20 ms·

Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

335 points by fraXis 15y ago

AgentConundrum 15y ago
I really wish he had been a little clearer on what these patent trolls are and why they're bad. I'm sure most people here on HN understand what's going on, but this article is little more than preaching to the choir without that extra clarification. As it stands right now, this article has sort of a whining feel to it. "All my companies are getting sued because we're infringing patents, and I'm sick of paying for it! The only way to stop them is to similarly arm yourself with lots of patents so you can sue someone just as hard as they can sue you!" I'd like to see more detail from him about how most of these patents are obvious and non-innovative, and that the idea of patent troll companies who do nothing with the patents but sue for infringement of them. I think that's what he was getting at with these lines: > I’m not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. I’m talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls. ...but that could also be read as "we've been infringing these patents for years, and I'm pissed off that someone noticed." We all know that's not what he meant, but there's a lot to be said for clarity, and clarity wasn't a major component of this article.
- azakai 15y ago
  I don't know, I thought he cut right to the chase: > Google just spent $900mm buying a patent collection. Other big companies are spending the same way. That is money that for many companies would have gone to job creation. That's exactly right. That money is going into the pockets of $500/hour lawyers instead of creating jobs for people that produce products. Just the public patent deals of the last few months amounted to billions. And there is a lot more we don't know about. He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc., but that takes more explaining, it's complicated. Focusing on the direct link to job creation is more straightforward.
  - AgentConundrum 15y ago
    He's arguing the impact of it, but I'm saying he failed to clarify why they shouldn't have to pay for the $500/hour lawyers and the multi-million dollar patent packages. > He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc. That's all I'm saying. He needs to explain why he shouldn't have to defend himself against patents, rather than just complaining that it's too expensive. Defending yourself against any lawsuit is expensive, but if you've done something wrong then it has to be done. Cuban just didn't take the time to explain that his companies hadn't done anything objectively wrong. I wasn't disagreeing with him at all - I agree that there needs to be patent reform - but I just thought that he didn't adequately state his case. He complained about how expensive it was to have to deal with the lawsuits, but never made a compelling argument as to why those lawsuits were unjust.
watty 15y ago
Think of all the jobs required to fight these patents in court.
- AgentConundrum 15y ago
  "Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"
  - KeithMajhor 15y ago
    I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - AgentConundrum 15y ago
      I honestly can't tell if your comment is sarcastic or not.
      - KeithMajhor 15y ago
        I was being serious.
        danielharan 15y ago
        Fair enough. If we replace jobs with prosperity in the OP would you be in agreement?
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        KeithMajhor 15y ago
ender7 15y ago
All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovation, or where the technology would not have been developed without the existence of software patents. Actually, I would be happy with just one patent, so I know what it looks like.
- gallerytungsten 15y ago
  I think a reasonable "B" solution would be to require that any company engaging in patent litigation would have to show that they had actually been using the patent in a product; that their product had a record of sales and use in commerce; and that the allegedly infringing party was directly affecting their business. Of course, this alternative would have to be specified in much greater detail to be effective, and have safeguards against further gaming of the system. But it's a reasonable start, particularly as the patent trolls are buying simply to sue, not to produce a useful invention for sale.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    I like this idea. We've grown too attached to the notion of "intellectual property", thinking of ideas as things you can own. We should get back to the purpose of IP: subsidizing the creation of new information, which by nature belongs to no one but benefits everyone, with a limited monopoly on its reproduction. If you aren't using your monopoly, then no one is benefiting, and you shouldn't have it.
    - MartinCron 15y ago
      I keep thinking about the case where someone has a valid idea for an invention that's worth a patent, but doesn't have the funds to build such a thing. Let's say I invent a new kind of power generation that requires construction of a large-scale power plant. I shouldn't have to wait until the power plant is built and operational before I get protection for the invention. I should be able to get a patent on the idea and sell the rights to implement it to someone who can.
protomyth 15y ago
At this point I would be fine with starting with the baby set of killing any patent that implements a business process. It would be a good start, simple to explain, and kill off a goodly chunk of the trolls.
- arockwell 15y ago
  Bussiness processes are already unpatentable.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    One click and most of Loadsys's patents are really biz process patents implemented with technology.
    - arockwell 15y ago
      Sorry, I should have been more specific. My point is more that the problem is systemic. You also can't patent something that has prior art, but it happens all the time.
pbh 15y ago
According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban has $2.5 billion. If he thinks the patents are bogus (which I totally believe), why not fight a high profile, precedent setting case? If he thinks the law is broken, why not lobby for patent reform? Or a loser-pays system?
- danielharan 15y ago
  Do you know he's not doing those?
  - pbh 15y ago
    I have no idea about the lobbying, but the article seems to suggest that he is just paying increasing insurance and settlement costs instead.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- salemh 15y ago
  Sam Wyly did something similar, set $100,000 per annum for a law firm to slowly destroy Ma Bell. http://www.charlesandsamwyly.com/sam-wyly-highway-computers.htm http://www.charlesandsamwyly.com/sam-wyly-highway-computers.... More about it in his book (which is outstanding for any business read). http://www.1000dollarsandanidea.com/ http://www.1000dollarsandanidea.com/
