Comment by r00fus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by r00fus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Rotatable sued us and immediately asked for $75,000 to go away. We refused. And we fought. It’s Rackspace policy to not pay off patent trolls, even if it costs us more to fight. Eventually Rotatable offered to just walk away – but we refused again. Just as we promised last year, we challenged the patent and the USPTO invalidated it.

This means that Rackspace will not pay one penny to this troll, nor will Apple, Netflix, Electronic Arts, Target, Whole Foods or any of the other companies sued by Rotatable for how they use screen rotation technology in their apps."

It surprises me why there aren't joint defense funding efforts in place to put these industry pests to bed... Clearly Apple, Google and Microsoft would have been next on Rotatable's target list if Rackspace had caved - and like weeding, rooting them out early will prevent infestations.

Is it because the big corps perhaps view the trolls as worth their pain - what function could they serve?

It's actually in larger companies best interests to pay patent trolls. Like internet fast lanes it creates barriers to entry that effect smaller competitors much more.

Bureaucracy and frivolous lawsuits end up being minor nuisances for large firms, but dangerous to smaller businesses.

> It surprises me why there aren't joint defense funding efforts in place to put these industry pests to bed...

Or at least Troll Defense Insurance

Heh - I can see this turning out just like the auto repair insurance rorting industry. I fully expect if Troll Defense Insurance becomes "a thing", the first question a patent lawyer will ask you before indicating a price will be "Insurance job? Or private?"...

> It surprises me why there aren't joint defense funding efforts in place to put these industry pests to bed... One barrier to collective action is that the courts only give you a limited number of attempts to kill a patent (usually one, but sometimes sort of two). So if you join up with a group, that group's attempt is attributable to you, and your one shot is used up. This effect, called an estoppel, is one reason you don't see more of this.

> It surprises me why there aren't joint defense funding efforts in place to put these industry pests to bed...

Wasn't that the original business model of Intellectual Ventures?

Note the date:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html

The writing was on the wall in 1993 but it took a couple decades for the courts to realize the mess they'd created and companies to realize that paying ransom doesn't lead to fewer bandits.

Nope, they would not attack Apple, Google or Microsoft, same way why you are scamming weak people. Big company would send people who don't have sense of humor once and "Rotatable" would be gone. You attack new or not that big organization which would be "scared". Like "Hey, they are suing us, we better pay before they ruin us, and we just got money". Anyway I see this kind of thing everywhere, most of people also rather to pay ticket or fine, even if they could argue, than go to court because it is more of a hassle.

going to go with the idea that joint defense funds don't exist because members would probably want their work protected. trying to find sufficient companies who are altruistic might be harder than making sense of the Patent Office

What? Apple, Google and Microsoft?

Two of those companies are recurrent patent trolls, and the third isn't in a clear-cut situation at all. Why would they create a found to fight trolls?

Two of them might be patent aggressors, but none of them have much history as patent trolls (nonpracticing entities).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com