That's cute.
The Patent Pledge
121–130 of 204 posts
Re: The Patent Pledge
#122"when established companies with bad products use patents to suppress small competitors with good products. This is the type of abuse we may be able to decrease"
This is not abuse. This is the purpose of a patent. It gives you the ability to be as shitty as you want and still be the only gig in town. Society says "wow you're terrible, but thanks for letting us all know how you did it!"
Re: The Patent Pledge
#123PG, was this pledge created in response to litigation you have experienced with YC companies? There doesn't seem to be much evidence companies with fewer than 25 employees are getting sued unless there's something left unspoken here. I think it would be more constructive to begin the discussion of what patent reform should resemble so that companies and individuals can show support for it. Some kind of software paten…
At UIUC some of my friends did a startup related to memory architectures. IBM pretty quickly shut them down with threats of patent suits. So I know it happens, not sure how common it is though.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#124Just a relevant anecdote from the trenches -- a friend of a friend was a co-founder in Israeli start-up and they were approached by a Redmond company with an investment inquiry. An inquiry which was backed by a patent that would've been used to sue the startup should they not enter negotiations. And so they "negotiated" and in the end took the money. The end.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#125My personal pledge is that as a programmer I refuse to work for any company that goes on the attack with software patents, this obviously includes Apple and Microsoft. I also refuse to participate if asked by my company to help create a patent, I am willing to be fired over this. Since good programmers are a scarce resource if enough of us took this pledge it could really start having an effect.
> I also refuse to participate if asked by my company to help create a patent
What if it covers an actual invention?
What if it is meant to be used defensively, i.e. not for the litigation, but rather to discourage other companies from suing based on their patents?
Re: The Patent Pledge
#126It's not immediately clear to me whether this solves any part of the current problem. But on reflection, I believe I understand the motivation here. Big companies that use patents as a revenue stream (MSFT, IBM, etc.) typically bide their time and bring a patent lawsuit once a new company is established and there is blood to drain. It's the threat of such a lawsuit in the future that can negatively impact investment…
If you want to start a movement, you can't aim too high initially, or you just stall. The patent pledge in its current form is at least fairly easy to swallow. If it sticks, it will have the effect of making patent suits against competitors seem more dubious, which would in turn prepare people for more exacting versions. How far ultimately would you want to push it? I honestly don't know yet. Patents may have some ut…
Part of the problem is that the negative impact of patent trolling doesn't yet register with the general public as an issue comparable to the frivolous med mal suits that necessitated tort reform. We need Michael Moore to produce a documentary on the harms caused by patent trolling (and bad patents), so that the full extent of the problem is presented to a wider audience.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#127I think you could come up with some sort of patent truce, you use a search engine that finds overlapping patents. The truce comes with a constitution/trust that declares some metrics for that search engine. Any patents that go over that metric are not to be used for litigation by members of the truce.
You can require members of the trust to invest in the trust at level relative to market cap. Breaking the trust results in loss of the assets/cash invested. The trust can also fund a defense pool/lobbying budget to protect the interests of the trust. Namely that members outside of the trust cannot successfully litigate on patents the trust hase agreed are frivolous.
edit: obviously transparency, open membership and some high profile members are useful for such a plan.
Re: The Patent Pledge
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, if so, who is going to pay the $10k+ in costs to get each of these patents? Whoever pays to get a patent and not enforce it does society a service, but bears the cost themselves.
The idea is own the patent for defensive purposes, not aggressive. "Patent pacifism," if you will.
I don't understand how one would defend their patented innovation without suing someone else? Or are you suggesting that the patent only be used as a counter-suit after being sued for infringement of a different patent?
I mean, the whole point of a patent is to be able to sue people who are competing with you. How can that ever be defensive?
Re: The Patent Pledge
#129From the companies that pledged so far, how many actually holds any patents?
Re: The Patent Pledge
#130Here's another proposal that doesn't rest on social pressure, the effectiveness of which I fear Paul overestimates. Start a non-profit coalition with the following rules: (1) All patent disputes between members will be resolved by binding arbitration. The arbiters are a panel of domain experts (not lawyers!). There is no presumption that an issued patent is valid. (2) If a member of the coalition is sued by a non-mem…
It is my understanding that this was pretty much exactly the pitch for Intellectual Ventures, and now they have sunk to aiding and abetting trolls.
Is IV a non-profit? I think this idea might actually work if you dissuade the profit motive from corrupting the initiative.