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

EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#41

Post by yazaddaruvala »

Honestly, I think the best way to get rid of this nonsense, keeping everyone happy, is to allow patents but to enforce a "profit cap".

Basically, if an entity has invested $X into RND for patent Y, then patent Y should be valid until some $(Z*X) has been earned by the entity. Where Z is some constant; or stepped like tax brackets.

Example: A company develops some new software: it cost $500,000 of Engineering effort. They are awarded a patent. The patent should be valid until that company has earned $5 million (Z=10; ie 1000% ROI).

Example: A company develops some new drug: it cost $5,000,000,000 for RND. They are awarded a patent. The patent should be valid until that company has earned $50 Billion (Z=10; ie 1000% ROI).

I agree it may be hard to prove "amount spent on patent" or "profit earned from patent". However, at least to me, it seems as hard as the IRS auditing a company's taxes, or as hard as auditing a public companies quarterly financial disclosures.

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#42

Post by raquo »

frederickf wrote: post #14

This might be naive on my part but it seems like we could help the situation quite a bit, at least for software patents, by just reducing the amount of time for which new software patents are valid. It's simple, easy to understand and implement, more consistent with the speed at which the software market evolves, would reduce the perceived value of bogus patents making trolling less likely, free up technology sooner…

3-4 year limit on software patents would certainly help. It puts the incentives closer to where they should be, and is a straightforward fix too, unlike revamping / abolishing the whole patent system.

It certainly doesn't fully address the fundamental problems of the system, but it could be a reasonable first step.

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#43

Post by kanzure »

zanny wrote: post #2

The solution to the patent system is to abolish it. The whole thing. Seek compensation for the act of coming up with innovative ideas instead of trying to apply artificial state granted monopolies to them after the fact. It would be so much healthier to have money pumped into the R&D of common utility goods for the sake of the innovation than to continue to perpetuate patent warfare while trying to attach a flawed pr…

> The solution to the patent system is to abolish it. The whole thing.

Here is my proposal for that sort of strategy: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...

Basically the idea is that there are extremely entrenched interests, so it is unlikely that they will just roll over and die. Instead, there should be a plan for deprecating the patent system.

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#44

Post by xroche »

cletus wrote: post #27

I'm disappointed by the EFF's stance here: it simply isn't strong enough. I'm in the camp that believes there shouldn't be software patents period . Simple as that. As for ending the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on patent case appeals, I assume this is because that court has frequently been overly friendly to patent plaintiff claims. Some might argue it's gone so far as regulatory ca…

This is what is supposed to be true in Europe: software "as such" can not be patented. The issue we have is that corrupted patent organizations such as the EPO twisted the "as such" so much that they managed to reverse the original meaning (ie. you can not patent a software "as such", but patenting its use inside of a computer is legit - I love lawyers)

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#45

Post by venomsnake »

rayiner wrote: post #23

Most of these are really excellent, such as the suggestion to require example code for claims implemented in software, to allow the regional courts of appeal to decide patent cases, and to defer most discovery until after claim construction. On the other hand, some of the suggestions simply beg the question. What is a "software patent" or a "patent troll?" Software is eating the world--mechanisms that would have in t…

The problem with software patents is that they claim to own the destination and not the solution to a specific problem. If I am able to reproduce one click without looking at the corresponding patent, it should not be patentable.

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#46

Post by rofl1234 »

rayiner wrote: post #11
transfire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of one important distinction between the US and India with regards to medicine patents. In India you can only patent the means of making a medicine, not the medicine itself. So if you can come up with a substantially different way of making the same thing you have equal rights to it.

This is a good law for India, because they have the capability to manufacture medicine, while lacking the capability to invent them. It's one of the many ways the world freeloads on U.S. medical R&D spending.

> lacking the capability to invent

citation needed

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#47

Post by eCa »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #40

Honestly, I think the best way to get rid of this nonsense, keeping everyone happy, is to allow patents but to enforce a "profit cap". Basically, if an entity has invested $X into RND for patent Y, then patent Y should be valid until some $(Z*X) has been earned by the entity. Where Z is some constant; or stepped like tax brackets. Example: A company develops some new software: it cost $500,000 of Engineering effort.…

I think any such scheme should be based on revenue rather than profit, or else Hollywood accounting[1] might be encouraged.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#48

Post by suvelx »

wbillingsley wrote: post #35
rogerbinns wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual retort to that is "so you don't want to cure cancer then". The pharmaceutical industry very strongly depends on patents, and would easily be able to convince government through money and "cancer" not to abolish it. The practical thing then is to come up with a solution for pharma, and then abolish the patent system.

The patent system is very badly designed for pharma. The cost in pharma is in the clinical trials, but the patent is awarded for creating the drug -- long before the trials. Rather than being a reward for brining an innovation to market, the monopoly (patent) is awarded long before the bulk of the work has been done. No reward is offered in the patent system for doing the hard and expensive part -- proving efficacy a…

What's to stop the FDA enforcing 'patents' and market exclusivity in their approval process? I.e. Instead of approving Chemical-X, approve only DrugCorp brand Chemical-X?

Possibly with some stipulation that the first company to submit and pass approval gets a N-year exclusivity.

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#49

Post by amelius »

rogerbinns wrote: post #4
zanny wrote: post #2

The solution to the patent system is to abolish it. The whole thing. Seek compensation for the act of coming up with innovative ideas instead of trying to apply artificial state granted monopolies to them after the fact. It would be so much healthier to have money pumped into the R&D of common utility goods for the sake of the innovation than to continue to perpetuate patent warfare while trying to attach a flawed pr…

The usual retort to that is "so you don't want to cure cancer then". The pharmaceutical industry very strongly depends on patents, and would easily be able to convince government through money and "cancer" not to abolish it. The practical thing then is to come up with a solution for pharma, and then abolish the patent system.

We don't need patents to justify everything. Think of space exploration. No patents are necessary for the government to invest billions of dollars into that industry.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to find a real cure for anything if they can make more money fighting symptoms.

Re: EFF Outlines Plan to Fix the Broken Patent System

#50

Post by amelius »

rayiner wrote: post #23

Most of these are really excellent, such as the suggestion to require example code for claims implemented in software, to allow the regional courts of appeal to decide patent cases, and to defer most discovery until after claim construction. On the other hand, some of the suggestions simply beg the question. What is a "software patent" or a "patent troll?" Software is eating the world--mechanisms that would have in t…

I think there should be no distinction between software or hardware or even mathematics. What counts is the amount of research effort that went into an invention. It would be unfair if a mechanical engineer could make millions, while an equivalently capable software engineer could not. Therefore, I think the EU has it all wrong.

And this is regardless of whether or not the patent system as a whole should be abolished.

Post reply on HN