6 ms·

Those litigious men in their flying machines

44 points by smacktoward 6y ago

_0ffh 6y ago
There's Stephan Kinsella's point once again.
WalterBright 6y ago
Patents have generally failed in their intended purpose. Edison probably spent half his career in court: 1. being sued for patent infringement 2. suing others for patent infringement 3. being hired by companies to find workarounds for other patents 4. being an expert witness in a patent case The patent system should be abolished.
- pkaye 6y ago
  Wouldn't that just result in large companies having a even bigger advantage over the little guys?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    No, it would be a lesser advantage. Patents are only useful to large companies, because filing them and suing is an expensive and complex process. For small companies, a patent is not that useful because the larger company can afford to steamroll them in court. As for putting patent trolls out of business, I doubt any will shed a tear.
    - ISL 6y ago
      A small company with a valuable patent can rapidly attract large friends.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        "XXXXX with a computer." "YYYYY on the internet."
    - m463 6y ago
      I've wondered - wouldn't a small/niche company with a patent scare away other small/niche companies?
  - ggm 6y ago
    If the only protection they have is trade secret, and if otherwise anyone can create, doesn't society at large secure a bigger benefit?
    - pkaye 6y ago
      If its kept as a trade secret society may never benefit because it is never disclosed.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        Companies extensively keep trade secrets anyway. There was a case recently where an employee stole trade secret code to an autodrive system.
        ISL 6y ago
        When they do, they risk disclosure. When the secret is out, the monopoly is over. Especially in a "first-to-file" patent world, a well-guarded-but-leaked trade secret could potentially even be turned against the holder of the secret.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        I could have patented a number of innovations in D. But I chose not to, and they're finding their way into several other languages. While I'm a bit annoyed that they don't give credit to D for it, they don't have to.
        1cvmask 6y ago
        Prior art is one of the ways to invalidate a patent.
        ISL 6y ago
        Prior art must be published. With the transition from first-to-invent to first-to-file, hidden prior art has, I believe, substantially less influence.
  - toss1 6y ago
    Dubious. Patents tend to favor large companies. A patent is basically an expensive ticket to a lawsuit, and a plausibly useful marketing claim. Small companies with useful inventions can easily get stomped on by larger companies with large bankrolls. Yet it takes years and tens of $thousands to successfully prosecute a patent. Prosecuting a larger company infringing is often beyond the means of a small company, but if they are plausibly near-"infringing" on a larger company's patent, they can be sued out of existence, or the product killed by the mere threat. Perhaps a more sane patent system would be better, but it is hard to see how abolishing the current system altogether could tilt things more in favor of large companies.
- amelius 6y ago
  Patents could exist, but they should work differently. Here's how I think they should work: Upon submitting a patent application, the use-case(s) of the invention should be published. The submitting party can set an expiration time E. A larger E has drawbacks, as we'll see below. Directly after the patent has been submitted, anybody can challenge the patent either by showing prior art, or by demonstrating an equivalent invention. This can be done only in the period T directly following the submission. If T increases with E, choosing a large E is a risk. But it also offers a greater reward.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > Patents could exist Patents should not exist. They are entitling a commercial entity to a monopoly. Monopoly — BAADD!
    - Lunrtick 6y ago
      That is generally true, but I think the intended purpose is to reward R&D. If a company spent 10 years and lots of money making something, they should get some benefit for the investment. In practice, though, I think the system is less than ideal.
- JadeNB 6y ago
  Of course, Edison was an intentionally particularly aggressive practitioner of the hostile 'art' of patent-wielding. While I'm no fan of patents, I wouldn't cite Edison's experience with the system as representative.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    It wasn't just him suing, as I pointed out. He was relentlessly sued by others.
- winter_blue 6y ago
  The same story happened with the Wright Brothers as well. After inventing the airplane, they spent a significant chunk of the rest of their career suing for aircraft related patents.
errantmind 6y ago
The patent system should be abolished. Here are a number of (convincing) arguments which refute the central premises of the patent system: "The Case Against Patents" : https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.p...
Animats 6y ago
In a post-patent world, success is driven by the ability to blow large sums of money buying market share. We were lucky to have an era where there was enough venture capital to do that. Thank Softbank and the Saudi Arabia Sovereign Wealth Fund for being the suckers who made that possible. In Silicon Valley, up until about 2000, venture capitalists wanted a strong patent position before funding something. As a group, VCs made money from the 1970s to 2000 or so. In the 2000s, with the push for growth, failures cost more and VCs, as a group, lost money. Not sure about the 2010s.
thyrsus 6y ago
The title aludes to the movie titled "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines", a comedy I found entertaining both as a child and adult: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Magnificent_Men_in_their_Flying_Machines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Magnificent_Men_in_the...
perilunar 6y ago
Interestingly Lawrence Hargrave, the Australian aviation pioneer, opposed patents: "Workers must root out the idea [that] by keeping the results of their labours to themselves[,] a fortune will be assured to them. Patent fees are much wasted money. The flying machine of the future will not be born fully fledged and capable of a flight for 1000 miles or so. Like everything else it must be evolved gradually. The first difficulty is to get a thing that will fly at all. When this is made, a full description should be published as an aid to others. Excellence of design and workmanship will always defy competition."
_bxg1 6y ago
It would be interesting if, instead of a patent meaning "you can do whatever you want including preventing anyone from doing anything with this at all, if you so please", it only meant "you get X% royalties from anything anyone makes with this, but they are otherwise free to make those things".
peter_d_sherman 6y ago
"Intellectual property protection and national security have long been intertwined. For as long as espionage has existed, spies and agents have tried to steal and copy foreign technology." What I want to know is: "Which country copied/stole/appropriated (use whatever languaging makes you feel comfortable) the wheel from which other country, first?" <g> "Intellectual Property Theft", you gotta love it... It's amazing, because all of Silicon Valley stands on the shoulders of pioneers; on the shoulders of giants, but not once in those silly interviews of the latest successful founder, who's only a kid, do they ever, ever thank all of the people that made all of the infrastructure that made their present day business able to function... people including, but not limited to: Boole, Tesla, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann, Atanasoff, and others too numerous to count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_s... Also, most so-called intellectual property "secrets" -- usually appear in some form or other in academic papers way before they are snapped up and patented by some multinational company, some multinational company who is usually not the original researcher or researchers. Which brings me to another other point... usually the multinational company profits more, way more, orders of magnitude more, than the original inventors/researchers, who might not (in some but not all cases) be compensated at all... So now the next question is, who stole what from whom, when? a) Did some other country, i.e., China (or whoever) steal intellectual property from another "Country" (which are actually corporations/corporate interests in that other country)? or b) Did the corporation that was "stole from" -- steal that intellectual property from the original inventors/researchers? (You know, via legal means, paying someone a pittance and calling it a "fair deal" is still stealing...) or c) Did the original inventors/researchers steal their idea from ideas that were already floating about in the academic community and in previous academic papers, in that field of study? Who stole what from who, when? ? That's what I want to know. And I also want to know which country stole the wheel from which other country, first... <g>

