5 ms·

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that courts provide justice with the extremely high cost to the interested parties. I see nothing inherently wrong with be

by adamtj 13y ago

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that courts provide justice with the extremely high cost to the interested parties. I see nothing inherently wrong with being a patent "troll". The idea behind patents is to provide financial incentives to innovation. A little guy with a legitimate patent may have difficulty convincing large corporations to pay a license fee. One way for such a person to reap that benefit is to sell the patent to a holding company that does the work of monetizing the patent. Or to seek settlements and avoid long legal battles that he or she may not have the resources to endure. Patent "trolls" are just the market at work, and that is normally a good thing. The problem is, the high cost of litigation makes it a very easy system to abuse. That high cost imbues patents with a substantial value regardless of their merit. It's very easy to disagree about whether a patent applies in a particular situation, or is even valid generally, but very costly to resolve such disagreements. Unfortunately, you can't just shift the cost burden to the trolls, because then you also have to stick the little guy with the cost of sueing a giant multinational corporation for any wrongdoing. It's hard enough as is. It may seem easy to tell the difference between those situations, but it's difficult to encode those ideas in laws that apply universally. Other solutions tend to have similar problems. This RICO thing could potentially affect future class action suits against Big Evil. My point, I guess, is this: the real problem isn't the "trolls" but the high cost of justice. Short of eliminating patents, to attack the problem from any direction other than the cost of justice tends to turn it into the same sort of thing as pornographers and free speech. You can't easily attack patent trolls or pornographers without damaging other users of the courts or of free speech.

arbuge 13y ago
You hinted at the solution in the last paragraph. Eliminate software and process patents entirely. They are stifling innovation at this point instead of encouraging it. Eliminate all patents if need be.
- adamtj 13y ago
  That's _a_ solution, though it's arguable whether it's a good one. Obviously the current implementation of patents has numerous downsides. The costs are high. But what are the benefits? If they even slightly outweigh the costs, then having patents is better than not having them. And regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, is there a better implementation of the idea? The intention behind patents is clearly a good idea. Who can argue with fostering innovation in a way that requires open publication? (Open source your idea, receive profits!) If anything, software patents are even more important than other kinds, in this age of the cloud and web services where there are no physical artifacts that can be taken apart and studied. We can take apart a cotton gin, but we can't see Google's source code. At least we get the PageRank patent. There is less need in software for the monopoly benefit, and more need for open publication requirement. That's what makes software patents different than other kinds.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Software patents are not as useful as a cotton gin patent because: 1. Most software can be reverse engineered through observation, without disassembly. 2. A sizable chunk of software innovation is already publicly documented in the form of research papers.
  - sologoub 13y ago
    The patent expiration on a drug is a huge event and it provides tangible benefits - creation of a drug, and then wider availability. The same is hardly true with software and many other technologies. By the time the patent expires, the described technology is frequently obvious and offers little additional value. Patents may be a good thing when applied correctly, but use of software with a vague tie to some physical hardware is not the right way to apply it, as evidenced by the these extortions. If one actually examines how the software is being patented and the problematic linkages to hardware that make it patentable, the entire argument falls apart in my eyes. "For computer implemented processes, the “machine” is often disclosed as a general purpose computer. In these cases, the general purpose computer may be sufficiently “particular” when programmed to perform the process steps. Such programming creates a new machine because a general purpose computer, in effect, becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software." [1] In other words, the only thing that separates software from a business methods, which enjoy much less protection, is the fact that instead of a human performing the tasks, a general computer is performing the tasks. If you consider a software program is nothing more than a collection of instructions, it then can be considered similar in nature to a operator's manual given to a worker processing something. [1] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
> A little guy with a legitimate patent may have difficulty convincing large corporations to pay a license fee. I think the key distinction is that "legitimate patent" would seem to have a different definition for the USPTO than it does for the technology industry. For example USPTO considers sending a scan to an e-mail a legitimate patent, while I would venture to guess the tech world does not: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/meet-the-nice-guy-lawyers-who-want-1000-per-worker-for-using-scanners/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/meet-the-nice-guy... So yes, some of these are so broad and obviously just there to make a buck - like the swipe option. The idea of a patent was to ensure that the creator who had spent considerable time, energy and money creating the invention was ensured that for some period he could benefit from that. Being the first person to patent something which is simple and often thought up does not in my opinion meet that threshold.
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  There needs to be a cheaper way to challenge patents and force the USPTO to do a thorough job of it. If the obvious option is always, "nope, challenge", and the usual outcome is, "hm on second thought it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with scan-to-email"; patent trolls would find some copyrights to troll or move into a related field like blackmail.
- kamaal 13y ago
  I don't get this. Its simple, why can't we just tell HP or Canon we would get sued if we used their printers. So we won't. HP or Canon has much to lose here. And its very obvious a big part of business is under a threat because of these stupid games. They would definitely take on the troll themselves.
- TrevorJ 13y ago
  Yep - it's this gap between common sense and actual patents that the patent Trolls are exploiting. The only true way to fix it is to reform the patent system itself.
muhuk 13y ago
> I find it hard to reconcile the idea that courts provide justice with the extremely high cost to the interested parties. This is a shortcoming of the justice system. > A little guy with a legitimate patent may have difficulty convincing large corporations to pay a license fee. Isn't this also a shortcoming of the justice system, partially if not entirely?

