What is the origin of that term in this context? I just spent several minutes (an eternity in Google/-pedia time) searching for definitions, and the best answer I could infer from the results was that someone named their blog after the pharyngula stage of embryonic development, and used their blog's popularity to manipulate online polls. Am I close?
I don't know if I'd necessarily say we'd be better off with fewer -- but I think there should be some regulation on who is doing what with them. Eliminating the ability for someone to squat on a patent with the sole intention of suing "infringement" would be a great start.
in fact there are some patent owning institutions who have mandates that prevent them from licensing their patents unless the licensee promises to develop. the licensee can't just sit on the patent and do nothing. their is an obligation to develop.
myrvold and his patent troll economic theory totally disregard development (though he will always claim otherwise and cite some red herring examples). while his firm won't "do nothing" as a licensee, they will not develop. they simply wave their big stick, a massive patent pool. they will pose the threat of litigation through noname shell companies. no doubt with these threats he can persuade institutions like the ones above to forget all about development as well. it's all about moving capital.
there are no doubt people, including patent policy makers, who think he and his IT patent lawyer co-founder are "brilliant" and are leading us toward a bright future. after all people are getting paid. but it seems some people are also starting to wise up to the game he is playing and the long-term effects on the system.
I agree some regulation is in order, but I think you have to carefully distinguish squatting from legitimately transacting in patents. ARM is right now a practicing entity. They do the design, which is their expertise, and license their patents and other IP to companies who integrate and manufacture processors. This is an example of a patent being used to facilitate a useful division of labor. Now, what happens if ARM wants to get out of the business? Could they sell their IP to a third party who doesn't want to design micro processors, but just wants the right to receive the licensing revenue?
It's easy to define squatting in ways that prevent that, IMHO, legitimate transaction.
I would remove the right to transaction itself. If you don't want to collect your own licence fees, you can always licence an agency to do it on your behalf. I don't think a legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to encourage invention should be a transferable asset, and the names on the patent should all be sentient entities.
They'd have to include in that the deal to licence your patent from you, which would give a lot more options to the creator on how they want to proceed, which would make sense if the purpose of a patent is for it to empower inventors themselves.
The model I am thinking of is that if the stated intention of the monopoly is for the benefit of inventors as people, then for one thing, those individual inventors are the best qualified to decide if they want to continue the monopoly, which does increase risk for companies, however we are talking about patents and they are supposedly there to empower inventors rather than corporations and this incentivises corporations to be a lot nicer to their employees.
Also, the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer, this however should be subject to fair dealing laws with those they choose to licence to so they can't suddenly price out a competitor that they have already chosen to licence to or bankrupt their employer or anything like that.
which would give a lot more options to the creator
You are taking away options from the creator, most notably the option to sell his stuff. Please don't call that giving him options.
the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer
There are usually multiple inventors. If 3 people invent it, do each of them get a 1/3 vote on it? Do all 3 need to agree on a license? Do each of them get 1/3 of the claims? Can any of the 3 license it individually (which means that the price will naturally fall to $0 since you can always take your business to one of the other two)?
You are creating a brand new problem that was solved long ago. The solution is for those 3 inventors to assign or sell their invention to a company that they form. The company owns and licenses the patent, and those 3 inventors can sell or trade their shares in the company as they wish.
This desire to interfere in trade is very odd. If I have something worth $100 to me, but $500 to my neighbor, the ability to trade creates wealth. I'll sell it to my neighbor (a price of anywhere from $100 to $500 is a Pareto improvement) and then we can each move on with our lives, instead of trying to work out some license or lease agreement.
You are taking away options from the creator, most notably the option to sell his stuff.
I am removing the option to sell rights, not stuff. In other words I am calling for the rights to be statutory and non-transferable.
Removing the option of rights being wholly transferred to another party is the removal of the option to remove all future options and therefore, in absolute terms, can actually have the practical effect of giving inventors more access to other options over the lifetime of their patent.
This desire to interfere in trade is very odd.
Given that patents are an issued right to interfere in trade, I see nothing odd in interfering in the right to trade a right to interfere in trade.
[edit] I completely agree that this creates a different set of messyness, but I think that patents by their very nature create messyness and that this set of messyness is smaller and more dealable with than the current insanity.
Also, I would have to say I am far from convinced of the general need for patents at all, although I would definitely concede that they have been useful in some specific instances.
I would have to say I am far from convinced of the general need for patents at all, although I would definitely concede that they have been useful in some specific instances.
If A is sub-optimal and underpeforming its theoretical envelope how do we A/B test?
