because it's extorting money using threat tactics. "You don't want something worse happening to you? Better pay up XYZ amount!". It's not going get much more classic protection racket than that. Except they threaten not with beating you up, but with you spending millions on court cases. I'd say trolls getting jail time for this garbage should be a good medicine for them.

View on HN

>You can assume in the vast majority of cases patent trolls don't have valid patents.

Right, but law actually presumes they are valid. Which is why its tough to go after a troll for asserting a valid patent.

Without knowing the content of the patents(merely that they are valid) - would you be able to differentiate between a patent troll and someone with a great patent that wants their hard work licensed instead of taken for free?

Who is taking anything for free? Do you think people go read through the patent database to get product ideas? If I create a product and bring it to market without any knowledge of your patent, why should I pay you just because you invented it earlier and then sat on it?

I don't think any judge is going to care much if you say you didn't read their patent before infringing on their patent.

They will, intentional infringement is worse than accidental infringement, but both are illegal. (not a lawyer...)

Sure, but I meant that it won't materially affect the finding of whether infringement occurred, willful or accidental.

That wasn't the question. It was whether hard work is being taken for free.

I know what the question was since I literally asked it

It's not _just_ because you invented it earlier, you also have to disclose it in a way that makes it workable. The disclosure is supposed to drive innovation and use of innovations; that's the patent deal, the monopoly is "paid" for with disclosure.

Aside, in the UK there's compulsory licensing (UKPA Section 48x to prevent people from inventing stuff and refusing to license it (at reasonable terms), too.

> “The disclosure is supposed to drive innovation”

And that is the grand joke of the patent system.

I would be surprised if this happened even once in the history of the patent system, and I feel confident stating it has never happened in the past 50 years. Patents do not drive innovation, they restrict it and erect barriers to entry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com