Battling the Patent Trolls 206
opus writes "There's an interesting series of
articles at law.com on the current situation in patent law, which has become "a money-minting machine for a few patent holders". Includes an article on Peter Detkin, counsel at Intel, who spends much of his time battling patent infringement claims against Intel, and who coined the term "patent troll". Apparently it's not just the geeks who are unhappy with the current state of affairs in patent law."
Worst of all (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Worst of all (Score:1)
Patent #1 (Score:1)
From the site:
New Game Coming in August: U.S. Patent Number One Congratulations, you've invented a time machine. But you're not the first person to think of it, and you won't be the last. What really matters is who gets to the Patent Office first. And with a time machine, "first" means "first"!
prior art (Score:1)
Re:Pondering a silly scenario... (Score:1)
Think it was about taxing it, though.
"Let's have a tax on... you know."
"What... poo-poos?"
"No, you know... "
"Oh! That would make accounting a bit more interesting, wouldn't it?!"
...or something like that
I don't get it... (Score:2)
These still seem like "discoveries", not "inventions." What exactly did they invent?
Do you really think this would hurt their stock (Score:2)
Even before the patenting of genes (which I strongly oppose), this moral issue exhisted with the patenting of drugs. In order to research cures to disease, researchers need to use many drugs which they have to buy at extremely high prices from the companies that own the patents on them. This increases the costs of discovering cures to many diseases. This has been drug through the press many times, but those companies stock prices are far from hurting.
Don't think that any publicity is good publicity. Think "RAMBUS".
Rambus' stok price was soaring dispite the bad press. The thing that caused Rambus' stock to go down is when they were found to have committed fraud, and it became likely that they wouldn't be able to collect all the royalties they had claimed they were due.
Good to see big companies complaining (Score:5, Insightful)
But the threat of an injunction which stops production for a year or so whilst the lawyers fight it out in court is a gun to the head of these companies. So we have what amounts to a protection racket: pay up or be put out of business. At the moment the fees are tolerable, but this kind of thing has a way of growing exponentially as more people catch on to the idea of easy money. Once patent trolls start making a measurable dent in the bottom line you can bet that these companies are going to start complaining to their tame congresscritters.
(Not that I've got anything against large companies in themselves: some things just really do need a large organisation to make happen. But I've noticed that getting something done is just so much easier when you have the president of a large company backing you)
Paul.
"Idea Squatting" similiar to "Cyber-squatting" (Score:1)
From what I read from the first article, it seems that the law makes it possible for somebody to just patent an idea or concept with no intention to make commercial use of it. I see this similar to "cyber-squatting" (taking a domain name with no intention to use it). This defeats the true spirit of granting patent protection and stiffles innovation and progress rather than promoting it.
Should this not be easy to fix ?. One option: the patent holder should have to establish, her intention to commercially exploit her idea (within a fixed time period after the grant of the patent), before being able to claim damages from somebody else.
Of-course, the US patent office is running amuck and needs to be reined in. This has been mentioned in some of the comments already made.
Rich stealing from the rich... so what? (Score:1)
Sure, Intel might lose a bit of money each year from settlements with holders of dubious patents--but don't think for a second they're in the red in the patents war. I didn't find any figures about how much Intel pulls in each year from just enforcing their own patents (are we sure none of those are spurious?). IBM pulls in $1 billion just from this. I doubt Intel is far behind. As far as I'm concerned, Intel's patent trolls are nowhere close to balancing out Intel's patent-karma. (Remember the 90's?)
It sounds to me like patent money just circulates among the big patent-holding companies, except some of it leaks out to the patent prospectors. Yes, so they are profiting unjustly, and because I have Communist leanings, I don't like it. But for the rest of you, how's this morally different from getting rich off the stock market? Their offense consists of buying a piece of paper, sitting on it, and raking in dough. At least it sounds like they did some research.
Well, if this is all that was to it, I wouldn't be very moved. But then I read that the lawyers who prosecute these cases sometimes ask for 45% of the claim. Now, if you've got an ethos according to which that's not bad, I don't want to hear about it. I know I'd rather the companies keep that 45% sell me gear for less.
Re:Rich stealing from the rich... so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
My personal interest here is protecting those who do true innovation from being screwed by those who purchase and enfore patents which Should Not Be. I work for such a company, and intend to always work with folks doing new and interesting things. Thus, seeing those who are actually doing and creating be sued by those who don't pains me very much.
It doesn't really matter that it's Intel in the example -- it matters that it's someone who, by creating a thing of value, has a certain level of merit which the slime who do nothing but collect legal fees have not.
And no, these bottom-feeders (like TechSearch) never did any research, except for looking through the list of registered patents for ones that could be enforced -- which they then bought for a pittance and are using offensively.
Re:Rich stealing from the rich... so what? (Score:2)
I have no issue with people getting rich because others willingly enter into mutual agreements with them. I have a great issue with people getting rich because of forceful (read: government) intervention.
I believe that allocating capital is another form of social contribution. Individuals who invest in those ventures they believe are likely to be profitable result in a higher standard of living as resources are allocated away from wasteful or unlikely ventures. Surely that's not so hard to accept?I should have been a lawyer! (Score:2, Interesting)
Some of these Lawyers made $200,000 just by filing a comlaint! And the other guys are trying to sue intel for $7Bn ++!!!
And all this is a legal way to make money!!!
On the one hand I bust a gut working 65hrs+ a week or I sell my soul to the devil and sit on my ass writing ppl nasty letters for a couple of hours a week for exponential sums of money!
Not much competition there...
A few more years... (Score:1)
Go, patent trolls, go!
No one but ourselves to blame (Score:5, Informative)
As with all legal areas involving technology, if we as technology professionals do not make our voices heard, as the group most immediately and directly impacted by actions like this, then we have no one but ourselves to blame.
As for the sections of the article dealing with "abuses" by the infamous Jerome Lemelson (I'll let you search yourself if you are not familiar with him and his patent portfolio) and his "submarine patents," the particular aspect of patent law that allowed him to file applications, let them lie dormant for years while industries sprung up, then have new patents issue covering already established practices, the article is merely proagating more FUD. The law has changed and it is no longer possible to do this. In fact, the rule now is that applications are now published 18 months after filing - even before issuance.