Actually, let me rephrase that a bit to ad: What is B? I'm not convinced either if we just asked: "how do we encourage the great and the good" we would end up with something like the current system.
Rather than paying to patent, how about being paid not to patent? Have an open database of invention and track the market, paying money out to inventors whose ideas are the most widely used by using money from the VAT budget.
I don't think the only, or even primary, value of patents is to encourage invention. I think they're valuable for allowing a separation of concerns between inventors and implementors. When you think of patents in that way, it makes total sense for them to be treated as transferable assets.
..."I don't think the only, or even primary, value of patents is to encourage invention."...
I think it might be -
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Nothing there about it being a transferable asset to be treated as property. Is an exclusive right for a limited time for authors and inventors.
[edit] Otherwise it would presumably read:
"by securing for limited Times to Companies and Investors the exclusive Right to the respective Writings and Discoveries of Authors and Inventors." Which doesn't scan nearly as well.
I like Bezos's suggestion of having shorter patents for software. 3-5 years is enough to protect innovators, but not long enough to stifle further innovation, and probably not long enough for patent trolls to purchase and then sue people.
How about exponentially increasing renewal fees? $1 for the first year, $2 for the second, $4 for the first, etc. If the patent is valuable then the owner can keep it going longer, but it will still become unsustainably expensive before too long, and huge portfolios of long-lived patents would be impractical.
I once suggested this for copyright terms, but someone pointed out a big problem: what is the unit that that "$1" fee covers?
I can write an entire book under 1 copyright, easily keeping it going for a decade with your regime. But a photographer produces hundreds or thousands of copyrighted works a year.
You might try doing your regime with the number of claims, and the company can decide how many to keep fresh, but it then leads to weird edge-cases like keeping a few things secret for now to patent later -- which is the opposite of what the patent system intends. Patents encourage people to publish their inventions for others to study, in exchange for limited exclusivity to market and/or use their invention.
Yeah, I don't think it works for copyrights, but patents already seem to have this solved. There's already a set unit for them, and they already cost a substantial amount of money (unlike copyright, which is currently free).
Keeping things secret now to patent them later is a problem, but no worse than it is now, I think. The same incentives apply to the exponential scheme as to the current hard limit. You'd keep the requirement to file within a certain time of the first public reveal, so you'd have to move quickly if you wanted to patent anything you were actually going to use.
So something that I think the courts have lost sight of is the purported reason for patents in the first place. They exist to encourage innovators to make their inventions public, so that knowledge will not be lost.
With something like 'pinch to zoom,' there is no WAY to benefit from that 'invention' without making it public. Consequently, how the hell is it patentable?
Copyright is more than enough for software, medical research should be directly funded by the goverments (just like weapons manufacturers or big public infrastructures), and the rest just on trade secrets.
We are now in a interconnected world, rich with information. Independent reinvention is extremely easy. The risk of some genius taking his great, great, unique discovery to the grave because of the lack of patents is tiny compared with the economic, scientific and technological damage of this constant hemorrhage of time, money and energy that is the patent system.
No more insurmountable entry barriers for entrepreneurs, no more monopolies, no more trolls, no more unnecessary roundabouts to avoid using obvious patents. The only one to lose would be the patent lawyers.
Forget the romantic fairy tale of the poor lonely inventor robbed of his great idea by big business. Using patents in court is extremely expensive, he couldn't afford them anyway. Patents are guns for big guys.
And no mention to the goodness of the free market. Patents are government-granted monopolies. You couldn't be furthest from a free, competitive model of an economy. Patents are not capitalism, they resemble more some feudal privilege taken from the middle ages.
29 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 90.6 ms ] threadin fact there are some patent owning institutions who have mandates that prevent them from licensing their patents unless the licensee promises to develop. the licensee can't just sit on the patent and do nothing. their is an obligation to develop.
myrvold and his patent troll economic theory totally disregard development (though he will always claim otherwise and cite some red herring examples). while his firm won't "do nothing" as a licensee, they will not develop. they simply wave their big stick, a massive patent pool. they will pose the threat of litigation through noname shell companies. no doubt with these threats he can persuade institutions like the ones above to forget all about development as well. it's all about moving capital.
there are no doubt people, including patent policy makers, who think he and his IT patent lawyer co-founder are "brilliant" and are leading us toward a bright future. after all people are getting paid. but it seems some people are also starting to wise up to the game he is playing and the long-term effects on the system.
It's easy to define squatting in ways that prevent that, IMHO, legitimate transaction.
-- What happens when somebody wants to buy your startup?
