4 ms·

IBM has so many generic patents. I wonder why they don't sue more companies? I guess maybe they settle under the radar.

snarf21 7y ago
Yeah, they would rather license. 2018 was $1.2B+ in revenue just for the patents they already have. Our patent system really needs fixed.
- mattrp 7y ago
  If someone invests resources inventing something, why shouldn't that entity be entitled to participate in the on-going monetization of that invention? If we presume the prior statement is simply a straw man, do you agree partially with this statement and it simply needs reform or would you propose to throw it out altogether? If the former, how would you propose to reform it?
  - urthen 7y ago
    The problem is so many software patents just cover "do a thing on a computer," which becomes so broad nobody else can ever do that thing without infringing on the patent. Even if I have an objectively different, even better, way of doing it, software patents are used far too broadly because they tend to protect the act of doing a thing as opposed to specifically how to do the thing. This is in contrast to something like a hardware patent, where if you patent a tool, and I build a better tool that does the same thing, the mere fact it does the same thing is not infringing unless I copy specific aspects of your patented physical design. The reform is that an ideal implementation of software patents is largely the same as an ideal implementation of software copyright. I can't just copy what you did, but if I figure out a different way to do it, that's perfectly fine. That's why so many people say scrap software patents altogether and work on improving software copyright instead.
    - freejazz 7y ago
      The software patents you described are consistently knocked-out on §101 eligibility grounds for being an "abstract concept". IMO people who advocate scrapping software patents are disingenuous - look at what Google is trying to do software copyright at the same time. Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        > Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software. ... and this is a bad thing?
        freejazz 7y ago
        I was not commenting on that, simply informing the poster about the issue.
      - retSava 7y ago
        Patents are granted, then if challenged, can be invalidated in court. It should be the other way around, they shouldn't be granted in the first case. Not all can handle being taken to court for a claimed patent infringement of a crappy patent. It's expensive, time-consuming, and difficult. Did I mention wasteful?
        mattrp 7y ago
        I’m not trying to be argumentative and someone who is a lawyer can correct me here but generally speaking a company like ibm is only going to seek licensing from a party where the commercial impact is sufficient to merit the use of their resources to secure a licensing deal. Even in the case of Airbnb, it’s clear in the article ibm is suing only after attempting to exhaust other remedies. Again, I don’t think it’s necessarily bullet proof legal policy to advise companies to fly under the radar but de facto I don’t think ibm is spending a lot of time chasing companies who can’t afford a legal defense.
  - snarf21 7y ago
    I think software patents are okay but should have shorter lengths, like 3 years. They also shouldn't be transferrable. IBM could license it from Jane Inventor but not roll it up as a weapon. We also need to have trained people in the USTPO so that we can have patents researched and not just rubber stamped. I also think that patent enforcement should force a review of prior art.
sonicxxg 7y ago
Damn, IBM has changed a lot. From major tech company to patent troll. Sad fate for them, and whoever still works there.

Yeah, they would rather license. 2018 was $1.2B+ in revenue just for the patents they already have. Our patent system really needs fixed.

mattrp 7y ago
If someone invests resources inventing something, why shouldn't that entity be entitled to participate in the on-going monetization of that invention? If we presume the prior statement is simply a straw man, do you agree partially with this statement and it simply needs reform or would you propose to throw it out altogether? If the former, how would you propose to reform it?
- urthen 7y ago
  The problem is so many software patents just cover "do a thing on a computer," which becomes so broad nobody else can ever do that thing without infringing on the patent. Even if I have an objectively different, even better, way of doing it, software patents are used far too broadly because they tend to protect the act of doing a thing as opposed to specifically how to do the thing. This is in contrast to something like a hardware patent, where if you patent a tool, and I build a better tool that does the same thing, the mere fact it does the same thing is not infringing unless I copy specific aspects of your patented physical design. The reform is that an ideal implementation of software patents is largely the same as an ideal implementation of software copyright. I can't just copy what you did, but if I figure out a different way to do it, that's perfectly fine. That's why so many people say scrap software patents altogether and work on improving software copyright instead.
  - freejazz 7y ago
    The software patents you described are consistently knocked-out on §101 eligibility grounds for being an "abstract concept". IMO people who advocate scrapping software patents are disingenuous - look at what Google is trying to do software copyright at the same time. Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      > Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software. ... and this is a bad thing?
      - freejazz 7y ago
        I was not commenting on that, simply informing the poster about the issue.
    - retSava 7y ago
      Patents are granted, then if challenged, can be invalidated in court. It should be the other way around, they shouldn't be granted in the first case. Not all can handle being taken to court for a claimed patent infringement of a crappy patent. It's expensive, time-consuming, and difficult. Did I mention wasteful?
      - mattrp 7y ago
        I’m not trying to be argumentative and someone who is a lawyer can correct me here but generally speaking a company like ibm is only going to seek licensing from a party where the commercial impact is sufficient to merit the use of their resources to secure a licensing deal. Even in the case of Airbnb, it’s clear in the article ibm is suing only after attempting to exhaust other remedies. Again, I don’t think it’s necessarily bullet proof legal policy to advise companies to fly under the radar but de facto I don’t think ibm is spending a lot of time chasing companies who can’t afford a legal defense.
- snarf21 7y ago
  I think software patents are okay but should have shorter lengths, like 3 years. They also shouldn't be transferrable. IBM could license it from Jane Inventor but not roll it up as a weapon. We also need to have trained people in the USTPO so that we can have patents researched and not just rubber stamped. I also think that patent enforcement should force a review of prior art.

sonicxxg 7y ago

Damn, IBM has changed a lot. From major tech company to patent troll. Sad fate for them, and whoever still works there.