3 ms·

I think patent pools are the quickest way to solve this issue in the short term. It won't solve the patent troll problem, but it will slow it down because every

I think patent pools are the quickest way to solve this issue in the short term. It won't solve the patent troll problem, but it will slow it down because everyone in the pool will have access to a vast amount of patents, so it will be harder for the troll to reach any company that participates in the pool, or at least there won't be as many trolls going after them. But it should work very well in protecting the companies from the pool against large "patent aggressors", or even against other pools from competing firms. Think of it as NATO vs Russia+China. In the long term, if patents don't get abolished, at least I'd like to see a law that allows companies to opt-out of the patent system[1], so they don't get to sue others, even if they become big companies, but others can't sue them either. This won't kill the patent system overnight, so big companies who are against abolishing patents, because they have so many, will still be able to assert their patents against other big (or small) companies who also have a lot of patents and don't want to lose them overnight. [1]This opting out of the patent system idea came from someone else here on HN.

bdhe 15y ago
This and plenty of other interesting ideas here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2810689 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2810689 and in the replies to OP: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809544 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809544
tzs 15y ago
> In the long term, if patents don't get abolished, at least I'd like to see a law that allows companies to opt-out of the patent system[1], so they don't get to sue others, even if they become big companies, but others can't sue them either. That's the most ridiculous idea for patent reform I've ever read. There are two possibilities. 1. Patents in fact do encourage innovation (at least in some industries) by allowing innovators to recoup their R&D costs before the copiers can jump in. Without this, copiers would get in too fast and reduce the price to where the innovator never makes back the R&D costs. 2. Not #1. In case #2, we should just get rid of patents. In case #1, which is most likely the correct case at least for industries where it takes a huge amount of R&D to get a new product to market (e.g., drugs), your suggestion would in effect encourage the formation of more copier companies, and give them free reign to copy.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  And what's so wrong about copying? Do companies really start a business thinking they won't get copied? Getting copied by more companies means you'll have to innovate faster, and the end result will be higher quality products for customers, and lower prices. I don't think a little higher competition across the board will stop companies from being built.
  - mayank 15y ago
    The religious faith in free markets you seem to imply is a bit naive. In reality, startups would be crushed by the biggest player sucking up their innovations and broadcasting it faster and to a larger audience. Let's not forget that patents were originally meant to level the playing field, and that's not a terrible goal (the execution is another matter). Mathematically, your free markets need to be clamped at some boundary conditions if you don't want them to get stuck in a local optimum (e.g., big company swallows all). Patents are one way to do this, in theory at least.
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      And your faith that small companies actually use patents to defend themselves against big ones is a bit naive, too. If anything the big companies use their vast amount of patents to crush small startups that compete against them, even if they managed to get 2-3 puny patents. But the truth is many of them can't even afford to buy a lot of patents.
  - tzs 15y ago
    Read the point I labeled #1.
- dctoedt 15y ago
  > [Possibility #1:] Patents in fact do encourage innovation (at least in some industries) by allowing innovators to recoup their R&D costs before the copiers can jump in. One problem is that patent law reflects a one-size-fits-all philosophy: It takes years, and lots of money, to get a patent, but if you do you've got it for 20 years from the filing date, regardless whether you want or need it for that long. I once argued that the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) could change this, without congressional action, but nothing ever came of it. [1] [1] http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/docs/JPTOS-Reenginering-the-Patent-Examination-Process-printed-pdf.pdf http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/docs/JPTOS-Reenginering-the-P...
stonemetal 15y ago
I really doubt the opt out idea would work well. Companies that make cheap knock offs don't produce anything unique, and as such would always opt out. Take the drug industry for instance, all your generics manufactures never do blue sky new drug research. They would always opt out. This makes it useless for companies that do perform blue sky research to opt in.

bdhe 15y ago

This and plenty of other interesting ideas here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2810689 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2810689 and in the replies to OP: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809544 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809544

tzs 15y ago

> In the long term, if patents don't get abolished, at least I'd like to see a law that allows companies to opt-out of the patent system[1], so they don't get to sue others, even if they become big companies, but others can't sue them either. That's the most ridiculous idea for patent reform I've ever read. There are two possibilities. 1. Patents in fact do encourage innovation (at least in some industries) by allowing innovators to recoup their R&D costs before the copiers can jump in. Without this, copiers would get in too fast and reduce the price to where the innovator never makes back the R&D costs. 2. Not #1. In case #2, we should just get rid of patents. In case #1, which is most likely the correct case at least for industries where it takes a huge amount of R&D to get a new product to market (e.g., drugs), your suggestion would in effect encourage the formation of more copier companies, and give them free reign to copy.

nextparadigms 15y ago
And what's so wrong about copying? Do companies really start a business thinking they won't get copied? Getting copied by more companies means you'll have to innovate faster, and the end result will be higher quality products for customers, and lower prices. I don't think a little higher competition across the board will stop companies from being built.
- mayank 15y ago
  The religious faith in free markets you seem to imply is a bit naive. In reality, startups would be crushed by the biggest player sucking up their innovations and broadcasting it faster and to a larger audience. Let's not forget that patents were originally meant to level the playing field, and that's not a terrible goal (the execution is another matter). Mathematically, your free markets need to be clamped at some boundary conditions if you don't want them to get stuck in a local optimum (e.g., big company swallows all). Patents are one way to do this, in theory at least.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    And your faith that small companies actually use patents to defend themselves against big ones is a bit naive, too. If anything the big companies use their vast amount of patents to crush small startups that compete against them, even if they managed to get 2-3 puny patents. But the truth is many of them can't even afford to buy a lot of patents.
- tzs 15y ago
  Read the point I labeled #1.
dctoedt 15y ago
> [Possibility #1:] Patents in fact do encourage innovation (at least in some industries) by allowing innovators to recoup their R&D costs before the copiers can jump in. One problem is that patent law reflects a one-size-fits-all philosophy: It takes years, and lots of money, to get a patent, but if you do you've got it for 20 years from the filing date, regardless whether you want or need it for that long. I once argued that the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) could change this, without congressional action, but nothing ever came of it. [1] [1] http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/docs/JPTOS-Reenginering-the-Patent-Examination-Process-printed-pdf.pdf http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/docs/JPTOS-Reenginering-the-P...

stonemetal 15y ago

I really doubt the opt out idea would work well. Companies that make cheap knock offs don't produce anything unique, and as such would always opt out. Take the drug industry for instance, all your generics manufactures never do blue sky new drug research. They would always opt out. This makes it useless for companies that do perform blue sky research to opt in.