"Patent Trolls in USA"

[shise]

what i do not get is how the managed to get a patent for something they did not invent, isn't that practically stealing?

Yes, it technically is stealing, but as they find the laws to back themselves up, it's legal. That's why (imo) they should revamp laws to protect real patent owners.

But they seem to be very busy trying to catch you when you download an mp4 track instead of doing the real job first ;(

[Sunseeker]

Let me pose the counter argument; if people cannot have any surety of making money from their development, what is the imperative to tinker and research?

Improving humanity of course. An idealistic goal I'd love to see, but patents are simply an extension of private property, you can't eliminate one without eliminating the other.

[Kurioxan]

Let me pose the counter argument; if people cannot have any surety of making money from their development, what is the imperative to tinker and research?

Several studies show the same thing. no monetary incentive increases creativity and productivity in almost any sector.
That, is why big modernized companies allow X days a month for the employer to do what the hell he pleases.
The majority of software you see are the result of that, that is an example.
If you want i can show you links for it, but im sure you can google it.

Freedom to do what you want, without pressure of "making money" gives good results.

There are actually several companies now that have that business model.
The companies that go to africa (among others) to help develop no longer tell the populations what to do, they ask what the people want to do and help them doing that, one had no results, the other has massive results.

You can make good profit with a company geared towards improvement, who see profit as a benefit of the work, not the goal

[shise]

this has nothing to do with small business and large businesses.
lots of patent trolls go after some of the most recognizable and largest companies

Yes, but now consider it this way:

The big companies can put millions to pay the best lawyers and might have a great chance to solve the problem to their side. Meanwhile, a small businessman can't really do much more than surrender against 10 lawyers two times more prepared than his single lawyer.


That's why it really deals damage to both, but specially to the small business.

See the whole Apple vs Samsung problem for one; it has nothing to do with the main point of the thread, but just imagine that one of the parts is a local business and it has patent rights trouble with the other part, it would have no chance against the big company in such circumstances.

---------- Post added 2012-12-21 at 11:53 PM ----------

I'm kind of surprised that it took this long to be a major news story.

This has really been an issue for quite some time.

Indeed, and all over the world too. That's why I wanted to share it. I saw it posted on flightsim.com so it was a good chance to share it.

[Powerogue]

what i think is wrong is that when someone invents something, shouldn't he/she have he patent?

I can't see how that would harm anyone but the patent trolls. You shouldn't be able to claim something as yours without having done anything to make it. If more than one group is involved in its creation that wants patent rights, we can work from there.

[Kivimetsan]

This is why IP is such bs.
The reality is, everything will be patented like renewable energy, but because some rich oil tycoon bought it and locked it away, we will still be using oil in a thousand years just because we're too fucking stupid to stand up and say no.

[Elegiac]

Improving humanity of course. An idealistic goal I'd love to see, but patents are simply an extension of private property, you can't eliminate one without eliminating the other.

That's nice. But in the real world, most people only do something if there is the potential for advantage. Either through money or status.

---------- Post added 2012-12-21 at 03:05 PM ----------

Several studies show the same thing. no monetary incentive increases creativity and productivity in almost any sector.
That, is why big modernized companies allow X days a month for the employer to do what the hell he pleases.
The majority of software you see are the result of that, that is an example.
If you want i can show you links for it, but im sure you can google it.

Freedom to do what you want, without pressure of "making money" gives good results.

There are actually several companies now that have that business model.
The companies that go to africa (among others) to help develop no longer tell the populations what to do, they ask what the people want to do and help them doing that, one had no results, the other has massive results.

You can make good profit with a company geared towards improvement, who see profit as a benefit of the work, not the goal

Sorry, but this is bullshit. No company operates off of the "do what you want" principle. PTO is given for the fact that breaks between periods of labor increase productivity, not because lack of monetary incentive promotes creativity.

[bals]

Yes, but now consider it this way:

The big companies can put millions to pay the best lawyers and might have a great chance to solve the problem to their side. Meanwhile, a small businessman can't really do much more than surrender against 10 lawyers two times more prepared than his single lawyer.


That's why it really deals damage to both, but specially to the small business.

the way you worded your op makes it sound like large businesses are doing this to small businesses to crush them

The small businessman is always at the giant's will.

when it's really a bunch of patent troll companies sending lawsuits to anyone and everyone

[Lynarii]

Here's the thing. The reason that patents exist is to encourage innovation. If you actually look at how technological progression happens, it's usually because people try a whole bunch of different things, and one of them works. That one thing that works has to pay for not only it's own development, but for all the other things that were tried but didn't pan out, or the innovator will not be able to continue their work. Without patents, it's FAR more profitable to wait for someone else to do the trial and error and development, all the costly steps, and just steal the final product once it's finished. Patents are designed to prevent this.

