9 ms·

Of course it's the Eastern District of Texas. The intention of the patent system was to promote the useful proliferation of the sciences and arts. Billion-doll

Of course it's the Eastern District of Texas. The intention of the patent system was to promote the useful proliferation of the sciences and arts. Billion-dollar verdicts to companies that do not even produce a marketable product are the antithesis of that intention. It is not clear to me how to solve this problem aside from tearing down the patent system and never rebuilding it. Gone are the days when an inventor in their garage is prevented from the exploitation of a large company by virtue of a patent they filed for their invention. Now, holding companies exist to absorb patents that describe the most abstract and nebulous ideas in order to leech the maximal value from real companies, and courts like this enable them. End the patent system. (I'd be happy if we even just got rid of software patents on the existing basis that math cannot be patented, but while I'm on my soapbox, might as well go all the way.)

loceng 6y ago
I've liked the idea of an exponential cost to holding a patent - as in, the cost to maintain it doubles every year. If you're producing a product that's highly successful, profitable, then you'll be able to afford to keep the patent for more years. If you're a patent troll not producing anything, it's going to get expensive quick. Edit to add: I just realized patents are definitely part of the legal industrial complex..
- akersten 6y ago
  If that could be implemented fairly (scaling costs based on total revenue so small-time businesses aren't locked out of the system, without giving non-producers/patent trolls a free $0 patent) then that seems like a good compromise.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No, that’s a waste. If it’s not worth scaling up the cost, it’s not worth it for society to give the business exclusivity.
- erk__ 6y ago
  But this will not solve anything else about patents, there will be less reason to license them and such as the amount of time they can run for without any special income through the patent will be much less. Thus giving companies and inventors with a large capital a larger one up on the people that patents are also supposed to protect.
  - loceng 6y ago
    So maybe licensing dies off and it will have to be the patent holder who actually executes on creating something with it - is that a pro or a con?
    - chongli 6y ago
      Lots of inventions can be discovered by an individual with access to a lab (for example, at a university) yet cannot realistically be brought to market without billions in capital they may not have access to. Licensing is supposed to fix this by allowing these inventors to profit from their inventions without needing to get into manufacturing.
      - loceng 6y ago
        At what cost to society? Statements for one side or the other without looking at it in balance, as an equation, doesn't allow us to see the full picture and consequences.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tehjoker 6y ago
  That changes the game only slightly. Large companies will then be able to hold out over smaller ones far larger reentrenching monopolist behavior. Basically, market mechanisms always favor the rich. You need a fair system not one based on money assuming you even think patents are defensible.
- goldcd 6y ago
  I like that - but there are other options randomly thinks of something When you file your patent, you add blind optional licensing terms to it. For $x your company can use this. Or for $y you can license each device that uses it. For $z you can buy this (not invalidating any other registered uses). That way when developing something, you can work out whether it's cost efficient to use/avoid/buy - and remove all the risk of litigation and the overhead of lawyers. Patent system is broken - but on one hand don't think cancelling it is the answer, but resent the sink of cash that it sucks in by existing in its current form.
- chongli 6y ago
  How does this protect an individual inventor who invents (for example) a revolutionary new battery but is unable to secure the enormous capital needed to manufacture it? If the cost to maintain the patent is exponential then the existing battery makers need only wait for the inventor to go broke.
  - loceng 6y ago
    Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. I also believe we'll have a better funding model than what financial-VC industrial complex has provided us/allowed, crowdfunding of sorts. I'd also like to ask: isn't that already a problem? How many independent battery tech companies are there, and how many have scaled? Also, maybe different technologies have different rates of patent cost increase - so that way the more expensive to get going sectors for technology dev have a longer runway or grace period. There are lots of ways to make things flexible. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd.
    - chongli 6y ago
      Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. If that's your position then why not abolish patents? I'm a lot more in favour of that. Personally, I think the patent system discourages innovation and encourages rent-seeking. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd. I like this idea at an instinctual level but I worry that it would be open to abuse. Perhaps the abuse of a system like that would be less bad than the patent system we have right now but that remains to be seen. I do know that a lot of people would be generally opposed to it on principle. They would see it as an undeserved handout.
