5 ms·

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'

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.
  - detaro 8y ago
    > But if you don't have a big inventory of patents, then the company that does won't want a cross licensing deal. Of course the size of the other party's portfolio shouldn't matter if you're only interested in defensive use.
    - jedberg 8y ago
      Of course, but usually one of the companies is interested in offensive purposes, which is why you need a large library for defensive purposes.
  - brian-armstrong 8y ago
    There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance in this post. Notably, you’re leaving out that smaller companies often don’t (and can’t) file patents, which means this system just further entrenches existing large companies. Also, large patent collections don’t protect you from patent trolls since they aren’t exposed to counter suing anyway - they don’t make or sell anything! But whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, right?
    - jedberg 8y ago
      There is no dissonance here. I'm fully aware that small companies are screwed in this process. They also aren't relevant. Just like with nuclear weapons, no one cares about the countries that don't have one. They only care about the evil countries that do have one. Same thing here. Big companies have large patent portfolios. If my company doesn't have one as big as the evil corp, then my company will have problems when they sue. And having a large patent portfolio does protect against trolls -- because if you're cross licensed with another big portfolio, you can use all of those to defend yourself in the suit. The trolls know this and will be less likely to sue the companies with large cross licensed portfolios.
- maym86 8y ago
  If you work in a tech company you don't really have a choice. The company will patent your work whatever you think and this is part of the job. Giving them ideas to patent that you haven't implemented and are unrelated of your actual work is the only optional part.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I’m becoming more of the opinion that all intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals who don’t receive the benefits of the patents. I work hard on personal projects (robots) that I think would be useful to others and I share them all CC0 or BSD licensed. I think it would be useful for economists to consider the way patents exacerbate inequality. That said, my employer has filed a patent for some work I did for them, and it’s a tough issue for me. In this case, I don’t think the innovation is so world changing that I need to fight for it to be open, nor do I think they would honor my desire to leave it unpatented as I’m not really in a position to ask for that. But it’s an issue I feel uncomfortable with, and I kind of dream of moving to a different place where my employer doesn’t try to patent my work. It is tough when they offer you a few thousand for these ideas you come up with. That money could help me build a family, but in closing off these ideas I’m making it harder for everyone else to prosper. FWIW, if anyone says “patents encourage innovation” I would ask you for citations. I understand this is the story we’re told, but it’s typically presented with simple anecdotal evidence and hunches. I’ve never seen a thorough study of the issue.
- pritchardgelman 8y ago
  >intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals who don’t receive the benefits of the patents It is also a wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy: the justice system protecting IP capital is financed by taxpayers, the hard majority of which hold no patents.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Consider that the majority of federal tax revenues are generated by top income earners. It’s more of a wealth transfer between different groups of the wealthy. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-loo...
    - quadrangle 8y ago
homero 8y ago
If your name is on a patent, can you use it anytime? Like if you change jobs?
- itronitron 8y ago
  Typically no, because employees 'sell' their rights to the patent to their employer when filing the patent application. It is customary for the employees to get a silver dollar as a token that has monetary value (hence the sale) and we can thank Richard Feynman for forcing there to be an actual transfer of money :) I should also add that usually the inventor can't take the patent to their next job but if the inventor wrote super-narrow claims into the patent then that would be easy to work around at a future employer.
  - maym86 8y ago
    I don't think this is necessary. You can sign the rights away without a transfer of money.
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  You always may rightfully say you're the inventor (or one of several) of a patent issued for something you invented. But you can't "use it" unless you own rights to the invention. Patent inventorship and ownership are different things. Most likely, you assigned all rights to your invention to your employer at the time of invention. The patent will name you as the inventor, and your then-employer will have all rights to the invention. Neither you nor your next employer can use the patent unless you negotiate permission from the rights holder (your former employer or whomever they sold the rights to).
spindle 8y ago
Good for you!
rjtrickett 8y ago
Has the idea of a patent tax ever been explored? Basically, increasing the cost of filing patents incrementally to regulate excessive patenting and encourage companies to be more selective.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  hmm...then wouldn't the companies just create spin-off companies which they own. Or instead just submit the patent in the name of the employee who invented it, but have a contract with the employee to license the patent to the company.
- beefield 8y ago
  I have thought of a scheme where the first couple of years of IP are free and after that heavily progressively taxed over time ( e.g 1000 usd on third year and doubling each year after that. Once the ip holder does not pay the tax, IP becomes automatically public domain. Unfortunately Berne convention has been written in a way that basically does not allow any kind of taxation of IP in arts and literary works. Which, of course, is amazing, mindboggling power grab by IP industry, done already in 18th century.
  - ascar 8y ago
    Art and literature and patents are a fundamentally different law construct with different background and purpose. Generalizing patents and copyright as IP is a fallacy and leads to wrong conclusions. I recommend reading this article by Richard Stallmann on this topic https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
  - taejo 8y ago
    > I have thought of a scheme where the first couple of years of IP are free and after that heavily progressively taxed over time ( e.g 1000 usd on third year and doubling each year after that. Once the ip holder does not pay the tax, IP becomes automatically public domain. It's not free at the beginning, and the fees are less than you suggest, but that's mostly what we do have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent)
colordrops 8y ago
Unless your job is actually filing patents, I'm sure you'd still live a relatively comfortable life without filing them. You must not be that opposed to patents if you are willing to go against your own beliefs for some small bonuses.
beefield 8y ago
> The processes are unique, very difficult to replicate, and should be offered some protection (if we agree that motor designs should be protected). Just to clarify the discussion. Patents do not exist for protection of innovations or to guarantee income for innovators. Patents exists so that the society would get more innovations. And that is the only measure that patents should be judged against: Do we generally get so much more innovations (within motor designs kn this case) with the patent scheme that the welfare loss caused by monopolizing the IP is covered? Interestingly enough, it is widely agreed that monopolies are bad, so one could imagine that the proof pf burden here would be on the ones who support monopolization of IP. And I have seen very little proof of benefits of patents that do not reduce to assuming that patents are benficial as per the measure I described above.

