5 ms·

I remember when I worked at IBM Hursley research labs 20 years ago. The lab director told us all "patents are very important to IBM". I expected him to tell u

I remember when I worked at IBM Hursley research labs 20 years ago. The lab director told us all "patents are very important to IBM". I expected him to tell us that IBM made billions from licensing them. He didn't say that though. I don't think he even _mentioned_ that. Instead he stated: "It raises the entry barrier for the competition". Patents were (narrowly) created to _encourage_ the spread of knowledge. Instead of risky "trade secrets" a company would make the knowledge public for a short monopoly. Most patents these days are not worthy of protection (certainly not as long as they are granted for). We need different lengths for different patents - we shouldn't treat how rectangular a phone is the same way as a life saving drug.

patentatt 7y ago
To be fair to IBM, what your director may have been saying is that their use was primarily defensive, which it is and was for IBM. It’s not wrong for them to patent as much as they are able to, it serves an important disclosure function. When I worked at the USPTO, we used several patent databases. The US, of course, Japan, Europe, and IBM. IBM had their own database because of how significant their IP was. So while it’s unfortunate that they’ve taken the offensive in this case, historically IBM has been an important and relatively benign player in the IP landscape.
- raywu 7y ago
  This is informative. What is a good way to keep track of 1) parents filed by IBM, 2) lawsuits and parties involved IBM? Is there a service you like that provide weekly or monthly updates?
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    Disclaimer, I've contributed a couple of patents to IBM's hoard of patents, but I no longer work there. #1 is fairly straight forward, a simple script that uses the USPTO search function and searches for the Assignee field being IBM and the date range being the last 30 days gives you the patents issued that month to IBM. You can do that with a simple cron script, curl, and some script code. #2 is somewhat more difficult, IBM gets sued a lot because they are big and a juicy target. If you have access to one of the legal databases (Lexis, Etc) you can search for cases where IBM is the plaintiff and the complaint contains phaseology around patents (like "patent", "infringement", Etc.) While expensive to access, if you live near a College or University with a Law program and you can get library privileges you use their access. In Santa Clara county you can join the Santa Clara Law Library (http://sccll.org/ http://sccll.org/) which will give you access. Unfortunately, you need to be there to access the databases so that would involve a monthly trip to the library (not a bad thing in my opinion :-))
    - bubblethink 7y ago
      Tangential question for everyone. I recently had to file a small claims case by myself (i.e., no attorney). It's still in the pipeline, but the process made me realise that the legal world is a different universe altogether. From the tech perspective, everything is stuck in the dark ages. I had to create a pdf, print it, then go to the court, only to scan it again on a windows 8 computer with silverlight that would keep timing out. Similar experience with the website (run by a company called tyler technologies). I was not successful in doing much research on my own about the laws and precedents regarding such cases. The instructions on the court's website are not precise. Why is everything so siloed and inefficient that only lawyers can navigate this? Are any startups working in this space ?
      - ska 7y ago
        There are startups in this space, but there are also people who value the friction (and not all for selfish reasons).
        bubblethink 7y ago
        > (and not all for selfish reasons) Can you elaborate?
        ska 7y ago
        Having physical interaction and time needed makes it harder to file nuisance suits, etc.
        sporkland 7y ago
        Physical version of proof of work. It helps avoid spam by making it costlier.
      - rhizome 7y ago
        In those situations I almost always go to the "tyler technologies" site and see if they're hiring development people. They never are.
- 1024core 7y ago
  So while it’s unfortunate that they’ve taken the offensive in this case, historically IBM has been an important and relatively benign player in the IP landscape. Your faith in IBM is misplaced, according to the article: > IBM has cross-license agreements in place with the likes of Apple and Amazon and previously won $83M in a similar lawsuit against Groupon.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zackees 7y ago
And they are entirely one sided. Try suing Google for patent or trademark infringement. I've seen the attempts: it's impossible to get justice. The entire system is rigged and serves as yet another way for powerful interests to extract value from productive members of society.
- freejazz 7y ago
  Right, but this is because institutions like Google use their power to weaken patent rights.
  - thayne 7y ago
    As long as it suits them. I think the bigger reason is that in many civil cases (not just IP) it ultimately comes down to who is willing to pay more for lawyers and legal fees.
    - freejazz 7y ago
      As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights).
      - randoramax 7y ago
        As a non-litigator, i call BS. Facts don't matter much when it comes to justice. Try suing a small businesses LLC for some wrong doing: they'll file bankruptcy and you'll never see your money.
        ska 7y ago
        That's sort of the point of an LLC, though, so you can't really fault it. True, if it's a one-person shop the friction to fold it up isn't very high but you should factor that into your deal analysis.
cturner 7y ago
"Patents were (narrowly) created to _encourage_ the spread of knowledge" That may have been the language used, but it didn't reflect the reality even of that time. James Watt had a mate in Westminster, and patents were a novel mechanism for him to stymie competition. It stalled the pace of engine advancement for a couple of decades. This is described in some detail in an early chapter of /Against Intellectual Monopoly/ (Boldrin/Levine, 2010).
bdowling 7y ago
> We need different lengths for different patents - we shouldn't treat how rectangular a phone is the same way as a life saving drug. We don't treat them the same. A design patent protecting an ornamental feature of a product has a term of 15 years from the date of issue. A utility patent for a useful invention has a term of 20 years from the date of application.In both cases, the rights granted are in exchange for disclosure of information and for a limited term. After the term ends, anyone is free to make full use of the design or invention and to make improvements without paying any royalties and without fear of infringing. > Instead of risky "trade secrets" a company would make the knowledge public for a short monopoly. Some inventions are suited to being kept secret (e.g., Google's search algorithms), while others are not (e.g., any product that can be reverse-engineered). Patents can protect the latter, for a limited time, where trade secret law cannot.
rolltiide 7y ago
I think the lengths is only one possible solution. The other broken part is that the inventor has one idea they want to spread the knowledge of, but their patent attorney makes it overly broad and unrecognizable. Nobody even knows what the patent is about, sparing one “embodiment” described but not even part of the important “claims”. This is a rational reaction to the only way to make royalties on a patent because everyone would prefer to circumvent them instead of utilize them. Very broken incentive model.

