In Defense Of Patent Trolling

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Have you ever really sat down and listened to a patent troll try to defend his position? Head on over to Engadget and you can hear the CEO of Intellectual Ventures do just that.

You may know the man and his company for its vicious patent trolling -- or, what appears to be patent trolling. In essence, a lot of its business comes from acquiring patent portfolios, and then licensing and / or suing companies to "enforce" them. Naturally, Nathan has a radically different perspective than most sane individuals on the matter, insisting that the system isn't necessarily broken, and that "making money from enforcing patents is no more wrong than investing in preferred stock."
Click to expand...
 
The irony of a dumbass running a company called "Intellectual Ventures" is not lost on me.
 
Using his logic, I will set up a toll booth for a nearby highway ramp. I don't own the highway ramp, and may never actually use it or pay any money towards it, but I think a lot of people will use it and I want money because of that.
 
ballistic90 said:
Using his logic, I will set up a toll booth for a nearby highway ramp. I don't own the highway ramp, and may never actually use it or pay any money towards it, but I think a lot of people will use it and I want money because of that.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah. He is basically admitting the patent system is broken and that he's exploiting it to the fullest extent possible. He uses fancy rhetoric to try to downplay that but that is the fact of the matter.
 
I have no problem with a venture capitalist buying a patent (paying an inventor for it) and then licensing that technology and perhaps having to sue to enforce it. In this case, the inventor gets paid rightfully, and people who want to use the technology can license it for a reasonable fee.

The MAIN problem, is that most of the patents are complete bullshit. Apple tried to say it owned the shape of the smartphone as being rectangular with rounded edges, or patented a grid of icons on the OS, or remember the idiot who had a patent on the linked list?

If they had a valid patent in the first place (patent office needs to understand the technology and not issue crap patents), and other companies could still use the tech at a reasonable fee, and perhaps the technology patents lasted a shorter amount of time (20 years for tech is stupid long), then the system would work a lot better.
 
MavericK96 said:
The irony of a dumbass running a company called "Intellectual Ventures" is not lost on me.
Click to expand...

Myhrvold and dumbass don't belong in the same sentence, unless it's a sentence explaining how he's not a dumbass.

Seriously, the guy is brilliant, and his work in multiple fields is outstanding.
 
well i agree with him. it does suck that the system is like this, though. patents shouldn't be issued for vague definitons, like "item which does something in some way, somehow + apple logo"

(or "stuff that begins with *i*." i'm not making it up, you know)
 
Mr.Cheap said:
well i agree with him. it does suck that the system is like this, though. patents shouldn't be issued for vague definitons, like "item which does something in some way, somehow + apple logo"

(or "stuff that begins with *i*." i'm not making it up, you know)
Click to expand...

You're not? I'd love to see the patent that covers "stuff that begins with i". Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
Tawnos said:
Myhrvold and dumbass don't belong in the same sentence, unless it's a sentence explaining how he's not a dumbass.

Seriously, the guy is brilliant, and his work in multiple fields is outstanding.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about him overall TBH but his "defense" here is pretty dumb IMO.
 
MavericK96 said:
I don't know much about him overall TBH but his "defense" here is pretty dumb IMO.
Click to expand...

College at 14, multiple masters in things such as astrophysics, phd in theoretical physics at 23. Studied under Stephen Hawking. Award winning photographer and published paleontologist. Former Microsoft CTO and founder of the Microsoft Research division. Master french chef and principal author of Modernist Cuisine.

Yeah, I'd say he's pretty smart. I think you just don't like what he's defending, since you haven't made any argument about why his defense is dumb beyond simply declaring it to be true.

The short version of his take on being a "patent troll" is that companies such as IV provides capital incentive for an individual inventor to make their ideas, even if those ideas are beyond the reach of that inventor to implement.
 
Tawnos said:
Yeah, I'd say he's pretty smart. I think you just don't like what he's defending, since you haven't made any argument about why his defense is dumb beyond simply declaring it to be true.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did:

MavericK96 said:
Lol, yeah. He is basically admitting the patent system is broken and that he's exploiting it to the fullest extent possible. He uses fancy rhetoric to try to downplay that but that is the fact of the matter.
Click to expand...