The problem with the modern patent system is that it completely fails at it's goal. You don't have to do the costly trial and error and development steps to patent something, you can throw patents out for any idea you have with vague wording and no real knowledge, then sue everyone who might be affected by it. Will these patents stand up in court? No, they won't, but they don't have to. The idea is that it's so expensive to even go to court that it's cheaper to just settle. It's an extortion racket, it's wrong, and it should be illegal.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Patents should be revoked if you cannot bring a product to market within three years of registering the patent (and the revoked patent would be assigned to the public domain from that point onwards). If you use the patent for your own products, then fine. If you are keeping the patent for the sole reason of suing the bejesus out of companies and your turn-over is the proceeds of court cases then you should not be allowed to hold that patent.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

but with more products on the market, it might lead to people spending more, which in turn has the potential to create jobs (both to create the products/provide the service, as well as at every point along the chain of distribution).

And people spending more money would mean more work for companies, and a faster recovery of the economy too.

[Adam Jensen]

I think its complete bullshit that a company that doesn't invent can actually own patents.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

It's just another way the system is abused. Things need to change and be updated for this century.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I feel like you should have to show an effort to make your patented idea a reality in order to hold a patent over it. I also feel like such things like server authentication shouldn't be patentable, only the process that is used in order to do it and only if it meets a certain degree of complexity with safeguards in place to prevent a monopoly on certain ideas.

[Adam Jensen]

I feel like you should have to show an effort to make your patented idea a reality in order to hold a patent over it. I also feel like such things like server authentication shouldn't be patentable, only the process that is used in order to do it and only if it meets a certain degree of complexity with safeguards in place to prevent a monopoly on certain ideas.

Agreed. Ideas should not be patentable. Only products.

[Noujou]

while it's legal, i feel being a patent troll is one of the scummiest things you could do, simply because, i understand you want revenue, but in order to make those extra few dollars, your hurting a industry as a whole by doing so.

[Afrospinach]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...patents-attack

I am not sure I quite like this piece on this topic as much as I used to, but I thought it was pretty good at touching all the issues. This company "Intellectual Ventures" is for real, as is their army of shell companies(1300 and counting) that are non practising entities that basically spend their existence in court over patent licensing.

The things that bothered me most is that (particularly in software) there are multiple approved patents for the same ideas when they are supposed to check that before the are filed. Also perhaps more disturbing, is that after the patents have been through the lawyer process the owners can sometimes not even decipher what exactly they have a patent for and this is what is presented to the judges who are not software engineers.

Seems like some common sense is prevailing though. Apple has had a couple of its design patents invalidated (rubber band scrolling and another pertaining to the samsung case). That is probably just a high profile case of something that is always ongoing though, so I would not hold my breath for some kind of reform.

Agreed. Ideas should not be patentable. Only products.

You actually can't patent an idea. You need to have a way to make it work.

[Deleted]

Agreed. Ideas should not be patentable. Only products.

Actually ideas should be able to be patented but only working, complex innovations, not just any random stuff that isn't even innovative. For example red background on a logo or round corners on tablets. I'd have no problem with someone getting a patent on a really good idea that actually new as well as the money. for example a new propulsion system for cars or a new type or processor that doesn't use silicon.

But the ridiculous small things should not be able to get a patent or at least they should remake the laws so it couldn't be abused.

[Ryuukon]

You know, when Apple patented the iPhone, the most important patent for them was "rounded edges" and "edge to edge technology". Well guess what? They didn't come up with either. They just piggybacked previous innovations, along with pretty much every other "innovation" Apple has come up with. They just had the legal clout to say "We came up with it, we own it" despite the fact that they didn't come up with ANY of it. They just had the foresight to patent it before anybody else. And anybody who has been in the tech industry for at least 20 years would see it.

I seriously hope that a reform of patent laws comes into play. Then we can finally be rid of Apple and their money grubbing ways, and everyone like them, and open the way for the REAL innovators.

Steve Jobs wasn't an innovator, he was a thief. Has been his entire career. He was just savvy enough to market his designs ahead of people he stole from.

And I will laugh for the rest of my days that Steve wanted to destroy Android because "it was a stolen idea". And most of his ideas weren't stolen? Seriously? He just had better lawyers. That guy will go down in history as the biggest hypocrite EVER, at least in regards to technology. If he won the award for other things, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Deleted]

I agree. The patent laws need a change, a major one. Right now they're only slowing innovation by a huge margin.

I think the patent and even copyright laws should work like this:
1. You make something unique.
2. You now have full ownership of said product for 15 years.
3. 15 years have passed, the thing you invented now enters a universal ownership, leaving everyone the right to use it without having to pay you.

Why? Well let's see:
-you are pushed to spark new stuff, innovate by the fact that you could have 15 years of profit after
-you are then pushed to innovate and invent more stuff, as you know your product won't offer you money to last a lifetime, it will only last 15 years so if you want to live well you're pushed to invent more.
-people can use your product immediately by paying, or, they can wait 15 years and use it then, but remaining behind the curve, yet at least they'd have access to the idea.

All I see is benefits. For all types of companies, from medicine ones to technology ones and so on. Because it would push people to not be lazy once they invented something but rather invent more. And you could use the knowledge of present people, not have to wait 70-90 years after they're dead to use their work.