They are just waiting for someone to cross their bridge and then extract a feee for doing so.
Which is fine. It's legal. Even Apple could be a patent troll for wanting money from others for patents they use.
Perhaps the term troll is pejorative but it's also very apt in describing the type of action that goes on in this business.
It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.
It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.
Off topic, but I wouldn't call what the USPTO does as granting intellectual property. They note a timeframe when potential intellectual property was officially recorded. It's still up to the courts to decide is a patent that has been granted is actually original and unique on a case by case basis.
Off topic, but I wouldn't call what the USPTO does as granting intellectual property. They note a timeframe when potential intellectual property was officially recorded. It's still up to the courts to decide is a patent that has been granted is actually original and unique on a case by case basis.
Patents (and copyrights) are property granted by the government, specifically Congress, under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution:
Quote:
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;
The courts' role is simply to determine whether a particular grant was done in accordance with the law.
But, it's clear, if we look at the basis of patent law, that the Founders did not have in mind creating a leach industry of IP holding companies that did nothing but develop and buy patents to sit on and hope that someone develops an actual and possibly infringing product that makes money so they can siphon some off. That doesn't promote progress, it hinders it.
It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.
Who is to say that the public purpose is not being achieved? Innovation is occurring at a faster rate than at any time in history (read "Future Shock" for some of the implications).
The fact that YOU don't like the outcome of a specific situation doesn't mean that the system is broken - or unconstitutional as you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Patents (and copyrights) are property granted by the government, specifically Congress, under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution:
The courts' role is simply to determine whether a particular grant was done in accordance with the law.
But, it's clear, if we look at the basis of patent law, that the Founders did not have in mind creating a leach industry of IP holding companies that did nothing but develop and buy patents to sit on and hope that someone develops an actual and possibly infringing product that makes money so they can siphon some off. That doesn't promote progress, it hinders it.
Sorry, but you're letting your political biases interfere with rational discussion.
It could just as easily be argued that IP holding companies FOSTER innovation because they create a mechanism where a small inventor can obtain payments from the big guys (indirectly) without having to go to expensive legal battles. IP holding companies simply level the playing field a bit and make it possible for the small inventor to benefit. That is clearly a positive in terms of public policy.
As for the Founders no having IP holding companies in mind, that's a spurious argument. They didn't have airplanes, computers, or nuclear reactors in mind, either. Does that mean that patents shouldn't apply to those things?
The Founders had a clear concept that people who invented something should benefit from it and gave the power to Congress to select a system by which that would occur. Congress did so and made intellectual property rights real, transferrable, defensible rights. End of story.
Who is to say that the public purpose is not being achieved? Innovation is occurring at a faster rate than at any time in history (read "Future Shock" for some of the implications).
The fact that YOU don't like the outcome of a specific situation doesn't mean that the system is broken - or unconstitutional as you claim.
Do I even need to name the fallacy you have committed above?
Quote:
Sorry, but you're letting your political biases interfere with rational discussion.
It could just as easily be argued that IP holding companies FOSTER innovation because they create a mechanism where a small inventor can obtain payments from the big guys (indirectly) without having to go to expensive legal battles. IP holding companies simply level the playing field a bit and make it possible for the small inventor to benefit. That is clearly a positive in terms of public policy.
As for the Founders no having IP holding companies in mind, that's a spurious argument. They didn't have airplanes, computers, or nuclear reactors in mind, either. Does that mean that patents shouldn't apply to those things?
The Founders had a clear concept that people who invented something should benefit from it and gave the power to Congress to select a system by which that would occur. Congress did so and made intellectual property rights real, transferrable, defensible rights. End of story.
The above is just utter nonsense. The idea that selling patents to holding companies who do nothing with them but wait for someone to sue somehow fosters innovation, rather than retarding it, defies reason. It's laughably absurd and self-contradictory as a notion.
And, no, the Founders did not express a notion that anyone who invented something should benefit from it. The Founders clearly expressed that, in order for The People to benefit from progress, they thought it a good idea to reward people for facilitating that progress. Current patent law flies in the face of that clearly expressed intent and perverts it to the interests of patent trolls.
I realize you are desperately trying to justify your ideology, but you have to actually use logic and reason to do that successfully. So far, you have utterly failed to do so.