Maybe the word "dumb" wasn't right. "Jackass", maybe? Pick whatever you want.
 
Tawnos said:
... Master french chef and principal author of Modernist Cuisine...
Click to expand...

That book set is so cool, and so expensive.

There is no doubt that he's a smart person, and understand the patent game. We can all wish all we want that it wasn't like this, but until they change it, he can keep exploiting it. To be fair, he does come up with some of his own patents, and does other things than just exploit the patent system.

I still hate patent trolling. But as an individual, he's pretty accomplished.
 
MavericK96 said:
Actually, I did:



Maybe the word "dumb" wasn't right. "Jackass", maybe? Pick whatever you want.
Click to expand...

Actually, you didn't. You misstated what he says then attacked the manner in which he spoke. In formal argumentation, that's a strawman and ad hominem. Nowhere did you address the points he made. I simplified one of those points for you, and you still haven't addressed it beyond saying "he uses fancy rhetoric" and calling him a "jackass."
 
Look, the fact is he is the same as "financial engineers." It's all just putting a nice suit on being a thief. A thief expects to be rewarded for providing no value to society, worse, removing value from other people. Dumb thieves steal from convenience stores and go to jail, smart ones put on a suit and lobby lawmakers to legally legitimize their activity. It's fundamentally the same thing. Extracting value from others in return for nothing.

I'd have more respect for these guys if they just admitted it. "You know that this is legal? I'm making a killing and I don't even have to do anything." Same way I admire professional poker players, at least they are honest.
 
Mr.Cheap said:
Apple tried to claim they had a right to use the i suffix, as in iProduct
Click to expand...

You clearly don't know the difference between patents and trademark (and, by extension, copyright). Should probably learn the difference before making comments about them. Please do the needful.
 
Aluisious said:
Look, the fact is he is the same as "financial engineers." It's all just putting a nice suit on being a thief. A thief expects to be rewarded for providing no value to society, worse, removing value from other people. Dumb thieves steal from convenience stores and go to jail, smart ones put on a suit and lobby lawmakers to legally legitimize their activity. It's fundamentally the same thing. Extracting value from others in return for nothing.

I'd have more respect for these guys if they just admitted it. "You know that this is legal? I'm making a killing and I don't even have to do anything." Same way I admire professional poker players, at least they are honest.
Click to expand...

You, too, have simply offered disparagement without articulating against the argument he made. Do you care to address my summary that "companies such as IV provides capital incentive for an individual inventor to make their ideas, even if those ideas are beyond the reach of that inventor to implement"?
 
I think these patents shouldn't apply retroactively after their purchased - these companies that buy up patents should only be able to sue if the patents were violated after they purchased them.

To build off of one of the analogies floating in this thread, the current system is like if I purchased a road from the city government, built a toll booth on it, and then sued everybody who used the road before I owned the road for the tolls they "owed".
 
the-one1 said:
Tawnos: You sure are putting up the fight defending the guy. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I'm actually defending his arguments, because I think he made legitimate points and I've yet to see anyone argue those points. Seems people would rather label it "patent trolling" and/or disparage and attack the speaker rather than engage on his points.

The guy making the points doesn't really matter. In this case, I don't even need to defend him, his work speaks for itself.
 
Tawnos said:
I'm actually defending his arguments, because I think he made legitimate points and I've yet to see anyone argue those points. Seems people would rather label it "patent trolling" and/or disparage and attack the speaker rather than engage on his points.

The guy making the points doesn't really matter. In this case, I don't even need to defend him, his work speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

A patent troll purchases a patent with the purpose of A) Never making a product or service requiring it, but B) Sues all companies that have in the past or present use technology or concepts similar enough to the stated patent as their main source of income for the purposes of owning said patent.

Important! Patent trolls do not create the technology they are 'licensing'. Important! Lawsuits were never intended to be a main source of income for a company, and could be viewed as abuse of process.

If you still feel like defending the practice, then I will set up a toll booth for your driveway. If you decide to park on the street in front of your house, I will set up a toll booth for your street. This will continue until I have a toll booth for your entire block. You would be forced to park 2 blocks away, or be charged to use or park on streets that I do not have any ownership of, and you would be forced into terms that I would be able to set. This is the equivalent situation to "Patent Trolling".

