Hacker News Reader

Counterargument: I get a patent for a special-purpose shell company MegaCorpA, license the technology to MegaCorpB for $1, concentrate all the profits in MegaCorpB and thus MegaCorpA will get a perpetual patent.

Tying patents to revenues of licensees does not work too, because any patent licensed to Samsung will instantly become void.

View on HN

>> Tying patents to revenues of licensees does not work too, because any patent licensed to Samsung will instantly become void.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Other big companies will prefer to have Samsung as a partner instead as an enemy, and small companies will have very difficult to compete with samsung at scale. And if they do it is because they have done so many other things right, which it is great for consumers

Yeah, but why LG would rush into paying for the license if the patent will become free as soon as Samsung will pay to license it first?

Point is, the original idea of tying patents to revenues needs more thinking.

Because Samsung will use LG ideas too. As a company, I think, it is better to partner with others, so it is a win-win.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com