This article gives me an idea. Theoretically, problem with trolls is that they can't be counter-sued because they're non-practicing entities, ie. they're not technology companies. But build.com isn't a technology company either, they just happen to use it in their operations.
From the article: "There was one for transferring data through a network, another for using images on a website, another for having a computer that connects to a database." Quick check... yup, intellectualventures.com has a web site with images. I bet they have a database of patents, too. Let's see... lodsys.com bingo.
So the real problem is just that "defensive" patents are optimized for counter-suing other technology companies, not trolls. (Well, no, the real problem is that the patent system is broken. But given the system we have...) What's needed is a pool of patents that could be used to counter-sue trolls. And hey, there are "business method" patents as well as technology patents. Could we get a patent on sending threatening letters? How about a patent on shell companies?
Now I'm off to work on my new invention: "method and apparatus for travelling to a courthouse by means of a motorized vehicle."
Having them rely on an industry group to take pity on their case and come to their defense is not a good long term solution. The only way this will change is if large companies (Google/Apple/MS/Amazon) decide it's in their best interest to put lobby money behind patent reform.
And hey, there are "business method" patents as well as technology patents. Could we get a patent on sending threatening letters? How about a patent on shell companies
Yes, of course. This has been the go-to joke in these stories since at least SCOX v. IBM (8+ years).
From the article: "There was one for transferring data through a network, another for using images on a website, another for having a computer that connects to a database." Quick check... yup, intellectualventures.com has a web site with images. I bet they have a database of patents, too. Let's see... lodsys.com bingo.
So the real problem is just that "defensive" patents are optimized for counter-suing other technology companies, not trolls. (Well, no, the real problem is that the patent system is broken. But given the system we have...) What's needed is a pool of patents that could be used to counter-sue trolls. And hey, there are "business method" patents as well as technology patents. Could we get a patent on sending threatening letters? How about a patent on shell companies?
Now I'm off to work on my new invention: "method and apparatus for travelling to a courthouse by means of a motorized vehicle."