Patent trolls now account for 67 percent of all new patent lawsuits

[Builder]

via Hacker News

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/15/patent-trolls-now-account-for-67-percent-of-all-new-patent-lawsuits/

 

"Despite the sudden collapse of patent legislation in Congress earlier this year, most policymakers agree that patent trolls are a huge drag on the U.S. economy. By filing one frivolous lawsuit after another, trolls extract enormous payments from companies simply by claiming infringement — they don't have to do very much to back up their assertions, nor do they have to be using the patents to sue.

 

A new study from PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that the problem is getting worse: While monetary awards from patent lawsuits are decreasing overall, patent trolls — also known as non-practicing entities because they simply stockpile patents without making anything with them — are making way more off of litigation than their practicing counterparts. Even as the median award has shrunk over time, awards to trolls are only growing.

 

In fact, PwC finds, patent trolls' median awards are now three times higher than those of other companies. Non-practicing entities (NPEs) also account for an increasing share of all patent lawsuits filed, at 67 percent. That's up from 28 percent just five years ago."

[Unhelpful]

This is the least surprising thing I have ever read. I expected it to be higher.

[LukaP]

and that is why patents need to go away in the form they are now.

[Builder]

and that is why patents need to go away in the form they are now.

No, this is why patent TROLLS need to go away. Anyone that tells you patents need to go away is trying to undercut someone else with a patent.

[Tech_Dreamer]

#apple #samsung #sony

[Builder]

#apple #samsung #sony

Apple has been losing a lot of its patent cases lately.

[StingBull]

No, this is why patent TROLLS need to go away. Anyone that tells you patents need to go away is trying to undercut someone else with a patent.

Patent trolls won't magically go away as long as the this patent system exists.

[Builder]

Patent trolls won't magically go away as long as the this patent system exists.

That's not true though. Careful enforcement will solve many of these cases.

 

Nobody was saying there were issues with the patent system until Apple started suing their beloved Samsung.

[StingBull]

That's not true though. Careful enforcement will solve many of these cases.

 

Nobody was saying there were issues with the patent system until Apple started suing their beloved Samsung.

 

Not really. Dumb patent wars go back a lot. Apple vs Samsung just made it more public knowledge.

[Builder]

Not really. Dumb patent wars go back a lot. Apple vs Samsung just made it more public knowledge.

Indeed they do, however there would be rampant copying without patents. They don't even pay attention to patents in China and the market is rife with direct knockoffs. Patents incentivize innovation, and especially for inventors that are not massive companies, they do protect ideas.

[StingBull]

Indeed they do, however there would be rampant copying without patents. They don't even pay attention to patents in China and the market is rife with direct knockoffs. Patents incentivize innovation, and especially for inventors that are not massive companies, they do protect ideas.

 

Yet China is one of the most thriving economies of the world and is most likely the next boss of Earth. Patents cover corporations asses more than they help small inventors. Big companies can still bury small inventors with lawsuits even if they have patents.

[Builder]

Yet China is one of the most thriving economies of the world and is most likely the next boss of Earth. Patents cover corporations asses more than they help small inventors. Big companies can still bury small inventors with lawsuits even if they have patents.

"Most likely the next boss of earth." Why exactly?

 

I suggest you read these articles, they changed my opinion on patents. Two of the three are from Wired, and Wired is certainly not one to protect specific functions of government ordinarily. A lot of their articles have a pretty significant libertarian bend, but not these ones.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/02/09/no-the-patent-system-is-not-broken/

 

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/with-all-due-respect-the-patent-system-is-not-broken/

 

http://insights.wired.com/profiles/blogs/it-is-the-attack-on-the-u-s-patent-system-that-is-broken-a

[StingBull]

-snip-

 

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/the-patent-system-works-fine-because-hey-look-over-there/

[Builder]

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/the-patent-system-works-fine-because-hey-look-over-there/

That guy is a serious troll. Ad hominem attacks on the other author?

 

He has no proof, all of his evidence is not linked to his arguments, and some of the stuff he says just plain isn't true. He says the first-mover advantage you get from creating the product overtakes the advantage the copying entity. It's simply not the case, you can walk down the streets of China and find iPhones that are identical in every way to the real thing but they cost $50 unlocked. First-mover advantage doesn't apply when you are directly copied and your opponent is selling an identical product for less.

 

Companies also do sell patents, frequently. Google bought Motorola for their patents, and all three of Microsoft, Samsung, and Apple have massive licensing agreements.

 

He doesn't acknowledge why the previous patent skirmishes were a mistake, he doesn't even rebuke that they are hallmarks of a competitive industry, he just blatantly asserts they were mistakes without giving evidence.

