Companies Asked to Donate Unused Patents 140
Radon360 writes "There are countless patents that are promising but sitting idle, stowed in the corporate file room. In fact, about 90 percent to 95 percent of all patents are idle. Countless patents sit unused when companies decide not to develop them into products. Now, not-for-profit groups and state governments are asking companies to donate dormant patents so they can be passed to local entrepreneurs who try to build businesses out of them. "
Why donate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Take an old, dusty patent that isn't doing anyone any harm, and then give it to an entrepreneur who now has an incentive to sue anyone else whose product violates the patent.
The only reason it's possible to do business in the United States at all is because 90% of patents are left lying in a drawer rather than being rigorously enforced.
Even better... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why donate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they could just sit on the patent and sue the entity that actually does the work and get all of the money.
Re:Invalidate them (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!
Let's be clear about this, for the benefit of the libertarians: patents (and other forms of protected IP, i.e. trademarks and copyrights) are government interference in the market. They are a form of government-granted monopoly which interfere with the normal operations of a free-market economy. As a matter of principle as well as practicality, this should only happen when the benefits clearly and greatly outweigh the costs -- "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," as the Constitution defines the purpose of IP law. Granting government protection to unused patents clearly does nothing toward this end.
If I may play Devil's Advocate for a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, those Simpsons. Anyway, problem:
Those patents gathering dust are DEFENSIVE patents. That's why they're gathering dust; they're the deterrent your company has just in case anyone starts violating the patent sharing agreements that prevail between the big players in many markets.
If you donate them to other institutions, they 1) are no longer a deterrent and 2) may no longer be covered by patent sharing agreements. Congratulations! You have plunged the world into an era of 0 technological progress, as companies find the existing patent detente is no longer enforceable.
It would be better to simply grant every company ever a patent on everything possi -- oh, wait, that is the USPTO's actual strategy.
Patents are not rights to develop products (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why donate? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the benefit to the corporation to participating? The costs are:
Think about it: would the typical manager/executive sign off on the budget to offload properties that don't cost anything to keep laying around? Would they absorb the potential risk of giving up an offensive or defensive legal shield?
HaHaHa (Score:3, Insightful)
Reality Collision (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the libertarian black-or-white view of marketplaces is that humans _always_ screw it up. Not sometimes, always. I imagine the number of people that screwed this one up is relatively small, but isn't it always the few who make misery for the rest.
History shows time and again that all unregulated markets mature to monopolies. From fish mongers to real estate agents, there's rarely an exception. The libertarian view then either accepts the monopoly or performs some logical gymnastics to allow regulation.
The libertarian ideal _will_ be as abused as every other political ideal that has come before it. Please consider a more moderate approach.
Agreed--ASKING won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
EXACTLY. How terribly naive to think that those companies that own many "stale patents" would donate their "valuable IP". Those who are truly interested in innovation rather than exploitation will make the effort to get the invention to market (either themselves or through actively pursuing licensing agreements with those that have the capital to do so). Those companies that are NOT interested in bringing the patented idea to market and are not evil parasites are already donating such patents to others (IBM for example).
All that are left are evil, parasitic submarine-patent holding companies. Such companies exist solely to make money without making an effort by holding innovation hostage. Such companies will not donate their IP simply by asking them politely. As you have suggested and I've advocated for quite some time, this illegitimate business model has to be outlawed in some way, and the best way to do this is to introduce the obligation to provide not only the description of the invention itself but an execution/delivery plan as well that describes the intended plan to bring the patented invention to market. The patent holder would be held to that plan, up to a maximum-allowable period of time (whichever is shorter). If the patent holder fails to deliver the patent would be permanently invalidated and the idea would be public domain.
Though much more patent reform is required, this single change would be a big step forward. Amazon may have been evil to file their stupid "one-click-online-purchase" patent but at least they actually brought the idea to reality. Submarine patents run completely counter to the spirit and purpose of patent law, are potentially damaging to the economy and global competitiveness of a nation and must be eliminated.
Re:Invalidate them (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe small companies where the CEO or CFO are signing off directly on such expenses. But in larger corporations where "legal" is nothing more than a faint blip on the accounting radar, these types of decisions have been lost in the process.
Who is going to go to all the trouble of tracking down which patents in the portfolio are actually not in use (and that would mean completely unused). In a large organization, tracking that down could be nearly impossible, especially when patents are coming from aquisitions, etc. The individual would have to have pretty good grasp of the technologies covered by the patent, the technologies used in all of the company's products (and those of its subsidiaries, etc...), have a good grasp of who in the organization "owns" the patent, the history behind its application, etc...
This would be a daunting and expensive task. It may simply be cheaper to pay the annual renewal fees rather than (a) do the legal and technical research to know that the patent is truly unused, and (b) understand the risk that someone else (e.g. a competitor) could not use the patent against the company giving up the patent.
Re:Invalidate them (Score:1, Insightful)
Put the patents in the public domain (Score:1, Insightful)
Donate long term assets?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Could companies be more open with them, sure, but *donate*
And in other news ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like that will happen
Re:Invalidate them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why donate? (Score:2, Insightful)
There would have to be some legislation that says the write-off value of a patent has to be reasonable, but this is similar to whenever physical goods are donated for a monetary write-off.
this ought to be mandatory (Score:3, Insightful)
The inventors of the US patent system didn't envision idle or submarine patents. Their intent was to encourage the creation of useful devices that would actually be made available to the public in exchange for the temporary monopoly on profiting from that invention. Having 95% of all patents idle doesn't fit the original intent.