7 ms·
This decision saddens me. I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidenc
by btilly 7y ago
This decision saddens me.
I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation.
Anything that gives universities more of an incentive to pursue the patent angle, which this judgment does, will therefore be bad for science. :-(
(In CS, whole areas have become minefields for this reason. For example go out and implement a wavelet compression algorithm for images without violating any patents. Are you sure you didn't violate patents? Really sure? Exactly!)
- rileymat2 7y agoBut in this case, a research institution is getting more money, presumably to be able to fund further research. It seems like a perfect counter example of what your worries are about slowing progress.
- btilly 7y agoI bet that the money that they get will largely go to lawyers, administration, and increased efforts around finding/litigating patents on current research. I am extremely dubious that it will result in research that advances the state of science. Science flourishes best when you share results and hypotheses early and often, then get feedback/inspire others. But that type of communication threatens patents, so inspires people to put their research into black boxes until the legal paperwork has been filed.
- staticautomatic 7y agoPatent litigation is expensive but you would hardly need a billion-dollar war chest to monetize a portfolio with a successful litigation history. Between contingency fee arrangements and litigation financing, you could essentially print money with little downside risk, albeit with far less upside potential than if you paid sticker price to litigate.
- shoguning 7y agoThis judgment sounds big but it can be appealed and Caltech may never collect a penny. A $200 million judgment against Apple was thrown out less than 2 years ago [1]. Most tech transfer programs at universities don't break even, they usually lose money [2]. This is even more insane than it sounds because the research is already paid for. Tech transfer deals don't even cover the university lawyers. If the patents were so valuable why wouldn't the universities be starting unicorns left and right with actual investors or actual revenue? Instead they try to get the money through litigation. It's sad (and a waste of money) that universities have become fixated on being get-rich-quick patent trolls instead of doing transformational research. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/&apple-wins-reversal-in-university-of-wisconsin-patent-lawsuit-idUSKCN1M81TV https://www.reuters.com/article/&apple-wins-reversal-in-univ... [2] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/10/09/the-changing-face-of-university-technology-transfer/id=88853/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/10/09/the-changing-face-of-u...
- tooltalk 7y agoSure, if VirnetX's ordeal with Apple is any indication, Apple/Broadcomm would drag out the suit as long as they could -- and I predict that this can last 5-7 years easily. >If the patents were so valuable why wouldn't the universities be starting unicorns left and right with actual investors or actual revenue? Instead they try to get the money through litigation. Not sure where you are coming from, but there are many University research tech spinoff's in the US, especially in the SF Bay area.
- njarboe 7y agoYea, there is this company called Google. Stanford licensed them the PageRank algorithm for stock and later sold it for a total of $336 million in the mid 00's. Check out this for info[1] [1]https://matr.net/news/why-stanford-is-celebrating-the-google-ipo/ https://matr.net/news/why-stanford-is-celebrating-the-google...
- michaelt 7y ago> If the patents were so valuable why wouldn't the universities be starting unicorns left and right There's a vast gulf between the Fraunhofer MP3 patent and the commercial success of the iPod, Spotify and suchlike.
- tooltalk 7y agowhat "black box" are you talking about? Caltech is a major research institution -- their invention was published and widely cited (according to Google, by 840+ papers), so others clearly benefitted from their work. It seems only major tech companies making billions by selling wireless gears didn't know about it.
- reissbaker 7y ago"But that type of communication threatens patents..." Patents, for all their downsides, are designed to get scientists to share results. Without patents you have enormous disincentive to sharing repeatable results: you can't charge money for it if anyone can go and copy you. With patents, you can freely share results and still charge money. Should patents last as long as they do? Should there be a cap on how much companies can charge for patented medicine, since it's effectively a temporary government-granted monopoly on curing disease? All reasonable questions, but I don't think abolishing (non-software) patents would improve communication between scientists.
- amelius 7y ago> But in this case, a research institution is getting more money, presumably to be able to fund further research. Yes, research that can't be used for reasonable amounts of money, and therefore out of reach for startups.
- coldpie 7y agoDid CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? I sincerely doubt it. This is just patent trolling, and Caltech should be shamed for it.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago>Did CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? No but Apple's patent for rounded corners didn't help Samsung engineers from creating their devices...and yet Apple filed the patent and sued Samsung for patent infringement. Caltech should be championed for trolling a troll.
- coldpie 7y agoIf Caltech ever framed their lawsuit in those terms, I would agree with you. I doubt they have. Caltech clearly has a history of patent trolling. https://www.law360.com/articles/652442/dish-hughes-escape-some-claims-in-caltech-patent-row https://www.law360.com/articles/652442/dish-hughes-escape-so... https://www.reuters.com/article/intuitivesurgical-lawsuit-idUSWNAS688220070108 https://www.reuters.com/article/intuitivesurgical-lawsuit-id... https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-settles-digital-camera-lawsuit-with-caltech/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-settles-digital-camera-la...
- dgacmu 7y agoYou don't seem to use the common definition of a patent troll. Caltech very clearly is in the business of inventing real, new technology. You can disagree with their filing of infringement lawsuits, but they're not a troll in the way the typical NPE is.