Comments
They are just waiting for someone to cross their bridge and then extract a feee for doing so.
Which is fine. It's legal. Even Apple could be a patent troll for wanting money from others for patents they use.
Perhaps the term troll is pejorative but it's also very apt in describing the type of action that goes on in this business.
It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.
It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.
Off topic, but I wouldn't call what the USPTO does as granting intellectual property. They note a timeframe when potential intellectual property was officially recorded. It's still up to the courts to decide is a patent that has been granted is actually original and unique on a case by case basis.
Off topic, but I wouldn't call what the USPTO does as granting intellectual property. They note a timeframe when potential intellectual property was officially recorded. It's still up to the courts to decide is a patent that has been granted is actually original and unique on a case by case basis.
Patents (and copyrights) are property granted by the government, specifically Congress, under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution:
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;
The courts' role is simply to determine whether a particular grant was done in accordance with the law.
But, it's clear, if we look at the basis of patent law, that the Founders did not have in mind creating a leach industry of IP holding companies that did nothing but develop and buy patents to sit on and hope that someone develops an actual and possibly infringing product that makes money so they can siphon some off. That doesn't promote progress, it hinders it.
It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.
Who is to say that the public purpose is not being achieved? Innovation is occurring at a faster rate than at any time in history (read "Future Shock" for some of the implications).
The fact that YOU don't like the outcome of a specific situation doesn't mean that the system is broken - or unconstitutional as you claim.
Patents (and copyrights) are property granted by the government, specifically Congress, under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution:
The courts' role is simply to determine whether a particular grant was done in accordance with the law.
But, it's clear, if we look at the basis of patent law, that the Founders did not have in mind creating a leach industry of IP holding companies that did nothing but develop and buy patents to sit on and hope that someone develops an actual and possibly infringing product that makes money so they can siphon some off. That doesn't promote progress, it hinders it.
Sorry, but you're letting your political biases interfere with rational discussion.
It could just as easily be argued that IP holding companies FOSTER innovation because they create a mechanism where a small inventor can obtain payments from the big guys (indirectly) without having to go to expensive legal battles. IP holding companies simply level the playing field a bit and make it possible for the small inventor to benefit. That is clearly a positive in terms of public policy.
As for the Founders no having IP holding companies in mind, that's a spurious argument. They didn't have airplanes, computers, or nuclear reactors in mind, either. Does that mean that patents shouldn't apply to those things?
The Founders had a clear concept that people who invented something should benefit from it and gave the power to Congress to select a system by which that would occur. Congress did so and made intellectual property rights real, transferrable, defensible rights. End of story.
Who is to say that the public purpose is not being achieved? Innovation is occurring at a faster rate than at any time in history (read "Future Shock" for some of the implications).
The fact that YOU don't like the outcome of a specific situation doesn't mean that the system is broken - or unconstitutional as you claim.
Do I even need to name the fallacy you have committed above?
Sorry, but you're letting your political biases interfere with rational discussion.
It could just as easily be argued that IP holding companies FOSTER innovation because they create a mechanism where a small inventor can obtain payments from the big guys (indirectly) without having to go to expensive legal battles. IP holding companies simply level the playing field a bit and make it possible for the small inventor to benefit. That is clearly a positive in terms of public policy.
As for the Founders no having IP holding companies in mind, that's a spurious argument. They didn't have airplanes, computers, or nuclear reactors in mind, either. Does that mean that patents shouldn't apply to those things?
The Founders had a clear concept that people who invented something should benefit from it and gave the power to Congress to select a system by which that would occur. Congress did so and made intellectual property rights real, transferrable, defensible rights. End of story.
The above is just utter nonsense. The idea that selling patents to holding companies who do nothing with them but wait for someone to sue somehow fosters innovation, rather than retarding it, defies reason. It's laughably absurd and self-contradictory as a notion.
And, no, the Founders did not express a notion that anyone who invented something should benefit from it. The Founders clearly expressed that, in order for The People to benefit from progress, they thought it a good idea to reward people for facilitating that progress. Current patent law flies in the face of that clearly expressed intent and perverts it to the interests of patent trolls.
I realize you are desperately trying to justify your ideology, but you have to actually use logic and reason to do that successfully. So far, you have utterly failed to do so.