4 ms·

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only m

Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. If we need to reform patents, maybe it should be based on revenue generated. Once a company has been successfully "incentivized" for their "innovation" the patent expires sooner.

dgb23 4y ago
Wait that actually makes a ton of sense, at least in theory. Never thought about it this way. Though there’s probably a want to amortize risk of failed research projects, failed as in “didn’t contribute to a product”?
SQueeeeeL 4y ago
>Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. Truly small operations don't have the bandwidth or resources to even file for a patent. So it's pretty much only medium sized companies or those with the backing of powerful groups who take advantage of the patent system.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  The data are readily available.[0] It seems that small businesses actually can file patents. Even small teams and individuals can file patents, and do. I fact, patents per employee seemingly decreases as company size increases. [0]https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/13092425/Fact-Sheet_Small-Business-Innovation-Measured-by-Patenting-Activity.pdf https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1309...
  - outworlder 4y ago
    While that's true, have you tried? It's a full time job.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  This just isn't true I got my name on patents working at small companies.
- narrator 4y ago
  I successfully patented a product and licensed that patent to a small company that does quite well selling a product based on that patent. It did cost about $15k, but that's business risk. If a megacorp ever infringed the patent, we could sue them. Sure, they could try and work around it with other designs, but their product wouldn't work as well.
user3939382 4y ago
Not a bad line of thought. We also have to solve the problem where you have e.g. China and corporations in China blatantly flouting any IP laws. If we did have a just IP regime (we don't) it would continue to be severely undercut by this problem. Somehow, if it's even possible, we need buy-in/treaties etc. from the major economies.
gibspaulding 4y ago
I could see a scenario if this were the case where some company works out a way to sit on a patent adjacent to something they sell so that they keep competitors from using the idea, while not actually using the idea itself (or using it in a way engineered not to make a profit). That way they can maintain their entrenched position longer by squashing innovation.
msla 4y ago
Large companies have patent warchests, and can engage in long-term litigation to ensure small companies cannot compete. Patents do nothing to protect small companies from that. "Ignoring patents" as you say would help level the playing field for every company, and ensure companies cannot do things like patent XOR and destroy all of their competition.
bheadmaster 4y ago
In theory, yes. In practice, the big companies usually have a ton of vague questionable defensive patents that cover a huge space of "inventions", so even if the smaller companies try to sue, they will get avalanched by an array of patent suits that could potentially bankrupt the company.
- cptskippy 4y ago
  Exactly. Companies file and retain patents that aren't defensible or questionable for defensive purposes. Perhaps the patents won't hold up in court but given enough of them you can bankrupt someone before they can prove them all invalid.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  I'm all for reforming patents, but this seems like it's more a part of a larger set of problems with how civil suits are really only a tool for the big guys, namely: 1. With inadequate penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits, filing frivolous lawsuits becomes a strategy. I've unfortunately had a close friend be a victim of this strategy. I won't name my friend, but I will name that Jared Kushner's companies were the (repeated) plaintiff. If we close the loopholes around patents (and we should) it will only make the filing of frivolous lawsuits slightly less efficient, because the lawsuits will get thrown out quicker. Note that even if the lawsuits get thrown out, they still cost the defendants money to get them thrown out, so patent reform wouldn't even necessarily mean they can't file patent lawsuits, it just means the lawsuits might get thrown out slightly faster. 2. Justice isn't possible in civil suits where the plaintiff and defendant have disparate resources to pay for counsel.
AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
Compulsory licensing of patents as well. I'm a huge fan of compulsory licensing in many industries.
freddref 4y ago
Can you give us an example where a smaller company was successful in court against a much larger corp?
- wnevets 4y ago
  You are asking the wrong question IMO. We really want examples of large companies licensing patents or buying smaller companies for their patents. Both are examples of patents helping smaller companies against those much larger. If patents no longer existed those smaller companies would get nothing.
- rowanajmarshall 4y ago
  Nearly a decade ago but this:https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=54cf4b4f-ccb4-49af-a007-4e6095bde67b https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=54cf4b4f-ccb4... Nestle has around 276,000 employees today, while Dualit seems to have around 100-200 (hard to tell since Dualit is private).
  - bitcharmer 4y ago
    And for one case of a small entity successfully defending against a Behemoth there's hundreds of cases where it was the exact opposite.
- akhosravian 4y ago
  This is the business model of patent trolls.
hammock 4y ago
>maybe it should be based on revenue generated The pitfall there is that there is no guarantee of revenue. You also invite the possibility of predatorily delaying revenue generation. Potential revenue generated would be more on the nose. In another sense, sustaining a patent until it generates sufficient revenue can be seen as oxymoronic to the idea that patents incent products that serve the public interest - since, if the patent is not creating value, how can it be in the public interest? Patent lifespans are already sort of considered based on potential revenue generated, and use number of years as a proxy for that
- wnevets 4y ago
  You wouldn't need to get rid of the current limits, just expire the patent sooner. If a company generates $10 Billion dollars in the first 5 years of their 20 year patent the reminding 15 years isn't necessary to incentivize innovation. Rewarding innovation has been archived, just skip ahead to the part where the public at large benefits.
  - hammock 4y ago
    So a cap on patent revenues, with ensuing expiration
    - wnevets 4y ago
      precisely
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
>Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. why? why does it have to be only larger companies? if its a free for all, i copy your product, you copy mine. how is that not free market? people will choose so let them. you could decide to not publicly release a product but you risk your competitor "inventing" the same thing in their own way so you can only either release it first or make the biggest noise.
ElijahLynn 4y ago
The https://openinventionnetwork.com/ https://openinventionnetwork.com/ exists now too, to make defensive patents for those who want to open source their patents but keep a big corp from attacking after stealing an idea/patent.

dgb23 4y ago

Wait that actually makes a ton of sense, at least in theory. Never thought about it this way. Though there’s probably a want to amortize risk of failed research projects, failed as in “didn’t contribute to a product”?

