3 ms·

You are falling into the trap. Intellectual inventions simply shouldn't have full property right.

by liuliu 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago
If you accept that patents should fully be property, as the current law does, then lawsuits by non-practicing entities are not a sign of a problem with the system. Lawsuits are just one of the ways to enforce and monetize property rights. Now, you may think that intellectual inventions shouldn't be the subject of property rights. That's an entirely defensible position, but it's also a totally separate issue.
- btilly 14y ago
  Wow, you take a biased view of this subject. You're right that IF you accept patents as full property, THEN this is not a problem. But that is an if that many here - including myself - are not inclined to grant. And if you DON'T grant it, then this is very much not fine. You acknowledge this, sort of, but only when using the loaded language intellectual inventions to describe patents. This deliberately ignores the fact that a major complaint about the current patent system is the proliferation of patents which claim "invention" status to things that should not be called inventions. You then go on to call the question of whether patents should be property a totally separate issue. I agree that it is totally separate from the line of argument that you want to pursue. But, given the opinions of most people on this site, it is actually the central issue. Your sophistry about property laws is actually the side issue that should be ignored in favor of what is really important. The key question is this, is the rapid proliferation of lawsuits from non-practicing entities a problem? In fact evidence suggests that the companies being sued are generally ones that are creating real innovation, economic development, and jobs. The companies doing most of the suing are creating a tax on innovation. If you look at who is paying the costs, and who is capturing the profits, by and large the patent system is failing to incentivize actual innovation, and is rewarding useless legal activity. When you look at it in this light, the activity of the non-practicing entities is absolutely the greatest source of the gap between what the patent system theoretically should be doing, and what it actually is doing. Therefore the rapid proliferation of lawsuits by non-practicing entities is direct evidence that our bad patent system is rapidly becoming worse. Now, like a good lawyer, I expect you to take apart and criticize everything that I've said. After all you're paid to come to the conclusion you've decided in advance to, rather than to find the correct answer. Truth, for a lawyer in an argument, is merely one source of rhetorical ammunition. I admit it. I am not a lawyer. In a war of words, you'll win. But I honestly believe that the ideas that I am putting forth are correct. And the ideas that you are putting forth are dangerous ideas that currently cost our economy tens of billions per year. Furthermore those costs are rapidly mounting. For decades now, Silicon Valley has been the world capital for tech startups. Some day, hopefully a long time from now, this will end and Silicon Valley will pass into history. But it could end much sooner, and worsening patent laws are on the short list of things that could end it quickly.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm not taking a biased view at all. I'm accepting a premise on its face, then laying out an argument for why if you accept that premise, then NPE lawsuits are not by themselves a sign of any problem with the system. I'm not taking a position as to the underlying premise, other than to assert that it is the premise underlying the existing law. Also, I should note that I'm not a patent lawyer. I'm not paid to come to any conclusions on this issue. I have a somewhat more pro-patent outlook than many on HN, but I think it's one that reflects the prevailing view among engineers who have more traditional backgrounds (mine is in defense/wireless communications).
    - btilly 14y ago
      The thing is that the premise that you are accepting, which does underly existing law, is there because of the triumph of an extreme position. (A triumph caused in part because of the creation of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.) Therefore accepting that premise is not a neutral position. As for patents and engineers, I think it is likely that opinions differ. And one of the causes of that difference is that in software it is easy for random non-technical types to create broad patents with little merit by slapping "web" on top of obvious generic ideas. By contrast in hardware, patents are more likely to come from actual devices created by actual engineers, and therefore you tend to have fewer of the truly egregious patent abuses that outrage people on the software side.
gazrogers 14y ago
The trap I fell into was making the mistake of arguing with a lawyer. ;-)

You are falling into the trap. Intellectual inventions simply shouldn't have full property right.

by liuliu 14y ago

You are falling into the trap. Intellectual inventions simply shouldn't have full property right.

If you accept that patents should fully be property, as the current law does, then lawsuits by non-practicing entities are not a sign of a problem with the system. Lawsuits are just one of the ways to enforce and monetize property rights. Now, you may think that intellectual inventions shouldn't be the subject of property rights. That's an entirely defensible position, but it's also a totally separate issue.

btilly 14y ago
Wow, you take a biased view of this subject. You're right that IF you accept patents as full property, THEN this is not a problem. But that is an if that many here - including myself - are not inclined to grant. And if you DON'T grant it, then this is very much not fine. You acknowledge this, sort of, but only when using the loaded language intellectual inventions to describe patents. This deliberately ignores the fact that a major complaint about the current patent system is the proliferation of patents which claim "invention" status to things that should not be called inventions. You then go on to call the question of whether patents should be property a totally separate issue. I agree that it is totally separate from the line of argument that you want to pursue. But, given the opinions of most people on this site, it is actually the central issue. Your sophistry about property laws is actually the side issue that should be ignored in favor of what is really important. The key question is this, is the rapid proliferation of lawsuits from non-practicing entities a problem? In fact evidence suggests that the companies being sued are generally ones that are creating real innovation, economic development, and jobs. The companies doing most of the suing are creating a tax on innovation. If you look at who is paying the costs, and who is capturing the profits, by and large the patent system is failing to incentivize actual innovation, and is rewarding useless legal activity. When you look at it in this light, the activity of the non-practicing entities is absolutely the greatest source of the gap between what the patent system theoretically should be doing, and what it actually is doing. Therefore the rapid proliferation of lawsuits by non-practicing entities is direct evidence that our bad patent system is rapidly becoming worse. Now, like a good lawyer, I expect you to take apart and criticize everything that I've said. After all you're paid to come to the conclusion you've decided in advance to, rather than to find the correct answer. Truth, for a lawyer in an argument, is merely one source of rhetorical ammunition. I admit it. I am not a lawyer. In a war of words, you'll win. But I honestly believe that the ideas that I am putting forth are correct. And the ideas that you are putting forth are dangerous ideas that currently cost our economy tens of billions per year. Furthermore those costs are rapidly mounting. For decades now, Silicon Valley has been the world capital for tech startups. Some day, hopefully a long time from now, this will end and Silicon Valley will pass into history. But it could end much sooner, and worsening patent laws are on the short list of things that could end it quickly.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm not taking a biased view at all. I'm accepting a premise on its face, then laying out an argument for why if you accept that premise, then NPE lawsuits are not by themselves a sign of any problem with the system. I'm not taking a position as to the underlying premise, other than to assert that it is the premise underlying the existing law. Also, I should note that I'm not a patent lawyer. I'm not paid to come to any conclusions on this issue. I have a somewhat more pro-patent outlook than many on HN, but I think it's one that reflects the prevailing view among engineers who have more traditional backgrounds (mine is in defense/wireless communications).
  - btilly 14y ago
    The thing is that the premise that you are accepting, which does underly existing law, is there because of the triumph of an extreme position. (A triumph caused in part because of the creation of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.) Therefore accepting that premise is not a neutral position. As for patents and engineers, I think it is likely that opinions differ. And one of the causes of that difference is that in software it is easy for random non-technical types to create broad patents with little merit by slapping "web" on top of obvious generic ideas. By contrast in hardware, patents are more likely to come from actual devices created by actual engineers, and therefore you tend to have fewer of the truly egregious patent abuses that outrage people on the software side.

gazrogers 14y ago

The trap I fell into was making the mistake of arguing with a lawyer. ;-)