Why Tech Vendors Fund Patent 'Trolls'

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
While we are on the subject of patent trolls today, ever wonder why tech vendors fund patent trolls? Thanks to TheWeazmeister for the heads up.

Patent "trolls" -- more politely called mass patent aggregators, nonpracticing entities or, as the Federal Trade Commission defines them, patent assertion entities (PAEs) -- litigate more than they innovate. These companies derive the bulk of their income, if not all of it, from licensing the huge libraries of patents they hold and from the money they make by suing companies that use their patents without permission.
Click to expand...
 
A direct article link? Nice, Steve! :D

So basically it sounds like they give them money to shut them the hell up. Makes sense I guess, but too bad that will just encourage them.
 
No problem. It disingenuous to say the least that these tech companies don't mind the PAEs when they are going after their competition, but have zero qualms testifying in front of Congress that they are the bane to innovation.
 
The point of patents is to encourage creativity. Clearly this isn't happening; in fact, it's quite the opposite. Someone with a lot of money who creates nothing merely buys up patents is destroying invention, not encouraging it.

Patents either need an overhaul or elimination. Even if patents didn't exist, it's not like companies would stop making things.
 
fattypants said:
The point of patents is to encourage creativity. Clearly this isn't happening; in fact, it's quite the opposite. Someone with a lot of money who creates nothing merely buys up patents is destroying invention, not encouraging it.

Patents either need an overhaul or elimination. Even if patents didn't exist, it's not like companies would stop making things.
Click to expand...

Yep I agree.

If anything, there needs to be a rule that if you patent something you MUST implement it within the next 3 months. If not, it goes public immediately. Otherwise, it should go public a year later no matter what. Patents should be to give a head start, not monopolize. Some of these "ideas" are quite hilarious if they think they actually spent lot of R&D on them, like like "slide to unlock". :p

Another thing, it should not be possible to patent something that already exists. The concept of slide to unlock has been around for hundreds of years (ex: bathroom stalls). Just using that as an example of the many stupid patents.

Then there's the oil industry. They patent alternative energy related stuff just so it does not get used. This needs to be illegal. If they're going to patent it, they better be prepared to implement it within 3 months, and it would still need to go public a year later anyway.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Yep I agree.

If anything, there needs to be a rule that if you patent something you MUST implement it within the next 3 months. If not, it goes public immediately. Otherwise, it should go public a year later no matter what. Patents should be to give a head start, not monopolize. Some of these "ideas" are quite hilarious if they think they actually spent lot of R&D on them, like like "slide to unlock". :p

Another thing, it should not be possible to patent something that already exists. The concept of slide to unlock has been around for hundreds of years (ex: bathroom stalls). Just using that as an example of the many stupid patents.

Then there's the oil industry. They patent alternative energy related stuff just so it does not get used. This needs to be illegal. If they're going to patent it, they better be prepared to implement it within 3 months, and it would still need to go public a year later anyway.
Click to expand...

No different then Big Pharma:
http://io9.com/5505159/judge-to-big-pharma-you-cant-patent-genes
 
At some point no one will be able to invent anything without some company owning a patent for it. Once that happens innovation comes to a halt.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Patents should be to give a head start, not monopolize.
Click to expand...

U.S. Constitution says otherwise:

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;
Click to expand...

An exclusive right is a right to exclude others. That's another way of saying monopoly.
 
That's what I'm saying, it should not be that way. It's terrible that a rule is put in place for the sole purpose of encouraging monopoly. It's sad that in this world technology can't advance because of silly little bureaucratic crap like this.
 
the-one1 said:
Didn't read the link, but couldn't the average person patent a cure for cancer without actually curing cancer. So that when someone actually does cure cancer, you can sue.
Click to expand...

No. The way that the patent system in our country works, Big Pharma actually is given certain patents that have previously been filed and granted already. Watch this documentary to see just the lengths that Big Pharma goes to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be1ihuZNg84
 
BGK said:
Burzynski is a known quack and scammer.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make an iota of a difference as far as the patent is concerned. He patents something, gets in bed with a big pharma, they take his work, request a patent and GET IT, even though he has the same exact patent already in hand.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Doesn't make an iota of a difference as far as the patent is concerned. He patents something, gets in bed with a big pharma, they take his work, request a patent and GET IT, even though he has the same exact patent already in hand.
Click to expand...

Given that this man in a proven fraud, I wouldn't trust any info from anyone promoting him. That said, which patents are you referring to? Are they any relevant court cases? You've likely been misinformed somewhere...I am guessing it was when you watched that 2 hour video promoting a known quack and scammer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top