6 ms·

I don't even think you should receive a patent unless you intend to commercialize it. In this system, you have incentives to make your patent as broad as possib

I don't even think you should receive a patent unless you intend to commercialize it. In this system, you have incentives to make your patent as broad as possible, as well as look for "me-too" patents that you can get by studying existing ones. If your sole source of revenue is licensing the patents that you've created, you're a patent troll. The initial patent wasn't intended for this. The patent wasn't originally intended for this. It was there to protect small inventors as they brought their ideas commercial. When Edison brought is light bulb to the market, only he could create light bulbs. This helped protect him from larger, more established firms, from copying his design so he could get his business bearings. What you are doing is not that. You research some idea, patent it, then pocket it away until it's handy for you. If you make no attempt to show your patents, seek funding, or otherwise try to commercialize the idea, then you're a patent troll.

commandar 16y ago
>If your sole source of revenue is licensing the patents that you've created, you're a patent troll. Isn't that essentially ARM's business model?
- jcromartie 16y ago
  ARM actually designs and licenses whole chip architectures. You can license a design from ARM and have it built it without much additional engineering.
- unexpected 16y ago
  I don't include ARM in this list b/c they actually market their products and their whole business model revolves around taking the "headache" out of the R&D of chip design. ARM aggressively markets their products and chip designs, showing benchmarks of their technologies. Most patent trolls fly under the radar, trying not to get noticed, so a major corporation can violate the patent in a huge, best-selling product. Then, they can claim "well, you should have checked all available technologies" - which is a huge waste of effort. There's no incentive for patent trolls to aggressively market their products, b/c that doesn't bring the biggest returns. Look at this suit that just went against Apple - if Apple had negotiated a long-term license with them back in 2004, it would have been on really bad terms - no one knew that the iPhone would be this successful (except for maybe Apple). There are perverse incentives in place to try and "hide" the patent as much as possible, and then wait for the biggest fish to show up. One really big fish is worth a thousand smaller fish, and when a really big fish falls, it discourages all the small fish from entering the marketplace all together - to the detriment of everyone.
IgorPartola 16y ago
Are you telling me that if I come up with a way to build a cold fusion reactor, start to finish, that is commercially viable but will cost me $1,000,000,000,000 to build but can power the entire human civilization, my only option is to either build it or forget it? That if I obtain a patent it is somehow my obligation to actually make the damn thing? Also, how do you propose the patent office make sure that I am actually going to build something? Isn't the workflow "invent, patent, produce"? Or should I alter that workflow and go with "invent, produce, patent"? If so what happens to everyone that imitates me in the produce phase once I get my patent? Seems to me I'd be much more of a troll then.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Are you telling me that if I come up with a way to build a cold fusion reactor, start to finish, that is commercially viable but will cost me $1,000,000,000,000 to build but can power the entire human civilization, my only option is to either build it or forget it? That if I obtain a patent it is somehow my obligation to actually make the damn thing? I have no idea what he(?) is telling you, but I'm telling you YES. The problem here is that you couch it as coming up wit the whole thing from start to finish. Think instead of how many hundreds or THOUSANDS of patents might cover a commercially viable cold fusion reactor. Imagine if NONE of the patent holders want to invest a few billion to build it, they each wait around for some other sucker to invest a billion dollars and then try to "extract value" with their patent trolling lawsuits. Result? No cold fusion for humanity, because nobody wants to invest a billion dollars building something that requires permission from hundreds or thousands of venal "inventors." It is obvious that we do not need patents to protect the creation of a billion dollar reactor. The billion dollar cost to build one protects it. If you come up with the idea, but you don't have a billion dollars, do what everyone else is doing, go pitch it and raise money. If you don't have a billion dollars and you can't convince anyone else to give you a billion dollars, why should you get rich? There is no moral imperative to reward inventors for pure thinking, and furthermore there is NO evidence at the moment that patents serve as an incentive to get smart people like you to invent cold fusion instead of making money trading derivatives or playing professional poker.
  - 16y ago
lkjuhygthyujk 16y ago
>you intend to commercialize it The problem then is that cell phone makers would have a monopoly, since no small company could come up with a better antennae, or better screen etc without also having all the other parts of a cell phone. The original idea of the patent was to grant the inventor a limited monopoly in return for the invention being published and adding to the set of human knowledge - rather than a maker keeping it a secret part of their product.
Tamerlin 16y ago
If you invent something that by itself has no commercial value whatsoever, but could make someone else's idea either viable or more profitable (maybe it makes their widget easier to build?), then you're basically saying that your invention isn't patentable, even though by licensing it you could enable another company to benefit from your work while being compensated for it. Wow, that was a long sentence. Anyway, that's the whole point behind patents in the first place. It's to allow the inventor to be able to stand up to a big company and negotiate on at least somewhat equal footing, and finding an agreeable set of licensing terms. Then you could be an inventor instead of a builder, and come up with ideas that others can use to build stuff. You're suggesting that there should not be any such thing as an inventor who doesn't build stuff, because you're proposing that such individuals are invariably shot in the back. "If your sole source of revenue is licensing the patents that you've created, you're a patent troll." False. An inventor's sole source of income might well be licensing patents -- such a person is making a living by inventing things. Hence the term "inventor" ;)) A patent troll is someone who abuses that aspect of the system, like IBM. They try to make their patents as broad as possible, and then use them to prevent other companies from making progress, rather than making the licensing process into a collaboration between entities -- allowing the inventor to create the shoulders atop which the builders stand.

