4 ms·

I don't know if I'd necessarily say we'd be better off with fewer -- but I think there should be some regulation on who is doing what with them. Eliminating the

I don't know if I'd necessarily say we'd be better off with fewer -- but I think there should be some regulation on who is doing what with them. Eliminating the ability for someone to squat on a patent with the sole intention of suing "infringement" would be a great start.

aretiste 14y ago
yes. this is exactly the issue. in fact there are some patent owning institutions who have mandates that prevent them from licensing their patents unless the licensee promises to develop. the licensee can't just sit on the patent and do nothing. their is an obligation to develop. myrvold and his patent troll economic theory totally disregard development (though he will always claim otherwise and cite some red herring examples). while his firm won't "do nothing" as a licensee, they will not develop. they simply wave their big stick, a massive patent pool. they will pose the threat of litigation through noname shell companies. no doubt with these threats he can persuade institutions like the ones above to forget all about development as well. it's all about moving capital. there are no doubt people, including patent policy makers, who think he and his IT patent lawyer co-founder are "brilliant" and are leading us toward a bright future. after all people are getting paid. but it seems some people are also starting to wise up to the game he is playing and the long-term effects on the system.
rayiner 14y ago
I agree some regulation is in order, but I think you have to carefully distinguish squatting from legitimately transacting in patents. ARM is right now a practicing entity. They do the design, which is their expertise, and license their patents and other IP to companies who integrate and manufacture processors. This is an example of a patent being used to facilitate a useful division of labor. Now, what happens if ARM wants to get out of the business? Could they sell their IP to a third party who doesn't want to design micro processors, but just wants the right to receive the licensing revenue? It's easy to define squatting in ways that prevent that, IMHO, legitimate transaction.
- ktizo 14y ago
  I would remove the right to transaction itself. If you don't want to collect your own licence fees, you can always licence an agency to do it on your behalf. I don't think a legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to encourage invention should be a transferable asset, and the names on the patent should all be sentient entities.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to encourage invention should be a transferable asset -- What happens when somebody wants to buy your startup?
    - ktizo 14y ago
      They'd have to include in that the deal to licence your patent from you, which would give a lot more options to the creator on how they want to proceed, which would make sense if the purpose of a patent is for it to empower inventors themselves. The model I am thinking of is that if the stated intention of the monopoly is for the benefit of inventors as people, then for one thing, those individual inventors are the best qualified to decide if they want to continue the monopoly, which does increase risk for companies, however we are talking about patents and they are supposedly there to empower inventors rather than corporations and this incentivises corporations to be a lot nicer to their employees. Also, the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer, this however should be subject to fair dealing laws with those they choose to licence to so they can't suddenly price out a competitor that they have already chosen to licence to or bankrupt their employer or anything like that.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        which would give a lot more options to the creator You are taking away options from the creator, most notably the option to sell his stuff. Please don't call that giving him options. the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer There are usually multiple inventors. If 3 people invent it, do each of them get a 1/3 vote on it? Do all 3 need to agree on a license? Do each of them get 1/3 of the claims? Can any of the 3 license it individually (which means that the price will naturally fall to $0 since you can always take your business to one of the other two)? You are creating a brand new problem that was solved long ago. The solution is for those 3 inventors to assign or sell their invention to a company that they form. The company owns and licenses the patent, and those 3 inventors can sell or trade their shares in the company as they wish. This desire to interfere in trade is very odd. If I have something worth $100 to me, but $500 to my neighbor, the ability to trade creates wealth. I'll sell it to my neighbor (a price of anywhere from $100 to $500 is a Pareto improvement) and then we can each move on with our lives, instead of trying to work out some license or lease agreement.

aretiste 14y ago

yes. this is exactly the issue. in fact there are some patent owning institutions who have mandates that prevent them from licensing their patents unless the licensee promises to develop. the licensee can't just sit on the patent and do nothing. their is an obligation to develop. myrvold and his patent troll economic theory totally disregard development (though he will always claim otherwise and cite some red herring examples). while his firm won't "do nothing" as a licensee, they will not develop. they simply wave their big stick, a massive patent pool. they will pose the threat of litigation through noname shell companies. no doubt with these threats he can persuade institutions like the ones above to forget all about development as well. it's all about moving capital. there are no doubt people, including patent policy makers, who think he and his IT patent lawyer co-founder are "brilliant" and are leading us toward a bright future. after all people are getting paid. but it seems some people are also starting to wise up to the game he is playing and the long-term effects on the system.

rayiner 14y ago

I agree some regulation is in order, but I think you have to carefully distinguish squatting from legitimately transacting in patents. ARM is right now a practicing entity. They do the design, which is their expertise, and license their patents and other IP to companies who integrate and manufacture processors. This is an example of a patent being used to facilitate a useful division of labor. Now, what happens if ARM wants to get out of the business? Could they sell their IP to a third party who doesn't want to design micro processors, but just wants the right to receive the licensing revenue? It's easy to define squatting in ways that prevent that, IMHO, legitimate transaction.

ktizo 14y ago
I would remove the right to transaction itself. If you don't want to collect your own licence fees, you can always licence an agency to do it on your behalf. I don't think a legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to encourage invention should be a transferable asset, and the names on the patent should all be sentient entities.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to encourage invention should be a transferable asset -- What happens when somebody wants to buy your startup?
  - ktizo 14y ago
    They'd have to include in that the deal to licence your patent from you, which would give a lot more options to the creator on how they want to proceed, which would make sense if the purpose of a patent is for it to empower inventors themselves. The model I am thinking of is that if the stated intention of the monopoly is for the benefit of inventors as people, then for one thing, those individual inventors are the best qualified to decide if they want to continue the monopoly, which does increase risk for companies, however we are talking about patents and they are supposedly there to empower inventors rather than corporations and this incentivises corporations to be a lot nicer to their employees. Also, the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer, this however should be subject to fair dealing laws with those they choose to licence to so they can't suddenly price out a competitor that they have already chosen to licence to or bankrupt their employer or anything like that.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      which would give a lot more options to the creator You are taking away options from the creator, most notably the option to sell his stuff. Please don't call that giving him options. the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer There are usually multiple inventors. If 3 people invent it, do each of them get a 1/3 vote on it? Do all 3 need to agree on a license? Do each of them get 1/3 of the claims? Can any of the 3 license it individually (which means that the price will naturally fall to $0 since you can always take your business to one of the other two)? You are creating a brand new problem that was solved long ago. The solution is for those 3 inventors to assign or sell their invention to a company that they form. The company owns and licenses the patent, and those 3 inventors can sell or trade their shares in the company as they wish. This desire to interfere in trade is very odd. If I have something worth $100 to me, but $500 to my neighbor, the ability to trade creates wealth. I'll sell it to my neighbor (a price of anywhere from $100 to $500 is a Pareto improvement) and then we can each move on with our lives, instead of trying to work out some license or lease agreement.