When Patents Attack — the NPR Version

fermion writes "This American Life is running a story this week on Intellectual Ventures, a firm some consider the leader of the patent trolls. The story delves into the origins of the term patent troll and the rise of the patent troll industry. Much time is spent presenting Intellectual Ventures both as a patent troll firm and a legitimate business that allows helpless inventors to monetize patents. It is stipulated that Intellectual Ventures does not in fact sue anyone. It is also alleged that Intellectual Ventures creates many shell companies, presumably to hide such activity. Intellectual Ventures is compared to a Mafia protection racket that may never actually burn down a business that does not pay the dues, but does encourage such burning to occur."

Comments

I realize this is Slashdot

[ColdWetDog]

But it would be nice to, at least in theory, RTFA. Is it just me or do I have to wait until Sunday at 7:00 PM (timezone unknown) to download the MP3 and LTFA.

Or should I just whine about how bad patent trolls are without benefit of absorbing any new material? It's not like we haven't been down this road before.

Re:I realize this is Slashdot

[ColdWetDog]

Well, I finally found something resembling TFA

Re:I realize this is Slashdot

[pythagoreanmetronome]

Indeed. I was ready to listen to it and get into a nice comments discussion but lo and behold it will be available tomorrow unless you want to buy a copy on Amazon or iTunes. The internet has become such a wonderful source of information, freely flowing at the same pace as a telegram... unless of course you want to shop at the Apple Store. Then it's pretty much instantaneous... AND SO WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THAT PATENTED/PROPRIETARY BUSINESS are those goofballs at NPR going to gripe about? I guess I will find out tomorrow night.

Good introduction for the uninitiated

[grahamsaa]

While much of the slashdot community is aware of the insanity the way software patents work, this show does a pretty good job of explaining the process for the uninitiated. I tried to explain the problems associated with software patents to my girlfriend last week and she could barely believe how screwed software patents are. Thanks to NPR, I can send her to a more clear and thorough explanation than I was able to give.

Hopefully this helps to convince non-technical Americans that patents should rarely, if ever be awarded for software.

Re:Will educating lamens help change the climate?

[click2005]

No, because the public will never be able to spend as much on bribery/lobbying as most large corporations.

Interesting tidbits

[robot256]

I listened to the whole thing live streaming from my NPR station. I was interested to hear that almost everything considered "common knowledge" here on Slashdot held up under their scrutiny. They visited a company that makes software to find duplicate patents, and they said that about 30% of patents granted are duplicates of the same idea. They also said that the one case Intellectual Ventures gives as their "poster child" of an "inventor whose idea was being used illegally until IV came along" actually had over 5500 duplicates granted in the same time frame (nevermind all the prior art that existed). That one patent, by the way, was traced to a patent troll company that is obligated to give Intellectual Ventures a cut of their revenue from it...and the creator of the patent is trying to sue them, IIRC. So much for "encouraging innovation by helping poor inventors".

Another interesting statistic is that they cited polls claiming that 80% of software engineers say patents hurt their business and creativity. I know we've been repeating this to each other for years, but it's nice to see it backed up every now and then.

Re:Interesting tidbits

[h4rr4r]

Please list some of those inconvenient truths they avoid.

I see far more of that sort of behavior from other news outlets. The Oslo bombing is getting far less press coverage now that they figured out a white guy did it.

Re:Interesting tidbits

[robot256]

At least they air any truths at all, which is more than can be said for most news outlets. And no, they don't air what you call "inconvenient truths"--if they are actually falsehoods. For example, on the Dianne Rehm show about vaccines and autism, she deliberately did not bring anyone from the "other side" because they have been so thoroughly proven false. To give falsehoods like that airtime would be irresponsible journalism, yet it is perpetrated every day by mainstream media "covering the controversy".

Re:Interesting tidbits

[QuantumLeaper]

If you want to turn the planet in to a Shit hole, could you do it without everyone else? Also if you change 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change', it change how many republicans believe in it from 40 vs 60 to 60 vs 40, with just two words changed.... They have been programmed to HATE the word 'Global Warming' by the taking Heads....

Re:I listened to this last night

[robot256]

Yeah, the guy from Intellectual Ventures said there were two cases, TWO CASES out of their 35,000 patents, that had actually been licensed to manufacturers. And he couldn't even remember what industry they were involved in, much less which patents. When their entire spiel is that they "take languishing ideas and put them to good use", that is a pretty piss poor record.

Re:Place blame where it belongs

[bmo]

>In a world where software patents exist, you will have patent trolls. In a world where the idea of "intellectual property" is taken seriously, you will have lawyers defending said property.

[Don La Fontaine voice]

In a world, where CEOs run their versions of the Mafia...In a world where Gordon Gecko is seen as a naive do-gooder...

In a world, where the true gangsters wear shiny suits and red power ties...there's... Malone.

