8 ms·

Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific progress. First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be life

by zanny 9y ago

Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific progress. First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be life saving treatment. Ain't the world such a better place for MPEG-LA existing... (that being said, if MPEG-LA wasn't around, someone else would have formed just as evil a patent tyrant company to act as the arm of big media). MPEG-LA is just a symptom of broken IP law just as much as patent trolls and the Eastern District of Texas getting parks built by global corps are.

notyourwork 9y ago
Without disagreeing I would encourage you to provide an alternative solution to the current (as you describe) broken system. The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.
- wtetzner 9y ago
  Just to be clear, it wasn't put in place to protect us, it was put in place to encourage innovation.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Quibbles aside, that's essentially analogous to "protecting the public good" (aka us).
    - wtetzner 9y ago
      Ah, sure. I read "protecting us" as "protecting creators" (as opposed to consumers).
- gleenn 9y ago
  Wouldn't a clause being added that required some form of obvious progress that your company plans to directly use the IP they are holding or lose it to the public be sufficient to prevent companies like MPEG LA from just using it to sue others? These things were meant to protect innovation, so require copyright/patent holders to be innovating or lose it so someone else can. I know "innovation" is vague but as someone else just noted on HN recently, the legal system is good at making rules even on abstract concepts.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  Certain subjects should not be patentable. Let me put it this way: the existince of a CRISPR patent will literally kill people. Medical research should be funded by the government and the results should be in the public domain.
  - 1123581321 9y ago
    The lives not lost because of the drive to discover patentable research would need to be measured against that. (I assume you do not believe there is such a drive, but I think that researchers can have multiple, co-existing motivations.)
    - knowThySelfx 9y ago
      Maybe we can still keep the patent tag, but devoid of any other conditions except that this one tech was created by the patent holder. In this case, the "patentable" motivation will still be valid.
  - clort 9y ago
    Out of interest, what of the research that the government inevitably declines to fund, for whatever reason? Should a private entity be allowed to do the research and monetise the results? I ask because, you know, its an obvious question and lawyers would be asking in the courts.
- topleveldomain 9y ago
  Thanks for this response. How about requiring patent-holders to show progress on their invention every X years, so that inventors can't just sit on an old and important patent they own? Or, a more ground-up restructuring: what if owning a patent didn't give you full ownership of the technology, but just X% of profit made from it for X years after filing? With this setup, you could further incentivize progress by granting an additional X% to the first one able to bring the technology to market.
  - Solar19 9y ago
    Why should patent holders have to show "progress"? Isn't the invention enough? Would they have to invent more or advance it further? Or do you mean commercial progress, making money, building it, etc.? The latter is called "working the patent", which is the opposite of what patent predators, née trolls do. Apparently some countries require holders to work the patent, and I'm a big supporter of fundamental patent reform in the US that would require people/corporations to produce and sell the invention in order to maintain a patent. That would almost vaporize all the patent predators out there. Right now we have a system where you can just think shit up and write it down. Boom, you've got a patent (with the help of a lawyer usually). That's a ridiculous legal system. The system should be designed around actual market activity – the introduction of innovative products. I think it's an important right that someone who invents something should have exclusive commercial rights to it for a while, but not a right to just sit back and stop other people from using their brains too. Your percentage of profits idea is something I liked for a while when I was thinking a lot about reform, but I now think that it would be way too hard to enforce. It would be such a mess to carve out exactly what the profit or revenue was that could be attributed purely to some part of a product that hinged on some dude's patent, along with all the other encumbered parts and features. It would be worse than the mess that is the income tax and corporate income tax.
    - kanzure 9y ago
      > Your percentage of profits idea is something I liked for a while when I was thinking a lot about reform, but I now think that it would be way too hard to enforce. You could just do a general per industry tax, which I proposed here a few years ago: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb0/jD_TZ8U47b4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...
