Slashdot Mirror
How to Become a Patent Millionaire
An anonymous reader writes "SF Gate has an article about people who patent ideas for things they have no intentions of building, hoping to license technology or block competitors from doing something similar. As if the patent system weren't screwed up enough already."
We need a department that has the power to review and revoke a patent. If you're not going to produce what you patent, or if your patent is overly broad (or just plain stupid) it should be revoked.
What's wrong with that?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
This is the definition of an inventor. There are many patents which require large amounts of capital to produce. What some inventors will do is patent the idea then pitch it to companies hoping they will purchase the rights to the patent and produce the product.
The entire design of patents is to prevent someone from bulding something you claim as yours. This article just points out the obvious.
What's wrong with inventing something and then charging someone else to develop and market it? Think of it as being an independent R&D department.
What's wrong with the patent system is people getting patents for things that should not be patented, not that you don't have to build the item yourself to enjoy royalties from its invention.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Can I patent something that is going to make some huge corporations tons of money and then release it to the public? Basically that would mean that now no one has an exclusive patent on it and everyone benefits. When Salk invented the polio vaccine I think he either refused to patent it or he patented it and then gave it away so everyone could manufacture it. He didn't want to profit off of the pain and suffering of others. Cool guy.
So why can't the Patent Office do something similar? Would it be so hard to ask, "Gee, how's that invention coming along? Have a prototype yet?" and after a certain amount of time, just revoke the patent because work hasn't been done on it yet. This might actually stimulate some growth once the patent is back up for grabs. Perhaps even offer it up at auction. Then companies could be compelled to make good on the patent application because of the captial investment to get it at auction.
Let's see now... if I register a domain name with the intent of selling it to someone else instead of using it myself, I'm "cybersquating" and ICANN will forcibly take the domain name aways from me. However, if I register an idea with the intent of selling to someone else instead of using it myself, the US Patent Office will assist me in extorting money out of anyone who wishes to sell a product based on a simular idea? I find this curiously inconsistent.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Something similar is already happening in healthcare - doctors cannot afford to do their job while paying the "lawyer tax" to protect themselves against being sued for malpractice. If a powerful lobby like healthcare can't fight the lawyers - what hope do a bunch of geeks have when their beef is even less-easily articulated to the general public?
The patent system is rapidly achieving the exact opposite of what it is intended to achieve. It is providing strong disincentives to true innovation while lining the pockets of those whose only innovative ideas consist of new ways to exploit the patent system.
The solution? I propose a non-profit organization to which patents can be donated, which will use those patents to defend anyone sued for infringement of a software patent. email me if you are interested in helping me to make it happen.
I'm an aspiring inventor. I've thought up some fairly useful ideas some having a market share so large the potential is inconceivable. However I have enough of a hard time taking care of my family much less hiring a patent lawyer. I've taken advice from everyone in the book including several /. articles in the past. So it really infuriates me to see people abusing the system. The idea that someone can patent a hypothetical concept infuriates me. I say if you do not have the technical capability to show a working model of sound theory in detail there should be no patent award. I remember doing research on patents done in the 17 hundreds and was impressed with how many models, and drawings there are. On the flip side I recently saw the patent for the guy who claims he invented online auctions. The patents basically stated a system to use computers to manage a bidding process. Thatâ(TM)s it. I say if you cant' at least come up with a flowchart showing the details of your concept you should not waist peoples type making the patent office a glutinous waste of paper.
Still, the tactic underscores the growing importance of patents as a competitive weapon in the technology industry
I was under the impression the technology industry was about innovation to improve humanity, not clog up the legal system with "I thought of this first, even though I have no intentions of doing anything with it." I was also under the impression patents were designed to protect, not attack.
Silly me.
Sounds to me like this tactic is a weapon to make Joe Thinksalot rich overnight, while at the same time stiffling innovation by limiting potential advancements to Megacorps who can flip the bill for pre-ordained patents.
At the same time, why don't I put a patent on an idea to make cars float. I'll call it a "hovercraft." Fifteen years down the road, when Developer comes up with the technical specs of how to do it, I get a pay check for having thought of the idea "first."
Whatever claims people had that the current copyright and patent system work are refuted by this.
Companies could make their entire business collecting royalties from patents they will never use. The company would never need to produce a product to profit, relying instead on revenues from lawsuits and royalties. The company would probably only consist of Marketing and legal departments with a few inventors to make it look vaguely legitimate.
Oddly enough, this report focused on small companies doing this. I would think that large companies with powerful market research divisions and possibly knowledge of industrial espionage would benefit more from this than a small corporation.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
The problem is: A jury is made of 12 people of average intelligence. Such people are not always capable of detecting bogus patents.
We would have less legal problems in this country if they only allowed the top 2% (130+ IQ) to participate in jury duty (and paid them at least $400/day for their time).
The purpose of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. . ."
The practice of pre-emptive patenting does not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Therefore, if current law permits this practice, then Congress has a clear responsibility to change the laws.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It's part of a legal tactic called "offensive blocking patents" in which businesses or individual entrepreneurs use patents not so much as tools to build new products, but as legal roadblocks or bargaining chips against competitors or corporate giants.
