Forum Moderators: phranque
Patent trolls are lawyers who, in much the same way as ambulance chasers operate, buy the patent papers from failed companies and then sue infringing companies. The big problem is caused by patents on things that should never have been granted, and potentially have the power to bring the industry to a grinding halt if upheld.
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
Mad cap patents ranging from protecting a method of painting by dipping a baby's bottom into paint or a system for keeping track of people queuing for the bathroom may soon be a thing of the past if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has its way.
The article then goes on to mention the big players: Cisco, Google, Microsoft etc.
Now currently in Europe a pure software patent is not possible - I personally think this is a very good thing. Stop the "one-click ordering" type patents - copyright is enough in this situation. This though is also under threat: [eurolinux.org...] -- outlines things nicely and shows the dangers.
When I worked for a faceless corporate, my managers were constantly asking if we'd invented anything in the course of our job, and incentivising us to fill in the patent forms (this was in Europe!), which would then be passed on to the lawyers, and we'd be given a small bonus or a dinner voucher. I never filed any - I didn't believe that things that basically boil down to for loops, if statements etc should be patented. I also have the feeling that this is how the "hyperlink patent" and other such ludicrous things originated.
Other opinions/experiences?
incentivising
It's been shown time and time again that an economy which has strong physical property rights is much more succesful than one that doesn't. If your property rights are not protected, than there is no incentive to accumulate assets because you don't know if you will be able to keep them or not. Or, worse, you'll need to spend half your wealth just trying to protect your assets.
The question is, does this tranfer to intellectual assets as well? That's hard to say.
Greenspan has proposed that strong protection of intellectual property rights are necessary in order to motivate individuals to invest in the generation and accumulation of IP. And this is very important in the American economy where ideas are generally the coin of the service based industry.
Now, if I had to bet on anyone, I would bet on Greenspan and his theories. Personally, I know a *lot* of smart people who don't innovate because it's pretty easy for someone else to copy their ideas after they've laid all the groundwork. Better to steal someone elses ideas and incrementally improve upon that.
So, if we could create an incentive for those people to innovate because their ideas would be protected .. well, I certainly would be all for that.
However, there are a couple of problems with this.
Sometimes, the people who are not so caught up on intellectual property are often the people who come up with the best ideas. Look at newton and einstein. Both of these men did not try to patent or keep their ideas.
Calculus was donated into the public domain, similarly with einsteins theory of relativity.
Another problem is that when you break ideas up into assets, combining these assets becomes complicated and anti-productive. With physical property, moving it is about as or even more harder than getting the right to use that physical property so the protection of physical assets really doesn't disrupt as much as it motivates.
However, with ideas, utilizing and combining them is very very easy to do. By strictly applying rights of ownership on them you'd be disrupting an already efficient economy.
So while I would bet on Greenspan, we're going to have to deal with these two issues in a way that makes sense for the economy and the benefit of all.
[edited by: tedster at 7:09 pm (utc) on June 3, 2004]
[edit reason] fix side scroll [/edit]
Patent trolls are lawyers who, in much the same way as ambulance chasers operate, buy the patent papers from failed companies...
Patents from failed companies are not usually the problem. The creditors' committee of a bankrupt company must sell off property not needed for continuing operations, and this includes either selling patents or enforcing them. Patent purchasers usually go for clearly legit. patents that will not result in disputes.
The problem is that companies, including many that we all know of may even respect, that patent the obvious. According to the patent law, a patent that is obvious to someone in that field should not be allowed. That's why many people question the patent on ordering by single click (the name use can be a trademark and protected).
I have consulted a couple of times for attorneys defending against claims of patent infringement. These patents were for control engineering methods. One was for a method of controlling a process that would clearly be obvious to anyone who worked in the field of control engineering. All it took was a letter from me, co-signed by instructors at community colleges and trade schools (teaching people who were not going to be degreed engineers) that was in the patent was well understood by even the less educated in the business. The suit was dropped; it is on record that the patent is not going to be enforced.
Another time someone sued for a patent that was for a very clever, patentable, innovation. The defense attorney smelled something wrong, called me, and I found documentation that the inovation was described in control engineering literature (journals and books) many times. The oldest I had, from the deep dark corner of my basement, was about 30 years old. If an idea is already in print covered with mold, forget about getting a patent.
