How to Become a Patent Millionaire

An anonymous reader writes "SF Gate has an article about people who patent ideas for things they have no intentions of building, hoping to license technology or block competitors from doing something similar. As if the patent system weren't screwed up enough already."

Quick!

[st0rmshad0w]

Somebody patent that!

Re:Quick!

[Frymaster]

if you're looking for a bad idea to patent, troll halfbakery.com [halfbakery.com]

fine ideas culled from there include:

1. prescription windshields
2. the usb coffee mug
3. encrypted sign language
4. and my favourite, time sensitive 3d shading! [halfbakery.com]

What about good ideas?

[Grax]

I had an idea for a web site I like to call my technology wish list. Basically everyone can enter their ideas for products they would like to see, like "a wi-fi access point in a cell phone that my pda, laptop, and my car's on-board computer can use to connect to the internet" and then cross our fingers and hope someone decides to make it. Others could comment on and improve the ideas or tell the person that it already exists and where to find it.

If there is a patent case comes up involving one of the wi

Re:Quick!

[ichimunki]

How do all these "better patent that" quips still manage to get modded up? I mean, can you imagine if the first joke off the bat were "can you imagine a beowulf cluter of patents" or some other Soviet-Portman-Goat-Grits joke? Can we actually have a patent discussion of any sort without (and I'm not kidding, just keep reading) the veritable blizzard of "patent suing people" and "patent breathing" jokes? Cripes. I almost wish I had a patent on posting repetitive jokes to internet discussion threads, because I

Re:Quick!

[mike_mgo]

I'd be so wealthy Bill Gates would be serving me coffee in French maid outfit by now.

I don't think I ever want to be that rich.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

I may get modded down for this, but:

You, sir, are a JACKASS, you must work for $C0.

1. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of patents
2. Whine about the penisbirds stealing your grits
3. Toss your naked & petrified Natilie Portman into GOATSE [tubgirl.com]

5. Take off every zig for great *AA
6. There is NO step six!
7. ????
8. PROFIT!

Filling a patent on that

[OaXlin]

Heh wonder if you could file a patent on patent blocking... then sue everyone for royalties when they try to do it....

WOOT.

This is why

[fudgefactor7]

We need a department that has the power to review and revoke a patent. If you're not going to produce what you patent, or if your patent is overly broad (or just plain stupid) it should be revoked.

Re:This is why

[Zathrus]

We do. It's called the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Problem is, it doesn't work as well as it should.

Re:This is why

[TopShelf]

Of course, there are legitimate cases for filing a patent without means to produce the product. The inventor may not have the resources, and must have the patent in hand to round up financial backing. Where do you draw the line as to what is being developed and what is not?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This is why

[TopShelf]

Yeesh... what an ugly solution (unless of course you're a trial lawyer)!

Re:This is why

[Zork the Almighty]

The courts decide on the legitimacy of patents now. It costs everyone tons of money, and wastes lots of time. Hauling every inventor, or even worse, every patent in front of the court system will render the "patents encumber progress" argument moot.

Re:jury

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is: A jury is made of 12 people of average intelligence. Such people are not always capable of detecting bogus patents.

We would have less legal problems in this country if they only allowed the top 2% (130+ IQ) to participate in jury duty (and paid them at least $400/day for their time).

Re:jury

[Rich0]

How about simply enforcing existing rules about things like harassing litigation? If judges slapped contempt of court fines on every lawyer who tried to drain his opponents funding (and at punitive levels) then we'd see these tactics disappearing. Big corporate industry group goes after small guy who states online that they bought the product and it didn't work? See if they do that again after getting a $50 million contempt of court fine. Big companies can afford to just throw $50k at a trial knowing that the little guy will sign anything to make it go away.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This is why

[kin_korn_karn]

The line is whether they contributed $X to the campaigns of the ruling party's candidates. That means it's being developed.

Re:This is why

[isa-kuruption]

An inventor may not want to produce the item him/herself, but to license the patent to others to produce them.

Qualcomm, for instance, does exactly this. Qualcomm makes most of it's money from licensing it's patented technologies to other companies to actually produce and distribute the technology.

Is there anything wrong with this? No.... Qualcomm doesn't have any costs associated with maintainence or manufacturing overhead of a factory, so more money goes into research.

Re:This is why

[The_Rook]

also remember that the purpose of the patent system is to encourage inventors to come up with new ideas and then publish them. without a patent system, every new invention would be treated as a trade secret. for example, you'd buy a television or computer with sticker on the box saying (or trying to say) that opening the box is a violation of the manufacturer's trade secret.

properly employed, patents eliminate the requirement to reverse engineer products because the complete schematics of how the products work are already published in the government's patent database. one of the problems with the patent system is that the courts screwed it up by saying only a lawyer is qualified to say whether a patent has been infringed. this has put published active patents off limits to the engineers who would actually use them.

imagine, for example, if the wright brothers had not been allowed to patent the airplane. they would have never published the wing warping technique, leaving it to other inventors to rediscover it independently. whenever they sold an airplane to someone, they would have to force a contract on the customer forbidding the customer from reverse engineering the machine.

interstingly, all these things are parts of eulas because software developers are not required to publish copyrighted software code. copyrighted code is essentially treated as if it were a trade secret.

