Patent trolls buy up patents, particularly software patents, often by the thousands. They have absolutely no intention of developing new and innovative products or services. Their business is to either litigate or extract cash in the form of licensing fees from those who actually do innovate. Patent trolls frequently make their home in eastern Texas, an area of the world with the most patent troll friendly courts on the planet.
The rest is here.
Comments?
bump
Patents suck!
Agreed!
Agreed!
Maybe software patents are different but I know at my company, we have over 900 people (from PhDs to lab techs) working in our R&D units around the world and we spend well in excess of $100 million a year on developing new technologies that we patent. If, after making those huge investments, our competitors could just take our technological developments and use them for free, it wouldn't make any sense for us to invest that kind of time, energy, and money in developing those technologies. We wouldn't get any return on the investments...and neither would anyone else who was making similar investments. So, development would grind down to a trickle.
As it is, our competitors aren't sitting idly by while we pour money into R&D. They are doing the same thing. All with the idea of delivering superior performing products to our customers. In the end, the customers benefit tremendously from those efforts.
In the first place, Sven, he's not talking about developers, but about people acquiring patents who had nothing to do with the development. And exactly the same thing goes on with respect to copyright.
And secondly, when it comes to scientific research, not everyone works according to the model your company does. Particulary when it comes to fighting disease and relieving suffering, I would think that profit motive should be a secondary concern.
And when it comes to software there are companies, organizations and individuals which manage to make their software available for free, and still survive and even turn a profit.
There is also the matter of companies claiming to patent species and genetic codes, which effectively shuts down any researcher who might want to get in the way of their bonanza,
Maybe software patents are different but I know at my company, we have over 900 people (from PhDs to lab techs) working in our R&D units around the world and we spend well in excess of $100 million a year on developing new technologies that we patent. If, after making those huge investments, our competitors could just take our technological developments and use them for free, it wouldn't make any sense for us to invest that kind of time, energy, and money in developing those technologies. We wouldn't get any return on the investments...and neither would anyone else who was making similar investments. So, development would grind down to a trickle.
As it is, our competitors aren't sitting idly by while we pour money into R&D. They are doing the same thing. All with the idea of delivering superior performing products to our customers. In the end, the customers benefit tremendously from those efforts.
Sven, did you actually listen to the radio programme/podcast that was linked to in the blogpost? Did you watch the video that was linked to in the blogpost?
I have great respect for lawyers when they do what they do best. And I think innovators and inventors should be free to do what they do best.
Sven, did you actually listen to the radio programme/podcast that was linked to in the blogpost? Did you watch the video that was linked to in the blogpost?
I read the blog post and the "Pirates" article. But, no, I did not spend an hour listening to the public radio piece.
With regard to the "Pirates" piece, one helpful step would be to institute what they do in the UK for litigation: Loser pays. If you sue someone, then instead of hoping to extract a settlement from the defendant in exchange for the defendant being able to avoid the expense of litigation, you pay the defendant's costs of litigation if the defendant refuses to settle, the case goes to trial, and you lose. As one of the defense attorneys in the "Pirates" piece said, his client would loved to have taken the case to a trial on the merits of the claim but decided it was more cost-effective to, instead, make a relatively small payment to settle the case and avoid the expense of trial, an expense that would be incurred even if the defendant wins the case (and those cases are extremely expensive to litigate: When my company is looking at patent litigation, we expect to spend at least $1 million to $3 million on attorenys' fees). That kind of (legal) extortion would be avoided with "loser pays".
The problem is, they're not losing. They're winning these cases. And developers know it - so that would be even less incentive to fight them, if they know that not only will they have to pay the settlement, but also the patent trolls' legal fees.
There's a difference between a company patenting the ideas they're DEVELOPING. That was the original intent of patent laws. That's not the case here. Someone gets an "idea" (and they're so broad-based in many cases as to be meaningless, but somehow they are "patentable" because East Texas courts are apparently judged by dumbasses), and then they sell it to a patent troll so that, sometime in the future, if someone else ever gets the same idea and actually develops it (like, say, your firm), then the patent troll looks through their archives to see whether they own the patent, and then they extort money from the real inventer.
