7 ms·

Don't Let Congress Hand Patent Abusers Their Ultimate Wishlist

248 points by DiabloD3 7y ago

ilaksh 7y ago
The fundamental problem which seems to be recurring is that the system is generally hostile towards consumer interests. It's all so broken, it makes me want something dramatic to happen. Maybe the robots will take over soon and be better at governing. Or perhaps yogurt. Or maybe we can start over on Mars.
- grenoire 7y ago
  Things like these are truly the things that keep me up at night. The more centralised governments' and corporations' power get concentrated, the more suffering we have.
- izacus 7y ago
  In reality what needs to happen is strong and consistent lobbying from interest groups like EFF. With a lot of calls to action and advocating. This is how consumer rights happened - with boring hard work and going above corporate fanboyism to protect yourself as a customer. Waiting for some external magic to fix things will not work unfortunately.
  - ilaksh 7y ago
    Yes, more lobbying will help, and that's why I donate to the EFF, but there is obviously a very persistent and difficult problem which never goes away. I'm not really interested in "external magic". The core structure is wrong. We should create a new paradigm that works for the citizens by default.
    - __MatrixMan__ 7y ago
      This future is a long way off, but I expect we'll see the new paradigm you're taking about take shape as a collection of smart contracts on a cryptocurrency platform. Then, it will have to compete with the existing ways. If it's worthy of being the new normal, it should be able to compete and win. I think that means that economic activity on the platform with the sane IP policy would need to be more desirable for both buyers and sellers. It's obvious why sellers would want to avoid using platforms that are either so riddled with bogus IP that they can't operate (like USD), or so bereft of enforcement that they get no credit for originality (like CNY). But an incentive structure that keeps buyers from jumping ship to the latter sort... That's going to take some creativity. My best shot at it would be this: Supposing the underlying system is a proof of stake system, perhaps your staking rewards could be reduced or increased based on the extent to which your purchasing habits transferred value to platforms that don't support the desired IP features. So even though you may pay more for the IP compliant product up front, in the long run the system rewards you for not funding its IP-deviant competitor. The savvy thing for a buyer to do in such a situation would be to have separate identities on each platform, so you spend your no-rules tokens on no-rules products and you spend your regulated tokens on regulated products, thereby avoiding penalties for being a traitor. Hopefully, the market cap of either economy's token would then hinge on which one functioned better independently of the other: May the economy with the best set of policies win (where winning means attracting the participants from its competition). The trouble is, we don't have infinite resources to just spawn economic petri dishes like this. Eventually the competing economies will come into conflict over more that just which is more fun to participate in. Eventually they'll start wasting resources on fighting over access to some mineral or whatever. I'm still noodling on fixes for that, but even so, I think that such a system would be no worse than the one we have.
- rotrux 7y ago
  > The fundamental problem which seems to be recurring is that the system is generally hostile towards consumer interests. I think you're really close, but have specified the inverse of the fundamental problem. The system is generally dominated by seller interests. There is no consumer advocacy on the level of corporate advocacy.
- kevin_b_er 7y ago
  As it no longer promotes progress of science, I have no respect for patents anymore.
  - kabdib 7y ago
    I've seen lawyers look up from reading a particularly convoluted and confusing passage and say, without a trace of irony, "This part of the claims is teaching that . . ." Teaching, yeah right. "Teaching" is what the patents are supposed to do. In reality, there is nearly always nothing to actually learn other than how much of, say, the act of 'breathing' the claimant is trying to do a land-grab on.
    - philipkglass 7y ago
      I have read many American chemistry patents. Up through the 1970s or thereabouts, they often did seem to teach things in enough detail for implementation by "a person having ordinary skill in the art." Now they usually make vague, broad claims and provide fewer, less clear examples of the invention's embodiment. I don't know what drove this drift toward uselessness. To explain this trend I might vaguely gesture toward businesses responding to stresses as the postwar golden economic era ended, except 1) old patents from before the postwar boom (e.g. 1930s) were also useful and to-the-point and 2) academic publications also grew more bullshitty in the same approximate time frame.
