4 ms·

No, the quote literally says “Optis makes no products” (nor do they plan to, ever). If you’re a garage inventor you either are making something or have ambitio

by jmuguy 5y ago

No, the quote literally says “Optis makes no products” (nor do they plan to, ever). If you’re a garage inventor you either are making something or have ambitions to. That’s the difference and Apple is 100% correct in this instance - companies like Optis are parasites and this particular district of Texas enables them, it’s their own factory town.

tooltalk 5y ago
>> “Optis makes no products” Sure, that flawed argument has some appeal in simple, unitary products made for caveman in the prehistoric age. According to RPX, it's estimated there are over 250,000+ active patents with thousands of unique inventors in any given modern smartphone today; and, of those, at least 23,00+ wireless patents were declared "standard essential" in GSM/3G alone. It's pretty dumb to argue that each individual inventor's patent, or the current assignee's, is legit if and only if they are in the business of making or productizing them themselves.
vmception 5y ago
> If you’re a garage inventor you either are making something or have ambitions to. Let's personalize it: Fulfilling that "standard" for my own personal patents would require me to register as a financial institution and employ people with all the licenses, some of which not one individual can hold all of simultaneously, actually run that institution, launch products, get traction on those products and then pat myself on the back because all is right with the world. All because I had a particular idea in a niche market first, which only I consider an improvement and worthwhile at the priority date, while nobody else would or did. So as someone with much more immediately lucrative and interesting ideas, I'm clearly not going to pursue that path. So.... are people proposing I just drop the idea when I had it, or what would the other incentive to share it with the world be? I should just let others independently come up with the idea an unknown number of years in the future and just say "hey look haha I had that idea a while back", or even worse, risk allowing reality to go in a completely different or less improved direction? I feel fortunate that I was even able to afford to make a record of my idea in the compliant and uninfringeable way. I know plenty of people that are too segregated from the system to even attempt that. It is insulting to think "ah fuck that person [with $20,000] because they didn't build a prototype in their modest garage!" The gatekeeping, how does that even make sense? Okay so now there is a document saying I had an idea first (speaking on behalf of all patent inventors), and even more rarely and privileged is that fact that I am not having to assign all my ideas to an employer who then owns the patent. So what is being proposed here? I'm a "non practicing entity" and all my paths to monetization are invalid because of it? Should I leave it rhetorical? Should I say "hey cool awesome tech or fintech firm, I really admire your work, you should buy my IP" because that works so well? Should I say "hey cool awesome tech or fintech firm, cease and desist now" because that works so well? Should I say "hey well capitalized company in the business of monetizing intellectual property, I'm trying to recoup costs so that I can build a workbench in my garage because people on the internet will respect me more so what kind of arrangements do you have for patents again?" thats likely whats going to happen and is the path people take So what do you and anyone passing by actually propose? Because what is suggested doesn't really make sense and hasn't really factored in what individuals do and why
- moron4hire 5y ago
  This is exactly right. There's a big difference between inventing a thing and exploiting that invention. It might not even be a good time in the market to exploit the idea.

by jmuguy 5y ago

tooltalk 5y ago

>> “Optis makes no products” Sure, that flawed argument has some appeal in simple, unitary products made for caveman in the prehistoric age. According to RPX, it's estimated there are over 250,000+ active patents with thousands of unique inventors in any given modern smartphone today; and, of those, at least 23,00+ wireless patents were declared "standard essential" in GSM/3G alone. It's pretty dumb to argue that each individual inventor's patent, or the current assignee's, is legit if and only if they are in the business of making or productizing them themselves.

vmception 5y ago

> If you’re a garage inventor you either are making something or have ambitions to. Let's personalize it: Fulfilling that "standard" for my own personal patents would require me to register as a financial institution and employ people with all the licenses, some of which not one individual can hold all of simultaneously, actually run that institution, launch products, get traction on those products and then pat myself on the back because all is right with the world. All because I had a particular idea in a niche market first, which only I consider an improvement and worthwhile at the priority date, while nobody else would or did. So as someone with much more immediately lucrative and interesting ideas, I'm clearly not going to pursue that path. So.... are people proposing I just drop the idea when I had it, or what would the other incentive to share it with the world be? I should just let others independently come up with the idea an unknown number of years in the future and just say "hey look haha I had that idea a while back", or even worse, risk allowing reality to go in a completely different or less improved direction? I feel fortunate that I was even able to afford to make a record of my idea in the compliant and uninfringeable way. I know plenty of people that are too segregated from the system to even attempt that. It is insulting to think "ah fuck that person [with $20,000] because they didn't build a prototype in their modest garage!" The gatekeeping, how does that even make sense? Okay so now there is a document saying I had an idea first (speaking on behalf of all patent inventors), and even more rarely and privileged is that fact that I am not having to assign all my ideas to an employer who then owns the patent. So what is being proposed here? I'm a "non practicing entity" and all my paths to monetization are invalid because of it? Should I leave it rhetorical? Should I say "hey cool awesome tech or fintech firm, I really admire your work, you should buy my IP" because that works so well? Should I say "hey cool awesome tech or fintech firm, cease and desist now" because that works so well? Should I say "hey well capitalized company in the business of monetizing intellectual property, I'm trying to recoup costs so that I can build a workbench in my garage because people on the internet will respect me more so what kind of arrangements do you have for patents again?" thats likely whats going to happen and is the path people take So what do you and anyone passing by actually propose? Because what is suggested doesn't really make sense and hasn't really factored in what individuals do and why

moron4hire 5y ago
This is exactly right. There's a big difference between inventing a thing and exploiting that invention. It might not even be a good time in the market to exploit the idea.