31–40 of 72 posts
I think Ask Patents is supposed to be like this. HN already posted an article about this a few weeks ago. http://patents.stackexchange.com/
I don't agree that killing patents is the right approach, how about this as an alternative: The site's admin team could identify patents of particularly useful or disruptive potential and users could pledge a value to bring this patent into the public domain, and their pledge could remain valid for some reasonable period of time, the site could then put forward the aggregate pledge and buy the patent with the view to…
The patents won't be killed if they're valid; it still has to go through the USPTO. Why do you think that killing those patents is not the right approach? Your approach (if it worked) would just incentivize filing more patents to try to get bought out.
(of course the less good side of this solution is that the entity best placed to play the role of white knight is one actually linked to the troll who knows exactly who has received the litigation threats. That's probably where trusted bodies like the EFF should get involved)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The patents won't be killed if they're valid; it still has to go through the USPTO. Why do you think that killing those patents is not the right approach? Your approach (if it worked) would just incentivize filing more patents to try to get bought out.
I agree that non valid patents should be killed. If a patent is valid perhaps its usefulness in monetary terms to the community is still worth more than the present value of what trolls and legitimate patent holders could expect to earn by holding it.
I really don't understand what you're advocating or what mechanism you hope to develop. You basically want to put out bounties for law firms to take cases against patents? What patents would they target? What adversarial setting would they defend / attack patents in? Couldn't this result in a race to the bottom about what things people want in the public domain - ie. a bunch of people petitioning to have a law firm a…
"Couldn't this result in a race to the bottom about what things people want in the public domain - ie. a bunch of people petitioning to have a law firm attack Amazon's One-Click patent? Basically if someone made something desirable enough, then an efficient market would funnel enough money into trumping their patent through your concept, destroying whatever incentive the company had to make something valuable. " I se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the amount of money and lack of tangible immediate results would make this untenable. This is way outside the scope of normal crowd funding. This is why large companies with deep pockets and wealthy philanthropic concerns exist.
Large companies with deep pockets existed because there was no way to internationally organize around a monetary research fund cause and get live information about the progress in both a transparent and not prohitively expensive way for the organization to operate. Ten years ago, you would have to mail dvds because internet speeds weren't fast enough to live-stream the office surveilance camera. Twenty years ago you…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1551949/
> It often takes more than 10 years to deliver a final, licensed vaccine,5 and requires not only excellence during research and product development but also managerial and funding commitment throughout the endeavor. The cost of developing a vaccine—from research and discovery to product registration—is estimated to be between US $200 million and US $500 million per vaccine.6 This figure includes vaccines that are abandoned during the development process. In short, vaccine research and product development is lengthy, complex, and loaded with binary outcome risks.
just because the complexity of a process is abstracted away doesn't mean it's ceased to exist.
I really don't understand what you're advocating or what mechanism you hope to develop. You basically want to put out bounties for law firms to take cases against patents? What patents would they target? What adversarial setting would they defend / attack patents in? Couldn't this result in a race to the bottom about what things people want in the public domain - ie. a bunch of people petitioning to have a law firm a…
"Couldn't this result in a race to the bottom about what things people want in the public domain - ie. a bunch of people petitioning to have a law firm attack Amazon's One-Click patent? Basically if someone made something desirable enough, then an efficient market would funnel enough money into trumping their patent through your concept, destroying whatever incentive the company had to make something valuable. " I se…
If true, that's a pretty depressing statement, however, it sounds like fallacious reasoning to me. Just because the law hasn't changed yet doesn't mean that things are doomed to stay this way forever.
I think Ask Patents is supposed to be like this. HN already posted an article about this a few weeks ago. http://patents.stackexchange.com/
Ask Patents is for stopping patents from being granted. I'm suggesting a way to kill patents that are already granted + monetary incentives for the worst / most expensive offenders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the amount of money and lack of tangible immediate results would make this untenable. This is way outside the scope of normal crowd funding. This is why large companies with deep pockets and wealthy philanthropic concerns exist.
Maybe the "reward" isn't that you get immediate results, but you get the satisfaction of laying down a brick in a larger building? Maybe if we could put a face on research it would be less abstract to every day people who aren't in science?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask Patents is for stopping patents from being granted. I'm suggesting a way to kill patents that are already granted + monetary incentives for the worst / most expensive offenders.
Not true, I've seen requests for granted patents.
Granted patents aren't re-reviewed, so someone would have to cough up a few tens of thousands of dollars to do anything with submissions on granted patents.
Is the concept that people are contributing evidence to be used should someone challenge the patent?