Ask Slashdot: When Is Patent License Trading Not Trolling?

Thomas Edison by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 05:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Great example - just not for their cause.

Re:Thomas Edison by arbiterxero · 2013-09-18 05:36 · Score: 2

Yeah, Edison profited off the research of his students, and everyone around him......a bad example to be used if they want to prove patents are useful.
Re:Thomas Edison by Sarten-X · 2013-09-18 05:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

He made his students' research into actual working inventions. That's what patents are supposed to cover - the working form, with all of the show-stopping problems worked out enough to have a functional device. Pure research isn't patentable, because without an application it just adds to the pile of useless facts about the world.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Thomas Edison by BenfromMO · 2013-09-18 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

How exactly is Edison a bad example of how the patent process works? Whether we agree with his methods on farming work out and paying employees to invent things for him, we must recognize the fact that through this system he used that he both made money, and benefited mankind through his shops and his laboratories where his employees advanced human knowledge.
And isn't that the point to the patent system?
To advance our technology and to advance those who invent? The people all along had an option to not work for Edison and strike out on their own, but they chose to stay in the laboratory. That was their choice, and I would argue therefore that the process worked great back than. As for today, that is a different topic of conversation because things are slightly different today than they were in Edison's time.
Re:Thomas Edison by tgd · 2013-09-18 06:24 · Score: 2

Yeah, Edison profited off the research of his students, and everyone around him......a bad example to be used if they want to prove patents are useful.
There's no crime in profiting off the work of employees and students.
You may disagree with it, but its completely orthogonal to the question of the usefulness of patents.
Re:Thomas Edison by ShanghaiBill · 2013-09-18 06:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, Edison profited off the research of his students, and everyone around him......a bad example to be used if they want to prove patents are useful.
And an even worse example if you want to show that NPEs are useful today. That fact that independent inventors were useful a century ago is irrelevant. They play very little role in modern innovation. Many companies refuse to even talk to independent inventors, because knowledge of their patents can expose the company to liability. What most NPEs do is sit on the patent and wait for someone to independently come up with the same innovation, and then demand payment. They are just parasites.
Re:Thomas Edison by king+neckbeard · 2013-09-18 07:01 · Score: 2

Edison was a convicted monopolist who tortured puppies to slander competitors and proudly used inefficient methods of research. Yes, technology advanced through his companies, but it would have probably advanced faster had he never been born.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Thomas Edison by retchdog · 2013-09-18 07:30 · Score: 1

Isn't this the entire point of capitalism, though? If you want capitalism to work for inventions, I don't see how you could do it without something like patents.
The answer might be to move from this archaic system of absolute state-enforced monopoly to something a bit more flexible. Of course this would require economists and policy-makers to be imaginative and innovative themselves, rather than modeling `innovation' as white noise (wtf?), which seems unlikely.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:Thomas Edison by MightyYar · 2013-09-18 07:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

What most NPEs do is sit on the patent and wait for someone to independently come up with the same innovation, and then demand payment. They are just parasites.
Exactly the problem. We need to consider whether patents really encourage innovation, or whether the state of the art is more of an inevitable progression. As a thought experiment, it's easy to look at Einstein and think that maybe the world would be very different without him. But the alternate view - and the one that seems more likely - is that someone else would have discovered special relativity... that he simply came to the natural conclusion that many others working on the same problem would when presented with the same facts.
Some patents probably do deserve to exist. There are probably drugs that would never have been developed without a patent. Not because the science is novel, but because so much money was required to develop it. But a thought experiment costs nothing - an idea by itself is usually worthless. A guy could come up with an idea for a clever gear arrangement that will save 1% of the energy that goes into a drive-train. But until he actually builds and demonstrates the idea, it is not worth anything. We need to refocus patents on the doers and less on the thinkers. When people actually making something can't progress the state of the art because someone else had an idea, we have a problem.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Thomas Edison by Ksevio · 2013-09-18 07:58 · Score: 1

Edison was also an inventor himself that made many innovative machines. Later in life he advanced to running a lab that people don't like the ethics of, but he was certainly no manager type exploiting an industry like some people believe.
Re:Thomas Edison by pnutjam · 2013-09-18 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Patents were useful in a time where the written word was expensive to produce in quantity and ideas could easily be lost. This is just not the case anymore. Our population alone has put us into the million monkeys on typewriter range.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Thomas Edison by suutar · 2013-09-18 08:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Edison is known to have attempted to use the power of his patents to suppress behavior he didn't like making him possibly the earliest known troll. That's why the movie industry cranked up in Hollywood CA; it was far enough from Edison to avoid enforcement of his patents on motion picture cameras/projectors.
Re:Thomas Edison by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 08:16 · Score: 1

You may disagree with it, but its completely orthogonal to the question of the usefulness of patents.
And "the question of the usefulness of patents" is completely orthogonal to the subject in discussion. Your attempt at redirection is noted.
The subject of profiting off others work is not only in line with the article, but is also a patent troll's or NPE's sole reason for existence. Any other justifications they give for their existence, such as the claim they add liquidity to patents, are far outweighed by the reality of their practice. The economic cost they impose is far greater and completely detached for any value inventors, innovators, and practicing entities receive in return from the NPE's involvement.
Is this true for all NPEs? Why not join the discussion rather be a denier.
Re:Thomas Edison by quantaman · 2013-09-18 10:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, Edison profited off the research of his students, and everyone around him......a bad example to be used if they want to prove patents are useful.
And an even worse example if you want to show that NPEs are useful today. That fact that independent inventors were useful a century ago is irrelevant. They play very little role in modern innovation. Many companies refuse to even talk to independent inventors, because knowledge of their patents can expose the company to liability. What most NPEs do is sit on the patent and wait for someone to independently come up with the same innovation, and then demand payment. They are just parasites.
You've also got a different marketplace, the mp3 player invention existed for a while before Apple showed up, what Apple brought to the table was intense refinement of the concept and figuring out the product ecosystem and way to sell it. Similarly everyone saw smart phones coming for years, but only a handful of companies were in a position to actually in a position to actually execute it. I think the technology ecosystem is too intertwined for someone to simply build a better lightbulb and have someone else sell it as a finished product.
Of course there might still be some big NPEs doing good work that we don't recognize because their logo isn't on the product.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Thomas Edison by AlphaWoIf_HK · 2013-09-18 12:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

we must recognize the fact that through this system he used that he both made money, and benefited mankind through his shops and his laboratories where his employees advanced human knowledge.

Why must we recognize that? Do you have evidence to suggest that he wouldn't have made a similar or greater amount of money in a system with no patents? As far as I know, no such evidence exists; if we required proof that a policy is effective before we could implement it, patent/copyright laws would be long gone by now.

--
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Re:Thomas Edison by NoMaster · 2013-09-18 16:32 · Score: 1

Edison was a convicted monopolist who tortured puppies to slander competitors ...
Puppies?! If only it was just puppies!
Try also cats, cows, horses, people and, of course, elephants

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Re:Thomas Edison by Hognoxious · 2013-09-18 19:41 · Score: 1

And do you have evidence to suggest that he would have made a similar or greater amount of money in a system with no patents?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Thomas Edison by AlphaWoIf_HK · 2013-09-18 20:18 · Score: 1

Of course not, but I'm not the one tying people down with laws, now am I?

--
Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
Re:Thomas Edison by king+neckbeard · 2013-09-18 22:40 · Score: 1

I think he's making the wrong argument. The question is not about how much money Edison is making, but rather, how much technological progress is being made in that time. Edison engaged in illegal activities in the motion picture business, and a lot of what GE did probably would have been illegal had an investigation been sought. We do have evidence that we make as much or more progress without patents, while we don't have any solid evidence of the opposite, other than the 'evidence' of greater progress in the period since patents were introduced than the period afterwards. However, progress has been exponential throughout human history, and the correlation is much more strongly tied to the ability of ideas to proliferate (such as the spread of mass communication), so all that it's evidence of is that patents don't slow us down enough to reverse the tides of progress.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Thomas Edison by king+neckbeard · 2013-09-18 22:42 · Score: 1

I don't see why you need something patent-like for capitalism to work. Free markets create plenty of innovation by themselves.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Thomas Edison by tgd · 2013-09-19 00:33 · Score: 1

You may disagree with it, but its completely orthogonal to the question of the usefulness of patents.
And "the question of the usefulness of patents" is completely orthogonal to the subject in discussion. Your attempt at redirection is noted.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just missed the parent post I replied to -- since that was the sole, and only point of it.