I think that, short of getting rid of patents altogether (which would be great, but probably not ever going to happen), patent law should perhaps change to say that you can only patent an idea if you are developing it. First one to develop it gets the patent.
You should watch the show, Sven - I think you'd really find it interesting. I'd love to hear your take on it afterwards.
Same thing with copyright... websites (particularly youtube) often takedown material simply on the basis of a claim - not any proof. And while copyright may have at one time been fair, owners are trying to extend the time before they fall into public domain further and further.
Copyright infringement has even been used in the U.S. to prevent access to the law - most notably by the state of Oregon:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/fight-shaping-up-over-or...
I posted this talk by Larry Lessig not too long ago, but it is well-worth seeing (yes, the whole 50 minutes, and particularly the last part). It concerns, among other things, copyright holders and their effect on academic research:
There is also a problem of [url=http://www.archive.org/post/267795/copyright-law-and-intellectual-delusi... asserting copyright over public domain materials[/url] in their collections.
It's a complete abuse of the system and definitely contrary to the public interest.
I think that, short of getting rid of patents altogether (which would be great, but probably not ever going to happen), patent law should perhaps change to say that you can only patent an idea if you are developing it. First one to develop it gets the patent.
I agree with everthing I've bolded in your quote.
From what I'm hearing, patent law reform may very well needed. The whole purpose of patents is to encourage development. To the extent patent laws significantly inhibit development (or actively works at cross-purposes to development), the laws should be re-examined. But, if we are interested in the development of new technology and ideas, we shouldn't toss out patent laws in their entirety...as that also would be at cross-purposes to development).
Where it is clear to me that patents need to end is with computer software.
Software patents in particular have become commodities that are bought and sold in the marketplace by both tech oligopolies and patent trolls. They are used to either a) Sue your competitor out of existence or b) Use the threat of an expensive lawsuit to extract licensing fees.
It's one of those obscenities that's become a part of 21st century capitalism.
"When Patents Attack" in particular looks at a corporation called Intellectual Ventures. Most folks have probably never heard of them, but they're now a huge corporation who's business is patent warfare.
The EU at least nominally regards computer programmes as unpatentable...although software patents do occur in some EU member countries through the back door. Corporations will say that they're patenting a business process or some other such rot.
New Zealand has for the most part banned software patents.
I also wonder about patents in the pharmaceutical sector as well, given the problems with big pharma over supplying HIV AIDS medications to the third world. Patenting life forms as is happening in the bio tech sector also strikes me as creepy.
@ radiorahim #13
Yes, especially when it sometimes involves a small piece of code inserted to allow an interface with propriietary software or hardware. If there were a truly laissez fair eapproach it wouldn't be a problem, but for many it is, as you say, people using patents to cash in, or to control, attack and undermine.
As you say, hardasses do have their place (especially in a war), and in that I agree with you.
And the ironic thing is (at least in the artistic realm, I am not as familiar with the software end) many of these powerful copyright holders established themselves by taking others' material for nothing, or mining the public domain.
this is also a huge problem in music where there are companies that simply buy the rights to mass volumes of music and then start litigating to sue people for using it, even sometimes the artists who actually created it. Then they go and (without the artists permission of course) rent the music to corporations to use in advertising at no benefit to the creator of the work.
it's even illegal to sing "happy birthday" without paying for it, as disney own the rights.
to me the only person with rights and a say in who gets to do what with the music should be the artist or, after they die, their estate.
Walter D and Michael Eisner have enough things that they should burn for.
But they don't own "Happy Birthday".
I agree with your point though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
And again, there are things in the Wikipedia article relevant to the question of copyright that are worth reading.
Within the realm of copyright...again very different from patents, we have what's popularly known as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act". It was passed in the U.S. in 1998.
Basically, Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire and Mickey was about to move into the public domain. Disney successfully lobbied U.S. politicians for an extension to copyright. Representative Sonny Bono (of Sonny & Cher fame) was the main point person for Disney.
Mary Bono (who succeed late husband Sonny in the U.S. House of Representatives) said:
"Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also (then-MPAA president) Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
So it becomes public domain after infinity-minus-one years! [IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/o782z8.gif[/IMG]
Within the realm of copyright...again very different from patents....