SQueeeeeL 4y ago

>Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. Truly small operations don't have the bandwidth or resources to even file for a patent. So it's pretty much only medium sized companies or those with the backing of powerful groups who take advantage of the patent system.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
The data are readily available.[0] It seems that small businesses actually can file patents. Even small teams and individuals can file patents, and do. I fact, patents per employee seemingly decreases as company size increases. [0]https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/13092425/Fact-Sheet_Small-Business-Innovation-Measured-by-Patenting-Activity.pdf https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1309...
- outworlder 4y ago
  While that's true, have you tried? It's a full time job.
ROTMetro 4y ago
This just isn't true I got my name on patents working at small companies.
narrator 4y ago
I successfully patented a product and licensed that patent to a small company that does quite well selling a product based on that patent. It did cost about $15k, but that's business risk. If a megacorp ever infringed the patent, we could sue them. Sure, they could try and work around it with other designs, but their product wouldn't work as well.

user3939382 4y ago

Not a bad line of thought. We also have to solve the problem where you have e.g. China and corporations in China blatantly flouting any IP laws. If we did have a just IP regime (we don't) it would continue to be severely undercut by this problem. Somehow, if it's even possible, we need buy-in/treaties etc. from the major economies.

gibspaulding 4y ago

I could see a scenario if this were the case where some company works out a way to sit on a patent adjacent to something they sell so that they keep competitors from using the idea, while not actually using the idea itself (or using it in a way engineered not to make a profit). That way they can maintain their entrenched position longer by squashing innovation.

msla 4y ago

Large companies have patent warchests, and can engage in long-term litigation to ensure small companies cannot compete. Patents do nothing to protect small companies from that. "Ignoring patents" as you say would help level the playing field for every company, and ensure companies cannot do things like patent XOR and destroy all of their competition.

bheadmaster 4y ago

In theory, yes. In practice, the big companies usually have a ton of vague questionable defensive patents that cover a huge space of "inventions", so even if the smaller companies try to sue, they will get avalanched by an array of patent suits that could potentially bankrupt the company.

cptskippy 4y ago
Exactly. Companies file and retain patents that aren't defensible or questionable for defensive purposes. Perhaps the patents won't hold up in court but given enough of them you can bankrupt someone before they can prove them all invalid.
kerkeslager 4y ago
I'm all for reforming patents, but this seems like it's more a part of a larger set of problems with how civil suits are really only a tool for the big guys, namely: 1. With inadequate penalties for filing frivolous lawsuits, filing frivolous lawsuits becomes a strategy. I've unfortunately had a close friend be a victim of this strategy. I won't name my friend, but I will name that Jared Kushner's companies were the (repeated) plaintiff. If we close the loopholes around patents (and we should) it will only make the filing of frivolous lawsuits slightly less efficient, because the lawsuits will get thrown out quicker. Note that even if the lawsuits get thrown out, they still cost the defendants money to get them thrown out, so patent reform wouldn't even necessarily mean they can't file patent lawsuits, it just means the lawsuits might get thrown out slightly faster. 2. Justice isn't possible in civil suits where the plaintiff and defendant have disparate resources to pay for counsel.

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago

Compulsory licensing of patents as well. I'm a huge fan of compulsory licensing in many industries.

freddref 4y ago

Can you give us an example where a smaller company was successful in court against a much larger corp?

wnevets 4y ago
You are asking the wrong question IMO. We really want examples of large companies licensing patents or buying smaller companies for their patents. Both are examples of patents helping smaller companies against those much larger. If patents no longer existed those smaller companies would get nothing.
rowanajmarshall 4y ago
Nearly a decade ago but this:https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=54cf4b4f-ccb4-49af-a007-4e6095bde67b https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=54cf4b4f-ccb4... Nestle has around 276,000 employees today, while Dualit seems to have around 100-200 (hard to tell since Dualit is private).
- bitcharmer 4y ago
  And for one case of a small entity successfully defending against a Behemoth there's hundreds of cases where it was the exact opposite.
akhosravian 4y ago
This is the business model of patent trolls.

hammock 4y ago

>maybe it should be based on revenue generated The pitfall there is that there is no guarantee of revenue. You also invite the possibility of predatorily delaying revenue generation. Potential revenue generated would be more on the nose. In another sense, sustaining a patent until it generates sufficient revenue can be seen as oxymoronic to the idea that patents incent products that serve the public interest - since, if the patent is not creating value, how can it be in the public interest? Patent lifespans are already sort of considered based on potential revenue generated, and use number of years as a proxy for that

wnevets 4y ago
You wouldn't need to get rid of the current limits, just expire the patent sooner. If a company generates $10 Billion dollars in the first 5 years of their 20 year patent the reminding 15 years isn't necessary to incentivize innovation. Rewarding innovation has been archived, just skip ahead to the part where the public at large benefits.
- hammock 4y ago
  So a cap on patent revenues, with ensuing expiration
  - wnevets 4y ago
    precisely

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

>Patents are still being used to protect smaller companies from much larger corporations. Allowing these large corporations to legally ignore patents will only make things worse for the rest of us. why? why does it have to be only larger companies? if its a free for all, i copy your product, you copy mine. how is that not free market? people will choose so let them. you could decide to not publicly release a product but you risk your competitor "inventing" the same thing in their own way so you can only either release it first or make the biggest noise.

ElijahLynn 4y ago

The https://openinventionnetwork.com/ https://openinventionnetwork.com/ exists now too, to make defensive patents for those who want to open source their patents but keep a big corp from attacking after stealing an idea/patent.