6 ms·

One of the main arguments for patents is just the fact that some things require a bit of capital to get going and what is to stop some venture capitalist from t

by javindo 13y ago

One of the main arguments for patents is just the fact that some things require a bit of capital to get going and what is to stop some venture capitalist from taking pitches, telling the person it's a rubbish idea then going off and funding the idea himself?

sushirain 13y ago
Patents won't help the engineer anyway, patents are made to protect the venture capitalist who invests the significant amount of money required to file the patent. That's the difference between the "inventor" and the "owner" as in patent law.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  With all due respect, I don't think you actually understand what patents do. Every year we hear of companies where people have invested much of their time and energy in giving life to an inventive idea or process, which at some point is acquired by another company in exchange for cash, stock, or both. And those negotiations would often not even start if the engineers building their idea were not able to protect their work using a patent. That single process is the difference between an acquirer taking all of their work and just re-implmenting, now that its clear what the issues are, and giving them nothing. And that company having to negotiate with the engineers about their work and pay them fairly for it if they want it. Patents have not always existed, and it is useful to see what it was like when they didn't exist to understand what it is they protect. That said, patent administration has not kept up with technology, although if you've been involved with the patent office as long as I have you will know it has gotten much better at figuring out what should and what should not be patentable. Further, the judiciary is getting much more in tune to the abusive nature that people wielding bad patents can have on an industry. It is getting better, and the people who need to make it better (the Supreme court in the US and the 'patent' court) are motivated to make it better and have been making changes along those lines. Not a quickly as some might like but being quick in complex areas of law is often dangerous so some caution is advised.
  - technoir 13y ago
    This is a nice story, but not an accurate reflection of reality. Look at the statistics on who are issued patents, who receives royalties. It's not the noble independent inventor, it's old MegaCorp that doesn't blink at underwriting the massive expense of prosecuting a good patent. The story you describe is a convenient myth to justify a system that benefits established interests.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      You could actually do some research if you wanted to and realize the truth of the statement, I'll give you the couch potato version, watch 'Shark Tank' or 'Dragon's Den' and rank all of the engagements where the question of a patent came up. Or you could do as I have done and participate in on M&A discussions for over a decade as part of the due diligence team and compare outcomes when patents exist and when they don't. Or you could approach the question using some basic reasoning, if the BigCorp is spending millions a year to develop a patent portfolio, how much of that value would carry over into the acquisition of SmallCorp with or without patents? Zero? Non-zero? How much non-zero? Can that number be deduced? You don't have to believe some random guy commenting on Hackernews here, but you do have to actually think about it and test your assumptions.
    - technoir 13y ago
      ChuckM, I appreciate your polite tone and sincerity. To illustrate my point, consider my story. I'm a software developer with entrepreneurial ambition and I'm developing a product I have dreams of marketing and selling. Last week I probably came up with 5 methods of doing some novel data analysis that are patent-able. How many will I patent? Well considering it would cost about 100-150k to adequately protect that intellectual property and I have only my own boots to my name, ... I'll patent zero of them. Clearly the system does not work for me. This is one extreme scenario, but consider the continuum. What about a startup with 500k in seed funding? Should they spend 50% of their capital to protect their intellectual property before they've finished a product and made sales? Meanwhile large companies spend millions on patent programs which sweep up wide swaths of IP on nebulous grounds of validity. Not only can I not afford to prosecute a patent, I can't even afford to respond to a cease and desist letter based on an invalid patent which came out of the "innovation process" of MegaCorp. Sorry, but the system is not for the little guy or the start up.
baddox 13y ago
In that specific case, a contract could easily protect the inventor.

by javindo 13y ago

sushirain 13y ago

Patents won't help the engineer anyway, patents are made to protect the venture capitalist who invests the significant amount of money required to file the patent. That's the difference between the "inventor" and the "owner" as in patent law.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
With all due respect, I don't think you actually understand what patents do. Every year we hear of companies where people have invested much of their time and energy in giving life to an inventive idea or process, which at some point is acquired by another company in exchange for cash, stock, or both. And those negotiations would often not even start if the engineers building their idea were not able to protect their work using a patent. That single process is the difference between an acquirer taking all of their work and just re-implmenting, now that its clear what the issues are, and giving them nothing. And that company having to negotiate with the engineers about their work and pay them fairly for it if they want it. Patents have not always existed, and it is useful to see what it was like when they didn't exist to understand what it is they protect. That said, patent administration has not kept up with technology, although if you've been involved with the patent office as long as I have you will know it has gotten much better at figuring out what should and what should not be patentable. Further, the judiciary is getting much more in tune to the abusive nature that people wielding bad patents can have on an industry. It is getting better, and the people who need to make it better (the Supreme court in the US and the 'patent' court) are motivated to make it better and have been making changes along those lines. Not a quickly as some might like but being quick in complex areas of law is often dangerous so some caution is advised.
- technoir 13y ago
  This is a nice story, but not an accurate reflection of reality. Look at the statistics on who are issued patents, who receives royalties. It's not the noble independent inventor, it's old MegaCorp that doesn't blink at underwriting the massive expense of prosecuting a good patent. The story you describe is a convenient myth to justify a system that benefits established interests.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    You could actually do some research if you wanted to and realize the truth of the statement, I'll give you the couch potato version, watch 'Shark Tank' or 'Dragon's Den' and rank all of the engagements where the question of a patent came up. Or you could do as I have done and participate in on M&A discussions for over a decade as part of the due diligence team and compare outcomes when patents exist and when they don't. Or you could approach the question using some basic reasoning, if the BigCorp is spending millions a year to develop a patent portfolio, how much of that value would carry over into the acquisition of SmallCorp with or without patents? Zero? Non-zero? How much non-zero? Can that number be deduced? You don't have to believe some random guy commenting on Hackernews here, but you do have to actually think about it and test your assumptions.
  - technoir 13y ago
    ChuckM, I appreciate your polite tone and sincerity. To illustrate my point, consider my story. I'm a software developer with entrepreneurial ambition and I'm developing a product I have dreams of marketing and selling. Last week I probably came up with 5 methods of doing some novel data analysis that are patent-able. How many will I patent? Well considering it would cost about 100-150k to adequately protect that intellectual property and I have only my own boots to my name, ... I'll patent zero of them. Clearly the system does not work for me. This is one extreme scenario, but consider the continuum. What about a startup with 500k in seed funding? Should they spend 50% of their capital to protect their intellectual property before they've finished a product and made sales? Meanwhile large companies spend millions on patent programs which sweep up wide swaths of IP on nebulous grounds of validity. Not only can I not afford to prosecute a patent, I can't even afford to respond to a cease and desist letter based on an invalid patent which came out of the "innovation process" of MegaCorp. Sorry, but the system is not for the little guy or the start up.

baddox 13y ago

In that specific case, a contract could easily protect the inventor.