Re:This is why

[Moofie]

The Wright Brothers tried to patent the notion of powered flight.

When Glenn Curtiss decided to use hinged ailerons instead of wing warping to provide roll control on his aircraft, the Wright Brothers tried to sue him for patent infringement.

So, you've unintentionally demonstrated how harmful patents can be to improving the state of the art. It is not practical to build large airplanes with wing warping (at least, not with current materials) but ailerons work just great. Had it not been for the US Government nationalizing the Wrights' patents, the state of the art would have been set back by decades.

How can you patent something that happens in nature all the time?

Re:This is why

[isa-kuruption]

And in your case, the courts decided that hinged ailerons and wing warping were 2 different methods of performing the same result... not the same method.

However, that's not the case in this article... nor is it in the case in most of the patent issues we've been seeing lately.

There are two problems with the patent system. The first being lawyers. The second is, as far as software is concerned, what is being patented is the result and not the method. Example, Amazon 1-click... which is a result, but is

Re:This is why

[Moofie]

And what would happen if Mr. Curtiss had been an inventor working out of a bike shop, and didn't have the funding to fight the (now successful) Wright brothers legally?

And, finally, the situation wasn't settled by the courts. The Army nationalized ALL the patents and licensed ALL of them freely to anybody who wanted to build airplanes.

Patents exist for the sole purpose of encouraging technological development by rewarding innovation.

Particularly in emerging technologies, a ten-year court battle can make

Re:This is why

[Moofie]

The legal perspective is the one that's causing all the trouble.

My feeling is that unless you take the trouble of building a prototype, no patent for you.

When patents are employed to encourage innovation, that's good. When they are used to impede innovation (through unreasonable, obstructionist licensing) then that's bad.

I am certainly arguing a philosophical perspective, not a legal one.

Can be done just like building a house

[Pelakh]

When you decide to construct a building and file for a site plan and building permit, they both have limitations in them, such as "significant construction must commence within 12 months of the granting of this application". There are fairly rigid definitions of what that means. If we had something like that for patents, then in some number of months after granting a blocking patent, it would be pulled and would have to be re-applied for. Meanwhile, other parties could make progress on the subject.

Re:Can be done just like building a house

[The_Rook]

the problem with this is that it reserves the right to patent to well funded product developers.

let's say someone invents something and files for the patent. if they have trouble getting funding to develop the patent into a working product then using your reasoning above, they would lose the right to their invention. the only way to preserve the rights of the small time inventor would be to create all kinds of messy patent regulations vis a vis intent - what was the purpose of the inventor and did the inventor make a good faith effort to develop the patent into a working invention?

a possible real world example would be a university researcher inventing a new drug, but who lacked the resources to synthesize and test the drug. if the pharmaceutical companies held off making a deal for a proscribed time, they could swoop in a make the drug without compensating the inventor anything. or they could simply ofer the inventor a crummy deal.

Re:This is why

[ender81b]

We do.. it's called the court system. That is the problem.. the Patent Office grants overly broad (and stupid) patents on the basis that the courts are more qualified to deal with the problem than the patent system. That and not granting a patent can probably lead to some bad things (read: people can sue the patent office).

Stupid.. yes but what can you do? At least patents run out after a few years..

Re:This is why

[acroyear]

Exactly. Grant the patent and somebody else has to go to court. Deny the patent and YOU have to go to court...

Sorry, but PTO workers are gov-scale paid workers...there ain't enough in their salary to deal with all those lawyers. Better to pass the patent and pass the buck.

Paid better than you think

[ProfBooty]

Patent examiners generally start at the GS-7/9 grades making roughly 50-60k a year. Promtion can be rapid, and it is possible to make 90k a year before bonuses/overtime. There was a pay increase several years ago to keep examiners from quiting to work in the private sector as patent agents.

http://www.popa.org/newsletters/julaug00.shtml

Patent examiners are paid on GS scale with specailly 1224, it tops out around 120k for a gs15/10. Attorneys generally make around 100k to start and go up to around 400k.

Re:This is why

[daltec]

Except that is not really an accurate picture of what the PTO actually *does.* You make it sound as if the PTO merely rubber-stamps any patent application that may have the least bit of potential trouble with lawyers. In reality, the PTO denies many more applications than it allows. For example, from 1996 to 2000 the PTO granted 372,079 patents to US companies and individuals. (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf / us_stat.pdf) During the same period, PTO received 677,440 applications from US

Re:This is why

[fishbowl]

>read: people can sue the patent office

In keeping with their view that the courts are more qualified to deal with the problem than the patent system, that sounds about right! The problem here is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, they want to offload their responsibility to the courts, but they also do not want to be subject to the natural and logical consequences -- the courts ought to have recourse against the patent office.

Re:This is why

[EggMan2000]

If you could only patent what you could produce yourself, the only patents would come from huge corporations. Why do you think IBM has 30,000 patents?