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure that the number of patents you could get revoked with $2.5 billion in legal effort is much smaller than the total number of potentially problematic patents. Unfortunatly fighting bad patents is a classic public good [1] which means its hard to coordinate people on making them. If your feeling altruistic, however, the EFF is working to help get some particularly egregious examples revoked. [2] I've donated to them and I encourage others to do the same. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good [2] https://w2.eff.org/patent/ https://w2.eff.org/patent/
maeon3 15y ago
While we are patenting every line of every software program ever written, we should also patent colors, smells, tastes, sounds, sensations, thoughts, individual words, photographs, individual syllables, and visual/body language gestures. How come lines of code fall under the category of 'invention', But English sayings, phrases and quotes do not?
- justinsb 15y ago
  "English sayings, phrases and quotes" would come under copyright law instead of patent law, but can still enjoy IP protection.
  - clark-kent 15y ago
    This is interesting because software is a composition in a computer language. So the OP has an interesting point there. Code and algorithms shouldn't be awarded patents just like you can't patent a musical composition.
    - capnrefsmmat 15y ago
      Software itself isn't patentable -- software licenses work on the basis of the copyright on the source code, not a patent. Software patents generally describe algorithms rather than their specific implementations, just like ordinary patents describe a method of solving a problem.
justinsb 15y ago
Perhaps these patent deals that are putting a price on inventions (particularly at the billion dollar valuation level) will encourage companies to spend _more_ on R&D - hiring more highly skilled workers - because they can create relevant patents more cheaply than they can buy them. The suggestion that abolishing patents will cause companies to spend that money hiring people instead is not intuitively obvious to me. It sounds a lot like trickle-down economics, which may be intellectually appealing but doesn't seem to have worked out as originally expected.
hootmon 15y ago
Technically correct, but the job situation is much much worse, and this band aid will not fix it. Fascism has established itself globally and is in the process of reducing everyone to penury while the few at the top of the Fascist pyramid of power get fatter.
lists 15y ago
Is the tech industry really that influential for job growth in America? Say everything Cuban says is true, wouldn't there only be a marginal difference between today and his tomorrow? Aren't the majority of unemployed non-tech specialists? It isn't clear to me why money lying around necessarily entails job growth in the tech industry, especially for larger software firms but even smaller ones. But again, I feel this would only be marginal contribution to the job situation were it the case.
pkulak 15y ago
"Another words"... Really, Cuban? At least we know this is really him speaking, because that's pretty damn embarrassing to put out to the whole world. It's a great post though. I agree 100%.
notJim 15y ago
I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem. The limiting factor on the number of people with programming jobs is the number of people capable of filling those roles. There simply are not competent developers who are having trouble finding work right now. If you want to talk about creating high-paying jobs that will allow the US to be more competitive and prosperous in the future, that's fine, but then you still have to address the greater problem of creating a qualified work force.
- CurtHagenlocher 15y ago
  Also, the limiting factor on businesses hiring is not (just) the cash they have lying around, but the demand there exists for their goods and services.
- jerf 15y ago
  "I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem." "More jobs created" != total "solution to the unemployment problem". The logic as presented is sound; take away one source of needless drain, more jobs are a very likely result.
- randomdata 15y ago
  I wrote about this under another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2853308 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2853308 The problem isn't that the workforce can't be programmers, or other technology related discipline. Entry-level programming skills can be picked up in days by virtually anyone. The problem is that, unlike the jobs of the past, there is no force to drive companies to hire anyone but the very best. If every single person in America knew how to program, they still wouldn't be working, because the companies would hold the position open until someone who is better at programming is available.
Hyena 15y ago
Auction patent extensions in blocks. First, you start with a free, though much shorter than present, initial period. After that, however, you must purchase the next extension at auction. At period2, there will be X2% as many extensions as there are expiring patents. At period3, you must buy another extension out of that tranche, which has X3% as many extensions as period2. And so on. Extensions could be sold to any party before their "apply on" date, they are not specific to a particular patent until it has been attached to it. Once a patent passes its expiration date, it can never be recovered and is now public domain forever. I think this would work best if the sum of the extensions was less than currently available. The basic idea is that a company who felt a patent really was central to their business could pay a potentially very hefty price for the privilege, so the number of extensions for sale should be kept quite small.
- masklinn 15y ago
  The only point I would see for this scheme is to make money for the patent office. > The basic idea is that a company who felt a patent really was central to their business could pay a potentially very hefty price for the privilege, so the number of extensions for sale should be kept quite small. It won't be. There's too much money to be made and too much lobbying involved.
atlei 15y ago
From Wikipedia: "The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application. " In my opinion, the key part is the non-obvious part of "new, useful, and non-obvious"; the invention of a new medicine is usually non-obvious, but the invention of Amazon 1-click shopping is obvious (in hindsight). What is "non-obvious" ? If a single individual can come up with a similar solution (without access to the underlying research/data involved in the patent) in a short amount of time (a week, or at least in a DAY in the 1-click example) it does not represent a significant investment. There should also be a requirement that the idea is implemented to be able to sue others. You may stop others' implementation if you have a patent, but you should not be able to charge them for anything until you have implemented a working solution yourself (to avoid patent trolls). Or simply use the KISS principle and remove all software patents once and for all !
