Slashdot Mirror
How Patent Trolls Destroy Innovation
walterbyrd sends this story from Vox:
Everyone agrees that there's been an explosion of patent litigation in recent years, and that lawsuits from non-practicing entities (NPEs) — known to critics as patent trolls — are a major factor. But there's a big debate about whether trolls are creating a drag on innovation — and if so, how big the problem is. A new study (PDF) by researchers at Harvard and the University of Texas provides some insight on this question. Drawing from data on litigation, R&D spending, and patent citations, the researchers find that firms that are forced to pay NPEs (either because they lost a lawsuit or settled out of court) dramatically reduce R&D spending: losing firms spent $211 million less on R&D, on average, than firms that won a lawsuit against a troll. "After losing to NPEs, firms significantly reduce R&D spending — both projects inside the firm and acquiring innovative R&D outside the firm," the authors write. "Our evidence suggests that it really is the NPE litigation event that causes this decrease in innovation."
Fixed that for you.
"Patent trolls" is a propaganda term. It implies that there's a right and wrong way to own patents. In reality it's just that: Owning patents. Patents are a monopoly on ideas. That's the problem.
In the past 5 to 10 years since Obama took office and the Economy tanked and then never recovered many large companies have been buying up other large companies .. We saw that happen with a few cellphone makers.. however there are many more examples that go unnoticed.
While it is definitely respectable for anyone who comes up with a new innovation to protect that idea and profit if anyone else uses it .. the patent owner also has the right to sell that idea to someone else and then the new owner has the right to sue to protect their rights.
Yes there are some times when it doesn't seem fair however ideas are something that comes from within a person.. if the patent office agrees that a patent should be issued then it is.. if not then its not and many ideas are turned down.
I think we have to figure out a way where the people who come up with innovative ideas that change all of our lives are protected and at the same time allow use of some patented ideas if the original patent was improperly issued.
Patents can be Political and we all saw the Redskins case where they lost their patent/trademark because someone thought it was not their right to have after having it for so long.
I understand much of this is about Blogs that we all use.. however think about it someone came up with that idea.. or they were the first to patent it.. heck I wish I forked out $10,000 on a bunch of domain names the first day you could register them and resold them for millions but I didn't and the fact is anyone of us could have bought food.com or books.com or whatever its not a grand idea there..
Some patents are grand ideas..
So you know i think a bit of respect is in order when people come up with ideas and then someone agrees that is an idea worthy of a patent.
And if you don't understand how complex that is.. just think things as simple as engine parts or a basic battery .. or the twisting of drawn copper wire and sheilding it with plastic are all things that people thought about and that we don't think twice about.. and many people would say ... hey a copper wire with shielding thats so basic it should be public domain .. but you can find old houses right now that have wire on posts running in their attic and walls with no plastic shield to protect from shorts...
its a large idea that can't be thought of in simple terms by calling people trolls
maybe it is unfair to some.. but you could have came up with that idea.. but either you're too lazy or stupid..
anyway.. whatever.
...I don't think this is limited to just patent trolls.
Yes, Hollywood, I'm referring to you.
Just because the FOSS community can't have an original idea, and has to copy others work, doesn't mean patents are bad. If you want to blatantly copy other people's ideas, find a business model that lets you compensate the owners for their investment. It's not hard.
Patents are choking innovation because everyone is afraid to create something that might end up costing them millions in legal fees because some company somewhere already has a monopoly on it.
It's plain CRAZY!
Patents should be removed completely and people should be allowed to create anything and everything they want even if it already exists. I would only punish those that blatantly duplicate/clone someone elses invention without their permission. However, if the invention is too simplistic in nature, which means it's something that cannot be done any other way I would even excuse it.
In all other respects this is what I think of patents
Nope. Monopoly of ideas is keeping them to yourself. Patents were meant to protect the innovation for a time, before it was made free for all.
Trolls do not produce, they just abuse the system.
Let's see: companies who copy rather than innovate spend less on R&D. Therefore patent (troll)s are bad.
R&D is cheaper to steal than create due to high labor costs in America. Why do we still think we have any significant R&D funding? The older companies that have done R&D in the past switched to doing support tasks only, more money, simpler, more dependable cash-flow, as part of a push for globalization which helps to keep the labor costs lower (the added benefit is you need less skilled workers to go that route). Patent trolls are just another nail in the coffin.
Yup, that old /. chestnut; correlation != causation.
Maybe they just "proved" that some firms invest less when they realise they don't know how to do innovation / R&D.
In any serious organisation these days, spending serious money on R&D, there's a multi-layered approach to all this, ranging from building portfolio of defense/attack/trade patents (Google buying Motorola phone division), (or joining a group who does), through researching prior art to finally building a attacking others (think Apple vs. Samsung).
You could say that that's the real "tax on innovation", since it's far more costly than the impact of a few "trolls" (defined as someone who holds a patent for the sole purpose of using it to attack others)
Why should I start a business when at any time a troll could come by with some vague patent, and sue me? Fuck this country, and fuck the government.
I would assume the parallel research showing that those who end up paying our against non-trolls also reduce spend later having lost a lot of money.
The link is the losing of a patent suit (or having to settle) etc. rather than patent trolls.