The Tradmark and Patenet Office (I think) does the review of all patents. I agree that overly broad should be revoked. -But stupid? Ahh let 'em have a stupid patent. (Dog ear-warmers comes to mind)

The point is that patents allow anyone to invent. If we left invention to the "experts" or those that can afford to produce a prototype, we will be left with the big major coperations running our lives more than before.

In other news...

[carl67lp]

Amazon and Microsoft announced joint patents of a new concept: "A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time."

They're expected to make billions off the royalties.

OK, I think I'll try to win this card game

[Vengeance]

I'm patenting the process of obtaining patents on patenting the idea of patents being used to become wealthy without actually doing any work.

Patent this!

[krisp]

If only I could patent patenting patents i'd never normally patent!

whew!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Patents Abuse

[rk2z]

This just chaps my hide. Why do people have to be such fuckwads. If you have a idea that you want to market then by all means patent it, but to patent it and have someone else all the legwork is just not cool.

Easy solution

[Lightwarrior]

I'm sure someone else has said it, but patent patenting things. If you have that pesky 'prior art' to deal with, and not the limitless budget of M$, make it more specific: patent patenting things with whatever new form they come out with.

And as soon as they come out with a new form, patent that, too.

Offensive patenting, defensive patenting... and now obstructive patenting.

-lw

I don't have a problem with it

[siskbc]

OK, so people are complaining about offensive patents. I have no problem with it - it helps people without resources play in the IP game. The barrier to filing a patent is still not trivial (though it's getting there), so if someone has an idea, spends $15000 (or whatever), it should then be theirs to market how they see fit. If anything, it will create an effective IP marketplace, as companies doing patent searches will find the guy with the patent, and buy it off him. If they elect to go ahead without

Re:I don't have a problem with it

[angle_slam]

The article doesn't go into great details. The problem is with getting very broad patents. I recall reading an article about a guy who, in the very early 90s or late 80s patented the idea of transmitting music from one place to another. Did that patent really lead to the development of the Internet, broadband, and MP3s? Of course not.

The example used in the story is using a normal television as a videophone device. If the "inventor" genuinely came up with ideas necessary for the development of such a techn

Re:I don't have a problem with it

[siskbc]

The article doesn't go into great details. The problem is with getting very broad patents. I recall reading an article about a guy who, in the very early 90s or late 80s patented the idea of transmitting music from one place to another. Did that patent really lead to the development of the Internet, broadband, and MP3s? Of course not.

That's a good point - supposedly, shouldn't there be a tighter restriction on patent applications that haven't been "reduced to practice" (as in your example)? Because if they'd enforce that, the problem would be largely solved, I expect.

MOD PARENT UP, INTELLIGENT COMMENT

[Zork the Almighty]

No doubt. My take on it is this : the intent of the patent system was to protect methods of doing things, not ideas of what to do. The different between patenting the design of a loom, and patenting the idea of a loom is huge. The patent office is at fault for granting these overly broad patents. The government is also at fault for treating patents as a source of revenue. Personally, I don't think this problem will be fixed, or even repaired, in the least. The "broken" patent system gives everyone exa

Thanks USPTO

[siskbc]

No doubt. My take on it is this : the intent of the patent system was to protect methods of doing things, not ideas of what to do.

The sad thing is, I don't think that's just your take - as I understand it, that's supposed to be the very definition of a patent. It's supposed to be an implementation. Sadly, these days, it's not. Blah.

The patent office is at fault for granting these overly broad patents. The government is also at fault for treating patents as a source of revenue.

Damn straight. Suppose

Re:I don't have a problem with it

[jedidiah]

Patents should require a prototype.

If you can't build it yourself, you shouldn't be able to set yourself up as some troll under a bridge.

Re:I don't have a problem with it

[the gnat]

What's wrong with that?

The way patents are meant to help the common man (Horatio Alger version): lone genius working out of an attic in Pittsburgh invents new UltraWidget. He gets a patent for it, then takes it around to the major widget manufacturers and offers to sell them his invention. WidgetWorks, Inc. realizes that this is the next stage in the evolution of the widget, and lone genius retires to Key West.

The way patents are abused: lone sleazo lawyer in Menlo Park looks through industry rags for future trends in widgets. He patents rough concepts for UltraWidgets, TurboWidgets, Widget64, and WidgetXP. WidgetWorks, Inc., which is busy actually fucking innovating and employs engineers rather than lawyers, is working on their own next-generation widget. As soon as it appears that WidgetWorks is going to corner the market, lawyer shoves his patents up their ass. WidgetWorks pays up, lawyer now has hot tub full of Benjamins.

This is not the way patents are supposed to work. Patents are supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", and protect inventions. Technology will advance without these fuckwads filing preemptive patents, and the effect of their activities is actually to slow innovation down. Companies have to waste precious resources covering their ass lest some IP law firm take them from behind. Hell, the lawyers in the article even admit that they're using patents explicitly as a competitive tool, rather than to protect their own investment and hard work.

Blame for this pathetic state of affairs can partly be laid at the feet of IBM, since they pretty much pioneered [forbes.com] the use of patents to pre-emptively squash a competitor.

