I get anxious every time I read another patent troll story wondering when my weekend creations will end up costing me $ when they accidentally infringe on a patent because I roll out some seemingly ubiquitous feature.
I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.
I hate to break it to you, but chances are that you infringe on hundreds, if not more, patents in the US. Nobody can tell you what or even how many patents you infringe on, though. Nobody has read all the patents and every single one is subject to interpretation. An interpretation, I might add, that has to be validated by a legal system that really doesn't care about correctness, technical validation or even fairness.
Patents in the software industry were historically held for defensive purposes. If you get large enough you start building a patent portfolio so other companies can't sue you because you'll sue them back. Everybody infringes on everybody else's absurd patents so suing is a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario (neither party wins and the lawyers take all the money that you could have invested in something worthwhile).
Companies like Lodsys and Intellectual Ventures are different. They only have patents and they have no product. So if they sue you for patent infringement you can't sue back even if you have patents because they don't have a product and by definition can't infringe on your patents (if you have them).
Patent fights between corporations are ugly enough, but are generally on a more-or-less level playing field. They happen in the courts between very well funded armies of lawyers.
Suits between, say, Lodsys (money + patents + lawyers + no product) and independent developers (no money + no patents + no lawyers + product) are so vastly uneven and unfair that most developers will just give up before this ever comes before a court. Even if you want to do it on principle it'll bankrupt your life. Just giving up and finding safer markets with (maybe) lower profit margins seems like the obvious way to go for anybody.
Actually, there may be a moral responsibility on all of us developers/hackers to make it obvious to the general public how ridiculous most sw patents are.
For example, we could apply machine learning / data mining to categorise patents so that we can say patent N, M and L are 95% equivalent in some well defined sense.
ie. we could fight back with firm data which ridicules the Patent system into revamp or obsolescence.
If you infringe a patent - isn't possible to get a fixed cost or is it a fraction of earnings? Can you be more out of pocket than what you earn? ie can you do
[1. Possibly cursory layperson check of existing patents ]
2. Weekend / hobby / small-scale project
3. Oh! People like it, it's making money / scaling!
4. Get lawyer in to do proper patent search before continuing?
There is a simple solution to this problem. Make maintenance fees payable yearly, and make a requirement of getting the patent renewed proof that you're actually using it. People filing patents only to sit and wait until someone else infringes is a cancer on American innovation.
Definitely like the second part. It would seem that if you aren't actually using your patent, the patent's purpose is lost.
I also think there should be oversight on the patents that are granted. Right now you can patent something that has 20 years of prior art with relative ease. That's silly.
15 years in technology is a lifetime. Enforcing a monopoly for so long ensures that there will be no real innovation/progress in that area. How can we, as a society, afford to be held back like this?
In so many areas progress would happen much faster if not hindered by legal threat.
That would also require the patent office to grant patents in well less than a year. It wouldn't help the little guys too much if you found out you were granted the patent 6 months or more after its expired.
Crazier idea - what if the patent pool (for some domain maybe?) was fixed? (ie. there can only exist 10k patents?)
Then the cost of patent search isn't ever increasing as long as rate of patenting is higher than rate of expiry.
And possible it could provide a mechanism for removing frivolous patents (like - you could buy a patent 'slot' off an existing holder - so you'd be incentivised to find the most stupid patent so you could offer them the least cash upfront, as they'd not be holding out for licensing profits).
As the article only touched on, this is precisely why the next computing giant will not come from Silicon Valley or anywhere in the US. The current software patent situation has ensured it.
I doubt it. The next computing giant will want to sell in the US, too. Patent laws don't cover where you're from, they cover where you sell (or where you give away free stuff but make money from ads). You'd have to block all US visitors from your site to avoid the US patent system.
I've been thinking about workarounds. Could a "I confirm that I'm from Malaysia" button do the trick?
As a co-founder of a startup, my most worrying thoughts are not finding customers or improving the product. They're "when will I get a scary legal letter that asks for millions over a patent I've never heard of".
I agree with you and I feel the same! As a co-founder, I recently did risk analysis for next iteration of our product; for everything we had risk mitigation strategy in place. But for "getting sued"; we will be screwed and shut down the business (if its hundreds of thousands dollar claim)
Did anyone else click the "someone patented toast" link and actually read the claims? It's for toasting bread at 2,500-4,500 degrees, with specialized infrared ovens.
They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive."
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
And who, or what, do they think they are disrupting? Isn't IV the incarnation of the status quo?
Reading their website feels like reading a politicians...
Geez, why did they even bother? I mean it's plain as day that they know what they're doing. These guys are credible technologists who sold their souls to the devil. It's one thing for some business guy looking for a quick buck to become a patent troll, but it sickens me to my very core to even think about Myhrvold and Detkin and what they are knowingly doing to the industry. Even with all the double-talk, Detkin was still acquiescing in the interview about where "most" of their money comes from. The astonishing thing is how they can't even produce a single example of an inventor whom they helped or a product that was brought to market as a result of their "research".
Man if ever I wanted to believe in Hell, these guys are the ones to inspire me.