Finally, ask yourself: If you worked hard and invented something, wouldn't you want to benefit from it instead of having someone with more resources steal it and sweep you under the rug? Patents provide that benefit. A good patent lawyer is the inventor's best friend because he will make sure the inventor is protected to the maximum extent permitted. And despite popular opinion, the PTO statistics say that fewer than 3% of all patents issued make money for the inventor, so getting a patent is not an instant win in the lottery.
Re:No one but ourselves to blame (Score:1)
Re:No one but ourselves to blame (Score:2)
Isn't that the way it works now? A "good patent lawyer" is only your best friend if you can afford not only him, but also the court fees necessary to defend, the fees for appeals, etc. Not to mention being able to afford the time involved.
But a company can afford those things. And a company can assert that you have violated their patent, and one doesn't even have the right to protest without hiring a highly specialized legal professional, at the exhorbitant salary that such folk demand. Which basically means that individuals need not think about it unless they are already quite wealthy.
I find your assertion to be, at best, disingenious.
Re:No one but ourselves to blame (Score:2)
I find your assertions to be clouded by your cynicism. Remember: A patent gives you offensive rights - the inventor is the only one who can police and enforce them. An inventor who is not willing to police his rights should choose publication in a professional journal instead of a patent because an unenforced patent merely serves to teach others about the invention.
As for a company asserting that you violated its patent, if it does you can also bet that its patent counsel has done a LOT of research before making that claim. If you had any idea what it takes to become a patent attorney, you would know that someone who worked that hard would not make frivolous claims and risk their license. There are only about 26,000 patent attorneys AND agents in the United States. This is NOT an area for the average practicioner.
I think that if you look into things, you will find that although you may think someone's fees are exhorbitant, in most cases they fairly reflect the quality of service and experience provided. And if you want to sue on your own patent, you will find there are many who will be very flexible in billing arrangements even to the point of working on a contingent fee basis for someone with a solid patent and a meritorious claim.
IMHO, I think you will find patent attorneys as a group to be the best of the best: professionals who care deeply about their clients, the law, and the technology within their practice area.
Re:No one but ourselves to blame (Score:3, Insightful)
The legal concept of property does not require a physical object. In fact, a mere physical object is nothing to the law. It only achieves some legal significance when rights attach to it. Most notable is the right to exclude others from using it - the core of all property rights.
Proof that "ideas" can be stolen:
- MS Windows; and
- MacOS,
I find it difficult to believe that a software engineer cannot understand abstract concepts and has to look only at physical items.If you feel that the policy choice of the patent and copyright laws of giving creators the exclusive use of their creations for limited periods of time is incorrect then DO SOMETHING - speak out to legislators to change the law. Get involved with industry groups. As the title of my first post implies, we have only ourselves to blame if the laws that cover our technology practices are bad ones. Don't be an Anonymous Coward complaining from the sidelines.
The Man Behind the Curtain (Score:1)
See if anyone catches that out-of-print reference.
Patent them all ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patent them all ! (Score:1)
Cool. Then the cost of defending against a patent lawsuit is reduced to the cost of hiring a hitman to kill the patent holder. That's gotta be cheaper than a million bucks.
Re:Patent them all ! (Score:1)
So your stage of events is:
Re:Patent them all ! (Score:2, Informative)
Positively enticing use would probably qualify; I'm mostly curious about negatively silently permitting use.
Been there, done that. (Score:2)
Fraunhofer/Thompson: MP3 patent
Both of those were probably instances of silently permitting use for a while, so I guess it is legal.
Re:Patent them all ! (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that the "croak and poke" strategy really represents a solution in this case.
Unless, that is, you could expedite the croaking somehow... Perhaps you could patent that process :^)
Bryguy
Patent a concept (Score:1)
Now he's waiting for one of these patents earn him a fortune so that he can retire to an isolated tropical island for the rest of his life.
Re:Patent a concept (Score:1)
Perhaps this is the problem. Someone else mentioned [slashdot.org] that in times-gone-by, patents had a certain prestige. Now they don't. Back in the old days, most patents (I know I am generalising) were based on actual inventions, and not just ideas.
Unfortunately, once the (concept patenting) ball is rolling, it will be very hard to stop it, and so we are stuck with this current system, and all we can hope for is its gradual improvement/replacement.
IP ~= Communism (Score:5, Interesting)
Start from a plausible moral point:
In one case : Some people spend their lives working for other people, one the sole fact that the latter own the means of production
In the other case: Using (whatever 'using' means) ideas,art, whatever that someone else has made (whatever 'made' means) amounts to taking advantage of that person's work without due compensation
Second step : governments steps in, and tries to devise from scratch a totally arbitrary legal system, consisting in restrictions to freedom, in order to change the things are naturally:
In the case of communism, change the natural scarcity of means of production into an artificial abundance.
In the case of IP, change the natural abundance of an idea into an artificial scarcity.
Third steps, when the shortcommings of the laws become obvious, the government reacts by saying that it will be OK when the next generation has been indoctrinated at school (see recent /. news about the UK), and tightens the restrictions to freedom.
Anti-intellectual property rights are bad too (Score:1)
All of this trouble goes back to a more fundamental problem. As Proudhon wrote, property is theft. Think about it:
Start with a plausible point:
People have the right to own property
Second step: government steps in and implements a police state to enforce these so-called "property rights" instead of letting the market provide a solution (mercenaries, private security guards, etc.).
Shortcomings of the laws become obvious: Wealth in the United States is concentrated among a few fortunate people, many of whom did not "earn" it, but inherited from their parents, while many suffer in poverty. The government reacts by saying that it will be OK because the next generation will become wealthy as entrepreneurs in the new economy, and tightens the restrictions on freedom to take things we want, just because they happen to be "someone else's property."
