9 ms·

It's crazy how the large companies file so many patents for any idea their employees can think of. We used to have a lawyer come to our desks once a month and t

It's crazy how the large companies file so many patents for any idea their employees can think of. We used to have a lawyer come to our desks once a month and they would try patent any idea you could come up with even off the top of your head. Not sure how small companies can compete when larger companies can buy up all the IP in a space without having to do any work. The smaller companies I've worked for have to be very selective about what they spend time and money patenting.

vertexFarm 8y ago
Our particular IP system has extreme issues, even if you don't share my admittedly extremist view that IP ownership is fundamentally irrational or even impossible if taken to its logical conclusion.
hellbanner 8y ago
I just had a company want to enforce http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/104/patents-law-on-employees-inventions-germany http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/104/patents-law-... -- for a contract gig!
- joering2 8y ago
  They can because 1) patens expire in ten years mostly, and 2) patenting ridiciolous stuff doesnt hold water with judges. I think there was recently a company that got patent on “clicks in your email messages” and sued everyone relevant to shake out $$, and got laughted at by judge. (Im on mobile so can find relevant article atm)
  - hellbanner 8y ago
    If it doesn't matter, then the language shouldn't be there. IANAL; you might want to review your contracts carefully.
paulie_a 8y ago
It's also funny, I am going to outright not even care if someone has a patent
citilife 8y ago
As someone who has multiple issued patents from large companies.. It's a pretty complex issue. I personally think software patents should be outlawed, as I don't know a better solution. On the one hand, I have several patents for project(s) that took years to develop. The processes are unique, very difficult to replicate, and should be offered some protection (if we agree that motor designs should be protected). The companies I have worked for would defend the IP and would constitute these as "offensive" patents, because they would use it to actively stop upstarts. On the other hand, I also have worked with lawyers to just patent ideas I had off hand. These are "defensive" patents, and go into the patent arsenal, containing hundreds to thousands of patents, to be used if someone decides to sue. These are just "ideas" and often will only have the most basic design(s) and testing (if at all). Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell the difference, and more over - I don't think it's fair (personally) to patent something that doesn't exist in reality yet. What's even more frightening to me personally, is that I am morally opposed to patenting... However, when someone offers me $1k, $3k, $5k, etc. to work with them to file a patent I'm incentivized to file. I have to be pragmatic for my family. For reference, I'm on or currently working through filing close to 150 patents. For each one, I donate a portion to the EFF; for what it's worth...
- maym86 8y ago
  > For each one, I donate a portion to the EFF; for what it's worth... What a great idea. Thanks
- brian-armstrong 8y ago
  150 patents?! Dear god, you are part of the problem. You clearly know it’s wrong but you do it anyway.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    It's like mutually assured distruction. Almost no one involved with software patents think they are a good idea, but until everyone backs down at the same time, you gotta keep doing it or that one evil player will destroy everyone. I don't think software patents should exist, but I've worked on a bunch (and have a few myself). Not a single person I've worked with in that process, including the lawyers, thinks software patents are good. But if my company didn't file them, then another patent troll or big evil corp could sue us out of existence. By having a huge patent library, it make the discussion easier. The big companies just get together and decide to cross license all their patents at no cost to either party. But if you don't have a big inventory of patents, then the company that does won't want a cross licensing deal.
IncRnd 8y ago
I have several patents I created and assigned to my company. The main reason is to allow the company to work in those ways without restriction. For example, without a patent granting rights to do operation XYZ, then a competitor may say that the company is doing something forbidden and needs to stop. We can look at all the claims for stolen IP with the various self-driving car companies to see examples. This is a forward looking protection mechanism due to the environment that we actually have in the real world today. Even so, I don't like the idea of a social media company that sells advertising to have so many patents of the kinds mentioned in the article.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  > For example, without a patent granting rights to do operation XYZ, then a competitor may say that the company is doing something forbidden and needs to stop. Just FYI, a patent doesn't "grant rights to do operation XYZ". Patents only allow you to forbid others from doing XYZ. That means that you can have a patent that covers XYZ, but if someone else has a patent to do X (or XY), then they can stop you from doing XYZ.
- beagle3 8y ago
  Patents are strictly an offensive measure: They only allow you to sue/stop someone else from using them. They do NOT give you approval to do something. Some people mention "defensive" patents; They are only defensive in the sense that "the best defence is an offence" - that if someone attacks you, you have something to attack them back with. But that's not actually useful against entities that aren't practicing, such as Intellectual Ventures.
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    In the US a patent grant confers the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States. In that way, while there isn't legal approval, there are real world patent rights that create a bar which stops many from interfering with your business processes. In this way, there is a non-offensive and defensive ability to conduct business. I am the inventor on a number of patents, and this is exactly how patents work out in practice for the specific type of industry and purpose that this thread is about. I am not talking about the law of patents but how patents are used in the actual real world by large companies. That was in reply to what the GP wrote, "It's crazy how the large companies file so many patents for any idea their employees can think of." In fact, it's not "crazy" that companies do this. What is crazy is the system in which they are forced to do this. Unfortunately lawsuits take a lot of money and time, which I am sure you are familiar with.
itronitron 8y ago
The beauty of this approach is that patents expire after ~15-20 years so it is basically just guaranteeing that everything will be free and clear soon.
- maym86 8y ago
  For technology that is obselete in 5 years.
  - itronitron 8y ago
    certain implementations will become obsolete, but once the concept is patented and the patent expires it can be re-implemented by anyone, forever. If you don't want to wait the five years, there is an astonishing amount of prior art from the 1960's to 1990's that can be applied.
- sametmax 8y ago
  No they will just patent a soight variation again and again to have ground to sue. Even if they loose (but given their lawyer power they may even win), you gona bleed so much cash you won't be be able to compete anyway.
icantdrive55 8y ago
As a society, we need to tie fees/fines (especially patent) in All areas of life. And yes--a big company might just have to pay 2 million for their 100th Patent. And yes--a rich guy breezing through a red light would get a $20000 fine. "Oh no, but I might be a big Player one day?". The odds are against you breaking into the club in America. Those days are pretty much gone.
listentojohan 8y ago
It's preposterous. I don't think there should be any patents. At all. Maybe copyright.
code_duck 8y ago
I agree, but I so feel like this comment is suggesting that Facebook isn't using most of these. To me, they all seem to be clear areas of interest or even correspond to features and ad placement that I've observed. Guessing whether people are single, for instance - we'd be naive to not know that FB does that. Also worth noting that even if they don't themselves derive certain conclusions from our data or use that conclusion, it doesn't mean another party does not. For instance, a user's sleep/wake cycle could be determined by others from the data FB collects and shares with them.

