Slashdot Mirror


US Patent Trolling Costs $29 Billion a Year

New submitter Bismillah writes "This piece of research from Boston University seems to put an end to claims that patent trolling is 'socially valuable,' and instead is a social loss. 'We estimate that firms accrued $29 billion of direct costs in 2011. Moreover, although large firms accrued over half of direct costs, most of the defendants were small or medium-sized firms, indicating that [non-practicing entities] are not just a problem for large firms.' The total cost to society could be around $80 billion, according to the researchers. What's more, the costs have gone up fourfold since 2005."

14 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'We estimate that firms accrued $29 billion of direct costs in 2011'

    not the law firms.

  2. How many small businesses don't start... by mellon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...because the potential entrepreneur expects that if they become successful, a patent troll will take all their money?

    1. Re:How many small businesses don't start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are many reasons why small businesses don't start; the vague threat of patent trolling is WAY down that list. In fact I'd go as far as to say anyone worried about this before even starting a business is an idiot, so those businesses were probably better of not starting anyway.

    2. Re:How many small businesses don't start... by apsyrtes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess I'm an idiot then... every time I think of turning an idea into a little bit of an extra revenue generator for myself my second thought is that somebody from the US will just sue me and it's not worth that.

    3. Re:How many small businesses don't start... by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It can get a lot more depressing than that.

      Try starting something cool, build a bit of a following, then have a lawyer contact you with the news that a larger company is interested in acquiring you. Sounds good, right? Maybe not.

      So you call up the lawyer and find out that the offer is insultingly small and comes with a catch. If you don't accept it, they are going to start suing you for all the bullshit patents you are violating. You are small, have nothing to fight back with, so what do you do?

    4. Re:How many small businesses don't start... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, there's no exact data on what the smallest of the smalls were, but if their "less than $100 million" had a median of $89 million, we're probably not talking a bunch of sub-$1 million companies.

      Quite so. Which is why I wrote "While your main point is no doubt correct".

      A patent troll isn't interested in really small new startups, since they don't have enough money on hand for a large award. If it costs more for your lawyers to sue someone than they can afford to pay, then you don't sue them.

      On the other hand, if you've got a great new idea, and think you can make a metric buttload of money with it, then, at some point you're going to be visited by a patent troll.

      And while $89 million may sound like a lot, Google just spent a significant fraction of that amount defending itself against Oracle. If you own a $90 million company, and a major patent troll comes after you (whether its actions are legally justified or just plain economic terrorism), then you're going to pretty much go broke defending yourself, even if you win.

      This is the primary danger of the patent troll - a startup will either remain insignificant, or it'll attract the attention of a patent troll. Either way, the big boys aren't going to be threatened by a new player

      Keep in mind, the only real way to prevent monopolies from forming is to encourage new players to enter the market. Having a bunch of lawyers playing gatekeeper for the big boys prevents that quite successfully.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:How many small businesses don't start... by lhunath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are a few problems in your line of thinking:

      1. You seem to think that "ideas" are somehow unique enough that only one person can ever think of them and all others can only acquire the same by "stealing".
      2. You seem to think that any great new ideas that have not yet been implemented are "new ideas".

      The amount of registered IP today probably covers nearly anything anyone could possible come up with, unique or not, just by the mere fact that ideas are inherently very generic and most registered IPs are very badly evaluated.

      Anyone talking about "intellectual PROPERTY" or "innovating" by registering new IP, makes me sick. Turning intellectual products into property is the death of intellectual innovation, and anyone that thinks otherwise has deluded themselves or hasn't thought it through.

      Innovation would happen when LOTS of people innovated using the SAME intellectual product. Then there would be competition. Customers could choose considering things like price and quality. This choice would drive implementers to innovate more than their competition. It would drive the whole economy.

      Turning intellectual products into property denies it from the competition and effectively breaks the whole foundation of capitalism.

      --
      ``OK, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?''
  3. No, really? by qbast · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's a truly groundbreaking discovery. I mean, who could possibly expect that patent trolling may be bad practice?