AllenKids 15y ago
This is more of a thought on Google's awkward situation rather than patent laws in general: What if the DOJ scrutiny around the Nortel patent bundle went well for Google and Apple/Microsoft etc were forced to put essential patents in a pool and license it to other vendors under fair conditions? As Google's CLO said, it still does not give Google the weapon to negate Oracle or Microsoft or Apple's IP lawsuits. What if DOJ smites down the same way everytime an important patent auction is happening? As long as Microsoft/Apple etc is willing to throw money at it, the best outcome will always be everybody gets its fair share. Again, Google's patent WMD remains a dream. Unless a patent reform retroactively grands Google all the immunity in the world I really do not understand how this would end well for Google without sorting everything out in court just as it is. * Of course theoretically Google could buy up MMI or other companies with a giant patent trove in mobile space to balance things out. Then again all public companies' board have fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value and as long as Apple/Microsoft are willing to pay more, Google has slim chance of exclusivity.
- shareme 15y ago
  It already went well ..according to Google Lawyers that has already happen with MS..namely they were forced by DOJ to divest of those patents bought through that deal and the Patent holding company was forced to license to open source at reasonable rates
  - AllenKids 15y ago
    That were Novell patents, which were very entangled in the whole SCO/IBM/Novell/Red Hat/Microsoft legal soap opera regarding Linux/Unix licensing. Basically Microsoft was caught hand in the cookie jar, hence DOJ's interest.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
startupcto 15y ago
For one, patents are not only serving technology companies. Drug companies live ad die by their patents. A new drug cost that much to develop if without a patent protecting it, it would have not make any business sense to even develop new drugs.
- dannyr 15y ago
  Cuban wasn't specific but I'm pretty sure he was referring to just software patents.
epynonymous 15y ago
good points raised by cuban, but i have to say, he's offered zero solutions to the problem, just gripes. i don't think anyone's come up with a good solution yet for patents probably because there are an over-abundance of them (millions, possibly billions pending), you can't just do away with the system suddenly, hell i think i have 1 or 2 myself. but let's just play devil's advocate and say that the government refused to grant anymore new patents and grandfathered all the current patents, you would still need something else to take its place, perhaps say the latest trend of open source licenses, though some of the issues with some of these licenses seem to be on similar bad footing of corporate abuse. i don't have any solutions myself, but i think china's ip laws are relatively lax and a good example of what would happen if there weren't patents or at least very poor enforcement. basically you'd have a bunch of companies competing against each other possibly reverse engineering or out right stealing things, at the end of the day, you, the consumer, would possibly have a better set of choices and these companies would be innovating to compete, not necessarily strangling you financially with patent litigations. my major gripe with patents are the same as cuban, these big corporations are using it as a new line of business/revenue stream and are throwing their weight around with the protection of another big corporation (a.k.a. the government), this a major loophole in the system, what was meant to quite possibly protect the little guy, the small company, has now backfired and become a major liability. e.g. nobody in their right mind would file a suit against ibm, they would surely find some infringement in their arsenal of patents and make you hurt for a good long time. you're suing ibm for using your algorithm, they'd turn right around and sue you for something along the lines of using the bathroom on an airplane (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-961803.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-961803.html). the problem is truly systemic. when governments/companies/countries become too powerful, it really becomes easy to abuse/manipulate the system, absolute power corrupts absolutely. that's why there needs to be more refinement of government to handle these things, to make sure that the system works.
donnaware 15y ago
the really insidious effect of this patent trolling is that it robs capital from true inovation. Instead of companies like Google and Apple spending money on hiring people to inovate and create new products, they are spending billions on defending what they already have. Very sad.
known 15y ago
I'd say US should try doubling their exports to $2.5 trillions.
zenica 15y ago
I think that just having requirement that a patent actually has to be in "real production/read product" by the holder is the only modification to the law we need. (there is challenge here how to ensure that production in not fake, but it could be possible to ensure that)
Goladus 15y ago
So he makes an excellent point, especially for the long run, but I must admit the tech sector is not currently facing serious job issues. Of course it would probably be more beneficial to the economy and to society to have Google hiring employees instead of buying patents, but that's not going to save Detroit.
donnaware 15y ago
Yes, the patent syste is broken, but here is what I think is at the crux of it. What happens is that the patent office is completely overwhelmed by, not only the volume but the complexity of the patents being filed. So what they do is basically punt it to the courts. They take a cursory look at a filing and if it is not too obviously a bad patent they grant it and then let the interested parties fight it out in court. So that is what is driving the patent troll problem. To do it right you really need the patent office to a real in depth analysis so that when the patent is finally granted it can really mean something. Politically, that is simply not possible because it would require an expansion of the Federal Government which we all know now is somehow a horrifying thought.
artsrc 15y ago
Many standards bodies require reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing. One reform would be to require all patent holders to offer reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing.

