Slashdot Mirror
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."
Ignoring the issue of Ethics and making pacts with the Devil etc, I believe (especially with the current IT downturn) that I'm in the wrong business! :-)
Some of these Lawyers made $200,000 just by filing a comlaint! And the other guys are trying to sue intel for $7Bn ++!!!
And all this is a legal way to make money!!!
On the one hand I bust a gut working 65hrs+ a week or I sell my soul to the devil and sit on my ass writing ppl nasty letters for a couple of hours a week for exponential sums of money!
Not much competition there...
-- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
If I do get this correctly, if the enginer who made it dies, someone can come along and buy the patent off ? Supose you invented ISDN, these guys come, buy it off from you for 10 000 bucks, wait until all companies use it and sue for billions in damages? It hinted somewhere that it was intel engineers who put out the ammo for Techsearch's suit. In that case its partly intels fault (if they pay them like shit and treat them bad). I'm not sure Techsearch are the good guys either, how much of the billions will go to those who really deserve it, plus did the guys who "stole their work" actually made major contributions? Maybee it's the "janitor" who stole the enginer's plans? Its no news that people get away with produceing stricly nothing. Unless you make Patent void when the inventor dies, it'll keep on happening. Its the same for copyrights, J.Hendrix is dead! Why are his cds so expensive?
Well when apple created the sound "sosueme" it was because of the Apple brand of audio equipment.
The deal was something along the line of; we are a computer maker so we can have the same name as you because we dont do audio. Then apple decided to make audio a part of the computer and they created the alert sound "sosueme".
I had a point to this story and then I remembered that the closest thing to me has just pushed me away. Now I have no reason to talk about anything. Good bye....
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Start from a plausible moral point:
In one case : Some people spend their lives working for other people, one the sole fact that the latter own the means of production
In the other case: Using (whatever 'using' means) ideas,art, whatever that someone else has made (whatever 'made' means) amounts to taking advantage of that person's work without due compensation
Second step : governments steps in, and tries to devise from scratch a totally arbitrary legal system, consisting in restrictions to freedom, in order to change the things are naturally:
In the case of communism, change the natural scarcity of means of production into an artificial abundance.
In the case of IP, change the natural abundance of an idea into an artificial scarcity.
Third steps, when the shortcommings of the laws become obvious, the government reacts by saying that it will be OK when the next generation has been indoctrinated at school (see recent /. news about the UK), and tightens the restrictions to freedom.
this search at the USPTO, and found:
Searching 1996-2001...
Results of Search in 1996-2001 db for:
AN/"intel corporation": 3598 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 3598
and wondered how I would find the time to burn both ends of that candle.
This guy is a lawyer working for TechSearch and is going after intel for $2 billion to $7 billion in damages. After reading the article it's disgusting how the people patent office can justify some of these patents. I never thought the day would come when I actually would pity Intel. Thanks to Niro, that day has come.
Check out James Bessen's paper "Sequential Innovation, Patents and Imitation" who makes an economic arguement about why patents are harmful in innovative industries.
My personal interest here is protecting those who do true innovation from being screwed by those who purchase and enfore patents which Should Not Be. I work for such a company, and intend to always work with folks doing new and interesting things. Thus, seeing those who are actually doing and creating be sued by those who don't pains me very much.
It doesn't really matter that it's Intel in the example -- it matters that it's someone who, by creating a thing of value, has a certain level of merit which the slime who do nothing but collect legal fees have not.
And no, these bottom-feeders (like TechSearch) never did any research, except for looking through the list of registered patents for ones that could be enforced -- which they then bought for a pittance and are using offensively.
I think most of us agree that the patent system needs to be either scuttled or at least massively reformed. However, until that time, I do have an idea on how to fight these 'patent trolls' by using prior art to protect good ideas (even if obvious). IANAL, but maybe someone can suggest if this would be legally tenable..
