7 ms·

This is probably an unpopular opinion on HN but I don't think patents should be transferable. If only the inventor were allowed to benefit from a patent it wou

This is probably an unpopular opinion on HN but I don't think patents should be transferable. If only the inventor were allowed to benefit from a patent it would work closer to the original intent of the patent system which was to incentivise creators. Since then it's purpose has been perverted into a right to own IP. Ownership of IP only benefits lawyers and patent trolls. Please note that I'm not talking about trade secrets which are another thing altogether.

kidgorgeous 11y ago
I completely agree. I've always been baffled as to why this was allowed.
codeismightier 11y ago
If the inventor is a corporation, this would be gamed by simply transferring ownership of the corporation. If the inventor is a human, the person would have to organize as a sole proprietorship and forgo limited liability. Designing rules is hard!
- x5n1 11y ago
  It's fine for corporations to own patents, they should be however nontransferable so only that corporation can ever bring a lawsuit to enforce it. And if the corporations is bought or sold or dissolved or rearranged, it loses the patent. That sort of limits the scope of how the patent can be used. Which would still be an improvement than now.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    How would that work with a public company? That's bought and sold every day.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      Not what I meant, I meant as in when it becomes a subsidiary of another company or something as such. Not bought or sold on the stock market.
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        That would mean that any IP-heavy company could not get any investment, as selling any significant stake would mean all of their patents would be invalidated.
LeifCarrotson 11y ago
The inventor can benefit from a patent by selling it. Maybe they don't want to raise millions of dollars and spend years building a business that may or may not eventually generate $20 million in profit over the next couple decades, and would rather just sell it now for $1 million and get back to creating! Even if they wanted to take the time and risk to use it directly, the skills required to invent something and the skills to profit from it aren't necessarily the same.
- modeless 11y ago
  > Maybe they don't want to raise millions of dollars and spend years building a business But see, this is the valuable part! This is what we should be rewarding! The idea is worthless without execution. The concept that someone who simply had a relatively trivial idea should be able to extract rent from someone else who had the same idea but actually spent years executing on it and building a real business that benefits actual customers, taking on significant risk to do so, is repugnant.
  - CardenB 11y ago
    If we ignored the value of the idea, then those with the means to scale up production quickly could easily steal ideas from those who are trying to find the means to scale up production.
  - golergka 11y ago
    > But see, this is the valuable part! This is what we should be rewarding! The idea is worthless without execution. And that's exactly what the system that allows the transfer of patent rewards. If patents wouldn't be transferrable, than inventors and entrepreneurs would be forced to be both, instead of productively working together.
  - sbov 11y ago
    There are several things that go into a product. Using your metric, if you chip away any one of them the other parts tend to become worthless. You wouldn't have a product without the ideas that go into it. You wouldn't have a product worth anything if you didn't have people selling & marketing it. In a vacuum each aspect is worthless. So programmers should be paid zero, just like inventors should be paid zero. Because unless you're going to build a business, what you just programmed is worthless.
amelius 11y ago
> closer to the original intent of the patent system which was to incentivise creators Speaking about incentives, the USPTO still has an incentive to accept as many patents as possible. This is a bit like paying fishermen for the fish they didn't catch.
kbutler 11y ago
Making patent ownership non-transferable would have no significant effect. Patent troll companies would simply contract with the inventor and sue "on behalf of" the inventor. Same dollar amounts would change hands, the contracts would just be written differently.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  One troll is already famous for doing exactly that. Just can't recall his name. Company brings in huge money. I do remember he always warns they can take the offer or he will "go thug" with lawyers.
josaka 11y ago
One practical reality of this rule would be that only wealthy inventors could secure effective IP rights. A patent without the ability to finance a lawsuit (about $2 million, min) is an empty threat, and sophisticated parties know this and will refuse to license your IP. Contingency fee lawyers used to fill this void, but recently patent suits have become so unprofitable that, at least anecdotally, very few firms are taking contingency cases. Private equity will step in occasionally for patents with a pedigree, in a strong portfolio, but it's rare.
dboreham 11y ago
Um..since this is the entire point of patents (to reduce an innovation to a bond), you may as well do away with patents (which is fine with me).
marincounty 11y ago
I would like to see one transfer. It would have to be worded just right, but just one transfer. The reason I call for one transfer is patenting someting is a big deal(financially) for a poor person. The fees are too high. (I actually contacted the patent office in the US a few years ago, and questioned their fees. They came back with we give a slight break to micro-businesses, or someting like that? It was not low enough for my budget.) My point is a rich entity can patent a fart sound, and the cost is a two person corporate lunch. And that's why they patent everything? I would like to see patents/trademarks costs go up in cost exponentially. Example, first patent $1000 dollar fee. Tenth patent $50,000? I would like to see the cost tied to income level, maybe even gross? A poor entity, even if they fill out the paperwork themselfs; the cost of a patent is high. Especially when you have file multiple patents in order to protect your idea. That person should be able to profit on his/her idea? That person should be able to afford to protect their idea. So many poor people can't afford those patent fees-- In all reality, I would like to see patent/trademark fees lowered for poor entities. (If the entity sends in sloppy paperwork; you can make that poor person pay what a rich person pays. This would prevent abuse of the system?)
- nsajko 11y ago
  What does allowing only one patent ownership transfer got to do with patenting fees? (Have I misunderstood you?)
georgemcbay 11y ago
I think patents should be transferable, I just think patents should be a lot harder to acquire to the point where they are rare, which was absolutely the original intent (at least as it pertains to US patents). See, for example, Jefferon's letter to Isaac McPherson: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... If Jefferson were reanimated now he would, pretty clearly, be livid about the current state of the patent system and the way patents are essentially rubber-stamp granted as long as you pay the fee and use all the right legalese to make your incredibly obvious "this, but on a computer" invention seem like it is anything new.
- nightski 11y ago
  How do they achieve being very selective yet being unbiased and fair? That seems like an extremely difficult proposition.
rz2k 11y ago
There is an analog with art, a /droight de suite/ or a system for resale royalties. The idea is that starving artists have very low bargaining power compared to galleries and art dealers. The theory goes, that if the artists are disallowed from selling all of their ownership rights, that is, they will receive a royalty every time their painting is sold in the future, then the creators of pieces that turn out to be extremely valuable will never be left starving on the street simply because they were bad at negotiating. However, retrospective analysis of such systems in practice has tended to show that artists' bargaining position has not been as weak as the common narrative, and constraining the upside potential for art dealers has lead to less funding in the market overall, and less risk-taking in the form of purchasing works from undiscovered artists who are most likely to resemble the starving artist archetype.
cm3 11y ago
Absolutely and the same can be said for the original idea behind copyright. Heck that descendants can live off royalties of a passe one's copyright is not why it was invented.
cm3 11y ago
The company you work for on whose time you invent something that is granted a patent should give a revocable license to your employer but the inventor should never have to give up the patent to the employer. Unfortunately that's how it's handled in most places and a reason why many do not submit stuff to patent lawyers in the company. I'm curious how this works in the US with IBM creating at least one patent a day.
fredguth 11y ago
My opinion is probably even more unpopular. I don't believe software should be patentable at all. Algorithm implementation is already covered by copyright and that is enough. The American patent is working backwards. Instead of fostering innovation, it makes inventive people stop to wonder if what they are doing is or not infringing any of so many bogus patents.
ajuc 11y ago
Licencing is OK. But the patent shouldn't be "exclusively transferable". The owner should be always able to do it himself or sell another licence. Also if nobody is doing anythin with the patent - it should be void after a few months.