  - lukifer 7y ago
    This was the podcast that took me from opposing software patents, to opposing the very concept of patents altogether: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/67 http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/67 See also: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." - John Carmack
    - pnw_hazor 7y ago
      JC would just have to find a different/better way to solve the problem. Just like someone designing disc brakes or mouse traps.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Not sure why it is hostile to consumers. Consumers seem to be doing just fine. One can make a principled argument to abolish all patents. (If you don't believe in intellectual property rights for inventions). However, arguments to abolish so-called software patents don't make much sense. Software is just an implementation detail of an invention. It is not the invention.
fludlight 7y ago
The broader issue is that the USPTO will let you patent anything. They have a long review process, but so many stupid things get approved that the agency is a sad joke. The latest example: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/someone-suing-companies-using-sms-messages-2019 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/someone-suing-companie...
- ilaksh 7y ago
  Nice one. How about this Google patent for "Generating output sequences from input sequences using neural networks" http://www.freepatentsonline.com/10402719.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/10402719.html
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    This is what is protected by this patent: "A method comprising: obtaining an input sequence having a first number of inputs arranged according to an input order; processing each input in the input sequence using an encoder recurrent neural network to generate a respective encoder hidden state for each input in the input sequence; and generating an output sequence having a second number of outputs arranged according to an output order, each output in the output sequence being selected from the inputs in the input sequence, comprising, for each position in the output order and beginning at an initial position in the output order: generating, using the encoder hidden states, an attention vector for the position in the output order; generating, using the attention vector, a softmax output for the position in the output order, wherein the softmax output scores each position in the input order; determining, using the softmax output, a pointer to a particular position in the input order; and selecting, as the output for the position in the output order, an input from the input sequence that is located at the particular position in the input order identified by the pointer."
- DannyB2 7y ago
  The patent examination process is not well understood by most people. Once a patent is received, the patent examiner carefully places the application into a room full of other patent applications. Then kittens are released into the room with PATENT GRANTED stamps affixed to their feet. The kittens are then returned to their holding area to await the next round of patent examination. The patent examiners collect the applications from the floor and look to see which patent applications were granted.
paul7986 7y ago
The tech companies changed the game in their favor when they successfully lobbied and changed the law to first to file vs. first to invent.
- manderley 7y ago
  "First to invent" doesn't make much sense when the point of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions in return for a guaranteed monopoly. "First to invent" runs counter to the patent system.
  - wyldfire 7y ago
    I don't know how it works. But does 'first to invent' effectively start the clock earlier? If so maybe the public interest is still served. You could presumably license the patent soon after its invention and hopefully it's disclosed not-too-terribly-long after that relative to the duration of the patent itself (20 years IIRC). But if it expires sooner now, we can enjoy it royalty-free sooner.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    First to invent is indicative of a policy that favors individual inventors over well-funded corporations. Little inventors might like to shop an idea first and then file a patent application if they find traction or funding. US law allows for a one year grace period after disclosure. Fail to file within one year, all US patent rights are lost. Outside of the US, any public disclosure before filing bars a patent. Big Corp has the money to file patent applications early before disclosure. Now with first-to-file in the US, there still is a one-year grace period in the US, but the first applicant to file is the winner not the first to invent. Among other things, this is bad for small inventors because bad actors can file patent applications on the small inventors' inventions first. Trolls can and do scour websites to identify inventions that may be worthwhile sniping. In the old days the inventors just need to show that they invented their invention before the troll filed their patent application. Now, you have to prove that the troll literally stole the idea which the USPTO doesn't really look into.
