3 ms·

It’s an unfortunate byproduct of allowing patents to be bought and sold. Let’s say you had a patent: you worked hard on your invention and you deserve to reap t

It’s an unfortunate byproduct of allowing patents to be bought and sold. Let’s say you had a patent: you worked hard on your invention and you deserve to reap the financial benefits of it. But you do not have the legal resources to protect your right as the inventor. It feels fair and reasonable to me that you can sell your patent to a third party to license and protect as they see fit, so you can reap some financial reward. Now, how do you make sure that these companies buying patents don’t become trolls? I don’t think it’s fair to require them to use the patent, because that limits who the inventor can sell to. Personally I think the way IP lawsuits are filed and considered needs significant reform.

MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
> Now, how do you make sure that these companies buying patents don’t become trolls? The problem with patents is that they prevent use by 3rd-parties, either by the license being too expensive or by the patentee refusing to grant one. The patentee actually using their patent has no bearing on this. The real solution to this mess is to make patent licensing compulsory. The patent office could decide that in lieu of a contract staying otherwise, a patentee is guaranteed 10% of profits or 5% of production costs, whichever is greater. Patents used to provide ongoing services could be 1% of profits. Non-commercial users should be exempt.
graemep 2y ago
We could require someone to use it - get rid of submarine patents.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Then you get will into issues of what use actually is. What is a reasonable timeline for filing a patent, and getting it to market? What is a slow and methodical development program vs. footdragging? What if the market for your product doesn't support profitable operation for your company, but someone else claims they can do it?
- toast0 2y ago
  Submarine patents is a different issue, effectively ended by changes in 2000 that require (most) patent applications to be published, and changes in 1995 that changed the term of patents to start from date of filing rather than date of issuance. There could possibly be a few unpublished patent applications from before 1995 that are still in the examination process; but case law from 2005 [1][2] makes it difficult to enforce patents if there has been 'unreasonable and unjustified' delay in the claims, and I'd suspect it would be hard to justify a delay of 30 years. [1] http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/04-1451.pdf http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/04-1451.pdf [2] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/appeals-court-confirms-invalidity-of-bar-code-patents https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/appeals-court-con...

MrDrMcCoy 2y ago

> Now, how do you make sure that these companies buying patents don’t become trolls? The problem with patents is that they prevent use by 3rd-parties, either by the license being too expensive or by the patentee refusing to grant one. The patentee actually using their patent has no bearing on this. The real solution to this mess is to make patent licensing compulsory. The patent office could decide that in lieu of a contract staying otherwise, a patentee is guaranteed 10% of profits or 5% of production costs, whichever is greater. Patents used to provide ongoing services could be 1% of profits. Non-commercial users should be exempt.

graemep 2y ago

We could require someone to use it - get rid of submarine patents.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
Then you get will into issues of what use actually is. What is a reasonable timeline for filing a patent, and getting it to market? What is a slow and methodical development program vs. footdragging? What if the market for your product doesn't support profitable operation for your company, but someone else claims they can do it?
toast0 2y ago
Submarine patents is a different issue, effectively ended by changes in 2000 that require (most) patent applications to be published, and changes in 1995 that changed the term of patents to start from date of filing rather than date of issuance. There could possibly be a few unpublished patent applications from before 1995 that are still in the examination process; but case law from 2005 [1][2] makes it difficult to enforce patents if there has been 'unreasonable and unjustified' delay in the claims, and I'd suspect it would be hard to justify a delay of 30 years. [1] http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/04-1451.pdf http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/04-1451.pdf [2] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/appeals-court-confirms-invalidity-of-bar-code-patents https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/appeals-court-con...