- ehvatum 6y ago
  Great - so if I’m dependent on a patented product, it’s going to get exponentially more expensive and all that money will be funneled to the patent office. This helps nobody.
bhupy 6y ago
Aren’t software patents already all but abolished?
- akersten 6y ago
  That would be (wonderful!) news to me. Not in the US, as far as I know, they're alive and well.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Alice Corp forbids patents for a normal, noncomputer action just taken on a computer (calculate interest, but on a computer!), but allows software patents otherwise.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Do you have any examples of software patents that survived post-Alice? IANAL, but it appears that it's been a difficult question to answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law#What_software_patents_will_survive_Alice_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_...? > What software patents will survive Alice analysis? > The question has been raised, therefore, what kinds of software-related patents will survive the analysis prescribed in Alice and Mayo. The question was considered during the oral argument of the Alice case, although not more than cursorily in the opinion. Counsel for CLS Bank suggested that data compression and data encryption were software technologies that are likely to be patent-eligible because they address "a business problem, a social problem, or a technological problem." The Solicitor General, as amicus curiae, said that it would be difficult to identify a patent-eligible business method unless it involved an improved technology, such as "a process for additional security point-of-sale credit card transactions using particular encryption technology" – "that might well be patent eligible."[40] > At least one commentator has questioned that, however, because encryption largely consists of mathematical operations using modular arithmetic and theorems of Euler.[41] Yet, as the commentator points out, in the Flook case the Supreme Court said: "As the CCPA has explained, 'if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory [patent ineligible].' " Furthermore, in July 2014, just after the Alice decision came down, a Federal Circuit panel held a patent ineligible, quoting Flook and adding: "Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible."[42] Judge Bryson's comments, quoted above, may therefore be more predictive of the likely outcomes of future software-related patent cases, including encryption ones, than counsel's assurances during oral argument in the Alice case.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
The entire country should be united against the eastern district of Texas. It’s insane how much money and opportunity those idiots have cost the entire populace.
- api 6y ago
  I wonder why the Eastern District is like this? I wonder if it goes back to the oil industry and what I'm sure was a brutal fight over patents on drilling and refinery technology during the heyday of Texas wildcatting.
  - ABCLAW 6y ago
    >I wonder why the Eastern District is like this? Slow evolutionary pressure on people and institutions. You form a small cottage industry around a court system that doesn't have a ton of work, and therefore can hear your cases quickly; you start to get 'business minded' consultants in the industry that approach clients in other jurisdictions to bring their cases to this court system. That pipeline of work ossifies and generates a lot of value as it's immediately proximal to the transaction; when courts become less predictable/slow down/start putting out bad results, the individuals involved complain. 20 years later, these individuals are now on the bench. They view the system from the perspective of the business they've created. They optimize with the stakeholders they serviced in mind. And so from a few local lawyers trying to hustle, you create an IP nightmare for the entire country. Step by step.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    There's some number-driven analysis that suggest plaintiffs began to file there specifically because plaintiffs used to often win. That seems to have settled down more recently, but the reputation remains. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas-remains-at-the-top-for-patent-lawsuits-5728614.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas...
  - sgc 6y ago
    As far as I recall from reading about this a few years back, it's really mainly this one judge who is perpetuating this bs, although perhaps he has managed to attract a following of judges there. Just search for "Judge Robert Schroeder software verdict" and the cases pop up. Literally one person destroying growth and healthy innovation for so many. Reminds me of other people in positions of power...
joshspankit 6y ago
Apple had to set up Facetime proxy servers because a company had a patent on what was essentially “direct communication between two devices on the internet”. Amazon’s patent on “one-click” buying. Just utter nonsense that any company would be allowed to hold such a patent. Apologies: I’m mobile rn and would otherwise research the actual details, but it really gets me riled up and I had to comment without citations.
- gregsadetsky 6y ago
