Xiph.org Comments For the FTC's Patents Workshop

Freddybear writes "Xiph.org, makers of ogg audio and theora video codecs, submitted a detailed proposal to the FTC for the patents workshop. Their proposal recommends changes which would help to eliminate the practice of 'submarine' patents regarding standardized technologies. Quoting: 'The Xiph.Org Foundation recommends that the FTC work to require specific, ex ante disclosure of patents or patent applications that would read on standards under development, that failure to disclose exhaust the patent, and assertion of such a patent ex post be deemed anti-competitive. This should apply not only to standards development activities that the patent holder participates in or knows about, but those it should have known about. Furthermore, vague infringement allegations or activities designed to avoid an SSO's disclosure requirements or undermine the standards process should also be deemed anti-competitive.'"

Comments

I wish to support this submission

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to add my name to a list of people who support this submission.
Does such a list exist?

Re:I wish to support this submission

[davester666]

Yes. Everybody that cares monitors /dev/null. Pipe your name there.

Thank you xiph.org

[jhoegl]

I appreciate the time spent by xiph.org to think about and put together the information. Unfortunately I know little about patent processes, but I know that patents have been a major concern and pain, because one can, through no fault of their own, create a "method" like something that had been patented.
I also know that there are many patent troll companies out there and they need to be taken care of, regardless of how much the government thinks it brings in on fees during these processes.
I understand parts of what was said, and found nothing that I can disagree with. Although I would rather they do away with software patents completely, in our reality that will not be the likely case.
Thanks xiph.org.

My suggestion is....

[Joce640k]

a) The patent office needs to employ some experienced, unbiased software engineers who understand the word "obvious".

b) They need to break the link between "profit" and "number of patents accepted".

c) They need to make it much easier to invalidate a patent due to prior art and obviousness (this isn't necessarily a good thing but it's needed because of all the "a" and "b" they've done in the past).

Re:WTF???

[MysteriousPreacher]

That means that if a company, no matter how big or small, ever files a patent that relates to video compression, they have to suddenly join every single standards body just so they can tell those standards bodies that things they're looking into infringe on patents? At what point is this company supposed to move on and do engineering work?

I believe these companies would only be under an obligation to disclose patents if they are active in the setting of a related standard. The goal here us to prevent people from helping to develop a standard reliant on a patent they just happened to forgot they held.

Clear Path to the Public Domain

[Jahava]

I propose the following change to the current patent system:

• When a patent is initially filed, the patent filer may optionally include an itemized list of costs incurred to directly develop the patent.
• At any time after the patent is granted, the USPTO offers the following option: If members of the public can accumulate and pay 150% of the stated development cost of the patent to the patent holder, then the patent irrevocably enters the public domain.
• Failure to disclose development cost will result in a default value (around $100,000, can be raised by USPTO as needed) being assigned to the value of the patent.
• Misleading or incorrect information on an itemized list disqualifies the list and results in default value being assigned to the patent.
• Challenges and negotiations regarding the value of a patent can be brokered in a public setting through an institution established by the USPTO.

Under this system, inventors have a clear path to profit from the effort they invested to create a patent. No matter how much they invest, they will always make 50% of that investment back in profit. There is also a clear path to the public domain for the patent - anything so fundamentally critical can be purchased and contributed to the public domain with the USPTO as the intermediate broker. It is likely more profitable for any given company to place a patent in the public domain for all to enjoy than it is for them to license it from the individual company.

The buyer of the patent can be a company, community pool of money, or even the US Government itself (think cancer cure) based on the criticality of that patent to any entity's set of interests.

So patents aren't gold mines anymore. You can't build a business model around exclusivity. Who cares? Innovation will continue, as it always has, and now everyone can participate. I dunno; I like the idea.

Re:Clear Path to the Public Domain

[evanbd]

Most ideas don't pan out. This applies to patent-worthy, reasonably thought out ideas as well. Plenty of things look perfectly reasonable at the patent stage, but just don't quite work for one reason or another. This causes a problem for your idea: if I put in the effort to develop ten patents, all of them reasonable, and pursue them further, perhaps one or two or three will actually turn into a saleable, profitable product. If I can only recoup 1.5x my costs on those 3, and nothing on the others, I lose money.

Patents are, in general, a bet on an unlikely outcome. Much like startup companies. Most of them fail, too. In order to make that work, you need a possibility of a high return. Maybe not an astronomical return, but a high return. Of course, none of these comments are relevant to patent trolls and such, but the problem isn't quite as trivial as you suggest.