So the question is: Why would you want to sell your patent to Google, rather than some other buyer?
In this promotion, Google's answer to that question is that at the very least, you can be sure you're not selling to a patent troll. They may end up using your patent, or they may not, but they are promising that they will not use the slimy tactics associated with patent trolls.
But the thing about patent trolls is that they're looking for a very specific type of patent: an overly broad one that probably should not have been issued in the first place.
If you don't have that kind of patent, but you do have a patent that is clearly valuable otherwise, then the pool of potential buyers probably won't include patent trolls, so the purported benefit of selling to Google (avoiding selling to patent trolls) is moot.
In which case, you might end up getting a good price from Google (the price you yourself set), or you might end up getting a better price from some other buyer.
But the nice thing about this promotion is that, assuming you're confident there are other buyers out there, you can set your price a little bit higher than you think it's worth and see if Google is willing to bite. If not, go sell it elsewhere.
> So the question is: Why would you want to sell your patent to Google, rather than some other buyer?
There are two basic general reasons that a person who would otherwise be willing to sell to an NPE might be interested in selling to Google instead:
1. Google will pay more, and/or
2. Google provides a quicker, easier process for evaluation and decision that means you close the deal and get actual certainty (and the money itself) more quickly and with less of your own time and energy devoted to the process.
Google's effort to established a streamlined process with a "identify your patent and price at which you are committed to sell" up front step, and a well defined set of steps with fairly short time windows leading to a final decision, attempts to address both of those. (Provide a smooth decision process on purchase at the seller's desired price.)
> In this promotion, Google's answer to that question is that at the very least, you can be sure you're not selling to a patent troll.
No, you've got that wrong: that's not the benefit to the seller. That's one of the benefits to Google (and, presuming Google doesn't use patents like a troll, potentially everyone else in the tech industry and everyone indirectly harmed by the drag patent trolls put on the technology market.)
"Google's answer to that question is that at the very least, you can be sure you're not selling to a patent troll."
That's not what their FAQ[1] says: "Any patents purchased by Google through this program will join our portfolio and can be used by Google in all the normal ways that patents can be used."
Google is very flush with cash right now so this is just another opportunity to invest their money.
I think that the example of Microsoft shows how important it is for large tech companies to have lots of cash in order to be able to pivot. I think that Microsoft is pivoting very well right now into platform independent productivity software. If, for example, Google's ad revenue diminishes it is important for them to have long tail reserves to experiment with other ways to be profitable.
This should really come with a waiver from Google for any submitted patent to be never ever require any royalties or fees (whatever the terms are in patent world).
The idea here is to provide a better experience (and equal or better prices) for people who might otherwise sell to trolls. such a term on the transfer would do nothing to enhance the attractiveness of the program to the people Google is looking to do business with (whether or not that's how Google is likely to use the patents), and people who would be motivated to participate by such a term aren't people who otherwise would be likely to sell to trolls, so there is no real reason for such term.
Google might subsequently make such a pledge for particular patents it purchases -- or submit them to reciprocal licensing pools, which such a pledge might conflict with or reduce the utility of -- but that's separate from the purchase terms, and there is no good reason to tie them together.
"As part of our Patent Acquisition Agreement (see section 4.4), sellers will
retain a license back to their patent. For you lawyers out there, the license is “irrevocable,
nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonassignable (including by operation of law or otherwise),
nonsublicensable, worldwide, [and] fully paidup.”
Does anybody know why it costs a fee to submit a patent? Wouldn't it be much more fair to small inventors if we could just submit a patent for free, and the moment we'd like to exert that patent in a court, we'd pay for its examination?
> Does anybody know why it costs a fee to submit a patent? Wouldn't it be much more fair to small inventors if we could just submit a patent for free, and the moment we'd like to exert that patent in a court, we'd pay for its examination?
No, since the whole point of that patent system is to have these examined, reviewed, and notice publicly provided so that people can do business without having to resort to litigation (sure, with the implicit threat of litigation in the background, but examination and patent grants are supposed to provide a degree of clarity.)
Admittedly, that process doesn't work well in all too many cases, but it would make the system orders of magnitude worse if instead of having an in-advance examination process we just had a series of patent applications hanging around waiting for litigation to start to provide an excuse for them to be examined.
The main reason is to fund the office as it's one of the few agencies that is 100% funded by fees (versus appropriations). So much so that Congress often skims money from the fees they collect. The fact that the office is sort of set up like a traditional corp. (i.e., earning revenue, paying salaries, getting "taxed" by Congress) colors a lot of discussion on how the office operates, in my opinion. Also, the percentage of patents that are actually asserted in court is extremely small compared to the number of issued patents.
