Some Schools Welcoming Patent Firm, Others Wary

theodp writes "Intellectual Ventures (IV) will be setting up shop at the top of a Four Seasons this week as Headline Sponsor of the Ready to Commercialize 2008 conference hosted by the University of Texas at Austin. It's the patent firm's 100th university deal, though some, such as Professor Michael Heller at Columbia University, warn against such deals. '... their individual profit comes at the cost of the public ability to innovate. The university's larger mission is to serve the public interest, and some of these deals work against that public interest.' It's a follow-up to the conference IV sponsored last summer for technology transfer professionals entrusted with commercializing their universities' intellectual property, and should help IV, a friend of Microsoft, snag even more exclusive deals (PDF)."

Comments

Could be OK if done carefully

[GroundBounce]

Although many patents (both software and hardware) are bogus, the basic concept of the patent system has some validity and there are conditions where patents serve the public interest by encouraging innovation and at the same time making knowledge available to the public which would otherwise be kept as tight trade secrets by companies. In the case of universities, they have been loosing other sources of public funding and so earning some money from patent licensing may not inherently be a bad thing, but there should be requirements for patents obtained based on publicly funded research that although licensing fees could be charged for use by private companies, other universities and other publicly funded research institutions should be allowed to use the technology royalty free.

Re:Could be OK if done carefully

[ScrewMaster]

Although many patents (both software and hardware) are bogus, the basic concept of the patent system has some validity and there are conditions where patents serve the public interest by encouraging innovation and at the same time making knowledge available to the public which would otherwise be kept as tight trade secrets by companies.

Yes, but the real issue here is not the patent system pre se, but that certain rogue organizations are gaming that system in a way never intended by the Founders.

IV (and other patent troll outfits) are using the acquisition of large numbers of patents to control innovation and extract their pound of flesh from such activity, while providing little or nothing of value in return. In a sense, they're like Microsoft, who did much the same thing in the operating system / office software world. The term "Microsoft Tax" came about because of the level of control that Microsoft exerted (and still exerts) upon the sale of computer equipment and the choice of operating software, and companies like Intellectual Ventures are attempting to levy an "Innovation Tax" upon anyone or anything trying to do something new and valuable.

The net result of this will be an increase in wealth disparity in this country, and continued decline in our research and industrial sectors. This needs to stop before any attempt to design and manufacture useful, innovative products will be stymied by cease-and-desist orders, lawsuits, and what amounts to a tax levied by private organizations.

Symptoms of a bigger problem

[symbolset]

Again, patents were created as a bridge between creators and the market to promote progress. They have mutated into trolls that prevent progress. Patents are now a monster that must be slain.

Re:Symptoms of a bigger problem

[symbolset]

While I share your respect for the Founders' vision, the system of copyright we have now is founded in British common law, and in fact harks back to 1662. Copyrights originally carried for 27 years, and currently go for over 100 years. Thomas Jefferson considered 14 years and he was reluctant about even that and was swayed (or more likely, conceded to get a more important concession) by James Madison. Patents originated further back in ancient Greece, around 500BC and originally carried for 1 year but now extend to up to 20 years. Both have been extended to include things not then invented that are far beyond the original scope.

Should every modern presentation of the dramatic arts credit the contribution of Aeschylus? Should each modern electronic inventor credit Julius Edgar Lilienfeld? Maybe. But should some portion of the profits go to them? Probably not. Each was standing on the shoulders of prior giants after all, as are we all, and neither (being dead) would benefit from the cash.

Innovation happens in a climate that encourages or requires it. Perhaps the defining characteristic of Men is that we take the inventions of others and improve them. Each inventor and creator owes a debt to the culture and climate that fostered him or her. That debt is fulfilled when their creation becomes the property of all in the commons from whence a new generation of creator draws from the well and adds their contribution, to profit from for a limited time but ultimately to become part of the common pool again.

The current climate encourages neither business nor innovation. This is a lawyer's paradise where they can make claims of infringements for forgotten claims decades - no, even a whole century - from a prior claim of invention and need prevail only one time in a dozen to reap ridiculous wealth. In the mean time their suits and The duration is being stretched beyond imagining, supported and extended by the wealth of those who support and exploit the inventions of others without inventing, creating, or building anything (NPE). The Crazy Years are truly upon us. I believe there was once a popular author whose histrionic vision included such a period that ended in "the year they hanged the lawyers".

Copyrights and patents have become monsters that must be slain.

Fix the Law. It's not 100 Universities.

[Erris]

Don't shoot yourself in the foot, stay in school and push for better laws. You don't have to work for an unethical company when you get out, just those that think "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to patent law - there never was finer proof that patents offer no real protection to inventors. Software patents should be abolished so the patent office can get back to enforcing real patents.

The number of Universities falling for this has been grossly understated. The article itself says:

the firm recently completed its 100th tech-transfer deal with a university

Despite the multiple deals with Intellectual Ventures, however, Georgeson said his university has kept some pending patents, from its nanotechnology program, off-limits from the firm, believing it can successfully market those to industry itself.

This means that the deals are often with the same suckers but are not exclusive by a long shot. Stanford and MIT have the right idea. I predict IV will be found guilty of fraud and self dealing. It would be easy for Bill Gates and friends to make one or two universities a lot of money by paying for a few select patents while sucking a much larger volume of money out of the rest of the pawns and one night stands.

Re:Grammar Nazi is on duty

[retchdog]

Didn't you mean Führer?

Re:Don't fight the law, ignore it.

[rtfa-troll]

Ignoring laws is fine as long as those laws ignore you. Unfortunately, the more people ignore the laws, the more they tend to be strengthened and enforced. The only solution to such stupidity is political.