inignoct wrote:
] the Post (no, not NY) takes a stab at patent issues...
]
] ] Intel's Grove derides such patent holders for showing
] ] little interest in producing goods with their inventions
] ] in favor of demanding licensing fees from others. "We
] ] call them trolls," he said.
] ]
] ]
] ] Acacia's patents lay dormant for 10 years, until the
] ] original company was bought out by some of its minority
] ] investors. Management is now making it one of many
] ] companies specializing in the business of generating
] ] money from patents, rather than using them to develop
] ] products directly.
] ]
] ]
] ] Robert A. Berman, general counsel for Acacia, said that
] ] many inventors and companies don't have the
] ] sophistication, expertise or money to commercialize their
] ] inventions.
]
] seems to me like they should try to find someone who has those
] things, if they don't, and licence the technology to a
] developer. something feels wrong with a company finding a
] patent, letting it sit idle until someone else independently
] comes up with the idea AND makes the effort to commercialize
] it, and then smack them after the fact. It certainly doesn't
] seem to benefit the actual inventor, who in many cases is an
] engineer who's long gone.
]
] i could argue the other side too, but i'll leave that to
] someone else... it's a complex issue.
]
]
] the article also contains a quote from one CEO opining that 20
] years of monopoly rights on software is "asinine to the point
] of ludicrosity". can't argue with that.

While I agree in general with the irritating lack of development in this country as it is stagnating our economy, and while I agree that software patents are terribly blunt instruments, I have a problem with this view from a legal side. If you invent something new, have IP counsel determine if it is already patented! And don't give me the startup argument either-- all in all, its not an expensive proposition. Besides, its not like you can't search for it: http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

BTW: this was officially a snap judgment post-- i didn't actually read the article, I was just responding to the post and comment!

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] While I agree in general with the irritating lack of
] development in this country as it is stagnating our economy,
] and while I agree that software patents are terribly blunt
] instruments, I have a problem with this view from a legal
] side. If you invent something new, have IP counsel determine
] if it is already patented!

The trouble is that we can sit down this evening and talk about robots, for example, or maybe fiber in the loop, and come up with some ideas for things that people will do with those technologies. Then we can patent those things and sit on them. When the technology finally arrives by other means and people start doing the things we we envisioned, we get to control it, despite having done absolutely nothing to contribute materially to it's development. Thats exactly whats going on in the lawsuits discussed in this article.

The reason that patents get published in a database is presumably so that people can learn from how they are designed and build upon previous inventions. Except they can't do that at all. Its a really bad idea for engineers to ever touch the patent database. You can't use any of the technology in there thats no longer patented because its all obsolete, and the stuff that is patented you're better off inventing yourself. If you are aware of the patents your liability if you violate them increases massively, where as if you don't know about them you may never be liable because the owners may never approach you.

] And don't give me the startup argument either-- all in all,
] its not an expensive proposition.

Searching the patent database is not expensive. Finding a patent that your technology violates is.