- zanny 9y ago
  Heres a question - is there any evidence we need patents to protect us? Are they actually protecting us? And if so, are the costs (abuse of patents by trolls and global corps) worth the price paid? Remember that patents were originally just meant to compel inventors to disclose the means by which their inventions work, so that after a finite time they could be publicly used. Do we need public disclosure of "inventions" anymore?
  - Quenty 9y ago
    I think the public disclosure of inventions is still valuable and that, although the cost is perhaps higher than it should be, does not mean that patents are useless or should be removed. Technology makes the world move faster, and patents haven’t quite adjusted yet.
- amluto 9y ago
  Abolish it entirely. I'm not really kidding. I think that evidence that patents are beneficial in any field is lacking. Alternatively, a few major reforms would help. For example: 1. Decrease patent terms to just a few years in most fields. 2. Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Codec patents, for example, should never have been valid. 3. Eliminate submarine patents. Specifically, require patent holders to notify infringers of their infringement in a timely manner. If you know or should know that my specification, technology, or product is covered by your patent, you must tell me what patent covers it and why. If you give me a list of 700 patents that "might" cover it, you get some appropriate penalty. If you fail to notify me, your patent no longer applies. If my infringing technology is public and you fail to publicly disclose your patent, you cannot enforce your patent against anyone who infringes it using my technology or a derivative thereof. By "should know", I mean that, if an attentive participant in whatever market I'm in would have known of whatever details of my technology infringe on your patent, then you "should know". Even if my technology is still under development by a standards body. #3 is a big deal. It means that owning and maintaining a patent is a bit expensive. It means that, if you patent some incomprehensible detail that might apply to future technologies, then you must tell people that their future technologies would infringe. This, by itself, would likely blow away most codec patents. And AOM would be spared the expense of their patent search. Simply publish AV1, wait the prescribed time, and AV1 is in the clear. 4. Covenants not to sue and blanket licenses do not waive requirements under #3. If an AOM member wants to give a blanket license of their whole portfolio under defensive terms to users of AV1, they still need to disclose how AV1 infringes their patents or they can't use those patents defensively in the future against AV1.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    >Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Ok but CRISPR isn't math. And the distinction between designing an algorithm and designing a machine is kind of arbitrary. If you are going to get rid of one you should get rid of the other and abolish patents entirely.
    - phkahler 9y ago
      CRISPR was discovered, not invented. At least the core concepts should not be patentable under any system. And then any inventions around it done at publicly funded institutions should probably not be patentable under any system. Companies don't really invent very much, they usually find things or take existing things and try to monopolize them with patents.
- rishav_sharan 9y ago
  Add an expiry to the patent like it is done for copyright. If a patent holder has not hsed or shown significant effort towards commercialization of the product, the patent should expire
- amelius 9y ago
  One approach would be to have a technology-challenge period. Everyone who wants to file a patent should first post a challenge. Other parties then have, say, 1 year to come up with a solution. If none is found, the patent is granted. This would, of course, not solve all patent problems, but it could be a first step to solve the most obvious ones.
- _nedR 9y ago
  Make software patents last 5 years instead of 17.
- dumbneurologist 9y ago
  > The system was put in place to protect us That's a little bit overly generous. It was put in place to incentivize invention and creation. But I think clear with examples like this that it's holding us back. There are so many people, and there is so much innovation, and so much ability to understand how something new works that these laws do nothing to help the public. And even if they started with the public good in mind, we are now far from it. As other responders are suggesting: scrap it completely, and see where things end up. And even though we are discussing patents, the benefit to the public is ten times larger for copyright. Copyright maximalists had a stroke of genius when they started calling it "intellectual property" and "IP rights". This allows you to make it a moral issue, rather than a public policy issue (which is what it really is).
a_imho 9y ago
broken IP law Unfortunately I think they are working as intended.