I made a similar point in another discussion (Score:2)
I made a similar point [slashdot.org] in another discussion with respect to copyright law (and its abuses), but I think it applies to any sort of "artificial scarcity" which all IP law ultimately relies on.
Re:I made a similar point in another discussion (Score:2)
It seems as though people complaining about IP end up into a pattern of formulating very weak arguments whenever they talk about scarcity of resources.
Au contrair (Score:2)
That is simply not true, or rather it is deceptively stated. Intellectual Property creates an artificial scarcity both of the creation and, in the case of patents (at least), in the creative process as well. Multiple peope often do come up with the same or very similar idea(s) independently, but only he or she who wins the footrace to the USPTO gets any rights, and everyone else is excluded for twenty years!
Creativity isn't scarce. What is scarce is the freedom to use it. As noted elsewhere, the vast majority of patent infringements are a result of people accidentally "rediscovering" a way to do something, not a result of plagerism or reverse engineering. Those who do creatively come up with a solution are then forbidden from using it because someone else was granted a government sponsored twenty-year monopoly on the idea.
To paraphrase, it seems as though people defending IP end up into a pattern of formulating very weak arguments whenever they talk about the need to artificially reward invention at the expense of everyone else.
I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:2)
I tried a crack at it, but my solution resulted in a huge reliance on the courts.
Totally unlike current IP laws, which result in a huge abuse of the courts.
BTW, what was your solution? I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
Re:I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:2)
Re:I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:2)
The protocol is broken. Consider the following case, I file for 10 patents, I put them up for auction per the protocol. I then bid for the patents myself (possibly through one of my offshore companies).
Under such a scheme I can bid a billion dollars for my own patent, secure in the knowledge that if I am forced to pay I will be paying myself.
The CMU scheme sounds like the work of someone who has spent too much time reading Aynn Rand and too litte time noticing that most markets are rigged.
I wouldn't completely dismiss the notion (Score:3, Insightful)
You point about rigged markets, and the possibility of tremendous abuse and defrauding of the government are very valid (and yes, Ayn Rand's view of economics and the human condition was profoundly two dimensional and myopic, but I digress). Clearly if one is bidding on one's own patent in order to drive up the government's 120% then one is engaging in fraud. People have become Prime Bitch in Cellblock A for less than that.
Nevertheless I think the notion deserves some consideration. I would couple it with my own idea (a 100% tax credit for N years to the patent holder, but no, I repeat, no monopoly privelege whatsoever), and modify the notion as follows:
1) Patents confer a 100% tax free profits on the invention if sold alone as a whole, or a pro-rated portion if incorporated into some other product, for a period of time N years. No monopoly privelege, no exclusionary rights beyond the tax credit.
2) A free market will determine the patent's sale price, when the patent holder is ready to sell, he or she may sell at whatever price the market will bear. This may be early or late in the product's cycle, and the patent holder my calculate the pricepoint wisely, or not, as anyone might, selling anything, in a free market economy.
3) The government may purchase the patent at twice the market value (selling price) if it wishes, thereby saving the tax credit burden and enriching the patent holder even further. This may only be done on the First Sale of the patent, all further transactions are at market value and the government may outbid the market as any other company might. The only reason for this clause is to discourage the government from buying up all patents initially (thereby perhaps depressing or inflating the market and certainly influencing it one way or the other in an untoward way) and to reward the initial inventor even more greatly should the government buy up the patent. The only reason the government might buy a patent is to (obviously) avoid the loss in tax revinue it represents. Once again, I reiterate, the patent confers no other privelege beyond the tax savings.
Details can be argued, hammered out, and some reasonable solution reached. What is unacceptable, and must stop, is the issuing of government sponsored monopolies remeniscent of the Royal Monopolies granted inside friends of the King under the British Monarchy with the economic damage, scientific and technological stifling that ensues. Replacing it with a tax-free burdon, then letting free markets reign, appears to be very reasonable, especially if the free market is "rigged" slightly to favor and more generously reward the initial patent holder.
So here was my plan (Score:1)
All code needs to give out its source.
If I wanted to use your source code, I need to pay you for your product that source code was used in.
So basically if I wanted to write windows 98 Delux Jim Version, and windows 98 was selling for 200$, I'd have to sell for like 250 for a 50$ profit.
The weakness is being able to see the other guy's code, and scoundrels rengineering it and claiming they never used the code. And then you have lawsuits...
I did argue with the professor(God I wish I remembered his name, I'm a fuckwit when it comes to memory, I could look him up)... I argued the courts have lawsuits already... But he stated it wasn't a good enough fix to just switch the entire system around
A better solution may be to instantiate this system of profits to the GNU system of code.
Feel free to distribute and sell your code, but if someone below you is selling, you gotta compensate, or who knows.
Re:I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:2)
Well, (ab)use of the whole flawed legal system where you pay your own costs to defend yourself and have to counter sue to recover (paying more costs to do so). Patent sharks present that horrid system as the greater of two evils, the lesser being to pay up on a frivilous patent.
If there's one thing that I could change (before even the DMCA), it would be that the legal system is written by and designed to be understood and used by lawyers, not by and for We, The People.
Really, I dream of a day when you and I can defend ourselves in court and not be called a fool by the judge.
Re:I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:2)
Small Claims Court is the place where you can do that - neither the plaintiff or defendant are allowed to have lawyers, they state their cases themselves, and is designed to be layman friendly. Getting your day in court only costs fifteen dollars or so. The only restriction is that the amount of money in dispute must be less then $5000 or so, depending on jurisdiction - it is Small Claims Court.
Re:I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:2)
He can't talk about it 'til the patent office grants his application for a patent on "how to run a patent system".
Re:I talked with the top guy at CMU about it (Score:2)
Re:IP ~= Communism (Score:1)
but then again, what does "natural" and "artificial" mean, apart from attesting value to only one of the statements?
"no wonder communism is bad if before everything was natural and then it was artificial."
suppose you left away those two words, that would take away much of the edge of your statement without actually changing it. then again, if we make our statements depend on their form instead of on their content, how can we claim ethical superiority to lawyers (which i for one do)?
