6 ms·

> patents are mostly used as anti competitive behaviour; it is not related to "innovation", nor is it related to research and development. Generally, patents a

by jb613 10y ago

> patents are mostly used as anti competitive behaviour; it is not related to "innovation", nor is it related to research and development. Generally, patents are derived from R&D which is where innovation directly comes from so it is "related". At the very least this is true in Microsoft's case. Regarding anti-competitive - it's only anti-competitive if someone else attempts to COPY the innovation. They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE. The more alternatives, the more choices for consumers. If you want to copy then sure - patents block, but if you want to innovate then patents can provide incentivizes to carry that out.

dagw 10y ago
They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE. Except in practice you aren't. Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that.
- jb613 10y ago
  > Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. No longer true, over the past ~decade, quality of patents issued has dramatically improved. Most patents are actually very narrow. Just look at the sheer quantity that are issuing (in software in particular) - everyone is coming up with something different. > And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that. Or before recklessly entering a market, evaluate the landscape. Do you have something new to offer, can you yourself protect your innovations, narrow down your product scope to minimize encroachment on others property, etc... Think less about building the whole kitchen sink and more on being the best at some tiny improvement (texture of the handles, connectors to the pipe to minimize leakage, etc...). Think writing the perfect 50 LOC that others would want to use rather than building 50k LOC. The less code you ship, the more you've minimized your patent infringement risk (along with proper evaluation of competitors protect at the outset). Additionally, if you've found that 50 LOC that nobody does yet and others want to use, then you've likely also found something valuable to patent yourself. BECOME the innovator rather than sued by the innovator. Business requires managing risks, patents are but a small factor if properly handled.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way. They each have multiple claims. What you suggest is impossible. It's why both large players and startups just do whatever they want, attempt to pile up patents, and then let lawyers fight it out. Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players. Plus, the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Something that was invented before their patents. Their others say mix crypto with (service here), which isn't original either. People mixed crypto with all sorts of things. Adding it to something is a feature of crypto, not an invention. Specific mechanism maybe, but not concept. Stuff like that is still normal in the patent suits. The suits are too expensive. So, most companies settle to loose good chunk of money. There's quite a few businesses with good products that refused to do business in U.S. specifically because of this. They operate in Asia. That Xiamoi's lawyers told management to not enter America with common products unless they had a pile of patents is telling.
    - jb613 10y ago
      > the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Couple of things seriously wrong in this statement alone: 1) I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto". If you are going to broadly describe something rather complex in 4 words then I would suggest "Apple’s VPN on demand function" as a better example. Similar #num of words yet suddenly significantly narrower isn't it. However, even that doesn't scratch the surface, looking at the titles of the patents in trial provides a better glimpse that this is more than just simply "end-to-end crypto": 6,502,135 - Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability 7,418,504 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names 7,490,151 - Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request 7,921,211 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names Are you starting to understand that this isn't merely "end-to-end crypto" or do we need to go into the Claims and how to properly begin to evaluate patent property boundaries? 2) I don't have the time to replay the entire infringement trial, but it seems to me you believe this trial was unjust or resulted in an improper outcome. I highly doubt that Apple had incompetent lawyers or did not have enough resources. The court and jury disagrees with your assessment. > Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players. Measured by market cap, Apple is the worlds biggest corporation. VirnetX is not small, not tiny, but rather miniscule in comparison. Is this is fight between 2 big players? No. Did the bigger player win? No. > There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way. Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC - not re-invent 500k LOC. For now, the only pitfall is that larger players still believe they are better off to fight later in court rather than license now from the inventor when they find a new innovation. Blackberry learned 10 years ago, maybe Apple will learn today, and hopefully others will learn from their lessons. Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success.
nitin_flanker 10y ago
Patents are double edged sword. They can be harmful for you and can be beneficial too. Patents are like, if you have one, you love patents, but if someone has one and he tries to enforce that on you, you start hating patent and the whole system eventually. I have been seeing this happening for quite some times.

by jb613 10y ago

dagw 10y ago

They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE. Except in practice you aren't. Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that.

jb613 10y ago
> Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. No longer true, over the past ~decade, quality of patents issued has dramatically improved. Most patents are actually very narrow. Just look at the sheer quantity that are issuing (in software in particular) - everyone is coming up with something different. > And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that. Or before recklessly entering a market, evaluate the landscape. Do you have something new to offer, can you yourself protect your innovations, narrow down your product scope to minimize encroachment on others property, etc... Think less about building the whole kitchen sink and more on being the best at some tiny improvement (texture of the handles, connectors to the pipe to minimize leakage, etc...). Think writing the perfect 50 LOC that others would want to use rather than building 50k LOC. The less code you ship, the more you've minimized your patent infringement risk (along with proper evaluation of competitors protect at the outset). Additionally, if you've found that 50 LOC that nobody does yet and others want to use, then you've likely also found something valuable to patent yourself. BECOME the innovator rather than sued by the innovator. Business requires managing risks, patents are but a small factor if properly handled.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way. They each have multiple claims. What you suggest is impossible. It's why both large players and startups just do whatever they want, attempt to pile up patents, and then let lawyers fight it out. Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players. Plus, the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Something that was invented before their patents. Their others say mix crypto with (service here), which isn't original either. People mixed crypto with all sorts of things. Adding it to something is a feature of crypto, not an invention. Specific mechanism maybe, but not concept. Stuff like that is still normal in the patent suits. The suits are too expensive. So, most companies settle to loose good chunk of money. There's quite a few businesses with good products that refused to do business in U.S. specifically because of this. They operate in Asia. That Xiamoi's lawyers told management to not enter America with common products unless they had a pile of patents is telling.
  - jb613 10y ago
    > the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Couple of things seriously wrong in this statement alone: 1) I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto". If you are going to broadly describe something rather complex in 4 words then I would suggest "Apple’s VPN on demand function" as a better example. Similar #num of words yet suddenly significantly narrower isn't it. However, even that doesn't scratch the surface, looking at the titles of the patents in trial provides a better glimpse that this is more than just simply "end-to-end crypto": 6,502,135 - Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability 7,418,504 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names 7,490,151 - Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request 7,921,211 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names Are you starting to understand that this isn't merely "end-to-end crypto" or do we need to go into the Claims and how to properly begin to evaluate patent property boundaries? 2) I don't have the time to replay the entire infringement trial, but it seems to me you believe this trial was unjust or resulted in an improper outcome. I highly doubt that Apple had incompetent lawyers or did not have enough resources. The court and jury disagrees with your assessment. > Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players. Measured by market cap, Apple is the worlds biggest corporation. VirnetX is not small, not tiny, but rather miniscule in comparison. Is this is fight between 2 big players? No. Did the bigger player win? No. > There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way. Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC - not re-invent 500k LOC. For now, the only pitfall is that larger players still believe they are better off to fight later in court rather than license now from the inventor when they find a new innovation. Blackberry learned 10 years ago, maybe Apple will learn today, and hopefully others will learn from their lessons. Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success.

nitin_flanker 10y ago

Patents are double edged sword. They can be harmful for you and can be beneficial too. Patents are like, if you have one, you love patents, but if someone has one and he tries to enforce that on you, you start hating patent and the whole system eventually. I have been seeing this happening for quite some times.