3 ms·

A parasite resulting from society's outdated patent laws, with a simple fix. 1. Only make practicing entities eligible for IP damages. 2. Reduce the duration

A parasite resulting from society's outdated patent laws, with a simple fix. 1. Only make practicing entities eligible for IP damages. 2. Reduce the duration of all patents by 50%.

MegaButts 6y ago
You should read the article. The patents are from 1981 (and to a lesser extent 1995). It explains how they get around the typical patent limitations which are usually not more than 20 years.
- lend000 6y ago
  The solution is the same. Submarine patents shouldn't exist.
  - MegaButts 6y ago
    I agree, but they stopped making them 25 years ago. This company is taking advantage of legacy laws. You couldn't replicate this business model today because it's already been outlawed.
    - cmeacham98 6y ago
      Congress should just invalidate all submarine patents, full stop. When the 13th amendment was passed slave owners didn't get to "grandfather in" their existing slaves. Extreme example, but the point is sometimes old laws are so harmful to society we should not allow people to continue abusing them.
      - defaultname 6y ago
        You're absolutely right, however let's note that no rational person would conclude that Apple actually infringed on any invention of this patent troll. This case should have gone nowhere, and the plaintiffs should have been sent home with a bill for the defense's legal counsel. I mentioned in another comment about the Eastern District of Texas which became effectively a giant grift operation (though a recent SC case should put a damper on it). Plaintiffs sought it because they knew the jury pool would also be people who benefit from this extraordinarily corrupt, banana republic extortion racket. It was effectively like a forgettable little drive-through town that setup speed traps and decided to fund the municipality on the backs of outsiders. There are some people who would counter this. For instance one paper notes that of jury trials, 73% of East Texas cases choose for the plaintiff, versus 68% elsewhere, "proving" that it isn't that much of a difference. The problem with this reasoning, however, is that East Texas was specifically where the cases with no merit went. It was overloaded with patent trolls and NPEs. Actual, credible cases were seldom tried in East Texas. Every judgment of that district should be vacated.
        DangitBobby 6y ago
        Yes, just reading a couple of paragraphs of this story reveals the obvious corruption, incompetence, or both, of the court room this took place in.
        alisonkisk 6y ago
        It's ironic to use the xenophobic slur "banana republic" to describe a US Federal Court in Texas.
        kenneth 6y ago
        No idea when banana republic became a "xenophobic slur." It's a pretty well understood term describing a country (or sub-jurisdiction in this example) that is so dependent on a foreign-controlled company or industry that it can be bossed around by that industry. Pretty ridiculous how the most benign of terms all become slurs in the woke era.
        daniel-cussen 6y ago
        The banana republics were originally actual countries south of USA (like Colombia) that were actually manipulated by banana producing multinationals.
        gambiting 6y ago
        Just don't let it become acceptable. People will try and push and make it sound like it should be obvious that banana republic(and many others) is xenophobic, but just don't accept it, fight it, point out that it's a stupid connection to make and trying to shame others for it is not what modern society should be doing.
        djohnston 6y ago
        That's not what xenophobic means.
      - alisonkisk 6y ago
        You might want to look up the etymology of "grandfather clause", friend.
        macintux 6y ago
        TIL, thanks. It's regrettable we're still fighting that war.
dasudasu 6y ago
So you're a small startup with no sales trying to build a prototype, but you patented your idea so that you get a priority date, and also because a patent is the first thing investors want to see to know that your idea won't just be copied by anyone else. Now you just get run over by the big boys? Now you're in the same situation, but you sell your patent to another entity because you can't afford yourself to sue the big boys for damage. You or anyone else you delegate should have no recourse at all?
- lend000 6y ago
  I'd support a short (relative to the patent term) grace period to become a practicing entity. If you create a reduction to practice, you are a practicing entity. If you file a patent but can't actually build the thing (or maybe it can't be built) -- this happens all too often, by the way -- then I don't see why they should hold on to their failed patent, only for it to be scooped up by some patent troll for pennies on the dollar and eventually clog our legal system and extract fees from real value producers. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution is what matters. IP has value and should be incentivized, but right now, the legal system weighs the legal application for an idea far too heavily, and so alas, patent trolls exist.
  - dasudasu 6y ago
    Execution can depend a lot on the amount of capital you have available in the first place. Imagine a startup trying to develop a very expensive solid state LIDAR. They don't have the millions in funds to go to a fab and go into production. They do shitty prototypes. But they get some attention and are able to sell/license their patents. In this alternative universe where patent law is much weaker: 1. The big corp can choose to ignore you and not buy or license the patents. Their defense will be that you are a non-practising entity since you have no revenues or customers. There is a grace period? They make the bet that they can just wait you out. 2. You never patent the idea in the first place. There is no point as there is no way for you to profit from the idea. The world never get access to the tech.
    - lend000 6y ago

A parasite resulting from society's outdated patent laws, with a simple fix. 1. Only make practicing entities eligible for IP damages. 2. Reduce the duration of all patents by 50%.

