Hacker News Reader

Comment by gist | Hacker News Reader

I think like so many things the idea of 'patent trolls' has taken on a meaning whereby anyone who has a patent but no operating actual company (as you are describing LLC with 5 members and a lawyer) everyone automatically thinks 'sham'.

On the surface by stories related that certainly appears to be the case.

However we don't have any data (only anecdotes) on how many patents are pursued this way that are actually valid. And 'back in the old days' it used to be that you could have an actual patent and then get shafted by some large corporation simply because they could afford lawyers and you couldn't (meaning 'mr small inventor')

What I am saying in no way means I don't think there is probably abuse (there are enough anecdotes to think 'something is wrong here') but really we need the entire picture and dataset to decide that (in all fairness).

View on HN

It's not really a question of whether the patent troll has a legitimate patent or not—in the sense of having clear ownership over the IP, that is. They generally do. We consider someone a patent troll when they don't make use of the patent themselves, except to extract money from other people, typically through threats of legal action. They're exploiting the fear of being sued for a lot of money in order to get a comparatively small amount of money in exchange for agreeing to not sue. "Troll" here is in the pre-internet sense of the word, not someone making up a fake story on a message board, but more like a troll living under a bridge, demanding money from people in order to cross it.

Trolls often have clear title to a patent that covers something. Many of these patents should not have been granted, but they were. If you fight them to the end, you can often get the patent invalidated, but the trolls are smart enough to settle before that happens.

But they generally don't have a patent that covers anything real. Even ignoring the situations where the patent is indefensible through defects in process or due to prior art, the claims in these patents often don't actually read against the businesses being sued.

The problem is that it takes tens of thousands of dollars per patent to get an opinion from your own lawyers about whether the patents bear on your products or processes and you pretty much have to do that even if you never go to court.

> when they don't make use of the patent themselves, except to extract money from other people, typically through threats of legal action.

If someone has (what you have called) 'a legitimate patent' then they have the right (whether they use the patent or not) to then pursue legal action to either stop use of the patent or to settle for money damages.

What companies don't like is someone coming along with the ability to engage legal help that they wouldn't be able to do with out the attorneys that are handling this (to gain a payoff for themselves which well attorneys do for other things).

However while this seems different than similar things that happen (with actual companies with legal resources) it's really just the same thing just by different parties.

If let's say General Electric has a patent on something and you use that patent GE can come after you (and probably will). Same as with large companies defending their IP (trademarks).

I feel like you're discussing this from a legal perspective, when it's really more of a moral (not the right word but the general concept is fine) one.

"GE defending a patent they use in their products" and "an LLC with one patent as an asset and no real business outside of defending said patent" are two entirely different situations, even if legally they're the "same."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com