Well, that sucks, sure, but...

[siskbc]

The way patents are abused: lone sleazo lawyer in Menlo Park looks through industry rags for future trends in widgets. He patents rough concepts for UltraWidgets, TurboWidgets, Widget64, and WidgetXP. WidgetWorks, Inc., which is busy actually fucking innovating and employs engineers rather than lawyers, is working on their own next-generation widget. As soon as it appears that WidgetWorks is going to corner the market, lawyer shoves his patents up their ass. WidgetWorks pays up, lawyer now has hot tub full

Let us see...

[aepervius]

Somebody with 40 billion dollar could make a lot of offensive patents. From zero to ifninity. And then due to the sheer volume use it as a leverage. Not that I am citing the favorite nemesis of slashdot... But think of it. 20 K offensive patents (300 million $) would not even cost a % of their treasure trove. And afterward they would have a big leverage even if 1% of the patents hit home.

Patent Lawsuits

[Randolpho]

I've decided that I'm going to patent the act of retaining a representative to pursue legal actions against another entity.

Patent Blockers or Inventors?

[kevlar]

This is the definition of an inventor. There are many patents which require large amounts of capital to produce. What some inventors will do is patent the idea then pitch it to companies hoping they will purchase the rights to the patent and produce the product.

The entire design of patents is to prevent someone from bulding something you claim as yours. This article just points out the obvious.

Re:Patent Blockers or Inventors?

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

I think that people are more upset about people who patent things, perhaps obvious things, and have absolutly no intention of doing anything with said patent except for collecting licensing fees when somebody infringes on said patent.

Well, I tried to think up something funny as an example to my argument, but it didn't work out very well... the best I could come up with today was patenting eating cereal with a spoon so that you get milk with every bite (But I don't have milk with my cereal, so ha!)

Re:Patent Blockers or Inventors?

[cybermace5]

Precisely. If we refused patents to inventors deemed incapable of implementing the described invention, then all we would hear about is how the Little Guy got ripped off by Major Corporation.

It happens far too much already, without giving the big guys another tool.

Often an inventor will do a lot of preliminary design, analysis, perhaps some initial feasibility testing. The patent document represents a collection of information, with major considerations outlined, that can be used to create a product. In w

Re:Patent Blockers or Inventors?

[jedidiah]

No, the definition of an inventor necessarily includes being able produce A PROTOTYPE. If you can't manage to come up with a working prototype, or at least a full schematic, you are a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER not an inventor.

So?

[aborchers]

What's wrong with inventing something and then charging someone else to develop and market it? Think of it as being an independent R&D department.

What's wrong with the patent system is people getting patents for things that should not be patented, not that you don't have to build the item yourself to enjoy royalties from its invention.

Re:Read the story.

[aborchers]

Again I ask: So?

If I come up with the idea for some nifty new device, and can decribe it in sufficient detail to get a patent (assuming a non-rectocranially inverted patent office) then there is nothing wrong with me deciding whether to build it myself or license the idea to someone else to develop.

For example, let's say I came up with an idea to make electric trains stay firmly on the track. Why should I have to start a toy company and compete with Tyco when I could just sell or license the patent to the

Old as the hills

[BWJones]

Geez, this sort of thing is as old as capitalism. Most people are inherently lazy and ideas are cheap. Thus the patent. However, implementing the ideas is where things get expensive. This is one of the reasons behind the whole .com bust, in that folks were getting VC funding for ideas and products that they had in their heads. Yet, 1) No code existed for many of these ideas and 2) The ideas had no infrastructure to support them. For an interesting documentary of this whole bit in action, see a film ca

Invention Promotion Firms

[Artagel]

There are quite a number of companies that perpetuate fantasies that the ordinary person can make a lot of money by getting a patent on an idea, and then marketing it to companies. Things go so bad that Congress passed a law to control these invention promotion firms. A form for reporting abusive forms of these services can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/2048.pdf

(It is sad to see people who paid $10,000 to have a really bad idea for a dishwasher written up in 10 pages of form paragraphs, and the promotion activity be limited to being told that GE and Whirlpool make dishwashers.)

The reason for the reporting that is required is that many of these companies had never had a patent issue and be licensed to anyone.

Sure, there are the rare exceptions, I know of a couple personally, but for each of those there are 100 people who shelled out $10,000 for pretty much nothing.

WTF?

[Lord_Slepnir]

people who patent ideas for things they have no intentions of building, hoping to license technology Isn't that one of the legit puposes of a patent? Pretend that while playing in my kitchen, I invent a new soda flavor. I have two options on what to do with this

1) Start Lord Slepnir beverages. I'll need to scrounge around for startup capital, get a factory, distribution, find a way to market it, etc. If I fail, I have to declare bankrupcy, and wind up having my house and car repoed. If I end up making a lot of money off of it, I have about 7 years to grow enough to compete with Coke and Pepsi, who will push their own knockoff of this flavor as soon as the patent runs out.

2) I contact coke or pepsi and tell them I have a new flavor. They give me a lump of cash, they take all the risk (I'm not ruined if it fails), they market it, and I get a small royality check to live off.

