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."
Did you see the 60 minutes the other night? It was about bio-tech companies patenting genes. Someone DISCOVERED the genes related to breast cancer and patented them. Later on two researchers where doing studies related to breast cancer and got a letter from some lawyers. They had to stop doing research as they were infringing on the patents!
Apparently economists really want to change the patent laws. But unless an economist can come up with a revolutionary new theory, stuff isn't going to change because big corporations have too much vested interest in patents. The problem of patents dates back to radio, but we keep seeing it get worse and worse as time goes by. If you didn't have lawyers and thieves, patents could be a beutiful thing... Imagine open source on all intellectual property instead of restricting access... Bleh, lots of problems, but if you can solve em, everyone would love to hear from you. I tried a crack at it, but my solution resulted in a huge reliance on the courts.
God spoke to me
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.
As with all legal areas involving technology, if we as technology professionals do not make our voices heard, as the group most immediately and directly impacted by actions like this, then we have no one but ourselves to blame.
As for the sections of the article dealing with "abuses" by the infamous Jerome Lemelson (I'll let you search yourself if you are not familiar with him and his patent portfolio) and his "submarine patents," the particular aspect of patent law that allowed him to file applications, let them lie dormant for years while industries sprung up, then have new patents issue covering already established practices, the article is merely proagating more FUD. The law has changed and it is no longer possible to do this. In fact, the rule now is that applications are now published 18 months after filing - even before issuance.
Finally, ask yourself: If you worked hard and invented something, wouldn't you want to benefit from it instead of having someone with more resources steal it and sweep you under the rug? Patents provide that benefit. A good patent lawyer is the inventor's best friend because he will make sure the inventor is protected to the maximum extent permitted. And despite popular opinion, the PTO statistics say that fewer than 3% of all patents issued make money for the inventor, so getting a patent is not an instant win in the lottery.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
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.
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."
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.
Oh Boy! /me rushes off to patent "a money-minting machine"
wonder if I can patent the concept of making money via fraudulent / nuisance patents...
Rambus may have prior art though, phooey..
The earth is 98% full, please delete anyone you can!
Your suggestion about Time To Live just gave me a silly idea...
:-)
Imagine if the Patent system was operated like that of the DNS system. $70 to register a patent for two years; first come first served! Time to live on the Patent servers might be set at 24 hours, so your patent might temporarily expire if your local patent server crashed...
GreatPatents.com - the Internet's Number 1 patent marketplace - could sell you the leading patents at discount prices!
OK, I'll do some work now!
http://www.themeparks.ie
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.
You're right that patents aren't inherently bad, but your argument needs refining.
The purpose of patents isn't to make money for inventors, but to allow and encourage inventors to put their inventions into the public domain (while still retaining rights for a limited time).
If Qualcomm do some original reasearch, they can choose to not patent (and therefore not publish details of) that technology, but can sell the technology to other companies. The recipients, having paid money for it, will protect it as carefully as Qualcomm does. Qualcomm can make as much, or more money that way, especially if they choose to withhold the details from their biggest competitors.
However, because of the patent system, if a competitor invents the same technology and patents it, Qualcomm is screwed. They can claim and prove prior art defence for their own use, but unless they published details, they can't stop the patent from being granted. All their competitors now know how to do it, and Qualcomm can't sell the technology to anyone any more.
Patents aren't designed primarily to protect your right to make money off of an invention (although they do that), they're designed to make it a good idea for you to publish details of the invention.
The flaw, of course, lies in the way the system is working. It's not. Frivilous patents are being claimed, granted, and enforced. The technique is irrelevant, the quality is irrelevant, it's all about quantity of patents, and about having a dreadful court system that means it's cheaper to pay up than to fight it in court - even if you win.
Sure, the patent office is swamped, but I'd fix the legal system first. Laws and proceeding in plain language, courts given the time and resources to investigate claims, and loser pays.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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
From the Law.com FAQ:
Can I use Netscape Navigator with Law on the Web?
Don't worry, it's just some lawyers helping out their buddies who happen to own some intellectual property!
How did a system that was supposed to encourage innovation turn into a moneymaking machine for bottom-feeders?
Two factors loom large: 1) the creation of the Federal Circuit 2) ballooning impact of special interest money in politics
The Federal Circuit was created to handle trademark and patent law. Other Circuits do not play a role anymore. If you have a patent issue in your case, it will detour to the Federal Circuit. Because "IP specialists" fill the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court is hesitant to review their precedents. Basically a single point of failure has been created, and bad decisions do not go through the peer reveiw process at the Circuit level. On a normal issue, if the 3rd cirucit does something weird, the 4th isn't bound by it and if they create conflicting precedents, the Supreme Court will often examine the issue a third time. The other problem with the Federal Circuit is that it makes the process more susceptible to infiltration. Heavy lobbying behind the scenes can get a judge favorable to a special interest in. Since there are fewer judges deciding the issues (only one Circuit) the effect of this is much more profound.
The second reason affects everything in government. It's the surgeing influence of special interest money in Congress. A few key players who make money in the patent arena can agressively voice their views with big checks attached and they will be listened to. Small players have a lot more difficulty. This blocks reform and influences key position choices in the PTO and in the Courts, as above.
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.