7 ms·

FTC publishes a long list of questions it wants to ask “patent trolls”

80 points by Suraj-Sun 13y ago

TallboyOne 13y ago
All I can say is... I don't get upset by much in this world, but this is one thing that turns my heart to such table-flipping, redhot, searing rage. I am so glad to see this, it makes my soul glow. Down with these abysmal scum of the earth.
- gavinpc 13y ago
  I suspect this is not all you can say.
jfasi 13y ago
It warms my heart to see hints that the tide might be turning on patent trolls. While this precise effort might not yield results, it's comforting to see that this has gained attention from the body whose job it is to address these sorts of abuses.
beloch 13y ago
Patents have always struck me as a bit like a mob protection racket. Either you pay for the right to do business or they send lawyers in to make your life hell. The business landscape is a bit like New York back when it was ruled by gangs. A business might openly pay protection to one gang while secretly paying another gang to shake down their rivals. These patent troll companies are a bit like those shake-down gangs, only even less discriminating. They wouldn't exist if respectable companies weren't lining up to sell them patent rights. Perhaps patent law, as it currently stands, really is analogous to DIY justice. If you want a patent, it is entirely incumbent on you to pursue it. There isn't any kind of public authority running around trying to determine who came up with what first and making sure they get compensated for it. Lawyers are the new hired assassins and goons. Perhaps the only way to tame this jungle of gangland warfare is to develop something like police for the business world.
- studentrob 13y ago
  I think we need to look at the reasons why patents were formed in the first place in order to determine how to modify patent law going forward. Part of the reason patents came about was to prevent permanent monopolies, the idea being that you make your innovation public in exchange for a short term monopoly or what I will call "short term money." This is just one reason but it will let me illustrate an example that makes my point. The problem with the exchange of knowledge for short term money is that the amount of time you are protected doesn't scale to the degree of innovativeness of your idea; the short term money now seems like way too much money for many patents, essentially creating the long term monopolies that patents were meant to prevent. Rather, certain things are patentable for a certain length of time, and that's that, regardless of the degree of innovativeness. To further compound the problem, the degree of innovation of idea x diminishes as we move into the future. Consider idea x, selling images using the internet. Simple, right? This may have been considered innovative from 1980 until 1990 (this is hypothetical, please don't nit pick), because at that time not everyone has a computer, the internet, or a way to pay for things online, and maybe you have ideas for how to solve all that. But if you were to come up with that idea in 1990 it might only be truly innovative for 5 years. And if someone were to try to patent this today, assuming the USPTO worked flawlessly, we would laugh at them. It wouldn't be considered innovative for any amount of time because everyone has a computer, a way to pay for things online, and fast internet. Yet the USPTO may grant this patent today anyway (again, hypothetical), causing companies to endure years of headaches and fork over thousands or millions in attorney fees. What's the solution to that? I don't know, but I do know there's something wrong with the incarnation we have now, because patent law is creating something it is meant to prevent (monopolies). The point is, to modify patent law, we must first go back and look at the founding reasons of why patents were created in order to determine (a) whether we still agree with those reasons, and (b) how to modify law that nurtures those reasons going forward. It's only then that we'll be able to correct things because the situation has gone too awry for minor adjustments. I like the direction the FTC is taking, however, and I see this as a fact finding mission which must come before everything else.
- eps 13y ago
  > Patents have always struck me as a bit like a mob protection racket Always? Seriously? Just like that? Even when a pharma company invests huge sums into R&D of a new drug and relies on patents to try and recoup this money? That's too a mob protection market for you? The concept of the patent protection is solid. It's the execution that went astray at some point when they started issuing very generic patents. Bitch about that.
drakaal 13y ago
I helped fight Acacia on the Streaming video patent that threatened to kill porn on the Internet. There are definitely trolls out there. Acacia was one of them. At the same time there are organizations that are viewed as trolls that have legit claims to enforce their IP. The MPEGLA that collects royalties for h.264 is a good example. Most people who use VLC never pay their royalty. They should. Part of the reason we don't get better video codecs is because the royalties don't get paid and so there isn't reason to do the research into improvements. Yes, there is WebM, no it is not free of patent issues, but that is another subject, not for this thread. The point of this is that there are many times a patent is needed, and sending collection letters is necessary.
- BerislavLopac 13y ago
  A codec is software. Software is mathematical formulae in code form. Math, and therefore software, should never be patentable.
  - interstitial 13y ago
    Molecules are mathematical formulas. Machines are just simple physical devices governed by math. What matters is the R&D and protecting the R&D and incentive to do the research.
    - hso9791 13y ago
      With all due respect: No molecule is a mathematical formula. Mathematical formulas - on the other hand - are. Patents on software are a patent on describing how to use a machine. Almost every single component part of the machine has surely been patented at some point. How many times do we need to patent the use of a computer and/or networks before we're done with this nonsense?
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >A patent is a monopoly in the same way all property rights are monopolies: you get the exclusive right to use something. After I get my series of patents on the use of a computer on a Ferris wheel. And the use of a smartphone on a Ferris Wheel. And networking on a Ferris wheel. And downloading on a Ferris Wheel. And a solution for predicting the position of a person on a Ferris wheel based on other people on that Ferris wheel with known positions...
dangero 13y ago
Perhaps best case is that the FTC concludes that patent trolls aren't breaking the law at all. That could be the start of software patent reform.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
LindaWell 13y ago
my Aunty Paige just got an awesome yellow Nissan Rogue SUV by working part time from a home computer... find more information ...................http://redir.ec/buzz55 http://redir.ec/buzz55
huhtenberg 13y ago
Better than nothing I guess, but what if this ends with FTC establishing a formal criteria for "patent asserting entities" and then said entities would start working around it, say, by hiring an outsourced VB developer to become a software company? Trolls are already run by people that lack ethics, so they will just bend yet another batch of rules when they hit them.
pedalpete 13y ago
One question I'd like to see added is "how much revenue does this firm make from this patent and how much does it stand to loose due to this infringement". This, I think, would immediately make it noticeable if the person is a patent-troll, or a legitimate business trying to protect their revenue. I believe, that in the spirit of patents, a patent holder should have to prove damages to their revenue (or possibly future revenue).
- mikeash 13y ago
  The problem with that standard is that it leaves out legitimate inventors who lack the capital to produce and sell their invention. This doesn't show up much when it comes to internet and software, because the barrier to entry is low. But there are a lot of legitimately patented inventions that require big money to manufacture. A small inventor who cannot afford to manufacture their inventor on their own would lose out, because other players could simply start using their invention without paying, knowing that the small inventor has no revenue to point to. Personally, I think the real problem is that the obviousness test is simply not applied. Patents should be for inventions that take legitimately difficult insight and work to achieve. They should not simply be a way to reward the first person to think of an idea that a thousand other people could have come up with if they had been in the same situation. Making revenue solely from licensing out a patent to other parties is not necessarily bad, if it's a good patent. This turns into "patent trolling" when the patent being used is something obvious, and the targets are being sued after coming up with the idea independently.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    Yes. This is why I keep saying that to sue for infringement, one should have to supply objective evidence of nonobviousness: evidence that the problem the patent solves was previously known and was considered difficult. The mere lack of demonstrable prior art should not suffice.
  - pedalpete 13y ago
    I'll agree with everything you've said about the non-obvious part, but what I'm saying isn't that a judges decision should be based on the revenue loss (or potential revenue loss), but rather it is to be used to help decide if this person is a patent troll or not. But completely agree, non-obviousness should be key in any defence(or is that offence) of a patent.