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
The Planet Money reporters asked this very question. IV offered bupkis in response, rather sending them on a wild goose chase. I only hope Mhyrvold starts patenting culinary ideas, just to spread the joy.
> We at Intellectual Ventures fundamentally disagree with [the notion that patents have a negative impact on innovation], which flies in the face of centuries of evidence.
About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely valuable. The more obvious the idea, the more valuable it is. The artificial scarcity created by the patent system merely shows how valuables simple ideas actually are. Imagine for instance that breathable air becomes scarce. How much would you be willing to pay for it if it meant your life?
I am surprised that the rebuttal didn't attempt to refute any of the facts in the piece. I know the folks at TAL/NPR take their reporting and fact checking seriously, but I would expect IV to take some weaker part of the piece and try to discredit them.
Instead they are creating a false dichotomy of "patents can be good for inventors, so we can't be doing anything wrong"
They can't be serious with that rebuttal. Intellectual Ventures is a parasite who's allowed to thrive on the innovation and hard-work of others simply because they have identified a loop-hole in an archaic system that was never built for or intended for the abusive nature in which they are exploiting it.
That entire article rests on the assumption that software patents have some value outside of the ability to sue someone else with them or to ward of lawsuits by someone else. They want you to think of a software patent like it's a piece of music or a motion picture. They're just like Netflix or Spotify for patents! I don't know how anyone working for that company can sleep at night.
One of the best TAL episodes in recent memory. The story mentions that modern patents (specifically software patents) lack the novelty that the patent system was originally designed to encourage. Did patent laws change at some point in history to allow this to happen?
The audio version of the story mentions that it was a decision by the patent office, not specific legislation. Sometime in the 1980s they went from copyrighting software (i.e., treating it like literature or art) to patenting it.
Yup, it's a repost, but I'm okay with it because the MP3 is now available (came out Sunday @ 7pm). Take note, it's only available for free this week. After that, I think you can find it on iTunes or Amazon for a buck or three.
I'm curious as who are the VC's who invested in IV? Are these typical tech VC's, or are they more of the private equity type that relish in making money off these so called opportunities or arbitrages that don't require actual productive work.
Two very interesting Econtalk podcasts on IP issues and economics, both of which argue that innovative industries can thrive in legal regimes which offer very limited IP protections:
pg groupies may also want to check out the Econtalk interview with Paul Graham. Finding it is left as an excercise for the reader, primarily to encourage people to check out this amazing resource.
It's interesting to see more mainstream media outlets (npr and This American Life (public radio?)) talk more about patent trolling lately. As of a few weeks ago lay people I talked to had no idea programmers generally disliked patents.
In the audio version, they mention several times that patent law is founded in the constitution. I wish they would actually read it though, as it's not very complicated:
The Congress shall have Power To [...] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Oddly enough, that is not enough to make patent law mandatory by the constitution: the text you cite has the structure "The congress shall have Power To […] promote X by using the mean Y".
First, it is not written that the congress has to exercise that power.
Second, what if Y does not promote X? What if it hinders X? It is written that the congress is allowed to promote X (through Y), not doing nothing about X (through Y) and certainly not hinder X (through Y).
I understand how one might assume that a patent system is a good (best? only?) way to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, especially back then. Nevertheless, I think this was a mistake: they wrote the mean in the same stone they did the goal. (Of course, goals themselves can turn out to be means to higher purposes, but in this case it is quite obvious from the beginning.)
Is this sort of thing an issue in other countries. I'm a tech founder in Australia. I don't think we have the same level of anxiety about being sued for unknowingly breaching a software patent. Can anyone comment on this? Is our patent system different or can we expect to see our industry similarly affected in the future?
Patents are territorial. That is, unless someone has filed an application (or designated Australia as part of a national phase of a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent application, nothing will issue in Australia. Generally, companies try to figure out where their likely markets are, and where the expense can be justified. Australia is becoming more and more relevant, but it was not nearly as common to file there a few years ago. (Full disclosure, I'm a U.S. patent attorney (but I'm actually a good guy!).)
The solution is very simple. Create a simple how to patent template website, then have every developer apply for patents on any business and software process that they can dream of. Within two years you'll choke the entire system into change. Make it impossible for anyone to do anything.
1st idea, the collection, aggregation, and transmittal of electronic messaging data during a waste evacuation process. (i.e. checking your email while on the toilet)
To the extent that the system is choked it means that the Patent Office grants patents without having the time to look at them, not that a backlog develops. You might notice that this has already happened.
When you look up who's at MSFT Research (and there are some truly great minds there -- Leslie Lamport of LaTeX fame for one, I find a certain credence to the theory posited by some that its main function was to take talent off the market.
I actually just heard this story over NPR Radio. It's concerning to think about how companies like this can strong-arm smaller startups. But at the same time that doesn't mean that we should hide in fear. We've got to keep on doing what we do best: developing innovative products and solutions for users everywhere. Torpedoes be damned.
[+] [-] almightygod|14 years ago|reply
I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.
[+] [-] mpk|14 years ago|reply
Patents in the software industry were historically held for defensive purposes. If you get large enough you start building a patent portfolio so other companies can't sue you because you'll sue them back. Everybody infringes on everybody else's absurd patents so suing is a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario (neither party wins and the lawyers take all the money that you could have invested in something worthwhile).
