10 ms·

The term patent troll is used without regard to any facts in the media these days, and I fear that is doing harm to the patent system. The patent system was de

by Steeeve 10y ago

The term patent troll is used without regard to any facts in the media these days, and I fear that is doing harm to the patent system. The patent system was designed to foster innovation. If you invent something, you get protection for your intellectual property. It's not a requirement that you produce a product. You could realize that you don't have the resources right out of the gate and choose to license your invention to someone that does. The days of submarine patents are over. There are some entities that actually are patent trolls - companies that collect patents for litigation purposes - but just because a lawsuit happens doesn't mean that the plaintiff is a patent troll.

dreamsofdragons 10y ago
This definitely fits the definition of a patent troll.
jjbiotech 10y ago
> The patent system was designed to foster innovation Hilarious joke man!
- unlinker 10y ago
  Would you spend millions in developing something just so it's copied one month later after it's released?
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    If it's been copied directly, that's what copyright is for. Would you spend millions in developing something novel just to have some random with a capriciously granted "X, but on a computer" drag you through court?
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      Copyright does not protect ideas and never will.
      - ta0967 10y ago
        yeah, that was really close, wasn't it? just imagine we had all these mature IP protections in place two thousand years ago! so much stuff we could have had by now! imagine no one but the chinese government having access to silk production!? there'd be no nylon made without royalties!
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        It does protect specific implementations of ideas, such as in the case of software.
Bromskloss 10y ago
Why is the word "troll" involved in the first place?
- woodman 10y ago
  Because they hide under bridges not of their own making and accost unwary passersby.
jjuel 10y ago
The biggest problem is that the patent system is flawed currently. They accept too many things that are quite vague and general. When this is the case it is up to determination by the courts which could vary based on when and where the case is being handled. I am all for patenting ideas and fostering innovation, but I think the system needs a little fixing.
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  But the patent office itself will never fix its problems because its source of income is from people applying for patents. You need to have Congress fix it, but good luck with that.
__jal 10y ago
1) In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system? Usually, when people are vague about a harm, it is either because there is none, or it is some sort of vague "causing people to not respect [thing]" or some such. I suspect you mean the latter due to complaining about "the media". I, ahem, have very little respect for that viewpoint. I do understand the arguments respect for legal institutions being necessary for them to function, but respect is two-way - act disrespectfully enough, and nothing is going to save you. Perhaps more importantly, it is the patent trolls are the ones doing the damage, not "the media". 2) This patent troll is an NPE, which is usually (along with, you know, suing) the defining trait of patent trolldom. Why are you reciting grade-school nostrums about the Noble Idea of IP protection in general when responding to news about a particular entity in a particular case, who is quite clearly a troll? If I'm missing something, do clue me in. 3) If I'm misreading you, please do clarify. Being specific about harm, to whom, exactly, you're referring when bashing "the media", and perhaps why an extremely simplistic defense of patents seemed needed here would all be edifying.
- throwawaykf05 10y ago
  > In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system? Well here's a study showing that the user of the term "troll" had become widely used by media without any evidence to support their negative views. This has led to judges forbidding the use of that term at trials as it is unfairly prejudicial. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2768939 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2768939 If it is improper in the court of law, one can reasonably assume it is improper in the court of public opinion as well. The effects of this bias can be seen in the usual comments on patent-related threads here and other forums, where the USPTO is regularly derided by people who don't know the first thing about patents. These people know only what the media tells them, and as the paper shows, media is highly biased. This bias is being spread to a large audience and is also being used to push for reform that may not necessarily be balanced. I'd say, yes, such rhetoric is hurting the patent system.
- Steeeve 10y ago
  > This patent troll is an NPE, which is usually (along with, you know, suing) the defining trait of patent trolldom. Look at Goodyear. He was an NPE. He invented vulcanized rubber. Never saw a dime. They even stole his name and built a company around it. He didn't have the resources to sue. Look at Robert Kearns. He was an NPE. He sued. It destroyed his life. There's no special qualification to come up with an idea. Patenting is a painful process. But it's a way to protect yourself. Just because people are involved in a lawsuit doesn't say or mean anything. Regardless, this company is not an NPE. They have a working implementation of their secure messaging patent that is available on the app store. > In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system? It's doing harm by framing inventors as villains rather than innovators. You've judged this company based on no other information than that they are referred to as patent trolls in an online article. If it's that easy for a large company to quell innovators, then the purpose of patents in the first place - to foster innovation - is gone. --- Regardless the verbiage is frequently inappropriate and certainly in this instance.
ta0967 10y ago
> The patent system was designed to foster innovation. No, the patent system was dedigned to elevate Queen's friends above their competition.
- cyphar 10y ago
  I think that was copyright. If you're referring to Queen Mary (who created the modern system of copyright).
  - ta0967 10y ago
    yes and no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law > By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[14] [...] > This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example).
metaphorm 10y ago
> The patent system was designed to foster innovation citation needed. another interpretation of the law is that it was designed to reward companies commensurate to the size of their legal department.
- ams6110 10y ago
  From the Enumerated Powers (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) of the US Constitution, granting Congress power 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. "To promote progress" is the core rationale for this power; I would argue that if the current implemention no longer does that, or in fact inhibits progress, then Congress needs to redefine how this works in law.
mdip 10y ago
There are two big problems here - as pointed out by the other commentators, this company is very much a patent troll. The label fits. The other problem is that the protections offered by patents were designed at to give a "temporary monopoly" on the invention at hand. For software patents, though, this "temporary monopoly" ends up being (sometimes) five times the lifetime of that given technology. This is partly because the barriers for "inventing" something in the software space are minimal. Cloud hosting for services makes it possible for a small inventor to provide a large service inexpensively (or, at least without large upfront expenses). Traditional software requires only time and a place to download. What happens with software patents is the "inventor" is effectively given a monopoly over more than the effective lifetime of the product and for reasons that don't fit with the original design of the patent system. Then there's the relative "quality" of those patents. Patents are supposed to be a way to make an invention public so that a person skilled in the field is able to reproduce the invention from the patent, alone. That's laughable if you've read any of the kinds of patents that end up in this kind of litigation. The patent is written in an artform designed to make the description of the invention as vague as possible (to cover as much infringement as possible) and is accepted by an overworked patent office that doesn't have people skilled in the field enough to actually evaluate whether a patent application should be accepted and granted this temporary-turned-lifetime monopoly protection. These facts are what are doing harm to the patent system and it's no surprise, to me. I am not anti-patent[1]. I believe the protections as they were intended are a good idea. They're being abused, horribly, these days and the system around it needs to be brought back to its roots. Inventions with large barriers to production (drugs, where it can cost an incredible amount of money to get through regulatory approvals, for instance) should be allowed reasonable lengths of time for monopoly protections to encourage their development[2], but things that are novel, and have little-to-no barriers to production should have extremely limited or no protection from the patent system and trolling in this manner should come with penalties (plaintiff pays). [1] OK, I'm vehemently against software patents and I have a serious problem with gene patents (I can't patent a rock, or the definition of the characteristics of a rock, I shouldn't be able to patent the characteristics of a molecule,... it's an over-simplification, but that's my opinion on the subject). [2] There's plenty wrong here, too, but it's the best example I could come up with.