335 points by fraXis 15y ago

I really wish he had been a little clearer on what these patent trolls are and why they're bad. I'm sure most people here on HN understand what's going on, but this article is little more than preaching to the choir without that extra clarification. As it stands right now, this article has sort of a whining feel to it. "All my companies are getting sued because we're infringing patents, and I'm sick of paying for it! The only way to stop them is to similarly arm yourself with lots of patents so you can sue someone just as hard as they can sue you!" I'd like to see more detail from him about how most of these patents are obvious and non-innovative, and that the idea of patent troll companies who do nothing with the patents but sue for infringement of them. I think that's what he was getting at with these lines: > I’m not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. I’m talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls. ...but that could also be read as "we've been infringing these patents for years, and I'm pissed off that someone noticed." We all know that's not what he meant, but there's a lot to be said for clarity, and clarity wasn't a major component of this article.

azakai 15y ago
I don't know, I thought he cut right to the chase: > Google just spent $900mm buying a patent collection. Other big companies are spending the same way. That is money that for many companies would have gone to job creation. That's exactly right. That money is going into the pockets of $500/hour lawyers instead of creating jobs for people that produce products. Just the public patent deals of the last few months amounted to billions. And there is a lot more we don't know about. He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc., but that takes more explaining, it's complicated. Focusing on the direct link to job creation is more straightforward.
- AgentConundrum 15y ago
  He's arguing the impact of it, but I'm saying he failed to clarify why they shouldn't have to pay for the $500/hour lawyers and the multi-million dollar patent packages. > He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc. That's all I'm saying. He needs to explain why he shouldn't have to defend himself against patents, rather than just complaining that it's too expensive. Defending yourself against any lawsuit is expensive, but if you've done something wrong then it has to be done. Cuban just didn't take the time to explain that his companies hadn't done anything objectively wrong. I wasn't disagreeing with him at all - I agree that there needs to be patent reform - but I just thought that he didn't adequately state his case. He complained about how expensive it was to have to deal with the lawsuits, but never made a compelling argument as to why those lawsuits were unjust.

watty 15y ago

Think of all the jobs required to fight these patents in court.