Companies like Lodsys and Intellectual Ventures are different. They only have patents and they have no product. So if they sue you for patent infringement you can't sue back even if you have patents because they don't have a product and by definition can't infringe on your patents (if you have them).
Patent fights between corporations are ugly enough, but are generally on a more-or-less level playing field. They happen in the courts between very well funded armies of lawyers.
Suits between, say, Lodsys (money + patents + lawyers + no product) and independent developers (no money + no patents + no lawyers + product) are so vastly uneven and unfair that most developers will just give up before this ever comes before a court. Even if you want to do it on principle it'll bankrupt your life. Just giving up and finding safer markets with (maybe) lower profit margins seems like the obvious way to go for anybody.
[+] [-] gord|14 years ago|reply
For example, we could apply machine learning / data mining to categorise patents so that we can say patent N, M and L are 95% equivalent in some well defined sense.
ie. we could fight back with firm data which ridicules the Patent system into revamp or obsolescence.
[+] [-] monochromatic|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dodo53|14 years ago|reply
[1. Possibly cursory layperson check of existing patents ]
2. Weekend / hobby / small-scale project
3. Oh! People like it, it's making money / scaling!
4. Get lawyer in to do proper patent search before continuing?
(not that this is ideal either)
[+] [-] daimyoyo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thedragon4453|14 years ago|reply
I also think there should be oversight on the patents that are granted. Right now you can patent something that has 20 years of prior art with relative ease. That's silly.
[+] [-] moultano|14 years ago|reply
If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.
[+] [-] mckoss|14 years ago|reply
AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.
[+] [-] jterce|14 years ago|reply
15 years in technology is a lifetime. Enforcing a monopoly for so long ensures that there will be no real innovation/progress in that area. How can we, as a society, afford to be held back like this?
In so many areas progress would happen much faster if not hindered by legal threat.
[+] [-] va_coder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] druswick|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dodo53|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixcavator|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dstein|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skrebbel|14 years ago|reply
I've been thinking about workarounds. Could a "I confirm that I'm from Malaysia" button do the trick?
[+] [-] preinheimer|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] null_para|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] danshapiro|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukejduncan|14 years ago|reply
They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive."
Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.
And who, or what, do they think they are disrupting? Isn't IV the incarnation of the status quo?
Reading their website feels like reading a politicians...
[+] [-] dasil003|14 years ago|reply
Man if ever I wanted to believe in Hell, these guys are the ones to inspire me.
[+] [-] klenwell|14 years ago|reply
The Planet Money reporters asked this very question. IV offered bupkis in response, rather sending them on a wild goose chase. I only hope Mhyrvold starts patenting culinary ideas, just to spread the joy.
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|14 years ago|reply
I know of a rather serious source that says patents are a net evil, baked up by… centuries of evidence: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely valuable. The more obvious the idea, the more valuable it is. The artificial scarcity created by the patent system merely shows how valuables simple ideas actually are. Imagine for instance that breathable air becomes scarce. How much would you be willing to pay for it if it meant your life?
[+] [-] MartinCron|14 years ago|reply
Instead they are creating a false dichotomy of "patents can be good for inventors, so we can't be doing anything wrong"
[+] [-] kanetrain|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkulak|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukejduncan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adorton|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MartinCron|14 years ago|reply
Absolutely. While listening to it, one of my thoughts was "I can't wait to read the discussion of this over on HN".
I'm going to use this opportunity to remind people to donate to their local public radio station, TAL/WBEZ Chicago, or both.
[+] [-] kogus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slug|14 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2796906
[+] [-] AdamTReineke|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dedicated|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enduser|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmulkey18|14 years ago|reply
Boldrin on Intellectual Property http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...
Blakley on Fashion and Intellectual Property http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/blakely_on_fash.htm...
pg groupies may also want to check out the Econtalk interview with Paul Graham. Finding it is left as an excercise for the reader, primarily to encourage people to check out this amazing resource.
[+] [-] daniel-cussen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pom|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andreyf|14 years ago|reply
The Congress shall have Power To [...] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|14 years ago|reply
First, it is not written that the congress has to exercise that power.
Second, what if Y does not promote X? What if it hinders X? It is written that the congress is allowed to promote X (through Y), not doing nothing about X (through Y) and certainly not hinder X (through Y).
I understand how one might assume that a patent system is a good (best? only?) way to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, especially back then. Nevertheless, I think this was a mistake: they wrote the mean in the same stone they did the goal. (Of course, goals themselves can turn out to be means to higher purposes, but in this case it is quite obvious from the beginning.)
[+] [-] parallel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkimie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danvideo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinced|14 years ago|reply
1st idea, the collection, aggregation, and transmittal of electronic messaging data during a waste evacuation process. (i.e. checking your email while on the toilet)
[+] [-] Symmetry|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spenrose|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gruseom|14 years ago|reply
http://www.kenauletta.com/themicrosoftprovocateur.html
Correction: this was before he was sent (banished, the article makes it seem) to Microsoft Research.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clc|14 years ago|reply