Re:WTF?

[Zoop]

Pretend that while playing in my kitchen, I invent a new soda flavor.

Allright. I'm pretending you're playing around and have invented the long-sought-after-LemonCherry flavor (substitute Choco-Bacon flavor if you believe that two great tastes will always taste great together).

OK, now pretend I'm the Scumbag Lawyer (but I repeat myself) 5 blocks over in the really nice part of town with a kitchen you'll never afford. I look around at the soda market and realize that nobody's patented the idea of LemonCher

What makes this difference from...

[vasqzr]

SF Gate has an article about people who patent ideas for things they have no intentions of building, hoping to license technology or block competitors from doing something similar

How about people who buy land they have no intention of building on, hoping to sell it to others while blocking other people from building on this land?

Re:What makes this difference from...

[Bull999999]

It's more like claiming land on Mar and expect future settlers to pay you for it.

Re:What makes this difference from...

[silentbozo]

How about people who buy land they have no intention of building on, hoping to sell it to others while blocking other people from building on this land?

In most places in this country, you're required to pay yearly property tax on real estate holdings. If the property appreciates in value, your taxes go up.

Sure, you can stonewall someone from developing a plot of land by buying it first - but you have to actually BUY it, AND you have to pay the property tax while the land lies fallow. With patents, it

Funny little quote

[micromoog]

From the article:

He cited the standards of Wi-Fi (wireless fidelity) technology, in which transmission speeds have been rapidly advancing during the past three years from 11 megabits per second in 1999 to more than 50.

I was aware that the "fi" in "hi-fi" stands for "fidelity", but I don't think the same can be assumed here . . .

Lemelson and the bar code

[snarkh]

Lemelson had to wait years before collecting royalties for some of his ideas, such as the bar code.

Lemelson did not invent the bar code. In fact he engaged in practices very similar to the ones described in the article. His patent was an extremely generic one for machine vision applications, which according to his interpretation covered bar code readers. He was one of the people who never implemented any of their ideas, preferring to wait for other people to reinvent them and then ask for royalties.

Interesting quote

[El]

When faced with a patent infringement complaint from a smaller company, a giant like IBM can use its portfolio of 30,000 patents to strike a deal by giving the firm access to its intellectual property or threatening a counterclaim by citing patents of its own that the other party may be infringing upon.

You mean a smaller company like, oh say, SCO, might be infringing on one or more of IBM's 30,000 patents, and therefore should try to avoid pissing off the bigger company?

give the patent away

[saladpuncher]

Can I patent something that is going to make some huge corporations tons of money and then release it to the public? Basically that would mean that now no one has an exclusive patent on it and everyone benefits. When Salk invented the polio vaccine I think he either refused to patent it or he patented it and then gave it away so everyone could manufacture it. He didn't want to profit off of the pain and suffering of others. Cool guy.

Re:give the patent away

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I patent something that is going to make some huge corporations tons of money and then release it to the public? Basically that would mean that now no one has an exclusive patent on it and everyone benefits.

Why would you bother? Just publish it. It's no longer patentable at that point. Save yourself the legal fees of patenting.

Re:give the patent away

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Otis Elevator Company is the other classic story -- Mr Otis invented the safty brake (which automatically catches an elevator if the cable breaks) and patented the idea. He then gave free license to use the invention to any and all competitors, since it would save lives.

--

Patents vs. Unemployment

[Torgo's Pizza]

I can't see why this problem can't be fixed. I mean, when I lose my job and I file for unemployment one of the requirements is that I need to look for a job. Sure it can be a token effort, but I have to keep a log and report that hey, at least I tried. If I don't get a job within a certain amount of time, the benefits run out.

So why can't the Patent Office do something similar? Would it be so hard to ask, "Gee, how's that invention coming along? Have a prototype yet?" and after a certain amount of time, just revoke the patent because work hasn't been done on it yet. This might actually stimulate some growth once the patent is back up for grabs. Perhaps even offer it up at auction. Then companies could be compelled to make good on the patent application because of the captial investment to get it at auction.

Re:Patents vs. Unemployment

[Almost_anonymous_cow]

Ah yes but then if my company is the only capable of implementing your patent I just wait for the patent office to void it then I can either patent it or start making it and thus deprive you of money.

Re:Patents vs. Unemployment

[tetsuji]

Your suggestion reminds me a lot of mining law, and it's a good one.

If you stake a claim in most states, you're required to do a certain amount of work on that claim - surveying, sampling, etc. in order to maintain your claim. If you fail to do the work, you lose your rights to the claim. This system was instituted back in the gold-rush days to prevent people from just staking up all kinds of property and never doing anything with it. In the patent gold rush, we could certainly stand to learn a few lesson

Legal consistency

[El]

Let's see now... if I register a domain name with the intent of selling it to someone else instead of using it myself, I'm "cybersquating" and ICANN will forcibly take the domain name aways from me. However, if I register an idea with the intent of selling to someone else instead of using it myself, the US Patent Office will assist me in extorting money out of anyone who wishes to sell a product based on a simular idea? I find this curiously inconsistent.

