5 ms·

Patent trolls serve no useful function. There already is a secondary market for innovation. Companies buy and sell patents all the time, and the buyers often us

by natrius 18y ago

Patent trolls serve no useful function. There already is a secondary market for innovation. Companies buy and sell patents all the time, and the buyers often use those patents to create innovative products. The problem is the patent trolls, which I define as a company that owns and litigates patents without actually using the patents for anything. You should have to be using the patent or at least show a clear intent to use the patent to be able sue people for infringing it. This part is probably more complicated than I'm making it out to be, but that is clearly the intent of patent law, so it should be changed to reflect that intent.

cwp 18y ago
I think patent holders should only be able to sue for lost revenue. That is, damages should be limited to what they would have been able to earn from the invention if nobody else had been using it.
anamax 18y ago
> Patent trolls serve no useful function. There already is a secondary market for innovation. Are you saying that independent inventors should not be compensated or that they should only be compensated when they sell to practitioners?
- ericb 18y ago
  If you sell a great idea to someone who ensures it will never be realized (patent troll), you should not be compensated--you have caused the destruction of a great idea from the world of possibilities, which is akin to vandalism. Patents are intended to spur innovation, but when there is no production, the greater good suffers.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Patent trolls buy patents with the intent of licensing them to people who produce. In fact, they often as such spur on production. They sue only when a patent is infringed upon. It's not typically their goal to do so, their goal is to license.
    - ericb 18y ago
      Right, but now there is a toll on the bridge to producing that item. If the best items command the highest toll (license price), great ideas are now de-incentivized. The public good has not been served. The need for a patent license prevents, delays, or slows the idea from being executed upon by adding a cost to it, and the execution is the valuable part.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        I still don't think you understand. There's always a toll for any patent you didn't register. Patent licensing often lowers it. Buying a patent is often more expensive than renting, especially if the renting is non-exclusive. Patent trolls often buy the patent and license it out to multiple companies, creating competition and lowering the barrier to entry. The best patents commanded a high price even before there were patent licensing businesses. In fact, now the amount you can make off of a great patent is higher because the demand is. It's really only because they occasionally sue that people complain, but without lawsuits their business model wouldn't work.
        ericb 18y ago
        Why would I start a business based around a patent when I have no guarantee the licensing fee won't be onerous? There is always a toll--if there is a patent. Why would I pat someone on the back for licensing me something that was once free, until a BS patent was created and sold to an extortionist? >> lowering the barrier to entry I think the difference is that I am stepping outside of the current system to make my point, and you're saying patent trolls and licensing improve the current system. It seems clear to me fees in general are disincentives. I agree with you that a lower fee is a lower disincentive, but still more of a disincentive than no fee at all. Individuals without defensive patent portfolios are at a severe disadvantage in the current environment. Without the current sham system, there is no "toll for patents I didn't register." This is not to say that there should be no system--only that the system is broken and does not accomplish its aims effectively.
        18y ago

by natrius 18y ago

cwp 18y ago

I think patent holders should only be able to sue for lost revenue. That is, damages should be limited to what they would have been able to earn from the invention if nobody else had been using it.

anamax 18y ago

> Patent trolls serve no useful function. There already is a secondary market for innovation. Are you saying that independent inventors should not be compensated or that they should only be compensated when they sell to practitioners?

ericb 18y ago
If you sell a great idea to someone who ensures it will never be realized (patent troll), you should not be compensated--you have caused the destruction of a great idea from the world of possibilities, which is akin to vandalism. Patents are intended to spur innovation, but when there is no production, the greater good suffers.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Patent trolls buy patents with the intent of licensing them to people who produce. In fact, they often as such spur on production. They sue only when a patent is infringed upon. It's not typically their goal to do so, their goal is to license.
  - ericb 18y ago
    Right, but now there is a toll on the bridge to producing that item. If the best items command the highest toll (license price), great ideas are now de-incentivized. The public good has not been served. The need for a patent license prevents, delays, or slows the idea from being executed upon by adding a cost to it, and the execution is the valuable part.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      I still don't think you understand. There's always a toll for any patent you didn't register. Patent licensing often lowers it. Buying a patent is often more expensive than renting, especially if the renting is non-exclusive. Patent trolls often buy the patent and license it out to multiple companies, creating competition and lowering the barrier to entry. The best patents commanded a high price even before there were patent licensing businesses. In fact, now the amount you can make off of a great patent is higher because the demand is. It's really only because they occasionally sue that people complain, but without lawsuits their business model wouldn't work.
      - ericb 18y ago
        Why would I start a business based around a patent when I have no guarantee the licensing fee won't be onerous? There is always a toll--if there is a patent. Why would I pat someone on the back for licensing me something that was once free, until a BS patent was created and sold to an extortionist? >> lowering the barrier to entry I think the difference is that I am stepping outside of the current system to make my point, and you're saying patent trolls and licensing improve the current system. It seems clear to me fees in general are disincentives. I agree with you that a lower fee is a lower disincentive, but still more of a disincentive than no fee at all. Individuals without defensive patent portfolios are at a severe disadvantage in the current environment. Without the current sham system, there is no "toll for patents I didn't register." This is not to say that there should be no system--only that the system is broken and does not accomplish its aims effectively.
        18y ago