  Apple Facetime proxy: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-patent-loss-apple-tweaks-facetime-and-logs-500000-complaints/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-pat... Amazon 1-Click: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
  - joshspankit 6y ago
    Awesome, thank you. This also confirms what I could not find: VirnetX owns the “direct connection” patent.
    - tartoran 6y ago
      Is just the idea that is patented or the procedure itself? It seems like pattenting ideas is nothing more than shooting in the dark
- galkk 6y ago
  Personally, I think that "one-click" buying idea and implementation is a brilliant, and deserves to be patented. disc: former Amazon employee
  - joshspankit 6y ago
    What’s unique about this vs the experience of a (hypothetically) rich person walking in to a department store where they have an account and saying “I’ll take that, that, and that.” then walking out and knowing that it will be delivered to their house simply by virtue of the fact that the management know their face and their preferences?
zucker42 6y ago
One thing that needs to happen is clear opposition to the current patent system from technology companies and employees of those companies. Too many people and companies are willing attack "patent trolls" but still defend the patent system in general and even software patents in particular. Apple, for example, received a large settlement for design patents from Samsung[1], apparently including, for example, a patent for the "home screen app grid". My guess is that the leadership in large companies like the fact that the company owns patents, since it's some manifestation of the company's innovative capabilities, without realizing the pernicious effect the patent system has on their ability to innovate. I seriously think the patent system could contribute greatly to the end of worldwide U.S. technological prowess, especially as it seems to me the trend is toward more restriction. Ideally, all tech companies should commit to complete patent non-aggression. And employees should pressure legislators for radical patent reform. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510908/apple-samsung-settle-patent-battle-over-copying-iphone https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510908/apple-samsung-se...
bsder 6y ago
> Of course it's the Eastern District of Texas. I thought that there was a rule change that killed this venue shopping with patent cases? Presumably, this was a case that was already in flight when the rule change went through? Thus the "rejected Apple’s request for a new trial"?
- SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
  I presume you are referring to TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Foods_Group_Brands_LLC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Fo... I’m not a lawyer and don’t really know the implications of this case fully but a cursory reading of that page as a layman seems to support what you are saying (note the “Impact” section of the Wikipedia page).
annoyingnoob 6y ago
I think there is still room for the little guy to build something that can be replicated in reasonable time by a behemoth tech company. That isn't to say that I'm a big fan of patents. The reality is that the world moves much faster than it did when patents first became a thing. I'd advocate for reducing the term of patents to 5 years, down from 20 years. You can get some protection but you're going to need to compete before long.
qppo 6y ago
I don't know how this should be structured but there has to be some principle of "use it or lose it" for IP protections, and some limitations on transference of IP. Obviously there are a lot of negatives to implementing some kind of legal framework around those ideas but something has got to give here, the existence of patent trolls and defensive patent strategies is offensive to the notion that we should encourage innovation.
Spivak 6y ago
It’s always going to be that one district for the same reason basically all businesses are incorporated in Delaware, because their court system has heard a ton of cases on the subject and is a known quantity to everyone involved. It sucks that our patent system sucks but given enough time and case volume any district will turn into the same thing.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
Of course software patents are a fairly recent idea and are not the only class of patents Myopia End an entire system because of one class of patents that probably should never have been created anyway Hmmm Why not just put an end to software patents Then observe how many people complain about the patent system Wonder if many programmers would keep complaining about the patent system if software was not patentable Self-interest
eloff 6y ago
Yes, I think the harm caused by the broken system as it stands is more than the benefits it provides. I'd love to see it abolished. Especially software patents.
kevincox 6y ago
> Billion-dollar verdicts to companies that do not even produce a marketable product are the antithesis of that intention. It depends on how exactly you define "a product". I think that if one could do research and come up with valuable technology that they hope to license. If this is a useful idea then I think they should be able to sue over it even if they don't have a "product". I think it depends more on the patent itself. If the patent is very clever and something that people are unlikely to discover themselves then it makes sense to exist and be enforceable. However if it is something obvious or simple to independently discover than it should not be, irrespective if you are producing a product or not.