Re:Legal consistency

[ip_vjl]

Yet if you buy a parcel of land with no intention of using it, but instead to let it appreciate in value and sell it later ... nobody will care. The ICANN example only really is different as there's the gray area involving domain names and trademarks.

In this case (patents) the problem isn't people who patent something but not develop it. It's in being able to get overly broad patents to begin with. If somebody gets a patent on something that *could* be reduced to practice (very specifically) and doesn't pr

Quick start guide

[cr@ckwhore]

1. Register patent
2. ???
3. Profit

The early days of an innovation dark age

[Sanity]

I am seriously worried that we are seeing the start of an innovation dark-age where true innovation becomes virtually impossible without paying the "patent tax" to the lawyers and IBMs of the world.

Something similar is already happening in healthcare - doctors cannot afford to do their job while paying the "lawyer tax" to protect themselves against being sued for malpractice. If a powerful lobby like healthcare can't fight the lawyers - what hope do a bunch of geeks have when their beef is even less-easily articulated to the general public?

The patent system is rapidly achieving the exact opposite of what it is intended to achieve. It is providing strong disincentives to true innovation while lining the pockets of those whose only innovative ideas consist of new ways to exploit the patent system.

The solution? I propose a non-profit organization to which patents can be donated, which will use those patents to defend anyone sued for infringement of a software patent. email me [mailto] if you are interested in helping me to make it happen.

Re:The early days of an innovation dark age

[jedidiah]

The sucker mentality of the tort-reformer never ceases to amaze me.

Doctors are supposed to be one of the most well paid professions in existence. This simply begs the question: Why can't doctors afford their own lawyers? Why should anyone need to worry about a "lawyer tax". Doctors should be able to go toe to toe with lawyers when it comes to costs.

If that is not indeed the case, twits like you should first be asking why it is that Doctors can't just defend themselves.

What artificial constraint is forci

I have a good idea for patents

[Ignorant Aardvark]

If I could patent "first post" or "In soviet Russia ..." or "1. ... 2. ??? 3. Profit!", then I could make millions off of Anonymous Cowards in no time.

Stop it!

[AnotherBlackHat]

I do not believe that patents promote science and the useful arts.

I propose we put a 10 year moratorium on filing patents.

-- this is not a .sig

Why are we so surprised!?!

[cenonce]

There will always be people who abuse things. It is just ashame that a lot of them do it under the auspices of "the law".

Top "abuse" topics on /. are:

1. The RIAA abusing the DMCA
2. A person or company patenting something painfully obvious (such as One-Click).
3. Microsoft's convulated and expensive licensing scheme for Winblows

Let's add to this list the number of cybersquatters who register a domain name that is close to a famous trademark or brand name (such as goggle.com) and then dump fifteen cookies into

patents are more political than scientific

[Brigadier]

I'm an aspiring inventor. I've thought up some fairly useful ideas some having a market share so large the potential is inconceivable. However I have enough of a hard time taking care of my family much less hiring a patent lawyer. I've taken advice from everyone in the book including several /. articles in the past. So it really infuriates me to see people abusing the system. The idea that someone can patent a hypothetical concept infuriates me. I say if you do not have the technical capability to show a working model of sound theory in detail there should be no patent award. I remember doing research on patents done in the 17 hundreds and was impressed with how many models, and drawings there are. On the flip side I recently saw the patent for the guy who claims he invented online auctions. The patents basically stated a system to use computers to manage a bidding process. Thatâ(TM)s it. I say if you cant' at least come up with a flowchart showing the details of your concept you should not waist peoples type making the patent office a glutinous waste of paper.

This is what patents are for

[Brett Glass]

The article misses the point: The reason patents exist is to create incentives for inventors to publish their ideas. Yes, they may be implemented by someone else. So? Very few big tasks are accomplished alone, but without the germ of an idea, they'll never get started.

Invention vs. Destruction

[DarkBlackFox]

Still, the tactic underscores the growing importance of patents as a competitive weapon in the technology industry

I was under the impression the technology industry was about innovation to improve humanity, not clog up the legal system with "I thought of this first, even though I have no intentions of doing anything with it." I was also under the impression patents were designed to protect, not attack.

Silly me.

Sounds to me like this tactic is a weapon to make Joe Thinksalot rich overnight, while at the same time stiffling innovation by limiting potential advancements to Megacorps who can flip the bill for pre-ordained patents.

At the same time, why don't I put a patent on an idea to make cars float. I'll call it a "hovercraft." Fifteen years down the road, when Developer comes up with the technical specs of how to do it, I get a pay check for having thought of the idea "first."

Re:Invention vs. Destruction

[Bull999999]

I should patent everything that they show on sci-fi movies and shows.

Talk about destroying inovation!!

[d3faultus3r]

Now you can't design something without worrying that another company will hear of its existence and patent it with no intention of developing it.

Whatever claims people had that the current copyright and patent system work are refuted by this.

Companies could make their entire business collecting royalties from patents they will never use. The company would never need to produce a product to profit, relying instead on revenues from lawsuits and royalties. The company would probably only consist of Marketing and legal departments with a few inventors to make it look vaguely legitimate.

