3 ms·

Patent reform advocates are launching a ‘super-coalition’ to whack patent trolls

85 points by Libertatea 12y ago

TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
Watch, the trial lawyers association and the trolls will bring out the big bucks too. Harry Reid killed the last patent reform bill based on a call from the trial lawyers association. The GOP has no love for the lawyers so we may see some progress now. So the largely liberal Silicon Valley may actually see some tangible economic benefits from the GOP controlling Congress.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  There is also the possibility that judicial decisions (such as Alice) have created enough change that reform is less necessary. See this interview or Mark Lemley, a scholar who is often seen as a critic of the patent system: http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=28572386-7cf9-4003-8513-12f3edb914a0 http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=28572386-7cf9... Whether judicial activity as opposed to congress should set the de facto policy is a good idea or not, I cannot say.
layman 12y ago
It's not just patent trolls (shell firms with no products of their own) that are the plague on this world. There are also the extortionists (IBM, I'm looking at you), and the litigants (Apple - threatening to kill VP8 by using MPEG-LA)!
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
The question is: Will it (only) hit the real problem makers? For me, patent trolls are only a symptom and not the real problem. Patent trolls are a symptom of an overstretched patent system, where everybody (with enough money) can patent anything (also stupid and trivial stuff). Where 50 years ago, one patent was made, 10 or 100 patents are made to secure any detail of the "invention". And many, many patents are made, that would have not have the smallest chance of been patented. Remember: The patent application for the Z3 (one of the first computers) was denied. [1] The problem is: How to distinguish small inventors (for which the patent system in former days should give security) which do not have the capital to produce their invention from so called "patent trolls". My fear is, that the legislation will fail to make a good enough distinction. For big corporations it is a good thing to redirect the public agenda from the patent system to the smaller topic of "patent trolls". Big corporations that make many thousands patents a year, are also a part of the problem and not "patent trolls" alone. [1] http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5edb66b4db4818001eb36agermany_zuse.pdf http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5... See Abstract
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year. Fun thought experiment: What if the patent office was only allowed to issue a certain number of patents per year, and was directed to pick the most worthy ones.
  - NeverEnough 12y ago
    that's an interesting thought. it could be done monthly or quarterly as well.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. So this idea will never be realized ... Also the numbers of patents are presented every year to prove, how grand the nation is. Nobody wants to spoil that. (BTW: That would be a real patent reform)
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
      > The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. Not exactly, the USPTO is funded by the patents it examines and keeps active (maintenance fees). Issuance fees are actually small compared to the rest of the fees involved in examination. Additionally an issuance happens only once, but rejections are unbounded. If making money was an incentive, they'd do much better by repeatedly rejecting applications and forcing applicants to keep paying for continued examination rather than issuing them.
      - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
        Ok, I did not dive to much in the detail. But I don't think, that repeated rejections would make the patent office happier. First of all, they would create much (political) pressure from the big corporations and second if they reject to much, the number of patent applications would decrease. Third, they would cash in less maintenance fees.
btilly 12y ago
One of the challenges of patent reform is that there is a huge advocate of strong patent systems in pharma, and they are good at lobbying. They care because patent protection is how they recoup the costs of FDA trials (which are north of $100 million per drug). Reforming patent law would become easier if they were given what they need in the form of an alternate form of temporary monopoly for having paid for the FDA trials.
- unquietcode 12y ago
  What if the FDA enforced a rule where only one company can have an active trial? Then the first to file shifts to the FDA and the bearer has a monopoly for a few years, including the lead time before another company can complete a subsequent trial.
- adventured 12y ago
  I'm perfectly happy with chopping down the patent law mess one large portion at a time if need be. Trying to do it all at once is almost guaranteed to fail. In the present political environment it's usually better to start by taking legs out from the under the table one at a time. The obvious solution is to exclude pharma from the patent legislation wars for now. Once a big portion of the economy is unhindered from patent trolls, then pharma can be re-examined. If all that happened is that we free the radical majority of the economy from patent trolls, but were still left with pharma patents, then so be it, it'd still be a drastic improvement from where we're standing.
- aggie 12y ago
  A pragmatic approach would be to simply leave pharma alone, at least initially, as they actually need strong incentive for R&D.
  - chongli 12y ago
    Or to socialize drug discovery using a competitive scheme akin to the XPrize with the reward being a free ticket through clinical trials and safety development (among other things).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

