3 ms·

> invalidating software patents is an action that favours entrenched/moneyed interests Not true. Large firms & patent trolls hold the patents and have the reso

> invalidating software patents is an action that favours entrenched/moneyed interests Not true. Large firms & patent trolls hold the patents and have the resources to deal with the legal expenses. Small innovative firms & sole professionals tend to not have legal departments, large amounts of capital (& time) to spend on legal "non-innovative" matters, nor do they have patent troves. Invalidating the software patents increases freedom to create & innovate and reduces centralization of power, legal trifling, and bureaucracy.

WildUtah 12y ago
I think it is true. Ending software patents is great for startups, but it's good for Google, Apple, and Microsoft, too. The big companies aren't getting much value for what they spend on the patent system and their valuations depend on growth of the software ecosystem that requires startups. The ones that will lose out when software patents aren't lucrative are the entrepreneurial lawyers who found a loophole in the system and mercilessly exploited it. Several of the "inventors" in the patents in op were patent attorneys with no experience in computer networks and software. They saw a chance to cheat and they took it; no technology was required. Well, Intellectual Ventures will lose out, too. They're large in the sense that they're winning more than the tens of millions that small time trolls do, but not compared to IBM or Amazon.
travisp 12y ago
It's true that large firms and NPEs hold the patents and can better enforce their patents, but "patent trolls" (aka patent license companies that specialize in holding and enforcing patent rights as a business model) can be in some ways a benefit to smaller firms for a couple of reasons: 1) The smaller firms don't have the ability to aggressively defend their patents against larger competitors (and would simply have their invention used by the big players without a patent). Instead, the smaller firm can essentially outsource this to a patent licensing firm that specializes in it (standard division of labor), for example selling the patent while maintaining a license to use it themselves (or any other of a multitude of arrangements that essentially let them fight the big players). 2) If the smaller firm doesn't have the resources to actually introduce and sell their invention in the marketplace, they can sell it to a patent licensing firm that can use the patent within their portfolio to license to the main players in the market. This could arise when, for example, the small company comes up with an important new innovation in smartphones, but the small company lacks the resources to actually create a viable physical product on its own.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  [citation needed]

WildUtah 12y ago

I think it is true. Ending software patents is great for startups, but it's good for Google, Apple, and Microsoft, too. The big companies aren't getting much value for what they spend on the patent system and their valuations depend on growth of the software ecosystem that requires startups. The ones that will lose out when software patents aren't lucrative are the entrepreneurial lawyers who found a loophole in the system and mercilessly exploited it. Several of the "inventors" in the patents in op were patent attorneys with no experience in computer networks and software. They saw a chance to cheat and they took it; no technology was required. Well, Intellectual Ventures will lose out, too. They're large in the sense that they're winning more than the tens of millions that small time trolls do, but not compared to IBM or Amazon.

travisp 12y ago

It's true that large firms and NPEs hold the patents and can better enforce their patents, but "patent trolls" (aka patent license companies that specialize in holding and enforcing patent rights as a business model) can be in some ways a benefit to smaller firms for a couple of reasons: 1) The smaller firms don't have the ability to aggressively defend their patents against larger competitors (and would simply have their invention used by the big players without a patent). Instead, the smaller firm can essentially outsource this to a patent licensing firm that specializes in it (standard division of labor), for example selling the patent while maintaining a license to use it themselves (or any other of a multitude of arrangements that essentially let them fight the big players). 2) If the smaller firm doesn't have the resources to actually introduce and sell their invention in the marketplace, they can sell it to a patent licensing firm that can use the patent within their portfolio to license to the main players in the market. This could arise when, for example, the small company comes up with an important new innovation in smartphones, but the small company lacks the resources to actually create a viable physical product on its own.

spacemanmatt 12y ago
[citation needed]