Any practical use Mr. Weiss or just coffee time invested with ideas and main idea to patent some stuff to block practical innowavtion?
To USPTO: Please simplify that weak patent system and bring European test of practicality and use; Eliminate people who patent with no practical use or documented intention of use. Pre-existing users should also be relieved. Ideas are not business... or some of us will start patenting devices such as one with soft rolling point with any marking fluid that leaves marks on paper... and you will see what happens. We can start being creative as engineers.
We could perhaps argue whether the requirement is interpreted and enforced stringently enough, but there is a usefulness requirement in U.S. patent law.
At this point, not all 50 states issue drivers' licenses that even comply with the federal RealID requirement. Until I can ditch my drivers' license, I'm gonna need a wallet in my pocket.
OTOH, when all 50 US states pass a law that I can show a law enforcement official a cell phone image (with the device locked, of course) and a insurance card (or equivalent) to fulfill a lawful demand for ID, we might be on to other...consequences.
Maybe having a wallet ain't so bad after all.
There's no way I'd willingly hand over my phone to show a Driver license and proof of insurance to a police officer. Nope!!!! In this case, I'll keep the paper. Now if I can just transmit that data to the police officer, then it might be a different story. There's no way I'd hand over y phone while he walks away with it to his car to copy the info over and who knows what else. Locked or not.
The patents are way too general and hopefully will get thrown out. Apple didn't comment because they were too busy creating an actual product, both hardware and software, AND solidifying deals with banks. All while USR sat on its butt with useless patents doing absolutely nothing.
IMHO, final patents shouldn't be issued until there is an actual existing item for the patent. You can apply and get a preliminary patent request to prove that you had the idea first, but if you just sit on it and do nothing, then the application should eventually die.
I've grappled with the dichotomy presented by the need to protect intellectual property versus the scourge that the non-practicing entity lawsuits represent.
Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service. This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder. If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent. But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement.
There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential. The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here. Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.
To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here. The current status quo would remain in effect. But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines. So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.
The argument here has often been patents are just another type of property that you can either choose to use, let it sit, license (rent/lease), or outright sell. As there's no requirement to use or improve a piece of real property you own, why should intellectual property be different?
For instance Apple is prone to patent every design, piece of hardware and process they think of whether it ever makes it into an Apple product. Many of them never do. They've used patents they didn't use themselves to sue other companies as a matter of fact, effectively a "Non-Practicing Entity" in those cases (At AI an NPE is often called a less friendly 2-word name by some posters) Would you be in favor of Apple losing leverage for their non-practiced patents? Seems quite a slippery slope once you start limiting existing property rights.
Think of why patents exist. It's about property rights, but the deeper reason is to provide incentive to invest in ideas that might benefit society. Theres no reason to incentivize investment in ideas, innovation, invention, if society doesn't ultimately benefit. If that were the case, society should stay out of the game by not having patent law in the first place.
Patents already aren't like ownership of real property. They cannot be passed down from generation to generation perpetually the way real property can. No, they expire, which is the current means (and the thinking of those who created the concept of a patent) to release these ideas [eventually] into the market for the betterment of society. But this aspect of patents, put in place a long time ago, might need to be looked at again in the context of the modern fast-paced technology treadmill we're on today. Waiting 17 years to allow society to benefit from a patented invention might be too long. But rather than take away that duration, which erodes the very basis of incentive to invent and bring an invention to market, let's look at the other aspects. I'm suggesting one potential way forward, and yes, I would apply it to Apple. What's fair is fair. Apple would not be able to sit on their patented inventions without using them; the idea is to get inventions into use ASAP for the betterment of society, balanced with the need to provide reasonable protections for the efforts put into inventing. I don't think my proposal is unreasonable when the greater good is recognized as the primary reason patent protection exists.
Truth be told I actually agree with your basic premise. Apple, Samsung, GE, MS, HP, GM, and millions of other patent holders probably would not. That makes your suggestions dead in the water when a company with the influence of an Apple or Microsoft wields it's muscle to oppose it.
Yeah, I get that point. Politics, in all its forms, which include influencing outcomes based upon alignments and interests more than a cold analysis of each issue, is one of the scourges of humanity.
Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service. This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder. If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent. But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement.
There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential. The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here. Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.
To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here. The current status quo would remain in effect. But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines. So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.
To those who understand the complexity of the situation, thanks for at least considering options, but really, stay the hell out of patent negotiations. If I develop something and patent it, and I want to license it to someone else, how much I get is really no one else's business, and never should be. And as far as a timeline to bring it to market, it's also none of your business, and three years is nothing in product development. Just take a look at Apple patents that take eight or nine years to be realized. Patent trolls (however you personally define one) have every right to exist and capitalize their property. Alleged infringers have the right to challenge either the terms or the patent claims. Unlike what blog headlines imply, these cases are usually settled out of court for charges that do not significantly change market prices of the products containing the IP. But nobody wants to think past the headline and the eight word "solutions".
And by the way, the licensee is often given the right to prosecute patent rights as part of the license, has the absolute right to go after what they perceive as infringers of property they own or license.
And before the flames get higher, we develop our own products based on our patents, and only license distribution rights. Trollish we are not.
Right... Yet,. you sound like someone who gets a god damn government monopoly and then wants it to frack off huh?... Sounds completely fair... (sic).
Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service. This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder. If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent. But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement.
There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential. The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here. Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.
To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here. The current status quo would remain in effect. But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines. So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.
To those who understand the complexity of the situation, thanks for at least considering options, but really, stay the hell out of patent negotiations. If I develop something and patent it, and I want to license it to someone else, how much I get is really no one else's business, and never should be. And as far as a timeline to bring it to market, it's also none of your business, and three years is nothing in product development. Just take a look at Apple patents that take eight or nine years to be realized. Patent trolls (however you personally define one) have every right to exist and capitalize their property. Alleged infringers have the right to challenge either the terms or the patent claims. Unlike what blog headlines imply, these cases are usually settled out of court for charges that do not significantly change market prices of the products containing the IP. But nobody wants to think past the headline and the eight word "solutions".
And by the way, the licensee is often given the right to prosecute patent rights as part of the license, has the absolute right to go after what they perceive as infringers of property they own or license.
And before the flames get higher, we develop our own products based on our patents, and only license distribution rights. Trollish we are not.
"To those who understand..." would necessarily include understanding of SEP and FRAND. Society already imposes royalty limits and restrictions, including the requirement to offer licenses, all of which suggest it is not "no one else's business." Before telling a patented inventor and co-founder of a high tech business to "stay the hell out of patent negotiations," you should at least know something of the field of discipline yourself.
Yeah, patents are not something you're entitled to and that then enable you to go on a rampage in a protected market. The advantage they give in a market should come with a whole lot of caveats (especially since the attribution process is so flawed).
Comments