4 ms·

The answer, to me, is to focus on eliminating patent trolls. I haven't thought this one through much, but something like requiring a minimum percentage of reven

The answer, to me, is to focus on eliminating patent trolls. I haven't thought this one through much, but something like requiring a minimum percentage of revenue to come from non-patent related activity might be a good start.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
I was thinking the patent owner must be building, maintaining, and/or selling a product it covers with at least the amount of labor and updates as average competing product or IT project. Originally the benchmark was vs fastest-developing competitor to incentivize Shenzhen-like innovation with some patent protection for incentives. I thought quality might tank further, though, so leaned toward average.
- compsciphd 10y ago
  The problem with this is, I can invent something, describe in detail how to build it, but have no ability to build it myself as a product. For example, imagine I invented a better type of flip-flop circuit. Its only useful to people building microprocessors, but under your logic I shouldn't get any benefit for creating a better way for them to build microprocessors because I don't build them myself.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    I don't any benefit for anything I do personally or commercially outside whatever people paid me initially. Why should you get a monopoly on an idea because you were lucky enough to think of it first? And in a country where monopolies are banned due to negative impact on society in about every other field? So I'm against the monopolies to begin with. Even if we accept patents, then you can be required to partner with a manufacturer within a certain period of time. This kind of thing might already exist if we compare it to the record labels for turning copywritten songs into fortunes for labels and authors. Similar middle-men would show up plus DIY kits, consultants, and advice on doing it yourself. The risks you face wouldn't be much different from the current market where trolls like Intellectual Ventures convince broke patent holders to give it to them for pennies using pressure of their bargaining power then make millions off them in law suits.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

I was thinking the patent owner must be building, maintaining, and/or selling a product it covers with at least the amount of labor and updates as average competing product or IT project. Originally the benchmark was vs fastest-developing competitor to incentivize Shenzhen-like innovation with some patent protection for incentives. I thought quality might tank further, though, so leaned toward average.

compsciphd 10y ago
The problem with this is, I can invent something, describe in detail how to build it, but have no ability to build it myself as a product. For example, imagine I invented a better type of flip-flop circuit. Its only useful to people building microprocessors, but under your logic I shouldn't get any benefit for creating a better way for them to build microprocessors because I don't build them myself.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I don't any benefit for anything I do personally or commercially outside whatever people paid me initially. Why should you get a monopoly on an idea because you were lucky enough to think of it first? And in a country where monopolies are banned due to negative impact on society in about every other field? So I'm against the monopolies to begin with. Even if we accept patents, then you can be required to partner with a manufacturer within a certain period of time. This kind of thing might already exist if we compare it to the record labels for turning copywritten songs into fortunes for labels and authors. Similar middle-men would show up plus DIY kits, consultants, and advice on doing it yourself. The risks you face wouldn't be much different from the current market where trolls like Intellectual Ventures convince broke patent holders to give it to them for pennies using pressure of their bargaining power then make millions off them in law suits.