When Patents Attack

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

by simon_weber • 15 years ago

435 131 15 years ago

npr.org

slug• 15 years ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2795743

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2796906

AdamTReineke2• 15 years ago

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.

simon_weber• 15 years ago

Yikes, sorry about that. My search for "npr patents" only brought up a mention in a comment.

almightygod• 15 years ago

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.

monochromatic2• 15 years ago

If it's any consolation, hearing from a patent troll means you've built a successful product.

Harkins• 15 years ago

And that you now own as little of the profits from it as they think you can survive on.

MikeCapone• 15 years ago

That's like saying that hearing from the Mafia means you now have a successful business. Hoorah, I guess...

smashing• 15 years ago

Except you don't need to make a profit to be subject to a lawsuit. Hobby or weekend projects are just as liable.

dredmorbius9• 15 years ago

More like: you look like you've got enough resources to pay out, but not enough to put up a good fight.

One of the problems with patent enforcement: the patent holder has the right, but not the obligation, to pursue infringement. Or in plain English: they can pick their fights.

If IBM, Mac's Komputer Shoppe, and Western States Services, Inc. all infringe, odds are good that the PatTrollCo will skip IBM (able to defend) and Mac (no assets) but nail WSS (big enough to have assets, not big enough to have attorneys on retainer or a significant patent portfolio).

mpk• 15 years ago

    > [...] they accidentally infringe on a patent

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.

dsimms• 15 years ago

Also, there's value in sticking your head in the sand since if you know a patent exists but don't think you're infringing but then lose an infringement case, you're liable for treble damages (IIRC, IANAL, etc).

Every employee handbook I've seen that has mention of patents has said ``thou shalt not go patent surfing, and if you do, only ever talk to your patent attorney. Oh, but do file lots of patent applications!''

firebones2• 15 years ago

I wonder if there will be a "Finlandization" of software development (concept courtesy of Chris Crawford's classic "Balance of Power" game) where small devs and dev shops align with larger, protective entities that provide defensive protection in exchange for association with the aura of small, indy developers.

Think (evilly): Myrhvold's IV Labs or Apple or Microsoft or IBM offers a "Friends of IV/Apple/MSFT/IBM" program where for $495 annually (like a Apple Developer Connection subscription) you're guaranteed protection, get a t-shirt, give up some PR, etc.

Eh...

cookiecaper• 15 years ago

As usual, the only way to rectify the software patent situation is to hit the big guys where it hurts. If we want to software patents go away, we need to see that Microsoft, Apple, and other big players are sued and lose for patent infringement on a regular, expensive basis. If we can hit the big projects frequently enough they will give up, decide the patent regime costs more than it's worth, and get their cronies in politics to turn it off. It is not likely that things improve until this happens.

A couple of years ago a company called i4i got an injunction issued prohibiting the sale of Microsoft Office for (frivolous) patent infringement. Of course, Microsoft panicked and worked around the patent immediately, released a patch, and sent out new packages to suppliers -- expensive indeed but at least they avoided actually not being able to sell Office at all. If we have this kind of thing happen to multiple big companies even a few times a year I think we'll be on track to some serious patent reform. Until then, it's just too profitable to pillage the little guy and engage in mutual cross-licensing and suit settlements among competitors than it is to care that it is impossible to write software without violating hundreds of patents.

We know the saying: "the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it". I've heard it attributed to Teddy Roosevelt but can't seem to find a good reference atm.

gord• 15 years ago

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.

semiquaver• 15 years ago

Listen to the this american life story, they mention a piece of software used by patent lawyers which does basically that.

dodo532• 15 years ago

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?

(not that this is ideal either)

Natsu• 15 years ago

You can agree to license it for whatever the other party is willing to license it for.

It's the court costs that can pretty much bankrupt you.

danvideo2• 15 years ago

it's time this issue got more exposure than just the tech world... reporters aren't worried about their company being sued out from under them.

preinheimer2• 15 years ago

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".

null_para• 15 years ago

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)

kenjackson3• 15 years ago

Really? I never ever think about patents. Ever (except when reading HN). It's just not a real day to day issue.

cbetz• 15 years ago

The biggest part of the problem is that companies (and founders) are forbidden from speaking up after licensing deals are made. Perhaps you could post anonymously, but you'd still be violating the NDA in spirit and you'd be punished if discovered.

