4 ms·

The plaintiff is "a 12-man operation that gets most of its revenue from licensing its intellectual property". So they sue people who use stuff they've patented

by jpcx01 17y ago

The plaintiff is "a 12-man operation that gets most of its revenue from licensing its intellectual property". So they sue people who use stuff they've patented but don't actually use themselves. Patent law badly needs to change.

barnaby 17y ago
Yeah, VirnetX look like a "non-practicing entity". Their website talks about "products" but it's clear their whole business relies on "intellectual property", whatever that is.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  NPEs are not bad per se. Imagine I have invented (as in done the physics and made sure it's correct) energy generation process that requires a billion dollar device to be built. NPEs can invent things they can't really build. The problem is not in NPEs. It's in bad patents. Ideas and processes should not be patentable. Period.
  - phaedrus 17y ago
    The flaw in your argument defending NPEs is that even if the physics is correct there will be countless engineering challenges to overcome between the theoretical invention and the actual working billion dollar device. I put forth that the form of the invention after it has gone through that process of building a real protype will be qualitatively different than the theoretical one the NPE designed. So, the patent for the theoretical device will be next to worthless to society because it doesn't represent the form of something that will actually work. Yet, under current patent law the NPE would be able to extort money from the company that did build the actual working form. One problem IS that NPEs should not be allowed. There should be several requirements for a patent: 1. You must produce an actual, working prototype. 2. If some period of time (say, 2 years) elapses during which you're not physically producing copies of the device for sale, you should lose the patent right and it becomes public domain. Trademarks have to be defended to be kept; patents should have to be backed with production to be kept. 3. Patents should be non-transferable. Companies should not be allowed to own patents, only inventors; the inventor can give license to a company to make his invention.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      > 1. You must produce an actual, working prototype Unless it's impossible to have such a prototype without a substantial capital investment that's incompatible with a small entity > 2. If some period of time (say, 2 years) elapses during which you're not physically producing copies of the device for sale, you should lose the patent right and it becomes public domain Maybe two years is too short if the invention needs more time to be put into production. Imagine you invent a deep space-propulsion device that only works in deep space - you may need a long time to test it in working conditions. All in all, it's a sensible idea. > 3. Patents should be non-transferable. Companies should not be allowed to own patents, only inventors; the inventor can give license to a company to make his invention That could make it difficult to sponsor research. Say I have a couple billion dollars in my budget and I would like to help you invent that deep-space propulsion system. Do you seriously expect me to allow you to own the invention after making it possible for you to test and build it?
    - RK 17y ago
      So an R&D firm shouldn't be able to get patents, only someone who does R&D plus manufacturing? I ask that because the startup where I work part-time does R&D for scientific equipment and we then license the technology to companies that are interested in possible manufacturing. Many companies would rather license a patent, and be the exclusive manufacturer than have to invest in the R&D themselves. And by the way, many (hardware) technologies require a significant amount of time to bring from the conceptual stage to manufacturing stage, especially when you have limited, such as a startup might.

by jpcx01 17y ago

barnaby 17y ago

Yeah, VirnetX look like a "non-practicing entity". Their website talks about "products" but it's clear their whole business relies on "intellectual property", whatever that is.

rbanffy 17y ago
NPEs are not bad per se. Imagine I have invented (as in done the physics and made sure it's correct) energy generation process that requires a billion dollar device to be built. NPEs can invent things they can't really build. The problem is not in NPEs. It's in bad patents. Ideas and processes should not be patentable. Period.
- phaedrus 17y ago
  The flaw in your argument defending NPEs is that even if the physics is correct there will be countless engineering challenges to overcome between the theoretical invention and the actual working billion dollar device. I put forth that the form of the invention after it has gone through that process of building a real protype will be qualitatively different than the theoretical one the NPE designed. So, the patent for the theoretical device will be next to worthless to society because it doesn't represent the form of something that will actually work. Yet, under current patent law the NPE would be able to extort money from the company that did build the actual working form. One problem IS that NPEs should not be allowed. There should be several requirements for a patent: 1. You must produce an actual, working prototype. 2. If some period of time (say, 2 years) elapses during which you're not physically producing copies of the device for sale, you should lose the patent right and it becomes public domain. Trademarks have to be defended to be kept; patents should have to be backed with production to be kept. 3. Patents should be non-transferable. Companies should not be allowed to own patents, only inventors; the inventor can give license to a company to make his invention.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    > 1. You must produce an actual, working prototype Unless it's impossible to have such a prototype without a substantial capital investment that's incompatible with a small entity > 2. If some period of time (say, 2 years) elapses during which you're not physically producing copies of the device for sale, you should lose the patent right and it becomes public domain Maybe two years is too short if the invention needs more time to be put into production. Imagine you invent a deep space-propulsion device that only works in deep space - you may need a long time to test it in working conditions. All in all, it's a sensible idea. > 3. Patents should be non-transferable. Companies should not be allowed to own patents, only inventors; the inventor can give license to a company to make his invention That could make it difficult to sponsor research. Say I have a couple billion dollars in my budget and I would like to help you invent that deep-space propulsion system. Do you seriously expect me to allow you to own the invention after making it possible for you to test and build it?
  - RK 17y ago
    So an R&D firm shouldn't be able to get patents, only someone who does R&D plus manufacturing? I ask that because the startup where I work part-time does R&D for scientific equipment and we then license the technology to companies that are interested in possible manufacturing. Many companies would rather license a patent, and be the exclusive manufacturer than have to invest in the R&D themselves. And by the way, many (hardware) technologies require a significant amount of time to bring from the conceptual stage to manufacturing stage, especially when you have limited, such as a startup might.