Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#61

Post by A1kmm » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 5:20 AM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

B) Create an alternative parallel system to the copyright / patent system, where companies, individuals, and other legal entities can choose to pay a fixed percentage (say 10% or 20%, perhaps depending on the industry) of their profit / income after expenses to a government fund, granting them total immunity from claims of infringement of copyright and patent law.

Creators of works and ideas then file a return of how much work went into the ideas they are selling, and a good faith description of what other works they used to produce their works. This goes into a formula to distribute the money from the government fund - taking into account both the utility of ideas and the effort required to create them.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#62

Post by extension » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 5:25 AM UTC

gallerytungsten wrote: post #8

ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

I think a reasonable "B" solution would be to require that any company engaging in patent litigation would have to show that they had actually been using the patent in a product; that their product had a record of sales and use in commerce; and that the allegedly infringing party was directly affecting their business. Of course, this alternative would have to be specified in much greater detail to be effective, and h…

That really doesn't address the problem at all. Legitimate technology companies would still try to litigate each other out of the market with bogus patents. They would just have to make use of the bogus patent in one of their own products, which would be trivial. In fact, even the patent trolls could trivially productize their patents, or make a deal with a real tech company to do it.

The intended purpose of patents is largely to protect your idea while you develop it into a product. By the time the product is on the market, it's often too late to patent it. For example, drug companies often do 7-8 years of research between patenting a drug and releasing it.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#63

Post by jonmc12 » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 5:54 AM UTC

extension wrote: post #53

jonmc12 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, we should be free to invent. Option B should be that if an inventor can show a clean history of evolving an idea, it should be allowed to freely enter the market. Ideas evolve over time, and the originate from something. Perhaps if inventors were willing to register their invention documents through a set of steps mapping to something like the Technology Readiness Level ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolo…

1) What stops me from "cleanly inventing" something that is already patented? There's no way to prove that I derived my work from the patent. 2) How do I know which things need to be certified as inventions? Software patents are so vague that even simple applications can infringe hundreds of them. iOS apps are being sued just for having in-app upgrades. 3) Anything that requires more beurocracy or litigation is only…

1) Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc. Disclose all sources of information involved during the various phases of invention - specifically reviewing hard drives, mobile and other storage. The inventor should take care to keep logs of all research. In original invention, the trail from research to the idea should be evident if it meets the right patterns - I'm not sure exactly what these patterns would be, but I do think there is a definition that is meaningful enough to considerably aid the situation.

2) Eligible inventions would include anything that a customer pays for - as in the exchange of value designates the scope of invention from a patent enforcement perspective. From a patent defense perspective, as long as the invention logs show no use of another patent (when the attacking inventor requests certification at their own expense). This would also focus invention on creation of value instead of creation of legal IP.

3) I disagree, this proposal is an attempt to let people opt out of a broken system by certifying invention through at least one adopted methodology of original design. Again, think of it like buying insurance - every complex industry requires some sort of overhead to deal with subjective enforcement of laws. The capping of costs reduces the average overhead so much vs the current system where anyone who succeeds in the market pays a big, unpredictable legal tax.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#64

Post by foobarbazoo » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 6:09 AM UTC

jonmc12 wrote: post #63

extension wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) What stops me from "cleanly inventing" something that is already patented? There's no way to prove that I derived my work from the patent. 2) How do I know which things need to be certified as inventions? Software patents are so vague that even simple applications can infringe hundreds of them. iOS apps are being sued just for having in-app upgrades. 3) Anything that requires more beurocracy or litigation is only…

1) Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc. Disclose all sources of information involved during the various phases of invention - specifically reviewing hard drives, mobile and other storage. The inventor should take care to keep logs of all research. In original invention, the trail from research to the idea should be evident if it meets the right patterns - I'm not sure exactly what these patte…

"Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc."

Seriously? Who the fuck has time...

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#65

Post by jonmc12 » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 6:24 AM UTC

foobarbazoo wrote: post #64

jonmc12 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc. Disclose all sources of information involved during the various phases of invention - specifically reviewing hard drives, mobile and other storage. The inventor should take care to keep logs of all research. In original invention, the trail from research to the idea should be evident if it meets the right patterns - I'm not sure exactly what these patte…

"Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc." Seriously? Who the fuck has time...

I've worked with computer forensics investigators before - you'd be surprised how much data you can get from your harddrive and mobile devices.. If inventors took a bit of care, and good logging / storage software was available, I think the certification process could be as straightforward as applying for a provisional patent.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#66

Post by schwabacher » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 6:30 AM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #58

ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

Intellectual "Property Tax". Have everyone declare the value of their intellectual "property" (patents, copyrights, trademarks) - each and every item, for that year, on their tax return, and have them pay 1% of the value as "IP tax". That amount is what one pays for a compulsory license or if successfully sued, and up to 3 times that for willful infringement, per year -- and no more. (But of course, patent owner can…

This is a very good idea, but one downside is that it gives the government an incentive to grant patents and to prevent them from expiring.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#67

Post by extension » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 6:38 AM UTC

jonmc12 wrote: post #65

foobarbazoo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc." Seriously? Who the fuck has time...

I've worked with computer forensics investigators before - you'd be surprised how much data you can get from your harddrive and mobile devices.. If inventors took a bit of care, and good logging / storage software was available, I think the certification process could be as straightforward as applying for a provisional patent.

Can forensics investigators tell whether I came up with an idea in the shower vs hearing about an existing product?

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#68

Post by beagle3 » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 7:03 AM UTC

schwabacher wrote: post #66

beagle3 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intellectual "Property Tax". Have everyone declare the value of their intellectual "property" (patents, copyrights, trademarks) - each and every item, for that year, on their tax return, and have them pay 1% of the value as "IP tax". That amount is what one pays for a compulsory license or if successfully sued, and up to 3 times that for willful infringement, per year -- and no more. (But of course, patent owner can…

This is a very good idea, but one downside is that it gives the government an incentive to grant patents and to prevent them from expiring.

It is no worse than the existing system. If you are not aware, filing a patent costs a few thousand dollars, and after receiving a patent, you have to file "maintenance fees" which easily total tens of thousands through the lifetime of a patent.

Same incentive exists today to grant patents (government makes much less money from rejected patent than from granted patent), and to prevent them from expiring (collect more maintenance fees).

Hell, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (affectionately known as "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") which extended copyright retroactively from 70 to 95 years showed that congress is all too willing to do that to help their friends in the media industry, without even requesting payments; it is definitely NOT the lack of "intellectual property tax" that stops congress from increasing the term of patents (or copyrights).

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#69

Post by notJim » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 7:05 AM UTC

I'm sorry, but this is completely absurd and startlingly naive as a solution to the unemployment problem.

The limiting factor on the number of people with programming jobs is the number of people capable of filling those roles. There simply are not competent developers who are having trouble finding work right now.

If you want to talk about creating high-paying jobs that will allow the US to be more competitive and prosperous in the future, that's fine, but then you still have to address the greater problem of creating a qualified work force.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#70

Post by arockwell » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 7:30 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #51

arockwell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bussiness processes are already unpatentable.

One click and most of Loadsys's patents are really biz process patents implemented with technology.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. My point is more that the problem is systemic. You also can't patent something that has prior art, but it happens all the time.