Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Battling the Patent Trolls

Posted by Hemos on from the whack-slash-bush-wacked dept.

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."

3 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Good to see big companies complaining by Paul+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
  2. Do patents have any prestige left? by jeko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  3. Re:you liar -- you haven't read the article by Quila · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.