44 points by smacktoward 6y ago

There's Stephan Kinsella's point once again.

Patents have generally failed in their intended purpose. Edison probably spent half his career in court: 1. being sued for patent infringement 2. suing others for patent infringement 3. being hired by companies to find workarounds for other patents 4. being an expert witness in a patent case The patent system should be abolished.

pkaye 6y ago
Wouldn't that just result in large companies having a even bigger advantage over the little guys?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  No, it would be a lesser advantage. Patents are only useful to large companies, because filing them and suing is an expensive and complex process. For small companies, a patent is not that useful because the larger company can afford to steamroll them in court. As for putting patent trolls out of business, I doubt any will shed a tear.
  - ISL 6y ago
    A small company with a valuable patent can rapidly attract large friends.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      "XXXXX with a computer." "YYYYY on the internet."
  - m463 6y ago
    I've wondered - wouldn't a small/niche company with a patent scare away other small/niche companies?
- ggm 6y ago
  If the only protection they have is trade secret, and if otherwise anyone can create, doesn't society at large secure a bigger benefit?
  - pkaye 6y ago
    If its kept as a trade secret society may never benefit because it is never disclosed.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      Companies extensively keep trade secrets anyway. There was a case recently where an employee stole trade secret code to an autodrive system.
      - ISL 6y ago
        When they do, they risk disclosure. When the secret is out, the monopoly is over. Especially in a "first-to-file" patent world, a well-guarded-but-leaked trade secret could potentially even be turned against the holder of the secret.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        I could have patented a number of innovations in D. But I chose not to, and they're finding their way into several other languages. While I'm a bit annoyed that they don't give credit to D for it, they don't have to.
        1cvmask 6y ago
        Prior art is one of the ways to invalidate a patent.
        ISL 6y ago
        Prior art must be published. With the transition from first-to-invent to first-to-file, hidden prior art has, I believe, substantially less influence.
- toss1 6y ago
  Dubious. Patents tend to favor large companies. A patent is basically an expensive ticket to a lawsuit, and a plausibly useful marketing claim. Small companies with useful inventions can easily get stomped on by larger companies with large bankrolls. Yet it takes years and tens of $thousands to successfully prosecute a patent. Prosecuting a larger company infringing is often beyond the means of a small company, but if they are plausibly near-"infringing" on a larger company's patent, they can be sued out of existence, or the product killed by the mere threat. Perhaps a more sane patent system would be better, but it is hard to see how abolishing the current system altogether could tilt things more in favor of large companies.
amelius 6y ago
Patents could exist, but they should work differently. Here's how I think they should work: Upon submitting a patent application, the use-case(s) of the invention should be published. The submitting party can set an expiration time E. A larger E has drawbacks, as we'll see below. Directly after the patent has been submitted, anybody can challenge the patent either by showing prior art, or by demonstrating an equivalent invention. This can be done only in the period T directly following the submission. If T increases with E, choosing a large E is a risk. But it also offers a greater reward.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Patents could exist Patents should not exist. They are entitling a commercial entity to a monopoly. Monopoly — BAADD!
  - Lunrtick 6y ago
    That is generally true, but I think the intended purpose is to reward R&D. If a company spent 10 years and lots of money making something, they should get some benefit for the investment. In practice, though, I think the system is less than ideal.
JadeNB 6y ago
Of course, Edison was an intentionally particularly aggressive practitioner of the hostile 'art' of patent-wielding. While I'm no fan of patents, I wouldn't cite Edison's experience with the system as representative.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  It wasn't just him suing, as I pointed out. He was relentlessly sued by others.
winter_blue 6y ago
The same story happened with the Wright Brothers as well. After inventing the airplane, they spent a significant chunk of the rest of their career suing for aircraft related patents.

