6 ms·

The level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course Ronald

by Steko 15y ago

The level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course Ronald Reagan singlehandedly killed communism and minorities caused the housing crisis but did you know that the entire patent and copyright system could be removed tomorrow and everything would be just hunky dory? Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted. The solution is not to abolish patents, the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO and/or change the system so that rubber stamping applications with approved is not incentivized. You could fund it by taxing the patents themselves. Think your patent is worth $10 million? Ok, you owe the USPTO $100K and the legal damages you can claim from violation of that patent are capped at $10 million (this allows the competition to effectively public domain patents by buying them out).

z0r 15y ago
Taxing a patent directly in the way you suggest is a terrible idea. Then smaller innovators who might benefit from patent protection are priced out by larger players directly! The value of the patent becomes proportional to the wealth of the patent holder, not the value of the innovation being protected.
- dpatru 15y ago
  He's not saying that small inventors couldn't profit. Just that their profits as a result of monopoly rights should be capped at a dollar amount. Patent rights are already capped in time: 20 years from the time of filing. After that, inventors no longer have the monopoly. The problem is that in high-tech fields, 20 years is too long. We don't want individual inventors to hold back progress for 20 years. Capping returns seems like a good solution. Inventors are still compensated, but within reason.
  - chc 15y ago
    He isn't saying that, but it would be the result of his suggestion. It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money, since the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand. The cost of getting a patent is already a hardship on non-corporate inventors. They won't be able to afford a lot on top of that — the ROI would just not be there. If Joe Inventor patents his technique for creating geese that lay golden eggs but can only afford to pay $5000 on top of the filing fees, then I can rip it off and end up having to pay him fractional pennies out of every dollar I make off my infringement.
    - Steko 15y ago
      "It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money" Much less so then the current system. Much of the uncertainty and potential liability for small businesses would disappear. Unless your small business is a patent troll but then that's a feature not a bug. "the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand." This is both false (you are bounded by the cash on hand and the value of things you can use as collateral for loans or equity) and no different then the current case where you are bounded in the number of lawyer hours you can afford. If I find an enormous diamond that is worth $20 million dollars but it costs more to have it properly appraised and marketed then I have cash on hand, trust me I will raise that money and sell it near full market price. I may not get 100% of the proceeds but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the apprisal system is incredibly biased against people that find diamonds.
- rubinelli 15y ago
  Small innovators don't have the legal muscle to play hardball with large players anyway. More small companies died after getting distracted with a patent lawsuit than were saved by one.
- Steko 15y ago
  Smaller innovators could be protected in several ways. First, you could defer any taxation for a couple years. That allows time for the inventor to find buyers or acquire (via loans, insurance, etc.) funding to handle the tax. Second, you can break up the value and taxes into smaller periods. Like 3 or 5 year periods. Third, the actual % taken of the value of the patent can scale progressively. et cetera I think you're missing the strengths of what I'm proposing: (1) it kills the patent troll business model and massively decreases potential liability for small businesses. (2) it fully staffs and funds the understaffed and underfunded USPTO. (3) it legitimately protects and rewards innovation.
dantheman 15y ago
The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho. A case can be made that in most cases they are used by entrenched players against the small upstart. Fact: We can't assume we'll ever get an ideal system and must choose among flawed ones. So we must do an analysis at that level and not some sort of comparison among ideals.
- Steko 15y ago
  "The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law." How do movies and tv work without IP? The answer is obvious -- 90% of tv is gone, hope you like community access shows. Movies would be shown in locked down theaters only -- no dvds, no streaming services. Games in locked down arcades only.
- cube13 15y ago
  >The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho. Except those laws are what allows the entire software industry(both closed source and FOSS). Without the protections of IP, none of the copyleft licenses(either Apache or GPL) have any power. Neither does any closed source license. So no, intellectual property by itself isn't bad. It's absolutely required. EDIT: Not sure why this is downvoted. The GPL itself relies on copyright powers to have any force. Remove copyright, the GPL loses all it's power. Any software license becomes useless, too.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    Yeah. There's a big difference between patents and copyrights. It's clear to me copyright is necessary for creative works - you couldn't make a living as a writer, musician, or software company if other people could just copy your finished work. But patents are a different beast. From what I can tell they've become an impediment to progress instead of an aid.
eevilspock 15y ago
"the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO" This is categorically impossible for software patents. We will never have enough patent examiners with the necessary expertise much less time to make valid decisions on software patent applications. Look at the backlog. Any one on this board who designs software solutions and has ever read a patent knows this is true. Thus it doesn't matter whether you like the idea of software patents in theory, in practice it is simply not a viable mechanism, period.
- Steko 15y ago
  Thanks for stating your contested opinion/conclusion as categorically fact that we all know as true, period. Your argument basically amounts to "well the dog pooped on the carpet, that's what dogs do, what can we do it about it except get rid of the dog?" Real world: people respond to incentives. (1) Currently the patent troll model is heavily incentivized. (2) Currently, there's a huge incentive to file obvious and frivolous patent applications. (3) Currently the USPTO is underfunded. Obvious solutions... (1) Disincentivize the patent troll model. You can do this by limiting the amount they can recoup from litigation or by increasing their costs. I'm suggesting both. (2) Disincentivize obvious and frivolous patent applications. Obvious solutions are to stop approving these and to have some additional penalties for failed applications (esp. repeat offenders). I'd suggest both. (3) Increase funding to the USPTO. You could do this with money from income taxes and the general budget (laff) but I'm suggesting using the highly lucrative patents themselves to finance the office.
  - eevilspock 15y ago
    Says the guy who says very categorically, "Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted." No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy. (1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents. (2) You beg the question. (3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.