Because the "patent" in that situation would have no presumption of validity. Nobody would loan you money based on it. You couldn't tell how much protection you had from competitors.
The actual filing fees for a small/micro entity is pretty low. Most of the money you're spending is in legal fees. And if we deferred examination until the litigation stage, then yes, you'd save some money on actually prosecuting the patent application (arguing with the examiner, etc.)... but you NOT be saving any money on the up-front drafting costs. (Unless you just drafted the thing yourself, which is generally a very bad idea.)
Back of the envelope numbers: you might save 50% of the current costs of obtaining a patent. It'd still be far from free.
I believe Australia has something similar to what you describe. You file anything you want, but it does not get examined until you want to assert it. If you ever recall reading about a "patent on a wheel", that was the kind of patent it was.
1. This is not new in the corporate world. Large companies like GE have patent-buying departments that do something similar, except they are are a lot more flexible (you can sell entire portfolios and even unpatented ideas) and a lot less efficient. The big difference is, other companies advertise their intent as being "driving innovation" rather than starving patent trolls.
2. This is not new for Google either. They have been quietly talking to and buying from various kinds of patent holders for many years now.
3. I'd be very interested to know what kinds of patents they're hoping to buy. Are they looking for "bad" patents to really "disarm the trolls"? Or are they just hoping to get good ones for cheap and use the "patent troll" narrative for PR? Unfortunately, I doubt they'll disclose the results of this promotion.
I think you don't quite understand what is supposed to be new about it.
> Large companies like GE have patent-buying departments that do something similar, except they are are a lot more flexible
Google has a patent buying department and program that offers a more flexible, but less well-defined and streamlined process -- this new program refers to it as an option for patents that don't meet the criteria for this experimental new streamlined process.
The new part (and Google says this directly) is the attempt the experiment with more streamlined process to reduce friction.
> This is not new for Google either. They have been quietly talking to and buying from various kinds of patent holders for many years now.
Having a patent purchase program isn't new, and Google doesn't claim that it is (in fact, their materials on the new program point to the pre-existing one as well); what is new is the particular process.
> I'd be very interested to know what kinds of patents they're hoping to buy. Are they looking for "bad" patents to really "disarm the trolls"? Or are they just hoping to get good ones for cheap and use the "patent troll" narrative for PR?
I don't think there really worried about "for cheap"; I think they want to provide a good experience for sellers so that people interested in arms-length sales of patents (whether the kinds that trolls are most interested or not) that might be useful to Google (whether for troll neutralization or otherwise -- and even good patents in the hands of someone whose interest is to in maximizing short-term return can be harmful to industry players other than the patent-holder, so "bad" patents aren't the only threat to Google out there) have a better chance of being offered to Google, so Google has a chance to act on them. They don't really need them "for cheap", except compared to the cost of potential litigation or workarounds -- to Google or, e.g., its hardware partners -- if some hostile party were to end up holding them.
Some companies like GE will actually buy your unpatented ideas and file patents on them if they like them. You can negotiate how much you get paid for them. Of course, this is in no way as easy as I made it sound, and I've never done it myself.
[+] [-] jawns|11 years ago|reply
In this promotion, Google's answer to that question is that at the very least, you can be sure you're not selling to a patent troll. They may end up using your patent, or they may not, but they are promising that they will not use the slimy tactics associated with patent trolls.
But the thing about patent trolls is that they're looking for a very specific type of patent: an overly broad one that probably should not have been issued in the first place.
If you don't have that kind of patent, but you do have a patent that is clearly valuable otherwise, then the pool of potential buyers probably won't include patent trolls, so the purported benefit of selling to Google (avoiding selling to patent trolls) is moot.
In which case, you might end up getting a good price from Google (the price you yourself set), or you might end up getting a better price from some other buyer.
But the nice thing about this promotion is that, assuming you're confident there are other buyers out there, you can set your price a little bit higher than you think it's worth and see if Google is willing to bite. If not, go sell it elsewhere.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
There are two basic general reasons that a person who would otherwise be willing to sell to an NPE might be interested in selling to Google instead:
1. Google will pay more, and/or
2. Google provides a quicker, easier process for evaluation and decision that means you close the deal and get actual certainty (and the money itself) more quickly and with less of your own time and energy devoted to the process.
Google's effort to established a streamlined process with a "identify your patent and price at which you are committed to sell" up front step, and a well defined set of steps with fairly short time windows leading to a final decision, attempts to address both of those. (Provide a smooth decision process on purchase at the seller's desired price.)
