6 ms·

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous. This might sound controvers

I find the framing of the conversation around problems with the patent system to largely be about patent trolls quite disingenuous. This might sound controversial, but patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent (note not invention). If say IBM violates your patent an individual or even a moderate startup or company has absolutely no chance of defending it, because IBM will either drown you in litigation cost or if you also do business find 10 other patents in their portfolio that you violate and force you to cross licence. By framing the issues to be about patent trolls means that the big companies just want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep out newcomers without any risk to their own business. That doesn't mean I am pro patent trolls, but I just am not convinced that the patent system fullfills any value. Patents are written so broad that they are essentially meaningless.

jmugan 4y ago
The small inventor is supposed to monetize a patent by building something useful for society. That's the whole deal. The patent itself shouldn't have value beyond protecting that path.
- ksidudwbw 4y ago
  Bump
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Why? They might be much better at inventing things than starting and running a business. The stated goal behind patents is to advance the sciences not to create businesses.
  - jmugan 4y ago
    My understanding is that the goal is to advance society (not really the sciences) by enabling someone to produce their invention so society can benefit from it. The patent protects someone from having that invention copied as soon as it is put to use, which provides motivation to spend the time inventing it.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      From the US constitution : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
newaccount74 4y ago
I think the story of "small inventor makes big contribution" is very misleading. If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it. The only scenario where patents make sense is when a research group spends significant resources to invent something, and then publishes the invention with all the necessary documentation to make use of the invention, then they should be rewarded with licensing fees for their contribution, so they can continue and hopefully make more inventions. Edit: When I say research group I'm not just thinking of non-profit universities. A research group could also be a group within a for-profit company that develops something, a for-profit institute, a joint industry working group, etc.
- munk-a 4y ago
  I think that's one way to view invention but the classic way it's been viewed in America is that if you found a novel way to put a sponge on the end of a dowel and manage to market it you should have protections to exclusively make your good for a while - there has always been, for me at least, a very strong romanticization of folks inventing things in their garage and making a few hundred thousand dollars off of them.
  - asdff 4y ago
    Imagine how history would have changed if we had to wait for the patent on the wheel to expire to use it
- headhasthoughts 4y ago
  In your proposed world, shouldn't we simply get rid of patents entirely? The person who made the flash freezer, for example, was just one person. If he couldn't protect his patent, despite definitively changing the face of global food preparation, why should IBM have any intellectual property?
  - newaccount74 4y ago
kmacdough 4y ago
Definitely the patent system has some issues. It certainly offers way too many protections with far too few checks. But there seem to be some strong assumptions here. > patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent In the current system, yes, but in general no. The outcome is tied to the "litigation costs" precisely because the patent office is underequipped, leaving the burden of investigation on individuals. Strengthening the authority, and actively prosecuting and penalizing patent troll behavior increases both cost & risk, while cutting income. Your investigative authority doesn't need to be perfect - just better - to significantly change trolling economics. > because IBM will either drown you in litigation cost ... IBM is one of the longest standing patent troll companies and these are cookie cutter patent troll tactics. Good anti-troll legislation dilutes this by strengthening the investigations.
thewebcount 4y ago
If you're suing IBM, maybe. But I don't see how the majority of patent trolls that seem to be suing small businesses for things like using a printer, scanner, fax combo they bought at Office Depot is helping anyone out.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Its about identifying symptoms, not being an apologist okay so you’re living paycheck to paycheck and took the risk of filing your patent with the attorney for $10,000 and arguing with the patent office a couple times for another $10,000 now you need to monetize it and other people did the thing you described after you described it everyone on the internet says “hm you should have launched a startup using more capital and more risk, doing that one specific thing, otherwise you are just a troll!” yeah ok. convincing argument
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    The argument is that society would be better off the the inventor licensed (or sold outright) to a company that will actually use the patent. Instead of to a NPE that exists only to sue. If an inventor just wants to sit on a patent and not produce anything based on it, they should be forced to (eventually, though I have no idea what timeframe would be optimal) release their rights.
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      That’s an ok argument but you know why that doesn’t happen right? Companies get defensive at the mere suggestion of paying anything, NPE streamlines the process
AlbertCory 4y ago
There are several errors in your analysis, while it IS accurate that "suing IBM" is difficult for a small inventor. First, patent trolls have a very simple business model (and I heard this from a former troll): - Don't even sue the real easy marks, the ones who will just write a check for $50,000 to make you go away. Just threatening them is enough. - Sue the slighter harder targets. For these, you have to actually file a suit. They will settle with you, and you'll demand more than $50K because they made you work a little. - (This step is optional) Sue the real hard targets, like Google, who will file an IPR (inter-partes reexamination) to try to invalidate your patent. Again, many times you'll end up with a settlement out of this. - (also optional): go to trial, and hope for a gigantic jury verdict. Buy a lottery ticket, in other words. Now your statement "Patents are written so broad that they are essentially meaningless." is nonsense. "So broad" means that they apply to lots of products, and the jury just has to decide one of the claims applies to yours. So, your "small inventor" might get some money by selling to the patent troll, but it might not be from defeating IBM, and it won't be 100% of the money.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. Regarding the broadness of patents, my point is they don't advance technology or the sciences (the oft stated goal of patents), because they try to cover everything without revealing anything (a goal given to me by several patent attorneys in the patenting process). So what is their purpose?
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. As I agreed. However, you're wrong that a troll necessarily goes after the infringer you know about, and in fact they may not even bother. Secondly, "broadness" is a term of art in patents. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean "advancing technology." It means the scope of things covered by the claims.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jmugan 4y ago