WalterBright 7y ago
Edison spent a large part of his career: 1. being sued for patent infringement 2. suing for patent infringement 3. being hired by companies to find workarounds for patents It's doubtful any of that was worthwhile in the end.
- abawany 7y ago
  I am surprised to read this: his patenting of the stock ticker and the two-way telegraph is listed on Wikipedia as the key to his fortunes. Do you mean "worthwhile" as in wrt. society or for him?
  - undersuit 7y ago
    That surmises Edison had to have patented those inventions to secure his future fortunes. I'm pretty sure the comment you're replying too was attacking the worth of patents, not the inventions.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      Hollywood was also born of people trying to get away from Edison and his patent lawsuits.
WalterBright 7y ago
The US patent system is why the US lost 10 years of aviation development and the Europeans took the lead. The US arguably did not catch up until WW2.
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
  Why didn't the problem reappear after the war?
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    The government forced them to create a patent pool.
    - bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
      Interesting. Where can I read more about it?
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        Here's an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturers_Aircraft_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturers_Aircraft_Associa... https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/06/article_0007.html https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/06/article_0007.h...
joelx 7y ago
Copyrights and patents should be reduced to a maximum of 7 years and then opened up for anyone to use it. Society will advance far more quickly and good business owners will be able to bring competition and lower prices to everyone.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I think 7 years is a little short on copyright. I think 10-15 years would make more sense.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts. What are the downsides of a shorter copyright (e.g. 7 years) vs a slightly longer copyright? I was trying to think of some scenarios, but I can't think of anything about that time range that might fit. For example if copyright was only 3 years, you could imagine big publishers sitting on things until they were out of copyright so that they didn't have to pay royalties. Most music, movies and TV shows are relevant for only a few years. By 7 years out, they are relegated to the rerun slot. The only thing I can think of are things like novels. So the first Harry Potter novel was quite successful, but it took a while until a movie came out. Movie producers may be happy to wait until it came out of copyright. But that argument might be made for 15 years as well. It would be a different way of doing things, but not necessarily worse, I think. Is it reasonable that Disney can buy up the rights to all Marvel comic books for the last X years? Or would we prefer that anyone could make Marvel comic book movies after a short time -- even if that meant that the original authors aren't compensated. Sometimes I think that even 5 years on software copyright is not a bad length. If you've been updating the software for 5 years, who wants to fork your project from 5 years ago? If you haven't, that's still pretty far out on the revenue tail even for something like enterprise software, let alone games, etc.
    - bloak 7y ago
      I might go for 30 years: roughly a generation (of humans). If you wanted a different rule for software then you'd have to carefully define what is meant by "software" and think carefully about side-effects: would you be discouraging people from releasing source code, for example? Perhaps not worth it.
HNKER 7y ago
Chris Coons, the politician who keeps trying to push this through, is completely corrupt. He’s doing this because his family business (creators of Gore-Tex) is ruthless in their patent enforcement. Which is pretty funny turn for a guy who used to call himself a Marxist.

