4 ms·

I understand that patents are negotiable instruments like stock certificates, nevertheless it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to enga

I understand that patents are negotiable instruments like stock certificates, nevertheless it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to engage in what seems like "Magic: The Gathering"-style legal warfare. "Ha ha! My 'System and Apparatus for Propagation of Radio Signals' confers a +2 legal mumbo-jumbo bonus on my 'Transmitter switch-on in a dual-mode mobile phone'. Your move, sport."

GHFigs 15y ago
US Patent 5,662,332: Trading card game method of play http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5662332 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...
brlewis 15y ago
I don't know how much this kind of patent warfare happens outside software. It's only in software that you can count on competitors "infringing" your "inventions" if you simply buy enough patents.
- corin_ 15y ago
  I would have thought there are many other industries where it is just as possible for patents to work in this way, though I have no idea which, if any, do. For example I could imagine car manufacturers all having a bunch of patents... just imagine. Nissan have a patent on controlling your car radio from buttons on the steering wheel. Ford have a patent for having the horn button on a stick that's connected to the wheel, while VW have a similar one for the horn button right on the wheel itself.. Could go on and on, and they could have great fun taking each other to court. Some industries maybe aren't so open to pointless patents (maybe pharmaceuticals?), but in most I think you could do a hell of a lot. Maybe they already do the same, but we just don't hear about it. Maybe they could, but are wise enough not to bother. Maybe the patents system has just been in use for a longer time in those industries, so companies aren't allowed to get away with so much crap?
  - qohen 15y ago
    FYI, this actually happened in the nascent aviation industry--the government had to step in to force the players to cross-license their patents (in order to have planes for World War I): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war Some interesting bits from that Wikipedia page, which demonstrate that patents don't necessarily promote innovation and that being too litigious with them can damage one's reputation: From the "Patent War" section: "The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines." From the "Aftermath" section: "The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions may have retarded the development of aviation,[9][14] and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly."
    - qohen 15y ago
      BTW, while the government had to intervene in the aircraft case, there have been cases of various companies coming together to form their own private patent pool too, the most famous of which would be related to the sewing machine: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-like-a-sewing-machine/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-l... "The Sewing Machine War was the first instance of what is today called a 'patent thicket.' The disputes prevented Singer from selling his invention, and tensions ran high in and out of court: When Howe personally called on Singer, Singer threatened to throw him down a flight of stairs. But there’s a happy ending to the story, as your machine-stitched clothes evince. The Sewing Machine War ended with a just and lasting peace in 1856, when Orlando B. Potter--a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs--suggested a solution that Mossoff calls 'groundbreaking but also breathtakingly simple': The patent-holders would combine their patents in a 'patent pool' and share the profits from selling the machines. The patent pool participants lived happily and wealthily ever after--or at least until 1877, when the last patent expired."
- tick80 15y ago
  In other industries, it can take years and millions/billions of investment before a product steps on someone's patent. With software, you can design, build and sell a product overnight for virtually no cost and do the same.
buster 15y ago
Haha, exactly. Now, i have a new parable for discussions on this one.
yason 15y ago
it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to engage in This just underlines the futility of the patent system. Anyone who's patenting real things because they're creative and innovative is playing the old game. The new game is patent anything you can think of, do it a lot, and bet on the shotgun approach when the shit hits the fan. When it comes to patents, when there's much hassle then most companies drop their charges/defenses and just settle. When there's too much hassle then many won't even sue. The final outcome of this degeneration of patents is that companies just buy enough patents, any patents, in numbers to establish a premeditated interlock on mutual interests. It's primarily controlled by the amount of money available to be spent on defences. In this sort of scheme patents would just become mere papers. The actual validity would remain at least far-fetched as today. If markets work as usual there might be actual patent manufacturing companies too, because it's obviously cheaper to buy mass-produced patents than invest both in patenting and actual R&D. So you buy patents much like everybody buys insurance these days. Eventually all decent companies will be too scared to point to each others' patent pools that it becomes a cold-war situation, with maybe some little legal battles between smaller companies.

GHFigs 15y ago

US Patent 5,662,332: Trading card game method of play http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5662332 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...

brlewis 15y ago

I don't know how much this kind of patent warfare happens outside software. It's only in software that you can count on competitors "infringing" your "inventions" if you simply buy enough patents.

corin_ 15y ago
I would have thought there are many other industries where it is just as possible for patents to work in this way, though I have no idea which, if any, do. For example I could imagine car manufacturers all having a bunch of patents... just imagine. Nissan have a patent on controlling your car radio from buttons on the steering wheel. Ford have a patent for having the horn button on a stick that's connected to the wheel, while VW have a similar one for the horn button right on the wheel itself.. Could go on and on, and they could have great fun taking each other to court. Some industries maybe aren't so open to pointless patents (maybe pharmaceuticals?), but in most I think you could do a hell of a lot. Maybe they already do the same, but we just don't hear about it. Maybe they could, but are wise enough not to bother. Maybe the patents system has just been in use for a longer time in those industries, so companies aren't allowed to get away with so much crap?
- qohen 15y ago
  FYI, this actually happened in the nascent aviation industry--the government had to step in to force the players to cross-license their patents (in order to have planes for World War I): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war Some interesting bits from that Wikipedia page, which demonstrate that patents don't necessarily promote innovation and that being too litigious with them can damage one's reputation: From the "Patent War" section: "The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines." From the "Aftermath" section: "The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions may have retarded the development of aviation,[9][14] and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly."
  - qohen 15y ago
    BTW, while the government had to intervene in the aircraft case, there have been cases of various companies coming together to form their own private patent pool too, the most famous of which would be related to the sewing machine: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-like-a-sewing-machine/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-l... "The Sewing Machine War was the first instance of what is today called a 'patent thicket.' The disputes prevented Singer from selling his invention, and tensions ran high in and out of court: When Howe personally called on Singer, Singer threatened to throw him down a flight of stairs. But there’s a happy ending to the story, as your machine-stitched clothes evince. The Sewing Machine War ended with a just and lasting peace in 1856, when Orlando B. Potter--a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs--suggested a solution that Mossoff calls 'groundbreaking but also breathtakingly simple': The patent-holders would combine their patents in a 'patent pool' and share the profits from selling the machines. The patent pool participants lived happily and wealthily ever after--or at least until 1877, when the last patent expired."
tick80 15y ago
In other industries, it can take years and millions/billions of investment before a product steps on someone's patent. With software, you can design, build and sell a product overnight for virtually no cost and do the same.

buster 15y ago

Haha, exactly. Now, i have a new parable for discussions on this one.

yason 15y ago

it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to engage in This just underlines the futility of the patent system. Anyone who's patenting real things because they're creative and innovative is playing the old game. The new game is patent anything you can think of, do it a lot, and bet on the shotgun approach when the shit hits the fan. When it comes to patents, when there's much hassle then most companies drop their charges/defenses and just settle. When there's too much hassle then many won't even sue. The final outcome of this degeneration of patents is that companies just buy enough patents, any patents, in numbers to establish a premeditated interlock on mutual interests. It's primarily controlled by the amount of money available to be spent on defences. In this sort of scheme patents would just become mere papers. The actual validity would remain at least far-fetched as today. If markets work as usual there might be actual patent manufacturing companies too, because it's obviously cheaper to buy mass-produced patents than invest both in patenting and actual R&D. So you buy patents much like everybody buys insurance these days. Eventually all decent companies will be too scared to point to each others' patent pools that it becomes a cold-war situation, with maybe some little legal battles between smaller companies.