Re:IP ~= Communism (Score:1, Insightful)
I only ask because it was possible a century ago, but the US Government in collusion with power and oil companies acted to suppress Nikola Tesla's reasearch....
Re:IP ~= Communism (Score:1)
Which is mostly bollocks, of course.
Oh yeah, right, like the radio, the AND gate, alternating current and the induction motor, flourescent lights, vacuum tubes, microwaves, hydroelectric generators, etc. He was granted over 40 patents by 1892 on these and many other devices. (My personal favorite invention is the earthquake machine.)
No practical use to those, now is there. Face it, the 21st century as we know it would not exist if it weren't for Tesla.
Kierthos
Re:IP ~= Communism (Score:2, Insightful)
And here we have a little mistake which ruins the whole beautiful conception :-)
Means of production are scarse indeed but communism doesn't make abudance of any sort, artifical or natural. It just divides what we already have into, say, "shares" for all people to use instead of one person.
And still, yes, IP makes ideas more scarse.
So IP is bad no matter what! ;-)
For my curiosity, I tried (Score:4, Interesting)
Searching 1996-2001...
Results of Search in 1996-2001 db for:
AN/"intel corporation": 3598 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 3598
and wondered how I would find the time to burn both ends of that candle.
Re:For my curiosity, I tried (Score:2, Insightful)
AN/"intel corporation": 3598 patents.
I am sure you can see the difference in value between patents awarded to a corporation with a R&D department which actually researches the stuff they have patents for, and those of a leech with no research, just the "administration" of other people's patents.
Re:For my curiosity, I tried (Score:3, Informative)
there are differences in the way patents are treated. First of all, some of these are ligitmate patents, while many of the ones intel (and others) don't like are things they didn't consider worth patenting due to obviousness, or cases of petent every possibal way of doing something without doing any work to see which work. If I license a patent from intel because it would sovle a problem I expect to have, I can contract with Intel to get some expects in implimenting that patent if I need more help then the patent provides. Some of these patents don't have expects who worked on them, just claims that something could be done this way. Then there are broad claims that everyone will infringe on in some way due to the boardness of them, despite everyone doing that for years.
Intel, and for that matter most companies tend to use patents more defensively. That is you can sue me, but I have enough patents that I'll just find one you are violating and sue you, who only lawyers win. that isn't to say intel will never sue someone first, when there are obvious infringements that affects intel's buisness they will strike first, but they won't sue just on the chance that they would win, they sue because there is an infringement. (Remember patents don't have to be enforced unlike trademarks)
Don't forget the Rambus fiasco where they patent something that others discover, or they discover and then get someone else to use without mentionign they have a patent on it.
patents are not bad by themselves.
my lawyer (Score:1, Redundant)
i patented the phrase "patent troll"(patent pending)
aargh, its late.. bed.
Poor Intel (Score:2, Flamebait)
Can't we charge them under the DMCA or something?
How did this happen? (Score:2)
Re:How did this happen? (Score:4, Informative)
Two factors loom large: 1) the creation of the Federal Circuit 2) ballooning impact of special interest money in politics
The Federal Circuit was created to handle trademark and patent law. Other Circuits do not play a role anymore. If you have a patent issue in your case, it will detour to the Federal Circuit. Because "IP specialists" fill the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court is hesitant to review their precedents. Basically a single point of failure has been created, and bad decisions do not go through the peer reveiw process at the Circuit level. On a normal issue, if the 3rd cirucit does something weird, the 4th isn't bound by it and if they create conflicting precedents, the Supreme Court will often examine the issue a third time. The other problem with the Federal Circuit is that it makes the process more susceptible to infiltration. Heavy lobbying behind the scenes can get a judge favorable to a special interest in. Since there are fewer judges deciding the issues (only one Circuit) the effect of this is much more profound.
The second reason affects everything in government. It's the surgeing influence of special interest money in Congress. A few key players who make money in the patent arena can agressively voice their views with big checks attached and they will be listened to. Small players have a lot more difficulty. This blocks reform and influences key position choices in the PTO and in the Courts, as above.
Re:How did this happen? (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, if you're refering to the civilization reset button on the US President's "football".
Patents Aren't Necessarily a Bad Thing (Score:2, Troll)
A patent allows an individual or company to make money off the R&D for their products. If a company can't make money off of their original R&D, then why would they bother doing R&D? The perfect example of a company that's primary focus is R&D is Qualcomm. They aren't interested in making products, heck you may be able to name 2 things they actually do make (Eudora and Cell Phones), but they've sold their Cell Phone division to Ericson(sp?). However, if you have ever walked into the main building of the Qualcomm campus in San Diego, CA they have a wall about 20' high and approx. 100' long of just plaques (8x11") of the patents they own. Qualcomm then licenses their technology (the use of their patents) to other companies, and this is where Qualcomm makes their money.
I've never ONCE seen a gripe about Qualcomm's "crappy business practices" on
Patents allow someone to make money from the R&D they do. Patents also force other companies or people to develope new and better ways of "doing something" other than "just copying the other guy's stuff". This means there are LEAPS in innovation, not just a slow crawl.
Filling the Vacuum... (Score:1)
Qualcomm is a big meanie with crappy business practices.
Re:Patents Aren't Necessarily a Bad Thing (Score:3, Informative)
You're right that patents aren't inherently bad, but your argument needs refining.
The purpose of patents isn't to make money for inventors, but to allow and encourage inventors to put their inventions into the public domain (while still retaining rights for a limited time).
If Qualcomm do some original reasearch, they can choose to not patent (and therefore not publish details of) that technology, but can sell the technology to other companies. The recipients, having paid money for it, will protect it as carefully as Qualcomm does. Qualcomm can make as much, or more money that way, especially if they choose to withhold the details from their biggest competitors.
However, because of the patent system, if a competitor invents the same technology and patents it, Qualcomm is screwed. They can claim and prove prior art defence for their own use, but unless they published details, they can't stop the patent from being granted. All their competitors now know how to do it, and Qualcomm can't sell the technology to anyone any more.
Patents aren't designed primarily to protect your right to make money off of an invention (although they do that), they're designed to make it a good idea for you to publish details of the invention.
