How Patent Trolls Harm the Economy 123
WebMink writes "It used to just be speculation, but the numbers are now in — patent trolls are costing America jobs and economic growth. Newly-published research using data commissioned by Congress shows big rises in patent troll activity over the last five years — from 22% to 40% of all patent suits filed, with 4 out of five litigants being patent trolls. Other papers show that jobs are being lost and startups threatened, while VC money is just making things worse by making startups waste money filing more patents. Worst of all, it's clear this is just the tip of the iceberg; there's evidence that unseen pre-lawsuit settlements with patent trolls represent a much larger threat than anything the research can easily measure."
Re:The headline lies (Score:4, Informative)
Newly-published research using data commissioned by Congress shows big rises in patent troll activity over the last five years — from 22% to 40% of all patent suits filed, with 4 out of five litigants being patent trolls
However, the actual article states that
Not only has the number of cases increased, but so has the proportion of these non-product-related litigants, from 22 percent to 40 percent of cases filed. They found that four of the top five patent litigants in America exist solely to file lawsuits.
The missing word, in the summary, of course, is TOP, without which the summary makes very little sense, statistics and common-sense wise.
Re:Indirect damage (Score:5, Informative)
That's said I really doubt that patenting an idea will help you.
In the software industry, patents are for troll and companies with money enough to waste it on self-defence. The industry is moving so fast that first-to-market with a new technology is enough. Beside if anybody violates you patent and manages to get more customers, the courts will never be able to compensate you sufficiently.
I recently heard from a medical software start-up that patents and by implication VC capital was necessary, in their niche area. But he bluntly admitted that he didn't think he had a chance at enforcing the patent anyway. It was just to lure investors on-board.
Out side the medical industry, patents have no value... Even if I had a patent for something Facebook did, by the time I won the case against Facebook, they would have grown so big that it wouldn't matter to them, and my compensation would be insignificant anyway. Which, is fair because FB probably didn't only succeed because of ideas they stole from others, but for a long reason of things, including luck.
The only place in the software industry where I think patents could be valid, is when the company has the option to keep it's competitive advantage as a trade secret, instead of filling a patent. But in most cases, device designs, user interface ideas and any algorithm that runs on the client this doesn't make sense.
For instance it might be worthwhile to award google a patent on their search algorithm, in exchange for having it publicly disclosed.
(I think these cases are rare, and ought to be the exception).
IMO, patents should serve to help disclosure instead of trade secrets, to serve society, not greedy individuals.
You have to sue before you can talk (Score:4, Informative)
Due to a court decision about ten years ago, patent holders now have to sue before they can discuss patent licensing. If you accuse someone of infringement, they can sue to have the patent invalidated, and they have some tactical advantages if they sue first. So patent holders don't send infringement letters any more. They have to start with litigation. That's the reason for the boom in litigation.
It's a huge pain for everyone.
Re:The headline lies (Score:5, Informative)
This is a false maxim. Innovation happened at a (relatively speaking) much faster pace before patents became the norm. The only thing protecting them were trade secrets. Which worked just fine. Patents came along to spur innovation because things like steam engines (probably a bad example, but you get the idea) were being kept as trade secrets and in order to compete you would have to develop your own from scratch. Nowadays with all of the advanced design tools we have? Minimal cost. You just need to have a clue as to what you're doing in the first place.
Back then you'd have had to prototype every single idea to see if it even had a chance of working.
Patents, as such, do nothing but stifle innovation now. The life span of most products is 5 years at best, meaning whoever is first to the gate gets a monopoly and rakes in billions. When the patent actually expires the product is, or should be, irrelevant.
Re:First Post (Score:2, Informative)
Has the current Slashdot readership really become so retarded than unfunny jokes like this, repeated for the n-millionth time, are still getting modded up to +5?
How the mighty are fallen.
Are you suggesting that many of the slashdot moderators use similar criteria to judging novelty and inventiveness as ....?