Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think it does matter, because it means certain behavior is more likely.

Companies that create patents are more likely to invest their time, money and effort into actually making things that will eventually be sold (in whatever fashion). This activity adds value to the economy. While it is possible for such companies to aggressively pursue their patents in the way that Lodsys has, they don't need to do it to survive, and I hope that the people who work there would rather spend time on more productive things. That's not a guarantee, of course.

Companies that merely collect patents, and exist solely to collect and profit off of the patents themselves, do not add value to the economy. They are parasites. Because they have no other way of generating revenue, we can expect them to behave in the way that Lodsys has.

If it was possible to design the IP laws so that patent trolling was not profitable, then I think that would be a good thing. I'm not sure if it's possible - but I think it's worthwhile to recognize that there is a relevant difference.




Patent trolls do add some value to the economy. The value they add is in the purchasing of the patent, leaving the original patent holder with a pile of cash they can use to build another product.

Then again, they take way more value out of the market, so it ends up being a negative.


I think that patent trolls typically acquire them from dying companies, not healthy ones. So while they're parasites on the economy, they're vultures to companies. That probably provides some liquidity to the economy, but I doubt it's significant.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: