How to Become a Patent Millionaire 500
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
fine ideas culled from there include:
What about good ideas? (Score:3, Interesting)
If there is a patent case comes up involving one of the wi
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think I ever want to be that rich.
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
WOOT.
This is why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, it doesn't work as well as it should.
Re:This is why (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:jury (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can be done just like building a house (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid.. yes but what can you do? At least patents run out after a few years..
Re:This is why (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is why (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
They're expected to make billions off the royalties.
OK, I think I'll try to win this card game (Score:5, Funny)
Patent this! (Score:2)
whew!
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Patents Abuse (Score:2, Interesting)
Easy solution (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't have a problem with it (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks USPTO (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let us see... (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent Lawsuits (Score:2)
Patent Blockers or Inventors? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Invention Promotion Firms (Score:5, Interesting)
(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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:2)
Re:What makes this difference from... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:give the patent away (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
--
Patents vs. Unemployment (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Patents vs. Unemployment (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legal consistency (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Redundant)
2. ???
3. Profit
The early days of an innovation dark age (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Stop it! (Score:2)
I propose we put a 10 year moratorium on filing patents.
-- this is not a
Why are we so surprised!?! (Score:2)
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:
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what patents are for (Score:2)
Invention vs. Destruction (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Talk about destroying inovation!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
My wife just fought with this problem.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Funny)
Violates the Constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
He wasn't being sarcastic. Until the patent system gets a real shake up, people will abuse it.
Re:The solution is ... (Score:3, Funny)
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 . . . (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for MS To patent... (Score:2)
Re:Not really new? (Score:2)
Re:This is an appropriate use (Score:3, Insightful)
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