41–50 of 78 posts
I have little sympathy for the employees that got laid off, and am reassured that IV is finding it harder to operate. However, it's a bit disconcerting that they've claimed to "automate" their process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IV spends a large amount of money (billions [1]) on purchasing patents. One might reasonably expect that to encourage innovation. I don't see how purchasing any kind of patents can encourage innovation. Innovation is encouraged by returns from the innovation, not by returns from sold patents. Recycling patents for profit is a completely parasitic business which has nothing to do with innovation.
You found an R&D company, the research goes slower than expected, and after five years you run out of funding. Result of that is: 1) you can sell the partial progress and recoup at least a little cash; versus 2) all your work is worth absolutely zip. If (1) is true rather than (2), you'll be more likely to engage in a risky R&D business in the first place. If (2) is true, you'll focus on something that will yield a s…
If an R&D firm have spent millions developing (inventing) a new method of transportation, then they should be able to have that method patented. But I'd argue that "swipe to unlock" is not an invention and should definitely not be patented.
The transfer, sale, and collection of patents is fine as far as I'm concerned. That isn't the part that's broken.
Frivolous patent suits are only possible because there are frivolous patents being approved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents: > Even if patents actually accomplished their advertised purpose — “securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries,” as the US Constitution puts it — they’d be a very bad idea. The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face,…
> The problem is patents: No, patents are fine. The problem is that current patent laws enable patent trolls. If we could find a way to eradicate patent trolls while preserving patents, their intent would be served much better. For example, you should only be able to acquire patents if you can prove you have a business pertinent to those patents. This kind of measure would instantly kill all patent trolls.
> The main issue debated is whether or not companies like IV hurt or help innovation with its business practices. This is an interesting point. Has anyone (without a direct financial interest to do so) made a credible argument that IV is anything other than harmful to innovation?
Devil's advocate: A secondary market for patents incentivizes investors to fund innovation, in the hopes of re-selling when/if the IP becomes valuable. That's the story, anyway. In the real world, I think patents are vastly net-negative towards genuine innovation, and in most cases, morally repugnant besides.
The real problem IMO is that patents are being issued for frivolous ideas. If patents really represented inventions of value, then the secondary market should be correctly allocating those patents to the right people. Unfortunately, patents do not represent inventions of value, because what we see is the secondary market identifying "infringements" everywhere, so it's more profitable to extort.
If there are so many infringements, how is the patent possibly novel?
IV is a garbage company trying to portray itself as a bastion of innovation. There are certain severe "bugs" in the way our intellectual property laws work in the US. IV exploits these bugs to make Billions of dollars. IV is not concerned with whether something is good or not. They exist to make hay while the intellectual property laws remain broken. I had no idea they had 500 people working for them. That means that…
I think dogpiling Intellectual Ventures is striking at the branches, and not at the root. The problem isn’t “patent trolls.” The problem is patents: > Even if patents actually accomplished their advertised purpose — “securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries,” as the US Constitution puts it — they’d be a very bad idea. The claim that one can own an idea is silly on its face,…
Unfortunately the branches are protecting the roots with millions of dollars in lobbying [1]...
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/paten...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lawsuits that IV helped you defend against, were those from trolls or from practicing entities that had patents? I'm asking because I would think that having a bunch of patents would only protect you against practicing entities that are in violation of random other patents just by being alive, it wouldn't really stop trolls from trolling. Do I have that right? (Possibly an ignorant question, sorry.)
Not an ignorant question at all! All were from trolls/non-practicing entities except for one (which we settled). As soon as we went public, we became a target. It would come in the form of: "Hello, we are XYZ company are you are infringing on 1,324 of our patents related to computing and to communicating over USB - we would be happy to not move forward with our lawsuit for the sum of $500,000" We called it the revers…
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121220/02365821447/intel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you give money to people in exchange for innovation that encourages innovation. That said, purchasing patents only encourages innovation if those patents are the product of innovation.
Judging by the current patent system, patents and innovation aren't equal in many cases. On the contrary, patents are often equal to the stifling of innovation. So giving money for patents is not equal to giving money for innovation in general case.
> The main issue debated is whether or not companies like IV hurt or help innovation with its business practices. This is an interesting point. Has anyone (without a direct financial interest to do so) made a credible argument that IV is anything other than harmful to innovation?
Devil's advocate: A secondary market for patents incentivizes investors to fund innovation, in the hopes of re-selling when/if the IP becomes valuable. That's the story, anyway. In the real world, I think patents are vastly net-negative towards genuine innovation, and in most cases, morally repugnant besides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a simplistic argument. What is the difference between a large company with several labs producing 'innovation' and a large company funding several labs to produce 'innovation'?
Those examples have nothing to do with my argument. Both of your examples neglect the crux of my statement. Paying for patents is not the same as funding innovation. Funding innovation may involve paying for patents. What I stated is that if your company makes its only revenue by the litigation involved with the patents it purchases, it is a parasite. Why? Because it does not produce any goods or services to keep the…