The subject of profiting off others work is not only in line with the article, but is also a patent troll's or NPE's sole reason for existence.
All businesses of greater size than a sole proprietorship exist to profit off others work. Any company with employees explicitly exists to magnify the value of the company based on the work of the employee. I'd say that if you didn't fundamentally understand that you should take an economics course, but its so self-evident, I doubt that would help.
People (and, frankly, any life form) collaborates with others because they expect to get a greater value out of it (ie, profit) as a result of others' labor. And anyone who hires an employee chooses to do so because the value to the business is greater than the cost. If it was even, you wouldn't waste the effort on it. A vanishingly few people are capable of supporting themselves on their own labor alone. If businesses didn't exist to provide resources back to people in exchange for their work -- leaving the complexity of exactly how to get those resources to others -- most people would be unable to support themselves.
Re:Thomas Edison by sjames · 2013-09-19 08:43 · Score: 1

He paid low-lifes to steal neighborhood pets so he could electrocute them for the press to 'demonstrate' how dangerous the competing technology was.
When that wasn't big enough, he electrocuted an elephant.
Then he invented the electric chair and powered it w/ C current.
Is THAt the sort of people the patent system is supposed to enrich? No thanks!

Pretty much never ... by gstoddart · 2013-09-18 05:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm of the opinion that if you didn't create it, and your entity exists to do nothing than extort people for royalties on your patent ... you are a patent troll.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Pretty much never ... by kthreadd · 2013-09-18 05:51 · Score: 1

I would go without the "if you didn't create it." I've yet to find a single patent case that wasn't trolling.
Re:Pretty much never ... by tgd · 2013-09-18 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm of the opinion that if you didn't create it, and your entity exists to do nothing than extort people for royalties on your patent ... you are a patent troll.
At the risk of burning karma, I disagree... licensing organizations are not the problem. Bad patents are the problem.
Licensing organizations are very useful, to big companies, small companies and individuals.
There are a fairly large number of companies that exist to profit off bad patents, but that doesn't invalidate the work the "good" companies are doing.
Re:Pretty much never ... by tgd · 2013-09-18 06:29 · Score: 2, Informative

I would go without the "if you didn't create it." I've yet to find a single patent case that wasn't trolling.
If you get your "news" from stories on Slashdot, that would make sense. All you see on here is the fringe ridiculous cases, and the high profile games played between multinational corporations using patent portfolios as pawns. The vast majority of patents do exactly what they're supposed to do, and the vast majority of patents are licensed fairly and appropriately.
Re:Pretty much never ... by WWJohnBrowningDo · 2013-09-18 06:36 · Score: 1

your entity exists to do nothing than extort people for royalties on your patent

Let's say we make a new rule that says any corporation that derives more than 90% of its revenue from patent royalties is a patent troll.
The problem is that this rule is trivial to dodge. Large multi-nationals can just buy patent trolls and thus wash the patent royalties into the legitimate revenue stream. It doesn't matter if the percentage is set at 90% or even 1%, there are plenty of Fortune 500s out there with big enough revenue streams to do this.
This is a complicated problem which requires delicate solutions. There is no silver bullet. For every person out there with a genuine desire to fix the problem there are 10 lawyers coming up with new loopholes. That's why it's important that we keep the discussion going and spread the news so that more people becomes informed and involved.
Re:Pretty much never ... by kthreadd · 2013-09-18 06:37 · Score: 1

No. I just find that the concept of patents is trolling the human mind, so everything that involves patents is trolling.
Re:Pretty much never ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 06:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree.
There is nothing in the Constitution that implies that a patent should be transferable to another party. The Constitution says,

Congress has the power to...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The point was to provide an incentive, in the form of preventing their designs from being stolen, to inventors so that they would pursue their ideas and bring new devices to market. The point was not to enable individuals or companies to accumulate patent portfolios.
Also, note that is says "Authors and Inventors" - not "Authors, Inventors, or Companies".
Re:Pretty much never ... by Solandri · 2013-09-18 07:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

That doesn't work. If the people profiting from an invention wouldn't have had the idea for the invention on their own, then you are not extorting them by making them pay to license the patent.

For stopping (or for that matter, distinguishing) patent trolls, I think we can take a page out of copyright law. With copyrights, you're automatically granted a copyright on anything you make. But if someone violates your copyright, you're limited to compensatory damages. i.e. the offender can only be forced to pay you for actual damages you suffered. To collect statutory damages (the fines that go up to $150k per work regardless of damages suffered), you have to have first registered your copyright. I think if we switch this around a bit, it could solve the problem of patent trolls.

Make it so the original patent filer can collect both compensatory and statutory damages (to protect the little guy who comes up with a great idea, but has trouble bringing it to market while a big company shamelessly steals the idea and takes over the market). But if the patent is transferred, the new patent holder can only collect compensatory damages. That would make it worthless for a person or company to buy a patent solely to sue others for infringement. If they aren't actually building something which uses that patent, then they suffered no damages from the patent infringement and thus aren't able to collect anything from others using that patent. In order to be able to collect damages, you need to be able to show your income was negatively impacted by the infringement, which means you need to be making something which uses the patent.

That would eliminate all the speculating going on with patents. You wouldn't buy a patent in the hopes that you'd be able to collect millions from others for infringement. You'd only buy a patent because you plan to start building something which uses it or it'll improve a product you're already building, and you decide it'll be cheaper to own the patent rather than license it from whoever owns the patent. The main problem I can think of with this idea is you'd end up with a bunch of shell corporations set up to file for patent(s), and people would buy/sell the shell corporation (which is the original patent filer) instead of the patents themselves.
Re:Pretty much never ... by VortexCortex · 2013-09-18 08:03 · Score: 1

A police state is created by making laws in opposition to human nature. Primarily laws concerned with censorship or restrictions of ideas or information.
You are trillions of copies of a single cell. Life itself is duplication and preservation of information. Evolution encodes better information about survival into DNA and passes it onto the future. This is the nature of and meaning of life (meaning: what life is and what life does).
The prime thing you have over all other species on this planet is a better way to share information and ideas. Copyright and Patents are laws against not just Human nature, but the nature of Life itself.

I disagree... licensing organizations are not the problem. Bad patents are the problem.
And that's all you have, fool. You have only speculation. Are you not evolved? Have you no science in your damn head? Where is the evidence that Patents are Beneficial and not Harmful? WHERE?! You never tested the damn hypothesis. What if patents are holding back your species?! What if they are harmful? Would in not be unconscionably dangerous to continue to operate the world's economy of ideas based on a damned untested and unproven hypothesis?!
To any who would say that patents are beneficial I must point out that patents are not the natural state of information conveyance. They are thus an invention of the mind as well. If you would put forth they are beneficial then I would task you to provide evidence to back your claim. You have zero evidence that it is bad patents which are the problem. You have zero evidence that it is not Patents themselves that are the problem. You have zero evidence that patents are even beneficial or necessary for that matter.
You can speculate all damn day about patents, but the truth is you must abolish them. You must run the experiment and find out, fool! We don't have a control Earth to test via... However, we do have the Fashion and Automotive industries -- Neither of these are allowed design patents or copyright and yet innovative design is their core selling point. Here I have shown you direct evidence of vast innovation and profit in two separate industries without any patents or copyrights.
Now, show me your evidence. Do it. I fucking dare you, idiot.
Re:Pretty much never ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-18 08:06 · Score: 1

Please inform us what physical device you have invented in the past, and then shared with the world.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Pretty much never ... by kthreadd · 2013-09-18 08:20 · Score: 1

I have not killed people, yet I think it is immoral.
I have not owned a patent, yet I think it is immoral.
Re:Pretty much never ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-18 09:51 · Score: 1

But I didn't mention owning a patent. I requested what device you invented without a patent.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Pretty much never ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-18 15:42 · Score: 1

Which is a major reason I specified a "physical device" in my original post to him.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Pretty much never ... by Bite+The+Pillow · 2013-09-18 16:39 · Score: 1

You don't agree, so you redefine the words. That's not how this works.
As a retiree, it certainly would be in my best interests to sell out my remaining patent years and let someone else do the licensing and, if violated, enforcements. That sounds like a reasonable use of my time, so I can relax or invent something else.
They get a share of royalties (and if it comes to one a part of the lawsuit settlement) in exchange for doing work I would rather not do. Taken to an extreme, I could cash out and let them do all the enforcing. If I'm still producing, and they are enforcing, that seems fair?
Then I die, and no one is producing. The NPE does not have a production line, and/or does not feel like getting into manufacturing. But has a year left on the patent that it bought.
On one side, it is a patent troll. On the other side, it purchased for a flat fee the remainder of the patent protection. Should it give up its rights, which it legally owns, because I died?
This is one of those situations where your answer will depend on how you already feel, and if you feel strongly you won't understand the other side's answer at all.
What if I have a yearly license fee, and died, so the NPE doesn't have to pay this year's fee, but does get the protection. Is that just stupid negotiation on my part? Is the NPE more of a patent troll than if it outright paid in advance?
What if my son picks up where I left off, after spending 6 months arranging his life so he could get the last 6 months out of my patent. Was the NPE a patent troll for 6 months until my son started producing?
Re:Pretty much never ... by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-09-18 22:44 · Score: 1

A police state is created by making laws in opposition to human nature.
Such as laws against assault, rape and murder? Such as laws that establish an age of consent for sexual relations? Such as laws establishing constitutions and defining democratic rights and obligations, and banning the practice beating the current alpha male to a pulp and taking his territory?
Modern society is built on controlling and suppressing damaging parts of human nature, and this has served us relatively well for millenia.

