Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

blogmaverick.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#81

Post by AllenKids »

This is more of a thought on Google's awkward situation rather than patent laws in general:

What if the DOJ scrutiny around the Nortel patent bundle went well for Google and Apple/Microsoft etc were forced to put essential patents in a pool and license it to other vendors under fair conditions? As Google's CLO said, it still does not give Google the weapon to negate Oracle or Microsoft or Apple's IP lawsuits. What if DOJ smites down the same way everytime an important patent auction is happening? As long as Microsoft/Apple etc is willing to throw money at it, the best outcome will always be everybody gets its fair share. Again, Google's patent WMD remains a dream.

Unless a patent reform retroactively grands Google all the immunity in the world I really do not understand how this would end well for Google without sorting everything out in court just as it is.

* Of course theoretically Google could buy up MMI or other companies with a giant patent trove in mobile space to balance things out. Then again all public companies' board have fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value and as long as Apple/Microsoft are willing to pay more, Google has slim chance of exclusivity.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#82

Post by extension »

jonmc12 wrote: post #72
extension wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can forensics investigators tell whether I came up with an idea in the shower vs hearing about an existing product?

This is exactly the mindset that leads to the patent system we have today. You are thinking of intellectual property as an idea - its not. Meaningful intellectual property is a functioning method or product that delivers value to people (is this all IP? no, but this the scope of IP I am suggesting protecting). It takes, research, communication, testing, experimentation, failure, and repetition to truly build somethin…

What leads to the patent system we have today is greed and lawyers. If the system can be exploited to legally steal buckets of cash from successful companies, then it will happen. The mindset of the industry seems to be overwhelmingly opposed to this, but that doesn't matter as long as the law permits it.

A new kind of certification for complex and novel inventions will not solve anything, because it's the simple and obvious inventions that everyone depends on that expose us to patent attacks.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#83

Post by ig1 »

extension wrote: post #57
MartinCron wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Something I would add to this list: require that patents be actively enforced in order to remain valid, similar to copyright and trademarks. This would prevent submarine patents.

There's no such requirement for copyright.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#85

Post by hootmon »

Technically correct, but the job situation is much much worse, and this band aid will not fix it. Fascism has established itself globally and is in the process of reducing everyone to penury while the few at the top of the Fascist pyramid of power get fatter.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#86

Post by Joeri »

streptomycin wrote: post #24
ender7 wrote: post #4

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…

(A) is my ideal scenario, but (B) might be to shorten patent terms for software. Maybe 5 years or so, instead of 20. Technology moves so fast that 20 years is an eternity. For instance, MP3 is old hat, but it still contains several patented technologies.

You could also do (A) via (B). Gradually shorten the patent duration for software patents until you get rid of them entirely.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#87

Post by CurtHagenlocher »

notJim wrote: post #69

I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem. The limiting factor on the number of people with programming jobs is the number of people capable of filling those roles. There simply are not competent developers who are having trouble finding work right now. If you want to talk about creating high-paying jobs that will allow the US to be more competitive and p…

Also, the limiting factor on businesses hiring is not (just) the cash they have lying around, but the demand there exists for their goods and services.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#88

Post by nextparadigms »

smokeyj wrote: post #28
sage_joch wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more realistic first step might be "no new software patents". Otherwise it could be a pretty fierce fight with existing stakeholders, who would view abolition similarly to a nullification of a stock portfolio.

Isn't that anti-competitive to new companies? They can get sued but can't sue back?

This is why there should be an opt-out of the patent system, or they can simply say all new companies can't be affected by older patents. It would be a pretty good transition - not perfect, but about as good as it gets.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#89

Post by jerf »

notJim wrote: post #69

I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem. The limiting factor on the number of people with programming jobs is the number of people capable of filling those roles. There simply are not competent developers who are having trouble finding work right now. If you want to talk about creating high-paying jobs that will allow the US to be more competitive and p…

"I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem."

"More jobs created" != total "solution to the unemployment problem". The logic as presented is sound; take away one source of needless drain, more jobs are a very likely result.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#90

Post by DrJokepu »

beagle3 wrote: post #58
ender7 wrote: post #4

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…

Intellectual "Property Tax". Have everyone declare the value of their intellectual "property" (patents, copyrights, trademarks) - each and every item, for that year, on their tax return, and have them pay 1% of the value as "IP tax". 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…

It sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure, however, how it would work across international borders. A physical property is clearly somewhere and that's where it gets taxed. What would stop people from "moving" their intellectual properties to "IP tax heavens"?
Post reply on HN