by adamtj 13y ago

arbuge 13y ago

You hinted at the solution in the last paragraph. Eliminate software and process patents entirely. They are stifling innovation at this point instead of encouraging it. Eliminate all patents if need be.

adamtj 13y ago
That's _a_ solution, though it's arguable whether it's a good one. Obviously the current implementation of patents has numerous downsides. The costs are high. But what are the benefits? If they even slightly outweigh the costs, then having patents is better than not having them. And regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, is there a better implementation of the idea? The intention behind patents is clearly a good idea. Who can argue with fostering innovation in a way that requires open publication? (Open source your idea, receive profits!) If anything, software patents are even more important than other kinds, in this age of the cloud and web services where there are no physical artifacts that can be taken apart and studied. We can take apart a cotton gin, but we can't see Google's source code. At least we get the PageRank patent. There is less need in software for the monopoly benefit, and more need for open publication requirement. That's what makes software patents different than other kinds.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Software patents are not as useful as a cotton gin patent because: 1. Most software can be reverse engineered through observation, without disassembly. 2. A sizable chunk of software innovation is already publicly documented in the form of research papers.
- sologoub 13y ago
  The patent expiration on a drug is a huge event and it provides tangible benefits - creation of a drug, and then wider availability. The same is hardly true with software and many other technologies. By the time the patent expires, the described technology is frequently obvious and offers little additional value. Patents may be a good thing when applied correctly, but use of software with a vague tie to some physical hardware is not the right way to apply it, as evidenced by the these extortions. If one actually examines how the software is being patented and the problematic linkages to hardware that make it patentable, the entire argument falls apart in my eyes. "For computer implemented processes, the “machine” is often disclosed as a general purpose computer. In these cases, the general purpose computer may be sufficiently “particular” when programmed to perform the process steps. Such programming creates a new machine because a general purpose computer, in effect, becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software." [1] In other words, the only thing that separates software from a business methods, which enjoy much less protection, is the fact that instead of a human performing the tasks, a general computer is performing the tasks. If you consider a software program is nothing more than a collection of instructions, it then can be considered similar in nature to a operator's manual given to a worker processing something. [1] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

> A little guy with a legitimate patent may have difficulty convincing large corporations to pay a license fee. I think the key distinction is that "legitimate patent" would seem to have a different definition for the USPTO than it does for the technology industry. For example USPTO considers sending a scan to an e-mail a legitimate patent, while I would venture to guess the tech world does not: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/meet-the-nice-guy-lawyers-who-want-1000-per-worker-for-using-scanners/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/meet-the-nice-guy... So yes, some of these are so broad and obviously just there to make a buck - like the swipe option. The idea of a patent was to ensure that the creator who had spent considerable time, energy and money creating the invention was ensured that for some period he could benefit from that. Being the first person to patent something which is simple and often thought up does not in my opinion meet that threshold.

reginaldjcooper 13y ago
There needs to be a cheaper way to challenge patents and force the USPTO to do a thorough job of it. If the obvious option is always, "nope, challenge", and the usual outcome is, "hm on second thought it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with scan-to-email"; patent trolls would find some copyrights to troll or move into a related field like blackmail.
kamaal 13y ago
I don't get this. Its simple, why can't we just tell HP or Canon we would get sued if we used their printers. So we won't. HP or Canon has much to lose here. And its very obvious a big part of business is under a threat because of these stupid games. They would definitely take on the troll themselves.
TrevorJ 13y ago
Yep - it's this gap between common sense and actual patents that the patent Trolls are exploiting. The only true way to fix it is to reform the patent system itself.

muhuk 13y ago

> I find it hard to reconcile the idea that courts provide justice with the extremely high cost to the interested parties. This is a shortcoming of the justice system. > A little guy with a legitimate patent may have difficulty convincing large corporations to pay a license fee. Isn't this also a shortcoming of the justice system, partially if not entirely?