The flaw, of course, lies in the way the system is working. It's not. Frivilous patents are being claimed, granted, and enforced. The technique is irrelevant, the quality is irrelevant, it's all about quantity of patents, and about having a dreadful court system that means it's cheaper to pay up than to fight it in court - even if you win.
Sure, the patent office is swamped, but I'd fix the legal system first. Laws and proceeding in plain language, courts given the time and resources to investigate claims, and loser pays.
Untrue and Misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
You are clearly a troll (how such a rediculous post got moderated up to +4 is beyond me, but there have been enough tirades about the decline of slashdot this week, so I'll leave it at that), but such misinformation must be responded to nevertheless.
As for geeks comming up with innovative ideas, a quick, short, (and probably patented, but not by their inventors!) list:
The Internet
Usenet NEWS
The World Wide Web
Networked Computer Games
Non-Linear Video Editing
CGI Animation (seen any movies lately?)
Mutli-tasking computer operating systems
Windowing systems (used X or Windoze lately? Both came from Xerox via Apple, invented by geeks, then coopted later by industry, something a patent might well have prevented)
... and the list goes on
Patents allow someone to make money from the R&D they do. Patents also force other companies or people to develope new and better ways of "doing something" other than "just copying the other guy's stuff". This means there are LEAPS in innovation, not just a slow crawl.
What an absolute crock of shit.
It is unnecessary to have a 20-year government sponsored monopoly in order to make money from one's idea. Monopolies are antithetical to the primary means by which free markets operate, namely competition. Furthermore, no idea more advanced than the stone hammer (read: pounding something with a rock) stands alone. Every idea incorporates aspects of earlier ideas, every invention stands on the shoulders of the giants who have gone before. By locking up every new or innovative idea (much less every trivial variation of an old idea the way we do now) you slow down any advancements that might be based on that idea. Dramatically.
Most ideas, when patented, are being developed by numerous, independent people. Why? Because generally, when an idea's "time has come" (ie. it become feasable or technically possible for the first time, usually because the necessary groundwork or supporting technologies become available for the first time) a number of creative people jump on it at roughly the same time. The vast majority of patent infringements aren't a result of people cribbing from the patent applications or even reverse engineering their competitors' products, they are a result of inadvertant infringement resulting from having developed the same or similar idea completely independently.
Whoever wins the footrace to the patent office is granted a monopoly, and everyone else who had developed, or "invented" the idea concurrently is suddenly left in the unenviable position of having their invention stolen out from under them, and being forbidden to exploit their work, or their idea, under penalty of law.
This is not conducive to encouraging invention or progress. Quite the contrary.
Patents do not "allow someone to make money from the R&D they do." This is allowed regardless, by a free market in which anyone can develop an idea, build it and market it
Another example is breat cancer, in which promising research has been scuttled because of existing patents on the genes which were discovered to have an impact, perhaps even be the cause, of the affliction. Scuttled research does not lead to LEAPS in innovation, unless, of course, you use the Microsoft definition of the word
You want to reward someone for winning the footrace to the USPTO? Fine. Give them a 20 year amnesty from federal taxes for income derived from their "invention." Do not give them a monopoly and lock up the very idea (and its derivatives) for the next twenty years! To do so is antithetical to the free market, slows technological development, and cripples the very open exchange of science that is ultimately the foundation of every invention, everywhere.
Re:Untrue and Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
So, since Sony patented the Trinitron tube technology, they have stiffled competition in the Televesion and Computer monitor market? Since Qualcomm patented a particular cell phone technology, they are the "great big monopoly" of cell phone companies?
Okay, then you keeping the answers to your math test "secret" will slow down my advancement as a student... dramatically. I guess in order to promote my advancement, you should just give me your answers. Damn, I should have thought of this when I was back in high school!
On the contrary, if two people can present within a reasonable period of time that they developed a similar way to do XYZ, then no patent is awarded.
So, let me get this straight... company A spends 5 years and $4.3 billion developing a new technology. They don't (or can't) patent it. Companies B,C and D all come along and "use" this technology to market their own products, creating a competition lowering prices. Great for the consumer! Now company A is only making 1/4th of the profits (probably less than that due to decrease in cost due to competition) then they would have been making and never recover the $4.3 billion they spent developing their technology. Investors then pull out, employees leave the company, and the company goes out of business. Investors will then not see spending money on investments as a lucrative means of making money for themselves and will stop investing in technological advancements and all funding will go out the window... no more R&D because companies won't be able to afford it without their investments. How is this "conducive to encouraging invention?"
But company X has spent several million (if not billion) dollars researching this? Do they not deserve to make up their lost money they spent on the research? Maybe treatments for breast cancer or AIDS isn't the best thing to keep "secret". As I said, there is a lot that needs to be changed within the patent system, as times change, etc... but the overall patent system isn't bad. It's a good way to protect people's investments into technology and the future.
Why the attack on Microsoft? This has nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft wasn't even brought up until this point. Are you just another /. user who likes to attack Microsoft every opprotunity he gets? That's pretty lame.
Hey Rocky! (Score:2)
Watch me pull a scenario out of my ass!
So, let me get this straight... company A spends 5 years and $4.3 billion developing a new technology. They don't (or can't) patent it. Companies B,C and D all come along and "use" this technology to market their own products, creating a competition lowering prices. Great for the consumer! Now company A is only making 1/4th of the profits (probably less than that due to decrease in cost due to competition) then they would have been making and never recover the $4.3 billion they spent developing their technology. Investors then pull out, employees leave the company, and the company goes out of business. Investors will then not see spending money on investments as a lucrative means of making money for themselves and will stop investing in technological advancements and all funding will go out the window... no more R&D because companies won't be able to afford it without their investments. How is this "conducive to encouraging invention?"
Sorry, but you're going to have to back that argument up with some facts. When has this happened? Who were the companies involved? What was the invention? I'd be willing to bet some big money that you can't come up with any solid examples because it doesn't work that way. If you spend over 4 billion dollars on research, I'm willing to bet that you've come up with something so damn fantastic that the competition can't build a competing product without spending a huge amount of money themselves.
