3 ms·

I've said it before, but if you support the patent system, but say patent trolls should be abolished you are essentially saying that patents are only for big co

I've said it before, but if you support the patent system, but say patent trolls should be abolished you are essentially saying that patents are only for big corporations to protect their turf from new incomers. One argument is often patent trolls don't make anything themselves. So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company for manufacturing it, should not be able to use patents? Also if they would actually make a company to build it and then try to go after a big player who infringes on their patent, if the big player doesn't want to pay the big player would most certainly win. They would just bring out lots of their patents that the small player supposedly infringes and thus make the suit to expensive to win. Essentially, if being an actual "builder" becomes a requirement, only big players will profit, because they have the pockets to kill off any small competitor through costs. The other argument is patents are to bogus/general. Which is true, but what is the alternative, make the patent investigation even more elaborate and costly (it already is very expensive), so again only the big players gain. The problems people point to with patent trolls, are problems inherent in the patent system. Patent trolls are just a convenient boogey man to blame so the big players can keep a system that disproportionately be if its them. There is virtually no benifit to the patent system overall and it should be abolished.

jdmichal 5y ago
> So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company for manufacturing it, should not be able to use patents? If it's "truly groundbreaking", how are so many other entities which are being sued blindly stumbling into the exact same thing? That seems like a loose definition of the "obviousness" part of patent invalidation to me. If an inventor doesn't want to manufacturer it, they're welcome to sell licenses or even the whole patent. That should mean going out and actually selling the damn thing. Make a case for its value to buyers, which should be easy for anything "truly groundbreaking", right? But to just patent something, do absolutely nothing, then circle back around 15 years later and sue everything that might be infringing? That's the (potential strawman) situation that people are actually reacting to. I would not have any issue if these patents or licenses to them were actively being marketed and sold.
- cglace 5y ago
  Maybe they spent billions to stumble into it.
hrishi 5y ago
Agreed about size when it comes to suing for patent rights. However, the problem with patent trolls is the same as copyright trolls: they send out unimaginable amounts of spurious notifications in the hope that some will pay. The spam really is the problem here. I have no problem with a company - any company - making a serious allegation against someone else using IP they hold. They deserve to be heard. Being able to send out 1000 of these in a day without consequence is a big problem. How about something like an exponential ratchet or cool down period for losing patent lawsuits? Maybe the cost to file (or damages if you lose) doubles after every 10th lawsuit you lose against 10 different entities, for a year.
mindslight 5y ago
I generally agree that patent trolls are just particularly good at highlighting general problems with the patent system itself. However, one real difference is that it seems large companies aren't particularly looking to enforce patents like this one. If this patent were in the hands of IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc, would they actually be suing competitors (the ones that hadn't signed on to a non-aggression agreement), or would they consider it junk for purely defensive purposes? Given that small businesses generally aren't receiving such shakedown letters from large corporations, I'm guessing the latter. Large companies have determined that it's not in their best interest to pursue such action. While for small non-practicing entities a few junk patents are all they have, and so they might as well try fooling some people.
burnished 5y ago
"So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company for manufacturing it, should not be able to use patents?" Correct. A patent is for protecting your profits after you invent something, right? So if you aren't making anything then all you are doing is fruitlessly locking up some novel insight for a period of time. You also aren't experiencing a damage to your zero profit. Worse, what we are seeing is questionably novel patents being used years after their time to browbeat people that actually do things and actually make things. I would not weep if we were to abolish patent laws. I've been told they are there to help and support inventors but I've seen little evidence that this is the case.
smaudet 5y ago
Hmm, I mostly agree that patents should be abolished, at least for software systems... But I'd like to examine this concept as patent trolls as heroes for the little guy - are there any actual examples of this, at least in the domain this usually is found (software)? The only example I can think of is the inventor, who does indeed come up with concepts which he may only journal - ironically it used to be there was provision for this, having prior art on the subject invalidates the patent, even if only in concept. The difference being that this precludes the inventor from being sued for having invented, versus the first to file as it is now, which is what creates the whole pyramid of perverse incentives in my view. Patent trolls typically have done no work or have no prior art, subsisting solely on "purchasing" invented arts - i.e. they have done no previous work. As you say, this mainly creates a system where the 'little guy' just loses out, or people who have done nothing seek to swindle. You can have a system which protects concepts only if you also allow in the system that it is a system only to be used in an actual defensive situation, such as an inventor with an idea being protected from a large company trying to sue for so called copying (under copyright law) Of course you would need to create a second classification at present, i.e. if you actually create a widget then you can only claim a limited right to exactly thay widget and nothing else - just the hint if non specificity would mean that the 'patent' was invalid. And a broader class of patent which would be claimed only in defense, i.e. public or private prior art. What is broken seems to be the implementation (heh) not the concept of patents.