The prime thing you have over all other species on this planet is a better way to share information and ideas. Copyright and Patents are laws against not just Human nature, but the nature of Life itself.
Half right. Nature determines a balance between sharing and guarding information. Seagulls advertise the presence of fish to other seagulls, whereas squirrels hide their nuts. The seagull operates in an environment where shared knowledge benefits the sharer (a lone diving seagull is easy to evade, but when multiple seagulls dive into a shoal simultaneously, there isn't room for all the fish to escape). The squirrel, on the other hand, gains no benefit from other squirrels knowing where his nuts are.
Patent laws in the UK were drafted during the industrial revolution, and were aimed at the machines used in factories and mills. The factory with the best machine was most profitable, so you kept your secrets and you kept your edge. As the machines weren't the products, you couldn't buy them and reverse engineer them. They were not documented, and could be lost if the inventor died.
Patents overcame this problem in human nature, by giving inventors an incentive to document and to share. Licensing a patent meant getting a cut of the profits from multiple factories, and there was more profit in this than in protecting your margins.

To any who would say that patents are beneficial I must point out that patents are not the natural state of information conveyance. They are thus an invention of the mind as well. If you would put forth they are beneficial then I would task you to provide evidence to back your claim.
Your ask us for evidence, yet your argument is entirely predicated on the assertion that the "natural state of information conveyance" is inherently better. This argument is rendered paradoxical through being conveyed in an unnatural medium: the internet.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

err some confusion there folks by RobertLTux · 2013-09-18 05:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

okay we have 3 different groups to deal with

1 inventor type that don't market anything (they invent and then sell to a Maker)

2 Makers that have on staff inventor types (they make stuff "with our patented..."

3 Leech types that just beg, borrow , steal and Buy patents (Holding Corps that only send bills around)

Trolls are type 3 not type 1

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:err some confusion there folks by Sarten-X · 2013-09-18 05:57 · Score: 1

Type 3 buys patents from type 1, allowing type 1 to invent more (or recoup the initial investment).
That means that types 2 and 3 are effectively competitors, both trying to get the license from type 1. However, type 3 will buy from type 1 any time on speculation of future profit, whereas type 2 will only buy from type 1 when the patent is immediately useful. That's why type 3 is so often found associating with "pure research" type 1s, where profitable applications aren't clearly visible.
Those "leeches" provide the hedge bets that make invention a less-risky investment. Like any other risk-reducing entity, they take a cut of the profits in exchange for taking on the risk. It's not terribly different from buying insurance or investing with a diverse portfolio.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:err some confusion there folks by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-09-18 06:02 · Score: 1

Suppose you are an inventor. Perhaps you come up with something clever, but you cannot find a maker interested in making your widget. Or there are already a few making it but disputing their infringment of your patent (or simply using it without your knowledge), meaning massive legal fees before you can collect dollar one. In this case, the "IP venture" types can buy your patent. You get paid, and their market guys get to work finding makers interested in your invention, or they sick their legal department on makers who already use it.

The problem is not IP investors (your type 3); if you accept the basic idea of patents, and understand that inventors often lack the means to market or enforce their patent, then there is a legitimate market for people who buy patents and then do the legal legwork so they can turn a profit. The problem is threefold:
- The granting of overly broad patents, allowing the owners to tax the public for obvious stuff (Intellectual land-grab)
- The legal methods employed by some investors in IP (Legal extortion by what truly are patent trolls)
- The legal framework of patent law, for instance making it cheap to troll but expensive to mount a defense.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:err some confusion there folks by tgd · 2013-09-18 06:33 · Score: 1

okay we have 3 different groups to deal with
1 inventor type that don't market anything (they invent and then sell to a Maker)
2 Makers that have on staff inventor types (they make stuff "with our patented..."
3 Leech types that just beg, borrow , steal and Buy patents (Holding Corps that only send bills around)
Trolls are type 3 not type 1
The problem is, there's really two kinds of companies in bucket #3 -- patent licensing companies that handle licensing (and sometimes legally holding) patents on behalf of the people in #1 and #2, and patent aggregators that seek out and buy up bad patents as companies are failing for the express purpose of monetizing them until they're found invalid. You can tell the latter by the random nature of their litigation and the tendency to keep licensing costs in the "extortion" range where its cheaper to pay than fight. The former won't do that -- their job is to get appropriate licensing, and the small fish are of no concern.
There are lots of stories on here that lump companies in #1 into #2 on grounds of anti-patent zealotry, not corporate behavior or intent.
Re:err some confusion there folks by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2013-09-18 08:33 · Score: 1

Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Since Fifty Dollars already has no cents, and you only need to specify cents on non-exact dollar amounts, you could simply say "US$50" there and be done with it.

FTFY.

--
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-18 05:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

America is the country where you know that no matter how horrible and destructive someone's greed is, there will always be a news outlet to defend it.

NPE and Forbes by jbolden · 2013-09-18 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

More of less the article says that NPEs encourage innovation by allowing people to sell patents. Everyone agrees that patent trolls/ NPE by being willing to buy patents help to make having a portfolio of patents a valuable asset. That's not a point in question. The point in question is whether the damage NPEs cause exceeds the benefits of their funding since the money for those buys comes from lawsuits. And Forbes doesn't even attempt to answer that question. Lots of terrible things often have some side advantages that don't come close to covering the downside of the terrible thing.

Re:NPE and Forbes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 05:53 · Score: 1

Money to buy patents also comes off legitimate licensing fees from other patents.
As another poster positied, there could be pure research labs that turn things over to others for commercialization or marketing/manufacturing. I think a lot of the /. crowd would acknowledge Xerox parc and Bell Labs as doing a lot of useful research and turning up patents for their parent companies. Those guys didn't then start making and selling the widgets though. If you can make the leap from R&D to manufacturing, then having one corp do the research or design and another corp do the manufacturing then I think you're ok.
Its Sue first, last and always patent holders that are rent seeking tax on the productive mebers of society, and submarine patents ought to be illegal because of latches.

So, uh... by Tridus · 2013-09-18 05:43 · Score: 1

Those patents covered actual working models, not taking something that already exists, slapping "Mobile" in the description, and suing small businesses that are using it.

This article is out to lunch and written entirely to benefit the patent troll industry (which now finds itself drawing unwanted attention).

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates

For me it's easy... by Foske · 2013-09-18 05:43 · Score: 1

A company should only be allowed to use a patent in court when it is active in the field the patent describes and the use of the patent by other organizations reduces the market potential of this company. Exception are research organizations of course, for which market value must somehow be redefined. A very effective troll-be-gone method.

Make licensing compulsory by fustakrakich · 2013-09-18 05:47 · Score: 2

Since a patent is a government granted privilege, if you don't market your patented device, you must allow somebody to do so at a reasonable price, set by the government, if need be. If you want to consider patents as property, let's levy taxes on it and use eminent domain where necessary. (See the Wright Brothers patent on lateral control of the airplane)

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Make licensing compulsory by gnupun · 2013-09-18 10:37 · Score: 1

Since a patent is a government granted privilege, if you don't market your patented device, you must allow somebody to do so at a reasonable price, set by the government, if need be.
The government and the public are getting the better end of the patent deal -- free, useful ideas after 20 years. Plus, it's anti-competitive to force a patent holder to license his patent -- drastic reduction in patent holder's profits if he is forced to license them to a competitor.

If you want to consider patents as property, let's levy taxes on it and use eminent domain where necessary.

Once a patent is granted, the patent holder has to pay maintenance fees at regular intervals to the USPTO. So it's already taxed. If he doesn't pay the fees, any competitor can use it without compensation to the inventor.

NPEs truly aren't the problem by SecurityGuy · 2013-09-18 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is junk patents.

Imagine you invent a device that pulls water out of the air for free (unlike anything cold, which will do it for $$$). Anywhere. Even in a desert. This is a great innovation. I have zero problem with you selling your patent to someone else. The problem I have is that right after you invent this, a horde of lawyers will storm the patent office and patent things like drinking water that came from your device. Watering a lawn with water that came from your device. Making beer with water that came from your device.

