This is a great, great move.
25 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 7 previous comments
- But, as long as software patents are recognized, you need something to counter-assert if/when X company sues you. A disclosure document merely prevents others from getting a patent, but doesn't help you if they troll you to put you out of business.Jun 13, 2012
- I don't see the distinction. If I file a disclosure document on using zero length widgets to unlock a phone, and the examiners miss it and grant you a patent for using any-length widgets to unlock anything, then my disclosure document is still an airtight defense against your trying to sue me for using zero length widgets to unlock a phone.Jun 13, 2012
- But if you're threatening to sue me for using foo widgets, for which you hold a patent, I don't have a patent on zero-length widgets to threaten a counter-suit. Defensive patents aren't pretty, cost a bomb, but sometimes they're needed.Jun 13, 2012
- if I sue you for something for which you don't have a patent but do have a disclosure document, you can recover attorney's fees. If you think you need something similarly invalid to counter-sue with, then you aren't gaining any money and you are losing even more of your time, while contributing to welfare for patent attorneys which is eating away at the software industry.Jun 13, 2012
- You can recover attorneys fees if you don't go bankrupt before being able to see the lawsuit to completion, or settle out of concern for exactly that.
Fighting a patent lawsuit to conclusion is not a realistic situation for most people, unless there is a realistic chance of using counter claims to finance long term defenseJun 15, 2012
- how is a lawsuit which takes longer more realistic? Whether the counterclaims eventually pay off or not, the trial takes more time and costs more money before it's resolved. I'm sure lawyers love the idea, but if you're worried about going bankrupt before the suit is concluded, counterclaims defeat the purpose.Jun 15, 2012