by Steko 15y ago

z0r 15y ago

Taxing a patent directly in the way you suggest is a terrible idea. Then smaller innovators who might benefit from patent protection are priced out by larger players directly! The value of the patent becomes proportional to the wealth of the patent holder, not the value of the innovation being protected.

dpatru 15y ago
He's not saying that small inventors couldn't profit. Just that their profits as a result of monopoly rights should be capped at a dollar amount. Patent rights are already capped in time: 20 years from the time of filing. After that, inventors no longer have the monopoly. The problem is that in high-tech fields, 20 years is too long. We don't want individual inventors to hold back progress for 20 years. Capping returns seems like a good solution. Inventors are still compensated, but within reason.
- chc 15y ago
  He isn't saying that, but it would be the result of his suggestion. It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money, since the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand. The cost of getting a patent is already a hardship on non-corporate inventors. They won't be able to afford a lot on top of that — the ROI would just not be there. If Joe Inventor patents his technique for creating geese that lay golden eggs but can only afford to pay $5000 on top of the filing fees, then I can rip it off and end up having to pay him fractional pennies out of every dollar I make off my infringement.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money" Much less so then the current system. Much of the uncertainty and potential liability for small businesses would disappear. Unless your small business is a patent troll but then that's a feature not a bug. "the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand." This is both false (you are bounded by the cash on hand and the value of things you can use as collateral for loans or equity) and no different then the current case where you are bounded in the number of lawyer hours you can afford. If I find an enormous diamond that is worth $20 million dollars but it costs more to have it properly appraised and marketed then I have cash on hand, trust me I will raise that money and sell it near full market price. I may not get 100% of the proceeds but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the apprisal system is incredibly biased against people that find diamonds.
rubinelli 15y ago
Small innovators don't have the legal muscle to play hardball with large players anyway. More small companies died after getting distracted with a patent lawsuit than were saved by one.
Steko 15y ago
Smaller innovators could be protected in several ways. First, you could defer any taxation for a couple years. That allows time for the inventor to find buyers or acquire (via loans, insurance, etc.) funding to handle the tax. Second, you can break up the value and taxes into smaller periods. Like 3 or 5 year periods. Third, the actual % taken of the value of the patent can scale progressively. et cetera I think you're missing the strengths of what I'm proposing: (1) it kills the patent troll business model and massively decreases potential liability for small businesses. (2) it fully staffs and funds the understaffed and underfunded USPTO. (3) it legitimately protects and rewards innovation.

dantheman 15y ago

The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho. A case can be made that in most cases they are used by entrenched players against the small upstart. Fact: We can't assume we'll ever get an ideal system and must choose among flawed ones. So we must do an analysis at that level and not some sort of comparison among ideals.

Steko 15y ago
"The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law." How do movies and tv work without IP? The answer is obvious -- 90% of tv is gone, hope you like community access shows. Movies would be shown in locked down theaters only -- no dvds, no streaming services. Games in locked down arcades only.
cube13 15y ago
>The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho. Except those laws are what allows the entire software industry(both closed source and FOSS). Without the protections of IP, none of the copyleft licenses(either Apache or GPL) have any power. Neither does any closed source license. So no, intellectual property by itself isn't bad. It's absolutely required. EDIT: Not sure why this is downvoted. The GPL itself relies on copyright powers to have any force. Remove copyright, the GPL loses all it's power. Any software license becomes useless, too.
- tsotha 15y ago
  Yeah. There's a big difference between patents and copyrights. It's clear to me copyright is necessary for creative works - you couldn't make a living as a writer, musician, or software company if other people could just copy your finished work. But patents are a different beast. From what I can tell they've become an impediment to progress instead of an aid.

eevilspock 15y ago

"the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO" This is categorically impossible for software patents. We will never have enough patent examiners with the necessary expertise much less time to make valid decisions on software patent applications. Look at the backlog. Any one on this board who designs software solutions and has ever read a patent knows this is true. Thus it doesn't matter whether you like the idea of software patents in theory, in practice it is simply not a viable mechanism, period.

Steko 15y ago
Thanks for stating your contested opinion/conclusion as categorically fact that we all know as true, period. Your argument basically amounts to "well the dog pooped on the carpet, that's what dogs do, what can we do it about it except get rid of the dog?" Real world: people respond to incentives. (1) Currently the patent troll model is heavily incentivized. (2) Currently, there's a huge incentive to file obvious and frivolous patent applications. (3) Currently the USPTO is underfunded. Obvious solutions... (1) Disincentivize the patent troll model. You can do this by limiting the amount they can recoup from litigation or by increasing their costs. I'm suggesting both. (2) Disincentivize obvious and frivolous patent applications. Obvious solutions are to stop approving these and to have some additional penalties for failed applications (esp. repeat offenders). I'd suggest both. (3) Increase funding to the USPTO. You could do this with money from income taxes and the general budget (laff) but I'm suggesting using the highly lucrative patents themselves to finance the office.
- eevilspock 15y ago
  Says the guy who says very categorically, "Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted." No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy. (1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents. (2) You beg the question. (3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.