  4. Patent trolling and hedge funds by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Both are ways of seeking malicious intermediation in other people's activities, and seeking to glean entrepreneurial profit. (It is also called "rent-seeking"). Patent trolls seek to make money by the ownership of the right to do something in which they have no actual interest: hedge funds try to manipulate the price of commodities which they neither produce nor consume, also for profit.

    If patent litigation was limited to inventors and the users of the inventions, and commodities derivatives were limited to actual producers and consumers, I suspect we would see a sudden reduction in income inequality. But it isn't going to happen, because the accumulation of wealth with the entrepreneurs gives them too much control over law and its enforcement.

    (I am using entrepreneur in the literal sense of a middleman who seeks to profit without adding value; its meaning has been extended to "people who start productive businesses", which is part of the devaluation of linguistic currency that has helped getting us into this mess.)

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  5. That's a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The patent trolling industry is worth £29 billion a year??? We must protect this vital industry - just think of the loss to the economy if anything happened to it.

  6. Re:Now he gets to be the bully by netwarerip · · Score: 5, Funny

    Former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold, who now heads up the controversial Intellectual Ventures patent rights company, told the All Things Digital conference two weeks ago that "I was never a popular kid in class".

    "I'm not going to be popular in this class."

    Maybe if he spent $250 and bought a freakin vowel he'd have a better shot.

  7. Same ethic as high frequency traders... by AttyBobDobalina · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do I link this story to another headline? http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/06/27/028249/high-frequency-traders-are-the-ultimate-hackers-says-mark-cuban Essentially, it's the same ethic at work - making money by gaming the system. For high frequency traders, it is exploiting technological loopholes. For patent trolls, it is exploiting legal loopholes. Talk about a shadow economy - what happens to the U.S. economy if and when these nefarious practices are ended?

  8. Trolling by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who here is surprised by this?...

    I know I'm in the minority here in that I have no problems with patents (copyrights, on the other hand, are out of control...). I do, however, have a significant problem with patents being wielded by non-practicing entities. Patents being claimed and enforced by Microsoft or Apple or Google or Motorola or Samsung or whatever other company who actually does something is fine. I know many people here are outraged when a company actually enforces their patent and calls the company in question a patent troll but the truth is they are simply enforcing their rights as a patent holder, as is their right. That's the point of patent protection and I'm fine with that.

    Non-practicing entities, however, aren't protecting their intellectual property. They aren't protecting their innovative edge over their competitors. They are leaches. That's it. That's all.

    While I don't pretend to think that fixing the problem would be simple, it would be nice to require patent holders to actually be actively using the patent to be permitted to enforce it. Yes, I realize that becomes complex for patents that are granted before the innovated product comes to market but I think that's not an insurmountable detail to overcome. The point remains the same - companies that aren't practicing entities should have no authority or ability to enforce patents. That would solve so many problems across so many industries.

    1. Re:Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm in agreement with you. But I'm posting as AC, for a variety of reasons. Namely, I am a patent attorney. I specialize in software patents and handle both prosecution and litigation. I also used to be a software developer, so I'm sensitive to the problems that software patents can cause.

      So, with that being said I might be a little biased, but the reality is that I think most people would have way less problems with software patents if there were no more NPEs. The vast majority of patent litigation in the electronics/software industry is done by NPEs. While it does happen, you don't generally see the big firms suing the little guys. They typically sue each other, see,e.g.,Google, MSFT, Apple, and Samsung. If they want to see each other, who cares.

      I think for there to be a workable NPE rule, you would have to limit the assignment of patents. It would be too unworkable to determine whether the company "practices" the patents. It would leave too much to interpretation. Moreover, it would be used to limit the scope of the patent to the items being practiced, which is not the idea of a patent. My rule would work like this:

      1. Can only reassign in cases where your company or line of business is being sold
      2. For a company to assert a patent they must show revenues from sales (other than licensing revenues)
      3. You are on the hook for Attorney fees if Def wins on non-infringement (invalidity is more tricky, since its somewhat of a crapshoot anyway)
      3. There would be an exception would for the original inventor/assignee, who need not show anything (they could essenttially by an NPE, if they wanted). They would still be on the hook for Attorney fees.

      These are simple black letter rules, that would probably stop the vast majority of NPE suits.