So one of the problems you have to solve if you create a NATO-like network of companies, is that one of your members might decide they want to go up against Apple. Now your organization has to decide what counts as a "troll" case and what counts as "you should've known". And since some industries are at a higher risk of trolling than others, those more expensive members will inevitably drive out the safer members who foot the bills but don't benefit very much.
So in the end you have problems somewhere in between an insurance company and...NATO :p
what counts as a "troll" case
Most companies avoid patent litigation in all but the most severe instances, because so many people hold patents for the most obvious of things that they might well get counter-sued by the company they're suing. Mutually Assured Destruction in patent form.
NPEs don't have this concern, so they can send out all sorts of dubious claims without fear of countersuit.
An alliance against NPEs (with a rule preventing NPEs from joining) might well be worthwhile.
If a NATO nation gets 'attacked' by somewhat provoking a war, NATO must ultimately make some sort of decision about whether or not to jointly act (and foot the bill).
He certainly has a way with words, this made me laugh.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_...
(1) Is the patent directed at an abstract idea or law of nature? If not, it is subject-matter eligible.
(2) If the patent is directed at an abstract idea, does the patent add any "inventive concept" so that the patent isn't just an attempt to monopolize the abstract idea itself? For purposes of this second step, simply performing the abstract idea on a computer is insufficient. If the patent adds something extra, it's subject-matter eligible.
"Abstract idea" almost certainly means something narrower to the courts than it does to many programmers. The Supreme Court declined the opportunity in Alice to rule that all algorithms are abstract ideas that are patent ineligible.
Say I come up with a circuit that controls engine timing to minimize emissions. If I use an electronic circuit, that's definitely patentable. Under broad definitions of "abstract idea," if I replace the circuit with a general purpose processor, then suddenly that's not patentable. The Supreme Court has tried very hard to avoid that result. Something isn't patent eligible just because you run it on a computer, but something also isn't patent-ineligible just because it runs on a computer.
Federal Circuit: Software and Data Structures Are Not Inherently Abstract
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/05/structures-inherently-ab...
If you have any questions or comments let us know and we will put them his way!
I don't think rewarding patent owners is a goal, except that we already decided the way to reward inventors was patents and selling them (perhaps to those that can realize the value better, build a product and market it etc).
My question is where are the inventors that want a patent system of any sort?
I was under the impression that patents are a tool for lawyers and wealthy corporations to collect fees and maintain monopolies respectively.
What inventor wants to patent their idea and why do they want to do such an awful thing?
It still amazes me that extortion via lawsuit is legal.
I guess my point is never underestimate "incentive-caused bias"
Many times these groups takes immortal stances because of their detachment from reality. For example there is a huge correlation in people who don't care about the suffering global warming causes and religion. Its not really hard to understand either, many modern day american think Jesus will come in their lifetime, so why bother caring about 100 years from now.
It even works for things directly against rules in the book. Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not kill" is most of those religious books.
I am not saying all religious people are bad, just that religion does not filter out bad people or bad behavior effectively.
On a related note, I also find it incredible how people can make a living out of these kind of businesses and sleep well at night...
Why would that be amazing? Another set of rules to be co-opted and exploited against their fellows must be like catnip for this type of personality. Its the first place I'd go looking for them.
Remember that the Jesus that they claim today was so unpopular for showing up at their churches and throwing down with exactly that type of personality in his day that they had him killed.
Why would going to church be evidence that they are good people?
Look at how people act, not what they say. When you look at crime rates, divorce statistics, and so on, atheists seem to behave more morally than evangelical Christians.
I guess my point is never underestimate "incentive-caused bias"
Take that a step farther. When you already believe yourself to be a worthless sinner who has a blank check of forgiveness from Jesus, what incentive do you have to not act like a worthless sinner?
I don't see why this would be amazing. Many terrible people go to church. Some even use it as a form of moral self licensing to rationalize doing evil.
(I hold this opinion weakly, so please argue me out of it if it's dumb.)
There is a literature on this:
Out-of-court settlement is awesome.
The real problem is that laws are complicated and variably enforced, making it extremely unclear who is right. Thus high legal fees.
The legal system is worse than the shittiest legacy code base you have ever seen, composed almost entirely of buggy exceptions, written with no thought toward future maintainers, beyond the comprehension of any mortal man, and gluing centuries old defunctness to poorly conceived addendum patching over the peeling layers. No one has interested in remove features, just adding more to the mountain of rubble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee...
> "Nearly every Western democracy other than the United States follows the English rule."
Does anyone know why the US decided on this system? It seems obviously unfair.
As for fairness: loser pays disincentivizes bringing lawsuits, whether meritless or meritorious. Under loser pays, certain frivolous lawsuits would not be brought, but meritorious cases that are often uphill battles would not be brought either. If you're in the business of going after polluters (like the Sierra Club), or challenging national security policies (like the EFF), the law is not on your side, even if your cause is just.
As a practical matter, you can't just take the English rule and import it into the U.S. Europe is an "ask for permission first" place, while the U.S. is "ask for forgiveness later." That allows U.S. companies to move faster, but puts the legal system in the position of being a backstop for unsafe products, financial fraud, pollution, unfairness in hiring, etc. So for example, it would be unfair to make it untenable for individuals to bring lawsuits for wrongful termination without giving them the protections against arbitrary dismissal European workers enjoy.[1]
Much of the support for loser-pays in the U.S. is an attempt by businesses to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want plaintiffs lawyers' bringing privacy lawsuits, but they're not exactly clamoring for that system to be replaced with European-style data protection laws administered by regulatory agencies.
[1] Which model is more efficient is debatable. I think in areas where causation is difficult to prove (environmental, product safety, employment discrimination), "ask for permission first" does a better job protecting the public at lower cost. But it also gives tremendous additional power to the government to micromanage the economy.
You can settle with one troll and still keep your business, but not a non-stop stream of them. At least when the mafia extorted you for "protection" they wouldn't let anyone else muscle in on their turf.
The FBI could say, "rat on so and so and we will decrease your sentence by X, otherwise we will push for full sentence" and happens all the time.
But, if FBI said, "give us the password to Bitcoin wallet or you get decades in jail under retarded computer law" and the agent transfers Bitcoin to his offshore account, that is illegal.
Edit: But yes, their anti-patent troll activities are something I appreciate.
Here's more background on the case: https://www.propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution...
And here are the two amici that Cheng co-authored:
http://www.asianamericanlegal.com/images/AALFAmicusBriefs/AA...
http://asianamericanforeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015...
I like --> "Execution is the most critical element to success."
time and time again in high stress environments I see that there are people able to continuously execute and implement and those who tend to freeze or request help.
I think thriving under pressure is critical as well.
A lot of smaller startups seem to fit this description. I wonder which large companies he has in mind though. He named Alcatel as one, I guess. Maybe AT&T as well? IBM? Oracle? I don't know. Oracle is making a ton of cash.
I can't see any realistic reform here. Its not even an issue in this or the past few elections. I suspect this is going to be the status quo for a very long time. The system as-is serves big companies and the government.
Big tech companies take advantage of the system. Microsoft has made billions of dollars out of licensing Android related patents, Apple applied for a paper bag patent recently and Google has "patent parties" when (as I have been told by Google friends) they encourage engineers to work with attorneys in filing patents on anything they worked on that could be patentable.
Fix the "asinine patent policies"