MegaButts 6y ago

You should read the article. The patents are from 1981 (and to a lesser extent 1995). It explains how they get around the typical patent limitations which are usually not more than 20 years.

lend000 6y ago
The solution is the same. Submarine patents shouldn't exist.
- MegaButts 6y ago
  I agree, but they stopped making them 25 years ago. This company is taking advantage of legacy laws. You couldn't replicate this business model today because it's already been outlawed.
  - cmeacham98 6y ago
    Congress should just invalidate all submarine patents, full stop. When the 13th amendment was passed slave owners didn't get to "grandfather in" their existing slaves. Extreme example, but the point is sometimes old laws are so harmful to society we should not allow people to continue abusing them.
    - defaultname 6y ago
      You're absolutely right, however let's note that no rational person would conclude that Apple actually infringed on any invention of this patent troll. This case should have gone nowhere, and the plaintiffs should have been sent home with a bill for the defense's legal counsel. I mentioned in another comment about the Eastern District of Texas which became effectively a giant grift operation (though a recent SC case should put a damper on it). Plaintiffs sought it because they knew the jury pool would also be people who benefit from this extraordinarily corrupt, banana republic extortion racket. It was effectively like a forgettable little drive-through town that setup speed traps and decided to fund the municipality on the backs of outsiders. There are some people who would counter this. For instance one paper notes that of jury trials, 73% of East Texas cases choose for the plaintiff, versus 68% elsewhere, "proving" that it isn't that much of a difference. The problem with this reasoning, however, is that East Texas was specifically where the cases with no merit went. It was overloaded with patent trolls and NPEs. Actual, credible cases were seldom tried in East Texas. Every judgment of that district should be vacated.
      - DangitBobby 6y ago
        Yes, just reading a couple of paragraphs of this story reveals the obvious corruption, incompetence, or both, of the court room this took place in.
      - alisonkisk 6y ago
        It's ironic to use the xenophobic slur "banana republic" to describe a US Federal Court in Texas.
        kenneth 6y ago
        No idea when banana republic became a "xenophobic slur." It's a pretty well understood term describing a country (or sub-jurisdiction in this example) that is so dependent on a foreign-controlled company or industry that it can be bossed around by that industry. Pretty ridiculous how the most benign of terms all become slurs in the woke era.
        daniel-cussen 6y ago
        The banana republics were originally actual countries south of USA (like Colombia) that were actually manipulated by banana producing multinationals.
        gambiting 6y ago
        Just don't let it become acceptable. People will try and push and make it sound like it should be obvious that banana republic(and many others) is xenophobic, but just don't accept it, fight it, point out that it's a stupid connection to make and trying to shame others for it is not what modern society should be doing.
        djohnston 6y ago
        That's not what xenophobic means.
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      You might want to look up the etymology of "grandfather clause", friend.
      - macintux 6y ago
        TIL, thanks. It's regrettable we're still fighting that war.

dasudasu 6y ago

So you're a small startup with no sales trying to build a prototype, but you patented your idea so that you get a priority date, and also because a patent is the first thing investors want to see to know that your idea won't just be copied by anyone else. Now you just get run over by the big boys? Now you're in the same situation, but you sell your patent to another entity because you can't afford yourself to sue the big boys for damage. You or anyone else you delegate should have no recourse at all?

lend000 6y ago
I'd support a short (relative to the patent term) grace period to become a practicing entity. If you create a reduction to practice, you are a practicing entity. If you file a patent but can't actually build the thing (or maybe it can't be built) -- this happens all too often, by the way -- then I don't see why they should hold on to their failed patent, only for it to be scooped up by some patent troll for pennies on the dollar and eventually clog our legal system and extract fees from real value producers. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution is what matters. IP has value and should be incentivized, but right now, the legal system weighs the legal application for an idea far too heavily, and so alas, patent trolls exist.
- dasudasu 6y ago
  Execution can depend a lot on the amount of capital you have available in the first place. Imagine a startup trying to develop a very expensive solid state LIDAR. They don't have the millions in funds to go to a fab and go into production. They do shitty prototypes. But they get some attention and are able to sell/license their patents. In this alternative universe where patent law is much weaker: 1. The big corp can choose to ignore you and not buy or license the patents. Their defense will be that you are a non-practising entity since you have no revenues or customers. There is a grace period? They make the bet that they can just wait you out. 2. You never patent the idea in the first place. There is no point as there is no way for you to profit from the idea. The world never get access to the tech.
  - lend000 6y ago