Patent trolling is the way to go!

[bogus]

In the lights of the latest patent case NVIDIA vs Samsung & Qualcomm, we get some curious information: apparently since 2010 patent trolling has been more profitable then actual running businesses that are delivering products/services to the market - I belive it's reaching ridiculous proportions where non-practicing entities are more successfull in court then practicing entities.

But what worries me is: are we reaching a stage where patent trolling is going to leak into actual business models of practicing entities due to the high success rate of it? Is this something that will start to show in financial projections of tech companys?

One thing is sure - the numbers add up to it. Apple is known for it, and NVIDIA filed the lawsuit with some "weird" patents probably to increase their success rate and they sure aimed at some big whales.

 

 

The chart shows how the median damage awards for trolls was $8.5 million, which is just one of many sobering statistics published by the law firm Goodwin Procter as part of a manual that provides tips for fighting patent trolls.
​

Michael Strapp, a partner at Goodwin and one of the guide’s authors, explained by phone that the disproportionate damage awards for trolls is the result of several factors.

These include the economic model of patent trolling, which in many cases entails the troll building up a legal war chest by squeezing settlements from dozens of smaller companies, and then suing a big fish. Such big fish, like Google or Apple, are more capable than small firms of absorbing a loss — which, in turn, can lead to higher than usual damage awards.

Source: https://gigaom.com/2014/10/08/patent-trolling-pays-since-2010-trolls-have-made-3-times-as-much-money-in-court-as-real-companies/

[LemonSpice]

well fuck you america i quit

[Xaring]

what do you mean with "pattent trolling"? Im not native so I cant quite understand the information you are showing

[cesrai]

Yeah I think that smeone should do something about patent trolls, and explain patent trolling.

[HippY]

Are we talking about suing other companies regarding intellectual property only to get bigger revenue?

[Unknown_Guy]

First patent trolling example that comes in mind is Apple - your phone looks just like iPhone so you should be sued

[Titanicium]

what do you mean with "pattent trolling"? Im not native so I cant quite understand the information you are showing

 

Patent trolling basically just refers to companies deliberately suing everyone time and time again for stupid reasons just to get money from it (alternatively that they are just too stupid to actually sue someone for something valid )

[bogus]

Are we talking about suing other companies regarding intellectual property only to get bigger revenue?

I can only hope it will not reach that stage, yet everything points out that it's actually very profitable - so much that in patent trolling cases you have non practicing entities (pretty much lawyers + investors) profiting more then practicing entities (actual running companys with a structure, business model, employees, products/services... you know just to get the picture).

If this is enough proof of concept, why not bring it into your business model? Get some lawyers, scout the market for possible fat targets, deploy your IP in court, profit.

[Misanthrope]

what do you mean with "pattent trolling"? Im not native so I cant quite understand the information you are showing

 

To be more specific, check the graphs on the OP: "Practicing" Patent holders means they actually use the patent they're suing about, almost always because they created it or purchased it to use it for their products. Patent trolls however, would be the "non-practicing" on that list, meaning that a company purchases another company or specific patent with the sole intention of just suing someone but never plan to actually use it on any of their products. They often don't even have products and are just lawfirms in disguise of actual companies but don't sell any goods or services.

[Trik'Stari]

This is what happens when lawyers and businessmen run things. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

Burn them all at the stake.

[SpaceCore]

but aren't companies/firms that patent troll making more of a profit because they don't have to throw money at their product? as appose to the ones that use the tech on their products. they put a lot of work and money into it.

[Jormy]

but aren't companies/firms that patent troll making more of a profit because they don't have to throw money at their product? as appose to the ones that use the tech on their products. they put a lot of work and money into it.

 

I agree its more like "hmmm we can actually do something and put an effort forwards to make a decent product or sue them and do nothing else....SUE!!!!!"

[Xaring]

I agree its more like "hmmm we can actually do something and put an effort forwards to make a decent product or sue them and do nothing else....SUE!!!!!"

 

 

To be more specific, check the graphs on the OP: "Practicing" Patent holders means they actually use the patent they're suing about, almost always because they created it or purchased it to use it for their products. Patent trolls however, would be the "non-practicing" on that list, meaning that a company purchases another company or specific patent with the sole intention of just suing someone but never plan to actually use it on any of their products. They often don't even have products and are just lawfirms in disguise of actual companies but don't sell any goods or services.

 

Thanks guy.

[Briggsy]

the only word that comes to mind when a non-practicing patent holder sues another company is Extortion. realistically, you can't just throw fines at or legally punish non-practicing patent holders because then no one would file a patent unless they had the means to produce something in relation to said patent. But, without any repercussions the patent trolls are filing patents left and right for technology that doesn't exist, or buying up existing patents in the hopes that someone invents/uses it and must pay fees to the extortioners/trolls. It's only going to get worse before it gets better.

