How Patent Trolls Destroy Innovation 97
walterbyrd sends this story from Vox:
Everyone agrees that there's been an explosion of patent litigation in recent years, and that lawsuits from non-practicing entities (NPEs) — known to critics as patent trolls — are a major factor. But there's a big debate about whether trolls are creating a drag on innovation — and if so, how big the problem is. A new study (PDF) by researchers at Harvard and the University of Texas provides some insight on this question. Drawing from data on litigation, R&D spending, and patent citations, the researchers find that firms that are forced to pay NPEs (either because they lost a lawsuit or settled out of court) dramatically reduce R&D spending: losing firms spent $211 million less on R&D, on average, than firms that won a lawsuit against a troll. "After losing to NPEs, firms significantly reduce R&D spending — both projects inside the firm and acquiring innovative R&D outside the firm," the authors write. "Our evidence suggests that it really is the NPE litigation event that causes this decrease in innovation."
How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
"Patent trolls" is a propaganda term. It implies that there's a right and wrong way to own patents. In reality it's just that: Owning patents. Patents are a monopoly on ideas. That's the problem.
Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Well yes and no, patent protects innovation because you have a monopoly on your idea. Then up to you to make other researches on new products with the money gained.
But if you use a patent, you're forced to reveal your idea and prepare your competitor to use it later. You're never forced to patent your idea tho (see Coca-Cola, never patented, receipt never given).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
patent protects innovation
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Be happy. The universe is not structured that way. Copying happens all the time in nature. Billions and billions of bacteria create copies of themselves every day. Events that generate light or sound radiate faithful copies of energy in many directions and also can generate echoes. One person can address a crowd of thousands, and radio stations can broadcast one signal to millions, because nature does work that way.
The insanity is the direction we tried to take ideas. We've tried to treat ideas like they're gold. Try to hoard them, try to demarcate and issue certificates of ownership. Tried to apply the logic of material ownership to the immaterial. Many people have fallen for the oversimplification, and have bought the lines that "property is property" and "stealing is stealing". But those pesky ideas just won't stay safely locked up. Someone else might get the same idea without ever breaking into the vault. The people who are regularly appalled and unhappy that vaults don't protect ideas are fools. That DRM exists and has been forced into so many products agasint the wishes of people who know better, is a testament to the large numbers of people who have failed to grasp this aspect of nature. The universe is a better place because ideas can't be locked up. It's the fools who have tried mightily to make patents and copyrights work who are struggling against reality. They're fighting an unwinnable battle. They will eventually lose, but until that day comes, they continue to cause a lot of waste, grief, and damage.
Re: (Score:3)
The first person to come up with an idea always has a monoploy until someone figures out how to copy it
Not anymore according to the USPTO (see http://www.uspto.gov/aia_imple... [uspto.gov] for more info).
Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree with most of what you have said, I have to make a pedantic statement about a common mistake that you have made that infuriates me - you can not patent an idea! You may patent an implementation of an idea, otherwise known as an invention, but you are not supposed to be able to patent the underlying idea.
This is true, although you've used a bad example since recipes are not eligible to be patented. But otherwise, you are correct - unpatented ideas can be protected as trade secrets.
Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Extra! Extra! This just in! New research proves that patent "trolls" actively reduce wasted "R&D" attempts by sad deluded companies aiming to reinvent by themselves and worsen already existing ideas! WIPO economic policies vindicated! Simplification within reach! Coming soon: the Golden Age of the One, Single And Perfect Idea Of Everything (a.k.a. "the Wheel") ! Thanks "trolls", your country owes you a debt of gratitude!
Dear Mr. martin-boundary,
I am writing to notify you that I currently own patent #2139986924, entitled "Process through which a human being may communicate a non-specified message of arbitrary weight and importance to one or more other human beings without the distinct personal application of auditory signals and cues". It is clear through your most recent activity that you have applied this process without my express written consent. You are thus legally beholden to the patent owner, and unless you reimburse me a sum of €12,000 I will be forced to recoup the losses I have unjustly suffered from your piracy to the fullest extent permitted by US law. You have 45 minutes to comply.
Thank you for your cooperation
Mr Troll, Esq.