I think the use of "Offensive" was quite appropriate.
Somewhat like what people did with doamin names? Great. Maybe I should start filing for those 1Gazillion combinations of DNA tomorrow. Got to be in it to win it right?
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Yeah, that's bad. And admittedly, I'm not saying there aren't problems with the patent system - but requiring someone to have full production capacity for an idea (or capability thereof) before granting a patent isn't the answer, and as far as I can tell, that's the only obvious solution to the problem of the "sleazy lawyer" syndrome. In other words, I'm not against solving the problem, but I don't want to lose my rights as a potential inventor in the process.
The problem is that we are no longer at the point where virtually any invention required less than a few thousand dollars worth of tools to make. However, that doesn't mean, necessarily, that someone is incapable of coming up with a kickass new design for a widget, or whatever. Bottom line is I still want the possibility of doing that without having a fabrication facility.
As I've said, I would be certainly in favor of tightening the "nonobvious" clause for things not reduced to practive (ie, made). Or whatever. But I don't want to lose the right to get a patent based effectively off of a blueprint.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
No doubt. My take on it is this : the intent of the patent system was to protect methods of doing things, not ideas of what to do. The different between patenting the design of a loom, and patenting the idea of a loom is huge. The patent office is at fault for granting these overly broad patents. The government is also at fault for treating patents as a source of revenue. Personally, I don't think this problem will be fixed, or even repaired, in the least. The "broken" patent system gives everyone exactly what it wants, an extortion tool.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
There are two problems here....
1. These guys are patenting trivial, obvious shit that absolutely does NOT deserve a patent... and if the patent examiners had any modicum of technical competency, most of this shit would get rejected.
and
2. It costs so much to file a patent now, that it's damn near impossible for a private inventor to patent anything, unless he / she is already independently wealthy.
The idea of patents has (had?) some merit, but abuses like this make me think we should just scrap the entire idea of patents, and have an IP free-for-all... put all the existing patents in the public domain, and quit issuing new ones, permanently.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
The sad thing is, I don't think that's just your take - as I understand it, that's supposed to be the very definition of a patent. It's supposed to be an implementation. Sadly, these days, it's not. Blah.
The patent office is at fault for granting these overly broad patents. The government is also at fault for treating patents as a source of revenue.
Damn straight. Supposedly, the government got the idea that encouraging patents=encouraging ingenuity, when the misapplication of patents has the opposite effect. Morons.
The "broken" patent system gives everyone exactly what it wants, an extortion tool.
Well, if not everyone, at least everyone's lawyer. ;P
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
How about people who buy land they have no intention of building on, hoping to sell it to others while blocking other people from building on this land?
In most places in this country, you're required to pay yearly property tax on real estate holdings. If the property appreciates in value, your taxes go up.
Sure, you can stonewall someone from developing a plot of land by buying it first - but you have to actually BUY it, AND you have to pay the property tax while the land lies fallow. With patents, it's more like taking out 16 year option to buy - you don't need to actually invent anything, just patent something general enought to cover what might be invented, but specific enough to pass the USPTO. Plus, with an option, you don't have to pay property taxes...
Think of it like the domain speculation/squatting game. Those scum squat on domains, hoping to extort money from people who have either lost the domain, or want it. But, there's a cost involved - they have to pay domain renewal fees every year. If nobody plays their game, then they're out all the money that they've put in to holding on to all of those unused domains.
With these "offensive patents", you pay a one-time fee up front to lock up an invention, and then you use that as a weapon to block or extort an invention that will eventually be public domain (ie, your 16 year option on property of the people of the US/world.)
16 years is a long time for a useful invention to stay in someone's closet, as opposed to being produced and marketed to recoup development costs, as the patent process was supposed to encourage. That's whats so disgusting about it.
How about simply enforcing existing rules about things like harassing litigation? If judges slapped contempt of court fines on every lawyer who tried to drain his opponents funding (and at punitive levels) then we'd see these tactics disappearing. Big corporate industry group goes after small guy who states online that they bought the product and it didn't work? See if they do that again after getting a $50 million contempt of court fine. Big companies can afford to just throw $50k at a trial knowing that the little guy will sign anything to make it go away.
When you decide to construct a building and file for a site plan and building permit, they both have limitations in them, such as "significant construction must commence within 12 months of the granting of this application". There are fairly rigid definitions of what that means. If we had something like that for patents, then in some number of months after granting a blocking patent, it would be pulled and would have to be re-applied for. Meanwhile, other parties could make progress on the subject.
Edison said invention is something like 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. The patent system wasn't set up to provide a means for one-percenters to stake a claim on the future hard work of the 99-percenters.
When you get a permit to build a house you generally have 2 years to complete the work, then if the work isn't done you have to get a new permit. Patent applications should expire like that. Otherwise we will have an idea-squatting industry akin to domain name squatting.
Pretend that while playing in my kitchen, I invent a new soda flavor.
Allright. I'm pretending you're playing around and have invented the long-sought-after-LemonCherry flavor (substitute Choco-Bacon flavor if you believe that two great tastes will always taste great together).