AgentConundrum 15y ago
"Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"
- KeithMajhor 15y ago
  I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - AgentConundrum 15y ago
    I honestly can't tell if your comment is sarcastic or not.
    - KeithMajhor 15y ago
      I was being serious.
      - danielharan 15y ago
        Fair enough. If we replace jobs with prosperity in the OP would you be in agreement?
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        KeithMajhor 15y ago

ender7 15y ago

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovation, or where the technology would not have been developed without the existence of software patents. Actually, I would be happy with just one patent, so I know what it looks like.

gallerytungsten 15y ago
I think a reasonable "B" solution would be to require that any company engaging in patent litigation would have to show that they had actually been using the patent in a product; that their product had a record of sales and use in commerce; and that the allegedly infringing party was directly affecting their business. Of course, this alternative would have to be specified in much greater detail to be effective, and have safeguards against further gaming of the system. But it's a reasonable start, particularly as the patent trolls are buying simply to sue, not to produce a useful invention for sale.
- Cushman 15y ago
  I like this idea. We've grown too attached to the notion of "intellectual property", thinking of ideas as things you can own. We should get back to the purpose of IP: subsidizing the creation of new information, which by nature belongs to no one but benefits everyone, with a limited monopoly on its reproduction. If you aren't using your monopoly, then no one is benefiting, and you shouldn't have it.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    I keep thinking about the case where someone has a valid idea for an invention that's worth a patent, but doesn't have the funds to build such a thing. Let's say I invent a new kind of power generation that requires construction of a large-scale power plant. I shouldn't have to wait until the power plant is built and operational before I get protection for the invention. I should be able to get a patent on the idea and sell the rights to implement it to someone who can.

protomyth 15y ago

At this point I would be fine with starting with the baby set of killing any patent that implements a business process. It would be a good start, simple to explain, and kill off a goodly chunk of the trolls.

arockwell 15y ago
Bussiness processes are already unpatentable.
- protomyth 15y ago
  One click and most of Loadsys's patents are really biz process patents implemented with technology.
  - arockwell 15y ago
    Sorry, I should have been more specific. My point is more that the problem is systemic. You also can't patent something that has prior art, but it happens all the time.

pbh 15y ago

According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban has $2.5 billion. If he thinks the patents are bogus (which I totally believe), why not fight a high profile, precedent setting case? If he thinks the law is broken, why not lobby for patent reform? Or a loser-pays system?

danielharan 15y ago
Do you know he's not doing those?
- pbh 15y ago
  I have no idea about the lobbying, but the article seems to suggest that he is just paying increasing insurance and settlement costs instead.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
salemh 15y ago
Sam Wyly did something similar, set $100,000 per annum for a law firm to slowly destroy Ma Bell. http://www.charlesandsamwyly.com/sam-wyly-highway-computers.htm http://www.charlesandsamwyly.com/sam-wyly-highway-computers.... More about it in his book (which is outstanding for any business read). http://www.1000dollarsandanidea.com/ http://www.1000dollarsandanidea.com/
Symmetry 15y ago
I'm pretty sure that the number of patents you could get revoked with $2.5 billion in legal effort is much smaller than the total number of potentially problematic patents. Unfortunatly fighting bad patents is a classic public good [1] which means its hard to coordinate people on making them. If your feeling altruistic, however, the EFF is working to help get some particularly egregious examples revoked. [2] I've donated to them and I encourage others to do the same. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good [2] https://w2.eff.org/patent/ https://w2.eff.org/patent/

maeon3 15y ago

While we are patenting every line of every software program ever written, we should also patent colors, smells, tastes, sounds, sensations, thoughts, individual words, photographs, individual syllables, and visual/body language gestures. How come lines of code fall under the category of 'invention', But English sayings, phrases and quotes do not?

justinsb 15y ago
"English sayings, phrases and quotes" would come under copyright law instead of patent law, but can still enjoy IP protection.
- clark-kent 15y ago
  This is interesting because software is a composition in a computer language. So the OP has an interesting point there. Code and algorithms shouldn't be awarded patents just like you can't patent a musical composition.
  - capnrefsmmat 15y ago
    Software itself isn't patentable -- software licenses work on the basis of the copyright on the source code, not a patent. Software patents generally describe algorithms rather than their specific implementations, just like ordinary patents describe a method of solving a problem.

