Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Legislator Wants To Keep State University Patents Away From Trolls (eff.org)
The EFF's "Reclaim Invention" campaign provided the template for a patent troll-fighting bill recently introduced in the Maryland legislature to guide public universities. An anonymous reader writes:
The bill would "void any agreement by the university to license or transfer a patent to a patent assertion entity (or patent troll)," according to the EFF, requiring universities to manage their patent portfolios in the public interest. James Love, the director of the nonprofit Knowledge Ecology International, argues this would prevent assigning patents to "organizations who are just suing people for infringement," which is especially important for publicly-funded colleges. "You don't want public sector patents to be used in a way that's a weapon against the public." Yarden Katz, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet amd Society, says the Maryland legislation would "set an example for other states by adopting a framework for academic research that puts public interests front and center."
The EFF has created a web page where you can encourage your own legislators to pass similar bills, and to urge universities to pledge "not to knowingly license or sell the rights of inventions, research, or innovation...to patent assertion entities, or patent trolls."
The EFF has created a web page where you can encourage your own legislators to pass similar bills, and to urge universities to pledge "not to knowingly license or sell the rights of inventions, research, or innovation...to patent assertion entities, or patent trolls."
wait for California.
Why is a state university patenting anything? If taxpayers funded the research, shouldn't the taxpayers be free to use the research with no strings (or patent license fees) attached?
Firstly, whats to stop the patents from being resold to a third-party who is a patent troll? This just adds a step requiring a practicing entity buy the patent and then resell to trolls. If this drops the value of those patents, it could cause a lucrative side-business buying up those patents cheaply and reselling them on for immediate profit (plus an exemption of perpetual license for the seller of course).
Secondly, wouldn't it simply be better to declare inventions by these entities to be patent-free in the first place if any public funding was used for them? And define that down to paper bought using such funds, electricity bills paid for with them, etc, so that academic research arms either have to make due without public funds at all, or we the people providing these funds get the benefits of said research.
Seriously EFF, this won't stop the practice, it'll just incentivise businesses using this system to buy patents and resell them for fast profit, rather than use them, and will do nothing to curb the patent abuse business at all.
How about publicly funded research simply end up in the public domain?
Patent trolls are the bane of technology as they seek to reap benefits from the labors of others. I still remember the SCO group and their degradation from technology to trolldom. There is a reason that IBM and others gain patents at a harried rate. It is to prevent this kind of leaching-for-profit. I'd compare most patent trolls to vampires... except that makes vampires look bad and will get me down-voted for those that were on Team Edward.
Peace out.
All this represents is GOVERNMENT, EVIL CROOKED GOVERNMENT, crushing individual free enterprise and entrepreneurship with anti-competitive behavior that tears at the very sinews of American Capitalism.
Such unlawful tyranny shall be immediately banned, by authority of Herr Obergruppenfuhrer Trump, Emperor of the United States and Protector from Mexico.
So save us all! #MAGA #releasethehounds
I thought they only had cosmetology schools?
The assigning of patent rights is a property right, and the state cannot simply void those without violating the "takings clause". If the State of Maryland wants to condemn those rights, pay the owner fair compensation and then void them, then it would be okay. I don't expect that will ever happen, because legislators will look after the taxpayers first; companies affected by trolls will be waaaaaay down on the list.
I'm guessing Republicans do want this: It's what their paymasters demand. Expect another 'public good' bill to disappear for the benefit of small government and the 'free' market.
Wasn't there an issue last year with US universities selling the copyright to their research? That needs to change too. I'm sure many "don't want public sector" publishing used "against the public".
From the bill:
THE ASSIGNMENT OF A PATENT BY A PUBLIC SENIOR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION TO A PATENT ASSERTION ENTITY SHALL BE CONSIDERED VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.
So a middleman buys the patents, then turns around and assigns them to an assertion entity. This is often how the larger players do it anyway (so the original patent owner doesn't understand who it really is and thus jack up the price).
I strongly oppose patent trolls, but retroactively breaking valid contracts and nullifying sales of patents because you don't like who the patent was sold to is a truly horrible idea. If you don't want patent trolls to have university patents, don't sell them to them. And fire everyone at the university involved if they do sell them. Letting the university enter into a contract and then back out with no consequence because the purchaser is engaged in a vile but legal practice does damage to our legal system that far outweighs any possible benefit. This is just a bad idea generally. The EFF should spend their time trying to get patent trolling itself banned, not damaging the sanctity of contracts generally with cheap stunts because they like some of the short term outcomes.
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
And they steal patents from the students that invent them.
Been there, done that. Generated new designs for at least 3 electronic patents involving the world's highest frequency neural stimulators, capable of focusing signals *between* the electrodes, when I was doing medical research, and the lab refused to patent them or allow me to pay for the legal research to get the patent out of my own pocket. I wanted them on my resume, and to protect the designs from commercial proprietization. The excuse given by the lawyer I spoke with was not to get them was "they would be public domain anyway due to government funding". Thing is, I *wanted* them in the public domain to protect them for public use, but wasn't in a good position to force it.
The result is that the designs were available for patenting by anyone who failed to report the results of a search for prior art. And that is *very, very common*.
Because anything they produce is a WORK FORE HIRE paid for by the TAXPAYERS.
Corporatism != Free Market
there should not be state law dictating the types of entities entitled to purchase intellectual property rights
Put yourself in the shoes of the taxpayer:
1) Business X is legally compelled to pay tax that funds State supported colleges and universities.
2) State sponsored University Y uses those funds to develop a breakthrough technology/method and patents it.
3) University Y assigns the patent to Business Z.
4) Business Z sues Business X for using anything even remotely similar to the patented technology/method.
5) University Y receives part of the settlement/judgment against Business X.
Business X just got screwed. They were compelled to pay for research that they were then sued for.
University Y is double dipping. They accepted both taxes and settlement/judgment money from Business X. This is a gross conflict of interest.
If a college or university accepts taxpayer money, including Federal Student Aid, any innovations developed by that institution should be patented and assigned to the public domain. If a college wants to monetize its research, they don't need to accept taxpayer funds.