The problem is the ridiculous deluge of patents for trivial and obvious things. They litter the business landscape and make it impossible to solve any real problem without tripping over them as you solve 100 trivial problems in obvious ways along the way. Cuz you know, who ever would have thought that the optimal number of clicks to buy something in would be 1? That must have taken a talented team of web developer (singular) literally hours to do.

Re:NPEs truly aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

This, this, a hundred times this.
One example I can think of is in the salt water aquarium hobby, particularly the reefkeeping segment. Some stupid patent examiner let a patent get through that covers lighting for saltwater aquaria that incorporates a timer and LEDs. 'Cause, you know, replacing frakking fluoros or HID lights with LEDs and sticking a timer in it's 'non-obvious' or some crap. Sued several emergent companies out of business, while not actually producing a product.
Re:NPEs truly aren't the problem by Derekloffin · 2013-09-18 06:05 · Score: 2

Pretty much. Put another way, the Patent system is being gamed now. It is like a really old server running old software, all the hacks are known and it will be serving porn within the hour. Patent system really isn't much different. The law is really old. All the cracks and exploits are now well known by the legal community, and it is now not doing its intended job, instead of the legal hackers are exploiting it.
Re:NPEs truly aren't the problem by TangoMargarine · 2013-09-18 08:10 · Score: 1

who ever would have thought that the optimal number of clicks to buy something in would be 1?
I don't get this idea. Unless there's an easy undo functionality for the transaction, if there's real-world money involved, I always want confirmation. So 2 clicks for me, please.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

missing from the article by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 05:50 · Score: 1

The difference between licensing and trolling is not actually highlighted in the article which is focused on the history of patent system in barely 200 words.
I want the five minutes of my life back.
Unsatisfied I'm off to av.com to search for real online debate on this issue.

Mostly the difference is real licencing has something useful people pay to use; trolling is trying to license something useful that people already use without paying: eg. when prior art exists from expert groups but the licensing costs are slightly lower than proving it in court.

Yes, second parent. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 05:50 · Score: 1

There are firms who's business model is to hire very smart people to innovate, invent, research, develop, and then patent - with the hopes that some firm will license their IP - and do all the nitty gritty manufacturing and distribution work - and then pay them a fee. It's a perfectly logical arrangement - some are great at inventing while others are great at making and marketing.

Win/Win.

Then there are those who buy or acquire IP - many times very vague IP - with the sole purpose to extort via the legal system.

Acid test: are the principals of the firm JDs (Folks who sat for the BAR?) - Trolls.

Any IP firm run by or owned by lawyers are Trolls.

Re:Yes, second parent. by phantomfive · 2013-09-18 05:55 · Score: 1

Any .... firm run by or owned by lawyers are Trolls.
Too true.

There's got to be a better way to run our legal system than lawyers.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

The real problem with patents by Skapare · 2013-09-18 05:52 · Score: 2

... is not that patents are bought and sold (this should be perfectly valid for valid patents). The real problem is that there are so many bad patents ... things that are not innovative at all ... things that don't fulfill the need to have a patent system. Once people start to understand what patents really are supposed to be, then we can solve the problem. It's not about trolls or software patents or things like that. It's about what justifies the government taking property rights away, and how that concept has been corrupted by corporations since the middle 1800's.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Re:The real problem with patents by shentino · 2013-09-18 07:26 · Score: 1

The system isn't broken, it's rigged.

Re:Almost never by tnk1 · 2013-09-18 05:54 · Score: 1

Troll or not, electricity and the light bulb and such did not suffer the possibility of completely being made unprofitable and undeployable by Edison or Westinghouse. In the sense that they may not have practiced personally, you may have a point.

However, it is important to differentiate between the patent "trolls" of yesteryear, who were actual semi-inventors running shops that did research and generated inventions (even if they claimed all the credit for other's work), and the patent trolls of today, who are almost all strictly law firms with a different name who simply buy the rights off someone else and do their best to make that patent into a robber baron's toll bridge regardless of the damage that the use of the patent will do to the very market that the invention is trying to contribute to.

Consider this... by mschaffer · 2013-09-18 05:58 · Score: 1

What if a bank, B, loans money to a startup, S, that is a small company where inventors have a few of their own patents, P. As part of the collateral for the loan, S assigns rights to B for the patents until the loan is repaid.
Startup S goes belly-up. The inventors blow through the cash and have nothing but the patents assigned to B.
B places S into receivership and sells rights to P.

By your definition of "patent troll", B and anyone buying rights to P are "patent trolls", but I don't' see it that way. If you wanted to remove all patent trolls, you will also make it almost impossible for a start-up company that only has intellectual property to get start-up capital.

Re:Consider this... by Overzeetop · 2013-09-18 06:15 · Score: 2

Make patents non-transferrable. Then they can't be used for collateral and there is no conflict at all.
" If you wanted to remove all patent trolls, you will also make it almost impossible for a start-up company that only has intellectual property to get start-up capital."
I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Consider this... by mellon · 2013-09-18 06:17 · Score: 1

The patent still has value to practicing entities, just not to NPEs. But your basic point is correct—getting rid of NPEs won't solve the patent problem. Granting patents to all comers is like selling arms to all sides in a civil war. Sure, it's fair, but wouldn't it be better to get them to disarm and resolve their differences some other way?
Re:Consider this... by Rinikusu · 2013-09-18 06:20 · Score: 5, Funny

"How much would we have to pay 'the Patent Holder' for licensing of their shitty little patent?"
"$50 million a year, sir."
"What's contract killers going for on Silk Road?"
"$15k/head"
"How many patent holders?"
"Six are listed." ...
"let's save ourselves over $49 million bucks. Fire up Tor."

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Consider this... by mschaffer · 2013-09-18 07:32 · Score: 1

Restricting the sale of patents to PEs reduces the value of the intellectual property. Besides, in my example, most banks would be an NPE.
The problem is not that "granting patents to all comers is like selling arms to all sides in a civil war". Who is to decide who the PEs are? Who has the right to restrict how these are traded?
Rather, the real problem is that the patent system is broken---issuing patents for inventions that, as a whole, lack inventive steps or are very obvious to those PEs at the time patents are issued.

Until 1880 this was not a problem. by tlambert · 2013-09-18 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Until 1880 this was not a problem.

Up until that point, there was a requirement of production of a working model, also known as a Reduction To Practice. After 1880, you could patent whatever, and get away with never having produced anything other than the speculation that your idea might be reduced to practice using some future engineering or technical ability which did not exist at the date of filing.

One common alternative method of patent reform is to bring back this requirement, and to place the model in escrow. In the limit, this permits future study of the model, whether it be hardware, or a process patent for software. This would incidentally remove patent protection from soft processes, such as business model process patents, which people tend to find very objectionable as abuses of the patent system.

Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by BenfromMO · 2013-09-18 06:10 · Score: 1

This should still be a requirement in my mind. If you can not build it or refuse to build at least a small proto-type, what use is the invention going to be for mankind when even the inventor refuses to build it?
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by geekoid · 2013-09-18 06:34 · Score: 1

You can't bring back the requirement, it's overly burdensome.
I have a patent for a omni-transducer polymer. I can't afford to get it made, so what? only people with money should be allowed to patent?
Of course, the person who invented the LASER would never have been able to gat a patent with Reduction to Practice, and last I checked, the LASER was pretty damn useful.
And yes, business models, or any 'model' should be removed, a should software; which should be protected by copyright.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by Skapare · 2013-09-18 06:54 · Score: 1

I agree ... that requirement is burdensome. But there does need to be some kind of showing of innovation. It seems that 99% if patents are for things lots of people could easily do.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by istartedi · 2013-09-18 07:40 · Score: 1

It's my understanding that it wasn't particularly burdensome to inventors at the time. It was a burden on the patent office because they were running out of space to store the models. Can you imagine what would happen if they had to do that now? There'd be entire warehouses filled with nothing but abdominal muscle workout machines.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by rollingcalf · 2013-09-18 07:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

They need to bring back the working model requirement. If you can't produce a working model, maybe your idea won't work exactly as written, but if your patent would block others from making a variation which works.
For cases where the working model is too expensive or time-consuming for the inventor to build, grant the patent provisionally with the requirement that a working model must be produced within 7 years. If no working model is produced by then, the patent automatically goes up for auction (alternatively the inventor can sell it or put it up for auction before that), with auction proceeds going to the inventor. Whoever buys that patent has to produce a working model before they can sue anybody for infringement.
With that system, the inventor can still get paid for what they invent even if building a working model is beyond their capabilities.