/. style where people can post neat ideas they've had. Others can then comment on them, improve upon them, etc. The original poster can then write a slightly more formal description of the idea, taking into account the comments. (but not written in confusing patent legalese.. just plain understandable english) Then if someone tries to get a stupid patent, the site can be used as example of prior art. As a side benefit, it would be a fun place for geeks to share innovative ideas and perhaps even for businesses to get ideas on how to improve their products. Sorta like Open Source, but for ideas. (not that it should be necessary..)
Set up a web site in
Until a "geek" comes up with a new and great idea
... unless someone else has been given a government sponsored monopoly on something similar, in which case they are forbidden from doing so for the next twenty years. Indeed, it is rather obvious that patents have the opposite effect ... the forbid anyone from making money on the R&D they have done, unless they happen to be the one who filed with the USPTO first, or (more often) have the most money to hire IP lawyers to defend their own patent or overturn someone elses.
... something I think most women at risk of said disease would not find in the least amusing.
You are clearly a troll (how such a rediculous post got moderated up to +4 is beyond me, but there have been enough tirades about the decline of slashdot this week, so I'll leave it at that), but such misinformation must be responded to nevertheless.
As for geeks comming up with innovative ideas, a quick, short, (and probably patented, but not by their inventors!) list:
The Internet
Usenet NEWS
The World Wide Web
Networked Computer Games
Non-Linear Video Editing
CGI Animation (seen any movies lately?)
Mutli-tasking computer operating systems
Windowing systems (used X or Windoze lately? Both came from Xerox via Apple, invented by geeks, then coopted later by industry, something a patent might well have prevented)
... and the list goes on
Patents allow someone to make money from the R&D they do. Patents also force other companies or people to develope new and better ways of "doing something" other than "just copying the other guy's stuff". This means there are LEAPS in innovation, not just a slow crawl.
What an absolute crock of shit.
It is unnecessary to have a 20-year government sponsored monopoly in order to make money from one's idea. Monopolies are antithetical to the primary means by which free markets operate, namely competition. Furthermore, no idea more advanced than the stone hammer (read: pounding something with a rock) stands alone. Every idea incorporates aspects of earlier ideas, every invention stands on the shoulders of the giants who have gone before. By locking up every new or innovative idea (much less every trivial variation of an old idea the way we do now) you slow down any advancements that might be based on that idea. Dramatically.
Most ideas, when patented, are being developed by numerous, independent people. Why? Because generally, when an idea's "time has come" (ie. it become feasable or technically possible for the first time, usually because the necessary groundwork or supporting technologies become available for the first time) a number of creative people jump on it at roughly the same time. The vast majority of patent infringements aren't a result of people cribbing from the patent applications or even reverse engineering their competitors' products, they are a result of inadvertant infringement resulting from having developed the same or similar idea completely independently.
Whoever wins the footrace to the patent office is granted a monopoly, and everyone else who had developed, or "invented" the idea concurrently is suddenly left in the unenviable position of having their invention stolen out from under them, and being forbidden to exploit their work, or their idea, under penalty of law.
This is not conducive to encouraging invention or progress. Quite the contrary.
Patents do not "allow someone to make money from the R&D they do." This is allowed regardless, by a free market in which anyone can develop an idea, build it and market it
Another example is breat cancer, in which promising research has been scuttled because of existing patents on the genes which were discovered to have an impact, perhaps even be the cause, of the affliction. Scuttled research does not lead to LEAPS in innovation, unless, of course, you use the Microsoft definition of the word
You want to reward someone for winning the footrace to the USPTO? Fine. Give them a 20 year amnesty from federal taxes for income derived from their "invention." Do not give them a monopoly and lock up the very idea (and its derivatives) for the next twenty years! To do so is antithetical to the free market, slows technological development, and cripples the very open exchange of science that is ultimately the foundation of every invention, everywhere.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The body of law is the aggregate weigh of the totality of human cupidity, stupidity, control-freak-ism and special-interests.
Its killing itself and burning us all on its funeral pyre.
The flaw is simple and singular, laws never expire, and the remedy obvious, laws need to have a built-in expiry date.
But the political system is filled with and controlled by lawyers so its never going to happen until the same thing happens to it that happens to all water kingdoms, a drought comes along and the kingdom gets wiped out.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.