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.
- detaro 8y ago
  > But if you don't have a big inventory of patents, then the company that does won't want a cross licensing deal. Of course the size of the other party's portfolio shouldn't matter if you're only interested in defensive use.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    Of course, but usually one of the companies is interested in offensive purposes, which is why you need a large library for defensive purposes.
- brian-armstrong 8y ago
  There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance in this post. Notably, you’re leaving out that smaller companies often don’t (and can’t) file patents, which means this system just further entrenches existing large companies. Also, large patent collections don’t protect you from patent trolls since they aren’t exposed to counter suing anyway - they don’t make or sell anything! But whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, right?
  - jedberg 8y ago
    There is no dissonance here. I'm fully aware that small companies are screwed in this process. They also aren't relevant. Just like with nuclear weapons, no one cares about the countries that don't have one. They only care about the evil countries that do have one. Same thing here. Big companies have large patent portfolios. If my company doesn't have one as big as the evil corp, then my company will have problems when they sue. And having a large patent portfolio does protect against trolls -- because if you're cross licensed with another big portfolio, you can use all of those to defend yourself in the suit. The trolls know this and will be less likely to sue the companies with large cross licensed portfolios.
maym86 8y ago
If you work in a tech company you don't really have a choice. The company will patent your work whatever you think and this is part of the job. Giving them ideas to patent that you haven't implemented and are unrelated of your actual work is the only optional part.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

I’m becoming more of the opinion that all intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals who don’t receive the benefits of the patents. I work hard on personal projects (robots) that I think would be useful to others and I share them all CC0 or BSD licensed. I think it would be useful for economists to consider the way patents exacerbate inequality. That said, my employer has filed a patent for some work I did for them, and it’s a tough issue for me. In this case, I don’t think the innovation is so world changing that I need to fight for it to be open, nor do I think they would honor my desire to leave it unpatented as I’m not really in a position to ask for that. But it’s an issue I feel uncomfortable with, and I kind of dream of moving to a different place where my employer doesn’t try to patent my work. It is tough when they offer you a few thousand for these ideas you come up with. That money could help me build a family, but in closing off these ideas I’m making it harder for everyone else to prosper. FWIW, if anyone says “patents encourage innovation” I would ask you for citations. I understand this is the story we’re told, but it’s typically presented with simple anecdotal evidence and hunches. I’ve never seen a thorough study of the issue.