by Steeeve 10y ago

dreamsofdragons 10y ago

This definitely fits the definition of a patent troll.

jjbiotech 10y ago

> The patent system was designed to foster innovation Hilarious joke man!

unlinker 10y ago
Would you spend millions in developing something just so it's copied one month later after it's released?
- Karunamon 10y ago
  If it's been copied directly, that's what copyright is for. Would you spend millions in developing something novel just to have some random with a capriciously granted "X, but on a computer" drag you through court?
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Copyright does not protect ideas and never will.
    - ta0967 10y ago
      yeah, that was really close, wasn't it? just imagine we had all these mature IP protections in place two thousand years ago! so much stuff we could have had by now! imagine no one but the chinese government having access to silk production!? there'd be no nylon made without royalties!
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      It does protect specific implementations of ideas, such as in the case of software.

Bromskloss 10y ago

Why is the word "troll" involved in the first place?

woodman 10y ago
Because they hide under bridges not of their own making and accost unwary passersby.

jjuel 10y ago

The biggest problem is that the patent system is flawed currently. They accept too many things that are quite vague and general. When this is the case it is up to determination by the courts which could vary based on when and where the case is being handled. I am all for patenting ideas and fostering innovation, but I think the system needs a little fixing.

colejohnson66 10y ago
But the patent office itself will never fix its problems because its source of income is from people applying for patents. You need to have Congress fix it, but good luck with that.

