4 ms·

Perhaps I have become jaded or a conspiracy theorist, but I see this as the following: - the drone space is increasingly easy to enter into - IBM sees non-tech

Perhaps I have become jaded or a conspiracy theorist, but I see this as the following: - the drone space is increasingly easy to enter into - IBM sees non-tech companies might get into drones - they identify potential markets where drones would be useful - they spend minimal resources developing a "prototype" and file for a patent - Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts come along with coffee delivery drones ~3 years later - IBM shakes down Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts for $x.00 per delivery, now has new stream of extortion recurring revenue

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ryanmarsh 8y ago
No, you're not a conspiracy theorist, that's exactly how the patent system works. Many companies who won't admit it in public are knowingly engaged in exactly this practice. It's anti-competitive, it stinks, everyone knows it, and nothing is being done about it.
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  Would the patent system be better and less trolly if you were legally required to produce whatever you patent?
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    How many units? 1? 1000? Could IBM make 1000 drones with a coffee cup attached?
    - mars4rp 8y ago
      maybe at least a prototype and expires after 2 years if you haven't commercialized it!
      - joshuagross 8y ago
        They would play around with the definition of "commercialized". "Technically we offered it on sale for $500,000; nobody buys it so we've never made one, but it's still on the market!"
  - Retra 8y ago
    No, that would ensure only people with the means to produce things could secure patent rights to their inventions.
  - ryanmarsh 8y ago
    In the law we have the concept of "commercially reasonable efforts". Therefore we could in fact have a law which requires ongoing commercially reasonable efforts to manufacture and market the invention. This would empower a company who wanted the use a dormant/squatted patent with cause for action. In such a situation IBM would either have to make such an obvious go of it that nobody would waste the time attempting to prove a lack of commercially reasonable effort (subjectively interpreted by the courts), IBM could play act like they're making a reasonable effort and roll the dice in court, or relinquish the claim. In IBM's case, is producing 1,000 units just to prove commercially reasonable effort sufficient? The GOOD thing about the subjectivity of "commercially reasonable effort" in the law is that one could argue 1,000 units is not enough for a company with the resources of IBM.
- lisper 8y ago
  The hot mess that it the U.S. patent system is just a specific example of a much more general problem: a company benefits financially from a bad law, to the point where they make enough money that they can spend some of it to influence the political system to maintain this bad law and still turn a net profit. This positive feedback loop keeps the bad low in place despite the fact that it only benefits this one company. The Citizen United decision has made this problem that much worse.
neilsimp1 8y ago
You're not alone, my mind went here immediately too. Although I think my word association game response to the word "patent" at this point is always going to be "troll".
trebligdivad 8y ago
Note you don't have to develop the prototype to get the patent; you just have to dream this up while waiting for your coffee.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
My evil(?) plan is to create a society of engineers that sits around and dreams up patentable ideas, and patents them, creating a portfolio which we could market to big companies ($$) as a defense against trolls, and to small companies (free) who want to build cool stuff and not worry about trolls.
- Joe-Z 8y ago
  I think you underestimate the size of the space of "patentable ideas" :)
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Sounds like a university... sorta.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- existencebox 8y ago
  I realize you may be saying this tongue-in-cheek, but that's such a hilariously compelling idea (speaking as an engineer pipe-dreaming about ideal jobs) that I'm making this rather unsubstantive comment to both encourage and say "give me a ping if you do"... (the mental dissonance for me is that while I'm no fan of software patents, and even broader patents as they stand now, attempting to motivate that change in parallel with capitalizing on the existing state of affairs seems pragmatic, if hypocritical; I've had to bang my head against this due to filings through work already)
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    To be honest, the discussion started out as a hack so that we could use a 'company' to share health care costs rather than the exchanges. As the population in the Bay Area ages there are those who still like to talk about tech, draw on whiteboards, write code, and build stuff. While at the same time having accrued enough wealth such that actually working for someone isn't required. So we asked ourselves, "What are the good things about working at a company?" and the answer was smart people to exchange ideas with, facilities that you could leave "set up" while working on a project, and for some, an absence of interruptions by others. The "bad things" you don't benefit proportionally from your work effort, usually they want to own what you do and not let you share that, and if you take too many days "off" they ask you to leave. From that the 'League of Extraordinary Engineers' was born :-). Basically membership dues covers the cost of the facility, patent filing, and healthcare, and as the patent portfolio grows (the 'endowment' if you will) those costs go down.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ryanmarsh 8y ago

No, you're not a conspiracy theorist, that's exactly how the patent system works. Many companies who won't admit it in public are knowingly engaged in exactly this practice. It's anti-competitive, it stinks, everyone knows it, and nothing is being done about it.