- jedberg 6y ago
  > I think it depends more on the patent itself. If the patent is very clever and something that people are unlikely to discover themselves then it makes sense to exist and be enforceable. Not really, not if the holder isn't actively exploiting it. The whole point of patents is to encourage expensive innovation so you don't come up with something and then have it stolen after doing the hard work. But if you did the hard word and aren't exploiting it, then it shouldn't be withheld from society. Let someone else exploit it. If you did the research but can't mass market it, then you should be forced to sell the patent, so that society can benefit from your invention. At the end of the day, the patent system is supposed to benefit society, not the inventor.
vmception 6y ago
As someone whose contributions to society would require much greater licenses and capital than I would ever get, but can alternatively stretch my finances to get a patent because of brief time periods where I notice something that others overlooked, I absolutely understand why people do what they do. I would be a non-practicing entity too.... Why should I get vilified for that? because I will never have the licenses or capital needed to execute that idea, but I still put it in the public sphere - yes, even the broadened vague version that my patent attorney altered my ideas to. The patent attorneys themselves say it is a waste of time and money otherwise. So, what is the argument? That I should dedicate my life to one idea? I mean I know people that think thats their plan if they ever got a viable idea. The rest of us know better and churn out and dismiss ideas every week. What distinction is there, does that make me a patent troll worthy of your ire? Let me level with you, maybe there could be statutory tweaks to limit what purchasers of patents can get from infringement claims (The non practicing entities that buy up patents and find organizations to sue), if the current patent owner is not the named inventor. I agree that if all the incentives are misaligned and no individual entity is acting maliciously and just working with the rights they have, then we should revisit the patent system itself. I agree that judges in patent litigation are doing some strange/corrupt things. I just don't see how any preference is still addressing how to compensate people for ideas.
1ncorrect 6y ago
An idea I’ve been chewing on for a while is reframing how value is derived. Broadly, the predominant mechanisms used today requires resources to be finite in order for their value to be meaningfully quantified. This makes sense for physical and temporal entities, and I see the copyright and patent systems as the mechanisms we came up with to impose artificial scarcity of intrinsically abundant resources. I see this as ultimately rewarding self interested behaviour, which wild gesturing at everything. Rather than remove or replace it, I’d propose building a competing mechanism which values and rewards sharing abundant resources as broadly as possible. To my mind, the value of an idea should be quantified on the breadth and depth of its application, not by how tightly it can be restricted. One candidate would be a neural network akin to PageRank. Ideas would be the neurones (value sinks), and dependency links would be the synapses (value sources). The greater the links in size and number, the greater the value attributed to the ideas. Neurones and links could have ‘owners’ attached to facilitate accounting. There’s also a potential MMT component, where part or all of the generated value is instantiated by a currency issuer.
tooltalk 6y ago
Why? forum shopping is nothing new. The EU has a similar problem with Germany's Dusseldorf court, also popular among patent trolls . That's for instance where Apple sued Samsung to gain a quick preliminary injunction years ago with a doctored image of Samsung tablet[1] -- and Apple did get one -- though all of Apple's claims were overturned later, in large part due to Germany's higher legal standard for infringement. Now, do you believe that universities or medical research institutions that do not produce or manufacture a product themselves shouldn't be able to patent their invention only because they are not in the business of producing themselves? A patent is usually for very specific methods or utility that usually doesn't cover a product in entirety (trade dress is a different matter and deals mostly with overall impression). According to an old estimate from RPX, there are over 250+K active patents in modern mobile devices -- you aren't saying that thousands of other inventors not employed by Apple, Samsung or other modern portable device makers, should have no say in patent business? In case of VirnetX, the key executives at the company are also the inventors of the infringed patents -- Robert Dunham Short, Victor Larson. They were granted while they were working for SIAC and later bought by and re-assigned to VirnetX. [1] "Why Apple Went To Dusseldorf," https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/24/why-apple-went-to-dusseldorf/?sh=5be8f9b75934 https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/24/why-apple...

