4 ms·

I have a modest proposal to get rid of these patent trolls and these ridiculous settlements that typically are decided by a jury of West Texas farmers. Patents

I have a modest proposal to get rid of these patent trolls and these ridiculous settlements that typically are decided by a jury of West Texas farmers. Patents ought to be designated a non-transferrable property. Inventors may create a trust that receives patent revenues, and direct those revenues to any entity they please (their own company, their heirs, another company, a charity, etc.) but would not be able to actually sell the patents to any other company or individual. Then, patent holding companies would evaporate, and the revenue for ideas would go to those who created the ideas. If a company created many patents, say, Kodak, then goes out of business, it would leave behind a trust that would continue to receive revenue on those patents until they expired. If you choose not to, you can forfeit the patent and then it becomes public domain.

ant6n 11y ago
So the patent trolls will simply sue on behalf of the owner and collect a 90% 'fee'.
Oletros 11y ago
Are you saying that companies can't bought other companies and take ownership of their patents?
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Oh well, I guess that's the loophole in my proposal. But at least, a patent troll would have to buy an entire corporation rather than just its patent portfolio. Kodak, again: if let us say Toshiba wants Kodak's imaging patents, they'd have to buy Kodak in its entirety. At least this would raise the bar to acquiring patents.
  - jp_rider 11y ago
    I actually sort of like your proposal. Don't individuals have to file for patents and then employees buy it off them for like $1? If this is true, existing patents would fall into this loophole, but new patents could never end up in corporate hands since you can't buy a person. Another issue I see is that patent trolls could just represent patent owners in litigation and charge high legal fees (or sign a contract that they receive all revenue for the patent).
    - dtparr 11y ago
      No, if an employee produces something patent-worthy as part of employment, when they file the employee is listed as the inventor, but the employer is the assignee, so they own it from its inception. There's no "buy for $1" transfer.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    So now, whenever they have something patent-worthy, the company first sets up a new company, then file for the patent for that new tiny company.
stephenhuey 11y ago
Small but important quibble from a Texan's viewpoint: these settlements are being decided in East Texas which is over 500 miles from anywhere in West Texas (imagine the distance from Cincinnati to NYC), and I think the juries there have more people in poverty than farmers.
such_a_casual 11y ago
Or how about we hard delete all software patents since they are absolutely ridiculous? Goodbye $600mil flow charts.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  I'd go with that.
- knodi123 11y ago
  But if we don't have software patents, how else will we incentivize mega-corporations like amazon to invent innovative new technologies like a 1-click checkout button?
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    You make a fair point. In fact, if we had even stronger software patents, facebook would have had to wait 20 years after the invention of myspace. A world with no facebook? Valhalla? It seems I need to rethink my position.
jeffdavis 11y ago
I think you've misdiagnosed the problems. They have little to do with transferability. 1. Patents are a crap shoot. 2. No realistic means to recover legal fees if you do fight. 3. So it's a one-sided crap shoot. You could say that being a NPE is a part of #2, but there are easier ways to fix it: just require posting a bond when suing for patent infringement. If you lose, some or all legal expenses will be deducted. If you win, you get the whole thing back.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >2. No realistic means to recover legal fees if you do fight. // It's normal elsewhere to award costs to the defendant when the plaintiff/complainant is unsuccessful in a civil suit (particularly if the judge finds it lacks merit). AFAIU this doesn't happen in US courts - why on Earth not?
clort 11y ago
anyway that won't work because.. you thought you were buying that software eh? Nope, you are just licensing it.. You thought you might buy a john deere tractor? Nope.. you just licensed the right to use it. sure, you might own the axle nuts but not the software that drives the engine. You say they can't sell the patent? Oh thats ok, they will just license it.. the real problem is that simple & obvious processes are granted patents by the US patent office, and that is what needs to be fixed first.
zanny 11y ago
Can we just please abolish patents? Not just software patents, all of them. Can anyone give me an example of a patent issued in the last twenty years for a novel invention that then proved wildly successful and either protected the inventor from competition or even more importantly led to a lawsuit where the creator successfully beat a large company trying to copy their idea? And even if you can - is the exception outweighing the social cost of the insanity that is our immense tumor of IP lawsuits and intellectual creativity restriction that comes with it? Fundamentally the courts are today rigged entirely for those who can afford the best lawyers and fight in a quagmire the longest. Even if you do invent something original, these large companies know they can just bleed you dry in court and ignore your patents anyway. Yet I do not personally see anyone not being inventive or trying new ideas in the absence of a working patent system to protect their monopoly rights to their ideas. Is anyone today waking up the morning thinking "I'm not going to try new ideas because I won't be able to defend patents I file for them against megacorps". I highly doubt that. The people that create the things that are most valuable to us are products of environments that enable them to conduct the research in the first place (IE, they often don't have to do day labor to survive, or can live very comfortably on reduced work hours) rather than incentivizing "inventors" as a discipline that uses the profits of a state granted monopoly to sustain their business. I mean, even when huge megacorps come up with novel ideas, their competitors will sick lawyers on it and find the closest approximation they can get while having the highest probability of defeating a patent violation lawsuit. And I really hope we are not writing IP law for the sole benefit of international corporations to fund an entire industry of lawyers to waste money arguing about the infringing width of a progress bar.
- macintux 11y ago
  Big pharma, for all its flaws, does in fact provide value. And drug research & development absolutely relies on patents. If you spend half a billion (or more) developing a drug and generic drug manufacturers can immediately sell it for a few cents a pill, how do you recoup your investment? I agree the patent system is broken, but abolishing it entirely isn't the answer. Perhaps revoking the business method patent decision is our best hope of regaining some level of sanity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#The_change_in_practice_in_the_1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#The_cha...

ant6n 11y ago

So the patent trolls will simply sue on behalf of the owner and collect a 90% 'fee'.