248 points by DiabloD3 7y ago

The fundamental problem which seems to be recurring is that the system is generally hostile towards consumer interests. It's all so broken, it makes me want something dramatic to happen. Maybe the robots will take over soon and be better at governing. Or perhaps yogurt. Or maybe we can start over on Mars.

grenoire 7y ago
Things like these are truly the things that keep me up at night. The more centralised governments' and corporations' power get concentrated, the more suffering we have.
izacus 7y ago
In reality what needs to happen is strong and consistent lobbying from interest groups like EFF. With a lot of calls to action and advocating. This is how consumer rights happened - with boring hard work and going above corporate fanboyism to protect yourself as a customer. Waiting for some external magic to fix things will not work unfortunately.
- ilaksh 7y ago
  Yes, more lobbying will help, and that's why I donate to the EFF, but there is obviously a very persistent and difficult problem which never goes away. I'm not really interested in "external magic". The core structure is wrong. We should create a new paradigm that works for the citizens by default.
  - __MatrixMan__ 7y ago
    This future is a long way off, but I expect we'll see the new paradigm you're taking about take shape as a collection of smart contracts on a cryptocurrency platform. Then, it will have to compete with the existing ways. If it's worthy of being the new normal, it should be able to compete and win. I think that means that economic activity on the platform with the sane IP policy would need to be more desirable for both buyers and sellers. It's obvious why sellers would want to avoid using platforms that are either so riddled with bogus IP that they can't operate (like USD), or so bereft of enforcement that they get no credit for originality (like CNY). But an incentive structure that keeps buyers from jumping ship to the latter sort... That's going to take some creativity. My best shot at it would be this: Supposing the underlying system is a proof of stake system, perhaps your staking rewards could be reduced or increased based on the extent to which your purchasing habits transferred value to platforms that don't support the desired IP features. So even though you may pay more for the IP compliant product up front, in the long run the system rewards you for not funding its IP-deviant competitor. The savvy thing for a buyer to do in such a situation would be to have separate identities on each platform, so you spend your no-rules tokens on no-rules products and you spend your regulated tokens on regulated products, thereby avoiding penalties for being a traitor. Hopefully, the market cap of either economy's token would then hinge on which one functioned better independently of the other: May the economy with the best set of policies win (where winning means attracting the participants from its competition). The trouble is, we don't have infinite resources to just spawn economic petri dishes like this. Eventually the competing economies will come into conflict over more that just which is more fun to participate in. Eventually they'll start wasting resources on fighting over access to some mineral or whatever. I'm still noodling on fixes for that, but even so, I think that such a system would be no worse than the one we have.
rotrux 7y ago
> The fundamental problem which seems to be recurring is that the system is generally hostile towards consumer interests. I think you're really close, but have specified the inverse of the fundamental problem. The system is generally dominated by seller interests. There is no consumer advocacy on the level of corporate advocacy.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
As it no longer promotes progress of science, I have no respect for patents anymore.
- kabdib 7y ago
  I've seen lawyers look up from reading a particularly convoluted and confusing passage and say, without a trace of irony, "This part of the claims is teaching that . . ." Teaching, yeah right. "Teaching" is what the patents are supposed to do. In reality, there is nearly always nothing to actually learn other than how much of, say, the act of 'breathing' the claimant is trying to do a land-grab on.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    I have read many American chemistry patents. Up through the 1970s or thereabouts, they often did seem to teach things in enough detail for implementation by "a person having ordinary skill in the art." Now they usually make vague, broad claims and provide fewer, less clear examples of the invention's embodiment. I don't know what drove this drift toward uselessness. To explain this trend I might vaguely gesture toward businesses responding to stresses as the postwar golden economic era ended, except 1) old patents from before the postwar boom (e.g. 1930s) were also useful and to-the-point and 2) academic publications also grew more bullshitty in the same approximate time frame.
- lukifer 7y ago
  This was the podcast that took me from opposing software patents, to opposing the very concept of patents altogether: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/67 http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/67 See also: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." - John Carmack
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    JC would just have to find a different/better way to solve the problem. Just like someone designing disc brakes or mouse traps.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
Not sure why it is hostile to consumers. Consumers seem to be doing just fine. One can make a principled argument to abolish all patents. (If you don't believe in intellectual property rights for inventions). However, arguments to abolish so-called software patents don't make much sense. Software is just an implementation detail of an invention. It is not the invention.

fludlight 7y ago

The broader issue is that the USPTO will let you patent anything. They have a long review process, but so many stupid things get approved that the agency is a sad joke. The latest example: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/someone-suing-companies-using-sms-messages-2019 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/someone-suing-companie...

ilaksh 7y ago
Nice one. How about this Google patent for "Generating output sequences from input sequences using neural networks" http://www.freepatentsonline.com/10402719.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/10402719.html
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  This is what is protected by this patent: "A method comprising: obtaining an input sequence having a first number of inputs arranged according to an input order; processing each input in the input sequence using an encoder recurrent neural network to generate a respective encoder hidden state for each input in the input sequence; and generating an output sequence having a second number of outputs arranged according to an output order, each output in the output sequence being selected from the inputs in the input sequence, comprising, for each position in the output order and beginning at an initial position in the output order: generating, using the encoder hidden states, an attention vector for the position in the output order; generating, using the attention vector, a softmax output for the position in the output order, wherein the softmax output scores each position in the input order; determining, using the softmax output, a pointer to a particular position in the input order; and selecting, as the output for the position in the output order, an input from the input sequence that is located at the particular position in the input order identified by the pointer."
DannyB2 7y ago
The patent examination process is not well understood by most people. Once a patent is received, the patent examiner carefully places the application into a room full of other patent applications. Then kittens are released into the room with PATENT GRANTED stamps affixed to their feet. The kittens are then returned to their holding area to await the next round of patent examination. The patent examiners collect the applications from the floor and look to see which patent applications were granted.

paul7986 7y ago

The tech companies changed the game in their favor when they successfully lobbied and changed the law to first to file vs. first to invent.