[Guest Kloaked]

To be more specific, check the graphs on the OP: "Practicing" Patent holders means they actually use the patent they're suing about, almost always because they created it or purchased it to use it for their products. Patent trolls however, would be the "non-practicing" on that list, meaning that a company purchases another company or specific patent with the sole intention of just suing someone but never plan to actually use it on any of their products. They often don't even have products and are just lawfirms in disguise of actual companies but don't sell any goods or services.

So basically that means OP is a knucklehead for mentioning the Nvidia lawsuit since Nvidia actually uses and licenses out their patents.

[NateGSR117]

Sometime I wish I was a judge who over see all these tech problems. But sadly I'm not, plus law is sooooo boring

[Redliub]

Calling Apple a patent troll is like calling states with capital punishment murderers. Yes, they litigate patents. Yes, the state of Texas kills people. But Apple actually sells products outside of their litigation, while patent trolls don't. Just like Texas kills people, but they actually have legitimate reason (hopefully) to do so before they do it.

[Umair]

It's all good and everything to bash the patents system, but in all honesty I have yet to see a viable alternative to what we have in place.  And considering the relative low cost of patent trolling over having an actual firm, I can see the logic behind patent trolling being far more profitable.

[DaRk0]

So, even though Nvidia is not mentioned in the source article, OP somehow managed to put them in the same league as patent trolls. Cool story.

First of all - Nvidia tried to avoid lawsuit and dealing with courts.

Since we are mentioning, to quote the op, 'some weird patents', we should specify which patents Nvidia is suing for: programmable shading, multithreaded parallel processing, unified shaders. They spent over 9 billion on this technology (according to Nvidia) through R&D over the past 20 years.

As far as I know, Intel is paying 1.5 billion to Nvidia to licence its visual computing patents in a 6 year period starting from 2011.

Nvidia hold 7000 patents, if they are trolls, I have no doubt we would see much more lawsuits.

[bogus]

So, even though Nvidia is not mentioned in the source article, OP somehow managed to put them in the same league as patent trolls. Cool story.

First of all - Nvidia tried to avoid lawsuit and dealing with courts.

Since we are mentioning, to quote the op, 'some weird patents', we should specify which patents Nvidia is suing for: programmable shading, multithreaded parallel processing, unified shaders. They spent over 9 billion on this technology (according to Nvidia) through R&D over the past 20 years.

As far as I know, Intel is paying 1.5 billion to Nvidia to licence its visual computing patents in a 6 year period starting from 2011.

Nvidia hold 7000 patents, if they are trolls, I have no doubt we would see much more lawsuits.

I mention NVIDIA has an example, a fresh one. I also mention Apple... somehow you forgot to point that out. I wonder why...

I think it's common knowlege the current patents that NVIDIA selected to the lawsuit, and it there is a topic on this board so I felt there was no need to bring that again - yet, the "weird patents" (that you somehow forgot to mention) is the following:

 

 Those patents include our foundational invention, the GPU, which puts onto a single chip all the functions necessary to process graphics and light up screens; our invention of programmable shading, which allows non-experts to program sophisticated graphics; - Source: http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/04/nvidia-launches-patent-suits/#sthash.hfOSyahG.dpuf 

So this is the description that NVIDIA posted on two of the patents that I call weird. If this isn't trolling, then I don't know why people point the finger at Apple for the round corners and the swipe move.

As far as it's publicly known NVIDIA didn't try to solve this - they approached Samsung for a licensing deal wich Samsung refused because their GPUs isn't even their own IP, it's already licensed. Why didn't NVIDIA went after ARM or Imagination Tech., who licensed the GPUs to Samsung? Because the fat cow is Samsung, that's where the money is. If this isn't trolling, then I don't know what it is.

Anyway I guess you didn't even read what I posted, where I point out that if non-practicing firms are trolling successfully then this behavior MAY LEAK TO PRACTICING COMPANYS INTO THEIR BUSINESS MODELS. Guess what NVIDIA did, a smaller company targeted a fat and big whale like Samsung (if you read the article they mention that smaller companys are targeting of big companys, giving the example of Google and Apple).

So yeah, I think I have enough material to make my personal judgement on NVIDIA behavior that, just like Apple, brought patent trolling to their business models - not only to try to get financial compensation, but also to stall products from reaching the market, to generate fear among manufacturers, to pressure licensing deals, and so on.

At least according to the article, the symptoms of trolling check out!

Cool story indeed.

 

 

So basically that means OP is a knucklehead for mentioning the Nvidia lawsuit since Nvidia actually uses and licenses out their patents.

 

 

I mention NVIDIA as a practing company that sees the benefits of patent trolling and it's bringing it into their business model. Just like Apple did.

[TroubleKlef]

From the lawsuits I know pertaining to Apple, they are in fact NOT patent trolls.

