4 ms·

I mean that's not really gonna do anything. They'll just find another favorable court and continue. The real solution is to make patent trolling impossible. Ma

by rstat1 3y ago

I mean that's not really gonna do anything. They'll just find another favorable court and continue. The real solution is to make patent trolling impossible. Make it so if you own a patent you actually have to use it to make something. Not just use it to steal money from people who are actually making things.

Quekid5 3y ago
Yeah, I think some form of "use it or lose it" will be necessary. Either that or just making patents have to 'pay for themselves' via exponentially increasing cost (or some such) to maintain after the initial period of protection (which must be MUCH shorter). That has it's own problems and complications, of course. I get the sense that many of these ideas of e.g. patents and copyright, etc. are based on good faith actors, while we're currently seeing extreme optimization towards 'just how close to the legal/illegal line can I get'.
brookst 3y ago
I don’t think that’s a good idea; it would hurt investment in promising startups. Today, “company failed, but produced valuable IP” is a fallback outcome for investors. Declaring that the IP of failed companies (and individuals who hope to but never bring a product to market) is public domain just makes the problem worse. Is a patent valid if I sell one single product? If that one sale comes after an infringing product? Years after? Patents are a mess and need reform, but IMO we are better served by reform that emphasizes truly novel inventions and not small improvements / variations that are essentially obvious.
- rstat1 3y ago
  > it would hurt investment in promising startups. Today, “company failed, but produced valuable IP” is a fallback outcome for investors. As long as those investors end up actually using those patents for something other than what is effectively legalized extortion who cares? Though I do generally agree reform is necessary, and it should have a bias against trivial nonsense getting patents. But also against people who stockpile patents for no other reason than to sue people.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And if I invent something that improves a car, does that mean I should have to manufacturer a car instead of license to existing manufacturers?
scarface_74 3y ago
Look at all of the small companies that Apple has bought over the years to integrate their technologies into the iPhone. None of those companies could have had the scale or the no how to create a useful product by themselves. Even if you look at chip design, there are only a few companies that I can actually manufacture chips. But plenty of companies that can design processors. Your law would only help big companies.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  It's easy to imagine a modification to the proposed law that would be beneficial: only the original inventor is allowed to assert patent rights as a nonpracticing entity. That way, the small-time inventor can sell their patent to Apple, or (yes) they could act as a patent troll. But they can't sell it to Intellectual Ventures or another professional patent troll that produces nothing but lawsuits.
  - mook 3y ago
    Who's name is on the patent lawsuit doesn't need to be related to who's funding the patent lawsuit. Being able to pay for somebody else's lawsuit and get a share of the profits is occasionally (but not always) useful; that's basically lawsuits on contingency, and is important for smaller players to sue bigger players.
  - davidhyde 3y ago
    I like this idea. The inventor should also have to use the jurisdiction in which their company was registered or they lived. Also, I think software patents should be not be granted, period. But if they are they should be for no longer than 10 years. This 20 year catch-all is nonsense.
- eek2121 3y ago
  I am going to have to disagree there. Anyone can file a patent. Costs are cheap (except the lawyer, but if you have a decent patent, lawyers are also cheap) It seems like a whole lot of folks are worried that this will upset something, and can seemingly be unable to name/describe what that thing is except to claim that crap is incredibly cost expensive/difficult to theorize/design/develop...then some guy does it in his basement and gets sued for a bajillion dollars. I actually do support patents, but really, money is not effort, and if effort is zero, you should not be allowed to patent said effort. Using your brain is also not effort. I can think of a million different ways to patent a device that "bends you over and shoves a large stick like device in your anus", should I be granted said patent? I suspect a proper solution would be to make patent licensing completely illegal, and make patents have a 3 year expiration instead of 10 years unless you try to develop/market your patent on your own. Even in those cases, you should not be allowed to license your patent. That is just me, however.

by rstat1 3y ago

Quekid5 3y ago

Yeah, I think some form of "use it or lose it" will be necessary. Either that or just making patents have to 'pay for themselves' via exponentially increasing cost (or some such) to maintain after the initial period of protection (which must be MUCH shorter). That has it's own problems and complications, of course. I get the sense that many of these ideas of e.g. patents and copyright, etc. are based on good faith actors, while we're currently seeing extreme optimization towards 'just how close to the legal/illegal line can I get'.

brookst 3y ago

I don’t think that’s a good idea; it would hurt investment in promising startups. Today, “company failed, but produced valuable IP” is a fallback outcome for investors. Declaring that the IP of failed companies (and individuals who hope to but never bring a product to market) is public domain just makes the problem worse. Is a patent valid if I sell one single product? If that one sale comes after an infringing product? Years after? Patents are a mess and need reform, but IMO we are better served by reform that emphasizes truly novel inventions and not small improvements / variations that are essentially obvious.

rstat1 3y ago
> it would hurt investment in promising startups. Today, “company failed, but produced valuable IP” is a fallback outcome for investors. As long as those investors end up actually using those patents for something other than what is effectively legalized extortion who cares? Though I do generally agree reform is necessary, and it should have a bias against trivial nonsense getting patents. But also against people who stockpile patents for no other reason than to sue people.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  And if I invent something that improves a car, does that mean I should have to manufacturer a car instead of license to existing manufacturers?

scarface_74 3y ago

Look at all of the small companies that Apple has bought over the years to integrate their technologies into the iPhone. None of those companies could have had the scale or the no how to create a useful product by themselves. Even if you look at chip design, there are only a few companies that I can actually manufacture chips. But plenty of companies that can design processors. Your law would only help big companies.

CamperBob2 3y ago
It's easy to imagine a modification to the proposed law that would be beneficial: only the original inventor is allowed to assert patent rights as a nonpracticing entity. That way, the small-time inventor can sell their patent to Apple, or (yes) they could act as a patent troll. But they can't sell it to Intellectual Ventures or another professional patent troll that produces nothing but lawsuits.
- mook 3y ago
  Who's name is on the patent lawsuit doesn't need to be related to who's funding the patent lawsuit. Being able to pay for somebody else's lawsuit and get a share of the profits is occasionally (but not always) useful; that's basically lawsuits on contingency, and is important for smaller players to sue bigger players.
- davidhyde 3y ago
  I like this idea. The inventor should also have to use the jurisdiction in which their company was registered or they lived. Also, I think software patents should be not be granted, period. But if they are they should be for no longer than 10 years. This 20 year catch-all is nonsense.
eek2121 3y ago
I am going to have to disagree there. Anyone can file a patent. Costs are cheap (except the lawyer, but if you have a decent patent, lawyers are also cheap) It seems like a whole lot of folks are worried that this will upset something, and can seemingly be unable to name/describe what that thing is except to claim that crap is incredibly cost expensive/difficult to theorize/design/develop...then some guy does it in his basement and gets sued for a bajillion dollars. I actually do support patents, but really, money is not effort, and if effort is zero, you should not be allowed to patent said effort. Using your brain is also not effort. I can think of a million different ways to patent a device that "bends you over and shoves a large stick like device in your anus", should I be granted said patent? I suspect a proper solution would be to make patent licensing completely illegal, and make patents have a 3 year expiration instead of 10 years unless you try to develop/market your patent on your own. Even in those cases, you should not be allowed to license your patent. That is just me, however.