4 ms·

Patent trolls are a symptom of the problem that the patent system misidentifies the risk involved in invention. The concept is to mitigate the risk of innovati

by zmmmmm 15y ago

Patent trolls are a symptom of the problem that the patent system misidentifies the risk involved in invention. The concept is to mitigate the risk of innovating by adding reward. But the reward in the patent system is associated to the conceptualization of the idea which (mostly) carries no risk. The risk comes when you try to invest in that idea to bring it to market. So patent trolls can capture all the reward but not have any of the risk. The only way to solve this is to limit the reward to match the risk: a patent owner should only be entitled to damages that are directly comparable to the revenue they themselves are making from the same invention in the same market. If a patent troll is doing nothing with an invention then it should fall into the public domain.

netcan 15y ago
Even that has issues. Say you invent X and start selling it locally. You're making a few $100k p/m and growing fast. The global market could be in the billions but your planning on growing one town at a time. Meanwhile, another company with resources uses your invention and decides to grow 10 cities at a time. They can be 10X bigger than you very fast. They're eating your lunch, even if you'd only have made a fraction of what they made in that period. That said, patents aren't supposed to be for inventors, they're supposed to be for society, to help stuff get invented and produced. Society benefits more from the larger company.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "patents aren't supposed to be for inventors, they're supposed to be for society, to help stuff get invented and produced. Society benefits more from the larger company." It's both. The original vision for the patent system, as laid out in the Constitution, was "...to promote the progress of science and useful arts [thereby benefitting society as a whole], by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries." The end-goal is, as you've stated, the benefit of society as effeced by innovation and discovery. An important implication in that goal is that society does not benefit, and maybe even hurts, from stagnation in the arts and sciences. The founders theorized that a society free from any patents or protections would lead to stagnation, because there would be no financial benefit to the inventors, and hence, fewer would get into the innovations game in the first place. In order for society to benefit from innovation, being an inventor needs to have some serious upside, so that more inventors keep inventing. There's nothing in the letter or spirit of the US patent system that claims the "larger company" or the "smaller company" in your example is better for society. Indeed, the patent system is mainly concerned with the startup/inventor at its seed stage. Where the startup or inventor goes from there is left open to the dynamics of the marketplace.
  - wnight 15y ago
    The section you quoted only supports the claim that patents are for society - all benefits to the creators are merely to promote the progress of science, etc... They merely gave congress the power to do this, like declaring war, but they didn't mandate it. Patents are broken. Fundamentally and in this implementation. We could reward those who helps society, such as inventors (regardless of who builds the invention) and the engineer who creatively gets the price down to where everyone can have one, and the manager who wrangled thousands of people to make something great, all without granting a single monopoly. Simply divide the cost of the patent office (ignore the money it collects because it's a tax on industry), and give it to the people who've made things we like/need. For more money, tax industry equivalently to the average current patent litigation burden and give that to the innovators as well. It's no less fair than what we do now, at its worst, and its upsides are tremendous.
iqster 15y ago
That's an insightful post. There is great risk in actually getting an idea to market. However, there is risk at the conceptualization phase too. I'd guess 1 in 100 patents are actually worth anything. There is a sort of yield management that goes on. I don't see any solution to the mess other than abolishing software patents. That way you have a level playing field. I really don't think that will stop researchers from innovating, nor will it stop those with a purse from funding them. But yeah ... not gonna happen in my lifetime :(
spodek 15y ago
Addressing the system, not single elements within it, is right on. If a company can legally profit doing something, how can you blame them for following the rules? Saying trolls are killing innovation is like saying tall people are killing basketball. Once you write the rules, people will win the game by following those rules. If you want shorter basketball players, change the rules that give them advantages. If you want more innovation, change the rules that stifle it. Blaming people for following the rules does little but polarize the debate.
- pi18n 15y ago
  Tall basketball players wouldn't extort money from a short basketball player, though, would they?

by zmmmmm 15y ago

netcan 15y ago

Even that has issues. Say you invent X and start selling it locally. You're making a few $100k p/m and growing fast. The global market could be in the billions but your planning on growing one town at a time. Meanwhile, another company with resources uses your invention and decides to grow 10 cities at a time. They can be 10X bigger than you very fast. They're eating your lunch, even if you'd only have made a fraction of what they made in that period. That said, patents aren't supposed to be for inventors, they're supposed to be for society, to help stuff get invented and produced. Society benefits more from the larger company.

jonnathanson 15y ago
"patents aren't supposed to be for inventors, they're supposed to be for society, to help stuff get invented and produced. Society benefits more from the larger company." It's both. The original vision for the patent system, as laid out in the Constitution, was "...to promote the progress of science and useful arts [thereby benefitting society as a whole], by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries." The end-goal is, as you've stated, the benefit of society as effeced by innovation and discovery. An important implication in that goal is that society does not benefit, and maybe even hurts, from stagnation in the arts and sciences. The founders theorized that a society free from any patents or protections would lead to stagnation, because there would be no financial benefit to the inventors, and hence, fewer would get into the innovations game in the first place. In order for society to benefit from innovation, being an inventor needs to have some serious upside, so that more inventors keep inventing. There's nothing in the letter or spirit of the US patent system that claims the "larger company" or the "smaller company" in your example is better for society. Indeed, the patent system is mainly concerned with the startup/inventor at its seed stage. Where the startup or inventor goes from there is left open to the dynamics of the marketplace.
- wnight 15y ago
  The section you quoted only supports the claim that patents are for society - all benefits to the creators are merely to promote the progress of science, etc... They merely gave congress the power to do this, like declaring war, but they didn't mandate it. Patents are broken. Fundamentally and in this implementation. We could reward those who helps society, such as inventors (regardless of who builds the invention) and the engineer who creatively gets the price down to where everyone can have one, and the manager who wrangled thousands of people to make something great, all without granting a single monopoly. Simply divide the cost of the patent office (ignore the money it collects because it's a tax on industry), and give it to the people who've made things we like/need. For more money, tax industry equivalently to the average current patent litigation burden and give that to the innovators as well. It's no less fair than what we do now, at its worst, and its upsides are tremendous.

iqster 15y ago

That's an insightful post. There is great risk in actually getting an idea to market. However, there is risk at the conceptualization phase too. I'd guess 1 in 100 patents are actually worth anything. There is a sort of yield management that goes on. I don't see any solution to the mess other than abolishing software patents. That way you have a level playing field. I really don't think that will stop researchers from innovating, nor will it stop those with a purse from funding them. But yeah ... not gonna happen in my lifetime :(

spodek 15y ago

Addressing the system, not single elements within it, is right on. If a company can legally profit doing something, how can you blame them for following the rules? Saying trolls are killing innovation is like saying tall people are killing basketball. Once you write the rules, people will win the game by following those rules. If you want shorter basketball players, change the rules that give them advantages. If you want more innovation, change the rules that stifle it. Blaming people for following the rules does little but polarize the debate.

pi18n 15y ago
Tall basketball players wouldn't extort money from a short basketball player, though, would they?