--
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 09:16 · Score: 1

I have a patent for a omni-transducer polymer. I can't afford to get it made, so what? only people with money should be allowed to patent?
Here's the problem: if you haven't made it, you haven't invented anything. You may have some ideas about how to invent the thing, but you have not actually done so. And though I know you're a very clever boy, you're not the only one capable of thinking such things, not by a long shot. Which brings us right to the issue at hand, because we are seeing what happens when patents are allowed for things which the "inventor" hasn't actually created.
As for only people with money being allowed to patent, well, for some classes of inventions, yep. Sorry, it's the way of the world. Or do you think you're going to create the cure for cancer in your basement chemistry lab? Oh, that's right. You're going to come up with some hare-brained idea of how it might work, then when somebody actually does create it, you'll expect them to show up at your door with wheelbarrows of money, because you did the hard part, right?
And people wonder why the system is broken.
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by JesseMcDonald · 2013-09-18 10:12 · Score: 1

Why would they need to store the models? Document it thoroughly, make sure it works the way the application says it does, and then archive the digital data. The submitter can keep the prototype.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by jbolden · 2013-09-18 10:54 · Score: 1

OK, so what? We know how to build warehouses. Compared to the cost of lawsuits involving bogus patents build an extra 5000 warehouses.
Re:Until 1880 this was not a problem. by jbolden · 2013-09-18 10:55 · Score: 1

You will need it for the lawsuits. It has to be stored.

Theory vs. Practice by Schnapple · 2013-09-18 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

In theory what a NPE does is actually quite admirable. You're an inventor and you invented something and you have a patent and big companies rip you off. They know you can't afford to fight them so they just do what they want. So you sell your patent to someone like Intellectual Ventures who goes after the big companies for you. Now no one can make your widget bolt without paying you, as it should be.

And look what's happened - even giant companies are scared shitless to defend against patent lawsuits. In that respect, the idea worked.

In practice though what happens is minute, even trivial things get patented and NPE's go looking for people to sue, using a byzantine series of shell companies and borderline gaming of the legal system. Whereas the inventor of the widget bolt has to make the exact specifications of how his bolt works open to the public (who could also just figure it out by looking at it) software companies don't have to make the source code of their patented inventions available to anyone.

NPE's to me are like the NRA or PETA - organizations/concepts which started out with noble intentions (responsible gun ownership, don't torture animals) and just strayed way off the mark.

--

Schnapple

Re:Theory vs. Practice by Skapare · 2013-09-18 07:01 · Score: 1

The problem is that too many of the patents are not innovative. Anyone can make a widget bolt. That patent should have never been issued.
NRA did not stray off ... it was pulled off track by the "ban all guns" lobby. The problem today is even well intentioned changes like "background checks for mental illness everywhere" risks the slippery slope, and the "pro guns" lobby has to fight even that to be sure "ban all guns" isn't where we end up. To fix this, liberals need to show, by their actions, they are no longer wanting to "ban all guns", just to get "better background checks" through. Sad.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Theory vs. Practice by shentino · 2013-09-18 07:31 · Score: 1

Better yet is to make it so NPE's or PAE's aren't needed int he first place.
Big corporations ripping off small fry inventors is the root of hte problem? Attack the problem directly and hold the corporations accountable for being rip-off artists.
Re:Theory vs. Practice by Schnapple · 2013-09-18 08:00 · Score: 1

Yeah... you have no idea what you're talking about.

Listen to Act Two of this episode of This American Life. The example they hunt down to its conclusion has one guy, Chris Crawford, selling his patent to IV and in turn he gets 10% of whatever they get on it (which considering IV was settling with dozens of firms for fucktons of dollars in perpetuity, is not too shabby).

Once IV does your dirty work for you, you'll never need to make widget bolts again.

--
Schnapple

Troll vs legitimate non-practicing entity by David+Muir+Sharnoff · 2013-09-18 06:03 · Score: 1

What makes a troll a troll is the behavior of trying to get money from people for doing what they are already doing. There is no value add. A legitimate non-practicing entity, on the other hand, gets money by getting people do do something new that they were not already doing.

The distinction is clear and simple. If you approach me and tell me I need a license to do what I'm already doing, you're a troll. That's the only way to be a troll.

Re:Troll vs legitimate non-practicing entity by geekoid · 2013-09-18 06:14 · Score: 1

Bullshit
If you are violating a patent, then it is perfectly normal, and expect, for the patent holder to demand you stop or pay royalties.
And yes, it might takes some time for then to discover you are violating the patent.
Read you last sentence again, you are basically saying 'If I do it then you have no patent protection'.
If they patent after you are in the market place, then it's trolling.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Troll vs legitimate non-practicing entity by magisterx · 2013-09-18 09:46 · Score: 1

"If you are violating a patent, then it is perfectly normal, and expect, for the patent holder to demand you stop or pay royalties."
That depends very much on the industry and the market conditions. Patents are often acquired with no intention of ever demanding anyone stop. They are sometimes acquired, especially by young startups, to add value in the eyes of investors. They may be licensed in conjunction with consulting agreements and transfers of know-how where the patent really does serve as closer to an advertisement than what the licensee is really buying. They are also often acquired for "defensive purposes" with no intention to ever sue unless the other party sues first..

The answer is no by grumpyman · 2013-09-18 06:04 · Score: 1

"Is there a right way to trade in patents for profit without abusing the process" - as long as it's not illegal, in a capitalist society somebody will find a more 'efficient' way to do things.

Re:The answer is no by Overzeetop · 2013-09-18 06:21 · Score: 1

Sure - compulsory licensing for IP, just like is done for mechanical rights of recordings; though I would favor a sliding scale of payment based on the quantity. You're ALWAYS allowed to negotiate a lower rate, but any patent may be licensed for production for a fixed rate simply by filing a form.
It puts a cap on what you can and cannot do, and it makes compliance very easy. Without it, the entire semi-pro music field would grind to a halt.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

It is trolling when... by BenfromMO · 2013-09-18 06:06 · Score: 1

You patent things just to patent them and hope to eventually extort money from others as opposed to actually using said patent.

It's never trolling by geekoid · 2013-09-18 06:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't let the ignorant convince you otherwise.

Trolling is when you great a broader patent in order to try to claim royalties on existing patents.

This nonsense about people trying to protect their rights, or license their patent, is trolling is a pile of crap.
Generally supported by anti tort groups(i,e, insurance companies) that want to strip inventors of their rights.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

That's true... by mschaffer · 2013-09-18 06:12 · Score: 1

Yes, most of his patents were put in his name, but that's not why he was evil.

Troll Definition by NEDHead · 2013-09-18 06:13 · Score: 1

1) A Patent Troll is a person or entity who tries to extort payments from any entity for utilizing a patented process or design that should never have been patented.

2) A patent holder seeking to receive compensation for the utilization of a patent shall not be deemed a 'Troll' if said patent holder is me.

Thomas Edison - ick by nurb432 · 2013-09-18 06:13 · Score: 1

Was NOT a great inventor. He was a businessman that took credit for his employees work. He also worked them like dogs, and lied to them. He may have been needed at the time to coordinate/etc, but that doesn't mean he should get credit for what he couldn't do.

Just read some of Tesla's notes about what happened, the guy was a total 'bag.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Thomas Edison - ick by Ksevio · 2013-09-18 08:03 · Score: 1

He also was a great inventor before he opened his lab. Just because the Internet has an obsession over Tesla, doesn't make everything you read about Edison true (or make up for the stuff you don't read).
Re:Thomas Edison - ick by king+neckbeard · 2013-09-18 09:08 · Score: 1

He wasn't a great inventor. He was a marginally talented inventor with a knack for business. His contributions were not great technological advances, but they often did have great commercial value in the environment he operated within. The carbon filament, for example was a very minor element in the advancement of lightbulbs. However, it made a big impact in the commercial viability. Better vacuums were the really heavy lifting, and Edison's filament was replaced soon anyway. He had a gift for being an opportunist, which isn't inherently bad, but he was mediocre in regards to his abilities as an inventor. If he had any gift, it was in his work ethic.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Thomas Edison - ick by nurb432 · 2013-09-18 10:01 · Score: 1

As stated and proven out by real research, he was a business man, and an ass. ( but that often goes together ). I did say he had value since he corralled talent and funded research, just not as some 'great inventor'.
I bet i have read more about Tesla alone than everything you have read in your entire life ( not all have even been published btw ). How many of his patents have you reproduced in your garage? Have you been on the ground in Croatia to trace his roots? I doubt it.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Thomas Edison - ick by Ksevio · 2013-09-18 10:14 · Score: 1

Being an expert on Tesla doesn't make you an expert on Edison. Maybe you should broaden your reading. Is Tesla the only one who can attain the rank of "great inventor"? Weren't the phonograph or the quadruplex telegraph or the dozens of inventions relating to telegraphs and sound he invented BEFORE he even opened his lab great inventions?
Re:Thomas Edison - ick by Ksevio · 2013-09-18 10:15 · Score: 1

How many great inventors are there? Only Tesla?
Re:Thomas Edison - ick by nurb432 · 2013-09-18 10:39 · Score: 1

Is Tesla the only one who can attain the rank of "great inventor"?
No, of course not, as that would be silly. There was Leonardo too.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Thomas Edison - ick by king+neckbeard · 2013-09-18 13:20 · Score: 1

The notion of a great inventor is a myth. There are people who contribute more than others, but it is a function of the flow of information and some other factor more than the greatness. Basically, we are standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. That said, Edison was nothing special even amongst those, certainly not to the extent that school children are taught about him.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

There are four types, silly by robot256 · 2013-09-18 06:13 · Score: 1

Type 3a firms are good--they buy patents from inventors and seek out companies who want to bring in new ideas by buying or licensing a patent.