vertexFarm 8y ago

Our particular IP system has extreme issues, even if you don't share my admittedly extremist view that IP ownership is fundamentally irrational or even impossible if taken to its logical conclusion.

hellbanner 8y ago

I just had a company want to enforce http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/104/patents-law-on-employees-inventions-germany http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/104/patents-law-... -- for a contract gig!

joering2 8y ago
They can because 1) patens expire in ten years mostly, and 2) patenting ridiciolous stuff doesnt hold water with judges. I think there was recently a company that got patent on “clicks in your email messages” and sued everyone relevant to shake out $$, and got laughted at by judge. (Im on mobile so can find relevant article atm)
- hellbanner 8y ago
  If it doesn't matter, then the language shouldn't be there. IANAL; you might want to review your contracts carefully.

paulie_a 8y ago

It's also funny, I am going to outright not even care if someone has a patent

citilife 8y ago

As someone who has multiple issued patents from large companies.. It's a pretty complex issue. I personally think software patents should be outlawed, as I don't know a better solution. On the one hand, I have several patents for project(s) that took years to develop. The processes are unique, very difficult to replicate, and should be offered some protection (if we agree that motor designs should be protected). The companies I have worked for would defend the IP and would constitute these as "offensive" patents, because they would use it to actively stop upstarts. On the other hand, I also have worked with lawyers to just patent ideas I had off hand. These are "defensive" patents, and go into the patent arsenal, containing hundreds to thousands of patents, to be used if someone decides to sue. These are just "ideas" and often will only have the most basic design(s) and testing (if at all). Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell the difference, and more over - I don't think it's fair (personally) to patent something that doesn't exist in reality yet. What's even more frightening to me personally, is that I am morally opposed to patenting... However, when someone offers me $1k, $3k, $5k, etc. to work with them to file a patent I'm incentivized to file. I have to be pragmatic for my family. For reference, I'm on or currently working through filing close to 150 patents. For each one, I donate a portion to the EFF; for what it's worth...

