Google, Dropbox, and Others Forge Patent "Arms Control Pact"

jfruh writes Patent trolling is a serious irritant and financial drain on many big tech companies — but those same companies can't guarantee that their own future management won't sell the patents they own to a 'non-practicing entity', especially in the case of sale or bankruptcy. That's why a number of tech giants, including Google and Dropbox, have formed the 'License or Transfer Network,' in which a patent will automatically be licensed to everyone else in the network in the event that it's sold to a third party.

Comments

Time to abolish patents

[Anonymous Coward]

A "patent defense pool" of tech giants will benefit, well, the tech giants, namely the incumbents.

The idea of patents was to foster innovation. Anything that tilts the tables against newcomers and favors the established players is working against that. It's not the established players that are dependent on the law in order to benefit from their inventions: they have all the means to exploit them themselves and benefit via first-to-market and the marketing power of their reputation.

Re:Time to abolish patents

[Mr0bvious]

Agreed - as the situation is right now it seems that everyone except lawyers would gain from abolishing patents. The large patent holders just seem to be passing (and passing through lawyers) penalties to each other. There seem to be no net gain for the parties on either side. Abolish patents and it's almost business as usual except for the lawyers.

I know this is an exaggerated assessment but from an outside observer, it's not that far from the reality I see.

Re:Time to abolish patents

[Anonymous Coward]

This protects tech giants, not newcomers, against patent trolls. So it is tilting the tables against newcomers and favors the established players.

The patent trolls are not players. They are table grenades, and tilting the table will roll them to the newcomers.

Re:Time to abolish patents

[StripedCow]

But let's say you had a patent on something which earned you a couple of thousand dollars a month.
Would you then still think the same?

(Just playing devil's advocate here.)

Re:Time to abolish patents

[Ardyvee]

I wonder how hard it would be to get in that "pact" if your company manages to go beyond the start-up designation.

Re:Time to abolish patents

[Mr0bvious]

This is a fair question, and perhaps I would think differently in this position. I'm not in this position so my view is not tainted by my greed.

So my view is based on what I see as the better situation for the greater good of all, and I'm giving little to no consideration to any individual (be it a person or other entity).

I could also counter with the converse argument - consider I had an idea that could yield me a couple of thousand dollars a month but I can't due to a patent issue then ....

Re:Time to abolish patents

[Mr0bvious]

Is that really reality though? I'm not convinced that reality would play out this way. The inventor has the advantage of being first to market, this gives a significant advantage and allows them to establish a market for their brand. Brand etc all has value, and being first to marked and establishing a brand continues to give the inventor an advantage over the competition. This also encourages the inventor to continue to innovate to remain ahead of their competitors - which is a natural motivator for innovation.

People will invent and will innovate regardless of if a patent system is in place or not - I think that the concept of "recoup your costs" is probably better described as "making an absolute disproportionate shit load", and this is half the problem with our world right now - organisations don't want to recoup costs, they want it all, every dollar, every person has and the patent system is just one more tool that is being wielded to achieve that goal.

Sure there will be cases where this doesn't fit well, but there are also many cases where the current patent system doesn't fit well. It's not simple choosing which way is best.

Clear Cut Collusion

[sexconker]

This is a clear cut instance of collusion.
They should be forced to continue to defend their patents or to release the patents to everyone on the same terms.
Patent groups, from this shit to MPEG to BluRay to whatever, destroy innovation more than any individual patents do.

Re:Clear Cut Collusion

[Etherwalk]

collusion, n., secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

It is not secret.

Can you point to an illegality? I suppose you can argue that they are restraining trade. But I think most courts would be okay with it. (All contracts restrain trade on some level; the motives behind this one aren't colluding to prevent competition so much as agreeing not to engage in an unproductive patent war.)

The patent system has a lot of problems. But just because we disagree with parts of it or how it's used doesn't make the people who are using it criminals.

Time to abolish patents

[Anonymous Coward]

This protects against patent trolls, not newcomers

Double edge sword.

[TapeCutter]

A patent cartel is a double edged sword that can smite trolls, competitors, or both. All depends of who's holding the blunt end.

Software patents are absurd and a form of double dipping since software is already protected by copyright they should indeed be scrapped. However just because patents are currently too powerful and have spread into areas where they don't belong does not mean the concept is fundamentally flawed.

The fundamental flaw is greed, the fact that 1000 individuals have obtained an income that is more than 3X that of 1,000,000,000 individuals combined is simply too much of a temptation to all but the strongest moral compass. OTOH, if everyone gets the same income who in their right mind would not just sit back and let "somebody else" worry about silly things such as a job?

The sweet spot lays somewhere in between, most economists put the ideal income ratio between richest and poorest at 10:1 and point to Norway's position at the top of almost every economic and social metric known to man as prima-facie evidence. Norway was smart enough to realise the North Sea oil boom would come to an end one day so they taxed the hell out of oil companies during the boom and invested it in both industrial and social infrastructure. Many economists now argue it is the social infrastructure that has seen the highest ROI.

Here in Australia we have done the opposite with our mining boom, there were some good reforms and we built lots of roads and railways that lead to giant holes in the middle of nowhere but mostly we squandered it on tax cuts and corporate welfare. In the meantime China has been buying our coal and iron ore and for quite some time has been building up their infrastructure at a phenomenal rate. Ironically they now have one of the highest inequity ratings of any nation. This is because of the discrepancy between the rural areas and the "economic zones". China is now in the process of building up the infrastructure in these rural areas but the pace has slowed because of the financial mess in the US and EU. They are now officially in deflation meaning production has overshot demand. Consequently our 25yr mining boom has come to a sudden halt and we have two fifths of fuck all to show for it. Sure our economy is still in much better shape than the EU and US, but I'm old enough to remember when life was good in both Norway and Argentina.

Disclaimer: I plead guilty to OT ranting, but I put it to the reader that a spliff and an end of the working week rant is far more humane than kicking the cat.

Antitrust?

[adharma]

How is this not considered a trust, cartel or collusion? I mean, there was specifically a "United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co" Supreme Court case.