In other words, if three companies down the block signed millions away to Intellectual Ventures, you would have no idea. Maybe the risk is overblown. Unfortunately we have no idea of knowing.

They try to hammer this point home in the podcast.

It occurred to me there is simple legislation that might chip away at all this shadiness: Pass a law that forbids NDAs in patent licensing deals.

rje• 15 years ago

I think all the indie devs that are getting letters from lodsys would tend to disagree with you about whether or not it's a 'real' issue.

preinheimer2• 15 years ago

I guess the reason I find them more worrying is the lack of control. I know I can write good software, I think I've got a great product idea, and I know where I can get help in the areas I lack. These are all issues I can manage. Bruce Schneier writes a lot about how people fear things that are new, and things that are outside their control, this seems to apply.

The only way for me to "manage" some sort of patent lawsuit would be buying insurance against it (is that even possible?), and even then the insurance company would likely settle, handing over more cash, and further validating the business model.

clc• 15 years ago

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.

andreyf• 15 years ago

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.

loup-vaillant4• 15 years ago

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.)

enduser• 15 years ago

Is this an issue for companies owned by HNers? Poll: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809951

lukejduncan2• 15 years ago

Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi...

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...

lukejduncan2• 15 years ago

it took me a minute to find it, but here is the "ideas have value" quote http://www.geekwire.com/2011/intellectual-ventures-responds-...

lukesandberg• 15 years ago

heres a quote: "Many of the world’s leading technology companies are beginning to recognize that patents are a strategic asset worth billions of dollars. "

At least in the technology companies ive worked for, the strategic value of patents comes purely from the fact that having them can keep frivolous lawsuits at bay.

Produce• 15 years ago

I guess they've never heard the phrase - "ideas are a dime a dozen".

loup-vaillant4• 15 years ago

> 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.

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?

MartinCron8• 15 years ago

Never mind the fact that there simply cannot be centuries of evidence about software patents.

pkulak• 15 years ago

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.

collint• 15 years ago

On a very expensive and comfortable bed.

dolphenstein• 15 years ago

In movies you can't have a patent for action cop movies with a surprise plot twist. That would be absurd. Just like generic software patents.

kanetrain5• 15 years ago

I personally believe that (unless something is done to change the system), generic software patents will ensure the slow grinding halt of entrepreneurial innovation in the U.S. Intellectual Ventures is the worst thing to happen to small web businesses and developers... ever.

klenwell• 15 years ago

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.

MartinCron8• 15 years ago

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"

dredmorbius9• 15 years ago

"I am surprised".

Yes, shocked, shocked ....

kanetrain5• 15 years ago

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.

dasil003• 15 years ago

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.

vacri4• 15 years ago

Admittedly I stopped reading the article when I got to "IV isn't a patent troll, we're simply just a big patent market connecting suppliers to consumers"

No, you're not simply a 'market'. A market doesn't come and sue you for buying your milk somewhere else.

zinkem• 15 years ago

You might want to finish the article.

vacri4• 15 years ago

I get that the article is against the patent process, and the downmodders don't seem to get that I was referring to IV's characterisation of itself, not npr's characterisation of IV - I thought it was clear where I was directing it due to the phrase "you're not a market".

I wasn't using 'patent troll' or any of the other terminology. I was pointing out a flaw in this guy's reasoning. Yes, I had only read 500 words into a 4000 word article. I'm now about halfway through and have scanned the rest of the article... and I don't see anything that invalidates my claim above. IV is not the 'market' that it says it is. If anything, I am supporting what npr is saying.

HN moderation is weird.

parallel• 15 years ago

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?

alkimie• 15 years ago

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!).)

AgentConundrum• 15 years ago

That's a bit reassuring to me. I'm not anyone special, but I've got some ideas I want to code up that likely won't get anyones attention. After seeing patent topics popping up here on HN so often, I'm seriously terrified of even being a programmer anymore. This stuff makes me want to give up and find a job digging ditches or something, Office Space style.

But, I'm Canadian. Your comment makes me feel a bit safer, but I have the feeling that little things like hosting the site in the US or collecting money from Google AdSense or an Amazon Affiliates account could make me horribly liable.