80 points by Suraj-Sun 13y ago

All I can say is... I don't get upset by much in this world, but this is one thing that turns my heart to such table-flipping, redhot, searing rage. I am so glad to see this, it makes my soul glow. Down with these abysmal scum of the earth.

gavinpc 13y ago
I suspect this is not all you can say.

jfasi 13y ago

It warms my heart to see hints that the tide might be turning on patent trolls. While this precise effort might not yield results, it's comforting to see that this has gained attention from the body whose job it is to address these sorts of abuses.

beloch 13y ago

Patents have always struck me as a bit like a mob protection racket. Either you pay for the right to do business or they send lawyers in to make your life hell. The business landscape is a bit like New York back when it was ruled by gangs. A business might openly pay protection to one gang while secretly paying another gang to shake down their rivals. These patent troll companies are a bit like those shake-down gangs, only even less discriminating. They wouldn't exist if respectable companies weren't lining up to sell them patent rights. Perhaps patent law, as it currently stands, really is analogous to DIY justice. If you want a patent, it is entirely incumbent on you to pursue it. There isn't any kind of public authority running around trying to determine who came up with what first and making sure they get compensated for it. Lawyers are the new hired assassins and goons. Perhaps the only way to tame this jungle of gangland warfare is to develop something like police for the business world.

studentrob 13y ago
I think we need to look at the reasons why patents were formed in the first place in order to determine how to modify patent law going forward. Part of the reason patents came about was to prevent permanent monopolies, the idea being that you make your innovation public in exchange for a short term monopoly or what I will call "short term money." This is just one reason but it will let me illustrate an example that makes my point. The problem with the exchange of knowledge for short term money is that the amount of time you are protected doesn't scale to the degree of innovativeness of your idea; the short term money now seems like way too much money for many patents, essentially creating the long term monopolies that patents were meant to prevent. Rather, certain things are patentable for a certain length of time, and that's that, regardless of the degree of innovativeness. To further compound the problem, the degree of innovation of idea x diminishes as we move into the future. Consider idea x, selling images using the internet. Simple, right? This may have been considered innovative from 1980 until 1990 (this is hypothetical, please don't nit pick), because at that time not everyone has a computer, the internet, or a way to pay for things online, and maybe you have ideas for how to solve all that. But if you were to come up with that idea in 1990 it might only be truly innovative for 5 years. And if someone were to try to patent this today, assuming the USPTO worked flawlessly, we would laugh at them. It wouldn't be considered innovative for any amount of time because everyone has a computer, a way to pay for things online, and fast internet. Yet the USPTO may grant this patent today anyway (again, hypothetical), causing companies to endure years of headaches and fork over thousands or millions in attorney fees. What's the solution to that? I don't know, but I do know there's something wrong with the incarnation we have now, because patent law is creating something it is meant to prevent (monopolies). The point is, to modify patent law, we must first go back and look at the founding reasons of why patents were created in order to determine (a) whether we still agree with those reasons, and (b) how to modify law that nurtures those reasons going forward. It's only then that we'll be able to correct things because the situation has gone too awry for minor adjustments. I like the direction the FTC is taking, however, and I see this as a fact finding mission which must come before everything else.
eps 13y ago
> Patents have always struck me as a bit like a mob protection racket Always? Seriously? Just like that? Even when a pharma company invests huge sums into R&D of a new drug and relies on patents to try and recoup this money? That's too a mob protection market for you? The concept of the patent protection is solid. It's the execution that went astray at some point when they started issuing very generic patents. Bitch about that.