WilliamEdward 8y ago
Would the patent system be better and less trolly if you were legally required to produce whatever you patent?
- brianwawok 8y ago
  How many units? 1? 1000? Could IBM make 1000 drones with a coffee cup attached?
  - mars4rp 8y ago
    maybe at least a prototype and expires after 2 years if you haven't commercialized it!
    - joshuagross 8y ago
      They would play around with the definition of "commercialized". "Technically we offered it on sale for $500,000; nobody buys it so we've never made one, but it's still on the market!"
- Retra 8y ago
  No, that would ensure only people with the means to produce things could secure patent rights to their inventions.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  In the law we have the concept of "commercially reasonable efforts". Therefore we could in fact have a law which requires ongoing commercially reasonable efforts to manufacture and market the invention. This would empower a company who wanted the use a dormant/squatted patent with cause for action. In such a situation IBM would either have to make such an obvious go of it that nobody would waste the time attempting to prove a lack of commercially reasonable effort (subjectively interpreted by the courts), IBM could play act like they're making a reasonable effort and roll the dice in court, or relinquish the claim. In IBM's case, is producing 1,000 units just to prove commercially reasonable effort sufficient? The GOOD thing about the subjectivity of "commercially reasonable effort" in the law is that one could argue 1,000 units is not enough for a company with the resources of IBM.
lisper 8y ago
The hot mess that it the U.S. patent system is just a specific example of a much more general problem: a company benefits financially from a bad law, to the point where they make enough money that they can spend some of it to influence the political system to maintain this bad law and still turn a net profit. This positive feedback loop keeps the bad low in place despite the fact that it only benefits this one company. The Citizen United decision has made this problem that much worse.

neilsimp1 8y ago

You're not alone, my mind went here immediately too. Although I think my word association game response to the word "patent" at this point is always going to be "troll".

trebligdivad 8y ago

Note you don't have to develop the prototype to get the patent; you just have to dream this up while waiting for your coffee.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

My evil(?) plan is to create a society of engineers that sits around and dreams up patentable ideas, and patents them, creating a portfolio which we could market to big companies ($$) as a defense against trolls, and to small companies (free) who want to build cool stuff and not worry about trolls.

Joe-Z 8y ago
I think you underestimate the size of the space of "patentable ideas" :)
microcolonel 8y ago
Sounds like a university... sorta.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
existencebox 8y ago
I realize you may be saying this tongue-in-cheek, but that's such a hilariously compelling idea (speaking as an engineer pipe-dreaming about ideal jobs) that I'm making this rather unsubstantive comment to both encourage and say "give me a ping if you do"... (the mental dissonance for me is that while I'm no fan of software patents, and even broader patents as they stand now, attempting to motivate that change in parallel with capitalizing on the existing state of affairs seems pragmatic, if hypocritical; I've had to bang my head against this due to filings through work already)
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  To be honest, the discussion started out as a hack so that we could use a 'company' to share health care costs rather than the exchanges. As the population in the Bay Area ages there are those who still like to talk about tech, draw on whiteboards, write code, and build stuff. While at the same time having accrued enough wealth such that actually working for someone isn't required. So we asked ourselves, "What are the good things about working at a company?" and the answer was smart people to exchange ideas with, facilities that you could leave "set up" while working on a project, and for some, an absence of interruptions by others. The "bad things" you don't benefit proportionally from your work effort, usually they want to own what you do and not let you share that, and if you take too many days "off" they ask you to leave. From that the 'League of Extraordinary Engineers' was born :-). Basically membership dues covers the cost of the facility, patent filing, and healthcare, and as the patent portfolio grows (the 'endowment' if you will) those costs go down.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]