Slashdot Mirror
Companies Asked to Donate Unused Patents
Radon360 writes "There are countless patents that are promising but sitting idle, stowed in the corporate file room. In fact, about 90 percent to 95 percent of all patents are idle. Countless patents sit unused when companies decide not to develop them into products. Now, not-for-profit groups and state governments are asking companies to donate dormant patents so they can be passed to local entrepreneurs who try to build businesses out of them. "
The whole goal of filing tons of patents you won't develop is to wait for someone else to do the work for you. If you donate the patent someone else will complete the work but you won't get to capitalize on their success. (as was I'm sure the original goal)
If companies would be interested in doing something with the patents they could have enter sharing agreements with anybody willing, so they would split the money between the owner of the patent and the entity that actually does the work of implementing the patent.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is good. I was wondering what I was gonna do with my peanut-butter-powered horse launcher.
Table-ized A.I.
Take an old, dusty patent that isn't doing anyone any harm, and then give it to an entrepreneur who now has an incentive to sue anyone else whose product violates the patent.
The only reason it's possible to do business in the United States at all is because 90% of patents are left lying in a drawer rather than being rigorously enforced.
Bury them. Let them rest in peace.
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to make patents only valid while the holder is actively exploiting them (ie using them to build the device in question - filing suits against anyone that looks like they might be using it shouldn't count) - allow a 3 year grace period between filing the patent and when they first start using it to cover developement to market window
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
Many companies use patents defensively (or counter offensively). The company will patent technology or process X, though they may decide that it is better done internally with process Y. Or they may simply make the strategic decision that the effort and resources expended in pursuing profit in the patent are better spent pursuing something else. Nevertheless, the patent still has value to them because it gives them more options.
1. It helps deter competitors from launching patent infringement lawsuits against them, because they have patents that can be used in a counter suit.
2. It prevents competitors from utilizing the technology that they developed.
3. It gives them business options that they would not otherwise have if they didn't have the rights to the patent.
I doubt that most patents that are classified as being "unused" or "sitting around" still aren't providing some kind of value to the company that pursued them in the first place. It tends to be the nature of business that companies will look for ways to leverage their assets maximally. Besides, if the patents were valuable, the company would already have pursued licensing the technology to another person/company who can develop it into something viable.
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
*hilariously, goes and plays a pinball machine called 'Devil's Advocate'*
Ah, those Simpsons. Anyway, problem:
Those patents gathering dust are DEFENSIVE patents. That's why they're gathering dust; they're the deterrent your company has just in case anyone starts violating the patent sharing agreements that prevail between the big players in many markets.
If you donate them to other institutions, they 1) are no longer a deterrent and 2) may no longer be covered by patent sharing agreements. Congratulations! You have plunged the world into an era of 0 technological progress, as companies find the existing patent detente is no longer enforceable.
It would be better to simply grant every company ever a patent on everything possi -- oh, wait, that is the USPTO's actual strategy.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Patents are only rights to exclude others from doing something (namely what is claimed by the patent). "Donating" a patent to someone is therefore very unlikely to help someone build a business around it, unless that business is threatening to sue the hell out of everyone else who has ignored that patent until now (because the owner clearly decided not to enforce it). The reason is that it almost never happens that a product is only covered by a single (or even a couple of) patents, except sometimes with pharmaceuticals or so (but those patents are very unlikely to be dormant).
Donate free food here
This is part of the patent system that is broken. There is no incentive to not squat on the patent and wait for someone else to do the work. Invalidating the unused patents and passing them to the public domain will increase (IMO) the ability of small and agile businesses to do something with the previously patented item. When it passes to public domain, it removes the ability of anyone to use it just for suing others.
If the patent is not being used, it doesn't need patent protection! The grace period length may be up for debate, but the idea of passing the invention to public domain should not be in the case of unused patents.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I've often wondered whether patents could be subject to a type of perpetual public auction in which anyone can make a binding bid on a patent. The price on the patent would be part of a delayed mark-to-market capital gains tax accounting system that would encourage companies to either monetize or sell patents because they would be paying taxes on those patents. Some small entrepreneurs might be "forced" to sell their patents (i.e., they owe the IRS $2,000,000 because they got a bid for $10,000,000), but then they'd get far more money from the high bidder than they could have if they kept the patent. High bidders would, in turn, have serious skin in the game and want to make money from the patent. Patent-horders would need to pay the gains taxes on their patent portfolios as if those patents where being economically used. I suspect the scheme would make it more costly to keep frivolous patents or to sit on a patent to prevent competitive innovation.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The USPTO charges maintenance fees on patents. If you do not pony up $$$$ every few years the patent expires. Companies not being in the business of expending cash needlessly do not pay the fees on patents they own but have no interest in develeping. Ultimately this means there will be very few active but available patents to donate to such organizations. In fact the whole premise of the article is nonsense.
The patent was never perfect but the principal and general application was sound. It allowed for actual innovation, protected it temporarily, and offered some transparency in the business world to value novel ideas.
The problem with the libertarian black-or-white view of marketplaces is that humans _always_ screw it up. Not sometimes, always. I imagine the number of people that screwed this one up is relatively small, but isn't it always the few who make misery for the rest.
History shows time and again that all unregulated markets mature to monopolies. From fish mongers to real estate agents, there's rarely an exception. The libertarian view then either accepts the monopoly or performs some logical gymnastics to allow regulation.
