11–20 of 28 posts
My problem with patent-overload is that it's turned into a protection scheme. Big company approaches me and my little company and says, "We think we have some patent issues". And I say, "Really? Unlikely, we wrote everything from scratch." And they reply, "How much money did you make last year?" And I ask, "What's the got to do with anything?" And they say, "do you know how much it will cost you to defend against our…
We've sped up the rpms on the centrifuge and the system is shaking itself apart.
My problem with patent-overload is that it's turned into a protection scheme. Big company approaches me and my little company and says, "We think we have some patent issues". And I say, "Really? Unlikely, we wrote everything from scratch." And they reply, "How much money did you make last year?" And I ask, "What's the got to do with anything?" And they say, "do you know how much it will cost you to defend against our…
Maybe they should set up an online patent-protection store where developers can setup an account to ease the friction (probably wouldn't have a one-click checkout though).
My problem with patent-overload is that it's turned into a protection scheme. Big company approaches me and my little company and says, "We think we have some patent issues". And I say, "Really? Unlikely, we wrote everything from scratch." And they reply, "How much money did you make last year?" And I ask, "What's the got to do with anything?" And they say, "do you know how much it will cost you to defend against our…
The concept is to mitigate the risk of innovating by adding reward. But the reward in the patent system is associated to the conceptualization of the idea which (mostly) carries no risk. The risk comes when you try to invest in that idea to bring it to market. So patent trolls can capture all the reward but not have any of the risk. The only way to solve this is to limit the reward to match the risk: a patent owner should only be entitled to damages that are directly comparable to the revenue they themselves are making from the same invention in the same market. If a patent troll is doing nothing with an invention then it should fall into the public domain.
My problem with patent-overload is that it's turned into a protection scheme. Big company approaches me and my little company and says, "We think we have some patent issues". And I say, "Really? Unlikely, we wrote everything from scratch." And they reply, "How much money did you make last year?" And I ask, "What's the got to do with anything?" And they say, "do you know how much it will cost you to defend against our…
So, the legal system is broken instead?
My problem with patent-overload is that it's turned into a protection scheme. Big company approaches me and my little company and says, "We think we have some patent issues". And I say, "Really? Unlikely, we wrote everything from scratch." And they reply, "How much money did you make last year?" And I ask, "What's the got to do with anything?" And they say, "do you know how much it will cost you to defend against our…
It sounds a lot like how the Mafia operates...
Patent trolls are a symptom of the problem that the patent system misidentifies the risk involved in invention. The concept is to mitigate the risk of innovating by adding reward. But the reward in the patent system is associated to the conceptualization of the idea which (mostly) carries no risk. The risk comes when you try to invest in that idea to bring it to market. So patent trolls can capture all the reward but…
Meanwhile, another company with resources uses your invention and decides to grow 10 cities at a time. They can be 10X bigger than you very fast. They're eating your lunch, even if you'd only have made a fraction of what they made in that period.
That said, patents aren't supposed to be for inventors, they're supposed to be for society, to help stuff get invented and produced. Society benefits more from the larger company.
Patent trolls are a symptom of the problem that the patent system misidentifies the risk involved in invention. The concept is to mitigate the risk of innovating by adding reward. But the reward in the patent system is associated to the conceptualization of the idea which (mostly) carries no risk. The risk comes when you try to invest in that idea to bring it to market. So patent trolls can capture all the reward but…
I don't see any solution to the mess other than abolishing software patents. That way you have a level playing field. I really don't think that will stop researchers from innovating, nor will it stop those with a purse from funding them. But yeah ... not gonna happen in my lifetime :(
My biggest problem with patent-overload isn't Apple v. Google v. Amazon, and lost innovation, it's Big Company v. Samll Company (particularly the physical engineering kind), with large legal departments versus smaller ones. E.g. "please top infringing on our bs ethernet connector patent"