by zanny 9y ago

notyourwork 9y ago

Without disagreeing I would encourage you to provide an alternative solution to the current (as you describe) broken system. The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.

wtetzner 9y ago
Just to be clear, it wasn't put in place to protect us, it was put in place to encourage innovation.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Quibbles aside, that's essentially analogous to "protecting the public good" (aka us).
  - wtetzner 9y ago
    Ah, sure. I read "protecting us" as "protecting creators" (as opposed to consumers).
gleenn 9y ago
Wouldn't a clause being added that required some form of obvious progress that your company plans to directly use the IP they are holding or lose it to the public be sufficient to prevent companies like MPEG LA from just using it to sue others? These things were meant to protect innovation, so require copyright/patent holders to be innovating or lose it so someone else can. I know "innovation" is vague but as someone else just noted on HN recently, the legal system is good at making rules even on abstract concepts.
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Certain subjects should not be patentable. Let me put it this way: the existince of a CRISPR patent will literally kill people. Medical research should be funded by the government and the results should be in the public domain.
- 1123581321 9y ago
  The lives not lost because of the drive to discover patentable research would need to be measured against that. (I assume you do not believe there is such a drive, but I think that researchers can have multiple, co-existing motivations.)
  - knowThySelfx 9y ago
    Maybe we can still keep the patent tag, but devoid of any other conditions except that this one tech was created by the patent holder. In this case, the "patentable" motivation will still be valid.
- clort 9y ago
  Out of interest, what of the research that the government inevitably declines to fund, for whatever reason? Should a private entity be allowed to do the research and monetise the results? I ask because, you know, its an obvious question and lawyers would be asking in the courts.
topleveldomain 9y ago
Thanks for this response. How about requiring patent-holders to show progress on their invention every X years, so that inventors can't just sit on an old and important patent they own? Or, a more ground-up restructuring: what if owning a patent didn't give you full ownership of the technology, but just X% of profit made from it for X years after filing? With this setup, you could further incentivize progress by granting an additional X% to the first one able to bring the technology to market.
- Solar19 9y ago
  Why should patent holders have to show "progress"? Isn't the invention enough? Would they have to invent more or advance it further? Or do you mean commercial progress, making money, building it, etc.? The latter is called "working the patent", which is the opposite of what patent predators, née trolls do. Apparently some countries require holders to work the patent, and I'm a big supporter of fundamental patent reform in the US that would require people/corporations to produce and sell the invention in order to maintain a patent. That would almost vaporize all the patent predators out there. Right now we have a system where you can just think shit up and write it down. Boom, you've got a patent (with the help of a lawyer usually). That's a ridiculous legal system. The system should be designed around actual market activity – the introduction of innovative products. I think it's an important right that someone who invents something should have exclusive commercial rights to it for a while, but not a right to just sit back and stop other people from using their brains too. Your percentage of profits idea is something I liked for a while when I was thinking a lot about reform, but I now think that it would be way too hard to enforce. It would be such a mess to carve out exactly what the profit or revenue was that could be attributed purely to some part of a product that hinged on some dude's patent, along with all the other encumbered parts and features. It would be worse than the mess that is the income tax and corporate income tax.
  - kanzure 9y ago
    > Your percentage of profits idea is something I liked for a while when I was thinking a lot about reform, but I now think that it would be way too hard to enforce. You could just do a general per industry tax, which I proposed here a few years ago: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb0/jD_TZ8U47b4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...
zanny 9y ago
Heres a question - is there any evidence we need patents to protect us? Are they actually protecting us? And if so, are the costs (abuse of patents by trolls and global corps) worth the price paid? Remember that patents were originally just meant to compel inventors to disclose the means by which their inventions work, so that after a finite time they could be publicly used. Do we need public disclosure of "inventions" anymore?
- Quenty 9y ago
  I think the public disclosure of inventions is still valuable and that, although the cost is perhaps higher than it should be, does not mean that patents are useless or should be removed. Technology makes the world move faster, and patents haven’t quite adjusted yet.
amluto 9y ago
Abolish it entirely. I'm not really kidding. I think that evidence that patents are beneficial in any field is lacking. Alternatively, a few major reforms would help. For example: 1. Decrease patent terms to just a few years in most fields. 2. Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Codec patents, for example, should never have been valid. 3. Eliminate submarine patents. Specifically, require patent holders to notify infringers of their infringement in a timely manner. If you know or should know that my specification, technology, or product is covered by your patent, you must tell me what patent covers it and why. If you give me a list of 700 patents that "might" cover it, you get some appropriate penalty. If you fail to notify me, your patent no longer applies. If my infringing technology is public and you fail to publicly disclose your patent, you cannot enforce your patent against anyone who infringes it using my technology or a derivative thereof. By "should know", I mean that, if an attentive participant in whatever market I'm in would have known of whatever details of my technology infringe on your patent, then you "should know". Even if my technology is still under development by a standards body. #3 is a big deal. It means that owning and maintaining a patent is a bit expensive. It means that, if you patent some incomprehensible detail that might apply to future technologies, then you must tell people that their future technologies would infringe. This, by itself, would likely blow away most codec patents. And AOM would be spared the expense of their patent search. Simply publish AV1, wait the prescribed time, and AV1 is in the clear. 4. Covenants not to sue and blanket licenses do not waive requirements under #3. If an AOM member wants to give a blanket license of their whole portfolio under defensive terms to users of AV1, they still need to disclose how AV1 infringes their patents or they can't use those patents defensively in the future against AV1.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  >Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Ok but CRISPR isn't math. And the distinction between designing an algorithm and designing a machine is kind of arbitrary. If you are going to get rid of one you should get rid of the other and abolish patents entirely.
  - phkahler 9y ago
    CRISPR was discovered, not invented. At least the core concepts should not be patentable under any system. And then any inventions around it done at publicly funded institutions should probably not be patentable under any system. Companies don't really invent very much, they usually find things or take existing things and try to monopolize them with patents.
rishav_sharan 9y ago
Add an expiry to the patent like it is done for copyright. If a patent holder has not hsed or shown significant effort towards commercialization of the product, the patent should expire
amelius 9y ago
One approach would be to have a technology-challenge period. Everyone who wants to file a patent should first post a challenge. Other parties then have, say, 1 year to come up with a solution. If none is found, the patent is granted. This would, of course, not solve all patent problems, but it could be a first step to solve the most obvious ones.
_nedR 9y ago
Make software patents last 5 years instead of 17.
dumbneurologist 9y ago
> The system was put in place to protect us That's a little bit overly generous. It was put in place to incentivize invention and creation. But I think clear with examples like this that it's holding us back. There are so many people, and there is so much innovation, and so much ability to understand how something new works that these laws do nothing to help the public. And even if they started with the public good in mind, we are now far from it. As other responders are suggesting: scrap it completely, and see where things end up. And even though we are discussing patents, the benefit to the public is ten times larger for copyright. Copyright maximalists had a stroke of genius when they started calling it "intellectual property" and "IP rights". This allows you to make it a moral issue, rather than a public policy issue (which is what it really is).

a_imho 9y ago

broken IP law Unfortunately I think they are working as intended.