Yeah, I don't mean to confuse the two. My only point in bringing it is up is that they are both have a similar dynamic, as an attempt to lock down and profit from creativity and invention. And in both cases, a lot of it is built on a longstanding tradition of material within the public domain. And both have an effect on academic and scientific research.
I do know there are big technical differences.
So it becomes public domain after infinity-minus-one years! [IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/o782z8.gif[/IMG]
Corporations like to talk about the "nanny state" when it comes to workers wanting social services, adequate labour, health & safety and environmental standards.
But the biggest "nanny state" protection around is for corporations...particularly with patent and copyright law. There's a whole legal system setup to protect this kind of rot.
oops, you're right it's not owned by disney but by Warner. Still, the idea of charging people to sing happy birthday is pretty dumb.
good point radiorahim! we can include in that all the massive infrastructure built/subsidized for business, trade missions, etc...
Another week, another patent lawsuit.
This time it's a company called "Open Wave" going after Apple and RIM
I don't give a rat's ass about Apple and RIM. I do care about the enormous waste of money being spent on something that shouldn't exist...namely software patents.
The article makes use of the phoney corporate term "intellectual property"...when what they're really talking about is patents.
I just listened to that podcast, rr. One of the things I found most galling was the patent auction for Nortel, which was purchased by a Microsoft/Apple/RIM consortium for 4.5 billion dollars. That money didn't go to development, to investment, to employees' wages--we all, as consumers will pay for it in product markup--it just got swallowed up in the black hole of patent law, serving no useful purpose, just following the rules of some arbitrary game. Sickening.
Leaks show U.S. swayed Canada on copyright bill
Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands for a U.S.-style copyright law here.The documents describe Canadian officials as encouraging American lobbying efforts. They also cite cabinet minister Maxime Bernier raising the possibility of showing U.S. officials a draft bill before tabling it in Parliament.
The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list.
The documents, released by WikiLeaks, are the backdrop to a 2010 Conservative copyright bill that virtually adopted the U.S. government's rigid enforcement of "digital locks" on DVDs, CDs and e-books.
Digital locks are the technology that, for example, prevent DVDs from being copied and make it impossible to view a disc from India on a North American disc player.
this really proves all those who were saying that canada certainly did not belong on the list of "worst offenders" and was only on there so we could be pressured into signing on to some draconian pro corporate copyright laws were correct.
I just listened to that podcast, rr. One of the things I found most galling was the patent auction for Nortel, which was purchased by a Microsoft/Apple/RIM consortium for 4.5 billion dollars. That money didn't go to development, to investment, to employees' wages--we all, as consumers will pay for it in product markup--it just got swallowed up in the black hole of patent law, serving no useful purpose, just following the rules of some arbitrary game. Sickening.
And the longer that this goes on the more difficult it becomes to abolish software patents because the so-called "value" of all of these patents becomes part of the evaluation of the corporation's value in the great capitalist casino.
this really proves all those who were saying that canada certainly did not belong on the list of "worst offenders" and was only on there so we could be pressured into signing on to some draconian pro corporate copyright laws were correct.
Back in (I believe it was) the 1990's recession there were Canadian corporate types going to bond rating agencies on Wall Street demanding that the federal government's credit rating be lowered to help them push through "restraint" policies. Linda McQuaig wrote about it.
Found the article...here it is.
All you've got to do is buy up some patents and then start suing everyone in site.
Reuters) - Mobile software company Vringo Inc, best known for its video ringtones, is betting on recently acquired intellectual property to drive revenue growth as it battles several big names including Google Inc and ZTE Corp over infringement of its patents.
The rest about this particular patent troll in the Chicago Tribune here
According to this article in the Daily Telegraph (UK), Facebook is being sued for the use of the "Like" button.
Some wonderful news from New Zealand:
New Zealand bans software patents
This means that at least in New Zealand, software/tech conglomerates and patent trolls won't be able to launch software patent lawsuits.
![http://i52.tinypic.com/o782z8.gif[/IMG]](http://i52.tinypic.com/o782z8.gif[/IMG]){kind=link}