patentatt 7y ago

To be fair to IBM, what your director may have been saying is that their use was primarily defensive, which it is and was for IBM. It’s not wrong for them to patent as much as they are able to, it serves an important disclosure function. When I worked at the USPTO, we used several patent databases. The US, of course, Japan, Europe, and IBM. IBM had their own database because of how significant their IP was. So while it’s unfortunate that they’ve taken the offensive in this case, historically IBM has been an important and relatively benign player in the IP landscape.

raywu 7y ago
This is informative. What is a good way to keep track of 1) parents filed by IBM, 2) lawsuits and parties involved IBM? Is there a service you like that provide weekly or monthly updates?
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  Disclaimer, I've contributed a couple of patents to IBM's hoard of patents, but I no longer work there. #1 is fairly straight forward, a simple script that uses the USPTO search function and searches for the Assignee field being IBM and the date range being the last 30 days gives you the patents issued that month to IBM. You can do that with a simple cron script, curl, and some script code. #2 is somewhat more difficult, IBM gets sued a lot because they are big and a juicy target. If you have access to one of the legal databases (Lexis, Etc) you can search for cases where IBM is the plaintiff and the complaint contains phaseology around patents (like "patent", "infringement", Etc.) While expensive to access, if you live near a College or University with a Law program and you can get library privileges you use their access. In Santa Clara county you can join the Santa Clara Law Library (http://sccll.org/ http://sccll.org/) which will give you access. Unfortunately, you need to be there to access the databases so that would involve a monthly trip to the library (not a bad thing in my opinion :-))
  - bubblethink 7y ago
    Tangential question for everyone. I recently had to file a small claims case by myself (i.e., no attorney). It's still in the pipeline, but the process made me realise that the legal world is a different universe altogether. From the tech perspective, everything is stuck in the dark ages. I had to create a pdf, print it, then go to the court, only to scan it again on a windows 8 computer with silverlight that would keep timing out. Similar experience with the website (run by a company called tyler technologies). I was not successful in doing much research on my own about the laws and precedents regarding such cases. The instructions on the court's website are not precise. Why is everything so siloed and inefficient that only lawyers can navigate this? Are any startups working in this space ?
    - ska 7y ago
      There are startups in this space, but there are also people who value the friction (and not all for selfish reasons).
      - bubblethink 7y ago
        > (and not all for selfish reasons) Can you elaborate?
        ska 7y ago
        Having physical interaction and time needed makes it harder to file nuisance suits, etc.
        sporkland 7y ago
        Physical version of proof of work. It helps avoid spam by making it costlier.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      In those situations I almost always go to the "tyler technologies" site and see if they're hiring development people. They never are.
1024core 7y ago
So while it’s unfortunate that they’ve taken the offensive in this case, historically IBM has been an important and relatively benign player in the IP landscape. Your faith in IBM is misplaced, according to the article: > IBM has cross-license agreements in place with the likes of Apple and Amazon and previously won $83M in a similar lawsuit against Groupon.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zackees 7y ago