> In this promotion, Google's answer to that question is that at the very least, you can be sure you're not selling to a patent troll.
No, you've got that wrong: that's not the benefit to the seller. That's one of the benefits to Google (and, presuming Google doesn't use patents like a troll, potentially everyone else in the tech industry and everyone indirectly harmed by the drag patent trolls put on the technology market.)
[+] [-] Animats|11 years ago|reply
That's not what their FAQ[1] says: "Any patents purchased by Google through this program will join our portfolio and can be used by Google in all the normal ways that patents can be used."
[1] http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/...
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|11 years ago|reply
I think that the example of Microsoft shows how important it is for large tech companies to have lots of cash in order to be able to pivot. I think that Microsoft is pivoting very well right now into platform independent productivity software. If, for example, Google's ad revenue diminishes it is important for them to have long tail reserves to experiment with other ways to be profitable.
[+] [-] anc84|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
Google might subsequently make such a pledge for particular patents it purchases -- or submit them to reciprocal licensing pools, which such a pledge might conflict with or reduce the utility of -- but that's separate from the purchase terms, and there is no good reason to tie them together.
[+] [-] MCRed|11 years ago|reply
Do you think they would tolerate for a second if you violated their page rank patent?
[+] [-] mckoss|11 years ago|reply
"As part of our Patent Acquisition Agreement (see section 4.4), sellers will retain a license back to their patent. For you lawyers out there, the license is “irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonassignable (including by operation of law or otherwise), nonsublicensable, worldwide, [and] fully paidup.”
[+] [-] dataker|11 years ago|reply
The question really is: whose landscape is that?
[+] [-] amelius|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
No, since the whole point of that patent system is to have these examined, reviewed, and notice publicly provided so that people can do business without having to resort to litigation (sure, with the implicit threat of litigation in the background, but examination and patent grants are supposed to provide a degree of clarity.)
Admittedly, that process doesn't work well in all too many cases, but it would make the system orders of magnitude worse if instead of having an in-advance examination process we just had a series of patent applications hanging around waiting for litigation to start to provide an excuse for them to be examined.
[+] [-] lostinpoetics|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhino369|11 years ago|reply
Small entity filing fees aren't too bad.
[+] [-] monochromatic|11 years ago|reply
Back of the envelope numbers: you might save 50% of the current costs of obtaining a patent. It'd still be far from free.
[+] [-] nine_k|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaykf05|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaykf05|11 years ago|reply
2. This is not new for Google either. They have been quietly talking to and buying from various kinds of patent holders for many years now.
3. I'd be very interested to know what kinds of patents they're hoping to buy. Are they looking for "bad" patents to really "disarm the trolls"? Or are they just hoping to get good ones for cheap and use the "patent troll" narrative for PR? Unfortunately, I doubt they'll disclose the results of this promotion.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
I think you don't quite understand what is supposed to be new about it.
> Large companies like GE have patent-buying departments that do something similar, except they are are a lot more flexible
Google has a patent buying department and program that offers a more flexible, but less well-defined and streamlined process -- this new program refers to it as an option for patents that don't meet the criteria for this experimental new streamlined process.
The new part (and Google says this directly) is the attempt the experiment with more streamlined process to reduce friction.
> This is not new for Google either. They have been quietly talking to and buying from various kinds of patent holders for many years now.
Having a patent purchase program isn't new, and Google doesn't claim that it is (in fact, their materials on the new program point to the pre-existing one as well); what is new is the particular process.
> I'd be very interested to know what kinds of patents they're hoping to buy. Are they looking for "bad" patents to really "disarm the trolls"? Or are they just hoping to get good ones for cheap and use the "patent troll" narrative for PR?
I don't think there really worried about "for cheap"; I think they want to provide a good experience for sellers so that people interested in arms-length sales of patents (whether the kinds that trolls are most interested or not) that might be useful to Google (whether for troll neutralization or otherwise -- and even good patents in the hands of someone whose interest is to in maximizing short-term return can be harmful to industry players other than the patent-holder, so "bad" patents aren't the only threat to Google out there) have a better chance of being offered to Google, so Google has a chance to act on them. They don't really need them "for cheap", except compared to the cost of potential litigation or workarounds -- to Google or, e.g., its hardware partners -- if some hostile party were to end up holding them.
[+] [-] minthd|11 years ago|reply
How can you sell an unptaented(or maybe just loosely patent-pending idea you did the work yourself, as a non-lawyer) ?
[+] [-] ikeboy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pinaceae|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christianbryant|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaykf05|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] funnythought|11 years ago|reply
Sell everything to Google and live on its mercy…. that is what Google wants.