PS. Perhaps you shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel.
Prior art (Score:3)
Dear Sir:
I apologize for replying 20 minutes late, but I have discovered prior art from ancient Egypt [wikipedia.org]. You can expect Mr. Boundary's counsel to bring this up at trial.
Sincerely,
Damian Yerrick
Owner and Lead Developer, Pin Eight
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Sir,
I apologize for the oversight in my previous correspondence. The description of the patent should have concluded with the phrase "...on the internet".
Sincerely,
Mr Troll, Esq.
SMTP; Alice v. CLS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, most patents aren't any use as most of them ARE obvious to someone skilled in the relevant discipline.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends upon the industry. The drug companies are hard to defend, but there'd be no drug companies without patents. That's because it can easily cost well over $1 Billion to develop a new drug. No one will risk that kind of money without some guaranteed payback should they succeed.
"What?" you say, "Let the universities develop the new drugs?". They do some. So now you want the federal government to fork over $1 Billion on a research that may not pan out. That's only one drug. The government doesn't have
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of the drug industry, the problem could be easily fixed by requiring each business which wants to sell a drug to perform and document the studies to prove that their formulation is safe and effective. No "theirs is safe, so ours is too". That would have the added benefit of verifying scientific results through replication, and it would give the original innovator time to recoup their investment.
Re: (Score:3)
Patents great b/c designing drugs are expensive (Score:3)
This example gets trumpeted out in every discussion on patents. First of all, I think most of us here are interested in software patents and maybe to a lesser extent patents on electronic or mechanical devices.
Second... WHY does it take so much money to develop a drug. Is it really necessary? Or is this just the result of the system which people in industry and government have created? This is an industry where the customer MUST buy the product. To not do so is to be sick or maybe dead. That hardly give
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, to me it's a combination of how patents are used and the fact too many vague, overly broad and (in the case of software) patents on general ideas rather than specific implementations are granted.
If less nonsense patents were approved, or if there was a second class of patents (for software etc) that had an extremely short term, most of the problems of patent trolling would go away.
There's nothing wrong with an inventor being able to protect an actual physical invention (without protected you'll be immediately priced out by cheap knock-offs), but no-one should be able to protect just a vague idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Check out my patent.
http://i.imgur.com/yY2bLDf.png
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are a monopoly on ideas
That's also a propaganda term. The patent system is flawed but not as much as you imply. You can only patent an idea that's not obvious and novel, which means you need to invest a significant amount of talent, time and money in order to develop this idea. Many people expect some protection of their investment in developing their ideas.
The question is in what would incentivize inventors more, the patent system or the lack of it. I don't see a clear answer to this question.
Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
You can only patent an idea that's not obvious and novel....
That's how it should be, but it's not what has actually been happening for the last few decades. The patent office has been spewing out patent approval for the most obvious and commonly used ideas at a rate unparalleled in modern history.
And Congress and the Courts have been complicit in making patent defense so expensive that only the richest companies and individuals can even consider mounting a defense. They have also tilted the courtroom so far in favor of the trivially obvious patent troll that everyone else must simply cave in to the patent offensive, even when the patent wouldn't have a chance in Hell of being upheld in court.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that you didn't actually contradict him.
His term is perfectly valid and your clarification did not alter that at all.
Nobody claimed patents were a monopoly on ALL ideas (though it's patently [if you'll excuse the pun] clear that the limitations you hold so dear have no practical meaning) - the very idea of a monopoly on ANY idea is inherently suspect.
Benjamin Franklin considered it a completely unacceptable proposal and while refusing to patent any of his many inventions also actively campaig
Re: (Score:2)
A system where Inventors get paid for other people developing their ideas, or people they sold the idea to get paid for other developing the idea is broken
If the Patent system encouraged people to innovate *and* develop their ideas then it would work, but the current system does not
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem with the Patent system isn't the idea of patents, but some factors that need to have them adjusted.
1. Patent Lifetime. 20 years is much too long in the technology industry. As technology is improving at an exponential rate. 20 years to hold onto a patents means by the time the patient expires, the technology is so old and out of date that it isn't useful any more. Back in the old days 20 years was enough for someone to get it in the market and make a good living off of it. When it was over then you can get others using it.
