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."
Somebody patent that!
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.
Amazon and Microsoft announced joint patents of a new concept: "A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time."
They're expected to make billions off the royalties.
I'm patenting the process of obtaining patents on patenting the idea of patents being used to become wealthy without actually doing any work.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
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.
There are quite a number of companies that perpetuate fantasies that the ordinary person can make a lot of money by getting a patent on an idea, and then marketing it to companies. Things go so bad that Congress passed a law to control these invention promotion firms. A form for reporting abusive forms of these services can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/2048.pdf
(It is sad to see people who paid $10,000 to have a really bad idea for a dishwasher written up in 10 pages of form paragraphs, and the promotion activity be limited to being told that GE and Whirlpool make dishwashers.)
The reason for the reporting that is required is that many of these companies had never had a patent issue and be licensed to anyone.
Sure, there are the rare exceptions, I know of a couple personally, but for each of those there are 100 people who shelled out $10,000 for pretty much nothing.
1) Start Lord Slepnir beverages. I'll need to scrounge around for startup capital, get a factory, distribution, find a way to market it, etc. If I fail, I have to declare bankrupcy, and wind up having my house and car repoed. If I end up making a lot of money off of it, I have about 7 years to grow enough to compete with Coke and Pepsi, who will push their own knockoff of this flavor as soon as the patent runs out.
2) I contact coke or pepsi and tell them I have a new flavor. They give me a lump of cash, they take all the risk (I'm not ruined if it fails), they market it, and I get a small royality check to live off.
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
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?
He cited the standards of Wi-Fi (wireless fidelity) technology, in which transmission speeds have been rapidly advancing during the past three years from 11 megabits per second in 1999 to more than 50.
I was aware that the "fi" in "hi-fi" stands for "fidelity", but I don't think the same can be assumed here . . .
Lemelson did not invent the bar code. In fact he engaged in practices very similar to the ones described in the article. His patent was an extremely generic one for machine vision applications, which according to his interpretation covered bar code readers. He was one of the people who never implemented any of their ideas, preferring to wait for other people to reinvent them and then ask for royalties.
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
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
What's wrong with that?
The way patents are meant to help the common man (Horatio Alger version): lone genius working out of an attic in Pittsburgh invents new UltraWidget. He gets a patent for it, then takes it around to the major widget manufacturers and offers to sell them his invention. WidgetWorks, Inc. realizes that this is the next stage in the evolution of the widget, and lone genius retires to Key West.
The way patents are abused: lone sleazo lawyer in Menlo Park looks through industry rags for future trends in widgets. He patents rough concepts for UltraWidgets, TurboWidgets, Widget64, and WidgetXP. WidgetWorks, Inc., which is busy actually fucking innovating and employs engineers rather than lawyers, is working on their own next-generation widget. As soon as it appears that WidgetWorks is going to corner the market, lawyer shoves his patents up their ass. WidgetWorks pays up, lawyer now has hot tub full of Benjamins.
This is not the way patents are supposed to work. Patents are supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", and protect inventions. Technology will advance without these fuckwads filing preemptive patents, and the effect of their activities is actually to slow innovation down. Companies have to waste precious resources covering their ass lest some IP law firm take them from behind. Hell, the lawyers in the article even admit that they're using patents explicitly as a competitive tool, rather than to protect their own investment and hard work.
Blame for this pathetic state of affairs can partly be laid at the feet of IBM, since they pretty much pioneered the use of patents to pre-emptively squash a competitor.
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!
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.
..as I understand it, is that the PTO gets more money if it actually grants the patent then if it refuses it.
Considering that it gets squat for federal money these days, you can see how this situation leads to the patenting of crap-on-a-stick and so forth.
So to fix this, do it the other way around. Charge slightly more should the patent examiner determine the invention is "obvious" and a lot more should it be determined that there is prior art.
I'd even be willing to give the examiners a direct incentive should they find prior art. (But set up an appeals process if you do that) This would discourage companies and individuals from patenting utter crap, and strongly encourage patent applicants to do a good search of the prior art, rather then (as now) choosing to avoid looking (because if you don't see it, you can say you didn't know)
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
"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.