We both know that wouldn't be allowed, and yet that's how patents are being abused. Patents were designed to protect an invention or a concept, not to be monetized directly. Patenting an "idea" is supposed to be like, how Colenol Sanders patented a method of creating fried chicken to sell to restaurants as a recipe. Patenting "A method of generating a moving image by putting an image on a screen line by line in quick succession" and then sitting on it and suing people that actually use it isn't at all the same thing.
 
besides the rofl'ing .. what would be the ethical difference between granting a patent for "device which helps users with multimedia operations" and allowing a company to claim a one-letter prefix as their own?

the first covers both a kinect and a remote, the second covers both iPhone and i5. see de probrem ?
 
Tawnos said:
You, too, have simply offered disparagement without articulating against the argument he made. Do you care to address my summary that "companies such as IV provides capital incentive for an individual inventor to make their ideas, even if those ideas are beyond the reach of that inventor to implement"?
Click to expand...

That's the same tired bullshit that Wall Street trots out to justify their role as a vampire. It's a total nonstarter. Betting on bum fights provides capital incentive for the indigent to resolve their interpersonal conflicts. Gee, you can make anything sound good if you roll it in enough empty jargon that makes the trained seals clap in approval.
 
ballistic90 said:
A patent troll purchases a patent with the purpose of A) Never making a product or service requiring it, but B) Sues all companies that have in the past or present use technology or concepts similar enough to the stated patent as their main source of income for the purposes of owning said patent.

Important! Patent trolls do not create the technology they are 'licensing'. Important! Lawsuits were never intended to be a main source of income for a company, and could be viewed as abuse of process.
Click to expand...
Can you prove that the purpose of purchasing the patent is not ever making a product with it? Seems a pretty bold claim, considering the technologies being developed and marketed by them. E.g. http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=653

In fact, IV does a combination of self-patenting and patent purchasing. It's hard to tell where they might go in the future, considering they've done everything from make a cookbook to work on a cure for malaria.

If you still feel like defending the practice, then I will set up a toll booth for your driveway. If you decide to park on the street in front of your house, I will set up a toll booth for your street. This will continue until I have a toll booth for your entire block. You would be forced to park 2 blocks away, or be charged to use or park on streets that I do not have any ownership of, and you would be forced into terms that I would be able to set. This is the equivalent situation to "Patent Trolling".
Click to expand...
Under what law or means would you set up a toll booth? The analogy lacks a link to any view of the world I can conceive.

We both know that wouldn't be allowed, and yet that's how patents are being abused. Patents were designed to protect an invention or a concept, not to be monetized directly. Patenting an "idea" is supposed to be like, how Colenol Sanders patented a method of creating fried chicken to sell to restaurants as a recipe. Patenting "A method of generating a moving image by putting an image on a screen line by line in quick succession" and then sitting on it and suing people that actually use it isn't at all the same thing.
Click to expand...

How were patents designed to protect the invention or concept? Seems there are two choices: an injunction preventing violation, or a fee/fine for infringing. It appears you'd rather the latter option is eliminated, but have you considered the implications of that?
 
Easy solution: File a patent for the process of procuring and enforcing patents for profit. If Amazon can patent 1-click ordering, this should be easy. Then sue the living hell out of anyone who infringes on your patent.

Alternative solution: Alter patent law such that anyone who takes posession of a patent that they did not personally create must also receive a savage beating.
 
@ ballistic (since i don't actually know patents, but i do know copyright)

when developing a technology, are you allowed to know whether there's a patent covering it yet, or do you have to get sued to find out?
 
Mr.Cheap said:
@ ballistic (since i don't actually know patents, but i do know copyright)

when developing a technology, are you allowed to know whether there's a patent covering it yet, or do you have to get sued to find out?
Click to expand...

I'm not ballistic, but anyway:
We're disallowed by company policy from looking at patents because of "treble damages for knowing infringement." Basically, if you know or should know of a particular patent and infringe upon it anyway, the damages are tripled.

So basically, you have to get sued to find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top