 

If you look into other examples of Masnick's writing, he's a massive anti-IP troll. Hates copyright, patents, and even trademarks. One of those alone would show misguided intent, however given the tone of his article and the presence of all three of them suggests to me that he just likes to rile up the anti-IP crowd. What's really inappropriate here is the massive use of ad hominem attacks such as stupidity and ignorance to discredit the other author by supposing that he doesn't know what he's talking about and is actually dumb, whereas Masnick himself is not a patent lawyer and has shown with that article that he doesn't actually understand a lot of how intellectual property works.

[Guest Kloaked]

No, this is why patent TROLLS need to go away. Anyone that tells you patents need to go away is trying to undercut someone else with a patent.

If the system was changed, patent trolls wouldn't be able to troll for money.

[Builder]

If the system was changed, patent trolls wouldn't be able to troll for money.

Yes, but patents were created to stop the creation of trade secrets, which were hindering human progress. Any system you create under which you attempt to protect inventions while still publicizing their existence will allow for trolling. The problem lies in how we define trolls legally and how we call their bluff in court.

[Guest Kloaked]

Yes, but patents were created to stop the creation of trade secrets, which were hindering human progress. Any system you create under which you attempt to protect inventions while still publicizing their existence will allow for trolling. The problem lies in how we define trolls legally and how we call their bluff in court.

Your last sentence basically reiterated what I said.

[Builder]

Your last sentence basically reiterated what I said.

You advocate changing the entire patent system to reduce trolling, I advocate slight changes to how we enforce patents in court. At least that's what I gleaned from your first comment.

[Misanthrope]

Patents are an inevitable consequences of a Capitalist society: We don't actually value the inventors themselves or invention, we only value money, so we need to translate it into money which in turns translates it into potential for abuse due to the unregulated nature.

 

We can do better, but under this paradigm we will never do that well with it.

[Guest Kloaked]

You advocate changing the entire patent system to reduce trolling, I advocate slight changes to how we enforce patents in court. At least that's what I gleaned from your first comment.

"Changing" doesn't entail scrapping the entire thing and starting over, not in the context of my reply anyways.

I'm basically agreeing with your stance.

To clarify: it seemed to me you had another idea as well, so I think we got lost in translation (or context, whichever is more grammatically correct).

[StingBull]

blah blah

 

I hate intellectual property. If that makes me troll then I am a motherfucking troll warrior, trolling down the street trollishly.

 

[Builder]

Patents are an inevitable consequences of a Capitalist society: We don't actually value the inventors themselves or invention, we only value money, so we need to translate it into money which in turns translates it into potential for abuse due to the unregulated nature.

 

We can do better, but under this paradigm we will never do that well with it.

Patents are extremely regulated, they are validated before being issued and if you attempt to litigate them in court, they will be rigorously reviewed again. Apple's patents were defeated upon this rigorous second inspection.

 

I don't really like capitalism, but the patent system wasn't created to make money. It was created to defeat the practice of using trade secrets. Trade secrets hindered progress even more, they made it impossible for anyone to even find out about inventions. The patent was created so when you had an invention it was advantageous to patent and publicize it as opposed to keeping it to yourself. You are guaranteed 20 years use of your idea exclusively, and then it's in the public domain. It was an enormous boon to human progress.

 

Patents foster innovation by encouraging the formation of new inventions. If you aren't allowed to rip off someone else's idea, then you will create a new one. It might even be better than the original, and now we have more progress. Trade secrets were the most destructive thing to human progress for several thousand years.

 

I hate intellectual property. If that makes me troll then I am a motherfucking troll warrior, trolling down the street trollishly.

 

So now you don't even attempt to make an argument.

 

If you hate intellectual property, there's not much I can say. I strongly suspect you're a media pirate, though I could be wrong.

[TAK]

.

[Yoinkerman]

? Tesla vs Edison was a very early patent battle. The patent system rewards abusive middle men, not inventors.

That being said, what we need right now is better enforcement and consequences for entering into frivolous lawsuits.

[Builder]

SCO vs. Linux was arguably the first big one, tho there have been others, SCO was just one of the redounculous ones. Almost on level with Apple's "rounded corners" level, but I doubt anything can ever top that stupidity.

Those were design patents, there is a huge difference between design patents and utility patents. I suggest you research it before you come into my thread trying to get a rise out of me again. SCO v IBM (Linux is not an entity) was not a patent case, it was a civil lawsuit over the intricacies in the GNU license with relations to contractual obligations SCO had with IBM.

 

? Tesla vs Edison was a very early patent battle. The patent system rewards abusive middle men, not inventors.

That being said, what we need right now is better enforcement and consequences for entering into frivolous lawsuits.

What court case are you citing? There is no patent case called Tesla v Edison.

 

Don't get into the Edison hate thing, you're not a historian just because you read a particularly incorrect installment of The Oatmeal.