7 ms·

Ugh. Does anybody else just feel that patents simply shouldn't be transferable?

by kahnpro 10y ago

burkaman 10y ago
Wouldn't that remove one of the major purposes of patents? Right now they provide pretty good motivation to develop something that you don't personally have the ability or desire to commercialize. If you can't sell the patent, you'll either not invent anything, or sit on your inventions for a long time until you feel like starting a business.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The major purpose of the patent as it is exploited today in the tech world has long surpassed its original purpose. Patents are like weapons-of-mutually-assured-destruction. You engage your patents, I'll engage mine. And so, we cross-license and get on with our merry lives to the detriment of our mutual competitors. This suits large businesses very well. In the 'real' (as in physical) world there are still some good patents issued. But for computer related stuff (and that's what the bulk of Yahoo!'s patents will be about it has been quite a while since I saw a patent that made me think 'good that someone spent the years required in order to come up with this and that their rights are protected with a patent'. I'd suggest a retro-active limitation of patents that do not involve anything physical of 3 years. That should be enough of a head-start and will immediately take care of all these ticking time bombs of patent portfolios in the hands of aging and ailing Leviathans.
cloudjacker 10y ago
Nah There is no way that my improvement to the derivatives market would have ever been worth my time if I couldn't sell the patent to financial institutions. People that have never had a good idea in their life imagine that patent holders are making widgets in their woodshed, or have the ability to make said widget in their woodshed. But the reality is that there was no way I could ever have commercialized this in a way that had so few risks, aside from my ability to cough up $12,000 at the time. Yeah let me just go recreate the financial derivatives market and lobby Congress for the rest of my life just so that children on reddit won't call me a patent troll.
- dsacco 10y ago
  You don't have any contact information in your profile, but is there any chance you'd be willing to talk about what the process was like for you to sell this?
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Or even provide enough info for us to determine that this is a real example we ought to seriously consider, rather than simply a hypothetical bullshit discussion-thread thought experiment? If any market segment could offer a variety of remunerative options for innovation other than a patent, surely it is finance? Indeed most actual financial innovations would never be patented, rather than kept secret under strict NDA.
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
      laughing all the way to the literal bank on this one I would almost give you a pass for saying "most" if not for noticing that my patent cites other "actual financial innovations" that financial institutions filed as patents and got approved, popular opinion on the internet lives in a separate reality than any framework this country functions on
      - dsacco 10y ago
        So is that a no to my original question? I'm actually interested in hearing about your high-level methodology for networking a patent to a sale. I'm not interested in debating the ethics or legal framework that allowed you to do so.
- ori_b 10y ago
  > There is no way that my improvement to the derivatives market would have ever been worth my time if I couldn't sell the patent to financial institutions. Not even if you could grant them a license, but not ownership?
  - 10y ago
bluedevil2k 10y ago
Or the period of monopoly should be reduced, to something like 5 years from transfer date, or original expiration date, whichever is sooner. Would reduce the incentive to sell them around, and increase the incentive for the original "inventor" to utilize them.
mcherm 10y ago
No, I think it is important to be able to transfer patents. The original inventor is not necessarily the person best qualified to license and exploit a patent. On the other hand, I think that software and business methods should not be eligible for patent protection at all.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  The original inventor is not necessarily the person best qualified to license and exploit a patent. A lot of nonsense is swept in under this seemingly reasonable cover story. If I can't build a device that embodies my invention, in what sense have I really invented it?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    You might be able to build a device, while not having the cash nor will to build a company around producing and selling thousands of copies of that device. I dislike patents in general and software in particular, but that one can invent yet not commercialize is not farfetched.
    - alienasa 10y ago
      I'd argue that if the device is sufficiently "novel" then the cash and will to build a company around producing and selling that device en masse will magically appear. On the other hand, if Bob invents something, but chooses not to produce it, then he's effectively relinquishing his rights to patent protection. When we allow Bob to simply transfer his "invention" (an idea basically) to Patent Corp. in exchange for cash, and Patent Corp then uses that to extort people, we massively incentivize dreaming up random ideas in the hope of getting them patented. That incentive exists whether or not the idea is a good one, practical, effective or any other characteristics that reasonable people use to evaluate things.
      - sgt101 10y ago
        Ok - Bob invents something. Bob visits venture capitalists, Bob shows patent. VC's say: here is many money. Bob! form the company for patent! Bob makes company. VC's say : given patent to company; Bob you get 49% we get 51%. Bob, he is cryin', but Bob - he do! Then COMPANY have patent, patent have MONEY, many many good sales! Incentive fulfilled! Company tank. Bob say "give patent to others" VC say : auction patent. THE END.
kmiroslav 10y ago
To some extent. I think they should only be transferred in the case of an acquisition of the company or if the buyer can show that their business is aligned with the patent being bought. Such restrictions would kill the patent troll business overnight.
- mkagenius 10y ago
  > Such restrictions would kill the patent troll business overnight. That would be one solution. But the cause of the patent trolling is not the transferrable patents - its the human nature. There will always be some humans finding _some_ way to make money instead of thinking of doing the _right_ thing.
Aelinsaar 10y ago
As a general rule, that seems like it would cripple commerce. In some specialized sense, say patents near the end of their lives, which meet a host of other conditions that make them likely fodder only for trolling... maybe. Who would reliably make those regulatory calls though, and what would be the blowback?
brwnll 10y ago
This was my initial thought. But after consideration this would likely to just lead to companies creating holding/shell companies for groups of patents. Effectively, Big Corp would spin up "Obvious Shopping Cart Patents, LLC", wholly owned by Big Corp, and register their patents for a given category through it. Then they could sell the entire company to another entity without the patents themselves transferring ownership. The best fix for patents I can think of is simply lowering their lifetime to somewhere in the 2 - 5 year range.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  Longer lived patents totally make sense in other industries, though. Look at the pace of innovation in, say, space exploration. It can take longer than two years just to build and test a new rocket design, so if your patent expired before your first real launch, it would have huge chilling effects on R&D. I'd say a better solution is to just make software ineligible for patents entirely.
- placeybordeaux 10y ago
  Thats too short for some fields. The real problem is that tech moves so fast that a lot of the assumptions and hard coded values in the law simply don't work in tech.