maym86 8y ago
> For each one, I donate a portion to the EFF; for what it's worth... What a great idea. Thanks
brian-armstrong 8y ago
150 patents?! Dear god, you are part of the problem. You clearly know it’s wrong but you do it anyway.
- jedberg 8y ago
  It's like mutually assured distruction. Almost no one involved with software patents think they are a good idea, but until everyone backs down at the same time, you gotta keep doing it or that one evil player will destroy everyone. I don't think software patents should exist, but I've worked on a bunch (and have a few myself). Not a single person I've worked with in that process, including the lawyers, thinks software patents are good. But if my company didn't file them, then another patent troll or big evil corp could sue us out of existence. By having a huge patent library, it make the discussion easier. The big companies just get together and decide to cross license all their patents at no cost to either party. But if you don't have a big inventory of patents, then the company that does won't want a cross licensing deal.

IncRnd 8y ago

I have several patents I created and assigned to my company. The main reason is to allow the company to work in those ways without restriction. For example, without a patent granting rights to do operation XYZ, then a competitor may say that the company is doing something forbidden and needs to stop. We can look at all the claims for stolen IP with the various self-driving car companies to see examples. This is a forward looking protection mechanism due to the environment that we actually have in the real world today. Even so, I don't like the idea of a social media company that sells advertising to have so many patents of the kinds mentioned in the article.

gnicholas 8y ago
> For example, without a patent granting rights to do operation XYZ, then a competitor may say that the company is doing something forbidden and needs to stop. Just FYI, a patent doesn't "grant rights to do operation XYZ". Patents only allow you to forbid others from doing XYZ. That means that you can have a patent that covers XYZ, but if someone else has a patent to do X (or XY), then they can stop you from doing XYZ.
beagle3 8y ago
Patents are strictly an offensive measure: They only allow you to sue/stop someone else from using them. They do NOT give you approval to do something. Some people mention "defensive" patents; They are only defensive in the sense that "the best defence is an offence" - that if someone attacks you, you have something to attack them back with. But that's not actually useful against entities that aren't practicing, such as Intellectual Ventures.
- IncRnd 8y ago
  In the US a patent grant confers the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States. In that way, while there isn't legal approval, there are real world patent rights that create a bar which stops many from interfering with your business processes. In this way, there is a non-offensive and defensive ability to conduct business. I am the inventor on a number of patents, and this is exactly how patents work out in practice for the specific type of industry and purpose that this thread is about. I am not talking about the law of patents but how patents are used in the actual real world by large companies. That was in reply to what the GP wrote, "It's crazy how the large companies file so many patents for any idea their employees can think of." In fact, it's not "crazy" that companies do this. What is crazy is the system in which they are forced to do this. Unfortunately lawsuits take a lot of money and time, which I am sure you are familiar with.

itronitron 8y ago

The beauty of this approach is that patents expire after ~15-20 years so it is basically just guaranteeing that everything will be free and clear soon.

maym86 8y ago
For technology that is obselete in 5 years.
- itronitron 8y ago
  certain implementations will become obsolete, but once the concept is patented and the patent expires it can be re-implemented by anyone, forever. If you don't want to wait the five years, there is an astonishing amount of prior art from the 1960's to 1990's that can be applied.
sametmax 8y ago
No they will just patent a soight variation again and again to have ground to sue. Even if they loose (but given their lawyer power they may even win), you gona bleed so much cash you won't be be able to compete anyway.

icantdrive55 8y ago

As a society, we need to tie fees/fines (especially patent) in All areas of life. And yes--a big company might just have to pay 2 million for their 100th Patent. And yes--a rich guy breezing through a red light would get a $20000 fine. "Oh no, but I might be a big Player one day?". The odds are against you breaking into the club in America. Those days are pretty much gone.

listentojohan 8y ago

It's preposterous. I don't think there should be any patents. At all. Maybe copyright.

code_duck 8y ago

I agree, but I so feel like this comment is suggesting that Facebook isn't using most of these. To me, they all seem to be clear areas of interest or even correspond to features and ad placement that I've observed. Guessing whether people are single, for instance - we'd be naive to not know that FB does that. Also worth noting that even if they don't themselves derive certain conclusions from our data or use that conclusion, it doesn't mean another party does not. For instance, a user's sleep/wake cycle could be determined by others from the data FB collects and shares with them.