kidgorgeous 11y ago

I completely agree. I've always been baffled as to why this was allowed.

codeismightier 11y ago

If the inventor is a corporation, this would be gamed by simply transferring ownership of the corporation. If the inventor is a human, the person would have to organize as a sole proprietorship and forgo limited liability. Designing rules is hard!

x5n1 11y ago
It's fine for corporations to own patents, they should be however nontransferable so only that corporation can ever bring a lawsuit to enforce it. And if the corporations is bought or sold or dissolved or rearranged, it loses the patent. That sort of limits the scope of how the patent can be used. Which would still be an improvement than now.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ascorbic 11y ago
  How would that work with a public company? That's bought and sold every day.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Not what I meant, I meant as in when it becomes a subsidiary of another company or something as such. Not bought or sold on the stock market.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      That would mean that any IP-heavy company could not get any investment, as selling any significant stake would mean all of their patents would be invalidated.

LeifCarrotson 11y ago

The inventor can benefit from a patent by selling it. Maybe they don't want to raise millions of dollars and spend years building a business that may or may not eventually generate $20 million in profit over the next couple decades, and would rather just sell it now for $1 million and get back to creating! Even if they wanted to take the time and risk to use it directly, the skills required to invent something and the skills to profit from it aren't necessarily the same.

modeless 11y ago
> Maybe they don't want to raise millions of dollars and spend years building a business But see, this is the valuable part! This is what we should be rewarding! The idea is worthless without execution. The concept that someone who simply had a relatively trivial idea should be able to extract rent from someone else who had the same idea but actually spent years executing on it and building a real business that benefits actual customers, taking on significant risk to do so, is repugnant.
- CardenB 11y ago
  If we ignored the value of the idea, then those with the means to scale up production quickly could easily steal ideas from those who are trying to find the means to scale up production.
- golergka 11y ago
  > But see, this is the valuable part! This is what we should be rewarding! The idea is worthless without execution. And that's exactly what the system that allows the transfer of patent rewards. If patents wouldn't be transferrable, than inventors and entrepreneurs would be forced to be both, instead of productively working together.
- sbov 11y ago
  There are several things that go into a product. Using your metric, if you chip away any one of them the other parts tend to become worthless. You wouldn't have a product without the ideas that go into it. You wouldn't have a product worth anything if you didn't have people selling & marketing it. In a vacuum each aspect is worthless. So programmers should be paid zero, just like inventors should be paid zero. Because unless you're going to build a business, what you just programmed is worthless.

