Congress Proposes Strategy For Fighting Patent Trolls

phantomfive writes "Congressman Charles Schumer has written a piece decrying the evils of patent trolls. 'Because of the high cost of patent litigation—the average litigation defense costs a small or midsize company $1.75 million—it is often marginally cheaper for a defendant to pay up front to make the case go away. The average settlement for the same group of companies is $1.33 million....Patent trolls cost U.S. companies $29 billion in 2011 alone.' His solution? Make it easier for low quality patents to be re-examined and rejected by the patent office."

Comments

Low Quality

[SJHillman]

"Make it easier for low quality patents to be re-examined and rejected by the patent office."

Who determines if a patent is "low quality"? A certain low quality congress critter?

Re:Low Quality

[cheekyjohnson]

Easy: All patents are low quality.

Re:Low Quality

[MickyTheIdiot]

I *hate* the idea of "Intellectual Property" in general. If you want a governmental power that has overreached its constitutional intent you can't find a better example. However I don't think EVERY patent is low quality. We need *limited* patents and limited copyrights with curbs that make them difficult to use as offensive weapons. They need to be inventor and artist focused instead of corporation focused. And we need patent examiners that have the knowledge and the time to say that patent is B.S.

Of course we aren't going to get that in a corporate dominated government.

Re:Low Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy Chuck Schumer is a democrat. So if the patent is owned by a GOP supporter it is low quality, if the owner supports the DNC it is high-quality.

Why should the patent office run different than the IRS.

Re:Low Quality

[tlhIngan]

The whole idea of Intellectual Property comes in to play because companies wanted to assume monopoly over tech/entertainment markets. The current legislation behind patents and copyrights is a result of this effort via lobby, and on the public relation front of it is this crusade for IP.

Except patent wars are old - they date back to the 19th century. Likewise copyright wars. It's really a case of everything old is new again - we've been repeating history for ages now.

Anyhow, the main problem is software shouldn't be protected at all - at least not by traditional copyright NOR patents. The thing is, software is kind of strange. Before software, people wrote stuff for consumption - books, musics, movies, plays, etc, which clearly fell under copyright law. And people made "stuff" to do things - machines, tools, etc., which clearly fell under patent laws.

But now software (which is really just tech's turn at the patent wars - everyone else has gone through it years ago - automobiles has had patent wars rage on since the late 19th century) is really quite different. Very rarely is it written for purely human consumption (the source code, that is), and the compiled/transformed form isn't usable to anything but a computer. Even worse, you write software to do useful things, which also make it fall under patents.

And that's the problem - patents and copyrights are meant to cover things that don't overlap - pretty much mutually exclusive. Software isn't - you write it, compile it (which can make it come under copyright law) but which can do things of utility (e.g., do stuff), which falls under patent protection. Neither is right, and neither is wrong. (And to confuse things further, software can be hardware, when it's written and compiled to RTL and silicon). After all, given something can be both patented AND copyrighted (which never happened before...), that should be a red flag that the laws are inadequate.

What needs to happen is recognition of this - the special state of software that you write, but not necessarily for purely human consumption (you can consume the *output* - e.g., games, but rarely is source or binary code appreciated as-is).

It would offer protection, but of a different form adapted to the qualities it possesses - do you protect the algorithm (patent), or the implementation (copyright)? Why not a modified form of that protects both, respects that sometimes things can only be done one way and thus have mandatory licensing, appreciate that multiple implementations can exist and be protected as one unit, etc.?

You still get the protections and restrictions that make open and free software possible, but you eliminate trying to bend patent and copyright laws to handle software.

Re:Low Quality

[gtbritishskull]

I would just like to point out that the only thing that the IRS did was to take a long time and ask a lot of questions. 501(c)4 organisations can self-designate themselves, so they can go ahead and act like they are a 501(c)4 until the IRS actually denies them. And if they are denied, they would just have to pay back taxes and declare their donors. But, the election is over now, so if they were denied now no one cares anymore who donated to who.

And, if their consciences were clear and their motives were pure, then they wouldn't need to worry about eventually being denied because they wouldn't be. The problem is that most of them were planning on, and did, spend money on politics. I think the whole lot of them should be put in jail (my tax money subsidized their politicking), instead of being lauded on Faux News as "victims". This whole "scandal" is just political manipulation by the Republicans (who do you know of any political affiliation who doesn't like to hate on the IRS) and all of the sheeple like you are falling for it. The real problem is that during this time period the number of 501(c)4 applications doubled (and that doesn't even count the organizations who self-designated) while the IRS budget and workforce was cut.

So, basically, the Republicans have this political philosophy of "starve the beast" (keep government responsibilities the same but cut its budget) but scream when the lack of funds results in government being less effective (at least to their constituents - they are fine when it just affects poor people). And they want to try to project it as some grand conspiracy instead of recognizing it as some overworked government employees trying to be more efficient (god forbid the government actually try to be efficient - then Repubs couldn't get up on their soapbox and preach about how much better the private sector is).

Congressman?

[mooingyak]

Congressman, while generic, usually refers to members of the House. Schumer is a senator.

Re:Congressman?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

Lower house = The "House".

Upper house = The Senate.

It refers to both.

WSJ Paywall?