Ugh. Does anybody else just feel that patents simply shouldn't be transferable?

by kahnpro 10y ago

Ugh. Does anybody else just feel that patents simply shouldn't be transferable?

Wouldn't that remove one of the major purposes of patents? Right now they provide pretty good motivation to develop something that you don't personally have the ability or desire to commercialize. If you can't sell the patent, you'll either not invent anything, or sit on your inventions for a long time until you feel like starting a business.

jacquesm 10y ago
The major purpose of the patent as it is exploited today in the tech world has long surpassed its original purpose. Patents are like weapons-of-mutually-assured-destruction. You engage your patents, I'll engage mine. And so, we cross-license and get on with our merry lives to the detriment of our mutual competitors. This suits large businesses very well. In the 'real' (as in physical) world there are still some good patents issued. But for computer related stuff (and that's what the bulk of Yahoo!'s patents will be about it has been quite a while since I saw a patent that made me think 'good that someone spent the years required in order to come up with this and that their rights are protected with a patent'. I'd suggest a retro-active limitation of patents that do not involve anything physical of 3 years. That should be enough of a head-start and will immediately take care of all these ticking time bombs of patent portfolios in the hands of aging and ailing Leviathans.

cloudjacker 10y ago

Nah There is no way that my improvement to the derivatives market would have ever been worth my time if I couldn't sell the patent to financial institutions. People that have never had a good idea in their life imagine that patent holders are making widgets in their woodshed, or have the ability to make said widget in their woodshed. But the reality is that there was no way I could ever have commercialized this in a way that had so few risks, aside from my ability to cough up $12,000 at the time. Yeah let me just go recreate the financial derivatives market and lobby Congress for the rest of my life just so that children on reddit won't call me a patent troll.