Look at the Mach 3 razor: Gillette spent a fortune (over a billion dollars, IIRC) on R&D for that sucker. Razor designs are commonly duplicated, but I still haven't seen any other triple bladed razors on the market. I don't think it's because somebody patented the "three blades on a razor" idea or that nobody can reverse-engineer it. It's because manufacturing something like that is fiendishly hard and requires a substantial investment in both R&D and implementation. Even if someone did come up with a cheap knock-off, Gillette has already made a huge amount of money on the Mach 3 because they had first-mover advantage and brand recognition as "The developer of the Mach 3".
For an even better example, look at the software industry before the advent of software patents. Companies like IBM, AT&T and Xerox spent billions on research and development, yet their ideas were publicly available and by your argument should have gone out of business. Guess what: IBM, AT&T, and Xerox made vast fortunes off of their software and are still giants today. After software patents came in, innovation slowed down and you got things like Apple suing over "look and feel" and the DMCA bullshit that put Dmitry Skylarov in prison.
You're a patent troll apologist and you make me nauseous. Next time, back up your flights of fancy with some real world examples and I'll take you seriously.
Re:Hey Rocky! (Score:2)
You should follow the thread. My point is that this DOES NOT happen because the company patented the idea. My point said, in my original post, was that patents allow the company to make money off of their invention. If they could not patent it, then this COULD and probably WOULD happen through reverse engineering and therefore other people would be able to rip off the technology and that company would not be able to make an income from it.
And btw, look at the Gillette box next time you head to wallmart. The Mach 3 is "patent pending" last time I checked. BTW, check out this Gillette page [gillette.com] and notice the use of the word "patent" in (clause below). It also shows that is IS NOT the ONLY triple-blade razor, but the FIRST (because they did not patent the triple-blade feature... but just read...)
So, as you can see, the Mach 3 has patented technology.
IBM, AT&T, and Xerox all own their share of patents. For every 1 thing they did not patent, they had 10 that they did! You think IBM is the #1 seller of mainframe equipment because they told everyone HOW they are able to get 64,000 Linux-based LPARs on their 32 processor S/390's? (No one else can do this!) You think Xerox told everyone how they developed their "photocopy" technology? But with AT&T and IBM, you're looking at 2 companies around for over 100 years. IBM made machines in early 1900s that were ALL patented and that's why they are so big now.
Again, if you followed the thread, I originally said that software patents are a problem and need to be resolved, but this doesn't mean the system is broken. As for Dmitry and the DMCA, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PATENT SYSTEM! the DMCA is about COPYRIGHTS and CRACKING ENCRYPTION WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO WITH PATENTS!
Any decent arguement you made was lost when you insulted me. I would also have you know that my examples, such as Sony's Trinitron technology, was a perfect example of a situation that was NOT pulled out of my ass. The example I gave was a response to how technology is stiffled by patents, which is OBVIOUSLY not true because if it was we wouldn't be sitting in front of our new LCD panels which are obviously better than a Trinitron tube (at least, those of us that have them wouldn't be).
Thats it! Thats the solution! (Score:2)
You want to reward someone for winning the footrace to the USPTO? Fine. Give them a 20 year amnesty from federal taxes for income derived from their "invention." Do not give them a monopoly and lock up the very idea (and its derivatives) for the next twenty years! To do so is antithetical to the free market, slows technological development, and cripples the very open exchange of science that is ultimately the foundation of every invention, everywhere.
This is pure briliance. Seriously, tax amnisty or at least seriously deep cuts for related profits for 18 years!!! This could fix the copyright system too.
The best part is the lawyers get to keep their jobs (proving proportions of profit, same IP ownership fights just a different prize.) so they won't fight it.
Monopolies are always bad, even govenment granted ones. When you introduce monopolies the markets ability to "sort it out" is stripped from it. That is what is going on now. The economy will not recover until IP law is fixed! Idea power must be redistributed.
Re:Thats it! Thats the solution! (Score:2)
Someone invents something, but doesn't have the money to produce it. There's no way they can protect their invention, so either they keep it secret, it's stolen by someone who can manufacture it. In either case they make no money on the invention. A tax break on $0 amounts to a $0 benefit. Guess that inventor will be too busy flipping burgers to invent something else.
This could fix the copyright system too.
A songwriter writes a song. That song is performed by some great artists. Recording companies record and sell the music. Media outlets (MTV and radio stations) play the music.
The songwriter gets nothing. Tax break on $0 is still nothing.
The artist/performer gets some money from performing, however if they aren't interested in touring all over the place, or aren't good performers as well as musicians, then they get very little. Tax break on very little, doesn't amount to much. Guess they'll be flipping burgers too, which limits their ability to tour. Maybe McDonalds can work something out where they can work in the closest store to where their concert is.
Recording companies get to sell the media on which they distribute the songs. Of course anyone could make their own media, and sell it as well. Professionally producing music can be very expensive. It's hard to believe that they could offset these costs by tax breaks on their sales of media. Especially when there are no significant media costs when it's distributed over the internet.
Media outlets would have to pay significantly less for their programming. Of course they would probably have to directly contract with artists in order to get quality programming, and as soon as they broadcast it, anyone else could just rebroadcast it, so it's hard to think that they can raise the money to pay for quality programming by advertising. After all why not just advertise with one of the rebroadcasters.
One of the purposes of IP laws is to make it possible for creative people to profit from their creations. A tax break only provides a benefit, if you're already making money from the creation, but doesn't provide a way to make that money.
Mr Brain and his patent on widgets. (Score:2)
Someone invents something, but doesn't have the money to produce it. There's no way they can protect their invention, so either they keep it secret, it's stolen by someone who can manufacture it. In either case they make no money on the invention. A tax break on $0 amounts to a $0 benefit. Guess that inventor will be too busy flipping burgers to invent something else.
The players
Company A
Company B
Mr Brain.
