4 ms·

Patent trolls aren't the problem. We don't need patent-holding firms to be restricted: there's nothing strictly wrong with them, if the patents they're holding

Patent trolls aren't the problem. We don't need patent-holding firms to be restricted: there's nothing strictly wrong with them, if the patents they're holding are worthwhile. All they do is create a wider market for intellectual property. All restricting them does is stop one angle of oppression - large companies will still be free to bully small ones as they wish. The real problem is that currently it's profitable to have an idea, patent it, and then sit on it until someone accidentally re-invents your idea. If an idea is sufficiently obvious that there's a reasonably high likelihood of reinvention (as opposed to copying), it should never have been patentable in the first place. If it makes sense for companies to tell employees not to look at the knowledge distributed by patents, you have too many obvious patents. Looking at the information disseminated by patents should be a universal good: you should be seeing ideas that you'd be unlikely to come up with yourself - that will mostly only add to your options for creating your product, not subtract. You don't need complicated, nuanced legislation to make this happen - you need instead to do a hell of a lot of patent reevaluation.

tomelders 13y ago
Perhaps every patent suit should trigger an automatic re-assesment of the patent in question. Right now, it seems the biggest weapon in a patent trolls arsenal is the über-general patent; patents so vague that they can literally apply to anything in the past, present and future. Triggering a re-evaluation of a patent every time it is used in litigation would, I think, serve as a huge deterrent. With regard to companies like ARM, who's patents are of a very high quality and technically innovative and detailed, it would be hard for people to argue that they don't deserve the patent. But people who have essentially patented the internet without providing any worthwhile details would find it a lot more difficult to retain their patent once other interested parties are given the opportunity to call it out as bullshit. I do think it is a little unfair to ask the patent offices to make the right call every time with regard to patent filings, simply because of the sheer volume they have to process. Giving them a second chance to evaluate a patent with the input of experts in the field that a particular patent relates to would be beneficial to everyone. Going to an extreme: Maybe you could grant any and all patent filings automatically, and only the patents used in patent suits are evaluated. So all patents are worthless until tested. Or that might be a bad idea, I've not given it much thought beyond this.
netcan 13y ago
Obviousness is actually an interesting issue because it's dependent on context and context is moving pretty fast now. A lot of web inventing/entrepreneurship is as much predicting as it is inventing. Some of the great ideas will become obvious later. That doesn't mean they're not valid & creative ideas. Generally describing patents as creative works is problematic. In some cases they are like literature or music. In lots of other cases they are more like scientific discoveries. Out there waiting to be uncovered.

tomelders 13y ago

Perhaps every patent suit should trigger an automatic re-assesment of the patent in question. Right now, it seems the biggest weapon in a patent trolls arsenal is the über-general patent; patents so vague that they can literally apply to anything in the past, present and future. Triggering a re-evaluation of a patent every time it is used in litigation would, I think, serve as a huge deterrent. With regard to companies like ARM, who's patents are of a very high quality and technically innovative and detailed, it would be hard for people to argue that they don't deserve the patent. But people who have essentially patented the internet without providing any worthwhile details would find it a lot more difficult to retain their patent once other interested parties are given the opportunity to call it out as bullshit. I do think it is a little unfair to ask the patent offices to make the right call every time with regard to patent filings, simply because of the sheer volume they have to process. Giving them a second chance to evaluate a patent with the input of experts in the field that a particular patent relates to would be beneficial to everyone. Going to an extreme: Maybe you could grant any and all patent filings automatically, and only the patents used in patent suits are evaluated. So all patents are worthless until tested. Or that might be a bad idea, I've not given it much thought beyond this.

netcan 13y ago

Obviousness is actually an interesting issue because it's dependent on context and context is moving pretty fast now. A lot of web inventing/entrepreneurship is as much predicting as it is inventing. Some of the great ideas will become obvious later. That doesn't mean they're not valid & creative ideas. Generally describing patents as creative works is problematic. In some cases they are like literature or music. In lots of other cases they are more like scientific discoveries. Out there waiting to be uncovered.