3 ms·
That would bring down the price of patent spam even more. The problem is the cost of protection relative to the cost of attack, you can't do much.
by klntsky 1y ago
That would bring down the price of patent spam even more. The problem is the cost of protection relative to the cost of attack, you can't do much.
- RobotToaster 1y agoIt would allow anyone to patent spam though, that could be a good thing.
- brookst 1y agoHow? Compare to email spam where the cost is zero. Is that in any way better than a world where it takes substantial capital to send email spam? Lower cost = more patents = more patent trolls = less innovation.
- frantathefranta 1y agoMaybe they think it'd be a good thing because it would eventually phase out patents?
- john01dav 1y agoThat would lead to even more centralization of email than we already have, and that's a bad thing.
- RobotToaster 1y agoAny company that tried to bring a lawsuit for patent infringement would potentially face dozens of suits for their own infringement, a kind of legal mutually assured destruction.
- dcow 1y agoBut it would also make patent spamming much less valuable and arguably more expensive for the spammer. If you spam patents and get one issued for something that isn't novel and/or already has prior art, everyone can fight it and it quickly gets its metal tested in court. I imagine a fine for egregious patents could also be implemented. If your patent is demonstrated in court to lack standing, the civil liability is on you, not the patent office. The hard reality is that nobody actually knows a priori what innovation is. Or how much an innovation is actually worth. If you removed patents that would pretty easily and trivially stop the spam.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoWhat if you have to pay a fee for each patent application that gets rejected?
- happymellon 1y agoThen companies with deep pockets can reapply, while individuals who get rejected due to mistakes won't be able to afford it. The problem is the size difference between the applicants, and just saying "charge by their income" wouldn't help when a shell company with no income applies.
- john01dav 1y agoThe first problem is that what's written in the law and what actually happens are pushed apart by the ridiculous costs of using courts. If fixing that such that courts are fully accessible to anyone without worrying about the cost doesn't produce the desired outcome, then one should look to legislate that outcome. Bad legislation is thus the second problem.
- e40 1y agoCorrect, bad actors would use this.
- 01100011 1y agoYes this. While I sympathize with folks calling for weaker patents as an alternative solution, I think that's a non-starter given the power of entrenched interests. If this were easily fixed, it would be fixed by now. Best approach might be some OSS patent collective driven by community contributions and a legal team that heavily leverages things like AI to drive down costs. Even then, a big, well funded corp could just drain the coffers with a single, expensive legal battle.