I really wish he had been a little clearer on what these patent trolls are and why they're bad. I'm sure most people here on HN understand what's going on, but this article is little more than preaching to the choir without that extra clarification.
As it stands right now, this article has sort of a whining feel to it. "All my companies are getting sued because we're infringing patents, and I'm sick of paying for it! The only way to stop them is to similarly arm yourself with lots of patents so you can sue someone just as hard as they can sue you!"
I'd like to see more detail from him about how most of these patents are obvious and non-innovative, and that the idea of patent troll companies who do nothing with the patents but sue for infringement of them. I think that's what he was getting at with these lines:
> I’m not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. I’m talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls.
...but that could also be read as "we've been infringing these patents for years, and I'm pissed off that someone noticed." We all know that's not what he meant, but there's a lot to be said for clarity, and clarity wasn't a major component of this article.
I don't know, I thought he cut right to the chase:
> Google just spent $900mm buying a patent collection. Other big companies are spending the same way. That is money that for many companies would have gone to job creation.
That's exactly right. That money is going into the pockets of $500/hour lawyers instead of creating jobs for people that produce products. Just the public patent deals of the last few months amounted to billions. And there is a lot more we don't know about.
He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc., but that takes more explaining, it's complicated. Focusing on the direct link to job creation is more straightforward.
He's arguing the impact of it, but I'm saying he failed to clarify why they shouldn't have to pay for the $500/hour lawyers and the multi-million dollar patent packages.
> He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc.
That's all I'm saying. He needs to explain why he shouldn't have to defend himself against patents, rather than just complaining that it's too expensive. Defending yourself against any lawsuit is expensive, but if you've done something wrong then it has to be done. Cuban just didn't take the time to explain that his companies hadn't done anything objectively wrong.
I wasn't disagreeing with him at all - I agree that there needs to be patent reform - but I just thought that he didn't adequately state his case. He complained about how expensive it was to have to deal with the lawsuits, but never made a compelling argument as to why those lawsuits were unjust.
As it stands right now, this article has sort of a whining feel to it. "All my companies are getting sued because we're infringing patents, and I'm sick of paying for it! The only way to stop them is to similarly arm yourself with lots of patents so you can sue someone just as hard as they can sue you!"
I'd like to see more detail from him about how most of these patents are obvious and non-innovative, and that the idea of patent troll companies who do nothing with the patents but sue for infringement of them. I think that's what he was getting at with these lines:
> I’m not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. I’m talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls.
...but that could also be read as "we've been infringing these patents for years, and I'm pissed off that someone noticed." We all know that's not what he meant, but there's a lot to be said for clarity, and clarity wasn't a major component of this article.