[Amezick]

No one else has this story?

Re:WSJ Paywall?

[mcgrew]

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130430/22152622896/chuck-schumer-to-introduce-patent-reform-bill-to-make-it-cheaper-to-fight-back-against-patent-trolls.shtml

Re:WSJ Paywall?

[TaoPhoenix]

Submission trolls cost U.S. Slashdot readers 29 billion minutes in 2013 alone. My solution? Make it easier for low quality submissions to be re-examined and rejected by the Slashdot Firehose! : )

Ignorance is the problem

[Errol backfiring]

There is an interesting line of thought in the (thank goodness overruled) patenting of natural DNA (taken from this article):

"The isolated DNA molecules before us are not found in nature," Judge Alan D. Lourie wrote. "They are obtained in the laboratory and are man-made, the product of human ingenuity."

Sounds reasonable? Until you realize that DNA is just a chain of information blocks. Then it reads: "While these words do occur in sentences in nature, they do not appear by themselves. Therefore they are man-made, therefore patentable." Off course, once the patent has been granted, it is used to attack all other sentences that contain that word. As long as patent judges utter those patently stupid verdicts, no patent system in the world can ever do good.

Why re-examine?

[SirGarlon]

Can't read TFA due to paywall, but does he suggest a reason why re-examining "low quality" patents is a better approach than establishing stricter eligibility criteria and a more rigorous process to weed out "low quality" patents before they're granted?

Re:Oh, So now only the big boys

[MickyTheIdiot]

Who is paying him to say this?

I'm sorry.. the last 2 years especially have left me with nothing but cynicism. Congresscritters are ALL paid spokesman. Who is paying him to say this?

I don't care if I agree or not... every one of these idiots is a shill in one way or another and regardless of party.

Re:Oh, So now only the big boys

[jkflying]

Samsung?

Human ownership

[bussdriver]

Only humans can own patents (not legal persons which are now corporations.) The rights should be non transferable (as most rights should be.)

This would require employees who do the actual invention get properly taken care of instead of fired for getting too old. Sure, this would result in plenty of ass kissing of SMART people (I know that sounds too unusual, but bare with me.)

We couldn't afford to be paying CEOs so much, they'd have to give some of that up or employee #14325 (who would then be known by their first name) will go to the competition with their patent. "News" magazines would have stories of SMART people trading to other corporations for better deals, possibly akin to the stories we get on sports players and CEOs today. Maybe children would grow up wanting.... now I'm getting too hopeful.

Why shouldn't the "IP" that costs the existing system so much be tied to people instead of corporations? At least trolls would have a name and a face.

Re:Oh, So now only the big boys

[Bearhouse]

Agree it's hard to believe these days, but he actually, he seems to be one of the good guys.

He previously co-sponsored legislation to help fight bullshit "business methods" patents,

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/another-bill-fix-patent-troll-problem-well-part-it

And now simply wants to extend that to other areas. Text of proposed bill here.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.866:

Hat tip to EPP for article.

Re:Oh, So now only the big boys

[gmuslera]

This is for protecting the big boys, not the small ones. Is not that patents cost everyone 29 billons, is that cost to big companies, they are free to do their share of the trolling, do innovation or not (i.e. MS requiring android device makers to pay them for their FAT patent). Of course, also go to some of the ones that only troll. But is not a solution, just another way to give even more leverage to the big companies.

Re:better idea

[indeterminator]

Here's my idea: require the company to define the value of the patent (i.e. how much inventing it cost) with the patent application. And the patent application processing fee is 10% of that value. The patent owner can only sue for damages up to the patent value.

If you actually used a billion to make that invention, then 10% of that is a small price to pay for protection of the investment. If you're a troll, you need to be a troll with very deep pockets. And hopefully some part of that 10% fee can be used to properly review patent applications and establish a court that specializes in handling patent disputes so that lawsuits can be streamlined.

Won't help with already issued patents though.

Lousy Idea

[the eric conspiracy]

The problem is that lots of small companies are running on shoestrings. Any requirement to hire a law firm to defend against a lawsuit = death. It doesn't matter if the patent gets rejected on re-examination, the small company is toast.

My last two jobs ended abruptly due to someone bringing a lawsuit. Boom see ya it's been real.

What has to happen is ending lawsuits from non-practicing entities. These companies have no skin in the game. They can't be countersued because they make nothing.

Re:Trolls are not the problem

[HornWumpus]

No, that's only a start. The real solution is to finish killing all the lawyers.

Re:better idea

[sjames]

One idea is to requitre that if a patent is EVER found invalid, the holder must refund anyone who already paid them with interest.

It won't stop the trolls entirely, but the more success they have, the stronger their incentive is to quit while they're ahead.

Curiously, a real 'Soviet Union' point

[waterbear]

One of the oddities of the former Soviet Union was the arrangements they had (at least on paper) for inventors.

The default position more or less was that exploitation rights went to the state, but if the inventor got an 'inventor's certificate', it meant that s/he had a few useful rights. One of them was the right to be employed in connection with exploitation of the invention (that is, only if any use was made of it). They were eligible for housing preference and there was even an award title of 'Honored Inventor of the Soviet Union'.

Sure, whether any of that worked in reality is another question, but the concept seems interesting.