@radarthecat ; , what to do about the thousands of patents tech companies file and never use, or worse file simply to block a competitor? Use it or lose it still apply?
It’s not entirely a ‘lose it’ proposition I’m proposing; it’s more like, utilize it or be subject to imposition of FRAND pricing as though it were submitted as a standard. I think the analogy applies quite well. It doesn’t become public domain (lose it) but it also doesn’t remain solely at the discretion of the owner to set the price.
A similar law applies to land here in the Philippines, defining squatter’s rights. If a land owner does not put his farmland to use, but squatters do, then after a period of time the squatters gain some rights to continued use of the land. The land owner must give fair consideration to the squatters before transferring ownership or deciding to step back in and utilize the land for his own purposes.
Oh, and it’s not ‘cat,’ it’s ‘Kat,’ ala Spencer F. Katt (a pseudonym used by one of the editors of eWEEK back in the early days of the PC software industry). I’ve been around a while.
@radarthecat ; , what to do about the thousands of patents tech companies file and never use, or worse file simply to block a competitor? Use it or lose it still apply?
It’s not entirely a ‘lose it’ proposition I’m proposing; it’s more like, utilize it or be subject to imposition of FRAND pricing as though it were submitted as a standard. I think the analogy applies quite well. It doesn’t become public domain (lose it) but it also doesn’t remain solely at the discretion of the owner to set the price.
A similar law applies to land here in the Philippines, defining squatter’s rights. If a land owner does not put his farmland to use, but squatters do, then after a period of time the squatters gain some rights to continued use of the land. The land owner must give fair consideration to the squatters before transferring ownership or deciding to step back in and utilize the land for his own purposes.
Oh, and it’s not ‘cat,’ it’s ‘Kat,’ ala Spencer F. Katt (a pseudonym used by one of the editors of eWEEK back in the early days of the PC software industry). I’ve been around a while.
Who is this authority you imagine to be qualified to set fair pricing for using any of said patents? On what royalty basis, a charge for each unit sold which would put everyone using it on relatively equal ground or a one time fee that due to initial cost might preclude startups or smallish firms from even playing?
What about something like a software patent on sound processing that is never put into practice by the owner but instead serves to or perhaps even intended to block use by a competitor? Doesn't that also stifle innovation, exactly the opposite of what was intended by the patent act? Based on your comments I think you'd say it's proper the patent be available for use that benefits the public whether the owner of said patent agrees or not.
So personally I think that the idea while in your head may seem like a great path to go down, when put on paper you'd recognize the obvious issues with it and realize it's not at all a workable solution. Perhaps if software patents were denied altogether as they once were, and all "inventions" going forward must show a working model as they once were required to (AFAIK), that would solve the majority of our current patent problems as well as significantly upping the rate of tech innovation with almost no company laying landmines any longer. Prevent these IMHO silly "on a computer" patents from going forward and most of the problem is solved. In fact I would suspect that if push comes to shove Apple will tend to agree with Google that strictly function software patents should not be allowed. It would solve a lot of their headaches. The Alice ruling from SCOTUS started down that path, then lost sight of a marker or two IMO.
By the way we have similar land ownership laws in the US too. Here it's referred to as Adverse Possession. Your former Florida home state for example spells out the circumstances in which you could take ownership of what you might consider an abandoned property.
As for the misspell on the name that came up with a partial @radar.... text search completion here. Notice it's highlighted in blue as a link? Yes I know full well how you spell your moniker. No idea how the autocomplete erroneously filled in using a "C" rather than a "K". Apologies.
I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.
It couldn't be considered a setback as they're not in a worse position than they were.
Actually, they are in a worse position than Apple
They were in a worse position than Apple before this, and the original hearing judge already recommended denial. So no I don't agree they are worse off now at the ITC than they were in September. Almost no one expected Qualcomm to "win" two months ago and almost no one expects them to win now.
I don't have the solution, but sure wish there was an answer to all of this tech patent wild-west antics that have been going on for a couple of decades now. I won't claim anyone as being a "patent troll", but the point of a patent is to protect ones invention or ideas in order to develop and profit from it. It is NOT intended to be a "I thought of it first but don't do anything with it so now you have to constantly prove you aren't getting near it". When we are to a point where a patent is limiting technology growth or stifling innovation because someone refuses to budge because they feel they can just have your entire product banned, we need reform.
I'm not saying strip patents from everyone, or anyone, but something has to be done. What that something is...I have no idea. just sick of hearing things like this, and yes I know Apple does it as well to others. But I don't view Apple as someone with tons of patents and no plans to ever develop or use them.
The US changed to the “first to file” standard for patents, so that cleared the deck for a lot of future competing claims lawsuits. The system works. Each company gets their time in court and that’s how these things are supposed to go... at least in the US. As we know, US laws regarding IP ownership rights are not enforced globally in most countries, especially China. Plus their legally enforceable “technology transfer” agreements make them a dangerous country for tech and engineering companies to do business. They weaken companies in exchange for access to their markets. IMO, China should never have been allowed in the WTO for these corrupt practices.
Comments
A similar law applies to land here in the Philippines, defining squatter’s rights. If a land owner does not put his farmland to use, but squatters do, then after a period of time the squatters gain some rights to continued use of the land. The land owner must give fair consideration to the squatters before transferring ownership or deciding to step back in and utilize the land for his own purposes.
Oh, and it’s not ‘cat,’ it’s ‘Kat,’ ala Spencer F. Katt (a pseudonym used by one of the editors of eWEEK back in the early days of the PC software industry). I’ve been around a while.
What about something like a software patent on sound processing that is never put into practice by the owner but instead serves to or perhaps even intended to block use by a competitor? Doesn't that also stifle innovation, exactly the opposite of what was intended by the patent act? Based on your comments I think you'd say it's proper the patent be available for use that benefits the public whether the owner of said patent agrees or not.
So personally I think that the idea while in your head may seem like a great path to go down, when put on paper you'd recognize the obvious issues with it and realize it's not at all a workable solution. Perhaps if software patents were denied altogether as they once were, and all "inventions" going forward must show a working model as they once were required to (AFAIK), that would solve the majority of our current patent problems as well as significantly upping the rate of tech innovation with almost no company laying landmines any longer. Prevent these IMHO silly "on a computer" patents from going forward and most of the problem is solved. In fact I would suspect that if push comes to shove Apple will tend to agree with Google that strictly function software patents should not be allowed. It would solve a lot of their headaches. The Alice ruling from SCOTUS started down that path, then lost sight of a marker or two IMO.
By the way we have similar land ownership laws in the US too. Here it's referred to as Adverse Possession. Your former Florida home state for example spells out the circumstances in which you could take ownership of what you might consider an abandoned property.
As for the misspell on the name that came up with a partial @radar.... text search completion here. Notice it's highlighted in blue as a link? Yes I know full well how you spell your moniker. No idea how the autocomplete erroneously filled in using a "C" rather than a "K". Apologies.