Is this sort of thing an issue in other countries. I'm a tech founder in Australia. I don't think we have the same level of anxiety about being sued for unknowingly breaching a software patent. Can anyone comment on this? Is our patent system different or can we expect to see our industry similarly affected in the future?
When Patents Attack
31–40 of 135 posts
Re: When Patents Attack
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I never ever think about patents. Ever (except when reading HN). It's just not a real day to day issue.
I think all the indie devs that are getting letters from lodsys would tend to disagree with you about whether or not it's a 'real' issue.
For every indie dev getting a letter from Lodsys, there has been 100 indie devs that have failed for reasons unrelated to patents.
I'm not saying that lawsuits don't happen, but they're rare.
Re: When Patents Attack
#33Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi... They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive." Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong. And who, or what, do they think they a…
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
The Planet Money reporters asked this very question. IV offered bupkis in response, rather sending them on a wild goose chase. I only hope Mhyrvold starts patenting culinary ideas, just to spread the joy.
Re: When Patents Attack
#34What if you could pay for some kind of insurance product to protect against patent lawsuits? Or perhaps some kind of co-operative that owned a bunch of bullshit patents to be used for defensive purposes in such a scenario?
Re: When Patents Attack
#35Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi... They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive." Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong. And who, or what, do they think they a…
That entire article rests on the assumption that software patents have some value outside of the ability to sue someone else with them or to ward of lawsuits by someone else. They want you to think of a software patent like it's a piece of music or a motion picture. They're just like Netflix or Spotify for patents! I don't know how anyone working for that company can sleep at night.
On a very expensive and comfortable bed.
Re: When Patents Attack
#36I get anxious every time I read another patent troll story wondering when my weekend creations will end up costing me $ when they accidentally infringe on a patent because I roll out some seemingly ubiquitous feature. I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.
Actually, there may be a moral responsibility on all of us developers/hackers to make it obvious to the general public how ridiculous most sw patents are.
For example, we could apply machine learning / data mining to categorise patents so that we can say patent N, M and L are 95% equivalent in some well defined sense.
ie. we could fight back with firm data which ridicules the Patent system into revamp or obsolescence.
Re: When Patents Attack
#37There is a simple solution to this problem. Make maintenance fees payable yearly, and make a requirement of getting the patent renewed proof that you're actually using it. People filing patents only to sit and wait until someone else infringes is a cancer on American innovation.
Re: When Patents Attack
#38Is this sort of thing an issue in other countries. I'm a tech founder in Australia. I don't think we have the same level of anxiety about being sued for unknowingly breaching a software patent. Can anyone comment on this? Is our patent system different or can we expect to see our industry similarly affected in the future?
Patents are territorial. That is, unless someone has filed an application (or designated Australia as part of a national phase of a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent application, nothing will issue in Australia. Generally, companies try to figure out where their likely markets are, and where the expense can be justified. Australia is becoming more and more relevant, but it was not nearly as common to file there a few years ago. (Full disclosure, I'm a U.S. patent attorney (but I'm actually a good guy!).)
Re: When Patents Attack
#39What if you could pay for some kind of insurance product to protect against patent lawsuits? Or perhaps some kind of co-operative that owned a bunch of bullshit patents to be used for defensive purposes in such a scenario?
>What if you could pay for some kind of insurance product to protect against patent lawsuits?
Heh. Programmers' malpractice insurance. The premiums would be ridiculous, though.
>Or perhaps some kind of co-operative that owned a bunch of bullshit patents to be used for defensive purposes in such a scenario?
That's more or less the shitck Intellectual Ventures uses to justify that they're not patent trolls (they point it out in TFA). In the podcast they point out that their need for a good ROI doesn't allow them to sit idle.
How do you defend against patent trolls, though? It's not like they make anything that can be infringed on.
Maybe here's a valid, easy-to-swallow change to the patent system - everytime a patent changes hands you halve the amount of time it is valid for.
Re: When Patents Attack
#40There is a simple solution to this problem. Make maintenance fees payable yearly, and make a requirement of getting the patent renewed proof that you're actually using it. People filing patents only to sit and wait until someone else infringes is a cancer on American innovation.
Definitely like the second part. It would seem that if you aren't actually using your patent, the patent's purpose is lost.
I also think there should be oversight on the patents that are granted. Right now you can patent something that has 20 years of prior art with relative ease. That's silly.