justinsb 15y ago

Perhaps these patent deals that are putting a price on inventions (particularly at the billion dollar valuation level) will encourage companies to spend _more_ on R&D - hiring more highly skilled workers - because they can create relevant patents more cheaply than they can buy them. The suggestion that abolishing patents will cause companies to spend that money hiring people instead is not intuitively obvious to me. It sounds a lot like trickle-down economics, which may be intellectually appealing but doesn't seem to have worked out as originally expected.

hootmon 15y ago

Technically correct, but the job situation is much much worse, and this band aid will not fix it. Fascism has established itself globally and is in the process of reducing everyone to penury while the few at the top of the Fascist pyramid of power get fatter.

lists 15y ago

Is the tech industry really that influential for job growth in America? Say everything Cuban says is true, wouldn't there only be a marginal difference between today and his tomorrow? Aren't the majority of unemployed non-tech specialists? It isn't clear to me why money lying around necessarily entails job growth in the tech industry, especially for larger software firms but even smaller ones. But again, I feel this would only be marginal contribution to the job situation were it the case.

pkulak 15y ago

"Another words"... Really, Cuban? At least we know this is really him speaking, because that's pretty damn embarrassing to put out to the whole world. It's a great post though. I agree 100%.

notJim 15y ago

I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem. The limiting factor on the number of people with programming jobs is the number of people capable of filling those roles. There simply are not competent developers who are having trouble finding work right now. If you want to talk about creating high-paying jobs that will allow the US to be more competitive and prosperous in the future, that's fine, but then you still have to address the greater problem of creating a qualified work force.

CurtHagenlocher 15y ago
Also, the limiting factor on businesses hiring is not (just) the cash they have lying around, but the demand there exists for their goods and services.
jerf 15y ago
"I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem." "More jobs created" != total "solution to the unemployment problem". The logic as presented is sound; take away one source of needless drain, more jobs are a very likely result.
randomdata 15y ago
I wrote about this under another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2853308 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2853308 The problem isn't that the workforce can't be programmers, or other technology related discipline. Entry-level programming skills can be picked up in days by virtually anyone. The problem is that, unlike the jobs of the past, there is no force to drive companies to hire anyone but the very best. If every single person in America knew how to program, they still wouldn't be working, because the companies would hold the position open until someone who is better at programming is available.

Hyena 15y ago

Auction patent extensions in blocks. First, you start with a free, though much shorter than present, initial period. After that, however, you must purchase the next extension at auction. At period2, there will be X2% as many extensions as there are expiring patents. At period3, you must buy another extension out of that tranche, which has X3% as many extensions as period2. And so on. Extensions could be sold to any party before their "apply on" date, they are not specific to a particular patent until it has been attached to it. Once a patent passes its expiration date, it can never be recovered and is now public domain forever. I think this would work best if the sum of the extensions was less than currently available. The basic idea is that a company who felt a patent really was central to their business could pay a potentially very hefty price for the privilege, so the number of extensions for sale should be kept quite small.

masklinn 15y ago
The only point I would see for this scheme is to make money for the patent office. > The basic idea is that a company who felt a patent really was central to their business could pay a potentially very hefty price for the privilege, so the number of extensions for sale should be kept quite small. It won't be. There's too much money to be made and too much lobbying involved.

atlei 15y ago

From Wikipedia: "The term patent usually refers to an exclusive right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, and claims that right in a formal patent application. " In my opinion, the key part is the non-obvious part of "new, useful, and non-obvious"; the invention of a new medicine is usually non-obvious, but the invention of Amazon 1-click shopping is obvious (in hindsight). What is "non-obvious" ? If a single individual can come up with a similar solution (without access to the underlying research/data involved in the patent) in a short amount of time (a week, or at least in a DAY in the 1-click example) it does not represent a significant investment. There should also be a requirement that the idea is implemented to be able to sue others. You may stop others' implementation if you have a patent, but you should not be able to charge them for anything until you have implemented a working solution yourself (to avoid patent trolls). Or simply use the KISS principle and remove all software patents once and for all !

