3 ms·

> patent trolling They’re just not licensing the patent to other manufacturers. Patent trolling is an entirely different thing.

by cush 3y ago

zarzavat 3y ago
It’s a form of patent trolling. The point of patents is that inventors should be compensated fairly for their inventions. Not that they should be able to prevent the production of those inventions like little dictators - that does not advance society.
- Tor3 3y ago
  The point of patents is that you get an exclusive monopoly for the invention for a limited time, but to get that monopoly you have to publish (as a patent) the design and it's a free for all _after_ the monopoly time has passed. You are free to license the invention to others, but there's no requirement - it's not a part of the patent system.
- donatzsky 3y ago
  A patent is a time-limited monopoly on an invention, so yes, preventing others from making the same thing is exactly what a patent is for. The idea being that during this time, the inventor can either be the sole source of the widget, thus profiting from it directly, or licence it to someone else. Either case means that they get "compensated fairly".
  - flangola7 3y ago
    That is not what a patent is for. It may unfortunately currently be legal, but that isn't its true purpose.
    - Tor3 3y ago
      Please explain its true purpose then. The "exclusive rights in exchange for publishing" seems to have been the very idea behind patents for hundreds of years, all the way back to Jerusalem and Venezia according to Wikipedia, and also defined as such in the modern patent systems established later, in the US and elsewhere.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        IIUC, U.S. patents were constructed to be an immigration policy tool. “Come to America, get paid for your knowledge!” This would encourage people who knew how to build and make things to immigrate to the U.S. Note that patents are an optional part of the constitution; not an inherent right of inventors.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      That's exactly what a patent is. The purpose (at least for the US) is stated in the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: > [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] 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. Now quoting from the US Patent and Trademark Office at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/essentials#questions https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/essentials#questions "A U.S. patent gives you, the inventor, the right to “exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” an invention or “importing” it into the U.S. ... What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import the invention, but the right to stop others from doing so. If someone infringes on your patent, you may initiate legal action."
      - flangola7 3y ago
        Read my comment again, as you obviously did not internalize it the first time.
        eesmith 3y ago
        I have done so, but did not find enlightenment about the true purpose of patents. Perhaps you did not explain it well enough and can provide more details? Without it, I see no serious conflict or disagreement between my quick summary and the more complete history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
        flangola7 3y ago
        > I have done so. You very obviously have not. I'm not going to do your job for you and spoon-feed it to you like a child. This isn't complicated, any truly introspective person with critical thinking skills can handle this.
        eesmith 3y ago
        Perhaps you posted your comment using another account? The only thing I see from you on the topic is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37172256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37172256 , which is: > "That is not what a patent is for. It may unfortunately currently be legal, but that isn't its true purpose." I know the original purpose of copyright was to inhibit publication the government did not want, which only later became modern copyright. I cannot find anything equivalent for patent law. If its true purpose is to make money for the elite, I think that's no surprise to anyone. But that seems to be the purpose of most laws, and no reason to single out patent law nor be so opaque. Given that several others responded to your comment the same way I did, I suppose you think we are all like simple-minded children. I trust you realize that even the smartest of people may need more than "isn't its true purpose" as a hint? I do hope your "study it out"[1]-like response isn't hiding some baseless conspiracy theory. [1] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/12/1143767/--Study-it-Out-Woman-Calls-Barack-Obama-a-Communist-Looks-like-a-Fool-on-National-TV https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/12/1143767/--Study-... Romney Supporter: All you have to do is study it out. Just study it out and you'll see. You haven't done your homework, buddy. Matthews: What do I need to study? Romney Supporter: He's a communist. And those of us who are not voting for him know it.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      state sanctioned monopolies enshrined in the constitution are exactly what I find alluring about patents
- cwillu 3y ago
  The inventor is not holding on to the rights in order to collect payouts from third parties that inadvertently infringed on the invention. No, it's not a form of trolling at all.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >It’s a form of patent trolling No, it's not. Patent trolling has a specific meaning (having vacuous broad patents or using patents against companies who aren't really infringing, associated with not having an actual product and making your money off this, usually having hoarded many patents exactly for this purpose). This is simply the creator of this design enforcing their patent, like any business with a patented product does. >Not that they should be able to prevent the production of those inventions like little dictators - that does not advance society. Nope, it's exactly that they should be able to control the production of their inventions. If it wasn't for that control, patents would have no practical purpose.
- khazhoux 3y ago
  The point of patents is quite literally that inventors get to control the production of their inventions.
- cush 3y ago
  Society wouldn’t advance if anyone could copy the work of others either. Gender would swoop in, create these on the cheap and completely ruin the sound that the creator intended.
  - cush 3y ago
    Fender*
braunboffel 3y ago
> They’re just not licensing the patent to other manufacturers Who? Some data backing the claim up please.
- cush 3y ago
  No. It’s impossible to provide data for a negative like this. I searched for data on how they’re protecting their patent and found nothing. You’re just sealioning (which is ironically a form of online trolling). You provide the data. You’re the one making the claim that they’re trolling.
  - braunboffel 3y ago
    I'm confused. You made a statement that they're not licensing their patent. I'm asking you what is that based on. Who asked to license their patent and was denied? Surely you have that since you made that claim right? Just your imagination or actual verifiable evidence that the rest of us can check? If challenging your claim is trolling or sealioning or cat fishing or bear baiting or worm wiggling, then so be it.