- loeg 7y agoI think you can be a "real" inventor in the sense that NPEs are not and still be in violation of the nominal intent of the patent system. Caltech is here. You can call that trolling or not; OP never claimed that Caltech was literally an NPE. It's absurd that parallel invention of similar techniques, without awareness or observation of the filed patent — which USPTO often grants for extremely trivial software constructions — puts you in violation. It's especially absurd that 4x damages were awarded against Apple here when Apple is just a customer of the allegedly infringing party. 4/5 of Broadcom's customers were not assessed damages — why pick on Apple in particular? (I mean, we all know why — they have cash.)
- b1ur 7y agoI personally think that patents are necessary to promote independent (i.e. non-corporate) innovation. If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea. Of course, the US patent system is pretty deeply flawed. I participated in a study involving patent infringement allegations between two big companies, and my opinion was consistently "Why was this patent approved?"
- coldpie 7y ago> If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea. Absolutely not. Suppose I, Mr Independent Inventor, come up with some idea and convince the patent office to grant me a patent, and then proceed to do exactly nothing with it. Five years later, Ms Employed Engineer working at ABC Corp comes up with the same idea, and they manage to turn it into a product, which becomes successful. I contributed nothing to their product. Why on Earth am I owed any money for their work?
- colejohnson66 7y agoYou’re twisting the GP’s comment. They never said you should be able to sit on it; They said, if you invent it, you should get something. If it’s invented by two different people with no relation or knowledge of each other, the winner takes all approach is wrong. > Why on Earth am I owed any money for their work? And what about when ABC Corp steals Mr. Independent Inventor’s idea and makes millions on it? How is that fair?
- loeg 7y ago> If it’s invented by two different people with no relation or knowledge of each other, the winner takes all approach is wrong. Unfortunately, the US patent system is winner take all; i.e., wrong.
- canada_dry 7y agoI thought this was an interesting take on intellectual property/patents i.e. “gongkai”: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297
- bsinger98 7y agoI completely disagree. If I invent a new technology I should have the right to sell it. It is not fair for the inventor to create a novel technology only to have a huge corporation steal your idea. It is similar to China stealing US IP, it ruins the incentive to actually invent new ideas. If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations. For example, look at the Wright Brothers. They invented the airplane and didn't make any money. They spent their entire life suing people for stealing their idea. The system should encourage and incentivize creating ground breaking inventions.
- alasdair_ 7y agoI agree somewhat. The problem is that there are so many bullshit patents in the world that mostly just create a minefield for those trying to create new things. A proposal (in “Radical Markets”) I agree with is to charge a property tax of, say, 2% for each year that a patent holder wants to keep the patent. The value of the patent is whatever the owner decides it should be but (to prevent claims of $1 values) the owner must sell the patent to the first entity willing to pay more than the declared value. This, in theory, would ensure that only patents that were genuinely useful would be kept around rather than being used as tools to stifle innovation or rent seek for those that actually create great works.
- p1necone 7y agoThe problem seems to be that the bar for "novelty" in software patents is extremely low. (Amazon's patent on 1 click ordering is probably my favorite example).
- dylan604 7y agoIs this why we don't have any progress in the wavelet world? When I first heard about wavelet compression, it was supposed to be so much more impressive than DCT based algorithms. The only wavelet encoder I'm familiar with is JPEG2000, and it's adoption has not really been too wide. Are the patents for wavelet more oppressive than H.26[4-5]?
- yalogin 7y agoHow about patents created by public universities should automatically be in the public domain so every one benefits. After all, they are government funded.
- basementcat 7y agoThis used to be the case until the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act
- poizan42 7y ago> For example go out and implement a wavelet compression algorithm for images without violating any patents. Aren't those expiring around this time? I'm thinking a lot of the work was in the late 1990ies, e.g. jpeg2k was developed 1997-2000.
- strbean 7y ago> I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. See the mess around CRISPR patents for an excellent example of this.
- Retric 7y agoWhat’s crazy is universities don’t fund research. That’s a more central issue. They both directly profit from research and want to then own the results of that research, it’s a parasitic relationship with funding agencies.
- skosuri 7y agoThey do. Most universities also rely on other sources to supplement research including donations, endowment spending, ip, and even tuition.
- Retric 7y agoWhen a university’s are extracting more money from doing research on net then they invest in research that’s not funding. They do get rather creative with accounting, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. EX: A students tuition paid for by a research grant does not count as R&D spending by the University or even R&D.
- egdod 7y agoSee the motivation to fund CRISPR research for a counterpoint.
- elkos 7y agoWas the bulk of CRISPR research mostly funded by private emtities or was it government funding in EU, US and others? Where the private emtities even going to undertake CRISPR research if there was no public funding? Would be interesting to see a study that showcases which was the major factor to research on that field is.
- msla 7y agoI agree that research institutions shouldn't pursue patents, but I think patents in general have some value, because they discourage companies from relying on trade secrets, which used to be the norm, and is why certain ancient and medieval inventions were lost once the guilds dissolved and took their trade secrets with them.
- zzzzzzzza 7y agohow do we know trade secrets would be as effective today?
- pacetherace 7y agoUniversities want to generate royalty from the patents. Their motivation is not to block others from using their patents.
- egdod 7y ago€ I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress Do you have any evidence for this belief?
- Aperocky 7y agoWhat happen if I create an algorithm and then put it up with GPL? Can someone sue me for just writing code?
- yalok 7y agoPatents and code licensing rights are not related. You may release your code under GPL and if it violates some patent, the owner may sue you or whoever uses your code.