Under the new system Mr. Brain would patent his new widget the same as he would now. So Company A sees Mr Brain's (our hero scientist/engineer) widget. Company A decides to manufacture Mr. Brains widget and can do so without his permision under the new system. Mr. Brain is very frustrated and continues flipping burgers.
Company A lets out a manical laugh as it rakes in gobbs of money from Mr. Brains brainy hard work. Big Ego(tm) CEO guy of company A meets Big Ego(tm) guy from company B for lunch and brags about how smart he is and how much money he is making selling widgets.
Company B CEO decides to make some money selling widgets too. His team crunches some numbers to determine his gross profit and decides to start makeing widgets. Then he remembers, "why don't we check the USPO?" He finds the patent #234507458734957349574985798457 and discovers it's for widgets and belongs to Mr. Brain. He contacts Mr. Brain and offers him a cut of their tax break if he sells them the patent. Mr Brain likes the sound of getting paid to do research so he decides to agree. Lawyers are dispatched.
CEO B meets CEO A for lunch and brags about how much money he is going to save with his tax breaks because he bought the rights to and the associated tax breaks for patent #234507458734957349574985798457. His numbers look good, widgets will be cheaper and he now will be making gobs of money.
Fuming that Mr Brain and CEO B has outwitted him CEO A dipatches high speed lawyers(TM) and gets to Mr. Brain first. He offers him more money for the patent. Since no deal was offically made Mr. brain stops, thinks about it and says "I'm waiting for a better offer".
Mr Brain now hires an economic anylist who tells him to wait 4 years and then the widget sales will be close to peaking. Mr Brain holds out and works on other things. And in 4 years plays company A and company B off each other making 25 times what he would have originaly.
Whats different than the current system? Markets can't develop because government granted MONOPOLIES stiffle them. Inventors sell at a much lower cost and profit than they could if they waited for the market to develop. They can't do that now as we know from the .gif situation.
This is the way for the "market to sort it out" Currently the government is sorting it out and that just isn't working. When the government has taxes at stake it will be more picky with patents.
As for copyrights that is another discussion and my hands are tired :)
Re:Untrue and Misleading (Score:2)
The history of patent law contradicts your point (Score:2)
A tax credit in place of a government sponsored monopoly would make the situation neither better, nor worse, for the "garage inventor" than it is now. If the "garage inventor" sells their patent to a large company, then that company becomes entitled to the tax break rather than the individual. If anything, there is more incentive to purchase the patent legitimately rather than ignore it or try to get it overturned
it works both ways (Score:2)
Patents, like you describe above, can promote progress by forcing people to do things better, and creating an incentive to do it in the first place.
However, it works both ways. Patents, in their current highly abused form, simply provide a means for companies (law firms, Rambus?) to extort money from others. Patents are far to general, granted way to easily, and are granted by peole who don't even understand what they are granting patents for. All this does is allow companies to make themselves rich by patenting broad ideas and forcing people to pay them.
Do patents have any prestige left? (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies would even brag about holding a patent in their advertising.
But today, when I hear about someone getting a patent, I'm inclined to think "On what? Fire, the wheel, or did you go all out and invent an incandescent light bulb? By the way, where did you say you got your MBA again?"
Do patents have any prestige left?
Sigh (Score:2)
All that has really changed is society. PEOPLE today are far more inclined to see the value of mere IDEAS, whereas decades before, PHYSICAL GOODS and SERVICES were more respected. This increasing popularity has lead to MORE patents, unsuprisingly. As a result of this surge of patents, more have been accepted. In the process, the patent office has gotten a little overwhelmed, and has had to step back their review process to some extent; however, when it comes to real industry and substantial companies, not much has changed. Companies and capable innovators still file and recieve sufficient protection. When their patents are challenged, it is the COURTS that play that final and important role, never the patent office.
While it is true that the patent office could improve some things, I think slashdot needs to take a step back and really understand the history and the way the system really works before they jump to conclusions. For instance, I often hear that patents need much more scrutiny (completely ignoring for a minute all the fools that say IP should not exist). But would they really want this? First and foremost, in order to cope with even the legitimate flow of patents, it would require orders of magnitudes more funding. Society would either have to subsidize this or filing fees would have to be dramatically increased--neither are really desirable. Second, this would put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of a few patent office employees (or the "panel" of academics that decides). Patents are NECESSARILY complex animals and there is really no fair and equitable way around some kind of litigation process, whereby both, contesting, parties can make themselves heard--to bring forth their best evidence, experts, and such. In both cases, in order to make the system equitable and profitable, we would still end up with a terribly complex and expensive system, much like the system we have today. Furthermore, if you force this level of review up front, you would lose many of the advantages of our existing system. Our current system allows the amount of resources to scale with the worth and the value of the patent to a large degree.
...oh well this is too involved to lay it all out right now. Just THINK, people.
Re:Do patents have any prestige left? (Score:2)
Look at patent #5,533,051. What it claims is impossible (compression of every file by at least one bit losslessly, including 2 bit files, i.e. mapping 00, 01, 10, 11 to 0 and 1 losslessly!).
It claims it works even for RANDOM data. Heck that violates laws of information theory regarding entropy and counting theory.
Details here [gailly.net].
Re:Lovely..... (Score:2)
This is a battle that only the wealthy have any chance in, even when to an outsider it would appear an open an shut case. If you aren't a patent attorney, you don't even have the right to an opinion. (That trims down the list of mathematicians substantially.)
right, yeah, no, left..... (Score:2, Funny)
My favorite quote (Score:3, Interesting)
This guy is a lawyer working for TechSearch and is going after intel for $2 billion to $7 billion in damages. After reading the article it's disgusting how the people patent office can justify some of these patents. I never thought the day would come when I actually would pity Intel. Thanks to Niro, that day has come.
you liar -- you haven't read the article (Score:1, Troll)
Liar. The only patents mentioned as examples in the linked article are:
- Machine vision
- Bar codes
- The answering machine
- A method for improving the resolution of laser printers
- The method for making Pentium chips compatible with older architectures.