The small inventor is supposed to monetize a patent by building something useful for society. That's the whole deal. The patent itself shouldn't have value beyond protecting that path.

ksidudwbw 4y ago
Bump
cycomanic 4y ago
Why? They might be much better at inventing things than starting and running a business. The stated goal behind patents is to advance the sciences not to create businesses.
- jmugan 4y ago
  My understanding is that the goal is to advance society (not really the sciences) by enabling someone to produce their invention so society can benefit from it. The patent protects someone from having that invention copied as soon as it is put to use, which provides motivation to spend the time inventing it.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    From the US constitution : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

newaccount74 4y ago

I think the story of "small inventor makes big contribution" is very misleading. If an invention is small enough that someone can make it without spending significant resources, it is probably obvious enough that you shouldn't be allowed to patent it, because it is more likely other people incidentally have the same idea than they are "stealing" it. The only scenario where patents make sense is when a research group spends significant resources to invent something, and then publishes the invention with all the necessary documentation to make use of the invention, then they should be rewarded with licensing fees for their contribution, so they can continue and hopefully make more inventions. Edit: When I say research group I'm not just thinking of non-profit universities. A research group could also be a group within a for-profit company that develops something, a for-profit institute, a joint industry working group, etc.

munk-a 4y ago
I think that's one way to view invention but the classic way it's been viewed in America is that if you found a novel way to put a sponge on the end of a dowel and manage to market it you should have protections to exclusively make your good for a while - there has always been, for me at least, a very strong romanticization of folks inventing things in their garage and making a few hundred thousand dollars off of them.
- asdff 4y ago
  Imagine how history would have changed if we had to wait for the patent on the wheel to expire to use it
headhasthoughts 4y ago
In your proposed world, shouldn't we simply get rid of patents entirely? The person who made the flash freezer, for example, was just one person. If he couldn't protect his patent, despite definitively changing the face of global food preparation, why should IBM have any intellectual property?
- newaccount74 4y ago

kmacdough 4y ago

Definitely the patent system has some issues. It certainly offers way too many protections with far too few checks. But there seem to be some strong assumptions here. > patent trolls are pretty much the only way for a "small inventor" to monetize a patent In the current system, yes, but in general no. The outcome is tied to the "litigation costs" precisely because the patent office is underequipped, leaving the burden of investigation on individuals. Strengthening the authority, and actively prosecuting and penalizing patent troll behavior increases both cost & risk, while cutting income. Your investigative authority doesn't need to be perfect - just better - to significantly change trolling economics. > because IBM will either drown you in litigation cost ... IBM is one of the longest standing patent troll companies and these are cookie cutter patent troll tactics. Good anti-troll legislation dilutes this by strengthening the investigations.

thewebcount 4y ago

If you're suing IBM, maybe. But I don't see how the majority of patent trolls that seem to be suing small businesses for things like using a printer, scanner, fax combo they bought at Office Depot is helping anyone out.

yieldcrv 4y ago
Its about identifying symptoms, not being an apologist okay so you’re living paycheck to paycheck and took the risk of filing your patent with the attorney for $10,000 and arguing with the patent office a couple times for another $10,000 now you need to monetize it and other people did the thing you described after you described it everyone on the internet says “hm you should have launched a startup using more capital and more risk, doing that one specific thing, otherwise you are just a troll!” yeah ok. convincing argument
- alistairSH 4y ago
  The argument is that society would be better off the the inventor licensed (or sold outright) to a company that will actually use the patent. Instead of to a NPE that exists only to sue. If an inventor just wants to sit on a patent and not produce anything based on it, they should be forced to (eventually, though I have no idea what timeframe would be optimal) release their rights.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    That’s an ok argument but you know why that doesn’t happen right? Companies get defensive at the mere suggestion of paying anything, NPE streamlines the process

AlbertCory 4y ago

There are several errors in your analysis, while it IS accurate that "suing IBM" is difficult for a small inventor. First, patent trolls have a very simple business model (and I heard this from a former troll): - Don't even sue the real easy marks, the ones who will just write a check for $50,000 to make you go away. Just threatening them is enough. - Sue the slighter harder targets. For these, you have to actually file a suit. They will settle with you, and you'll demand more than $50K because they made you work a little. - (This step is optional) Sue the real hard targets, like Google, who will file an IPR (inter-partes reexamination) to try to invalidate your patent. Again, many times you'll end up with a settlement out of this. - (also optional): go to trial, and hope for a gigantic jury verdict. Buy a lottery ticket, in other words. Now your statement "Patents are written so broad that they are essentially meaningless." is nonsense. "So broad" means that they apply to lots of products, and the jury just has to decide one of the claims applies to yours. So, your "small inventor" might get some money by selling to the patent troll, but it might not be from defeating IBM, and it won't be 100% of the money.

cycomanic 4y ago
I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. Regarding the broadness of patents, my point is they don't advance technology or the sciences (the oft stated goal of patents), because they try to cover everything without revealing anything (a goal given to me by several patent attorneys in the patenting process). So what is their purpose?
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves. As I agreed. However, you're wrong that a troll necessarily goes after the infringer you know about, and in fact they may not even bother. Secondly, "broadness" is a term of art in patents. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean "advancing technology." It means the scope of things covered by the claims.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]