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 556108
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 01:16 UTC 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[5]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 03:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"Further on the subject of scalability, under the proposed system, there is virtually no need for defensive patents...This reduces the amount of worthless invention disclosures being maintained."

Yes, there's no need for defensive patents, but aren't you still increasing the incentive for smaller players to join the patent system who are currently under the radar? The majority of us don't get any patent royalties today, but we could start submitting patents due to these courtroom-free payouts.


"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."

It's true this would be a benefit, but I'm still worried that today's expenses of proving patent validity in the courtrooms would have to be pushed up front for each and every patent, which will be even more expensive in total because there are relatively few lawsuits compared to patent applications.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 04:06 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Yes, there's no need for defensive patents, but aren't you still increasing the incentive for smaller players to join the patent system who are currently under the radar? The majority of us don't get any patent royalties today, but we could start submitting patents due to these courtroom-free payouts.


But how much incentive is it really? It still has to get reviewed. And the maximum payout is a lot smaller than the effort to submit any old nonsense. Even in the current system with its minimalist review outright nonsense like perpetual motion machine patents gets rejected.

We WANT smaller players to join. No matter how many smaller players join, I'd think it will still be a lot less than the number of patents that go through for defensive purposes.

I think a big barrier for the flood of useless patents will be the requirement for research costs to be documented. Fraud will be punishable, obviously.

"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."

It's true this would be a benefit, but I'm still worried that today's expenses of proving patent validity in the courtrooms would have to be pushed up front for each and every patent, which will be even more expensive in total because there are relatively few lawsuits compared to patent applications.


I would say the expenses of having to prove patent validity in the courtroom is precisely a result of not doing a thorough validation in the beginning.

As people like us know, defects found late in the development cycle costs a lot more than if they were identified early in the development cycle. Same thing is happening with the court system, I would say. I bet it's a lot more expensive to have each patent dispute go through the courts for all parties, including the taxpayers, than if a little bit of money is spent in the beginning.

But then, politics is notoriously bad at learning from mistakes that most engineering disciplines have developed strategies for.

Reply Parent Score: 2