 

Yes Apple patent claims may seem ridiculous (your phone looks like ours) but they still make the actual phones. Patent trolls are companies that buy and acquire massive amounts of patents and then continue to go after companies that the patents even remotely pertain to. 

 

I like patents, it rewards companies to innovate but I do not like patent trolls. I remember a few months back Obama addressed that patent trolling was an issue but I'm not sure what he has actually done to prevent it.

[mr moose]

Apple and Nvidia are not patent trolls by definition,  whether anyone agrees with the ethics of what each company does is up to the individual.

However naming them in the OP only discredits the articles integrity and the OP's intentions with this thread.

[bogus]

Apple and Nvidia are not patent trolls by definition,  whether anyone agrees with the ethics of what each company does is up to the individual.

However naming them in the OP only discredits the articles integrity and the OP's intentions with this thread.

Hello mr moose, long time no see!

You need to pinpoint the exact definition of "patent troll" ... because from my understanding of the definition it's not only bound to non-practicing entities, it's bound to the intentions: either agressivly enforced licensing, marketing, spread fear, constrain markets, and the list goes on... still it seems that it's only me who calls Apple/NVIDIA "patent trolls" due to their behavior - a simple Google search clearly links only my post to consider Apple and NVIDIA to patent trolling.

But if it makes you feel better, NVIDIA uses a non-practicing entitie for IP and licensing management - a "patent troll pro" or the "biggest patent troll of them all" by YOUR precise definition standards, called Intellectual Ventures.

Get your facts straight before you talk about my intentions and the discredibility of the article intention... at least try to, because the context of what I said completly passed by you lol

What NVIDIA is doing to Samsung is clearly patent trolling - they tryed to enforce licensing to Samsung that is using licensed GPUs from Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination Tech, then NVIDIA went to the lawsuit to try to hold the sales from Samsung devices. Other companys that use the same licensing model as Samsung (HTC, LG, Sony, Motorola, etc) and the ones who license (ARM, Imagination Tech) weren't targets somehow... probably because they don't match Samsung revenues, another random (not) variable for patent trolling.

[DaRk0]

I mention NVIDIA has an example, a fresh one. I also mention Apple... somehow you forgot to point that out. I wonder why...

 

I didn't mention Apple because I was referring to your claim about Nvidia being a patent troll. That's about it.

 

I think it's common knowlege the current patents that NVIDIA selected to the lawsuit, and it there is a topic on this board so I felt there was no need to bring that again - yet, the "weird patents" (that you somehow forgot to mention) is the following:

So this is the description that NVIDIA posted on two of the patents that I call weird. If this isn't trolling, then I don't know why people point the finger at Apple for the round corners and the swipe move.

 

Probably because Apple didn't spent billions for the swipe move. On the other side Nvidia did spend billions for their R&D regarding visual and parallel computing technologies and it was the first one to introduce graphics computational unit (not to be confused with graphics cards or video accelerators, since those existed before) capable of 3D rendering, video acceleration, and integrated GUI acceleration, and they patented this technology. If those were 'weird patents' Intel wouldn't pay Nvidia to licence their visual and parallel computing technologies.

 

 

Anyway I guess you didn't even read what I posted, where I point out that if non-practicing firms are trolling successfully then this behavior MAY LEAK TO PRACTICING COMPANYS INTO THEIR BUSINESS MODELS. Guess what NVIDIA did, a smaller company targeted a fat and big whale like Samsung (if you read the article they mention that smaller companys are targeting of big companys, giving the example of Google and Apple).

 

 

A patent troll is, and I quote:

 

A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity (PAE), is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Related, less pejorative terms include patent holding company (PHC) and non-practicing entity (NPE). Generally not considered patent trolls are NPEs such as individual inventors, university research laboratories, development firms that offer their patented technologies to licensees in advance, and licensing agents that offer enforcement and negotiation services on behalf of patent owners.

 

 

Nvidia is a graphics technology company that has valid patents (7000 of them) and use them to develop their own products and offer licences to others. Far from 'patent troll' business model where small company (usually law firm) holds patents that don't even use and sue big players. I agree that Nvidia is a smaller company than Samsung, but Nvidia is far from small company and they do make billions every year.

 

I don't know why ARM and Imagination Tech are not sued, but I do know ARM will be assisting Samsung in this case. Saying that Nvidia sued Samsung just because 'that's where the money is' is pointless. I mean, have your opinion all you want, but don't try to pose it as a fact without some solid evidence.

 

Nvidia's patents are valid with billions of R&D money put into them, there's no doubt about it.

 

I'd say we should wait and see how this case will develop before making assumptions.

[vm'N]

People need to realize how strong a patent is for a company.

It is much more than simply suing.

I suspect that Nvidia went specifically after samsung, to start a cross-licensing agreements, because they are interested in using some of samsungs patents.