9 ms·

But 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

But 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Patent 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 ago
    This 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 ago
      Sure, 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 ago
        Yea, 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 ago
  what "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.
- dev_tty01 7y ago
  Sorry, but your comment is completely wrong. https://innovation.caltech.edu/startups/ https://innovation.caltech.edu/startups/
  - gowld 7y ago
    Those are Caltech startups, not other startups using Caltech inventions.
coldpie 7y ago
Did 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        I 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.)

btilly 7y ago

I 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 ago
Patent 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    Sure, 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 ago
      Yea, 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 ago
what "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.

dev_tty01 7y ago
Sorry, but your comment is completely wrong. https://innovation.caltech.edu/startups/ https://innovation.caltech.edu/startups/
- gowld 7y ago
  Those are Caltech startups, not other startups using Caltech inventions.

coldpie 7y ago

Did 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      I 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.)