dsacco 10y ago
You don't have any contact information in your profile, but is there any chance you'd be willing to talk about what the process was like for you to sell this?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Or even provide enough info for us to determine that this is a real example we ought to seriously consider, rather than simply a hypothetical bullshit discussion-thread thought experiment? If any market segment could offer a variety of remunerative options for innovation other than a patent, surely it is finance? Indeed most actual financial innovations would never be patented, rather than kept secret under strict NDA.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    laughing all the way to the literal bank on this one I would almost give you a pass for saying "most" if not for noticing that my patent cites other "actual financial innovations" that financial institutions filed as patents and got approved, popular opinion on the internet lives in a separate reality than any framework this country functions on
    - dsacco 10y ago
      So is that a no to my original question? I'm actually interested in hearing about your high-level methodology for networking a patent to a sale. I'm not interested in debating the ethics or legal framework that allowed you to do so.
ori_b 10y ago
> There is no way that my improvement to the derivatives market would have ever been worth my time if I couldn't sell the patent to financial institutions. Not even if you could grant them a license, but not ownership?
- 10y ago

bluedevil2k 10y ago

Or the period of monopoly should be reduced, to something like 5 years from transfer date, or original expiration date, whichever is sooner. Would reduce the incentive to sell them around, and increase the incentive for the original "inventor" to utilize them.

mcherm 10y ago

No, I think it is important to be able to transfer patents. The original inventor is not necessarily the person best qualified to license and exploit a patent. On the other hand, I think that software and business methods should not be eligible for patent protection at all.

jessaustin 10y ago
The original inventor is not necessarily the person best qualified to license and exploit a patent. A lot of nonsense is swept in under this seemingly reasonable cover story. If I can't build a device that embodies my invention, in what sense have I really invented it?
- icebraining 10y ago
  You might be able to build a device, while not having the cash nor will to build a company around producing and selling thousands of copies of that device. I dislike patents in general and software in particular, but that one can invent yet not commercialize is not farfetched.
  - alienasa 10y ago
    I'd argue that if the device is sufficiently "novel" then the cash and will to build a company around producing and selling that device en masse will magically appear. On the other hand, if Bob invents something, but chooses not to produce it, then he's effectively relinquishing his rights to patent protection. When we allow Bob to simply transfer his "invention" (an idea basically) to Patent Corp. in exchange for cash, and Patent Corp then uses that to extort people, we massively incentivize dreaming up random ideas in the hope of getting them patented. That incentive exists whether or not the idea is a good one, practical, effective or any other characteristics that reasonable people use to evaluate things.
    - sgt101 10y ago
      Ok - Bob invents something. Bob visits venture capitalists, Bob shows patent. VC's say: here is many money. Bob! form the company for patent! Bob makes company. VC's say : given patent to company; Bob you get 49% we get 51%. Bob, he is cryin', but Bob - he do! Then COMPANY have patent, patent have MONEY, many many good sales! Incentive fulfilled! Company tank. Bob say "give patent to others" VC say : auction patent. THE END.

kmiroslav 10y ago

To some extent. I think they should only be transferred in the case of an acquisition of the company or if the buyer can show that their business is aligned with the patent being bought. Such restrictions would kill the patent troll business overnight.

mkagenius 10y ago
> Such restrictions would kill the patent troll business overnight. That would be one solution. But the cause of the patent trolling is not the transferrable patents - its the human nature. There will always be some humans finding _some_ way to make money instead of thinking of doing the _right_ thing.

Aelinsaar 10y ago

As a general rule, that seems like it would cripple commerce. In some specialized sense, say patents near the end of their lives, which meet a host of other conditions that make them likely fodder only for trolling... maybe. Who would reliably make those regulatory calls though, and what would be the blowback?

brwnll 10y ago

This was my initial thought. But after consideration this would likely to just lead to companies creating holding/shell companies for groups of patents. Effectively, Big Corp would spin up "Obvious Shopping Cart Patents, LLC", wholly owned by Big Corp, and register their patents for a given category through it. Then they could sell the entire company to another entity without the patents themselves transferring ownership. The best fix for patents I can think of is simply lowering their lifetime to somewhere in the 2 - 5 year range.

CydeWeys 10y ago
Longer lived patents totally make sense in other industries, though. Look at the pace of innovation in, say, space exploration. It can take longer than two years just to build and test a new rocket design, so if your patent expired before your first real launch, it would have huge chilling effects on R&D. I'd say a better solution is to just make software ineligible for patents entirely.
placeybordeaux 10y ago
Thats too short for some fields. The real problem is that tech moves so fast that a lot of the assumptions and hard coded values in the law simply don't work in tech.