4 ms·

Curious to see how this goes. IANAL, but wondering why it's taken 3-4 years for this claim to surface? Is there a statute of limitations on IP infringement? If

Curious to see how this goes. IANAL, but wondering why it's taken 3-4 years for this claim to surface? Is there a statute of limitations on IP infringement? If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting a new technology in every single vehicle I make. So I'm just guessing that there was some original arrangement which now looks inadequate for the inventors. That or Ford's lawyers messed up in a big way. Just speculating of course.

kposehn 8y ago
It can take a long time for a lawsuit to actually happen. There's a lot of ways to drag out negotiations over a patent and it can be a while before both parties can't come to an agreement, resulting in a suit being filed.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Yup. One of the best examples of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns A clearly novel invention (intermittent windshield wipers) that took decades and more than $10M legal fees to get paid for.
  - ortusdux 8y ago
    To be fair, Kearns did represent himself for most of that legal battle. I sure the cases would have been settled much more quickly had he been backed by MIT's lawyers.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    If I live to be a thousand years old, I'll never understand how that was considered "novel." But that's just me.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Lots of inventions like this seem obvious in hindsight.
      - yholio 8y ago
        Clearly, without this invention, wipers to this day would still work on a sigle speed, calibrated for heavy rain. Millions of tons of wasted rubber and plastic, etc.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        The specific mechanism was quite clever. "Someone would've eventually invented this" can be said about everything we use. Someone would've figured out the Internet, internal combustion, flying, etc. That doesn't mean it's not a notable accomplishment to do so.
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        But does every "notable accomplishment" require a 20-year monopoly? Anytime there's a foot race to the patent office, we, the consumers, are the inevitable loser.
    - jfoutz 8y ago
      There’s a movie that is sympathetic to kearns. Not the truth, might give some insight. Also it’s a pretty good movie. So likely not a total waste of time either way.
eganist 8y ago
> If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting a new technology in every single vehicle I make. This disregards the strategy of actively predicting the risk of infringing a patent and maximizing profit even after damages are considered. Your approach is the expectation. The reality is quite a bit darker.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Here's the strategy: you can't take a piss without breaking a patent or ten, so don't even bother checking them. Let the lawyers do their best to fend off the scavengers and consider it a cost of doing business.
  - toss1 8y ago
    Which is kind of what Ford did decades ago with the Pinto fuel tank & rear end design; not with patents, but with injuries & deaths. Kind of backfired. After several dozen people burned to death in what should have been unremarkable rear-end collisions, it was revealed that Ford had deliberately declined to implement redesigns for safety in favor of just handling the claims because they estimated the costs would be lower (to pay claims vs implement redesign). The subsequent cases set several precedents & provoked reforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Similarities between the two end up at "businesses write stuff off as costs of doing business instead of dealing with them up front". One can't just transfer moral judgment from one to the other.
      - toss1 8y ago
        I made no claim that there was any more link than dealing with it as a cost-benefit calculation instead of properly sorting the problem up front. I was not implying any moral judgement transfer, only the similarity of bad results of failing to deal with issues up front.
cure 8y ago
> If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting a new technology in every single vehicle I make. Perhaps they should have known in this particular case. Maybe they did and moved forward anyway. But in the more general case it turns out that this is pretty much impossible to do, in practice. How could you possibly be sure that you didn't infringe on any patents when there are hundreds of thousands granted every year in the US alone, and they are deliberately written in the most vague and obscure language possible? What companies do instead is build a library of their own patents, which they can use against any other entity that sues them for patent infringement. The Apple vs. Samsung patent wars are a good example of this. This strategy generally works if the other party actually makes some sort of thing and is not a patent troll. This is one of the many reasons that the patent system isn't really a net positive for society. Instead, it can be considered a tax on anyone who participates in it, and society as a whole. Except for patent attorneys, they make tons and tons of money off it. Everyone else loses.

kposehn 8y ago

It can take a long time for a lawsuit to actually happen. There's a lot of ways to drag out negotiations over a patent and it can be a while before both parties can't come to an agreement, resulting in a suit being filed.

ceejayoz 8y ago
Yup. One of the best examples of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns A clearly novel invention (intermittent windshield wipers) that took decades and more than $10M legal fees to get paid for.
- ortusdux 8y ago
  To be fair, Kearns did represent himself for most of that legal battle. I sure the cases would have been settled much more quickly had he been backed by MIT's lawyers.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  If I live to be a thousand years old, I'll never understand how that was considered "novel." But that's just me.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Lots of inventions like this seem obvious in hindsight.
    - yholio 8y ago
      Clearly, without this invention, wipers to this day would still work on a sigle speed, calibrated for heavy rain. Millions of tons of wasted rubber and plastic, etc.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        The specific mechanism was quite clever. "Someone would've eventually invented this" can be said about everything we use. Someone would've figured out the Internet, internal combustion, flying, etc. That doesn't mean it's not a notable accomplishment to do so.
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        But does every "notable accomplishment" require a 20-year monopoly? Anytime there's a foot race to the patent office, we, the consumers, are the inevitable loser.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    There’s a movie that is sympathetic to kearns. Not the truth, might give some insight. Also it’s a pretty good movie. So likely not a total waste of time either way.

eganist 8y ago

> If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting a new technology in every single vehicle I make. This disregards the strategy of actively predicting the risk of infringing a patent and maximizing profit even after damages are considered. Your approach is the expectation. The reality is quite a bit darker.

jjoonathan 8y ago
Here's the strategy: you can't take a piss without breaking a patent or ten, so don't even bother checking them. Let the lawyers do their best to fend off the scavengers and consider it a cost of doing business.
- toss1 8y ago
  Which is kind of what Ford did decades ago with the Pinto fuel tank & rear end design; not with patents, but with injuries & deaths. Kind of backfired. After several dozen people burned to death in what should have been unremarkable rear-end collisions, it was revealed that Ford had deliberately declined to implement redesigns for safety in favor of just handling the claims because they estimated the costs would be lower (to pay claims vs implement redesign). The subsequent cases set several precedents & provoked reforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Similarities between the two end up at "businesses write stuff off as costs of doing business instead of dealing with them up front". One can't just transfer moral judgment from one to the other.
    - toss1 8y ago
      I made no claim that there was any more link than dealing with it as a cost-benefit calculation instead of properly sorting the problem up front. I was not implying any moral judgement transfer, only the similarity of bad results of failing to deal with issues up front.

cure 8y ago

> If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting a new technology in every single vehicle I make. Perhaps they should have known in this particular case. Maybe they did and moved forward anyway. But in the more general case it turns out that this is pretty much impossible to do, in practice. How could you possibly be sure that you didn't infringe on any patents when there are hundreds of thousands granted every year in the US alone, and they are deliberately written in the most vague and obscure language possible? What companies do instead is build a library of their own patents, which they can use against any other entity that sues them for patent infringement. The Apple vs. Samsung patent wars are a good example of this. This strategy generally works if the other party actually makes some sort of thing and is not a patent troll. This is one of the many reasons that the patent system isn't really a net positive for society. Instead, it can be considered a tax on anyone who participates in it, and society as a whole. Except for patent attorneys, they make tons and tons of money off it. Everyone else loses.