51–60 of 426 posts
Cloudflare is like Google early days. They could spend resources on things for the good of the all. In this case they’re spending millions when they could have settled for much cheaper. Thanks Cloudflare.
Hope they wouldn't end like google. But you are right. Thank you Cloudflare.
Lots of patent hate in the first few comments. If we take the position that an inventor should be able to try and get profit from their invention how can we protect that without patent system?
The myth of patents is that some inventor working in their garage comes up with a genius invention, patents it, and then can leverage that patent-granted period of exclusivity into a thriving business. Hard work and smarts translating directly into rewards! This is, of course, a myth. It's not impossible for that to happen, theoretically, but the way the patent system actually works these days is that large companies…
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/11/26/271633...
> A company headed by a Colorado professor who invented a strategy board game has won a $1.6 million patent infringement verdict.
> ...
> Innovention prevailed in a patent infringement against MGA, Wal-Mart Stores and Toys R Us. A federal court in New Orleans found that MGA’s Laser Battle game, sold through the two retailers, infringed on Innovention’s patent for Khet.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-laser-game
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242
---
Note the rarity of this happening that it makes the news compared to how often patents are thrown around in courts.
Cloudflare is like Google early days. They could spend resources on things for the good of the all. In this case they’re spending millions when they could have settled for much cheaper. Thanks Cloudflare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok I'll bite, why stop at software?
The point of the parent system is to prevent knowledge from being lost to humanity. It encourages disclosure on how unique and novel things work in return for a limited monopoly. If inventions were not patented then we can lose the ability to make them, which isn’t as insane sounding as you might expect. Preserving this knowledge for the future of humanity is critical.
OTOH, I’ve never, not once, ever, heard of someone reading through the patent database to learn how to do a thing. I’m sure someone has done such a thing, but that’s not the norm. The patent database is where you record that you were the first to claim to have done a thing. It’s not where you meaningfully explain how.
At the end of the day, this is a deep legislation issue, patents should not exist at all. They are supposed to promote innovation, in practice, it's more about protecting guys who sitting and waiting for passive cash. Once we give exclusive rights to all AI stuff to Nvidia, is the world going to be a better place ? What would be with ChatGPT if Google actually had enforced (or enforces) patents on Transformers. Is th…
If this is true it would fall under copyright or trademark protections, not patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe... Versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee... in much of the rest of the world.
Is this still true, considering how the Supreme Court has decided a similar case against patent trolls[1][2] in the past? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_Fitness,_LLC_v._ICON_He... . [2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/04/29/patent-...
Worth mentioning: Newegg is another company that doesn't blink and goes after patent trolls with a vengeance, at least they used to: https://www.newegg.com/insider/newegg-vs-patent-trolls-when-...
There needs to be a "use it or lose it" doctrine/law around technological IP. I get all the arguments around creating a market for the patent rights, but it just leads to these bottom feeders creating no value and increasing costs for the industry and consumers.
There are research companies who only do research and get money by licencing their patents. I mean, I really would like to live in a world without patents, but currently those companies do provide value, but cannot exist, without guarding their IP. Yet they would cease to exist, with your proposal.
Those are not patent troll companies. Patent troll companies file patents and then sit on the patent until they can sue another party for infringement, and never make an attempt to commercialize their patent.
Another example of not using it in the use it or lose it scenario is Pfizer's acquisition of Esperion Therapeutics in 2004. Esperion was developing a competitor to Lipitor, so Pfizer purchased Esperion for $1.3BB and shelved the technology to prevent competition with their best selling drug. Had Pfizer "lost" their patent for failing to commercial Esperion's drug, that drug could have entered the market as a generic to compete with Lipitor and severely reduced the cost of statin drugs for consumers.
Lots of patent hate in the first few comments. If we take the position that an inventor should be able to try and get profit from their invention how can we protect that without patent system?
I have an invention that I think could change the world (a better toilet). I went to a patent attorney. His advice: File a submarine patent, wait til someone else has the idea but is stupid enough to manufacture, sue him for low enough that he wants to settle. Why not manufacture? He explained that the patent system is designed to help the incumbents. If you manufacture, the big players will make some minor change, f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the parent system is to prevent knowledge from being lost to humanity. It encourages disclosure on how unique and novel things work in return for a limited monopoly. If inventions were not patented then we can lose the ability to make them, which isn’t as insane sounding as you might expect. Preserving this knowledge for the future of humanity is critical.
This is absolutely not the point of the patent system, otherwise there would be no provision for a monopoly over the commercial manufacturing of the invention. Don't be deluded, the patent system serves as a weapon for bigger companies to block competition. That is their only goal.
You should always be able to make your opponent's arguments at least as well as they do, as that is the first step to overcoming them.
The argument from patent proponents is that without the legal monopoly, they would rely on trade secret law instead, so they would do their best to ensure no one else understood what they do. They still do, within the confines of what disclosure is legally required to get a patent issued (I once had an engineer tell me that if he had not invented the thing being patented, he would have no idea what the patent application the lawyers wrote for it was describing), but at least there is a legal requirement.
Of course, there are important contexts where that argument is irrelevant, such as standards development. Trade secret law is no use there, because the value is in the network effects of the standard, not the invention. Yet we still have patent-riddled standards.