51–60 of 144 posts
At this point I would be fine with starting with the baby set of killing any patent that implements a business process. It would be a good start, simple to explain, and kill off a goodly chunk of the trolls.
Bussiness processes are already unpatentable.
All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…
These (small) changes have a much better chance of being made than abolishing software patents altogether, and would help reduce some of the abuses that are out there today.
All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…
Really, we should be free to invent. Option B should be that if an inventor can show a clean history of evolving an idea, it should be allowed to freely enter the market. Ideas evolve over time, and the originate from something. Perhaps if inventors were willing to register their invention documents through a set of steps mapping to something like the Technology Readiness Level ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolo…
2) How do I know which things need to be certified as inventions? Software patents are so vague that even simple applications can infringe hundreds of them. iOS apps are being sued just for having in-app upgrades.
3) Anything that requires more beurocracy or litigation is only going to make things worse because small players can't even afford to make use of the system, especially when they are fighting against dedicated full-time lawyers. The only alternative to solving that underlying problem is eliminating the ways it can be exploited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a reasonable "B" solution would be to require that any company engaging in patent litigation would have to show that they had actually been using the patent in a product; that their product had a record of sales and use in commerce; and that the allegedly infringing party was directly affecting their business. Of course, this alternative would have to be specified in much greater detail to be effective, and h…
I like this idea. We've grown too attached to the notion of "intellectual property", thinking of ideas as things you can own. We should get back to the purpose of IP: subsidizing the creation of new information, which by nature belongs to no one but benefits everyone, with a limited monopoly on its reproduction. If you aren't using your monopoly, then no one is benefiting, and you shouldn't have it.
Let's say I invent a new kind of power generation that requires construction of a large-scale power plant. I shouldn't have to wait until the power plant is built and operational before I get protection for the invention. I should be able to get a patent on the idea and sell the rights to implement it to someone who can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. If a job is unnecessary then it shouldn't be done. The fact that people need to have jobs, even jobs which create no value, is a systemic failure.
I actually agree with you. What I was asking was: if you change Cuban's argument from "If you want to see more jobs created – change patent laws" to "If you want to see more prosperity created – change patent laws", would you agree?
Yes I would agree. I think lawyers are generally pretty smart people and we're losing the prosperity they could be creating.
All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…
B) Would probably best be a handful of small incremental changes. My list: shortening the lifetime of patent exclusivity, raising the patent application fees and using that money to staff the patent office to the point where they don't grant bullshit patents, require disclosure of who has been sued/threatened so that defendants can combine legal efforts, require more disclosure about who owns what patents, so you're…
All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…
That amount is what one pays for a compulsory license or if successfully sued, and up to 3 times that for willful infringement, per year -- and no more. (But of course, patent owner can always negotiate a lower payment)
All of a sudden, everyone has an incentive to state a reasonable value for their patent. Copyright catalogs that are not being published (old music recordings, old books, old movies) would be assigned 0 value by copyright holder, to avoid tax - which means anyone can freely make a copy. If they believe -- at the end of the year -- that someone is making a profit at their expense, they can set the value as high as they want at the end of that year, pay the tax, and sue the profiteer.
Simple, elegant, and coffer filling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this idea. We've grown too attached to the notion of "intellectual property", thinking of ideas as things you can own. We should get back to the purpose of IP: subsidizing the creation of new information, which by nature belongs to no one but benefits everyone, with a limited monopoly on its reproduction. If you aren't using your monopoly, then no one is benefiting, and you shouldn't have it.
I keep thinking about the case where someone has a valid idea for an invention that's worth a patent, but doesn't have the funds to build such a thing. Let's say I invent a new kind of power generation that requires construction of a large-scale power plant. I shouldn't have to wait until the power plant is built and operational before I get protection for the invention. I should be able to get a patent on the idea a…
And "use" doesn't have to mean implement. In your case, you'd just tell the truth: "I've been making a good-faith effort to license this generator technology to power companies, but they keep turning me down because they're waiting for my patent to expire instead so they get it for free." If you can document that effort, there's no reason we couldn't consider that a valid use and sustain the patent— and so the power companies have no incentive not to license your technology, and so the generator gets built and everyone wins.
Remember also that the only case this comes up in is if a power company sues you to get your technology for free on the grounds that you aren't using it. If you offered to sell it to them first, that's a pretty open and shut case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this idea. We've grown too attached to the notion of "intellectual property", thinking of ideas as things you can own. We should get back to the purpose of IP: subsidizing the creation of new information, which by nature belongs to no one but benefits everyone, with a limited monopoly on its reproduction. If you aren't using your monopoly, then no one is benefiting, and you shouldn't have it.
I keep thinking about the case where someone has a valid idea for an invention that's worth a patent, but doesn't have the funds to build such a thing. Let's say I invent a new kind of power generation that requires construction of a large-scale power plant. I shouldn't have to wait until the power plant is built and operational before I get protection for the invention. I should be able to get a patent on the idea a…