3 ms·

A single product likely infringes on thousands of patents (a possibly dubious Google/RPX estimate was 250k patents for a smartphone), in which even $0.01/patent

A single product likely infringes on thousands of patents (a possibly dubious Google/RPX estimate was 250k patents for a smartphone), in which even $0.01/patent becomes unsustainable. Especially in software, chances are that you didn't learn about the ideas in the patent by reading the patent or observing products that use the patent, but rather on your own while solving a problem.

jballanc 14y ago
I guess I should clarify: there are different sorts of licenses. Some are per device or product sold. I was referring to an unlimited use license. The idea being (with the formula) that if your idea is good enough that every one of your competitors wants to use it, then they will effectively pay you for the full cost of discovery/development (at industry average R&D costs). So at $10 per patent, you'd pay $2.5 mil as a one-time fee. I'm curious how that would stack up to current litigation and other legal costs to fight/prevent patent litigation.
- jedbrown 14y ago
  If an unlimited use license is $10, it's not worth the patent owner's time to write a letter asking for the license fee. My impression is that many of the ideas covered by software patents are independently "discovered" by each entity that happens to use them. The patent is now inhibiting innovation by dwelling on an old idea that is apparently not so novel after all.
  - jballanc 14y ago
    > If an unlimited use license is $10, it's not worth the patent owner's time to write a letter asking for the license fee. I guess that's kind of the point. Patents only inhibit innovation when they can be used as a cudgel to force inventors into paying exorbitant fees. If fees are inversely proportional to the proliferation of patents in an area, the natural incentive is to only patent that which is important.

3 ms·

A single product likely infringes on thousands of patents (a possibly dubious Google/RPX estimate was 250k patents for a smartphone), in which even $0.01/patent

by jedbrown 14y ago

jballanc 14y ago
I guess I should clarify: there are different sorts of licenses. Some are per device or product sold. I was referring to an unlimited use license. The idea being (with the formula) that if your idea is good enough that every one of your competitors wants to use it, then they will effectively pay you for the full cost of discovery/development (at industry average R&D costs). So at $10 per patent, you'd pay $2.5 mil as a one-time fee. I'm curious how that would stack up to current litigation and other legal costs to fight/prevent patent litigation.
- jedbrown 14y ago
  If an unlimited use license is $10, it's not worth the patent owner's time to write a letter asking for the license fee. My impression is that many of the ideas covered by software patents are independently "discovered" by each entity that happens to use them. The patent is now inhibiting innovation by dwelling on an old idea that is apparently not so novel after all.
  - jballanc 14y ago
    > If an unlimited use license is $10, it's not worth the patent owner's time to write a letter asking for the license fee. I guess that's kind of the point. Patents only inhibit innovation when they can be used as a cudgel to force inventors into paying exorbitant fees. If fees are inversely proportional to the proliferation of patents in an area, the natural incentive is to only patent that which is important.