2. Too many obvious patents. Especially in software, We code new and interesting stuff every day, as our programs are meant to solve a new problem. Software patents should be reserved for some really ingenious stuff. Like advanced algorithms that the average coder will go, you know I might as well just download the library and implement vs having to figure it out myself and probably not have it work as well.
3. Lack of a good Non-Patent Protection legal mechanism. There isn't a way to register your idea officially, while not having the patent overhead, and if someone patents the same idea you can use your registration to prove yours is legit.
Defensive publication (Score:2)
3. Lack of a good Non-Patent Protection legal mechanism.
Of course there is. It's called publishing a white paper [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
No. The problem with the patent system *is* the idea of patents. Making the adjustments you advocate will just reveal a different set of problems, calling for a different set of adjustments.
The idea of patents is that companies can compete in the court room instead of the market place. This is a great benefit to legal counsel, but is of no benefit to consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not entirely sure how this got modded insightful. The patent system is certainly not built upon owning an idea. They cover a particular implementation, a certain solution to a problem, not just an idea. If you invent a machine that makes unicorn farts, you can patent that machine. If I make a unicorn fart machine that operates in a different way, I am free to do so. Now the market has two different unicorn fart machine styles, and we are arguably better off as a society.
As an engineer with some hands on
Re: (Score:3)
Except there is nothing new. History repeats itself - we've been through these patent litigation storms for hundreds of years now. Probably amongst the earliest was the sewing machine where there were so many patents, and plenty of overlapping ones that it was impossible to make a sewing machine a
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely sure I agree. There is, imho, a right way to get money out of a patent: produce the device, sell it, profit. And then there's the wrong way: find someone who's doing something vaguely similar, latch on like a leech, and destroy their business model by introducing a large unexpected expense. The first benefits someone besides yourself (or you're not going to get many sales); the second is purely parasitic.
How the Patent System Destroys Innovation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No. It's not respectable. Everything else you've said after that derives from a false premise.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's a matter of opinion and not a fundamental law of the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is more important is why the economy tanked. The initial tanking was because Greenspan and the Bush Administration saw no need to pop the housing bubble. The Democrats were surely not going to rock the boat either. The Fed and the Bush Administration went that extra mile by relaxing regulation so everyone and their uncle's dog were able to flip houses. The Fed and the Bush A. were continuing the proud tradition of Clinton and his Republican Congress to allow the investment and the commercial banks to c
Re: (Score:2)
Well you know all that "repackaging bad loans as if they are tripple-A rated investments instead of high-risk" that the banks did. There's nothing WRONG with high risk investments, many investors seek those out actively, but generally these are not big governments.
The repackaging meant that these investments were sold, under false pretences, to organisations (including governments like Iceland) as highly secure investments to store and grow their money.
How the hell that is not outright fraud and how EVERY b
Re: (Score:2)
you need to fix your history line so it should correctly read, under Bush Jr the economy tanked then Obama got into power. I don't support Obama but I do hate it when people try to re-write history.
The conspiracies kind of lose their oomph when they have to stick to the truth.
Binders full of kooks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I get the idea for a new valve design that uses some obscure property of gasoline to make direct injection engines five percent more efficient then I deserve to be rewarded for that
No you don't, and that's not what the patent system is for.
If you get the idea for a new valve design, and then go on to develop the valve in a way suitable for mass production, and then start a business selling those valves, then you deserve not to be undercut by rivals who just copy your design and go straight to market with
Re: (Score:2)
You don't automatically deserve for your business to succeed regardless of other commercial factors, and you certainly don't deserve money just for having an idea. Ideas are cheap, it's R&D that costs money.
I never said that I deserve automatic business success. "Reward" and "getting paid" are two different things. I do agree, however, that I expressed myself poorly. Of course the mere idea is not enough to get a patent: At the very least I should supply enough information to make my valve. Still, I shouldn't need to actually produce valves in order to deserve patent protection; after all there are dedicated research entities like CSIRO who do expend significant effort to develop technologies even though they
Re: (Score:1)
If I get the idea for a new valve design that uses some obscure property of gasoline to make direct injection engines five percent more efficient then I should pay you for the privilege? No. No, I should not.