commandar 16y ago

>If your sole source of revenue is licensing the patents that you've created, you're a patent troll. Isn't that essentially ARM's business model?

jcromartie 16y ago
ARM actually designs and licenses whole chip architectures. You can license a design from ARM and have it built it without much additional engineering.
unexpected 16y ago
I don't include ARM in this list b/c they actually market their products and their whole business model revolves around taking the "headache" out of the R&D of chip design. ARM aggressively markets their products and chip designs, showing benchmarks of their technologies. Most patent trolls fly under the radar, trying not to get noticed, so a major corporation can violate the patent in a huge, best-selling product. Then, they can claim "well, you should have checked all available technologies" - which is a huge waste of effort. There's no incentive for patent trolls to aggressively market their products, b/c that doesn't bring the biggest returns. Look at this suit that just went against Apple - if Apple had negotiated a long-term license with them back in 2004, it would have been on really bad terms - no one knew that the iPhone would be this successful (except for maybe Apple). There are perverse incentives in place to try and "hide" the patent as much as possible, and then wait for the biggest fish to show up. One really big fish is worth a thousand smaller fish, and when a really big fish falls, it discourages all the small fish from entering the marketplace all together - to the detriment of everyone.

IgorPartola 16y ago

Are you telling me that if I come up with a way to build a cold fusion reactor, start to finish, that is commercially viable but will cost me $1,000,000,000,000 to build but can power the entire human civilization, my only option is to either build it or forget it? That if I obtain a patent it is somehow my obligation to actually make the damn thing? Also, how do you propose the patent office make sure that I am actually going to build something? Isn't the workflow "invent, patent, produce"? Or should I alter that workflow and go with "invent, produce, patent"? If so what happens to everyone that imitates me in the produce phase once I get my patent? Seems to me I'd be much more of a troll then.

raganwald 16y ago
Are you telling me that if I come up with a way to build a cold fusion reactor, start to finish, that is commercially viable but will cost me $1,000,000,000,000 to build but can power the entire human civilization, my only option is to either build it or forget it? That if I obtain a patent it is somehow my obligation to actually make the damn thing? I have no idea what he(?) is telling you, but I'm telling you YES. The problem here is that you couch it as coming up wit the whole thing from start to finish. Think instead of how many hundreds or THOUSANDS of patents might cover a commercially viable cold fusion reactor. Imagine if NONE of the patent holders want to invest a few billion to build it, they each wait around for some other sucker to invest a billion dollars and then try to "extract value" with their patent trolling lawsuits. Result? No cold fusion for humanity, because nobody wants to invest a billion dollars building something that requires permission from hundreds or thousands of venal "inventors." It is obvious that we do not need patents to protect the creation of a billion dollar reactor. The billion dollar cost to build one protects it. If you come up with the idea, but you don't have a billion dollars, do what everyone else is doing, go pitch it and raise money. If you don't have a billion dollars and you can't convince anyone else to give you a billion dollars, why should you get rich? There is no moral imperative to reward inventors for pure thinking, and furthermore there is NO evidence at the moment that patents serve as an incentive to get smart people like you to invent cold fusion instead of making money trading derivatives or playing professional poker.
- 16y ago

lkjuhygthyujk 16y ago

>you intend to commercialize it The problem then is that cell phone makers would have a monopoly, since no small company could come up with a better antennae, or better screen etc without also having all the other parts of a cell phone. The original idea of the patent was to grant the inventor a limited monopoly in return for the invention being published and adding to the set of human knowledge - rather than a maker keeping it a secret part of their product.

Tamerlin 16y ago

If you invent something that by itself has no commercial value whatsoever, but could make someone else's idea either viable or more profitable (maybe it makes their widget easier to build?), then you're basically saying that your invention isn't patentable, even though by licensing it you could enable another company to benefit from your work while being compensated for it. Wow, that was a long sentence. Anyway, that's the whole point behind patents in the first place. It's to allow the inventor to be able to stand up to a big company and negotiate on at least somewhat equal footing, and finding an agreeable set of licensing terms. Then you could be an inventor instead of a builder, and come up with ideas that others can use to build stuff. You're suggesting that there should not be any such thing as an inventor who doesn't build stuff, because you're proposing that such individuals are invariably shot in the back. "If your sole source of revenue is licensing the patents that you've created, you're a patent troll." False. An inventor's sole source of income might well be licensing patents -- such a person is making a living by inventing things. Hence the term "inventor" ;)) A patent troll is someone who abuses that aspect of the system, like IBM. They try to make their patents as broad as possible, and then use them to prevent other companies from making progress, rather than making the licensing process into a collaboration between entities -- allowing the inventor to create the shoulders atop which the builders stand.