I know that rationally this practically a non-issue, since I'm such a low value target, but the fear is still there, lurking beneath the surface, scaring the hell out of me.

dangrover• 15 years ago

What if you could pay for some kind of insurance product to protect against patent lawsuits? Or perhaps some kind of co-operative that owned a bunch of bullshit patents to be used for defensive purposes in such a scenario?

phillmv• 15 years ago

>What if you could pay for some kind of insurance product to protect against patent lawsuits?

Heh. Programmers' malpractice insurance. The premiums would be ridiculous, though.

>Or perhaps some kind of co-operative that owned a bunch of bullshit patents to be used for defensive purposes in such a scenario?

That's more or less the shitck Intellectual Ventures uses to justify that they're not patent trolls (they point it out in TFA). In the podcast they point out that their need for a good ROI doesn't allow them to sit idle.

How do you defend against patent trolls, though? It's not like they make anything that can be infringed on.

Maybe here's a valid, easy-to-swallow change to the patent system - everytime a patent changes hands you halve the amount of time it is valid for.

pyrhho• 15 years ago

> Maybe here's a valid, easy-to-swallow change to the patent system - everytime a patent changes hands you halve the amount of time it is valid for.

Nice idea!

> It's not like they make anything that can be infringed on.

Or, require the patent holder to prove 'damages'. Since they don't make anything and don't actually use their patents there are no damages lost.

cageface• 15 years ago

You can. rpxcorp.com

daimyoyo• 15 years ago

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.

thedragon4453• 15 years ago

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.

dredmorbius9• 15 years ago

There _is_ the doctrine of laches, a defense in the case of suits brought after a long period of non-enforcement. As with most defenses, this entails lawyering up and going to court, part of what makes this process so expensive.

There were also reforms in the 1990s which extended the life of a patent (from 17 years to 20), but started the clock at filing time, not grant. This was due to a slew of patents issued to Jerome Lemelson which he kept appealing to the patent office. These were eventually granted, a practice termed "submarine patents". Lemelson (and his heirs) were awarded over $1.3 billion in royalties (he's also got a wing of the Smithsonian named after him).

But the system's still pretty messed up.

dedicated• 15 years ago

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.

pom• 15 years ago

For some reason, every time I read the name Intellectual Ventures I sound it in my mind as Intellectual Vultures.

adorton• 15 years ago

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?

kogus• 15 years ago

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.

bgruber• 15 years ago

No, the audio version mentions that the patent office used to operate on the principle that software could be copyrighted but not patented, but sometime in the 80s the judiciary indicated in several instances that was not the case and the patent office complied.

MartinCron8• 15 years ago

One of the best TAL episodes in recent memory.

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.

cpenner4612• 15 years ago

Serious question: can/do patent trolls go after open source projects? I'm not thinking of businesses who sell/support open source software (e.g. Red Hat), but would it be a viable "defense" for an indie dev to simply release their project as open source? I've got an idea for a "weekend project" or two that I could conceivably make a few bucks with, or I could release them as open source so that I can at least benefit from the idea without worrying (as much?) about being sued for violating a patent. On the one hand if I'm not making any money from it one would think that the trolls would go elsewhere, but then again...

Just looking for a general idea here, I'm not looking for official legal advice here... :-)

bergie• 15 years ago

The Debian patent FAQ is pretty good for this: http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq

cpenner4612• 15 years ago

Very useful - thanks for the link!

spenrose• 15 years ago

Can someone please tell me what Myrvolhd actually DID when he was leading MS Research? I remember no innovations from MS in that era.

gruseom• 15 years ago

He wrote long memos and famously pooh-poohed the internet.

http://www.kenauletta.com/themicrosoftprovocateur.html

Correction: this was before he was sent (banished, the article makes it seem) to Microsoft Research.

dredmorbius9• 15 years ago

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.

dstein• 15 years ago

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.

skrebbel• 15 years ago

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?

meow2• 15 years ago

May be the future companies will price products higher in US markets.

moultano• 15 years ago

Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year.

If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.

mckoss• 15 years ago

I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry.

AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.

MartinCron8• 15 years ago

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough.

Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

kanetrain5• 15 years ago

THIS. the patent office has turned in to a bit of a joke. Well, software patents in general have turned into a joke.

dredmorbius9• 15 years ago

Those are both pretty good suggestions.

There are a host of arguments as to why it can't happen, of course.