loceng 6y ago

I've liked the idea of an exponential cost to holding a patent - as in, the cost to maintain it doubles every year. If you're producing a product that's highly successful, profitable, then you'll be able to afford to keep the patent for more years. If you're a patent troll not producing anything, it's going to get expensive quick. Edit to add: I just realized patents are definitely part of the legal industrial complex..

akersten 6y ago
If that could be implemented fairly (scaling costs based on total revenue so small-time businesses aren't locked out of the system, without giving non-producers/patent trolls a free $0 patent) then that seems like a good compromise.
- kortilla 6y ago
  No, that’s a waste. If it’s not worth scaling up the cost, it’s not worth it for society to give the business exclusivity.
erk__ 6y ago
But this will not solve anything else about patents, there will be less reason to license them and such as the amount of time they can run for without any special income through the patent will be much less. Thus giving companies and inventors with a large capital a larger one up on the people that patents are also supposed to protect.
- loceng 6y ago
  So maybe licensing dies off and it will have to be the patent holder who actually executes on creating something with it - is that a pro or a con?
  - chongli 6y ago
    Lots of inventions can be discovered by an individual with access to a lab (for example, at a university) yet cannot realistically be brought to market without billions in capital they may not have access to. Licensing is supposed to fix this by allowing these inventors to profit from their inventions without needing to get into manufacturing.
    - loceng 6y ago
      At what cost to society? Statements for one side or the other without looking at it in balance, as an equation, doesn't allow us to see the full picture and consequences.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tehjoker 6y ago
That changes the game only slightly. Large companies will then be able to hold out over smaller ones far larger reentrenching monopolist behavior. Basically, market mechanisms always favor the rich. You need a fair system not one based on money assuming you even think patents are defensible.
goldcd 6y ago
I like that - but there are other options randomly thinks of something When you file your patent, you add blind optional licensing terms to it. For $x your company can use this. Or for $y you can license each device that uses it. For $z you can buy this (not invalidating any other registered uses). That way when developing something, you can work out whether it's cost efficient to use/avoid/buy - and remove all the risk of litigation and the overhead of lawyers. Patent system is broken - but on one hand don't think cancelling it is the answer, but resent the sink of cash that it sucks in by existing in its current form.
chongli 6y ago
How does this protect an individual inventor who invents (for example) a revolutionary new battery but is unable to secure the enormous capital needed to manufacture it? If the cost to maintain the patent is exponential then the existing battery makers need only wait for the inventor to go broke.
- loceng 6y ago
  Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. I also believe we'll have a better funding model than what financial-VC industrial complex has provided us/allowed, crowdfunding of sorts. I'd also like to ask: isn't that already a problem? How many independent battery tech companies are there, and how many have scaled? Also, maybe different technologies have different rates of patent cost increase - so that way the more expensive to get going sectors for technology dev have a longer runway or grace period. There are lots of ways to make things flexible. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd.
  - chongli 6y ago
    Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. If that's your position then why not abolish patents? I'm a lot more in favour of that. Personally, I think the patent system discourages innovation and encourages rent-seeking. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd. I like this idea at an instinctual level but I worry that it would be open to abuse. Perhaps the abuse of a system like that would be less bad than the patent system we have right now but that remains to be seen. I do know that a lot of people would be generally opposed to it on principle. They would see it as an undeserved handout.
ehvatum 6y ago
Great - so if I’m dependent on a patented product, it’s going to get exponentially more expensive and all that money will be funneled to the patent office. This helps nobody.