Which of these patents is "disgusting"? They are all non-obvious devices which have been highly useful to the world. You haven't read the article beyond the first couple of lines; alternatively, you are a victim of American education.This guy is a lawyer working for TechSearch and is going after intel for $2 billion to $7 billion in damages
Intel are rich. The owners of the patents are poor (in fact; they're bankrupt). The lawyer's statement is factually correct. The lawyers are anticipating a fifty/fifty share of the profits in return for investing their time and effort in seeing that the (arguably) genuine inventor of the technology is not ripped off by Intel. How is this different from Eric Raymond getting a $40million windfall from Open Source IPOs?
Re:you liar -- you haven't read the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He got what?! (Score:2)
nuisance patent (Score:3, Troll)
Duh... (Score:1)
It's not the system, it's the abusers (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder what the judges would think if many of these cases went to court? Surely the fact that the companies suing have never involved themselves in the manufacture or design of any product would weigh against them. Certainly, their track record would show that these people aren't inventors trying to win back the right to produce the fruits of their labors, but pirates who board a company and wave swords around until someone brings up the doubloons from the hold. Their case rests not on the strength of their position, but on the money it will take to pay someone to swim the legal moat to push it over.
A clever bit of roguery, my congratulations. After all, everything worthwhile in the world was built through backstabbing and piracy.
This is necessary (Score:2, Informative)
Many companies (including the one I work for) routinely purchase competitors products and take them into product evaluation/reverse engineering labs to see what makes them tick and also to see if they are using technology patented by the company doing the evaluation.
Typically, if a patent violation is found, a letter is sent to the company requesting a meeting, where they try to hammer out a licensing agreement. If that doesn't work, it may end up in court.
Re:This is necessary (Score:2)
You better not be doing any encryption technology or else you'll be in violation of the DMCA by doing that reverse engineering.
Patent law isn't quite as bad as you think (Score:2, Informative)
research on innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
I am lawyer hear me roar (Score:2)
A temporary solution.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Set up a web site in
Off Topic? Decide for yourself. (Score:3, Offtopic)
From the Law.com FAQ:
Can I use Netscape Navigator with Law on the Web?
Don't worry, it's just some lawyers helping out their buddies who happen to own some intellectual property!
Microsoft DOES charge for IE (Score:1)
Microsoft does not charge you for their browser.
Yes it does, to the tune of USD $320 [microsoft.com]. (I'm ignoring Windows ME pricing, as its reliability is subpar.) If you have FreeBSD, Solaris x86, Linux, or any other non-Windows operating system, you have to buy Windows before being able to use IE, as IE is under a "supplemental EULA" that gives no rights to those who do not have a valid Windows license.
Re:Off Topic? Decide for yourself. (Score:2)
Law.com has some of the shittiest HTML I have ever seen anywhere on the web. Standards? They have no clue.
3 + 1/2 + 1/2 != 5 (Score:2, Funny)
Ohhhh, Mr. Hosier, rumors can be soo inaccurate! They definitely should have realized that 3 jets and 2 planes is not the same as 5 jets! I mean, if you count the planes as a half jet each, then it only adds up to 4 jets. What an atrocious mistake!
Patents are not bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patents are not bad (Score:2)
More of the patents that never should have been issued are issued to companies that in some cases attempt to patent every iteration of some piece of garbage their research department came up with.
The law really is an ass ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Its killing itself and burning us all on its funeral pyre.
The flaw is simple and singular, laws never expire, and the remedy obvious, laws need to have a built-in expiry date.
But the political system is filled with and controlled by lawyers so its never going to happen until the same thing happens to it that happens to all water kingdoms, a drought comes along and the kingdom gets wiped out.
How'd we get into this mess? (Score:2)
1) Working models were originally required. The USPTO stopped routinely requiring this late in the 19th century because they ran out of storage space for all the inventions. (I think the examiner _can_ still require a working model, but it's only invoked when they really don't believe it can work -- and obviously they're quite a bit too credulous.) We need to bring this requirement back, at least to some extent -- the patent office can't store physical models, but they should ask for them, take some photos of the thing running (if it does), then ship it back. And of course software patent applications (if allowed at all) should come with all source code and a working executable on CD-R; if they can store all the paper in an application, they can certainly store these. Without this requirement, every real inventor is hostage to the Lemelson technique: look at what people need, guess what will be invented to fill that need, file a vague, broad application, then sue the real inventor later.
2) Market it or lose it: If you don't build your invention or license it to someone who can, after 2 or 3 years it should become public domain. (I thought this was once the law.) You do not promote the "progress of science and the useful arts" by letting people just sit on a good idea for 20 years. (The same thing should apply to copyrights, and to items that are removed from the market for long periods. If Disney wants to keep it's copyright on Snow White, let them either keep the videotape in stores, get the movie into theaters every couple of years, or post the MPEG on the web with a "download for non-commercial purposes only" notice. Not hold the damn thing off the market for a generation.)
3) Tighten up the definition of "invention." Under the rules of 1960, one could not patent a mathematical algorithm (LZW compression, public key encryption), or a thing of nature (any naturally occurring gene).
Re:Patently ridiculous... (Score:3, Interesting)
The deal was something along the line of; we are a computer maker so we can have the same name as you because we dont do audio. Then apple decided to make audio a part of the computer and they created the alert sound "sosueme".
I had a point to this story and then I remembered that the closest thing to me has just pushed me away. Now I have no reason to talk about anything. Good bye....
Trademark Trolls? Re:Patently ridiculous... (Score:1)
Re:execution, not law (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to live... (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine if the Patent system was operated like that of the DNS system. $70 to register a patent for two years; first come first served! Time to live on the Patent servers might be set at 24 hours, so your patent might temporarily expire if your local patent server crashed...
GreatPatents.com - the Internet's Number 1 patent marketplace - could sell you the leading patents at discount prices!
OK, I'll do some work now!
Don't forget timezones... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lawyers and Geeks (Score:2)
If the patent couldn't be issued at all, then if someone else started producing the product, there'd be competition. As long as the patent system exists as it does, of course lawyers working for patent holders must proceed to protect the property. So focus your efforts on fixing the system.