Monopolizing great inventions -- using patents to treaten innovation?

[dh_epic]

Just read an interesting article. I'm not sure what to make of it.

http://www.news.com/Rise-of-the-patent-trolls/2010-1071_3-5892996.html

In recent years, patent trolls have raised massive amounts of money. They seek to quietly acquire significant patent portfolios with the intent of threatening lengthy and costly patent infringement lawsuits against operating companies. A troll's strategy is simple: to acquire patents with the primary purpose of making patent infringement claims.

...

Under current patent laws, trolls can seek an injunction on a company's product shipments even though the trolls have no customers or market share to lose. This unfair and ethically questionable advantage is rapidly emerging as one of the biggest threats corporations face today and could radically hamper the very nature of innovation.

The article suggests a few ways to deal with patent trolls. (Give the full article a read. It's pretty short.)

The one I find the most difficult is finding some kind of standard to deal with patent trolls. It risks seeming kind of subjective. What's the difference between a company that holds onto a great invention until licensing it makes sense, and someone who is just trolling for dollars?

What do you all think?

 

[Phlegmak]

It seems unfair, but it's all perfectly legal. I don't like it either, but if the corporations don't like it, they can buy a few politicians to have the laws changed.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

patent laws should never constrict innovation.

 

[warpus]

I was under the impression that once you get a patent - you are required to put it into practice in some sort of period of time, if you don't want to lose it.

I guess I was wrong.

 

[Xenocrates]

"biopiracy' is a big worry for me. Rich Western companies are patenting crops that Indians and others have grown for millenia and the DNA of animals and bacteria. For me that's a misuse of patents, which should be used to protect something that you've invented, not something you've analysed.

Most Shameful Act of Biopiracy:
US Government

For imposing plant intellectual property laws on war-torn Iraq in June 2004. When US occupying forces “transferred sovereignty” to Iraq, they imposed Order no. 84, which makes it illegal for Iraqi farmers to re-use seeds harvested from new varieties registered under the law. Iraq’s new patent law opens the door to the multinational seed trade, and threatens food sovereignty.

From: http://www.captainhookawards.org/winners/2006_pirates

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I expect the patent troll problem is merely a symptom of greater problems. Many things that shouldn't be patentable are and the time frame of most patents are probably too long.

 

[Ecofarm]

Elephant in room!

Intellectual Property Rights

Try reading "Biopiracy" and "Stolen Harvest" by Vandana Shiva.

Spoiler :

Vandana Shiva (b. November 5, 1952, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand, India), is a physicist, ecofeminist, environmental activist and author. Shiva, currently based in New Delhi, is author of over 300 papers in leading scientific and technical journals.


Shiva participated in the nonviolent Chipko movement during the 1970s. The movement, whose main participants were women, adopted the tactic of hugging trees to prevent their felling. She is one of the leaders of the International Forum on Globalization, (along with Jerry Mander, Edward Goldsmith, Ralph Nader, Jeremy Rifkin, et al.), and a figure of the global solidarity movement known as the alter-globalization movement. She has argued for the wisdom of many traditional practices, as is evident from her interview in the book Vedic Ecology (by Ranchor Prime) that draws upon India's Vedic heritage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva

Strangely enough, I am pro-IPR because they prevent the rapid and widespread contamination of natural ecosystems by genetically modified crops.

 

[dh_epic]

I definitely agree that patent trolls are symptoms of bigger problems of clarity in the patent process.

One of the advantages that a "troll" has is that they can threaten a lawsuit, even though their claim of infringement is questionable, or the patent they hold is questionable. Patents are given wiggle room for interpretation, meaning that it's not always certain who will win a patent case. Because of that, someone will often just pay off a "troll" just to save on legal costs.

Patents ought to be clearer -- perhaps for shorter times, and for more exceptional circumstances. But then, it's hard as hell to change a law that's on the books. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Patent trolls stand in the way because they're not actually innovating OR implementing the invention. The problem is figuring out who is a troll. A small company might have a patent they'd like to implement but they're still trying to attract investors and skilled engineers. Or their studies may have shown that the idea is not economically viable for them yet, and they should wait a few years. We don't want a large company steamrolling over someone's patent simply because they haven't gone from the "idea" stage to the "implementation" stage.

Assuming the bigger problem isn't solved... what would you do about patent trolls? How do you get the patent system doing what it's supposed to -- rewarding and encouraging innovators, while getting the benefits of that innovation to a wide audience? How do you stop trolls from blocking innovation and exploiting the system, while still giving legitimate patent holders their rights?

 

[Arwon]

Ban exclusive patents. This is particularly necessary for patenting of techniques and ideas and processes as opposed to concrete things. This'd mean that you cannot define EXCLUSIVE TERMS, ie "company X is the only one who can do this" but only GENERAL TERMS so anyone who fulfills them can use the technique. This means "anyone can use this as long as they meet the conditions that I, the patent holder, have set." Throw in a fairness test that can be applied in a civil court so that patent holders cannot set ridiculous terms (and patent-holding companies, even moreso).

This'd mean that the patent holder still gets rewarded for their work (the point of the patent, because it encourages innovation) but isn't able to allow somebody to monopolise it.

Another problem is that software is over-protected. What else is there which can be protected by both copyright AND a patent?