bhupy 6y ago

Aren’t software patents already all but abolished?

akersten 6y ago
That would be (wonderful!) news to me. Not in the US, as far as I know, they're alive and well.
monocasa 6y ago
Alice Corp forbids patents for a normal, noncomputer action just taken on a computer (calculate interest, but on a computer!), but allows software patents otherwise.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Do you have any examples of software patents that survived post-Alice? IANAL, but it appears that it's been a difficult question to answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law#What_software_patents_will_survive_Alice_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_...? > What software patents will survive Alice analysis? > The question has been raised, therefore, what kinds of software-related patents will survive the analysis prescribed in Alice and Mayo. The question was considered during the oral argument of the Alice case, although not more than cursorily in the opinion. Counsel for CLS Bank suggested that data compression and data encryption were software technologies that are likely to be patent-eligible because they address "a business problem, a social problem, or a technological problem." The Solicitor General, as amicus curiae, said that it would be difficult to identify a patent-eligible business method unless it involved an improved technology, such as "a process for additional security point-of-sale credit card transactions using particular encryption technology" – "that might well be patent eligible."[40] > At least one commentator has questioned that, however, because encryption largely consists of mathematical operations using modular arithmetic and theorems of Euler.[41] Yet, as the commentator points out, in the Flook case the Supreme Court said: "As the CCPA has explained, 'if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory [patent ineligible].' " Furthermore, in July 2014, just after the Alice decision came down, a Federal Circuit panel held a patent ineligible, quoting Flook and adding: "Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible."[42] Judge Bryson's comments, quoted above, may therefore be more predictive of the likely outcomes of future software-related patent cases, including encryption ones, than counsel's assurances during oral argument in the Alice case.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

The entire country should be united against the eastern district of Texas. It’s insane how much money and opportunity those idiots have cost the entire populace.

api 6y ago
I wonder why the Eastern District is like this? I wonder if it goes back to the oil industry and what I'm sure was a brutal fight over patents on drilling and refinery technology during the heyday of Texas wildcatting.
- ABCLAW 6y ago
  >I wonder why the Eastern District is like this? Slow evolutionary pressure on people and institutions. You form a small cottage industry around a court system that doesn't have a ton of work, and therefore can hear your cases quickly; you start to get 'business minded' consultants in the industry that approach clients in other jurisdictions to bring their cases to this court system. That pipeline of work ossifies and generates a lot of value as it's immediately proximal to the transaction; when courts become less predictable/slow down/start putting out bad results, the individuals involved complain. 20 years later, these individuals are now on the bench. They view the system from the perspective of the business they've created. They optimize with the stakeholders they serviced in mind. And so from a few local lawyers trying to hustle, you create an IP nightmare for the entire country. Step by step.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  There's some number-driven analysis that suggest plaintiffs began to file there specifically because plaintiffs used to often win. That seems to have settled down more recently, but the reputation remains. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas-remains-at-the-top-for-patent-lawsuits-5728614.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas...
- sgc 6y ago
  As far as I recall from reading about this a few years back, it's really mainly this one judge who is perpetuating this bs, although perhaps he has managed to attract a following of judges there. Just search for "Judge Robert Schroeder software verdict" and the cases pop up. Literally one person destroying growth and healthy innovation for so many. Reminds me of other people in positions of power...

joshspankit 6y ago

Apple had to set up Facetime proxy servers because a company had a patent on what was essentially “direct communication between two devices on the internet”. Amazon’s patent on “one-click” buying. Just utter nonsense that any company would be allowed to hold such a patent. Apologies: I’m mobile rn and would otherwise research the actual details, but it really gets me riled up and I had to comment without citations.

