Slashdot Mirror
Why Tech Vendors Fund Patent Trolls
Lucas123 writes "Major tech vendors are funding patent trolls, companies that derive the bulk of their income, if not all of it, from licensing huge libraries of patents they hold as well as by suing companies that use their patents without permission, according to an investigation by Computerworld. Tech companies — including Apple and Micron — have railed against patent 'nuisance' lawsuits, only to fund or otherwise support some of the patent trolls. Because of patent trolls, more politely called mass patent aggregators, patent litigation has in part increased by more than 230% over the past 20 years. 'Most of the major tech companies are backing a troll in some way, probably financially,' says Thomas Ewing, an attorney who has authored reports on what he calls 'patent privateering.'"
"patent litigation has in part increased by more than 230% over the past 20 years."
Math check... a 4.2% increase, per year, over 20 years yields 230%.
Is 4.2% per year so much? Given the changes in technology in the past 20 years, that seems quite modest to me.
Because of patent trolls, more politely called mass patent aggregators, patent litigation has in part increased by more than 230% over the past 20 years
The number of patent cases has increased almost exactly in lock step with the number of patents granted (see page 8). The growth rate for litigation since 1991 is 4.9%, whereas the rate for patents granted is 4.5%. There is not a lot of evidence that there are more patent cases because of non-practicing entities. For example, litigation rates have been relatively flat since about 2003, despite numerous patent aggregators only coming into existence in that timeframe (see page 8 again).
NPEs also tend to lose cases more often than practicing entities (see above, page 24 and 32). NPEs win about 23% of the time overall, and PEs win about 39%. When NPEs do win the awards are higher, but that's to be expected. The primary value of litigation for an NPE is to get money, either as a damage award or as a license agreement. The primary value of litigation for a practicing entity is to exclude a competitor. Damages are nice, but the real point is the injunction.
That loss rate is a good example of why more fee-shifting (i.e. loser pays the other side's attorney's fees) in patent cases would be beneficial in eliminating frivolous, "shakedown," and otherwise questionable patent suits brought by NPEs.
The problem is a lot more fundamental and deep-rooted than what you have described. The short time limits, lack of proper reviews are symptoms of the problem. The real problem is the people, the incentives and the fundamental lines on which our world operates. The majority of the world operates not based on the drive to create something, the passion for perfection but rather on making money and gaining fame. Also, we don't understand ideas very well. Where do ideas come from? Do they belong to the person who got them? What if multiple people had them at the same time, whether in close proximity of location or in different parts of the world. Who would they belong to then? To the person who gets the patent? Should they really belong to someone, or the person who happens to get the idea first should only get a small part of the attribution? Who is making the decision to fund patent trolls? The executives sitting in a boardroom. Who is supporting these decisions? Everyone who is a stakeholder - all top level execs as well as senior/middle mgmt as well as stock option holders. Again, incentives supplanting principles/values.
Life is about being a Phoenix!
No, the problem is non-practicing entities holding and enforcing patents. A practicing entity - a real company - has an incentive to not troll with its patents. Trolling with its patents would be painting a big target on its ass, as Apple and Yahoo are starting to find out. What does a non-practicing entity have to fear from trolling? No liability at all. It doesn't do anything!
While I agree that obvious patents suck, it's much harder to separate obvious from non-obvious. The USPTO doesn't inspire me to believe that it could ever fix the problem adequately. In comparison, it would be rather easy to say that non-practicing entities cannot bring patent claims.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The way patents work almost forces companies to pursuit the aggregation of huge numbers of senseless patents. How else can a company defend itself against companies doing exactly the same and suing the shit out of them? The patent trolls are not the ones to blame - the problem is the legal framework around patents that allows "trolls" to exist in the first place and build a profitable business on it.
My karma ran over your dogma
You can defend yourself from guns. From lawyers all you can do is kill them and hope you dont run out of bullets before they run out lawyers.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a zombie? Zombies only want your brains
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.