[rtperson]

> In the end, I doubt owning a patent on something will have any impact on our ultimate success or failure.

How I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of patent trolls out there that would love to use their patents to extract value from your company. When the trolls come knocking (and they will), having a patent of your own may literally be the only defense.

Everyone who wants to understand just how incredibly corrupt the US patent system is needs to do themselves a favor and listen to the "When Patents Attack" episode of NPR's This American Life. Then you'll understand why neatly-reasoned arguments are, in this instance, entirely besides the point.

[monochromatic]

Patent trolls are by definition non-practicing entities. How does having your own patent defend against them, if they're not actually producing anything that would infringe it?

[rtperson]

Again, the error you're making is mistaking patent law with the insane way patent law is actually enforced. Listen to "When Patents Attack," and you'll understand that non-practicing entities have been very successful lately in filling their pockets at the expense of the genuinely productive.

Patents are also not supposed to overlap each other. However -- and again this was made startlingly clear by NPR -- they do, and by the tens of thousands.

You're making the mistake of believing yourself to be in a world where reasonableness prevails.

[chc]

You're not responding to what monochromatic said at all. He(?) asked how having a patent portfolio of your own is supposed to protect you from trolls' suits, since you can't very well countersue them for patent infringement (as non-practicing entities by definition don't actually make anything). Your response, that patent trolls do successfully sue people, just seems to strengthen monochromatic's point.

[monochromatic]

I think you missed my point.

[rtperson]

I apologize for doing so. I think my idea of holding your own patent was not for the ability to counter-sue, but (and I am quite obviously not a lawyer) so you have a legal basis to petition for dismissal of the patent troll's suit. If there were any effective way to savage non-practicing entities, I'm sure we'd have fewer trolls out there.

It would be a weak form of defensive patent aggregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Defenses), but it would still be better than nothing.

My larger point is that, by vocally opting out of the patent game, the author of the original article has practically painted a bullseye on himself. Averring yourself to be above the fray seems to me to be a sure-fire way to be victimized yourself.

[monochromatic]

Defensive patent aggregation is about the ability to cross-license. If a troll isn't making anything, they don't need to license your patents.

Now, your own patent could in some circumstances be used as prior art against the patent troll... but if that's all you're using it for, why not just publish everything you're doing? Publications are prior art just as much as patents are.

[anamax]

> I think my idea of holding your own patent was not for the ability to counter-sue, but (and I am quite obviously not a lawyer) so you have a legal basis to petition for dismissal of the patent troll's suit.

What, exactly is this "basis"?

Note that a given thing can be covered by multiple patents, owned by different people.

Yes, patents can be prior art against other patents, but you don't need to own a patent to use it as prior art.