The real problem is that the patent system is open to abuse by everyone not merely trolls. It's expensive to be on the receiving end of a patent lawsuit regardless of if you are in the right or wrong. The well known issues with Patents been issued on broad ideas rather than actual inventions etc. Al this leads to the potential to be sued increasing, the costs huge and ends up as a deterrent to innovation.
The original purpose of Patents to create a period of exclusivity to regain the expense of research, tooling (and other capital risks), are good. These don't tend to work well in many areas, software being obvious where the costs are primarily research and in many cases it's pretty debatable as to the genuine cost of that, the capital risks are generally pretty small, not to mention the rapid pace of development making patent terms generally too long. NPE's similarly the primary cost is that of research, they don't take capital risks to bring it to market, why should they then be afforded the protection?
In short NPEs the problem per se, it's the whole patent system which needs a significant overhaul to refocus on it's actual purpose, to reward those willing to take risks on innovation.
Dear Sir:
I apologize for replying 20 minutes late, but I have discovered prior art from ancient Egypt. You can expect Mr. Boundary's counsel to bring this up at trial.
Sincerely,
Damian Yerrick
Owner and Lead Developer, Pin Eight
3. Lack of a good Non-Patent Protection legal mechanism.
Of course there is. It's called publishing a white paper.
This example gets trumpeted out in every discussion on patents. First of all, I think most of us here are interested in software patents and maybe to a lesser extent patents on electronic or mechanical devices.
Second... WHY does it take so much money to develop a drug. Is it really necessary? Or is this just the result of the system which people in industry and government have created? This is an industry where the customer MUST buy the product. To not do so is to be sick or maybe dead. That hardly gives the companies involved a lot of incentive to save money. Likewise having seen drugs taken off the market which had been helping me with my own issues better than any other just becasue 1 in 300k people had a bad reaction I suspect regulators are doing little to help matters.
I have a friend who is a nurse, he argues adamantly for the drug companies any time this subject comes up. He talks about multii-million dollar lab equipment he has seen during his schooling which are somehow used in drug research. I wonder why any piece of equipment is so expensive. Is it the materials? Our TVs and cellphones are full of rare earth minerals. Is it the labor? Look at all the labor that goes into all sorts of consumer products. I suspect it's the fact that it is only large drug corporations and universities ever buy such equipment. They expect it to be expensive. they only trust expensive equipment. They have deep pockets. Not many companies make such things and the manufacturers know all of this. I am not a part of the health industry and I don't claim to be an expert in these matters. I only have my suspicions and I freely admit I could be wrong. The more I read about DIY biologists and the lab equipment they make however the more I think I might be right.
Sadly, I lived next to a patent troll for a bit (Intellectual Ventures in Palo Alto) and did not pillage and raze their building. I don't have many regrets in my life, but this is one.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
You guys are putting all the blame on people who are just taking advantage of laws created by elected officials. IMO the original patent winner is the problem or forced to sell because they" Patent Trolls" were the only ones willing to buy there patented whatever. IMO once that patent is sold to a non creator its value should be less how much less I would leave to the so called experts but the value should be at least half. IMO
Jack of all trades,master of none
Even if you ignore prior art from 1982, the Supreme Court of the United States recently decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank to strike down treatment of "with a computer" as an inventive step. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd recommend that nonpracticing entities reconsider their business plans in light of the opinion of the Court.
There is a right way and a wrong way to own patents. When a patent troll buys a patent not to collect legitimate licensing fees on the intellectual property or to pursue a legitimate business endeavor, but rather just to sue anyone and everyone they can for damages then that is the wrong way. Just because I can buy some obscure overly broad patent that never should have been granted and use that as leverage to suck money out of legitimate businesses doesn't make it an acceptable business practice. Laziness, resource issues and an overly accommodative relationship with big business on the part of the USPTO have created this mess. It's no surprise that lawyers are happy to help game the system. Now, having masses of bad patents in effect we are stuck because if someone has a patent that is legit on paper and they sue they isn't any way to quickly and cheaply nullify the suit. I hope we find ways to resolve this while still allowing the little guy a fair shot at obtaining patents and defending those held.
There are also the large copyists who rip off innovative startups. See http://qz.com/250346/a-google-... Innovative startups, particularly in the life sciences but also in other industries that require large and long-term investments, need patents. Google doesn't need them, and it's working hard to crush the system. So what happens if Google succeeds? We'd still have government and non-profit (e.g. open source) innovation. Private innovation would still happen in fast-moving fields with first-mover advantages, in fields where trade secrets are effective, and in large enterprises that recoup innovation costs in other areas (Google now, or Bell Labs in the past). That leaves large swathes of technology where innovation by startups goes away because no investor would have any hope of making money. See China's hyper-competitive ripoff culture for a hint of what that would look like.
It seems that we need to stop hating patent trolls, but love them. Eagerly wait, then catch them and love as much as we can, at every corner. There's some inspiring experience, e.g.
http://eugene.kaspersky.com/2013/10/02/the-patent-trolls-can-be-defeated-just-never-give-up/
http://eugene.kaspersky.com/2013/12/12/top-10-tips-for-fighting-patent-trolls/