4 ms·

Great point. And then if one of those companies sold a patent that wasn't immediately licensable to an IP firm for an immediate infusion of funds should the IP

Great point. And then if one of those companies sold a patent that wasn't immediately licensable to an IP firm for an immediate infusion of funds should the IP firm be considered a patent troll?

lukan 3y ago
Maybe the patent system could work, without the possibility of selling patents at all? Have not thought it out, but I know musicians also seldom profit of selling their IP to the major labels. But they are pushed into it.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Based on the text of the IP clause of the US Constitution I have wondered whether selling or licensing of IP (or even assigning it to a corporation) is technically allowable. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8... : 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; "Exclusive Right" means exclusive right. And I don't think the definition has changed much since the US Constitution was written. https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusive https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusive I think it must at least be licensable, or authors couldn't sell copies of their works. But whether the IP rights can be sold is another question.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    It means the right is exclusively granted with them. I.e. no one besides the author gets to control the exclusive rights of a patent. By your logic, they can't even license it because "it's an exclusive right".
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      They control the license according to the terms of a license. But once a patent is sold the author of it no longer has any right to it. Authors and inventors are mentioned with the same language in the clause. Since it has always been true that authors can basically only profit from their writings by selling copies or originals of their works (without selling the right to the copyrighted material itself) then some form of licensing is necessarily included in the clause for both copyright and patents. There may have been journalists at the time who wrote works for newspapers owned by others. If so, this would be a reason to include the right of selling all of the rights to one's writings or inventions in the clause. I genuinely don't know if this was the case though.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        Authors can license all of their rights away. They can sell their copyrights - I don't see your point...
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. There are plenty of laws which have been ruled unconstitutional. But it takes someone making the complaint to a court for this to happen. Otherwise the legislature does whatever it wants. Currently a majority of the US Supreme court thinks that the status quo at the time of the writing of the US Constitution or its amendments has bearing as to the meaning of those texts. Thus I mentioned back then authors sold copies of their works while retaining all other rights as indicating that "licensing" is within this clause. Whether or not total sales of the rights to the work is within the purview of the clause is another question that I'm curious about.
        freejazz 3y ago
        > I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. Which laws are those? I'm not sure why it wouldn't be in the scope of the constitutional grant of authority to congress. "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" The use of exclusive here makes perfect sense with how things worked then, and today. I think you are getting caught up in non-existent semantics. What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? what would be secured in the exclusive rights that benefits the furthering of arts and science if inventors and authors couldn't exploit their exclusive rights? I'm a copyright and patent litigator and I've never heard anyone make the argument you are making.

Great point. And then if one of those companies sold a patent that wasn't immediately licensable to an IP firm for an immediate infusion of funds should the IP firm be considered a patent troll?

lukan 3y ago

Maybe the patent system could work, without the possibility of selling patents at all? Have not thought it out, but I know musicians also seldom profit of selling their IP to the major labels. But they are pushed into it.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Based on the text of the IP clause of the US Constitution I have wondered whether selling or licensing of IP (or even assigning it to a corporation) is technically allowable. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8... : 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; "Exclusive Right" means exclusive right. And I don't think the definition has changed much since the US Constitution was written. https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusive https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusive I think it must at least be licensable, or authors couldn't sell copies of their works. But whether the IP rights can be sold is another question.
- freejazz 3y ago
  It means the right is exclusively granted with them. I.e. no one besides the author gets to control the exclusive rights of a patent. By your logic, they can't even license it because "it's an exclusive right".
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    They control the license according to the terms of a license. But once a patent is sold the author of it no longer has any right to it. Authors and inventors are mentioned with the same language in the clause. Since it has always been true that authors can basically only profit from their writings by selling copies or originals of their works (without selling the right to the copyrighted material itself) then some form of licensing is necessarily included in the clause for both copyright and patents. There may have been journalists at the time who wrote works for newspapers owned by others. If so, this would be a reason to include the right of selling all of the rights to one's writings or inventions in the clause. I genuinely don't know if this was the case though.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      Authors can license all of their rights away. They can sell their copyrights - I don't see your point...
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. There are plenty of laws which have been ruled unconstitutional. But it takes someone making the complaint to a court for this to happen. Otherwise the legislature does whatever it wants. Currently a majority of the US Supreme court thinks that the status quo at the time of the writing of the US Constitution or its amendments has bearing as to the meaning of those texts. Thus I mentioned back then authors sold copies of their works while retaining all other rights as indicating that "licensing" is within this clause. Whether or not total sales of the rights to the work is within the purview of the clause is another question that I'm curious about.
        freejazz 3y ago
        > I'm asking whether the laws which allow this are within scope of the US Constitution's clause on intellectual property rights. Which laws are those? I'm not sure why it wouldn't be in the scope of the constitutional grant of authority to congress. "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" The use of exclusive here makes perfect sense with how things worked then, and today. I think you are getting caught up in non-existent semantics. What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? what would be secured in the exclusive rights that benefits the furthering of arts and science if inventors and authors couldn't exploit their exclusive rights? I'm a copyright and patent litigator and I've never heard anyone make the argument you are making.