A clear problem is that some companies, and their lawyers, want to patent everything in sight, hoping that they will be able to make some money on a few of the patents. Problem is, there are enough people who will pay up because it is cheaper to pay than to fight. There are organizations working to stop the abuse of the patent system; let's hope they are successful.
Meanwhile, maybe I should patent the idea of drinking water to quench a thirst... :-(
One thing we may find that because of the web and such things as the amazon literature searches, wayback machine, usenet groups, etc that patents will become easier and easier to repudiate with prior art from simple web queries.
This will raise the bar and people will err more on the side of writing more interesting patents.
...inovation was described in control engineering literature (journals and books) many times.
The same as with the BT Hyperlink and Vanvaar Bush and friends - the same idea an obvious one, just moved to an emerging field. Just because a field is new shouldn't mean that old ideas can be patented with basically no inovation. Eg. Someone discovers a new communication mechanism - I patent the transmission of images via it.
One thing we may find that because of the web and such things as the amazon literature searches, wayback machine, usenet groups, etc that patents will become easier and easier to repudiate with prior art from simple web queries
I think you're right blaze - but this will only happen when patents, (and other ideas) are expressed in a way that is open, free and searchable. The PTO charging for full access to the patent - rather than using text recognition and scanning in the collection, and making open and free is IMO inexcusible.
Just because a field is new shouldn't mean that old ideas can be patented with basically no inovation. Eg. Someone discovers a new communication mechanism - I patent the transmission of images via it.
Old ideas implemented with newer technology usually cannot be patented, due to prior art or obviousness. If someone discovers a new comminications mechanism that is compatible with current telephone technology and you get the idea of connecting fax machines or modems to it, that is not innovative. I doubt if such a patent could be prosecuted. Your patent itself would have to contain some innovation, perhaps a better way to encode images.
For example, the control technique documentation I pulled from the basement made use of old technology: air pressure to transmit signals. Since then the industry has switched to vacuum tube based electronics, solid state electronic analog, and now digital microprocessor equipment. Yet the pre WWII control techniques were still prior art that could not be patented today.
The PTO charging for full access to the patent - rather than using text recognition and scanning in the collection, and making open and free is IMO inexcusible
You can search text and claims of patents for free at www.uspto.gov. The full search goes back to 1976. There is more limited search capability for patents issued before 1976, but the availablity of images of patents goes back to 1790.
Another source is www.delphion.com. They have a basic registration for free that allows basic world wide searches for free and additional fee based services.
Actually, in a good sized academic library you can easily do some literature prior art seearches on old ideas that might not have been patented but have been published (and therefore cannot now be patented). All it usually takes is going to the relevant part of the stacks, pulling down books and looking in the index for the key words. The real musty smelling sections of the stacks often have stuff that you won't find on a google search. All it takes is an article in an old magazine describing an idea to provide prior art.
But the best place to start is a us patent office or Delphion search online, then a Google search, then a trip to the library.
The Public Patent Foundation, a organization that fights abuse of the patent system, has filed a challange (Request for Ex Parte Review) of Microsoft's FAT patent.
Press release:
[pubpat.org ]
Request (provides some good insights into how the process can work):
[pubpat.org ]
There is hope.
I suspect there would be a lot of lawyers who, if work was slow, would try to take down the low hanging fruit.
This could be useful in that a free market of sorts could be generated around the validation/invalidation of patents rather than relying on government beaurocracy.
It would be nice if a part of your patent application, money was set aside to pay organisations to invalidate patents.
I would not like to see an increase in patent fees. That would work against the individual inventor and in favor of the large businesses.
This could be useful in that a free market of sorts could be generated around the validation/invalidation of patents rather than relying on government beaurocracy.
There already is, I understand, a thriving market for information, such as prior art, for use in fighting abusive or improper pantent claims.
It's less than $100 and you only need to submit a summary of what your patent does .. this will let you say "patent pending" on your invention.
I'd like to start using this when I have ideas that I'd like to patent and if seems like they might pan out because technology moves in the direction I thought it would, I'd pay the rest of the fees.
Any direct experience with this sort of thing? Any indirect experience?
I don't have any experience with it. It would be a good idea to check with a patent attorney or patent agent.