Type 3b firms are patent trolls--they buy patents and seek out companies already using the patent in order to extort money from them.

The problem is that in many fields (like software and computer design) there are simply so many engineers working on any given problem that it is almost impossible to avoid the simultaneous/independent invention of any given idea. In that environment, telling one inventor that he has to pay someone else because they did the paperwork first is an insult to his intelligence. This is compounded by the fact that so many ideas are either a) mathematically optimal, which anyone could derive and everyone wants to use, and/or b) part of an interoperability standard where licensing constraints reduce competition, derivative works, open-source tools, etc.

Edison is maybe not the best example by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2013-09-18 06:13 · Score: 1

I'm not saying that Edison wasn't smart and didn't accomplish anything, but do keep in mind that in a lot of cases he just simply improved what others did before him, profiting off the heavy lifting that others did. He promoted things that weren't really all that good to begin with such as the current wars. It's known that he took credit for things that were actually done by people who worked for him. And finally, it's not well known today, but you can research how his motion picture patents put the early motion picture business under his total control and it took deliberate, illegal violations of his patents to get the movie industry established in Hollywood. In fact, one of the reasons Hollywood got started was to be completely on the other side of the US from Edison and thus in a place harder for him to control. If I remember correctly the US government eventually had a conversion experience and invalidated those motion picture patents when it became convenient for them to do so because Edison was basically using them to prevent all competition. Then again, maybe he is a perfect example for this kind of discussion but not because he benefited society but precisely because his goal was pure old greed and to use his patents to remove competition so he could make more money.

Article's Definition of NPE is Incorrect by BBF_BBF · 2013-09-18 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

After I RTFA, I realized that the authors' definition of NPE is a company that doesn't PHYSICALLY MANUFACTURE the product. And it's doubly disappointing that one author WAS the DIRECTOR of the patent office from 2004-2009. I wonder why the patent office is so screwed up?

It lists Qualcomm as an NPE!?!?! WTF!?! I guess it's because they don't FAB the chips themselves.

Qualcomm sells chips THEY DESIGN using their IP, they just CONTRACT OUT the device to others to build. How is that NOT an Practicing Entity?!? They also license out their patents for worldwide standards (WCDMA) that they may not have any part in the manufacture of the devices that use that standard.

So by the Authors' definition of NPE, Apple is also an NPE because they contract the assembly of their I-devices to other companies and don't actually FAB their A7 processors?

Meh.

Re:Article's Definition of NPE is Incorrect by Rinikusu · 2013-09-18 07:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

What would you consider ARM Holdings? They don't make anything, either, they just employ a bunch of engineers to design and come up with CPU solutions for various problems (using the ARM architecture, obviously). And, of course, they patent their designs and then let approved licensors fab their designs (with and without approved modifications). Honestly, I'd say that ARM is the type of NPE that's "doing it right". Not only are they protecting their patents, but they are steadily trying to improve the state of the art and continuing to push forward. I think the key difference is, you can *buy* a Qualcomm branded chip (I've got a snapdragon in one of my phones, for instance). However, you're most likely never going to be able to buy an ARM Holdings chip, even though it's their designs (many of which Qualcomm uses and modifies). It's a subtle difference, but it does change the frame of the question.
Now, trying to compare guys who think they patented, I dunno, hypertext 7 years after the fact, that's absurd. :/

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai

Invention and Implementation by psydeshow · 2013-09-18 06:15 · Score: 2

Layman's answer:
It's trolling when the party seeking to enforce their patent rights has no intention of selling an actual working implementation on the open market.

If the purpose of your company is to make money by licensing an idea, rather than selling a product or service that incorporates that idea, then you're a troll. The system shouldn't allow you to feed on other companies and individuals that are using that idea in their own products or services.

Nobody cares if an inventor sells a patent to a manufacturer or a service provider who will actually use it, that's how the system is supposed to work. But holding companies and the builders of defensive portfolios should have no place at the table.

Also, just because business has been conducted a certain way up till now, doesn't mean that's the best way to conduct business. Thomas Edison wasn't a saint, he ruthlessly exploited the inspiration and perspiration of everyone who worked for him and went to great lengths to crush his competitors. WE CAN DO BETTER, is the point.

Re:Invention and Implementation by dkleinsc · 2013-09-18 07:06 · Score: 1

I'd have a different answer:
- It's legitimate licensing when you either are the firm using the patent, or approach them with reasonable terms before they produce the product.
- It's trolling when you look for a successful product using an idea patented by somebody else, buy the patent, and then threaten to sue.
So let's say I have a patented process to harvest hemp that's more efficient than everyone else's. I find out that John Deere is working on a new line of harvester, so I go to Deere and say "I have a patented process for a hemp attachment that will make your harvester work better than anything anyone has built before. If you're interested, I can license it to you for X% of your earnings from that product line." That's different than if I have the same patent, wait until Deere has built a nice business from it, and sent a letter to Deere saying "Hang on, you owe me $14 gajillion."

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Invention and Implementation by Rinikusu · 2013-09-18 08:06 · Score: 1

Whoops, I replied to the wrong post. However, I think you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater with this approach because someone like ARM Holdings, who design and control the ARM line of processors many of us use and adore, are exactly that: They exist solely to design, license, and modify their designs. They don't have a fab and from what I can tell, you just can't go down to Fry's and buy an ARM branded CPU (although you can buy Qualcomm and others who license their technology). So, it's not so clear cut. I don't consider ARM Holdings a patent troll, at all.

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:Invention and Implementation by Common+Joe · 2013-09-20 01:09 · Score: 1

It's trolling when the party seeking to enforce their patent rights has no intention of selling an actual working implementation on the open market.
Yup. This is why when revising the patent system (or copyright system as well), there needs to be a place where people or businesses can license the use of the patent (or copyright). No one is denied the ability to pay for and use it. The price is the same across the board for every company or person. Hoarding the intellectual property should be absolutely impossible.
A few others (this story, different thread) also pointed out that bad patents are granted too easily. Yeah. That absolutely needs to end too.

When is it not trolling? Easy by nurb432 · 2013-09-18 06:15 · Score: 2

When you have entities taking advantage of what you invented, and you have no choice but to involve the courts to force them to do the right thing.

Anything else is a troll.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Almost never by mellon · 2013-09-18 06:19 · Score: 1

Perhaps you could explain why that difference is important? Both outcomes seem bad to me.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by gnupun · 2013-09-18 06:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Wrong, you're twisting their words. This is what they say:

This is what some media commentators ignore when they try to tar all non-practicing entities with the same brush as abusive patent trolls.

NPEs (non-practicing entities) are people who don't manufacture products based on their patents, they just license the patents. Patent trolls are a subset of NPEs who abuse the patent system by blackmailing the public and companies with obvious, non-innovative and/or overly broad patents. The point being, not all NPEs and their patents are evil.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 06:29 · Score: 1

Rent seeking is not innovation.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 06:36 · Score: 1

No, they are rent seeking for the sake of rent seeking. If they wanted innovation they would produce something or seek out someone to produce the thing.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by Rob+Y. · 2013-09-18 06:39 · Score: 1

At some level, they have a point. It's not really patent trolls that are the problem - it's what's being patented. You couldn't sit on a patented idea and wait for implementations to appear before suing if ideas weren't being granted patents in the first place. Of course our corrupt political system isn't about to write unambiguous rules that disallow software patents or gesture patents or file format patents, etc. So cracking down on non-practicing entities is the only solution available at the moment.

I wonder if Forbes would weigh in on bad patents as strongly as they do in their reflexive support for trolls.

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...

