The original point of patents is to provide protection to inventors and give them a head start in implementing their inventions. A company which hold patents without implementing them is basically not following the spirit of the law. Hence, there should be a drastic "countdown" to a patent viability, which would be dispelled by a producing a viable, marketed application of that patent. I would suggest a 6 months timeframe, non renewable. For software patents, given the very abstract nature of the invention, 3 months should be enough, and the patent lifetime itself should not exceed 3 years - 12 times the countdown to market (3 years is already quite long in the software industry, although not in the law one). This should be retroactive. Note that I'd rather see the concept of software patents completely invalidated, but I understand that the issue is quite complex.Oh, and what should be done in the case of patent transfers? Should the new holder be subjected to that countdown as well? What if the products tied to a patent is eol'ed? Should the countdown be restarted? I do think so. It's all about the practical side of things.
georgemcbay|11 years ago
Not really true; the original point of patents (in the US, anyway) in the minds of Jefferson and others who (in some cases begrudgingly) defined them was to enhance the amount common, public knowledge by enticing inventors to publicly document their inventions rather than hold them as trade secrets. The "protection" and "head start" bits are really the payment made in return for that public documentation, but not the actual reason for the system to exist. The idea that patents exist to protect "the little guy" is a modern idea, ironically invented and propagated primarily by big corporations and "big law".
This makes most modern software patents (which are routinely violated by people reinventing fairly trivial systems even when having no prior knowledge of the existing patent implementations) all the more ridiculous.
fzltrp|11 years ago
If a company is producing new ideas, and stock pile them in the form of patents, are they playing the game correctly?
Is it (just) an issue in the case of sotware patent?
icebraining|11 years ago
Playing Devil's advocate, what about a company like ARM, which designs and patents new CPU designs and then licenses them to others? We can't claim their patents aren't implemented. Should they be forced to make the CPUs themselves?
And if not, what would prevent NPEs from licensing to one small company and then suing everyone else?
fzltrp|11 years ago
Actually you raise a good point. ARM has been always doing that though, they built their own cpus when they started, iirc. That would have large consequences on their current business model, it's true.
> And if not, what would prevent NPEs from licensing to one small company and then suing everyone else?
It's already happening. When one of those company win a lawsuit, it is usually followed by them selling a license to whomever they sued...
Which is the lesser evil? Forcing patent holders into producing practical implementation of their patents, or allowing NPEs to exist?
I guess my idea doesn't really hold waters. Most probably smarter people already have thought about that possibility and saw the issues you hinted at. Oh well.
prof_hobart|11 years ago
The key question for me is the motivation for the patent - did you come up with some novel idea in order to get it manufactured (and are using patent protection primarily to stop someone ripping off your invention), or did you come up with (or buy) an idea and patent it purely in the hope that some other company independently comes up with the same idea and you can then sue them for patent infringement?