Stopping Patent Trolls
Patents are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as a means to “promote the progress of science and You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
Patents are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as a means to “promote the progress of science and You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
26 comments
Uh Oh! I can see it coming — these patent trolls are coming after FITSNEWS!!
Uh Oh! I can see it coming — these patent trolls are coming after FITSNEWS!!
Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents spells SOUP, not STOP. I guess the SOUP Act probably would be rather odd.
Perhaps they didn’t want to hear any jokes about “no more soup for you!”
Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents spells SOUP, not STOP. I guess the SOUP Act probably would be rather odd.
Perhaps they didn’t want to hear any jokes about “no more soup for you!”
They should simply do away with patent law period. It’s not the gubmints job to protect business or their products. If they want to sell their product to everyone without fear of infringement, produce it at the lowest cost for quality ratio possible.
DONE.
Patents protect the investment in research and development necessary to bring new and innovative products to market. If not for the exclusive right to market a patented product for a limited period of time in order to recoup these costs, anyone could reverse engineer an innovation and produce it at a cost advantage in some third-world sweatshop, destroying any incentive to innovate.
My name is on 14 US patents, so I know whereof I write.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40
The problem isn’t the existence of patents. The problem is granting them to business methods that are not non-obvious (and essentially have no cost for R&D). It is a one-two punch of bad ideas.
If we already have the ability to transfer files across a network, monitor and measure how much of that file has been transferred and print something on a screen, patenting a notification of file transfers isn’t “an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art”.
Should I get a nickel every time someone tells a waitress “when” because I’ve patented a method for notifying beverage transfer?
They should simply do away with patent law period. It’s not the gubmints job to protect business or their products. If they want to sell their product to everyone without fear of infringement, produce it at the lowest cost for quality ratio possible.
DONE.
Patents protect the investment in research and development necessary to bring new and innovative products to market. If not for the exclusive right to market a patented product for a limited period of time in order to recoup these costs, anyone could reverse engineer an innovation and produce it at a cost advantage in some third-world sweatshop, destroying any incentive to innovate.
My name is on 14 US patents, so I know whereof I write.
WD-40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40
The problem isn’t the existence of patents. The problem is granting them to business methods that are not non-obvious (and essentially have no cost for R&D). It is a one-two punch of bad ideas.
If we already have the ability to transfer files across a network, monitor and measure how much of that file has been transferred and print something on a screen, patenting a notification of file transfers isn’t “an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art”.
Should I get a nickel every time someone tells a waitress “when” because I’ve patented a method for notifying beverage transfer?
Most of these suits are software claims. It would make a huge dent in the problem if software were treated under copyright laws instead of patents. Totally different enforcement. As it is now, the guy who came up with the communicator on Star Trek is suing cell phone manufacturers and the estate of the guy who created Dick Tracy is waiting to pounce on the first manufacturer to bring a “two-way wrist TV” to market.
Bingo on the copyright laws!
You gotta admit that that a EULA in theory should cover IP….proving someone didn’t self discover in court is almost folly though.
I think contract law for IP can be covered by EULA and the statute system thrown out the window….but there’s so much gov’t involvement it’ll probably never happen.
This. There is plenty of grey area where software and hardware collide (say for graphics technology), but the vast majority of software patents make about as much sense as Dashiell Hammett getting a patent on the crime novel.
Too bad this won’t change until it hurts the right pocketbooks.
Most of these suits are software claims. It would make a huge dent in the problem if software were treated under copyright laws instead of patents. Totally different enforcement. As it is now, the guy who came up with the communicator on Star Trek is suing cell phone manufacturers and the estate of the guy who created Dick Tracy is waiting to pounce on the first manufacturer to bring a “two-way wrist TV” to market.
Bingo on the copyright laws!
You gotta admit that that a EULA in theory should cover IP….proving someone didn’t self discover in court is almost folly though.
I think contract law for IP can be covered by EULA and the statute system thrown out the window….but there’s so much gov’t involvement it’ll probably never happen.
This. There is plenty of grey area where software and hardware collide (say for graphics technology), but the vast majority of software patents make about as much sense as Dashiell Hammett getting a patent on the crime novel.
Too bad this won’t change until it hurts the right pocketbooks.
These and class actions, whistleblower suits, and anything with statutory atty.’s fees are the most misused and abused devices in the legal world.
$$$$ without purpose all too often.
These and class actions, whistleblower suits, and anything with statutory atty.’s fees are the most misused and abused devices in the legal world.
$$$$ without purpose all too often.
Mencken railed against the same sorts of parasites a century ago, then involving copyrighted music I believe. “Predatory” is the adjective he used if I remember correctly, though he liked “prehensile” too, meaning “grasping” in this use.
True and significant and harmful infringement is a different matter, of course.
Mencken railed against the same sorts of parasites a century ago, then involving copyrighted music I believe. “Predatory” is the adjective he used if I remember correctly, though he liked “prehensile” too, meaning “grasping” in this use.
True and significant and harmful infringement is a different matter, of course.