Oddly enough, this report focused on small companies doing this. I would think that large companies with powerful market research divisions and possibly knowledge of industrial espionage would benefit more from this than a small corporation.

My Top 10 Patents

[AtariAmarok]

Here are some of the patents I have decided to file:

10. Time Travel. I've registered any method of moving through time. This includes moving into the future at the regular pace. If I have to sue, Johnny Cochrane will have a slogan for the courtroom: "If you live another day, then us you will have to pay".

9. Death. I should be able to collect through the funeral parlors on this one. Cochran zez: "If into the coffin you fall it will come from your wallet"

8. Space Travel. If I see you step one foot past Jupiter, buster, you're going to pay.

7. A patent on the drink dispension technique of spilling hot coffee on your own lap. I'll sue that lady who sued McDonald's.

6. The Internet itself. Al Gore may have invented it, but I'm the one who patents it.

5. Pop-up ads. I'll charge those who do this without permission so much they will never do it again.

4. I've patented the monopoly. Not only does Milton-Bradley owe me money, so does Microsoft, Cisco, etc etc etc.

3. I've patented "Item # 3"

2. Top 10 Lists. Letterman, you will get a letter from my attorney, man.

1. The Knife-Spoon-Fork icon. If you use such an icon anywhere, such as a News for Nerds site, you need to pay me.

Re:My Top 10 Patents

[seangw]

0. I've patented patenting.

My wife just fought with this problem....

[King_TJ]

My wife came up with an idea a while back for a product, and we're still trying to get a prototype built. When we went to do an online patent search, we discovered at least 8 or 9 potentially troublesome patents already in place for similar devices to ours. Upon closer inspection though, they all appeared to be filed by people who never sold a product based on any of them. In most of the cases, it looked like they were written up by other people like us, trying to piece something together from parts lying around the house. (One guy described how his unit functioned using such things as an aquarium water pump and a tire inner-tube, for example.)

I can understand why the people wanted to patent their ideas, but as others pointed out - it seems like these unimplemented patents should automatically expire after a period of time. (Perhaps 2 years is enough of a time-frame to say "Show evidence of progress, or the patent gets removed."?)

As it stands now, all of these existing patents place artifical limits on the ways we can opt to accomplish specific goals inside our final product. I'd prefer not to disclose exactly what we're trying to do, but just for example - if we want to heat and distill some water in our product, we might have to use a peltier device instead of a heating coil. Even if the heating coil is the superior solutuon, it might put our device into questionable patent territory, since another (fairly broadly worded) patent already describes a device not too different than ours, using a heating coil for this function.

Do it anyway...

[sleepingsquirrel]

I wouldn't let any wanna-be patents get in the way of something that's going to make you money. Your company, Widgets-R-Us should start cranking out as many Whizzy-Wigs(TM) as possible (first mover advantage is your friend). It will take a while for those patent holders to figure out that you are infringing on them. Then they'll have spend some real money to sue you. Your counter move is to use the court system in the way it works best. That is: delay, delay, delay. With only minimal attorney's costs

Violates the Constitution...

[dpbsmith]

The purpose of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. . ."

The practice of pre-emptive patenting does not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Therefore, if current law permits this practice, then Congress has a clear responsibility to change the laws.

Patents aren't worth much

[jmichaelg]

There's a recurring fantasy that patents are worth boatloads of money. That's only true if you already have boatloads of money.

Case in point. My father was an engineer in the 30's and early 40's. He patented the first working variable pitch propellor. The first two patents were for designs that couldn't handle the stresses involved - he figured out how to solve both problems simultaneously. Chances are you've flown on a plane that used a variant of his invention. He tried to peddle the design but the company he was dealing with didn't like his terms so they just took the idea. The contingency lawyers he talked to wanted such a big slice of any payout that he didn't figure it was worth pursuing that avenue. My father didn't have enough money to fund a lawsuit and that was that. He did a bit more work after that - designed the landing gear for the DC-3 among other things.

It's worth noting that the article is talking about a lawyer patenting his own ideas. That perfectly illustrates who the patent system is set up to benefit.

Not sure this is legitimate...

[cfulmer]

IANAL (YET!)

So, first of all, a patent can easily cost $15K. Patent a few things that nobody wants and pretty soon, you've got through a lot of cash. Even if you do actually get a worthwhile patent, enforcing it is completely another manner -- your target company can tie you up in court for YEARS (costing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars), at the end of which you may lose.

Secondly, you can't patent obvious or already existing technologies -- it's one of the reasons people can lose patent fights -- they patented something that somebody else invented or that anybody reasonably knowledgeable in the field would predict.

Finally, though, you can't just patent an idea -- it needs to be "reduced to practice." In other words, Wilbur and Orville couldn't just say "We have this great idea -- a flying machine. Please give us a patent on it." Part of the patent describes exactly how it works. Just patenting an idea while lying to the patent office that you've reduced it to practice is considered fraud.

