4 ms·

The suit always comes after they try to license (a.k.a settle) and are denied.

by nceqs3 4y ago

Aachen 4y ago
If you're only suing different parties that independently also discovered your invention, that's a different thing than trying to sell your patent to an entity that is actually going to produce the invention and make use of it. Maybe patents should indeed only be enforceable by those that produce the invention (practicing entities as it was called above, not sure if that's an official term or something they came up with) and if you want royalties then you should put that in the contract when you sell the patent rather than sitting on patents without doing anything useful. That way we can have individual inventors (they are rewarded by what they make from the patent's sale) without also allowing trolls to claim to be inventors (because "NPEs" can't actually sue for infringement). Or perhaps this should be a software thing, I don't know enough about how well this stuff worked for other fields honestly. I've only ever heard bad stories but then I also hang out with open source communities. Edit: I realized one might think this makes the patent useless. If you can't sue for infringement as entity that doesn't produce the invention itself, any company could produce it and ignore you. Correct. However, I'm sure that if EvilCorp ignores your patent sale offer and produces GreatInvention without a license, MegaCompetitor would love to take the GreatInvention patent off your hands and license it to EvilCorp (or not and just block further use by EvilCorp). Thus the inventor can still be rewarded for the sale (incentivizing inventions), the new owner gets benefits of exclusivity for the parent's remaining duration, and it forces the invention to be available on the market (it can't only be locked away uselessly). There's something to say for gjsman-1000's idea, or shall we say, invention
- nceqs3 4y ago
  In your absurd hypothetical, how could MegaCompetitor block further use without a lawsuit (which could result in an injunction)? You are now advocating for only MegaCorps to own patents. Pretty wild to see HN users say that startups should not be allowed to compete with incumbents.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    I'm not sure you understood me. > Pretty wild to see HN users say that startups should not be allowed to compete with incumbents. Pretty wild to be so misinterpreted. Of course startups should be able to use a patent. The point is just that an entity that does not make use of it also does not get to make use of the exclusivity granted. A "startup" that only exists to enforce patents would be the definition of a patent troll afaik, hence me liking the idea that one needs to use the patent to make use of its rights. (Edit, Wikipedia: "Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.") > how could MegaCompetitor block further use without a lawsuit (which could result in an injunction)? Who said anything about "without a lawsuit"? See the part where I said that patents should perhaps only: >> be enforceable by those that produce the invention So when MegaCompetitor makes wipers from the example above, they can enforce that EvilCorp doesn't make wipers during the patent's validity period. Since the government has a monopoly on force, that means they need a lawsuit with an injunction as goal. (I'm not a lawyer though, nor natively English, hope I'm understanding and using the word injunction correctly.)

The suit always comes after they try to license (a.k.a settle) and are denied.

by nceqs3 4y ago

The suit always comes after they try to license (a.k.a settle) and are denied.

If you're only suing different parties that independently also discovered your invention, that's a different thing than trying to sell your patent to an entity that is actually going to produce the invention and make use of it. Maybe patents should indeed only be enforceable by those that produce the invention (practicing entities as it was called above, not sure if that's an official term or something they came up with) and if you want royalties then you should put that in the contract when you sell the patent rather than sitting on patents without doing anything useful. That way we can have individual inventors (they are rewarded by what they make from the patent's sale) without also allowing trolls to claim to be inventors (because "NPEs" can't actually sue for infringement). Or perhaps this should be a software thing, I don't know enough about how well this stuff worked for other fields honestly. I've only ever heard bad stories but then I also hang out with open source communities. Edit: I realized one might think this makes the patent useless. If you can't sue for infringement as entity that doesn't produce the invention itself, any company could produce it and ignore you. Correct. However, I'm sure that if EvilCorp ignores your patent sale offer and produces GreatInvention without a license, MegaCompetitor would love to take the GreatInvention patent off your hands and license it to EvilCorp (or not and just block further use by EvilCorp). Thus the inventor can still be rewarded for the sale (incentivizing inventions), the new owner gets benefits of exclusivity for the parent's remaining duration, and it forces the invention to be available on the market (it can't only be locked away uselessly). There's something to say for gjsman-1000's idea, or shall we say, invention

nceqs3 4y ago
In your absurd hypothetical, how could MegaCompetitor block further use without a lawsuit (which could result in an injunction)? You are now advocating for only MegaCorps to own patents. Pretty wild to see HN users say that startups should not be allowed to compete with incumbents.
- Aachen 4y ago
  I'm not sure you understood me. > Pretty wild to see HN users say that startups should not be allowed to compete with incumbents. Pretty wild to be so misinterpreted. Of course startups should be able to use a patent. The point is just that an entity that does not make use of it also does not get to make use of the exclusivity granted. A "startup" that only exists to enforce patents would be the definition of a patent troll afaik, hence me liking the idea that one needs to use the patent to make use of its rights. (Edit, Wikipedia: "Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.") > how could MegaCompetitor block further use without a lawsuit (which could result in an injunction)? Who said anything about "without a lawsuit"? See the part where I said that patents should perhaps only: >> be enforceable by those that produce the invention So when MegaCompetitor makes wipers from the example above, they can enforce that EvilCorp doesn't make wipers during the patent's validity period. Since the government has a monopoly on force, that means they need a lawsuit with an injunction as goal. (I'm not a lawyer though, nor natively English, hope I'm understanding and using the word injunction correctly.)