Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Mar 2013 23:43 UTC
Legal Countries are starting to get into the patent business; countries like France and South Korea are setting up patent entities to protect domestic companies. "Intellectual Discovery presents itself as a defensive alliance: if a South Korean company finds itself targeted in a lawsuit, for instance, it can access the patents being compiled by Intellectual Discovery to hit back." I support this. If, say, a small Dutch company were to come under unfair patent aggression by bullies like Apple and Microsoft (quite likely these days), I damn well expect my government to protect them from it. If you can't fix the system, work with it. As simple as that.
Thread beginning with comment 556044
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Thu 21st Mar 2013 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Yamin,

While it's nice to get rid of the lawsuits, I see alot of problems arising from it too.

Foremost is funding, where does the money come from?

Secondly, inventors would start working for these government handouts as an ends unto itself rather than a means to an end (such as bringing products to market).

Thirdly, it doesn't solve the fundamental scalability issues inherent in the patent system. It can require more work to process a case and determine whether the claims in one patent infringe those of another than to actually come up with the "invention" in the first place, which is usually incremental anyways and not very valuable. Today's patent system mostly leaves it to the courts to determine validity.


Fourthly, for many technical fields, including my own, patents were never very useful to real practitioners anyways. In these cases dropping patents all together can make more sense than introducing another patent system with more problems.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 23:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Foremost is funding, where does the money come from?


Taxes. I repeatedly mentioned government or government funded NGOs. That sounds bad, but as I mentioned to Yasmin, using taxes this way makes people take notice, and it forces the question to be asked during evaluation: how much is this patent worth to society?

Thirdly, it doesn't solve the fundamental scalability issues inherent in the patent system. It can require more work to process a case and determine whether the claims in one patent infringe those of another than to actually come up with the "invention" in the first place, which is usually incremental anyways and not very valuable. Today's patent system mostly leaves it to the courts to determine validity.


It does solve some scalability issues, mostly by reducing the input. A great deal of inventions won't get submitted because the inventors don't get licencing deals any more. Just a one time payment.

Remember, the payout is tied to actual proven research costs. An inventor will have to submit documentation of the research that resulted in an invention. That further reduces the input, because most "inventors" won't bother because they have bugger all research to show for it.

Fourthly, for many technical fields, including my own, patents were never very useful to real practitioners anyways. In these cases dropping patents all together can make more sense than introducing another patent system with more problems.


Yes, such a system does not reward useless patents. In a taxpayer funded system, no one on any side of the political spectrum would support overpaying for inventions. No more rounded corners or slide to unlock lawsuits because they wouldn't have been granted in the first place.

See my note about payouts tied to research costs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 01:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Further on the subject of scalability, under the proposed system, there is virtually no need for defensive patents, because inventors no longer own the invention once they get their payout. This reduces the amount of worthless invention disclosures being maintained.

It would also ease pressure off the courts, because there can be no infringement under the system. The inventor was compensated for their time and energy, and can no longer claim to be damaged by infringement.

On the subject of abuse, the proposed system was designed with the abuse in mind. The current patent system is desirable to abuse because patents are a potential source of perpetual income. The use of one time payments, however abused, has limited effect on society and the economy.

I think the one major cause of problems in the current patent system is the perpetual income aspect, and companies fight for longer and longer terms. It hurts both society and economy perpetually.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 03:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"Taxes. I repeatedly mentioned government or government funded NGOs. That sounds bad, but as I mentioned to Yasmin, using taxes this way makes people take notice, and it forces the question to be asked during evaluation: how much is this patent worth to society?"

Taxes are high enough I say. I honestly don't think we could afford it, the US national debt is enormous.


"It does solve some scalability issues, mostly by reducing the input."

Do you think there'd be fewer submissions from people who will have nothing to loose by filing, and don't even have to go to court anymore to get a payout?



"Remember, the payout is tied to actual proven research costs."

"No more rounded corners or slide to unlock lawsuits because they wouldn't have been granted in the first place."

I understand your intentions, although once lawyers get ahold of it those intentions won't matter ;)

Ultimately someone in the patent office has to decide what it's worth with far fewer resources than they need to cross check the entire history of prior art in the field. The current patent system sets them up to fail, how does your proposal help these patent clerks succeed?

Reply Parent Score: 2