We’re all trolls now: Patent ‘rat’s nest’ is worse than you think

You mean patent lawyers who are employees of IV, or patent lawyers who represent IV? Actually, I dunno why I bothered to ask... I have no idea either way.

Probably you will not get a proper answer, yet you've put this question ringing in my head in a very elegant way.

To some extent, every patent lawyer specializes in technology. As for participating here... well, I'm a lawyer by vocation but a nerd by avocation. I like the discussions here, even though I'm at best an amateur coder.

Uh, you downvote but don't answer? I'm actually curious as I imagine a lot of people are here?

Edit: I apologize for putting the 'except patent lawyers' offices' but HN won't allow me to edit that comment... Sorry. I really would like an answer.

I tend to agree with the "logical business decision", but what this means (I'm just speculating really), is that when a business reaches profitability, or taps a growth market, then the potential profit vs legal costs will turn on. Which means that IV and Big Name companies can strong arm the up-start company to either join their patent trolling or turn over some percentage. For what amounts to flimsy and obvious software ideas/patents.

> One thing to remember about the little guy is, he doesn't have any money, so he's not worth going after.

But part of the point of being a little guy is that you have a chance to not always be a little guy, but with the patent cartel/racket around it becomes much harder to grow beyond being a little guy.

You know as well as I do that you can't. It is an absolutely absurd statement. This is just typical of a lot of the completely misinformed nonsense that passes for comment on patents.

I'm not trained in these matters, but it seems to me, that attempts to patent general notions like "video over the Internet" were primarily there to cast as wide a net as possible and put there by people who had no real invention but who did have a vague idea that this would be an area of economic interest in the future. A lot of those don't even seem to have any specific mechanisms to bring benefits like better compression, though they might have claims to that effect.

The fact that the general practice is to make claims as broad (and therefore vague) as possible doesn't leave me with good feelings about the system. Neither does the weird legalese that the patents consist of.

Does it claim the entire problem (by handwaving around aspects which will necessarily appear in any possible solution) rather than a specific solution which might be invented around? Is it the solution any practitioner will immediately produce upon first facing the problem (i.e., what "obvious" means everywhere outside patent law), so devoid of creative steps that writing it down was considered a waste of time? Was it "disclosed" in the patent repository (that mountain of obfuscated drivel we're well advised never to look at, on penalty of bigger lawsuits) and nowhere else?

Ask: How is the patent being used?

If the patent holder is not manufacturing a product but is threatening to sue others based on the patent, it's trolling.

IV manufactures nothing. However, through shell corporations, they threaten to sue others. This motivates their targets to participate in the IV pools and IV takes a cut.

This idea of threatening enforcement where the patent holder has no intent to ever manufacture is not something new. But no one ever liked it when it happened. That's because it serves no apparent purpose in bringing products to the market.

What makes IV unique is that Myrvold used his own money to start IV and start acquiring patents from patent holders in bulk. This was no small investment. His idea is to make trolling a business. Instead of trying to fix a problem, he has opted to exacerbate it for his own profit. He is engaging in exactly the type of conduct companies like the one he worked for had to be in constant fear of: the small inventor who will never be successful in the marketplace but who has received some patents that she can, at her discretion, enforce against some large companies that are successful in the marketplace.

For an interesting approach to how patents might be used, consult the history of Hans Bessemer. He produced some of the most valuable intellectual property in America's history. He made Carnegie the world's wealthiest individual.

Also, note that Paul Allen, one of the wealthiest men on the planet, tried some pure patent trolling a number of years ago. Why? He failed miserably. But what drives someone to try this?

Would you mind expanding on how a prior art search works? It might be of great interest to folks here.

Why not? Prior art is prior art; if it's in Google, it's prior art. Why do they make it so difficult (I know the answer but I hope i'm wrong)?