> patent trolling They’re just not licensing the patent to other manufacturers. Patent trolling is an entirely different thing.

by cush 3y ago

> patent trolling They’re just not licensing the patent to other manufacturers. Patent trolling is an entirely different thing.

zarzavat 3y ago

It’s a form of patent trolling. The point of patents is that inventors should be compensated fairly for their inventions. Not that they should be able to prevent the production of those inventions like little dictators - that does not advance society.

Tor3 3y ago
The point of patents is that you get an exclusive monopoly for the invention for a limited time, but to get that monopoly you have to publish (as a patent) the design and it's a free for all _after_ the monopoly time has passed. You are free to license the invention to others, but there's no requirement - it's not a part of the patent system.
donatzsky 3y ago
A patent is a time-limited monopoly on an invention, so yes, preventing others from making the same thing is exactly what a patent is for. The idea being that during this time, the inventor can either be the sole source of the widget, thus profiting from it directly, or licence it to someone else. Either case means that they get "compensated fairly".
- flangola7 3y ago
  That is not what a patent is for. It may unfortunately currently be legal, but that isn't its true purpose.
  - Tor3 3y ago
    Please explain its true purpose then. The "exclusive rights in exchange for publishing" seems to have been the very idea behind patents for hundreds of years, all the way back to Jerusalem and Venezia according to Wikipedia, and also defined as such in the modern patent systems established later, in the US and elsewhere.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      IIUC, U.S. patents were constructed to be an immigration policy tool. “Come to America, get paid for your knowledge!” This would encourage people who knew how to build and make things to immigrate to the U.S. Note that patents are an optional part of the constitution; not an inherent right of inventors.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    That's exactly what a patent is. The purpose (at least for the US) is stated in the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: > [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] 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. Now quoting from the US Patent and Trademark Office at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/essentials#questions https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/essentials#questions "A U.S. patent gives you, the inventor, the right to “exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” an invention or “importing” it into the U.S. ... What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import the invention, but the right to stop others from doing so. If someone infringes on your patent, you may initiate legal action."
    - flangola7 3y ago
      Read my comment again, as you obviously did not internalize it the first time.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        I have done so, but did not find enlightenment about the true purpose of patents. Perhaps you did not explain it well enough and can provide more details? Without it, I see no serious conflict or disagreement between my quick summary and the more complete history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
        flangola7 3y ago
        > I have done so. You very obviously have not. I'm not going to do your job for you and spoon-feed it to you like a child. This isn't complicated, any truly introspective person with critical thinking skills can handle this.
        eesmith 3y ago
        Perhaps you posted your comment using another account? The only thing I see from you on the topic is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37172256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37172256 , which is: > "That is not what a patent is for. It may unfortunately currently be legal, but that isn't its true purpose." I know the original purpose of copyright was to inhibit publication the government did not want, which only later became modern copyright. I cannot find anything equivalent for patent law. If its true purpose is to make money for the elite, I think that's no surprise to anyone. But that seems to be the purpose of most laws, and no reason to single out patent law nor be so opaque. Given that several others responded to your comment the same way I did, I suppose you think we are all like simple-minded children. I trust you realize that even the smartest of people may need more than "isn't its true purpose" as a hint? I do hope your "study it out"[1]-like response isn't hiding some baseless conspiracy theory. [1] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/12/1143767/--Study-it-Out-Woman-Calls-Barack-Obama-a-Communist-Looks-like-a-Fool-on-National-TV https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/12/1143767/--Study-... Romney Supporter: All you have to do is study it out. Just study it out and you'll see. You haven't done your homework, buddy. Matthews: What do I need to study? Romney Supporter: He's a communist. And those of us who are not voting for him know it.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    state sanctioned monopolies enshrined in the constitution are exactly what I find alluring about patents
cwillu 3y ago
The inventor is not holding on to the rights in order to collect payouts from third parties that inadvertently infringed on the invention. No, it's not a form of trolling at all.
coldtea 3y ago
>It’s a form of patent trolling No, it's not. Patent trolling has a specific meaning (having vacuous broad patents or using patents against companies who aren't really infringing, associated with not having an actual product and making your money off this, usually having hoarded many patents exactly for this purpose). This is simply the creator of this design enforcing their patent, like any business with a patented product does. >Not that they should be able to prevent the production of those inventions like little dictators - that does not advance society. Nope, it's exactly that they should be able to control the production of their inventions. If it wasn't for that control, patents would have no practical purpose.
khazhoux 3y ago
The point of patents is quite literally that inventors get to control the production of their inventions.
cush 3y ago
Society wouldn’t advance if anyone could copy the work of others either. Gender would swoop in, create these on the cheap and completely ruin the sound that the creator intended.
- cush 3y ago
  Fender*

braunboffel 3y ago

> They’re just not licensing the patent to other manufacturers Who? Some data backing the claim up please.

cush 3y ago
No. It’s impossible to provide data for a negative like this. I searched for data on how they’re protecting their patent and found nothing. You’re just sealioning (which is ironically a form of online trolling). You provide the data. You’re the one making the claim that they’re trolling.
- braunboffel 3y ago
  I'm confused. You made a statement that they're not licensing their patent. I'm asking you what is that based on. Who asked to license their patent and was denied? Surely you have that since you made that claim right? Just your imagination or actual verifiable evidence that the rest of us can check? If challenging your claim is trolling or sealioning or cat fishing or bear baiting or worm wiggling, then so be it.