4 ms·

How would this look different from someone holding a perfectly valid patent that Apple was using without licensing it? (I have no idea as to whether this one i

How would this look different from someone holding a perfectly valid patent that Apple was using without licensing it? (I have no idea as to whether this one is valid or not, I'm as against patent trolls suing people with bogus patents as anyone else) Surely the patent IS the innovation, and a perfectly valid way to use that innovation is to license it to larger companies.

_Understated_ 5y ago
It should be fairly trivial for a judge to ascertain whether someone owns a patent to use legitimately (tech company owning a tech patent for example, whether they are currently using it, invented it, bought it etc.) or whether they are a bunch of lawyers extorting money from legit companies by (ab)using the legal system.
mjburgess 5y ago
The patent holder would be a company operating in the same market as apple, having a viable market for products somewhat related to the patents they hold. Eg., an electronics company. If they can't meet that condition, sell the patent to a company who can. They'll actually innovate with it (ie., use the licence feeds to fund something useful).
- MikeDelta 5y ago
  This is a great condition that would invalidate all patent-trolls.
- salawat 5y ago
  This means all patents will eventually flow to a single holder over time (the one most able to offer a patent buyout pipeline). This is a terrible idea without strong anti-trust and forced break-up and anti-consolidation enforcement. I hate patent trolls too, but if your two outcomes are A) all you'll get is a bunch of umbrella companies coupling a legal firm to a modest widget mill. This is a great way to proliferate e-trash though and B ) The leviathan in town sets up a window to buy out every patent they can to save no long term litigation costs... Maybe your system is flawed to begin with.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  I don't see how "operating in the same field" or even "somewhat related" can be determined or valid. Tons of technology is used in fields other than where it originated. Probably a lawyer didn't legitimately invent an important new chemistry for a glue, but a baker could, or a landscaper, etc. And math and process/logistics can come from anyone anywhere at any time, even a lawyer. This may be hard to define and be correct and fair about it. Then again... in that case they'd be the originator which could be a special status vs purchased as an asset. Maybe not so hard to manage after all.

_Understated_ 5y ago

It should be fairly trivial for a judge to ascertain whether someone owns a patent to use legitimately (tech company owning a tech patent for example, whether they are currently using it, invented it, bought it etc.) or whether they are a bunch of lawyers extorting money from legit companies by (ab)using the legal system.

mjburgess 5y ago

The patent holder would be a company operating in the same market as apple, having a viable market for products somewhat related to the patents they hold. Eg., an electronics company. If they can't meet that condition, sell the patent to a company who can. They'll actually innovate with it (ie., use the licence feeds to fund something useful).

MikeDelta 5y ago
This is a great condition that would invalidate all patent-trolls.
salawat 5y ago
This means all patents will eventually flow to a single holder over time (the one most able to offer a patent buyout pipeline). This is a terrible idea without strong anti-trust and forced break-up and anti-consolidation enforcement. I hate patent trolls too, but if your two outcomes are A) all you'll get is a bunch of umbrella companies coupling a legal firm to a modest widget mill. This is a great way to proliferate e-trash though and B ) The leviathan in town sets up a window to buy out every patent they can to save no long term litigation costs... Maybe your system is flawed to begin with.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
I don't see how "operating in the same field" or even "somewhat related" can be determined or valid. Tons of technology is used in fields other than where it originated. Probably a lawyer didn't legitimately invent an important new chemistry for a glue, but a baker could, or a landscaper, etc. And math and process/logistics can come from anyone anywhere at any time, even a lawyer. This may be hard to define and be correct and fair about it. Then again... in that case they'd be the originator which could be a special status vs purchased as an asset. Maybe not so hard to manage after all.