85 points by Libertatea 12y ago

Watch, the trial lawyers association and the trolls will bring out the big bucks too. Harry Reid killed the last patent reform bill based on a call from the trial lawyers association. The GOP has no love for the lawyers so we may see some progress now. So the largely liberal Silicon Valley may actually see some tangible economic benefits from the GOP controlling Congress.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
There is also the possibility that judicial decisions (such as Alice) have created enough change that reform is less necessary. See this interview or Mark Lemley, a scholar who is often seen as a critic of the patent system: http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=28572386-7cf9-4003-8513-12f3edb914a0 http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=28572386-7cf9... Whether judicial activity as opposed to congress should set the de facto policy is a good idea or not, I cannot say.

layman 12y ago

It's not just patent trolls (shell firms with no products of their own) that are the plague on this world. There are also the extortionists (IBM, I'm looking at you), and the litigants (Apple - threatening to kill VP8 by using MPEG-LA)!

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

The question is: Will it (only) hit the real problem makers? For me, patent trolls are only a symptom and not the real problem. Patent trolls are a symptom of an overstretched patent system, where everybody (with enough money) can patent anything (also stupid and trivial stuff). Where 50 years ago, one patent was made, 10 or 100 patents are made to secure any detail of the "invention". And many, many patents are made, that would have not have the smallest chance of been patented. Remember: The patent application for the Z3 (one of the first computers) was denied. [1] The problem is: How to distinguish small inventors (for which the patent system in former days should give security) which do not have the capital to produce their invention from so called "patent trolls". My fear is, that the legislation will fail to make a good enough distinction. For big corporations it is a good thing to redirect the public agenda from the patent system to the smaller topic of "patent trolls". Big corporations that make many thousands patents a year, are also a part of the problem and not "patent trolls" alone. [1] http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5edb66b4db4818001eb36agermany_zuse.pdf http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5... See Abstract

BurningFrog 12y ago
The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year. Fun thought experiment: What if the patent office was only allowed to issue a certain number of patents per year, and was directed to pick the most worthy ones.
- NeverEnough 12y ago
  that's an interesting thought. it could be done monthly or quarterly as well.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. So this idea will never be realized ... Also the numbers of patents are presented every year to prove, how grand the nation is. Nobody wants to spoil that. (BTW: That would be a real patent reform)
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    > The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. Not exactly, the USPTO is funded by the patents it examines and keeps active (maintenance fees). Issuance fees are actually small compared to the rest of the fees involved in examination. Additionally an issuance happens only once, but rejections are unbounded. If making money was an incentive, they'd do much better by repeatedly rejecting applications and forcing applicants to keep paying for continued examination rather than issuing them.
    - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      Ok, I did not dive to much in the detail. But I don't think, that repeated rejections would make the patent office happier. First of all, they would create much (political) pressure from the big corporations and second if they reject to much, the number of patent applications would decrease. Third, they would cash in less maintenance fees.

btilly 12y ago

One of the challenges of patent reform is that there is a huge advocate of strong patent systems in pharma, and they are good at lobbying. They care because patent protection is how they recoup the costs of FDA trials (which are north of $100 million per drug). Reforming patent law would become easier if they were given what they need in the form of an alternate form of temporary monopoly for having paid for the FDA trials.

unquietcode 12y ago
What if the FDA enforced a rule where only one company can have an active trial? Then the first to file shifts to the FDA and the bearer has a monopoly for a few years, including the lead time before another company can complete a subsequent trial.
adventured 12y ago
I'm perfectly happy with chopping down the patent law mess one large portion at a time if need be. Trying to do it all at once is almost guaranteed to fail. In the present political environment it's usually better to start by taking legs out from the under the table one at a time. The obvious solution is to exclude pharma from the patent legislation wars for now. Once a big portion of the economy is unhindered from patent trolls, then pharma can be re-examined. If all that happened is that we free the radical majority of the economy from patent trolls, but were still left with pharma patents, then so be it, it'd still be a drastic improvement from where we're standing.
aggie 12y ago
A pragmatic approach would be to simply leave pharma alone, at least initially, as they actually need strong incentive for R&D.
- chongli 12y ago
  Or to socialize drug discovery using a competitive scheme akin to the XPrize with the reward being a free ticket through clinical trials and safety development (among other things).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]