AllenKids 15y ago

This is more of a thought on Google's awkward situation rather than patent laws in general: What if the DOJ scrutiny around the Nortel patent bundle went well for Google and Apple/Microsoft etc were forced to put essential patents in a pool and license it to other vendors under fair conditions? As Google's CLO said, it still does not give Google the weapon to negate Oracle or Microsoft or Apple's IP lawsuits. What if DOJ smites down the same way everytime an important patent auction is happening? As long as Microsoft/Apple etc is willing to throw money at it, the best outcome will always be everybody gets its fair share. Again, Google's patent WMD remains a dream. Unless a patent reform retroactively grands Google all the immunity in the world I really do not understand how this would end well for Google without sorting everything out in court just as it is. * Of course theoretically Google could buy up MMI or other companies with a giant patent trove in mobile space to balance things out. Then again all public companies' board have fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value and as long as Apple/Microsoft are willing to pay more, Google has slim chance of exclusivity.

shareme 15y ago
It already went well ..according to Google Lawyers that has already happen with MS..namely they were forced by DOJ to divest of those patents bought through that deal and the Patent holding company was forced to license to open source at reasonable rates
- AllenKids 15y ago
  That were Novell patents, which were very entangled in the whole SCO/IBM/Novell/Red Hat/Microsoft legal soap opera regarding Linux/Unix licensing. Basically Microsoft was caught hand in the cookie jar, hence DOJ's interest.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

startupcto 15y ago

For one, patents are not only serving technology companies. Drug companies live ad die by their patents. A new drug cost that much to develop if without a patent protecting it, it would have not make any business sense to even develop new drugs.

dannyr 15y ago
Cuban wasn't specific but I'm pretty sure he was referring to just software patents.

epynonymous 15y ago

good points raised by cuban, but i have to say, he's offered zero solutions to the problem, just gripes. i don't think anyone's come up with a good solution yet for patents probably because there are an over-abundance of them (millions, possibly billions pending), you can't just do away with the system suddenly, hell i think i have 1 or 2 myself. but let's just play devil's advocate and say that the government refused to grant anymore new patents and grandfathered all the current patents, you would still need something else to take its place, perhaps say the latest trend of open source licenses, though some of the issues with some of these licenses seem to be on similar bad footing of corporate abuse. i don't have any solutions myself, but i think china's ip laws are relatively lax and a good example of what would happen if there weren't patents or at least very poor enforcement. basically you'd have a bunch of companies competing against each other possibly reverse engineering or out right stealing things, at the end of the day, you, the consumer, would possibly have a better set of choices and these companies would be innovating to compete, not necessarily strangling you financially with patent litigations. my major gripe with patents are the same as cuban, these big corporations are using it as a new line of business/revenue stream and are throwing their weight around with the protection of another big corporation (a.k.a. the government), this a major loophole in the system, what was meant to quite possibly protect the little guy, the small company, has now backfired and become a major liability. e.g. nobody in their right mind would file a suit against ibm, they would surely find some infringement in their arsenal of patents and make you hurt for a good long time. you're suing ibm for using your algorithm, they'd turn right around and sue you for something along the lines of using the bathroom on an airplane (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-961803.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-961803.html). the problem is truly systemic. when governments/companies/countries become too powerful, it really becomes easy to abuse/manipulate the system, absolute power corrupts absolutely. that's why there needs to be more refinement of government to handle these things, to make sure that the system works.

donnaware 15y ago

the really insidious effect of this patent trolling is that it robs capital from true inovation. Instead of companies like Google and Apple spending money on hiring people to inovate and create new products, they are spending billions on defending what they already have. Very sad.

known 15y ago

I'd say US should try doubling their exports to $2.5 trillions.

zenica 15y ago

I think that just having requirement that a patent actually has to be in "real production/read product" by the holder is the only modification to the law we need. (there is challenge here how to ensure that production in not fake, but it could be possible to ensure that)

Goladus 15y ago

So he makes an excellent point, especially for the long run, but I must admit the tech sector is not currently facing serious job issues. Of course it would probably be more beneficial to the economy and to society to have Google hiring employees instead of buying patents, but that's not going to save Detroit.

donnaware 15y ago

Yes, the patent syste is broken, but here is what I think is at the crux of it. What happens is that the patent office is completely overwhelmed by, not only the volume but the complexity of the patents being filed. So what they do is basically punt it to the courts. They take a cursory look at a filing and if it is not too obviously a bad patent they grant it and then let the interested parties fight it out in court. So that is what is driving the patent troll problem. To do it right you really need the patent office to a real in depth analysis so that when the patent is finally granted it can really mean something. Politically, that is simply not possible because it would require an expansion of the Federal Government which we all know now is somehow a horrifying thought.

artsrc 15y ago

Many standards bodies require reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing. One reform would be to require all patent holders to offer reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing.