4 ms·
> "It doesn't matter what you describe them as." When you're using it as you did to try to make the point that the patents were overly broad - then of course i
by jb613 10y ago
> "It doesn't matter what you describe them as."
When you're using it as you did to try to make the point that the patents were overly broad - then of course it matters!
> "but also wants to shut them down"
It's called leverage - the small player needs to gain leverage to affect a better outcome. Both sides do it, don't kid yourself.
> "Nobody used their patents or invention to build their products."
When you're not researching others prior art then you're reinventing the wheel. Not optimally efficient.
> "What are you talking about? You can't sell 50LOC"
Oh yes you can.
> "How do you create a voice over IP product without infringing a patent that claims to cover any transmission of voice over any data channel?"
Again, you are (deliberately?) representing patents as overly broad. I just showed you that the others patents were not as broadly covering ALL "end-to-end crypto" but yet you continue with these insane notions?
> "Most patents are filed by (a) big companies that sue small players for infringement or (b) Universities that sell patents to big companies that sue small players for infringement."
That's not addressing my point. I said patents enable small players to innovate and find success - your point about who's filing more does nothing to address my point. ...in fact:
> "The smaller companies, independent or academic spinoffs, often get acquired by big players"
further directly proves my point. The smaller players were able to find success - as you said by being acquired.
> "Most studies of effect on patent system shows this to be the case."
Except you just pointed out the small players are acquired. Not all studies are 100% correct. In fact, in the patent world there are many purposely misleading studies.
> "Your claim about small businesses is a legend. That is, it's mostly a myth but with occasionally success stories to give it what little truth it has."
Or perhaps due to NDA's etc you don't hear about the small business successes.
> "Patents don't create innovation"
I hope I never said that because I completely agree. I would say something more like patents supply incentive to innovate but by themselves don't create anything but pieces of paper.
> "Patents then just restrict competition and drive prices up."
Same old tired line. If it drives prices up then generally it will lure investors to invest - and to invest in patents requires investing in innovation - investing in innovation means R&D.
> "And in courts that rule in favor of patent-holder almost 100% of the time?"
How long does it take for you to get a hint? ~15 years of patent reforms, numerous SCOTUS cases, POTUS trying to get involved, etc. So much money and effort spent yet patent-holders still winning. Do you honestly believe that one more reform bill or one more President or one more SCOTUS ruling will finally be the end? Whether I'm morally right or you're morally right - perhaps you are better off to face reality than keep bucking the trend. Hope is not a strategy.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoI'm stepping back since you're clearly more interested in technicalities than my overall point. So, I'm going to focus on that. Currently, there's two claims about patents: 1. They're the source off all kinds of innovation and startups that wouldn't otherwise happen. This means CompSci doesn't happen unless private parties fund it due to patents they expect. Most funding is by taxpayers. So, that's not true. Private parties won't invest in things without patent protection? Not true: they do anyway to remain competitive. Startups won't happen without patent protection? They do anyway with them rarely using patents and some using trade secrets. So, alleged benefits of patents are a lie, esp in software space. 2. They're primarily a tool to maximize profits of companies, small or large, that contribute almost nothing in innovation or features. Every study I've seen shows this. Plus, most suits are coming from groups that produce nothing: acquire patents from someone for cheap, then sue anyone actually building anything. Opposite of what system claims to do. Large companies make up most of the rest of the suits by putting innovators out of business while leaving their own products stagnant. They even sometimes try to take the products off the market as we saw with Virnetx, Apple, and Microsoft. So, net effect is that patents are hurting innovation. Plus, nobody producing innovative stuff getting acquired did so by reading hundreds of thousands of patents. Surveys show they rarely ever read a single patent. They look at what's out there, maybe read academic work, build something, and sell it. Of all that innovation, patents contributed jack and most don't even get patents since they're expensive to get. Easier for big players the system is designed to benefit. ;) "How long does it take for you to get a hint? ~15 years of patent reforms, numerous SCOTUS cases, POTUS trying to get involved, etc." Vast amount of profits produced by legal monopolies gave patent holders more money on lawyers and politicians have given them a good run. Plus, most of the rest aren't uniting to deal with the problem with counter-lobbying. I had a hint of that a while back. That doesn't mean we actual innovators should stop fighting monopolies mostly issued to non-innovating, big companies and small companies that sue instead of sell products. "Same old tired line. If it drives prices up then generally it will lure investors to invest - and to invest in patents requires investing in innovation - investing in innovation means R&D." That was so funny I had to respond to it. A patent is a legal monopoly. A monopoly by definition and style will lead to higher prices than competitive segment with many players innovating. If you're right, please tell me about all those cancer and heart drugs that I can get for generic prices. Oh wait, I can't, because they're patented and patent-holders charge whatever the market will bear to maximize profits. Same everywhere else where alternative innovations are hard to come by. Or existed but don't count in a "first-to-file" system that favors patent holders.