3 ms·

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". Thi

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.

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.