errantmind 6y ago

The patent system should be abolished. Here are a number of (convincing) arguments which refute the central premises of the patent system: "The Case Against Patents" : https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.p...

Animats 6y ago

In a post-patent world, success is driven by the ability to blow large sums of money buying market share. We were lucky to have an era where there was enough venture capital to do that. Thank Softbank and the Saudi Arabia Sovereign Wealth Fund for being the suckers who made that possible. In Silicon Valley, up until about 2000, venture capitalists wanted a strong patent position before funding something. As a group, VCs made money from the 1970s to 2000 or so. In the 2000s, with the push for growth, failures cost more and VCs, as a group, lost money. Not sure about the 2010s.

thyrsus 6y ago

The title aludes to the movie titled "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines", a comedy I found entertaining both as a child and adult: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Magnificent_Men_in_their_Flying_Machines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Those_Magnificent_Men_in_the...

perilunar 6y ago

Interestingly Lawrence Hargrave, the Australian aviation pioneer, opposed patents: "Workers must root out the idea [that] by keeping the results of their labours to themselves[,] a fortune will be assured to them. Patent fees are much wasted money. The flying machine of the future will not be born fully fledged and capable of a flight for 1000 miles or so. Like everything else it must be evolved gradually. The first difficulty is to get a thing that will fly at all. When this is made, a full description should be published as an aid to others. Excellence of design and workmanship will always defy competition."

_bxg1 6y ago

It would be interesting if, instead of a patent meaning "you can do whatever you want including preventing anyone from doing anything with this at all, if you so please", it only meant "you get X% royalties from anything anyone makes with this, but they are otherwise free to make those things".

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

"Intellectual property protection and national security have long been intertwined. For as long as espionage has existed, spies and agents have tried to steal and copy foreign technology." What I want to know is: "Which country copied/stole/appropriated (use whatever languaging makes you feel comfortable) the wheel from which other country, first?" <g> "Intellectual Property Theft", you gotta love it... It's amazing, because all of Silicon Valley stands on the shoulders of pioneers; on the shoulders of giants, but not once in those silly interviews of the latest successful founder, who's only a kid, do they ever, ever thank all of the people that made all of the infrastructure that made their present day business able to function... people including, but not limited to: Boole, Tesla, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann, Atanasoff, and others too numerous to count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_s... Also, most so-called intellectual property "secrets" -- usually appear in some form or other in academic papers way before they are snapped up and patented by some multinational company, some multinational company who is usually not the original researcher or researchers. Which brings me to another other point... usually the multinational company profits more, way more, orders of magnitude more, than the original inventors/researchers, who might not (in some but not all cases) be compensated at all... So now the next question is, who stole what from whom, when? a) Did some other country, i.e., China (or whoever) steal intellectual property from another "Country" (which are actually corporations/corporate interests in that other country)? or b) Did the corporation that was "stole from" -- steal that intellectual property from the original inventors/researchers? (You know, via legal means, paying someone a pittance and calling it a "fair deal" is still stealing...) or c) Did the original inventors/researchers steal their idea from ideas that were already floating about in the academic community and in previous academic papers, in that field of study? Who stole what from who, when? ? That's what I want to know. And I also want to know which country stole the wheel from which other country, first... <g>