Simple by Virtucon · 2013-09-18 06:43 · Score: 1

A Patent Troll is a term used by a practicing entity to describe a patent holder that tries to collect license fees, usually in a hostile fashion, for use of their perceived intellectual property. Instead of calling them a "Weenie" they're a Patent Troll. What we all have to realize is that history has numerous examples of NPEs and Inventors who created novel inventions but weren't necessarily the prime manufacturer involving the technology. Thomas Edison and Rudolph Diesel are two inventors that come to mind but there are many others. What's missing from the conversation is what is a novel invention and that's the crux of the matter. When you start allowing patents for icons and rounded corners that's not a novel invention and it's a glaring deficiency within the patent system that allows it. That's why I don't think you should focus on NPEs or Patent Trolls per sey, but should go back and say "What is patentable?" If software patents are valid, then they need to describe something that's not obvious and novel; they should have a limited life span, say 7 years to ensure that you don't have companies monopolizing whole sectors of technology because they were there first. If you raised the bar and reduced the life span of Software Patents, you'd then find a lot of tech R&D money freed up that's currently feeding lawyers

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by ShanghaiBill · 2013-09-18 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

they just license the patents.

You make it sound like they hire a salesperson to go around and market their patent to potential customers. Or maybe you think the customers search for useful patents to license and then contact the inventor. Neither of these scenarios is common. What is common, is for the NPE to just sit on the patent, wait for someone to independently come up with the same innovation, and then demand payment. This is not contributing anything positive to the process.

Indeed, problem is inability to sue USPTO by michaelmalak · 2013-09-18 06:53 · Score: 2

The problem is junk patents

And the cause of junk patents is the distorted economy of issuing patents. USPTO gets paid for every patent they issue, good or bad, yet are immune from lawsuits from the businesses they negatively impact by their bad behavior.

The term for this immunity is royal perogative.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by shentino · 2013-09-18 07:05 · Score: 1

A news outlet most likely owned by the greedy person in the first place.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by gnupun · 2013-09-18 07:07 · Score: 1

Rent seeking is not innovation.

Newsflash! All businesses are rent seeking. This does not mean rent seeking is illegal/immoral. A professional also seeks rent (salary) based on his knowledge and skill, but he has to put in additional labor himself to extract that rent, whereas business get that labor done with machinery and/or employees.

If you work as an employee and reuse the same knowledge and skills over and over again to perform your job, you are rent seeking. Businesses are just more efficient at rent collecting than employees.

Re:The rules are simple by Skapare · 2013-09-18 07:07 · Score: 1

Any company that tries to collect on using XOR to implement a cursor on a bit graphic screen with text is a troll, even if they filed the original patent. This is an example of non-innovation.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Is it promoting progress? by uncoveror · 2013-09-18 07:11 · Score: 1

Patent is based on the same constitutional clause as copyright. It is meant to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by granting temporary exclusive rights to authors and inventors. A patent held by someone other than the inventor goes against that. Grabbing a buck by stifling progress is what corporations that buy patents do. I am not aware of a single case where a corporation that bought out a patent promoted progress.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 07:12 · Score: 1

Not all businesses are rent seeking. The grocer does not seek rent, nor is salary anything like rent. It is a simple exchange of time for money.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-18 07:22 · Score: 1

No, frequently it's owned by Rupert Murdoch or the House of Saud.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by TheRaven64 · 2013-09-18 07:24 · Score: 1

The obvious distinction is whether they invest a engineering effort in developing things. Most patent trolls just buy up patents and then try to turn them into money. Companies like ARM also don't make things, but the stuff that they license has obvious value: creating it independently from scratch would require a lot of time and money. Typically, these companies don't just license patents, they also provide detailed designs, engineering support, and so on.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by gnupun · 2013-09-18 07:26 · Score: 1

Not all businesses are rent seeking. The grocer does not seek rent ...

If the grocer does not receive a minimum amount X per month (the rent) from his business to cover his business and personal costs, he will have to shut down his business.

...nor is salary anything like rent. It is a simple exchange of time for money.

Yeah, right. You forgot to mention the skills needed to obtain that salary. The job skills are learnt once and reused throughout the career. Skilled labor -- people collecting rent on supplying skills to customers through their employers. Why should programmers draw a salary of $30-$100/hr when burger flippers pull in only $7.50 or similar? It's about the skills the programmer possesses that allows him/her to be more productive than the blue collar worker.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 07:29 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Please read that. Rent is a specific thing, neither of those are rent. As they actually create wealth.

You are wrong about the laser. by tlambert · 2013-09-18 07:36 · Score: 2

Of course, the person who invented the LASER would never have been able to gat a patent with Reduction to Practice, and last I checked, the LASER was pretty damn useful.

You are wrong about the laser. You need to read:

The Laser Odyssey
Theodore Maiman
ISBN: 0970292704

The original inventor of the laser almost lost out on his patent because he believed that there was still a "reduction to practice" requirement. The difference in the time to invention to reduction as a period of a bout 3 years.

Historical example of patents blocking competition by amaurea · 2013-09-18 07:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Patents slowing down progress by discouraging use and hindering competitors is not new, but has been going on since the beginning of the patent system. The beginning chapter of Against Intellectual Monopoly details the case of the steam engine, where progress in efficiency and adoption of the steam engine was effectively halted for the duration of Watt's patents, only to take off right after they expired.

Once Watt’s patents were secured and production started, a substantial portion of his energy was devoted to fending off rival inventors. In 1782, Watt secured an additional patent, made “necessary in consequence of ... having been so unfairly anticipated, by [Matthew] Wasborough in the crank motion.” More dramatically, in the 1790s, when the superior Hornblower engine was put into production, Boulton and Watt went after him with the full force of the legal system. During the period of Watt’s patents the U.K. added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt’s patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year. Moreover, the fuel efficiency of steam engines changed little during the period of Watt’s patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five. After the expiration of Watt’s patents, not only was there an explosion in the production and efficiency of engines, but steam power came into its own as the driving force of the industrial revolution. Over a thirty year period steam engines were modified and improved as crucial innovations such as the steam train, the steamboat and the steam jenny came into wide usage. The key innovation was the high-pressure steam engine – development of which had been blocked by Watt’s strategic use of his patent.

The above is just a short section, they go through the case very thoroughly (with references), and it is worth a read. Interestingly, the steam engine is often quoted by patent proponents as an example of patents working like they are supposed to.

okay..small minds at work by mschaffer · 2013-09-18 07:58 · Score: 1

Upon the death of the patent holders, the IP will still be transferred to either personal estates or will be retained by their companies. Mafia-style hits will not gain the IP in this way.

After fixing bad patents by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2013-09-18 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

The next step to turning a "licensing organization" into a legitimate business is to have it advertise its portfolio, in a market analogous to Programmer's Paradise, rather than remain silent until ambushing real businesses with threatened litigation.

Imagine if you got ads instead of C&D letters! "We hear you're working on nails for building houses in hurricane-prone areas. We can save you tons of expensive R&D and get you to market quicker if you license our patent that documents the measurements and manufacturing process for Hurriquake® nails."

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-18 08:03 · Score: 1

No, they are rent seeking for the sake of rent seeking. If they wanted innovation they would produce something or seek out someone to produce the thing.

Which is the distinction the Forbes quote makes. Some NPEs license their patents to manufacturers and make money that way. Other NPEs don't license anything, they just sit there for a few years until someone comes up with a similar product on their own, and then sue them for patent infringement.

In other words, the group "patent trolls" is a subset of the group "non-practicing entities". On that basis, I fail to see what your problem really is.

.
And please stop with the "rent seeking" crap. Not everything boils down to Karl Marx.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by h4rr4r · 2013-09-18 08:07 · Score: 1

What is wrong with the term rent seeking?
Adam Smith the father of modern capitalism used the term, do you have a problem with him?

Do you think Marx did not have an accurate critique of capitalism? He might have not understood history or been able to predict the future but his critique of capitalism was first rate.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by blackraven14250 · 2013-09-18 08:09 · Score: 2

Adding to this, companies like ARM provide even more than that. They research and design new equipment. That's the most important part, IMO. If there's a company that does a lot of research, and patents a lot of things, ala Bell Labs, then licenses out those patents, the company isn't trolling.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by bmk67 · 2013-09-18 08:10 · Score: 1

Newsflash - they did. By licensing it to someone who DID have the capability to produce it.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by suutar · 2013-09-18 08:21 · Score: 1

by putting in the labor, the professional is creating some amount of wealth, which is contrary to the definition of "rent seeking". If he weren't creating some amount of wealth, his employer wouldn't have any reason to pay him.

licensing vs transfer by utoddl · 2013-09-18 08:36 · Score: 1

I have no problem with licensing of patents. What I find absurd is the notion of transfer of patents. If someone invents something they ought to be able to profit from it even if they don't produce. But what sense is there in allowing trolls to buy innovation rights from others?

