2 ms·

Intellectual Ventures is now the bitter pill tech giants have to swallow to maintain their intellectual monopolies. With legislation that makes trolling impossi

by iwwr 13y ago

Intellectual Ventures is now the bitter pill tech giants have to swallow to maintain their intellectual monopolies. With legislation that makes trolling impossible, but still maintains the legal privileges, large companies will have their cake and eat it too. It would mean there's nothing stopping the likes of Oracle or Microsoft from lobbying for harsher penalties, looser rules and longer terms for patent law in general. The cure for this problem would be a refutation of patents wholesale, or at the very least a repeal of software and algorithmic patents. Patent trolling isn't a problem that's distinct from legal patent enforcement, it just means some "little guys" can steal some of the intellectual free lunch the large companies have been having.

AlisdairO 13y ago
Agreed. Patent trolling isn't the problem - it's a symptom of the wider issue that far too many obvious patents are granted. The reason NPEs are perceived as a problem is because they break mutually assured destruction. If the patent system were working as intended, we wouldn't need MAD, because it would be possible to write a nontrivial computer program that didn't infringe on someone's patent. I have no real problem with the concept of an NPE, if their patents are genuinely worthwhile.
- lukifer 13y ago
  I agree with your general point, but the ability to decide what patents are valid is still a lot of economic power. Even a vastly better-staffed USPTO would still have the capability for incompetence or corruption, at a huge cost to innovation and society. Ultimately, any invention covered by a legitimate patent should probably be protected by a legitimate copyright instead. The flaw in the concept of patents is the one pointed out by Carmack: if someone is capable of reproducing your work independently, then can it really be said to be "owned" by its "creator"? Obviously, no one is going to create an exact copy of Harry Potter or Microsoft Flight Simulator without having seen the original, but they might very well write a wizard school story or plane-based video game; clearly, those concepts do not deserve to be owned. Anything not specific enough to be covered by copyright is capable of being duplicated by another human independently, and therefore absurd and counterproductive to assign ownership and monopoly rights.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Well, maybe the bill is completely different from the commentary, but there is nothing at the article that is specific against NPEs.
- clavalle 13y ago
  I don't think there are many practicing entities that are hiding the people potentially benefiting from their patent litigation. I also don't think many practicing entities send out litigation threats that cannot be shown to be "substantially justified." It also prevents entities from targeting end users without going after the actual manufacturer. This bill is laser focused on NPEs.
metaphorm 13y ago
I think you're right on, but lets take our victories where we can get them. Shutting down patent trolls is worth doing. Lets make the next fight patent reform in general.
mindslight 13y ago
Who needs nuance? "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

by iwwr 13y ago

AlisdairO 13y ago

Agreed. Patent trolling isn't the problem - it's a symptom of the wider issue that far too many obvious patents are granted. The reason NPEs are perceived as a problem is because they break mutually assured destruction. If the patent system were working as intended, we wouldn't need MAD, because it would be possible to write a nontrivial computer program that didn't infringe on someone's patent. I have no real problem with the concept of an NPE, if their patents are genuinely worthwhile.

lukifer 13y ago
I agree with your general point, but the ability to decide what patents are valid is still a lot of economic power. Even a vastly better-staffed USPTO would still have the capability for incompetence or corruption, at a huge cost to innovation and society. Ultimately, any invention covered by a legitimate patent should probably be protected by a legitimate copyright instead. The flaw in the concept of patents is the one pointed out by Carmack: if someone is capable of reproducing your work independently, then can it really be said to be "owned" by its "creator"? Obviously, no one is going to create an exact copy of Harry Potter or Microsoft Flight Simulator without having seen the original, but they might very well write a wizard school story or plane-based video game; clearly, those concepts do not deserve to be owned. Anything not specific enough to be covered by copyright is capable of being duplicated by another human independently, and therefore absurd and counterproductive to assign ownership and monopoly rights.

marcosdumay 13y ago

Well, maybe the bill is completely different from the commentary, but there is nothing at the article that is specific against NPEs.

clavalle 13y ago
I don't think there are many practicing entities that are hiding the people potentially benefiting from their patent litigation. I also don't think many practicing entities send out litigation threats that cannot be shown to be "substantially justified." It also prevents entities from targeting end users without going after the actual manufacturer. This bill is laser focused on NPEs.

metaphorm 13y ago

I think you're right on, but lets take our victories where we can get them. Shutting down patent trolls is worth doing. Lets make the next fight patent reform in general.

mindslight 13y ago

Who needs nuance? "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."