Just say no.
Patents are evil. There's no reason that inventors who pay for a little piece of paper 5 min
Re: (Score:3)
> Fixing this mess won't be easy.
Fixing the mess is at least straightforward. Discard software patents. Their legality has always been questionable, for sound technical and legal reasons, and they're one of the greatest drains on the patent office. They also have profound, demonstrable adverse effects on industry and on innovation in practice.
Implementing that legal and policy change will not be easy, I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing the mess is at least straightforward. Discard software patents. Their legality has always been questionable, for sound technical and legal reasons, and they're one of the greatest drains on the patent office. They also have profound, demonstrable adverse effects on industry and on innovation in practice.
Is it really? Now suppose that instead of that clever new valve the OP was talking about I invent a whole new concept of fuel injection that also saves 5% of fuel. And I have an implementation, but as software in a standard electronic fuel controller. Do I deserve a patent? If not, why is it fair that the OP gets rewarded for his mechanical invention, and I am not for my software invention?
Re:Cry More (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are supposed to protect specific implementations, not vague ideas. If I patent a widget making machine, someone else can build a different machine that makes widgets in a different way and that's fine. Software patents are the equivalent of patenting the idea of a machine that makes widgets.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A good litmus test for patents would then be: If someone is infringing a patent, but has not read the patent, then the patent is probably much too broad or the invention is too simple and obvious. "First to file" vs "first to invent" becomes irrelevant if patents are required to be highly specific.
Re:Patents are a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm, I don't quite agree. I think a 'use it or lose it' condition on patent claims would be both protective and productive. Oh, and I'd like to see that ideal applied to cybersquatters and their ilk, too.
Have they proved the root cause? (Score:2)
Yup, that old /. chestnut; correlation != causation.
Maybe they just "proved" that some firms invest less when they realise they don't know how to do innovation / R&D.
In any serious organisation these days, spending serious money on R&D, there's a multi-layered approach to all this, ranging from building portfolio of defense/attack/trade patents (Google buying Motorola phone division), (or joining a group who does), through researching prior art to finally building a attacking others (think Apple vs.
Re: (Score:1)
it doesn't really matter whether it helps or not. Congress has the Constitutional power to grant patents; end of story.
what you'd have to do is get a Constitutional Amendment, rather than rant on slashdot (unless that's the best you can do toward that end, in which case, go ahead). in this case, the burden is on you to either fix it or move elsewhere.
who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trolls or Not Trolls (Score:1)
I would assume the parallel research showing that those who end up paying our against non-trolls also reduce spend later having lost a lot of money.
The link is the losing of a patent suit (or having to settle) etc. rather than patent trolls.
The real problem is that the patent system is open to abuse by everyone not merely trolls. It's expensive to be on the receiving end of a patent lawsuit regardless of if you are in the right or wrong. The well known issues with Patents been issued on broad ideas rather t
Re:Trolls or Not Trolls (Score:4, Interesting)
> The original purpose of Patents to create a period of exclusivity to regain the expense of research, tooling (and other capital risks), are good.
That benefit can often, not always, be retained by simply keeping a trade secret. The corresponding social benefit of limited patents is that they expire, and the invention is then available to the public.
Unfortunately, the patent office, and the patent system itself, is overwhelmed by software patents. These are by their nature nebulous, aggressive, and often overlapping in complex ways. They also open the doors for, yes, patent trolls, who do no innovation and produce no actual goods or services to the general public. They exist purely as legal entities to file lawsuits based on patents they've purchased, and have no history or intention of using themselves.
The ideal solution is to discard software patents altogether. They are a horrific drain on software design and productivity, not merely due to patent troll losses, but because they force companies to invest thousands or millions of dollars in patent suites to protect from potential patent litigation. And they directly interfere with software authors publishing their work as open source or freeware. The corporate lawyers, and the expense of patent review, cause many companies to refuse to publish even patches to open source, or freeware. There are good reasons the GPLv3 has tried to deal with software patents harshly. They've been a real problem with open source and freeware.
Sadly, I lived next to a patent troll for a bit (Score:2)
You guys are putting all the blame (Score:1)
Copyists (Score:1)