Slashdot Mirror
Losing the War on Patents
theodp writes: "Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly's once-hyped BountyQuest.com takes a beating in a Salon article today that takes note of Amazon's recent decision to license one of the few patents BountyQuest claimed to have found winning prior art for, a patent held by the InTouch Group, who had sued Amazon for infringing on the patent prior to Bezos' reported $1+ million BountyQuest investment. In the article, professional patent buster Greg Aharonian provocatively remarks that "BountyQuest was always a joke...Bezos and O'Reilly were never seriously interested in patent quality...Bezos just used O'Reilly to help Amazon...That Amazon ended up licensing the InTouch patent just shows how stupid the whole thing is.""
Even if they do have prior art on their side, you have to PROVE it's prior art.
The stupid thing here is that Bezos spent $1M+ on this project and didn't even bother doing anything with the fruits of the labor.
Oh well, hopefully BountyQuest is at least paying those who find the prior art... that way it can be useful for someone, if only as a way to redirect some corporate money into one's own pockets. (In the non-Enron way, that is...)
--The Rizz
"There are no circumstances under which a state is justified in placing its welfare ahead of mine." --Robert A. Heinlein
Looking at the US patent system and DMCA, it seems that maybe the US is vulnerable to econmic warfare from entities external to it's borders.
By tactical use of patents and copyright laws it would be easy for such an entity to stifle development of technology and products, thus destroying the US economy.
Just an idea.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Spoken like a true lawyer. What you forget is that these "unscrupulous companies" are receiving the legal advice on unscrupulous lawyers, whether internally or externally. The lawyers go into these cases expecting a settlement. They get paid boatloads of cash either way and it is usually a lot less work than going to court. I'm curious how many of these settlements happen between lawyers while playing golf and charging the client $300/hr.
Also, on your comparison of techies and lawyers, most corporate techies I know work in cramped cubicles while most corporate lawyers (the real ones not the aides and assistants) I know have large offices swimming in mahogony and plush leather chairs. I think there is a slight difference there.
Setting aside problems of obviousness, the difficulty of evaluating it, the problem of prior art etc.
... just ANY programmer could infringe on patents. That means that an 18 year old student could be found infringing a patent, for something he's not even making money on, and then he could not even afford a lawyer to defend himself!
It costs lots of money to mass-produce a technically advanced enough device that would infringe on a significant patent. This means that, if you are faced with a patent infrigement suit, you are most likely already spending a lot of money to produce/design the device, so defending yourself will only be a small part of the total cost of the thing.
Software patents now
And it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to avoid infriging on patents: not only are there too many of those patents, but they're written in a completely hermetic language that only specialists comprehend. To top it off, not every programmer understands english well enough to begin with.
That's why software patents are dangerous and freak the shit out of free software developers: it's like running in a landmine-ridden field. Nobody has step on one yet, but it's bound to happen.
Conceptually, BountyQuest is a good thing. It can help locate hard-to-find prior art in certain technical areas (such as software)--the kind of stuff that isn't in prior patents, hasn't been published in a widely distributed/searchable medium, or just might not be appreciated for what it is by those of less technical skill (including patent attorneys and patent examiners). It also has the potential to empower those who complain about overly broad patents to do something about them. If you think the patent had obviously been done before, go find a reference to prove it.
However, BountyQuest has some tragic flaws and is in no way a solution to all that ails the patent system. Finding a good prior art reference after a patent has issued does not eliminate the patent or necessarily prevent it from being enforced. Identifying a reference is just the first step. The procedural costs and risks associated with invalidating a patent (either through the courts or the Patent Office) are high. As long as there is a legally viable argument (which there almost always is) that the patent is still valid, the owner may continue to assert it.
Identification of a strong reference does hurt the patent holder though and is a great service to those the patent is asserted against. It greatly reduces the patent holder's negotiating power because they want to avoid litigation as much as accused infringers. I'm sure that Amazon managed to negotiate a more favorable license (if the reference was really that good). There are others who will be willing to fight if the patent holder pushes too hard or asks for too much.
Unfortunately, this service does little for small companies and individuals and does not rid the system of patents that should never have existed in the first place. The companies that can absorb the licensing costs are subjected to an illegitimate tax that raises the cost of doing business--again, ultimately hurting the consumer. If BountyQuest really wanted to put its money where its mouth is, it would put together a legal service for invalidating overreaching patents. Something like a legal defense fund for the public domain of ideas. Actually, a lot of patent attorneys might be interested in the pro bono opportunity if it existed.
I'm highly confused by this statement, your saying that if I get sued and settle for a million dollars, in which I was basically blackmailed, because I knew that taking it to court could cause my buisness to go under. So you say we've both won?
The way patents are used these days is unfair and is really going to hurt developing economies.
I wonder if Japan's economic revolution, which started because it began copying electronics devices from the West and did them more cheaply, then better, I wonder if that could today? They would probably get hit by loads of patent infringement claims, which they wouldn't have been able to afford to fight.
Lets take India, for instance. Lots and lots of very cheap programmers. Don't like paying hundreds of dollars for your XYZ software? You don't have to any more, the Indians have a package just as good for a tenth of the price... It could happen, just liked it happened with Asian countries and consumer electronics and cars.
Some of you may think, well in that case software patents are good because they protect American businesses. However, if the ecomonies of developing countries improve, we are all better off for it. The people in those countries are more wealthy, which is better for them, and it's better for us because they have money to buy our stuff. Essentially, patents are blocking the efficient working of the free economy, which of course is a cornerstone to the American Way. So, to use currently popular rhetoric, software patents are anti-America.
Prohibit either party from spending more than the other. If MegaCorp sues TeensyCorp, they can't bring ten lawyers to the negotiating table or courtroom unless TeensyCorp also brings ten lawyers. If TeensyCorp wants to spend $1000 total on their defense, that's all MegaCorp can spend. Perhaps MegaCorp is absolutely positively sure that they will win on merit; allow them to loan TeensyCorp as much as they want, but TeensyCorp has the right to refuse the loan, in which case MegaCorp still is limited by what TeensyCorp spends. If TeensyCorp accepts the loan and loses, they owe the loan amount; if TeensyCorp wins, MegaCorp loses the loan in addition to the judgement.
In other words, get money out of the equation of justice. There would certainly be some abuses. MegaCorp could pay a low rate for legal advice on one lawsuit and exagerated rates on unrelated legal matters. But that would show up sooner or later, and it could only be done to a limited extent. MegaCorp still couldn't show up in court with ten lawyers who are only billing $25 an hour, it would be too fishy.
Apply this to all cases, not just civil. It would stop the death penalty abuses, where some poor slob (who probably is also a scumbag, but still deserves justice) is given $350 for his complete defense.
Infuriate left and right