4 ms·

"Patents are meant to reward original innovator not the guys who buy them in bulk and profit out of it." Huh? Buy "buying them in bulk", the patent trolls are

by uvdiv 15y ago

"Patents are meant to reward original innovator not the guys who buy them in bulk and profit out of it." Huh? Buy "buying them in bulk", the patent trolls are paying money to the original innovators. They are being rewarded. Why do you oppose innovators' right to sell their IP to other parties? It's hardly property if you can't transfer ownership.

voodoomagicman 15y ago
I think it is clear that he is not opposing the _transfer_ of patents, but the transfer to people who's only planned use for the patent is in court
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Once you transfer your property, usually, you have very little control over how it's used.
- anamax 15y ago
  > I think it is clear that he is not opposing the _transfer_ of patents, but the transfer to people who's only planned use for the patent is in court What other uses do you think that patents have? The only thing that a patent gives you is the ability to sue someone. A patent doesn't let you practice anything.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > What other uses do you think that patents have? They prevent others from suing you, at least over that one patent. That said, I wonder how much it might fix if people were only permitted to license or cross-license your patents and forbidden from reassigning the patent or the right to sue over the patent.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      They prevent others from suing you, at least over that one patent. This is not valuable. Placing ideas in the public domain also prevents people from suing you and anybody else for those ideas, and it's much less expensive. The only reason to pay for a patent is to acquire the right to sue for compensation.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > They prevent others from suing you, at least over that one patent. That's like saying that someone can't charge you rent for property that you own. However, unlike with property that you own, you can get sued wrt an overlapping patent owned by someone else regardless of what patents you own. > That said, I wonder how much it might fix if people were only permitted to license or cross-license your patents and forbidden from reassigning the patent or the right to sue over the patent. In other words, you think that patents shouldn't be sellable.
flipbrad 15y ago
Well, does it need to be property, or transferable? Is it not enough that it grants you a monopoly over doing stuff that will last you a very significant part of your working life? Why make is assignable in toto, rather than just licensable (so long as the right to sue is and remains exclusively the patent owner's)
- uvdiv 15y ago
  1) Why not? I think the burden is on you to argue why IP rights should be limited. Defending property rights is the default position, not one that needs to be supported. 2) Selling IP rights lets you get immediate payment. Instead of a continuous royalty stream over decades, a lump-sum upfront with the same present-value. This could be more convenient. 3) IP rights let (I believe) an inventor defend their patent after their death. Without transferrable IP, if someone's life expectancy is shorter than their patent's term, they could not fully benefit from it. This would be unfair to them. It would also be inconsistent that they could not transfer IP to descendants like other assets. 4) (Argument I've read on YC) Selling patents lets them be better-defended (by specialist patent "trolls"). It removes the burden of litigation from the inventor: "go to court or lose your royalties to infringers". 5) The concept of "same owner" looks silly when IP is owned by businesses, rather than individuals.

by uvdiv 15y ago

voodoomagicman 15y ago

I think it is clear that he is not opposing the _transfer_ of patents, but the transfer to people who's only planned use for the patent is in court

rbanffy 15y ago
Once you transfer your property, usually, you have very little control over how it's used.
anamax 15y ago
> I think it is clear that he is not opposing the _transfer_ of patents, but the transfer to people who's only planned use for the patent is in court What other uses do you think that patents have? The only thing that a patent gives you is the ability to sue someone. A patent doesn't let you practice anything.
- Natsu 15y ago
  > What other uses do you think that patents have? They prevent others from suing you, at least over that one patent. That said, I wonder how much it might fix if people were only permitted to license or cross-license your patents and forbidden from reassigning the patent or the right to sue over the patent.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    They prevent others from suing you, at least over that one patent. This is not valuable. Placing ideas in the public domain also prevents people from suing you and anybody else for those ideas, and it's much less expensive. The only reason to pay for a patent is to acquire the right to sue for compensation.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > They prevent others from suing you, at least over that one patent. That's like saying that someone can't charge you rent for property that you own. However, unlike with property that you own, you can get sued wrt an overlapping patent owned by someone else regardless of what patents you own. > That said, I wonder how much it might fix if people were only permitted to license or cross-license your patents and forbidden from reassigning the patent or the right to sue over the patent. In other words, you think that patents shouldn't be sellable.

flipbrad 15y ago

Well, does it need to be property, or transferable? Is it not enough that it grants you a monopoly over doing stuff that will last you a very significant part of your working life? Why make is assignable in toto, rather than just licensable (so long as the right to sue is and remains exclusively the patent owner's)

uvdiv 15y ago
1) Why not? I think the burden is on you to argue why IP rights should be limited. Defending property rights is the default position, not one that needs to be supported. 2) Selling IP rights lets you get immediate payment. Instead of a continuous royalty stream over decades, a lump-sum upfront with the same present-value. This could be more convenient. 3) IP rights let (I believe) an inventor defend their patent after their death. Without transferrable IP, if someone's life expectancy is shorter than their patent's term, they could not fully benefit from it. This would be unfair to them. It would also be inconsistent that they could not transfer IP to descendants like other assets. 4) (Argument I've read on YC) Selling patents lets them be better-defended (by specialist patent "trolls"). It removes the burden of litigation from the inventor: "go to court or lose your royalties to infringers". 5) The concept of "same owner" looks silly when IP is owned by businesses, rather than individuals.