pritchardgelman 8y ago
>intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals who don’t receive the benefits of the patents It is also a wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy: the justice system protecting IP capital is financed by taxpayers, the hard majority of which hold no patents.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Consider that the majority of federal tax revenues are generated by top income earners. It’s more of a wealth transfer between different groups of the wealthy. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-loo...
  - quadrangle 8y ago

homero 8y ago

If your name is on a patent, can you use it anytime? Like if you change jobs?

itronitron 8y ago
Typically no, because employees 'sell' their rights to the patent to their employer when filing the patent application. It is customary for the employees to get a silver dollar as a token that has monetary value (hence the sale) and we can thank Richard Feynman for forcing there to be an actual transfer of money :) I should also add that usually the inventor can't take the patent to their next job but if the inventor wrote super-narrow claims into the patent then that would be easy to work around at a future employer.
- maym86 8y ago
  I don't think this is necessary. You can sign the rights away without a transfer of money.
ridgeguy 8y ago
You always may rightfully say you're the inventor (or one of several) of a patent issued for something you invented. But you can't "use it" unless you own rights to the invention. Patent inventorship and ownership are different things. Most likely, you assigned all rights to your invention to your employer at the time of invention. The patent will name you as the inventor, and your then-employer will have all rights to the invention. Neither you nor your next employer can use the patent unless you negotiate permission from the rights holder (your former employer or whomever they sold the rights to).

spindle 8y ago

Good for you!

rjtrickett 8y ago

Has the idea of a patent tax ever been explored? Basically, increasing the cost of filing patents incrementally to regulate excessive patenting and encourage companies to be more selective.

em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
hmm...then wouldn't the companies just create spin-off companies which they own. Or instead just submit the patent in the name of the employee who invented it, but have a contract with the employee to license the patent to the company.
beefield 8y ago
I have thought of a scheme where the first couple of years of IP are free and after that heavily progressively taxed over time ( e.g 1000 usd on third year and doubling each year after that. Once the ip holder does not pay the tax, IP becomes automatically public domain. Unfortunately Berne convention has been written in a way that basically does not allow any kind of taxation of IP in arts and literary works. Which, of course, is amazing, mindboggling power grab by IP industry, done already in 18th century.
- ascar 8y ago
  Art and literature and patents are a fundamentally different law construct with different background and purpose. Generalizing patents and copyright as IP is a fallacy and leads to wrong conclusions. I recommend reading this article by Richard Stallmann on this topic https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
- taejo 8y ago
  > I have thought of a scheme where the first couple of years of IP are free and after that heavily progressively taxed over time ( e.g 1000 usd on third year and doubling each year after that. Once the ip holder does not pay the tax, IP becomes automatically public domain. It's not free at the beginning, and the fees are less than you suggest, but that's mostly what we do have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_fee_(patent)

colordrops 8y ago

Unless your job is actually filing patents, I'm sure you'd still live a relatively comfortable life without filing them. You must not be that opposed to patents if you are willing to go against your own beliefs for some small bonuses.

beefield 8y ago

> The processes are unique, very difficult to replicate, and should be offered some protection (if we agree that motor designs should be protected). Just to clarify the discussion. Patents do not exist for protection of innovations or to guarantee income for innovators. Patents exists so that the society would get more innovations. And that is the only measure that patents should be judged against: Do we generally get so much more innovations (within motor designs kn this case) with the patent scheme that the welfare loss caused by monopolizing the IP is covered? Interestingly enough, it is widely agreed that monopolies are bad, so one could imagine that the proof pf burden here would be on the ones who support monopolization of IP. And I have seen very little proof of benefits of patents that do not reduce to assuming that patents are benficial as per the measure I described above.