gregsadetsky 6y ago
Apple Facetime proxy: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-patent-loss-apple-tweaks-facetime-and-logs-500000-complaints/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-pat... Amazon 1-Click: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
- joshspankit 6y ago
  Awesome, thank you. This also confirms what I could not find: VirnetX owns the “direct connection” patent.
  - tartoran 6y ago
    Is just the idea that is patented or the procedure itself? It seems like pattenting ideas is nothing more than shooting in the dark
galkk 6y ago
Personally, I think that "one-click" buying idea and implementation is a brilliant, and deserves to be patented. disc: former Amazon employee
- joshspankit 6y ago
  What’s unique about this vs the experience of a (hypothetically) rich person walking in to a department store where they have an account and saying “I’ll take that, that, and that.” then walking out and knowing that it will be delivered to their house simply by virtue of the fact that the management know their face and their preferences?

zucker42 6y ago

One thing that needs to happen is clear opposition to the current patent system from technology companies and employees of those companies. Too many people and companies are willing attack "patent trolls" but still defend the patent system in general and even software patents in particular. Apple, for example, received a large settlement for design patents from Samsung[1], apparently including, for example, a patent for the "home screen app grid". My guess is that the leadership in large companies like the fact that the company owns patents, since it's some manifestation of the company's innovative capabilities, without realizing the pernicious effect the patent system has on their ability to innovate. I seriously think the patent system could contribute greatly to the end of worldwide U.S. technological prowess, especially as it seems to me the trend is toward more restriction. Ideally, all tech companies should commit to complete patent non-aggression. And employees should pressure legislators for radical patent reform. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510908/apple-samsung-settle-patent-battle-over-copying-iphone https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510908/apple-samsung-se...

bsder 6y ago

> Of course it's the Eastern District of Texas. I thought that there was a rule change that killed this venue shopping with patent cases? Presumably, this was a case that was already in flight when the rule change went through? Thus the "rejected Apple’s request for a new trial"?

SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
I presume you are referring to TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Foods_Group_Brands_LLC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Fo... I’m not a lawyer and don’t really know the implications of this case fully but a cursory reading of that page as a layman seems to support what you are saying (note the “Impact” section of the Wikipedia page).

annoyingnoob 6y ago

I think there is still room for the little guy to build something that can be replicated in reasonable time by a behemoth tech company. That isn't to say that I'm a big fan of patents. The reality is that the world moves much faster than it did when patents first became a thing. I'd advocate for reducing the term of patents to 5 years, down from 20 years. You can get some protection but you're going to need to compete before long.

qppo 6y ago

I don't know how this should be structured but there has to be some principle of "use it or lose it" for IP protections, and some limitations on transference of IP. Obviously there are a lot of negatives to implementing some kind of legal framework around those ideas but something has got to give here, the existence of patent trolls and defensive patent strategies is offensive to the notion that we should encourage innovation.

Spivak 6y ago

It’s always going to be that one district for the same reason basically all businesses are incorporated in Delaware, because their court system has heard a ton of cases on the subject and is a known quantity to everyone involved. It sucks that our patent system sucks but given enough time and case volume any district will turn into the same thing.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

Of course software patents are a fairly recent idea and are not the only class of patents Myopia End an entire system because of one class of patents that probably should never have been created anyway Hmmm Why not just put an end to software patents Then observe how many people complain about the patent system Wonder if many programmers would keep complaining about the patent system if software was not patentable Self-interest

eloff 6y ago

Yes, I think the harm caused by the broken system as it stands is more than the benefits it provides. I'd love to see it abolished. Especially software patents.

kevincox 6y ago

> Billion-dollar verdicts to companies that do not even produce a marketable product are the antithesis of that intention. It depends on how exactly you define "a product". I think that if one could do research and come up with valuable technology that they hope to license. If this is a useful idea then I think they should be able to sue over it even if they don't have a "product". I think it depends more on the patent itself. If the patent is very clever and something that people are unlikely to discover themselves then it makes sense to exist and be enforceable. However if it is something obvious or simple to independently discover than it should not be, irrespective if you are producing a product or not.