"You wanna know how to get Intellectual Ventures? They pull a patent, you pull a lawyer. They send a brief to the court, you send one of them to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Nathan Myhrvold. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal? "

*dramatic music*

Sean Connery as Malone, coming to theaters this Christmas in "The Unpatentables"

--
BMO

Re:Place blame where it belongs

[StripedCow]

The average person has virtually no knowledge or understanding of patent law, and has no interest in becoming informed. The minority of us who do care and are informed are easily ignored with no political consequences for our elected representatives.

So, indeed, the real problem is the political system. I also wonder why the discussions here on slashdot always get stuck at what's wrong with patents (we've heard all the arguments), instead of focusing on how the system could be changed.

Re:I listened to this last night

[h4rr4r]

By good use they mean shakedown someone actually producing a product. You did not think they actually wanted to get things made did you?

Obviousness

[txghia58]

From the podcast it mentions a photo sharing site that got sued along with some 130 different companies. If 130 some odd companies came up with the same concept independently, doesn't that make the patent invalid as it would fail the obviousness requirement?

Re:Obviousness

[Theaetetus]

"Obvious" is a legal term, different from how you would interpret it - it only has a remote relationship with the English word "obvious".

I just had a chat tonight with a software friend of mine who's now going to become an IP lawyer about this topic, patents and other good stuff, where this came up as well. Basically, he told me that "obvious" for patents is defined as: "if you take everything that has been written in the relevant literature previous to the patent application, and you can combine that to directly derive the idea, then it is obvious". Not even indirect derivations are obvious, even when normal people *would* consider them obvious.

So even if 1000 companies come up with the idea, but don't write it up, or only come up with it *after* the patent application, then it's not defined as "obvious". It has to be published.

Close, but not quite... While patent examiners certainly look at publications, non-published prior art is still available (except during reexams). So, if 1000 companies come up with the idea, and use it, they don't need separate write-ups. I am a US patent practitioner, and I've had everything from sales brochures to help screens cited as prior art for various things.

Not quire sure what you mean though by "indirect derivations". Contrary to what your friend thinks, prima facie obviousness doesn't require a showing of directly combining disclosures of multiple prior art elements. Instead, an invention may be obvious if it is merely suggested by a combination of known elements, or even if there's an unknown element but a finite and predictable number of potential replacements (have him take a look at KSR v. Teleflex). Now, if you're saying that an invention is obvious even if nothing in the prior art teaches or suggests an element, or that there's tons of different elements that could be used without predictable effects, then I'm not sure how that's obvious.

One last thing, regarding the connection between the legal term "obvious" and the English word "obvious"... They are the same, but you have to remember that this is an administrative decision of a government agency acting in a quasi-judicial manner. A patent examiner can't just say, "it's obvious," without providing any evidence, any more than a judge can say, "you're guilty," without any evidence. So, really, what we're talking about is the Examiner being able to provide a prima facie case that an invention is obvious, and that requires evidence... so if he really feels, in his heart of hearts, that the invention is obvious, but can't find any prior art to show that, then it's at best legally unsupportable, and at worst, improper hindsight.

Not NPR

[Ophion]

This American Life is a Public Radio International (PRI) show, not a National Public Radio (NPR) one.

Re:Will educating lamens help change the climate?

[Anthony Mouse]

No, because the public will never be able to spend as much on bribery/lobbying as most large corporations.

In the case of software patents the lobby in favor of them isn't really the corporations. It's the lawyers.

Think about it: If software patents went away tomorrow, Microsoft et al wouldn't be able to collect patent license fees anymore, but neither would they have to pay them out. For most companies it comes out as a wash, give or take. And if software patents went away, none of those companies would have to continue paying their armies of patent lawyers, which would save them each millions of dollars.

But that would put all of those software patent lawyers out of business, so it is the lawyers who supply the driving force behind the status quo. What confuses people is that they frequently hear corporate lawyers advocating software patents and assume that they take that position in the interest of their employer rather than their occupation.

Re:Will educating lamens help change the climate?

[tkrotchko]

Software patents have always been about raising the cost of entry to new competitors.

Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, etc fight each other for business, but its sort of a gentlemen's game, with the players, stakes and products well known.

New players shake up the status quo, change markets, obsolete product lines. Stuff that big companies hate.

Years ago, I argued here on /. against software patents, arguing that despite what developers thought, they were really for the benefit of large companies, not upstart new companies.

I'm actually sorry that I was proven correct.

Re:PRI != NPR

[surmak]

This American Life is distributed by PRI. Yes it plays mostly on NPR affiliates, but NPR has nothing to do with making it.

Note, however that this week's episode was a co-production if This American Life and NPR's Planet Money.

Normally, this statement would be correct, but not always.

Re:I was a touch surprised that

[Mindcontrolled]

Excuse me, Sir, I happen to represent the local honorable family in legal matters. Please refrain from comparing a traditional family mafia business with patent trolling. It besmirches the good name of the mafia. My client would be very grateful for that, if you know what I mean.