Battling the Patent Trolls

opus writes "There's an interesting series of articles at law.com on the current situation in patent law, which has become "a money-minting machine for a few patent holders". Includes an article on Peter Detkin, counsel at Intel, who spends much of his time battling patent infringement claims against Intel, and who coined the term "patent troll". Apparently it's not just the geeks who are unhappy with the current state of affairs in patent law."

Comments

Good to see big companies complaining

[Paul Johnson]

Its good to see that the big companies are being hurt by this. In the past they could use cross-licensing agreements to tie up whole areas of technology for themselves and shut out new companies. (Cross licensing, BTW, is where A says to B "I'll let you use all my patents if you let me use all yours, and since your pile of patents is smaller than mine you can pay me $$$ to make up the difference". Never mind the quality, feel the width!)

But the threat of an injunction which stops production for a year or so whilst the lawyers fight it out in court is a gun to the head of these companies. So we have what amounts to a protection racket: pay up or be put out of business. At the moment the fees are tolerable, but this kind of thing has a way of growing exponentially as more people catch on to the idea of easy money. Once patent trolls start making a measurable dent in the bottom line you can bet that these companies are going to start complaining to their tame congresscritters.

(Not that I've got anything against large companies in themselves: some things just really do need a large organisation to make happen. But I've noticed that getting something done is just so much easier when you have the president of a large company backing you)

Paul.

Do patents have any prestige left?

[jeko]

There was a time, not too long ago, when having been awarded a patent was sort of an engineering badge of honor... well ... merit badge at least. It definitely went on your resume.

Companies would even brag about holding a patent in their advertising.

But today, when I hear about someone getting a patent, I'm inclined to think "On what? Fire, the wheel, or did you go all out and invent an incandescent light bulb? By the way, where did you say you got your MBA again?"

Do patents have any prestige left?

I wouldn't completely dismiss the notion

[FreeUser]

The CMU scheme sounds like the work of someone who has spent too much time reading Aynn Rand and too litte time noticing that most markets are rigged.

You point about rigged markets, and the possibility of tremendous abuse and defrauding of the government are very valid (and yes, Ayn Rand's view of economics and the human condition was profoundly two dimensional and myopic, but I digress). Clearly if one is bidding on one's own patent in order to drive up the government's 120% then one is engaging in fraud. People have become Prime Bitch in Cellblock A for less than that.

Nevertheless I think the notion deserves some consideration. I would couple it with my own idea (a 100% tax credit for N years to the patent holder, but no, I repeat, no monopoly privelege whatsoever), and modify the notion as follows:

1) Patents confer a 100% tax free profits on the invention if sold alone as a whole, or a pro-rated portion if incorporated into some other product, for a period of time N years. No monopoly privelege, no exclusionary rights beyond the tax credit.

2) A free market will determine the patent's sale price, when the patent holder is ready to sell, he or she may sell at whatever price the market will bear. This may be early or late in the product's cycle, and the patent holder my calculate the pricepoint wisely, or not, as anyone might, selling anything, in a free market economy.

3) The government may purchase the patent at twice the market value (selling price) if it wishes, thereby saving the tax credit burden and enriching the patent holder even further. This may only be done on the First Sale of the patent, all further transactions are at market value and the government may outbid the market as any other company might. The only reason for this clause is to discourage the government from buying up all patents initially (thereby perhaps depressing or inflating the market and certainly influencing it one way or the other in an untoward way) and to reward the initial inventor even more greatly should the government buy up the patent. The only reason the government might buy a patent is to (obviously) avoid the loss in tax revinue it represents. Once again, I reiterate, the patent confers no other privelege beyond the tax savings.

Details can be argued, hammered out, and some reasonable solution reached. What is unacceptable, and must stop, is the issuing of government sponsored monopolies remeniscent of the Royal Monopolies granted inside friends of the King under the British Monarchy with the economic damage, scientific and technological stifling that ensues. Replacing it with a tax-free burdon, then letting free markets reign, appears to be very reasonable, especially if the free market is "rigged" slightly to favor and more generously reward the initial patent holder.

Re:you liar -- you haven't read the article

[Quila]

For 1 & 2, Lemelson's patents are crap. Here was his process:

1. See which way an industry is going
2. File an extremely vague patent that would cover pretty much anything in that area
3. Keep extending the application as long as you can. This allows you to:
   • Extend the life of your patent. You can have an application in for 20 years but the clock doesn't start ticking until it's awarded. When you get a judgement, it's effective to the date of application. This is now no more, but Lemelson's patents are grandfathered.
   • See what gets used and invented in the industry during that time. Amend your patent to include these technologies.
4. Finally allow your patent to be issued
5. Sue people for technologies they invented and have been using for years, since your patent predates their discoveries.

Re:No one but ourselves to blame

[Compulawyer]

I am breaking my usual rule of not replying to ACs for only the second time here. YOU are assuming that any time two people have the same idea that b oth developed the idea independently. You are also assuming that only tangible objects can be stolen. Both statements could not be further from the truth.

The legal concept of property does not require a physical object. In fact, a mere physical object is nothing to the law. It only achieves some legal significance when rights attach to it. Most notable is the right to exclude others from using it - the core of all property rights.

Proof that "ideas" can be stolen:

1. MS Windows; and
2. MacOS,

I find it difficult to believe that a software engineer cannot understand abstract concepts and has to look only at physical items.

If you feel that the policy choice of the patent and copyright laws of giving creators the exclusive use of their creations for limited periods of time is incorrect then DO SOMETHING - speak out to legislators to change the law. Get involved with industry groups. As the title of my first post implies, we have only ourselves to blame if the laws that cover our technology practices are bad ones. Don't be an Anonymous Coward complaining from the sidelines.