jedberg 6y ago
> I think it depends more on the patent itself. If the patent is very clever and something that people are unlikely to discover themselves then it makes sense to exist and be enforceable. Not really, not if the holder isn't actively exploiting it. The whole point of patents is to encourage expensive innovation so you don't come up with something and then have it stolen after doing the hard work. But if you did the hard word and aren't exploiting it, then it shouldn't be withheld from society. Let someone else exploit it. If you did the research but can't mass market it, then you should be forced to sell the patent, so that society can benefit from your invention. At the end of the day, the patent system is supposed to benefit society, not the inventor.

vmception 6y ago

As someone whose contributions to society would require much greater licenses and capital than I would ever get, but can alternatively stretch my finances to get a patent because of brief time periods where I notice something that others overlooked, I absolutely understand why people do what they do. I would be a non-practicing entity too.... Why should I get vilified for that? because I will never have the licenses or capital needed to execute that idea, but I still put it in the public sphere - yes, even the broadened vague version that my patent attorney altered my ideas to. The patent attorneys themselves say it is a waste of time and money otherwise. So, what is the argument? That I should dedicate my life to one idea? I mean I know people that think thats their plan if they ever got a viable idea. The rest of us know better and churn out and dismiss ideas every week. What distinction is there, does that make me a patent troll worthy of your ire? Let me level with you, maybe there could be statutory tweaks to limit what purchasers of patents can get from infringement claims (The non practicing entities that buy up patents and find organizations to sue), if the current patent owner is not the named inventor. I agree that if all the incentives are misaligned and no individual entity is acting maliciously and just working with the rights they have, then we should revisit the patent system itself. I agree that judges in patent litigation are doing some strange/corrupt things. I just don't see how any preference is still addressing how to compensate people for ideas.

1ncorrect 6y ago

An idea I’ve been chewing on for a while is reframing how value is derived. Broadly, the predominant mechanisms used today requires resources to be finite in order for their value to be meaningfully quantified. This makes sense for physical and temporal entities, and I see the copyright and patent systems as the mechanisms we came up with to impose artificial scarcity of intrinsically abundant resources. I see this as ultimately rewarding self interested behaviour, which wild gesturing at everything. Rather than remove or replace it, I’d propose building a competing mechanism which values and rewards sharing abundant resources as broadly as possible. To my mind, the value of an idea should be quantified on the breadth and depth of its application, not by how tightly it can be restricted. One candidate would be a neural network akin to PageRank. Ideas would be the neurones (value sinks), and dependency links would be the synapses (value sources). The greater the links in size and number, the greater the value attributed to the ideas. Neurones and links could have ‘owners’ attached to facilitate accounting. There’s also a potential MMT component, where part or all of the generated value is instantiated by a currency issuer.

tooltalk 6y ago

Why? forum shopping is nothing new. The EU has a similar problem with Germany's Dusseldorf court, also popular among patent trolls . That's for instance where Apple sued Samsung to gain a quick preliminary injunction years ago with a doctored image of Samsung tablet[1] -- and Apple did get one -- though all of Apple's claims were overturned later, in large part due to Germany's higher legal standard for infringement. Now, do you believe that universities or medical research institutions that do not produce or manufacture a product themselves shouldn't be able to patent their invention only because they are not in the business of producing themselves? A patent is usually for very specific methods or utility that usually doesn't cover a product in entirety (trade dress is a different matter and deals mostly with overall impression). According to an old estimate from RPX, there are over 250+K active patents in modern mobile devices -- you aren't saying that thousands of other inventors not employed by Apple, Samsung or other modern portable device makers, should have no say in patent business? In case of VirnetX, the key executives at the company are also the inventors of the infringed patents -- Robert Dunham Short, Victor Larson. They were granted while they were working for SIAC and later bought by and re-assigned to VirnetX. [1] "Why Apple Went To Dusseldorf," https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/24/why-apple-went-to-dusseldorf/?sh=5be8f9b75934 https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/24/why-apple...