The model I am thinking of is that if the stated intention of the monopoly is for the benefit of inventors as people, then for one thing, those individual inventors are the best qualified to decide if they want to continue the monopoly, which does increase risk for companies, however we are talking about patents and they are supposedly there to empower inventors rather than corporations and this incentivises corporations to be a lot nicer to their employees.
Also, the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer, this however should be subject to fair dealing laws with those they choose to licence to so they can't suddenly price out a competitor that they have already chosen to licence to or bankrupt their employer or anything like that.
You are taking away options from the creator, most notably the option to sell his stuff. Please don't call that giving him options.
the originating inventor should also always be in a position to negotiate fees for their patent from parties that licence it, including their own employer
There are usually multiple inventors. If 3 people invent it, do each of them get a 1/3 vote on it? Do all 3 need to agree on a license? Do each of them get 1/3 of the claims? Can any of the 3 license it individually (which means that the price will naturally fall to $0 since you can always take your business to one of the other two)?
You are creating a brand new problem that was solved long ago. The solution is for those 3 inventors to assign or sell their invention to a company that they form. The company owns and licenses the patent, and those 3 inventors can sell or trade their shares in the company as they wish.
This desire to interfere in trade is very odd. If I have something worth $100 to me, but $500 to my neighbor, the ability to trade creates wealth. I'll sell it to my neighbor (a price of anywhere from $100 to $500 is a Pareto improvement) and then we can each move on with our lives, instead of trying to work out some license or lease agreement.
I am removing the option to sell rights, not stuff. In other words I am calling for the rights to be statutory and non-transferable.
Removing the option of rights being wholly transferred to another party is the removal of the option to remove all future options and therefore, in absolute terms, can actually have the practical effect of giving inventors more access to other options over the lifetime of their patent.
This desire to interfere in trade is very odd.
Given that patents are an issued right to interfere in trade, I see nothing odd in interfering in the right to trade a right to interfere in trade.
[edit] I completely agree that this creates a different set of messyness, but I think that patents by their very nature create messyness and that this set of messyness is smaller and more dealable with than the current insanity.
Also, I would have to say I am far from convinced of the general need for patents at all, although I would definitely concede that they have been useful in some specific instances.
If A is sub-optimal and underpeforming its theoretical envelope how do we A/B test?
I don't think the only, or even primary, value of patents is to encourage invention. I think they're valuable for allowing a separation of concerns between inventors and implementors. When you think of patents in that way, it makes total sense for them to be treated as transferable assets.
I think it might be -
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Nothing there about it being a transferable asset to be treated as property. Is an exclusive right for a limited time for authors and inventors.
[edit] Otherwise it would presumably read: "by securing for limited Times to Companies and Investors the exclusive Right to the respective Writings and Discoveries of Authors and Inventors." Which doesn't scan nearly as well.
I can write an entire book under 1 copyright, easily keeping it going for a decade with your regime. But a photographer produces hundreds or thousands of copyrighted works a year.
You might try doing your regime with the number of claims, and the company can decide how many to keep fresh, but it then leads to weird edge-cases like keeping a few things secret for now to patent later -- which is the opposite of what the patent system intends. Patents encourage people to publish their inventions for others to study, in exchange for limited exclusivity to market and/or use their invention.
Keeping things secret now to patent them later is a problem, but no worse than it is now, I think. The same incentives apply to the exponential scheme as to the current hard limit. You'd keep the requirement to file within a certain time of the first public reveal, so you'd have to move quickly if you wanted to patent anything you were actually going to use.
http://www.economist.com/node/21561888
With something like 'pinch to zoom,' there is no WAY to benefit from that 'invention' without making it public. Consequently, how the hell is it patentable?
Copyright is more than enough for software, medical research should be directly funded by the goverments (just like weapons manufacturers or big public infrastructures), and the rest just on trade secrets.
We are now in a interconnected world, rich with information. Independent reinvention is extremely easy. The risk of some genius taking his great, great, unique discovery to the grave because of the lack of patents is tiny compared with the economic, scientific and technological damage of this constant hemorrhage of time, money and energy that is the patent system.
No more insurmountable entry barriers for entrepreneurs, no more monopolies, no more trolls, no more unnecessary roundabouts to avoid using obvious patents. The only one to lose would be the patent lawyers.
Forget the romantic fairy tale of the poor lonely inventor robbed of his great idea by big business. Using patents in court is extremely expensive, he couldn't afford them anyway. Patents are guns for big guys.
And no mention to the goodness of the free market. Patents are government-granted monopolies. You couldn't be furthest from a free, competitive model of an economy. Patents are not capitalism, they resemble more some feudal privilege taken from the middle ages.