"Patents: license them or lose them. No sales or transferes allowed." Soon as they make me king.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-18 09:16 · Score: 1

The term 'rent seeking' is archaic in modern monetary policy. It was from a time when very few people owned property, and therefor could charge someone 95% of their profit for use of land or a building. That is no longer the case. Many people own land. Even if a business owner doesn't own the land/building he uses, he is able to negotiate between many land owners to get a price that allows him to run the business and make a profit, while still putting food on his family's table.

Alternatively, a business owner with a little money built up can finance buying a piece of land, of the thousands of parcels available, with and without buildings.

So, do I have a problem with someone 300 years ago describing their contemporary situation accurately? No, I have no problem with someone doing so.

Do I have a problem with someone now describing their contemporary situation as if it is still the 1700's? Yes, I have a problem with that.

And on the mention of someone describing their contemporary situation as if it was the same as before, Karl Marx had many insightful ways of looking at business, labor, mankind, and society. He also abused that insight by pretending it was still the 1700s, and making up great scenarios that hadn't existed for decades.

I'm going through my copy of "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx", as translated by Martin Milligan and published by Prometheus Books in 1988, ISBN 0-87975-446-X. Marx quotes Smith extensively as a basis for the philosophy behind rent, and reasons for higher and lower values of rent.

Marx writes, "The rent of land is established as a result of the struggle between tenant and landlord. We find that the hostile antagonism of interests, the struggle, the war is recognized throughout political economy as the basis of social organization." (p. 55)

I wish I could quote the whole of his essay here, but it is too long to do so, and to complicated for me to abridge. Suffice it to say it is based on "feudal landed property", which hardly exists today, and for a large part was on its way out when he wrote about it.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

When they do more than license by magisterx · 2013-09-18 09:42 · Score: 1

A company can be a non-practicing entity in the sense of not producing an actual product and still be a valid and useful part of the economy if they are genuinely providing the know how that goes along with the patent. The quoted article makes reference to Thomas Eddison, and it is true that he primarily focused on actually inventing rather than building and selling his inventions. But (at least most of the time) when he licensed the patent he also provided the knowledge and advice needed to actually produce those inventions.

Todays patent trolls do not do that. They often don't actually know how to create the product in question or how to use the patent if some possible licensee actually wanted to pay for consulting. Instead they wait for someone else to build something that sort of looks like it might be covered by the patent and then sue. Eddison provided value to the world, they do not.

trashy Software Patents by sabt-pestnu · 2013-09-18 09:53 · Score: 1

Software Engineering is pure logic, filtered through languages, APIs, etc. Given this problem and this desired outcome, there exists only a limited set of possible "logical devices" that will get there. In this sense, all programs are math, and thus should not be subject to patenting at all.

There is also the very blurry line between patents and copyright re software. Google vs Oracle comes to mind.

A bit of a stretch by sjames · 2013-09-18 10:38 · Score: 1

That' a bit of a stretch of the definition. Neither Edison nor Howe fit the common definition of NPE since they actively promoted their patents. In contrast, the NPE hides it in a deep dark corner and sits back until some poor slob steps in it.

Most NPEs don't even do the inventing, they just buy up patents from people too broke to ever get their patent into practice.

What's not to understand by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-18 11:48 · Score: 1

Did we pass an amendment that no one remembers? Patents are not part of the free market--they are the complete opposite conceptually. A patent is a limited monopoly enforced by government. Also the U.S. Constitution specifies the original author and no one else. There is no provision for trading or hoarding them, because they are not private property to dispose of at the whim of the applicant, much less a rights-less tax entity like a vulture capital corporation. And U.S. code doesn't supersede constitutional requirements, despite Disney's objections.

I think the USPTO should collect a $100,000 transfer fee every time a patent moves between owners other than the original author. All these patent disputes cost the taxpayer millions. I am all for punitive, predatory taxation of extra-constitutional activities.

NRA supports background checks, training etc. by raymorris · 2013-09-18 11:56 · Score: 1

You have a valid point. It's also worth noting that the NRA regularly supports bills requiring background checks, mandatory training to get a CHL, etc. Of course as you said they also have to watch out for slippery slopes.

12 trolls, hundreds of NPEs with salespeople by raymorris · 2013-09-18 12:12 · Score: 2

MOST patent suits are filed by one of twelve companies. There are hundreds of companies who actively try to license their IP, like Arm and Bell Labs do.

The "good" scenario is in fact the common one. The bad scenario is the one you see covered on Slashdot.
Also from time to time Slashdot covers a story of proper patent use, but in a totally misleading way so as to make it sound bad. For example, last week we had the story of Cisco wanting to come to the rescue when a big bad patent troll was suing defenseless defendants. The big bad wolf in that case is a nonprofit organization and the "defenseless victims" are AT&T, Comcast, Level3, and Time Warner.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-18 16:05 · Score: 1

On a whim, and not being an economist, I decided to see what the term 'rent seeking' means beyond the common sense parsing of the words.

Sure enough, a quick look at wikipedia shows it is used to mean "an attempt to obtain economic rent, (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use), by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth."

Just below that, is mentions the origin of the term, which is in line with what I posted in my response: "The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land."

So, as far as I was ignorant of the meaning of the term, and assumed it referred more directly to the concepts of Marx and others before him, I was wrong to jump on h4rr4r about it. I apologize.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Most importantly: by Ihlosi · 2013-09-18 18:56 · Score: 1

Have an actually relevant, innovative patent.

Most patent trolling is done using obscure "inventions" that barely (if at all) satisfy the criterion "innovative".

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-09-18 22:06 · Score: 1

No, they are rent seeking for the sake of rent seeking. If they wanted innovation they would produce something or seek out someone to produce the thing.

Yeah, cos Dolby Labs, the example NPE quoted in TFA (you did RTFA, didn't you?) never innovate at all, do they?

This sort of "non-practicing entity" is actually better for innovation than many practicing entities, because they actively license to multiple parties, as it serves to get them greater profit. As a result, the invention is more widely available. Meanwhile, many actually practicing entities use patents far more abusively, more troll-like, than an NPE like Dolby Labs, using their patents to actively block other manufacturers from competing with them, stifling innovation.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-09-18 22:21 · Score: 1

I wonder if Forbes would weigh in on bad patents as strongly as they do in their reflexive support for trolls.

RTFA. The final line:

This is what some media commentators ignore when they try to tar all non-practicing entities with the same brush as abusive patent trolls.

They do not support trolls.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by Pascoea · 2013-09-19 00:57 · Score: 1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/09/17/give-back-yes-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/ I'm sure nobody needed to point out a fantastic example, but I'm going to anyway. This article honestly pissed me off. I thought I had wandered on to The Onion, but nope, its Forbes. And yup, that was a %100 percent serious article.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by V+for+Vendetta · 2013-09-19 02:57 · Score: 1

To me, being non-practicing is the very definition of patent trolling.

Ever heard of the Fraunhofer Institute (of MP3 fame) or its sibling, the Max Planck Society?

These are dedicated research centers, partly financed by the tax payer. Their very goal is to invent and create patents and license them.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by h4rr4r · 2013-09-19 04:36 · Score: 1

No need to apologize. I was rather confused when you stated it was an outdated term. I would have responded, but I was not allowed to by slashdot. Silly 30 posts in 4 hours limit. I agree the term is confusing to someone who is not familiar with it.

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by cundare · 2013-09-19 04:45 · Score: 1

>You make it sound like they hire a salesperson to go around and market their patent to potential customers. Or maybe you think the customers search for useful patents to license and then contact the inventor. Neither of these scenarios is common.

Not true. Variations of the first scenario are quite common. Your argument is circular. If you define "NPE" as an entity that engages exclusively in trolling abuses, then the only conclusion is that NPEs are abusers. It is certainly possible for a small inventor to create something new and valuable, but not have the resources to manufacture it. Here, the patent system allows the inventor to attempt to license the idea to a larger entity who is able to develop, market, manufacture, and distribute the resulting product. The fellow working in the office next to mine, e.g., is presently doing just that with a clever consumer product he recently patented. How is such a partnership an abuse of anything? And doesn't such a system promote innovation by encouraging an inventor to create a new technology despite the fact that she's just an average person with a dollar & a dream?

Re:Oh wow Forbes defends trolls what a surprise by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-19 08:28 · Score: 1

The term just brought that piece to mind, and how outdated its basis is nowadays. But the woman use coined the term "rent-seeking" in the 1970s should have used a different phrase, because it isn't about rent.

This article has a rebuttal I can agree with. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html

They use the term to describe people’s lobbying of government to give them special privileges. A much better term is “privilege seeking.”

Anyhow, thanks for the lesson, and have a nice weekend. (For myself, the Magic Pre-Release is tomorrow night. That's where my rent money is going this month. ;^) )

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Slashdot Mirror

Ask Slashdot: When Is Patent License Trading Not Trolling?

147 of 191 comments (clear)