4 ms·
> The case against trolls is so clear and obvious, why does it seem so difficult to craft legislation to prevent this? Patent trolls (the most successful ones,
by nordsieck 8y ago
> The case against trolls is so clear and obvious, why does it seem so difficult to craft legislation to prevent this?
Patent trolls (the most successful ones, anyhow) practice Batsian Mimicry as a defensive strategy: they specifically try to look as much like a small inventor who's invention has been stolen by one or more bad actors. It is never simple to disrupt an evolutionary arms race.
> I imagine a simple addition to patent laws invalidating a patent if the holder does not commercialize it after a certain period should get rid of NPEs. Is it not that simple?
Are you aware of how long it takes drugs, for example, to get from the patent stage to the commercialization stage? I'm sure there are other obvious industries where this would be problematic to the normal way of doing business.
On a more broad note: is it good to require that all inventors directly commercialize their own inventions? At best, I think this is an open question.
- felipelemos 8y agoA patent is way to encourage inventions, awarding the inventors the exclusive rights to their own inventions. The public good is a priority. The idea is that the invention is beneficial to the public. If somebody creates a good invention but deny it from the public, this patent should not be in public interest anymore.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoThe public also benefits from people inventing alternatives to patented inventions.
- throwaway415415 8y agoThat's debatable. Your point is that patent would encourage diversity which I'm sure it doesn't change much. Worst it sometimes prevents advances
- lessclue 8y agoHow’s that good for the public?
- cuu508 8y agoMore alternatives to choose from.
- dorgo 8y ago> somebody creates a good invention but deny it from the public for about 15 years.. After 15 years the public can make use of the invention without paying a penny. How it is not in publics interest?
- felipelemos 8y agoFor 15 years nobody can use a invention, even if willing to pay. How is that in public interest?
- paleogizmo 8y agoI'm guessing the practical meaning is that the inventor is not required to license the invention "at a fair and reasonable" price but is free to ask whatever he/she feels is appropriate. I could imagine a case where the industry the inventor wishes to market to is controlled by a cartel which colludes to offer a low price for the invention. In this case, the inventor may wish not to sell or license in the hope that the cartel breaks up or gives in.
- rcxdude 8y agoBecause even if removing the patent system meant that the invention was kept secret from the public, it would most likely be reinvented many times in that 15 year time. The worst part of patents is that they extend even to others who do the legwork themselves, and frequently stifle an entire area (for example, 3D printing exploded in popularity and accessability right after some key patents held by stratasys expired, and this was in the best case of a company actually developing the technology they had patented).
- dorgo 8y agoWe are talking about an exceptional case here. The patent owner is a wealthy and extentric agent who disregarts potential profit from selling/licensing/using the patent. And even in such rare and unexpected cases the public eventually gains access to inventions - which is not neccessarely the case for inventions kept secret. Basically, the society trades speed of technological development for certaininity of achieving its goals.
- ehsankia 8y agoDon't patent trolls generally have hundreds of random unrelated patents they sit on? That sounds very different from a "small inventor who's invention has been stolen". Maybe we can limit the number of simultaneous patents you can sit on?
- hobs 8y agoShell companies and M&A make this a difficult proposition.
- gumby 8y ago> Are you aware of how long it takes drugs, for example, to get from the patent stage to the commercialization stage? Patent law already handles this providing pharma patents additional protection time for regulatory delays.