Hacker News Reader

“I don’t care if they bought these patents to sue you or not,” Pender told McKeon. “They are a property right.”

Surely he should care if people are purchasing patents purely for litigation. There are not many other items that you can legally purchase for the sole purpose of using the courts to stop someone from doing something that would otherwise be perfectly legal.

View on HN

But it's not perfectly legal if the patent is valid. The infringement would just be against the original company if said company hadn't been bought. Or are you suggesting that when a company is acquired all it's patents should become null and void?

Fair point, I wasn't really thinking that one through at all. Of course it is still infringement both before and after purchase and the previous owner may have been just as likely to litigate as the previous one.

And I wasn't suggesting that a companies patents should become null and void after purchase, however my logic was still horribly flawed here. I really should avoid the internets when tired.

Although I do think, as I have stated elsewhere, that a right to a monopoly should not be treated the same as any other property asset and should maybe have some limits in transferability and stuff like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com