OK, now pretend I'm the Scumbag Lawyer (but I repeat myself) 5 blocks over in the really nice part of town with a kitchen you'll never afford. I look around at the soda market and realize that nobody's patented the idea of LemonCherry (or ChocoBacon) flavor.
Being a jackass with lots of money and, thanks to my triple-billing practices, lots of spare time, I invest a measly $15,000 to get it through the patent process quickly. Remember, I haven't actually figured out HOW TO DO IT, just THE IDEA OF IT. So I'll probably do it more quickly than you can.
Now, you come along and apply for a patent to your LemonCherry (or ChocoBacon) flavor. You find out--oops, you can't because the idea of it is patented by Scumbag Lawyer (but I repeat myself). You try to get a narrower patent on your particular method of producing it and peddle it to Pepsi and Coke.
They, having lots of Scumbag Lawyers (but I repeat myself), will do a defensive patent search and find Scumbag Lawyer's patent. They license it from him (they'll have to anyway) and alter your method just enough to get around your patent. They let you know 3 weeks later that they don't want to do anything with you, and introduce ChocoBacon (or LemonCherry) PepsiCoke.
You: screwed.
PepsiCoke: Doing pretty well, makin' soda.
ScumBagLawyer (but I repeat myself): Makin' out like a bandit, doin' even less work, having a kitchen bigger than your house.
Now see the problem?
"You don't have to build it," Ferrell said. "You just have to conceive it. By filing a couple of patents, you essentially have co-opted the standards road map. Anybody who wants to go from G to X has to get through your toll road."
That quote, from a patent Attorney, says all anyone needs to know about why patents on non-tangible things are bad. If you're going to patent something, I think you should have to build it before you're allowed to apply for a patent. If it can't be physically built, then it can't be patented.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I think the difference is obvious. When you purchase land you actually own a tangible good, but with a patent it is possible that someone can invent or come up with the same idea without knowingly infinging on your patent. That is where the problem arises.
Why should someone who went though the same invention process have to pay you royalties when they didn't know something similar to their invention already existed?
From the article:
It's part of a legal tactic called "offensive blocking patents" in which businesses or individual entrepreneurs use patents not so much as tools to build new products, but as legal roadblocks or bargaining chips against competitors or corporate giants.
Patents are never tools to build new products. You don't need a patent to build your own product. And if your product partially infringes on somebody else's active patent - then a patent of your own wont give you any rights to build it at all.
The only use for a patent is to stop others from using your technology.
Personally, I am a bit of an inventor and I often come up with different ideas for business software. When I do, I ask myself if I can develop it myself as a stand-alone product. If I can, then I start develop it; and I don't necessarily file a patent.
But sometimes I find that my idea would be most useful as a part of a large existing piece of software. In that case I try to file a patent, and I can then approach a bigger company with my idea. I don't see anything wrong with this.
Tor
"Great article", he said. "Offensive blocking patents!! We need to be a lot more active ourselves. Need to start thinking about this."
He wasn't being sarcastic. Until the patent system gets a real shake up, people will abuse it.
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
We would have less legal problems in this country if they only allowed the top 2% (130+ IQ) to participate in jury duty (and paid them at least $400/day for their time). ..for your faith in the myth of IQ numbers, I declare you incompetent to sit on a jury.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
There are two issues here.
Firstly, on the point of obtaining patents for inventive ideas, there is nothing wrong with focusing just on that activity. Some people are very inventive, and if they can help advance society (and make a living for themselves at the same time) by coming up with patents then that's good for us all. It's better than them having their bright ideas stolen and used without any remmuneration in return. There are many other examples of industrial specialisation in society, and this is one of them: here the specialisation is on producing new technologies. If it turns out that many of these new technologies are not feasible or require further work to implement, well that just devalues that worth of the patent (potentially) and the collorary is that the incentive for the patent producers is to produce worthwhile patents (rather than waste money on unworkable ideas). If people are "lucky dipping" and "jackpotting" by creating realms of dubious patents, then so be it.
Secondly, there's always going to be some level of dodgy practice - but this goes two ways: you have peope filing "bogus" patents, but you also have companies and organisations that work around legitimate patents so as to avoid paying royalties. Everybody is playign the game - it used to be a gentleman's game, but society isn't so much like this anymore, and I don't think that's a per se issue in the patent system but it reflects an ethical and moral position that we all take. On the other hand, new technology is always going to cause problems with existing systems, so there's another problem of "good faith" dodgy patents simply where filer and examiner aren't aware that the patent doesn't reflect the situation with a new technology (and the kinds of people that read slashdot are very technologically savvy and can see these points straight away, but the rest of the world isn't quite there).
In fact, I say this because I'm one of these inventive people that has a lot of good ideas, but I'm quite useless at implementing them. I hate it when people criticise me for this, and in return I say that there are many people out there with bad ideas (or no ideas) but are very good implementors. The world requires people of all sorts to work together - and if there are structures and systems in the world that help facilitate this (and every sensible person accepts that all structures and systems have some degree of flaw) then that's to the benefit of us all.