amelius 11y ago

> closer to the original intent of the patent system which was to incentivise creators Speaking about incentives, the USPTO still has an incentive to accept as many patents as possible. This is a bit like paying fishermen for the fish they didn't catch.

kbutler 11y ago

Making patent ownership non-transferable would have no significant effect. Patent troll companies would simply contract with the inventor and sue "on behalf of" the inventor. Same dollar amounts would change hands, the contracts would just be written differently.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
One troll is already famous for doing exactly that. Just can't recall his name. Company brings in huge money. I do remember he always warns they can take the offer or he will "go thug" with lawyers.

josaka 11y ago

One practical reality of this rule would be that only wealthy inventors could secure effective IP rights. A patent without the ability to finance a lawsuit (about $2 million, min) is an empty threat, and sophisticated parties know this and will refuse to license your IP. Contingency fee lawyers used to fill this void, but recently patent suits have become so unprofitable that, at least anecdotally, very few firms are taking contingency cases. Private equity will step in occasionally for patents with a pedigree, in a strong portfolio, but it's rare.

dboreham 11y ago

Um..since this is the entire point of patents (to reduce an innovation to a bond), you may as well do away with patents (which is fine with me).

marincounty 11y ago

I would like to see one transfer. It would have to be worded just right, but just one transfer. The reason I call for one transfer is patenting someting is a big deal(financially) for a poor person. The fees are too high. (I actually contacted the patent office in the US a few years ago, and questioned their fees. They came back with we give a slight break to micro-businesses, or someting like that? It was not low enough for my budget.) My point is a rich entity can patent a fart sound, and the cost is a two person corporate lunch. And that's why they patent everything? I would like to see patents/trademarks costs go up in cost exponentially. Example, first patent $1000 dollar fee. Tenth patent $50,000? I would like to see the cost tied to income level, maybe even gross? A poor entity, even if they fill out the paperwork themselfs; the cost of a patent is high. Especially when you have file multiple patents in order to protect your idea. That person should be able to profit on his/her idea? That person should be able to afford to protect their idea. So many poor people can't afford those patent fees-- In all reality, I would like to see patent/trademark fees lowered for poor entities. (If the entity sends in sloppy paperwork; you can make that poor person pay what a rich person pays. This would prevent abuse of the system?)

nsajko 11y ago
What does allowing only one patent ownership transfer got to do with patenting fees? (Have I misunderstood you?)

georgemcbay 11y ago

I think patents should be transferable, I just think patents should be a lot harder to acquire to the point where they are rare, which was absolutely the original intent (at least as it pertains to US patents). See, for example, Jefferon's letter to Isaac McPherson: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... If Jefferson were reanimated now he would, pretty clearly, be livid about the current state of the patent system and the way patents are essentially rubber-stamp granted as long as you pay the fee and use all the right legalese to make your incredibly obvious "this, but on a computer" invention seem like it is anything new.

nightski 11y ago
How do they achieve being very selective yet being unbiased and fair? That seems like an extremely difficult proposition.

rz2k 11y ago

There is an analog with art, a /droight de suite/ or a system for resale royalties. The idea is that starving artists have very low bargaining power compared to galleries and art dealers. The theory goes, that if the artists are disallowed from selling all of their ownership rights, that is, they will receive a royalty every time their painting is sold in the future, then the creators of pieces that turn out to be extremely valuable will never be left starving on the street simply because they were bad at negotiating. However, retrospective analysis of such systems in practice has tended to show that artists' bargaining position has not been as weak as the common narrative, and constraining the upside potential for art dealers has lead to less funding in the market overall, and less risk-taking in the form of purchasing works from undiscovered artists who are most likely to resemble the starving artist archetype.

cm3 11y ago

Absolutely and the same can be said for the original idea behind copyright. Heck that descendants can live off royalties of a passe one's copyright is not why it was invented.

cm3 11y ago

The company you work for on whose time you invent something that is granted a patent should give a revocable license to your employer but the inventor should never have to give up the patent to the employer. Unfortunately that's how it's handled in most places and a reason why many do not submit stuff to patent lawyers in the company. I'm curious how this works in the US with IBM creating at least one patent a day.

fredguth 11y ago

My opinion is probably even more unpopular. I don't believe software should be patentable at all. Algorithm implementation is already covered by copyright and that is enough. The American patent is working backwards. Instead of fostering innovation, it makes inventive people stop to wonder if what they are doing is or not infringing any of so many bogus patents.

ajuc 11y ago

Licencing is OK. But the patent shouldn't be "exclusively transferable". The owner should be always able to do it himself or sell another licence. Also if nobody is doing anythin with the patent - it should be void after a few months.