drakaal 13y ago

I helped fight Acacia on the Streaming video patent that threatened to kill porn on the Internet. There are definitely trolls out there. Acacia was one of them. At the same time there are organizations that are viewed as trolls that have legit claims to enforce their IP. The MPEGLA that collects royalties for h.264 is a good example. Most people who use VLC never pay their royalty. They should. Part of the reason we don't get better video codecs is because the royalties don't get paid and so there isn't reason to do the research into improvements. Yes, there is WebM, no it is not free of patent issues, but that is another subject, not for this thread. The point of this is that there are many times a patent is needed, and sending collection letters is necessary.

BerislavLopac 13y ago
A codec is software. Software is mathematical formulae in code form. Math, and therefore software, should never be patentable.
- interstitial 13y ago
  Molecules are mathematical formulas. Machines are just simple physical devices governed by math. What matters is the R&D and protecting the R&D and incentive to do the research.
  - hso9791 13y ago
    With all due respect: No molecule is a mathematical formula. Mathematical formulas - on the other hand - are. Patents on software are a patent on describing how to use a machine. Almost every single component part of the machine has surely been patented at some point. How many times do we need to patent the use of a computer and/or networks before we're done with this nonsense?
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >A patent is a monopoly in the same way all property rights are monopolies: you get the exclusive right to use something. After I get my series of patents on the use of a computer on a Ferris wheel. And the use of a smartphone on a Ferris Wheel. And networking on a Ferris wheel. And downloading on a Ferris Wheel. And a solution for predicting the position of a person on a Ferris wheel based on other people on that Ferris wheel with known positions...

dangero 13y ago

Perhaps best case is that the FTC concludes that patent trolls aren't breaking the law at all. That could be the start of software patent reform.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

LindaWell 13y ago

my Aunty Paige just got an awesome yellow Nissan Rogue SUV by working part time from a home computer... find more information ...................http://redir.ec/buzz55 http://redir.ec/buzz55

huhtenberg 13y ago

Better than nothing I guess, but what if this ends with FTC establishing a formal criteria for "patent asserting entities" and then said entities would start working around it, say, by hiring an outsourced VB developer to become a software company? Trolls are already run by people that lack ethics, so they will just bend yet another batch of rules when they hit them.

pedalpete 13y ago

One question I'd like to see added is "how much revenue does this firm make from this patent and how much does it stand to loose due to this infringement". This, I think, would immediately make it noticeable if the person is a patent-troll, or a legitimate business trying to protect their revenue. I believe, that in the spirit of patents, a patent holder should have to prove damages to their revenue (or possibly future revenue).

mikeash 13y ago
The problem with that standard is that it leaves out legitimate inventors who lack the capital to produce and sell their invention. This doesn't show up much when it comes to internet and software, because the barrier to entry is low. But there are a lot of legitimately patented inventions that require big money to manufacture. A small inventor who cannot afford to manufacture their inventor on their own would lose out, because other players could simply start using their invention without paying, knowing that the small inventor has no revenue to point to. Personally, I think the real problem is that the obviousness test is simply not applied. Patents should be for inventions that take legitimately difficult insight and work to achieve. They should not simply be a way to reward the first person to think of an idea that a thousand other people could have come up with if they had been in the same situation. Making revenue solely from licensing out a patent to other parties is not necessarily bad, if it's a good patent. This turns into "patent trolling" when the patent being used is something obvious, and the targets are being sued after coming up with the idea independently.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  Yes. This is why I keep saying that to sue for infringement, one should have to supply objective evidence of nonobviousness: evidence that the problem the patent solves was previously known and was considered difficult. The mere lack of demonstrable prior art should not suffice.
- pedalpete 13y ago
  I'll agree with everything you've said about the non-obvious part, but what I'm saying isn't that a judges decision should be based on the revenue loss (or potential revenue loss), but rather it is to be used to help decide if this person is a patent troll or not. But completely agree, non-obviousness should be key in any defence(or is that offence) of a patent.