Oletros 11y ago

Are you saying that companies can't bought other companies and take ownership of their patents?

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Oh well, I guess that's the loophole in my proposal. But at least, a patent troll would have to buy an entire corporation rather than just its patent portfolio. Kodak, again: if let us say Toshiba wants Kodak's imaging patents, they'd have to buy Kodak in its entirety. At least this would raise the bar to acquiring patents.
- jp_rider 11y ago
  I actually sort of like your proposal. Don't individuals have to file for patents and then employees buy it off them for like $1? If this is true, existing patents would fall into this loophole, but new patents could never end up in corporate hands since you can't buy a person. Another issue I see is that patent trolls could just represent patent owners in litigation and charge high legal fees (or sign a contract that they receive all revenue for the patent).
  - dtparr 11y ago
    No, if an employee produces something patent-worthy as part of employment, when they file the employee is listed as the inventor, but the employer is the assignee, so they own it from its inception. There's no "buy for $1" transfer.
- vidarh 11y ago
  So now, whenever they have something patent-worthy, the company first sets up a new company, then file for the patent for that new tiny company.

stephenhuey 11y ago

Small but important quibble from a Texan's viewpoint: these settlements are being decided in East Texas which is over 500 miles from anywhere in West Texas (imagine the distance from Cincinnati to NYC), and I think the juries there have more people in poverty than farmers.

such_a_casual 11y ago

Or how about we hard delete all software patents since they are absolutely ridiculous? Goodbye $600mil flow charts.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
I'd go with that.
knodi123 11y ago
But if we don't have software patents, how else will we incentivize mega-corporations like amazon to invent innovative new technologies like a 1-click checkout button?
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  You make a fair point. In fact, if we had even stronger software patents, facebook would have had to wait 20 years after the invention of myspace. A world with no facebook? Valhalla? It seems I need to rethink my position.

jeffdavis 11y ago

I think you've misdiagnosed the problems. They have little to do with transferability. 1. Patents are a crap shoot. 2. No realistic means to recover legal fees if you do fight. 3. So it's a one-sided crap shoot. You could say that being a NPE is a part of #2, but there are easier ways to fix it: just require posting a bond when suing for patent infringement. If you lose, some or all legal expenses will be deducted. If you win, you get the whole thing back.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>2. No realistic means to recover legal fees if you do fight. // It's normal elsewhere to award costs to the defendant when the plaintiff/complainant is unsuccessful in a civil suit (particularly if the judge finds it lacks merit). AFAIU this doesn't happen in US courts - why on Earth not?

clort 11y ago

anyway that won't work because.. you thought you were buying that software eh? Nope, you are just licensing it.. You thought you might buy a john deere tractor? Nope.. you just licensed the right to use it. sure, you might own the axle nuts but not the software that drives the engine. You say they can't sell the patent? Oh thats ok, they will just license it.. the real problem is that simple & obvious processes are granted patents by the US patent office, and that is what needs to be fixed first.

zanny 11y ago

Can we just please abolish patents? Not just software patents, all of them. Can anyone give me an example of a patent issued in the last twenty years for a novel invention that then proved wildly successful and either protected the inventor from competition or even more importantly led to a lawsuit where the creator successfully beat a large company trying to copy their idea? And even if you can - is the exception outweighing the social cost of the insanity that is our immense tumor of IP lawsuits and intellectual creativity restriction that comes with it? Fundamentally the courts are today rigged entirely for those who can afford the best lawyers and fight in a quagmire the longest. Even if you do invent something original, these large companies know they can just bleed you dry in court and ignore your patents anyway. Yet I do not personally see anyone not being inventive or trying new ideas in the absence of a working patent system to protect their monopoly rights to their ideas. Is anyone today waking up the morning thinking "I'm not going to try new ideas because I won't be able to defend patents I file for them against megacorps". I highly doubt that. The people that create the things that are most valuable to us are products of environments that enable them to conduct the research in the first place (IE, they often don't have to do day labor to survive, or can live very comfortably on reduced work hours) rather than incentivizing "inventors" as a discipline that uses the profits of a state granted monopoly to sustain their business. I mean, even when huge megacorps come up with novel ideas, their competitors will sick lawyers on it and find the closest approximation they can get while having the highest probability of defeating a patent violation lawsuit. And I really hope we are not writing IP law for the sole benefit of international corporations to fund an entire industry of lawyers to waste money arguing about the infringing width of a progress bar.

macintux 11y ago
Big pharma, for all its flaws, does in fact provide value. And drug research & development absolutely relies on patents. If you spend half a billion (or more) developing a drug and generic drug manufacturers can immediately sell it for a few cents a pill, how do you recoup your investment? I agree the patent system is broken, but abolishing it entirely isn't the answer. Perhaps revoking the business method patent decision is our best hope of regaining some level of sanity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#The_change_in_practice_in_the_1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent#The_cha...