jdmichal 5y ago

> So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company for manufacturing it, should not be able to use patents? If it's "truly groundbreaking", how are so many other entities which are being sued blindly stumbling into the exact same thing? That seems like a loose definition of the "obviousness" part of patent invalidation to me. If an inventor doesn't want to manufacturer it, they're welcome to sell licenses or even the whole patent. That should mean going out and actually selling the damn thing. Make a case for its value to buyers, which should be easy for anything "truly groundbreaking", right? But to just patent something, do absolutely nothing, then circle back around 15 years later and sue everything that might be infringing? That's the (potential strawman) situation that people are actually reacting to. I would not have any issue if these patents or licenses to them were actively being marketed and sold.

cglace 5y ago
Maybe they spent billions to stumble into it.

hrishi 5y ago

Agreed about size when it comes to suing for patent rights. However, the problem with patent trolls is the same as copyright trolls: they send out unimaginable amounts of spurious notifications in the hope that some will pay. The spam really is the problem here. I have no problem with a company - any company - making a serious allegation against someone else using IP they hold. They deserve to be heard. Being able to send out 1000 of these in a day without consequence is a big problem. How about something like an exponential ratchet or cool down period for losing patent lawsuits? Maybe the cost to file (or damages if you lose) doubles after every 10th lawsuit you lose against 10 different entities, for a year.

mindslight 5y ago

I generally agree that patent trolls are just particularly good at highlighting general problems with the patent system itself. However, one real difference is that it seems large companies aren't particularly looking to enforce patents like this one. If this patent were in the hands of IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc, would they actually be suing competitors (the ones that hadn't signed on to a non-aggression agreement), or would they consider it junk for purely defensive purposes? Given that small businesses generally aren't receiving such shakedown letters from large corporations, I'm guessing the latter. Large companies have determined that it's not in their best interest to pursue such action. While for small non-practicing entities a few junk patents are all they have, and so they might as well try fooling some people.

burnished 5y ago

"So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company for manufacturing it, should not be able to use patents?" Correct. A patent is for protecting your profits after you invent something, right? So if you aren't making anything then all you are doing is fruitlessly locking up some novel insight for a period of time. You also aren't experiencing a damage to your zero profit. Worse, what we are seeing is questionably novel patents being used years after their time to browbeat people that actually do things and actually make things. I would not weep if we were to abolish patent laws. I've been told they are there to help and support inventors but I've seen little evidence that this is the case.

smaudet 5y ago

Hmm, I mostly agree that patents should be abolished, at least for software systems... But I'd like to examine this concept as patent trolls as heroes for the little guy - are there any actual examples of this, at least in the domain this usually is found (software)? The only example I can think of is the inventor, who does indeed come up with concepts which he may only journal - ironically it used to be there was provision for this, having prior art on the subject invalidates the patent, even if only in concept. The difference being that this precludes the inventor from being sued for having invented, versus the first to file as it is now, which is what creates the whole pyramid of perverse incentives in my view. Patent trolls typically have done no work or have no prior art, subsisting solely on "purchasing" invented arts - i.e. they have done no previous work. As you say, this mainly creates a system where the 'little guy' just loses out, or people who have done nothing seek to swindle. You can have a system which protects concepts only if you also allow in the system that it is a system only to be used in an actual defensive situation, such as an inventor with an idea being protected from a large company trying to sue for so called copying (under copyright law) Of course you would need to create a second classification at present, i.e. if you actually create a widget then you can only claim a limited right to exactly thay widget and nothing else - just the hint if non specificity would mean that the 'patent' was invalid. And a broader class of patent which would be claimed only in defense, i.e. public or private prior art. What is broken seems to be the implementation (heh) not the concept of patents.