manderley 7y ago
"First to invent" doesn't make much sense when the point of the patent system is to get inventors to publicize their inventions in return for a guaranteed monopoly. "First to invent" runs counter to the patent system.
- wyldfire 7y ago
  I don't know how it works. But does 'first to invent' effectively start the clock earlier? If so maybe the public interest is still served. You could presumably license the patent soon after its invention and hopefully it's disclosed not-too-terribly-long after that relative to the duration of the patent itself (20 years IIRC). But if it expires sooner now, we can enjoy it royalty-free sooner.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  First to invent is indicative of a policy that favors individual inventors over well-funded corporations. Little inventors might like to shop an idea first and then file a patent application if they find traction or funding. US law allows for a one year grace period after disclosure. Fail to file within one year, all US patent rights are lost. Outside of the US, any public disclosure before filing bars a patent. Big Corp has the money to file patent applications early before disclosure. Now with first-to-file in the US, there still is a one-year grace period in the US, but the first applicant to file is the winner not the first to invent. Among other things, this is bad for small inventors because bad actors can file patent applications on the small inventors' inventions first. Trolls can and do scour websites to identify inventions that may be worthwhile sniping. In the old days the inventors just need to show that they invented their invention before the troll filed their patent application. Now, you have to prove that the troll literally stole the idea which the USPTO doesn't really look into.

WalterBright 7y ago

Edison spent a large part of his career: 1. being sued for patent infringement 2. suing for patent infringement 3. being hired by companies to find workarounds for patents It's doubtful any of that was worthwhile in the end.

abawany 7y ago
I am surprised to read this: his patenting of the stock ticker and the two-way telegraph is listed on Wikipedia as the key to his fortunes. Do you mean "worthwhile" as in wrt. society or for him?
- undersuit 7y ago
  That surmises Edison had to have patented those inventions to secure his future fortunes. I'm pretty sure the comment you're replying too was attacking the worth of patents, not the inventions.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Hollywood was also born of people trying to get away from Edison and his patent lawsuits.

WalterBright 7y ago

The US patent system is why the US lost 10 years of aviation development and the Europeans took the lead. The US arguably did not catch up until WW2.

bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
Why didn't the problem reappear after the war?
- WalterBright 7y ago
  The government forced them to create a patent pool.
  - bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
    Interesting. Where can I read more about it?
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      Here's an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturers_Aircraft_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturers_Aircraft_Associa... https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/06/article_0007.html https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/06/article_0007.h...

joelx 7y ago

Copyrights and patents should be reduced to a maximum of 7 years and then opened up for anyone to use it. Society will advance far more quickly and good business owners will be able to bring competition and lower prices to everyone.

Mirioron 7y ago
I think 7 years is a little short on copyright. I think 10-15 years would make more sense.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts. What are the downsides of a shorter copyright (e.g. 7 years) vs a slightly longer copyright? I was trying to think of some scenarios, but I can't think of anything about that time range that might fit. For example if copyright was only 3 years, you could imagine big publishers sitting on things until they were out of copyright so that they didn't have to pay royalties. Most music, movies and TV shows are relevant for only a few years. By 7 years out, they are relegated to the rerun slot. The only thing I can think of are things like novels. So the first Harry Potter novel was quite successful, but it took a while until a movie came out. Movie producers may be happy to wait until it came out of copyright. But that argument might be made for 15 years as well. It would be a different way of doing things, but not necessarily worse, I think. Is it reasonable that Disney can buy up the rights to all Marvel comic books for the last X years? Or would we prefer that anyone could make Marvel comic book movies after a short time -- even if that meant that the original authors aren't compensated. Sometimes I think that even 5 years on software copyright is not a bad length. If you've been updating the software for 5 years, who wants to fork your project from 5 years ago? If you haven't, that's still pretty far out on the revenue tail even for something like enterprise software, let alone games, etc.
  - bloak 7y ago
    I might go for 30 years: roughly a generation (of humans). If you wanted a different rule for software then you'd have to carefully define what is meant by "software" and think carefully about side-effects: would you be discouraging people from releasing source code, for example? Perhaps not worth it.

HNKER 7y ago

Chris Coons, the politician who keeps trying to push this through, is completely corrupt. He’s doing this because his family business (creators of Gore-Tex) is ruthless in their patent enforcement. Which is pretty funny turn for a guy who used to call himself a Marxist.