__jal 10y ago

1) In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system? Usually, when people are vague about a harm, it is either because there is none, or it is some sort of vague "causing people to not respect [thing]" or some such. I suspect you mean the latter due to complaining about "the media". I, ahem, have very little respect for that viewpoint. I do understand the arguments respect for legal institutions being necessary for them to function, but respect is two-way - act disrespectfully enough, and nothing is going to save you. Perhaps more importantly, it is the patent trolls are the ones doing the damage, not "the media". 2) This patent troll is an NPE, which is usually (along with, you know, suing) the defining trait of patent trolldom. Why are you reciting grade-school nostrums about the Noble Idea of IP protection in general when responding to news about a particular entity in a particular case, who is quite clearly a troll? If I'm missing something, do clue me in. 3) If I'm misreading you, please do clarify. Being specific about harm, to whom, exactly, you're referring when bashing "the media", and perhaps why an extremely simplistic defense of patents seemed needed here would all be edifying.

throwawaykf05 10y ago
> In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system? Well here's a study showing that the user of the term "troll" had become widely used by media without any evidence to support their negative views. This has led to judges forbidding the use of that term at trials as it is unfairly prejudicial. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2768939 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2768939 If it is improper in the court of law, one can reasonably assume it is improper in the court of public opinion as well. The effects of this bias can be seen in the usual comments on patent-related threads here and other forums, where the USPTO is regularly derided by people who don't know the first thing about patents. These people know only what the media tells them, and as the paper shows, media is highly biased. This bias is being spread to a large audience and is also being used to push for reform that may not necessarily be balanced. I'd say, yes, such rhetoric is hurting the patent system.
Steeeve 10y ago
> This patent troll is an NPE, which is usually (along with, you know, suing) the defining trait of patent trolldom. Look at Goodyear. He was an NPE. He invented vulcanized rubber. Never saw a dime. They even stole his name and built a company around it. He didn't have the resources to sue. Look at Robert Kearns. He was an NPE. He sued. It destroyed his life. There's no special qualification to come up with an idea. Patenting is a painful process. But it's a way to protect yourself. Just because people are involved in a lawsuit doesn't say or mean anything. Regardless, this company is not an NPE. They have a working implementation of their secure messaging patent that is available on the app store. > In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system? It's doing harm by framing inventors as villains rather than innovators. You've judged this company based on no other information than that they are referred to as patent trolls in an online article. If it's that easy for a large company to quell innovators, then the purpose of patents in the first place - to foster innovation - is gone. --- Regardless the verbiage is frequently inappropriate and certainly in this instance.

ta0967 10y ago

> The patent system was designed to foster innovation. No, the patent system was dedigned to elevate Queen's friends above their competition.

cyphar 10y ago
I think that was copyright. If you're referring to Queen Mary (who created the modern system of copyright).
- ta0967 10y ago
  yes and no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law > By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[14] [...] > This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example).

metaphorm 10y ago

> The patent system was designed to foster innovation citation needed. another interpretation of the law is that it was designed to reward companies commensurate to the size of their legal department.

ams6110 10y ago
From the Enumerated Powers (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) of the US Constitution, granting Congress power 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. "To promote progress" is the core rationale for this power; I would argue that if the current implemention no longer does that, or in fact inhibits progress, then Congress needs to redefine how this works in law.

mdip 10y ago

There are two big problems here - as pointed out by the other commentators, this company is very much a patent troll. The label fits. The other problem is that the protections offered by patents were designed at to give a "temporary monopoly" on the invention at hand. For software patents, though, this "temporary monopoly" ends up being (sometimes) five times the lifetime of that given technology. This is partly because the barriers for "inventing" something in the software space are minimal. Cloud hosting for services makes it possible for a small inventor to provide a large service inexpensively (or, at least without large upfront expenses). Traditional software requires only time and a place to download. What happens with software patents is the "inventor" is effectively given a monopoly over more than the effective lifetime of the product and for reasons that don't fit with the original design of the patent system. Then there's the relative "quality" of those patents. Patents are supposed to be a way to make an invention public so that a person skilled in the field is able to reproduce the invention from the patent, alone. That's laughable if you've read any of the kinds of patents that end up in this kind of litigation. The patent is written in an artform designed to make the description of the invention as vague as possible (to cover as much infringement as possible) and is accepted by an overworked patent office that doesn't have people skilled in the field enough to actually evaluate whether a patent application should be accepted and granted this temporary-turned-lifetime monopoly protection. These facts are what are doing harm to the patent system and it's no surprise, to me. I am not anti-patent[1]. I believe the protections as they were intended are a good idea. They're being abused, horribly, these days and the system around it needs to be brought back to its roots. Inventions with large barriers to production (drugs, where it can cost an incredible amount of money to get through regulatory approvals, for instance) should be allowed reasonable lengths of time for monopoly protections to encourage their development[2], but things that are novel, and have little-to-no barriers to production should have extremely limited or no protection from the patent system and trolling in this manner should come with penalties (plaintiff pays). [1] OK, I'm vehemently against software patents and I have a serious problem with gene patents (I can't patent a rock, or the definition of the characteristics of a rock, I shouldn't be able to patent the characteristics of a molecule,... it's an over-simplification, but that's my opinion on the subject). [2] There's plenty wrong here, too, but it's the best example I could come up with.