3 ms·

If IPR for screen-rotation ends up with nullifying the patent, can organizations like EFF start doing that pro-actively for other ridiculous patents like One-Cl

by chime 14y ago

If IPR for screen-rotation ends up with nullifying the patent, can organizations like EFF start doing that pro-actively for other ridiculous patents like One-Click-Buy and Swipe-to-Unlock? Or does the patent-holder have to be proven as a troll?

toasterlovin 14y ago
I would guess that there are asymmetries that make this an untenable approach, long term. First, there is the asymmetry of cost, ie. it probably costs less money to file for and be granted a bogus patent than it costs to invalidate said patent. Secondly, there is the asymmetry of motivation, ie. patent trolls have greater financial motivation to file for bogus patents than other parties have financial motivation to invalidate these patents. These asymmetries are really the root of the problem. What's really needed is a lobbying group to pass legislation that changes the incentive structure, including, in my opinion, abolishing patents. The problem here is that many of the organizations who could fund such a lobbying group (like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.) have been coopted by the patent system, because they themselves are patent holders. Actually, its worse than that; they seem convinced that their patents have actual intrinsic value, which kind of makes sense. They spend a lot of money doing research and development, so of course they want to believe that a legal mechanism for preserving the value of that R&D is legitimate. This whole thing is frustrating...
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Actually, its worse than that; they seem convinced that their patents have actual intrinsic value, which kind of makes sense. They spend a lot of money doing research and development, so of course they want to believe that a legal mechanism for preserving the value of that R&D is legitimate. Is it not? Should Apple, Google, etc, do the industry's R&D for free? Google's self-driving car is patented. Should Kia be allowed to come along and reverse-engineer the firmware and free-ride on their efforts? I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely interested to hear your viewpoint.
  - toasterlovin 14y ago
    Yeah, I think it'll all be okay for them. Apple does fine, despite the fact that every phone looks like an iPhone, every tablet looks like an iPad, and every laptop looks like a MacBook Air. Companies have been dealing with knock-offs for ages, the club they wield is Brand. Look no further than the fashion industry to see how effective Brand is at combatting knock-offs. Regarding Google's self driving car: anybody reverse engineering Google's firmware is going to incur enormous R&D costs of their own. The only way they could avoid these is if they could use a copy of the source code, but that's protected by copyright (which, unlike patents, I agree with, since it protects implementations, not ideas). My issues with patents are these: 1. I just don't think ideas should be ownable. A primary purpose of language, one of the characteristics that defines us as a species, is to transmit ideas from one person to another. In other words, we have evolved to allow one person to have an idea, then make some utterance which takes this idea and makes a copy of it in the mind of another person, instantaneously. To me, this points unavoidably to the fact that sharing of ideas is part of what makes us human. To put restriction on this fundamental human-ness strikes me as deeply wrong. Or, at the very least, good for a few at the expense of the many (AIDS drugs in Africa, etc.). 2. Even if you think ideas should be ownable, patents attempt to reward the first person who comes up with an idea, but being the first to an idea is incredibly arbitrary. As an example, I don't get to invent 1-Click Purchase because I just started developing software 2 years ago. Seems unjust.
Ilmesnkie_Jones 14y ago
The patent holder would have to sue someone first or there would be no standing to bring a case.
- Avenger42 14y ago
  On that point, how does the patent holder typically learn of cases of infringement? Would it be as simple as a surreptitious email? Or do you need something like a writeup in a publication, so they will see you as a potential goldmine? I'm wondering what it would take to force a fight on crap patents - create something that infringes on a patent, contact the NPE through some untraceable channel to inform them, then await the lawsuit (or "licensing offer").
- neurotech1 14y ago
  Anyone can file a re-examination request ex parte. The EFF have done this occasion, without an actual filed lawsuit from the Patent Assertion Entity(PAE="troll") but it still costs thousands of dollars in fees and the EFF lawyers time.

by chime 14y ago

toasterlovin 14y ago

I would guess that there are asymmetries that make this an untenable approach, long term. First, there is the asymmetry of cost, ie. it probably costs less money to file for and be granted a bogus patent than it costs to invalidate said patent. Secondly, there is the asymmetry of motivation, ie. patent trolls have greater financial motivation to file for bogus patents than other parties have financial motivation to invalidate these patents. These asymmetries are really the root of the problem. What's really needed is a lobbying group to pass legislation that changes the incentive structure, including, in my opinion, abolishing patents. The problem here is that many of the organizations who could fund such a lobbying group (like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.) have been coopted by the patent system, because they themselves are patent holders. Actually, its worse than that; they seem convinced that their patents have actual intrinsic value, which kind of makes sense. They spend a lot of money doing research and development, so of course they want to believe that a legal mechanism for preserving the value of that R&D is legitimate. This whole thing is frustrating...

rayiner 14y ago
> Actually, its worse than that; they seem convinced that their patents have actual intrinsic value, which kind of makes sense. They spend a lot of money doing research and development, so of course they want to believe that a legal mechanism for preserving the value of that R&D is legitimate. Is it not? Should Apple, Google, etc, do the industry's R&D for free? Google's self-driving car is patented. Should Kia be allowed to come along and reverse-engineer the firmware and free-ride on their efforts? I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely interested to hear your viewpoint.
- toasterlovin 14y ago
  Yeah, I think it'll all be okay for them. Apple does fine, despite the fact that every phone looks like an iPhone, every tablet looks like an iPad, and every laptop looks like a MacBook Air. Companies have been dealing with knock-offs for ages, the club they wield is Brand. Look no further than the fashion industry to see how effective Brand is at combatting knock-offs. Regarding Google's self driving car: anybody reverse engineering Google's firmware is going to incur enormous R&D costs of their own. The only way they could avoid these is if they could use a copy of the source code, but that's protected by copyright (which, unlike patents, I agree with, since it protects implementations, not ideas). My issues with patents are these: 1. I just don't think ideas should be ownable. A primary purpose of language, one of the characteristics that defines us as a species, is to transmit ideas from one person to another. In other words, we have evolved to allow one person to have an idea, then make some utterance which takes this idea and makes a copy of it in the mind of another person, instantaneously. To me, this points unavoidably to the fact that sharing of ideas is part of what makes us human. To put restriction on this fundamental human-ness strikes me as deeply wrong. Or, at the very least, good for a few at the expense of the many (AIDS drugs in Africa, etc.). 2. Even if you think ideas should be ownable, patents attempt to reward the first person who comes up with an idea, but being the first to an idea is incredibly arbitrary. As an example, I don't get to invent 1-Click Purchase because I just started developing software 2 years ago. Seems unjust.

Ilmesnkie_Jones 14y ago

The patent holder would have to sue someone first or there would be no standing to bring a case.

Avenger42 14y ago
On that point, how does the patent holder typically learn of cases of infringement? Would it be as simple as a surreptitious email? Or do you need something like a writeup in a publication, so they will see you as a potential goldmine? I'm wondering what it would take to force a fight on crap patents - create something that infringes on a patent, contact the NPE through some untraceable channel to inform them, then await the lawsuit (or "licensing offer").
neurotech1 14y ago
Anyone can file a re-examination request ex parte. The EFF have done this occasion, without an actual filed lawsuit from the Patent Assertion Entity(PAE="troll") but it still costs thousands of dollars in fees and the EFF lawyers time.