For the first: the idea of a patent is to grant a monopoly. That should be on a "use it or lose it" basis -- if you're not selling a product (or taking demonstrable efforts to do so) within some t time of having submitted (or been awarded) a patent grant, you lose the exclusive use right. Afterward, you can get some mechanical royalty, perhaps. That still raises issues in the place of software where there are potentially _thousands_ of infringements in a single product. And moreso for free software: is the mechanical royalty some percentage of purchase price (a competitor could sink your market by dumping), is it a fixed per-unit fee (and how is that determined, assessed, and collected)?

Confounding that is the point mentioned in the story: the value of patents is their aggregated use. It's like the Lilliputians tying down Gulliver. Each thread on its own is tiny, but enough of them are sufficient to be immobilizing.

The real problem is that the patent office can literally create property rights out of thin air / whole cloth. The mandate of several recent directors of the US Patent Office has been to "increase production" -- to grant more patents. If the NPR story is accurate (and reading patents is an obscure art, which itself may invalidate the directive of "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art") and Crawford's '5771354 patent was one of 5000 identical inventions issued at the time, then the patent office very simply isn't doing what it's supposed to do.

The problem (wait, have I used that tuple before in this response) is that there's no one party authorized and/or able to bring about that reform. I've watched the spectre of software patents emerge and grow over the industry for nearly two decades. Richard Stallman's been railing against this since the early 1990s (the man is seriously prescient). Numerous tech companies, including Red Hat and Oracle, are or were part of an anti-patent league. For a time, Microsoft fared very poorly in patent fights (it had a small portfolio of its ownn, hence, a weak defensive position). It's hardly surprising that Myrvold spun out and started IV. So we're kind of stuck. Unless Congress can get convinced to take action.

I'd love to see that. I'm not hopeful.

Symmetry2• 15 years ago

That patent office really doesn't have enough resources to do their job. Congress determines their budget and the fees they charge, and actually hasn't even seen fit to allow them to keep all the money they collect in fees.

In the 1980s (IIRC) this has previously resulted in long delays before patents were issued, but then Congress ordered to USPTO to clear its backlog, which means they now _have_ to grant most patents quickly, because if they don't the applicant will just make a few small changes and send the patent in again, but if they grant the patent its out of their hair.

dodo532• 15 years ago

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).

AdamTReineke2• 15 years ago

I don't think it would work. The big corps would own all 10k slots and nobody else could file one because they would recycle patents internally.

va_coder• 15 years ago

It's funny how little innovation there is in the patent system itself.

jterce• 15 years ago

I think this would be much more appropriate.

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.

pixcavator• 15 years ago

I wonder how Google would have looked at this idea 10 years ago, or even now: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-4-big-problems-with-googl....

druswick• 15 years ago

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.

daniel-cussen• 15 years ago

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.

vinced2• 15 years ago

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)

Symmetry2• 15 years ago

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.

vinced2• 15 years ago

of course that is happening. Even worse is that the people examining the patents are not best and under qualified to review software patents.

danshapiro• 15 years ago

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.

joshmaker• 15 years ago

http://home.howstuffworks.com/toaster1.htm

cma• 15 years ago

2500-4500 degrees sounds impressive, I can't believe how NPR manipulated me!

Wait... http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/blackbody/

Pretty sure a standard household toaster is well into that range.

joejohnson• 15 years ago

"specialized infrared ovens" That's cute. Toasters, you mean? Toasters work by heating a coil to somewhere in that range (2.5k - 4.5k degrees), and then the radiation from the coils toasts the bread.

VMG• 15 years ago

I have read somewhere that patent description are often deceitful. The abstract can be intentionally misleading and the wording in your case seems to be too.

crizCraig• 15 years ago

Poll: What's you take on Intellectual Ventures with regard to innovation? http://wepolls.com/1510009

dredmorbius9• 15 years ago

If you're looking for an organization which is actively working to fix the software patent problem, you can look to End Software Patents: http://endsoftpatents.org/

perfunctory• 15 years ago

Is it fair to call Intellectual Ventures an arms dealer.

kanetrain5• 15 years ago

Well, this was timely. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808110

shmulkey182• 15 years ago

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:

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.

arvinjoar• 15 years ago

I wonder why people waste their time and money on defending themselves in court, why don't they hire Tony Soprano to fix their problem instead? It would be a pretty appropriate response.

When Patents Attack

Related Stories