The libertarian ideal _will_ be as abused as every other political ideal that has come before it. Please consider a more moderate approach.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to make patents only valid while the holder is actively exploiting them
EXACTLY. How terribly naive to think that those companies that own many "stale patents" would donate their "valuable IP". Those who are truly interested in innovation rather than exploitation will make the effort to get the invention to market (either themselves or through actively pursuing licensing agreements with those that have the capital to do so). Those companies that are NOT interested in bringing the patented idea to market and are not evil parasites are already donating such patents to others (IBM for example).
All that are left are evil, parasitic submarine-patent holding companies. Such companies exist solely to make money without making an effort by holding innovation hostage. Such companies will not donate their IP simply by asking them politely. As you have suggested and I've advocated for quite some time, this illegitimate business model has to be outlawed in some way, and the best way to do this is to introduce the obligation to provide not only the description of the invention itself but an execution/delivery plan as well that describes the intended plan to bring the patented invention to market. The patent holder would be held to that plan, up to a maximum-allowable period of time (whichever is shorter). If the patent holder fails to deliver the patent would be permanently invalidated and the idea would be public domain.
Though much more patent reform is required, this single change would be a big step forward. Amazon may have been evil to file their stupid "one-click-online-purchase" patent but at least they actually brought the idea to reality. Submarine patents run completely counter to the spirit and purpose of patent law, are potentially damaging to the economy and global competitiveness of a nation and must be eliminated.
Suuuuure they will. This should have been classified as 'its funny, laugh'.
... don't hold your breath.
Could companies be more open with them, sure, but *donate*
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Perhaps giving companies a tax writeoff equal to the amount in revenues that a donated patent generates would work out.
The original article mentions that tax breaks were actually stopped because they were abused.
If companies don't pay maintenance fees on a patent it will become abandoned, and thus (after a grace period) public domain.
.. like .. show me all the patents with 'cel phone' in the title that are abandoned.
Patents that are expired, (17-20 years) are of course already thus.
Try searching on http://www.patentmonkey.com/ and the results will show you status. Roumour has it that just 10 minutes ago they fixed it so you can even be able to SEARCH on status
While you are there, you can browse patents by front page - as if you were in the patent office in VA too.
All food for the entrepreneur.
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
In truth, the stealth patent strategy is only used by a tiny minority of vultures. The vast magority of companies (eg. IBM,HP) use them to get into cross-licence agreements, or use them as ammunition to defend against lawsuits. In the industry, patents are almost never used to "protect" invenstions, but only to protect against lawsuits. So in that way, no patent goes unused.
Companies asked to donate unused dollars.
Like that will happen
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
anything is funny when you substitute the word pants:
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Don't worry, I've got step three all figured out: Step 3: ???
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Yeah, but come on. They threw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's curious how recently the writeoff was dumped. And dumped completely, rather than putting caps on the value of a writeoff or tinkering with the way a patent's value is calculated -- or working with the patent office to stop granting so many worthless patents. Clearly there's a public benefit in having companies release their unused patents; the knowledge is distributed and the free market can get to work immediately, rather than hanging around for the temporarily granted monopoly to expire.
Summoning the power of my tinfoil hat, I see the following:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/02/25/0053 98.html
That's the guy who came up with intermittent windshield wipers. The specifics of which, I have issue with, but the basic principal is sound.
I'm an inventor who comes up with a great idea. I patent it, then I shop it to companies who would likely use it to gain an advantage. The company can examine the novel idea in detail and the inventor is protected from wholesale theft and place a value on the idea. If the inventor and business agree on some terms, then both parties benefit.
The process is hampered by human organization mantras like "not invented here." At this point in time, the whole patent process is completely out of control so any semblance to the original notions are a long way gone.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
If the owner of a patent hasn't started to develop it or make it available for licensing within 2 years of a patent being awarded, it should be made available for mandatory licensing with set compensation to the owner.
The inventors of the US patent system didn't envision idle or submarine patents. Their intent was to encourage the creation of useful devices that would actually be made available to the public in exchange for the temporary monopoly on profiting from that invention. Having 95% of all patents idle doesn't fit the original intent.
Tech Public Policy stuff
That seems like a bad idea to me, for a very simple reason.
Think about it: companies are, first and foremost, interested in making money. Some may have ethical goals or values, too (let's call these "the good guys"), while others don't and care ONLY about money (the "bad guys"). Now, what kind of company would donate a patent they held?
Obviously, the bad guys wouldn't do it; after all, a patent, even if you're not using it right now and have no current plans to do so in the future, might still be valuable at some point, and giving up that value for nothing is a bad deal. The good guys, on the other hand, might do it - depending, of course, but in principle, they might.
If a patent gets donated, what happens? Either someone picks it up and creates a successful business, or it turns out to be a dud. In the latter case, the whole act of donating it was pretty useless, but since that's not what's supposed to happen, let's concentrate on the first case: here, someone actually demonstrates that there WAS more than just a theoretical value attached to the patent, so the company that donated it did lose REAL money when it did so.
Now think about that: the bad guys (who didn't donate anything) continued as usual, and the good guys, *by virtue of being good guys*, *lost money*. Therefore, this scheme is either useless (if the donated patents aren't useful for creating new businesses) or hurts the good guys and rewards the greedy.
butter the donkey