Now, the problem with all this is that people regularly patent already existing ideas, they regularly patent obvious things and they regularly patent things that don't (or can't) exist. The patent office does not have the ability to make sure that every patent is good (cost, manpower, cost, speed of technology, cost, etc....) Instead, the USPTO effectively relies on patent litigation as a method of getting rid of crummy patents. Very inefficient and leads to people licensing technologies rather than spending the money to litigate obviously bad patents.

Patent Applications Like Building Permits?

[serutan]

Edison said invention is something like 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. The patent system wasn't set up to provide a means for one-percenters to stake a claim on the future hard work of the 99-percenters.

When you get a permit to build a house you generally have 2 years to complete the work, then if the work isn't done you have to get a new permit. Patent applications should expire like that. Otherwise we will have an idea-squatting industry akin to domain name squatting.

Part of the problem..

[Kwil]

..as I understand it, is that the PTO gets more money if it actually grants the patent then if it refuses it.

Considering that it gets squat for federal money these days, you can see how this situation leads to the patenting of crap-on-a-stick and so forth.

So to fix this, do it the other way around. Charge slightly more should the patent examiner determine the invention is "obvious" and a lot more should it be determined that there is prior art.

I'd even be willing to give the examiners a direct incentive should they find prior art. (But set up an appeals process if you do that) This would discourage companies and individuals from patenting utter crap, and strongly encourage patent applicants to do a good search of the prior art, rather then (as now) choosing to avoid looking (because if you don't see it, you can say you didn't know)

What's wrong with patents:

[panda]

"You don't have to build it," Ferrell said. "You just have to conceive it. By filing a couple of patents, you essentially have co-opted the standards road map. Anybody who wants to go from G to X has to get through your toll road."

That quote, from a patent Attorney, says all anyone needs to know about why patents on non-tangible things are bad. If you're going to patent something, I think you should have to build it before you're allowed to apply for a patent. If it can't be physically built, then it can't be patented.

Misunderstanding of patents...

[f97tosc]

From the article:

It's part of a legal tactic called "offensive blocking patents" in which businesses or individual entrepreneurs use patents not so much as tools to build new products, but as legal roadblocks or bargaining chips against competitors or corporate giants.

Patents are never tools to build new products. You don't need a patent to build your own product. And if your product partially infringes on somebody else's active patent - then a patent of your own wont give you any rights to build it at all.

The only use for a patent is to stop others from using your technology.

Personally, I am a bit of an inventor and I often come up with different ideas for business software. When I do, I ask myself if I can develop it myself as a stand-alone product. If I can, then I start develop it; and I don't necessarily file a patent.

But sometimes I find that my idea would be most useful as a part of a large existing piece of software. In that case I try to file a patent, and I can then approach a bigger company with my idea. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Tor

And what is wrong with this?

[the eric conspiracy]

There is nothing wrong with obtaining a patent on something you have no intention of producing. The fact of the matter is that there are many great sources of legitimate innovation that operate exactly this way. Biotechnology companies that build a new drug and then sell it to pharmaceuticals to manufacture and market. Universities that obtain patents on technologies invented in their labs, and then sell the patents to industrials to realize their commercial potential. Research consortia set up to develop new technologies and then license them back to the companies who fund the consortia.

The list of these sorts of operations is long, and quite distinguished. There is a tremendous amount of legitimate innovation that results from companies and individuals being able to patent results of research and development, and license the patents to companies whose strength is manufacturing, not innovation.

The real issue with the 'inventions' described in the article is that they are really not inventions, but rather obvious combinations of technologies already released to the public. Most of these patents should have never been granted.

I showed this article to the GM at work

[yem]

"Great article", he said. "Offensive blocking patents!! We need to be a lot more active ourselves. Need to start thinking about this."

He wasn't being sarcastic. Until the patent system gets a real shake up, people will abuse it.

Re:The solution is ...

[tomhudson]

<quote>Let's say we're both watching a 49ers game," said the 42-year old Menlo Park attorney. "You and I will show up in this bubble picture. You'll have a head shot, and I'll have a head shot, and we're talking to each other during the game. It's as if you and I are in a virtual chat room watching the same broadcast event."</quote>

Soemone should give them both a head shot - 45 cal. or better. Or maybe a "head shot" the same way PeeWee Herman did when he was arrested for stroking off in a theat

Re:Wait a minute . . .

[dacarr]

Um.... In Soviet Russia, patent obstructs you?

Re:Waiting for MS To patent...

[Hentai]

Why is this +0/Flamebait and the post above it is +5/Funny? Is there any semantic difference between the two?

Re:Not really new?

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

I saw a report on that somewhere on TV once. They said that like only 1 in 1000 inventions actually were patented yet the company still collects (outrageous?) fees on every single application they do for you, regardless of whether or not it is approved.

Re:This is an appropriate use

[psykocrime]

There are two problems here....

1. These guys are patenting trivial, obvious shit that absolutely does NOT deserve a patent... and if the patent examiners had any modicum of technical competency, most of this shit would get rejected.

and

2. It costs so much to file a patent now, that it's damn near impossible for a private inventor to patent anything, unless he / she is already independently wealthy.

The idea of patents has (had?) some merit, but abuses like this make me think we should just scrap the entir