And they are entirely one sided. Try suing Google for patent or trademark infringement. I've seen the attempts: it's impossible to get justice. The entire system is rigged and serves as yet another way for powerful interests to extract value from productive members of society.

freejazz 7y ago
Right, but this is because institutions like Google use their power to weaken patent rights.
- thayne 7y ago
  As long as it suits them. I think the bigger reason is that in many civil cases (not just IP) it ultimately comes down to who is willing to pay more for lawyers and legal fees.
  - freejazz 7y ago
    As a litigator I do not think that is true. Facts, more than anything, dictate outcomes, generally. Though I will say that patent cases are prohibitively expensive. Though, contrary to what I would think many here assume, leaves the inventor with the short end of the stick as opposed to large IP-owning organizations like Google (that simultaneously advocate for lesser patent-rights).
    - randoramax 7y ago
      As a non-litigator, i call BS. Facts don't matter much when it comes to justice. Try suing a small businesses LLC for some wrong doing: they'll file bankruptcy and you'll never see your money.
      - ska 7y ago
        That's sort of the point of an LLC, though, so you can't really fault it. True, if it's a one-person shop the friction to fold it up isn't very high but you should factor that into your deal analysis.

cturner 7y ago

"Patents were (narrowly) created to _encourage_ the spread of knowledge" That may have been the language used, but it didn't reflect the reality even of that time. James Watt had a mate in Westminster, and patents were a novel mechanism for him to stymie competition. It stalled the pace of engine advancement for a couple of decades. This is described in some detail in an early chapter of /Against Intellectual Monopoly/ (Boldrin/Levine, 2010).

bdowling 7y ago

> We need different lengths for different patents - we shouldn't treat how rectangular a phone is the same way as a life saving drug. We don't treat them the same. A design patent protecting an ornamental feature of a product has a term of 15 years from the date of issue. A utility patent for a useful invention has a term of 20 years from the date of application.In both cases, the rights granted are in exchange for disclosure of information and for a limited term. After the term ends, anyone is free to make full use of the design or invention and to make improvements without paying any royalties and without fear of infringing. > Instead of risky "trade secrets" a company would make the knowledge public for a short monopoly. Some inventions are suited to being kept secret (e.g., Google's search algorithms), while others are not (e.g., any product that can be reverse-engineered). Patents can protect the latter, for a limited time, where trade secret law cannot.

rolltiide 7y ago

I think the lengths is only one possible solution. The other broken part is that the inventor has one idea they want to spread the knowledge of, but their patent attorney makes it overly broad and unrecognizable. Nobody even knows what the patent is about, sparing one “embodiment” described but not even part of the important “claims”. This is a rational reaction to the only way to make royalties on a patent because everyone would prefer to circumvent them instead of utilize them. Very broken incentive model.