how do corps get away with abusing the patent system?

[Phoenix86]

There is plenty of known energy technologies out there, but we're not allowed to use them because the oil industry has them.

Such as? :hmm:

 

[SMOGZINN]

Such as? :hmm:

[sarcasm] You know, like the water powered car, pyramid powered planes, and the umpa-loompa powered river boat. Nothing like little red slaves for nearly free energy! [/sarcasm]

 

[Red Squirrel]

Such as? :hmm:

Nickel Cadminum batteries as a source of power for a car, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80
%93metal_hydride_battery#Patent_encumbrance_in_electric_vehicles

History of EV1 Car, interesting stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?
http://vimeo.com/19863733 This one is interesting.
http://mrevergreen.hubpages.com/hub/What-destroyed-the-electric-car

There's tons of examples with software too. Smartphone companies not allowed to do something a certain way because someone patented it. etc Something as stupid as having slide to unlock button on it.

 

[slayernine]

Time to start building that giant ship that is going to save us from impending doom. Be sure to tell all the lawyers, patent trolls and middle management about it.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Bullshit. Watch/read a few documentaries on inventors who wanted to come up with new ways to harvest energy. They did not care about the money, they just wanted to bring new green energy to the public. I wish I'd remember the names of the shows. I just remember seeing a bunch of shows back to back on Discovery and it really opens your eyes on the corruption behind the government and the oil industry. With SOPA and all the other crap that's been going on lately, it actually makes it even more believable. The government IS evil, they aren't here for the people at all, they are here for their own and corporations' interests. It all falls down to money, and that's all they care about. Cure cancer, or get 1 billion dollars? They'll take the money, and make sure the cure does not get out there, if it threatens them somehow.

There is plenty of known energy technologies out there, but we're not allowed to use them because the oil industry has them. Most types of electric cars cannot be used for example. That's why there is none of them on the road. Hybrids are ok because they still use gas. And that's just energy, the same idea exist everywhere else.

Apple patents all sorts of stupid crap, because they want to make it harder and harder for competitors to make similar products. Take the slide to lock patent for example. I'm sure if I decided to make a software program and went to the patent office because I want to patent that, they'd laugh at me. But because it's a big corporation, they get anything they want no matter how silly it is. Patents do nothing but promote monopolies.

I am a strong believer that everything should be open. Information should be used by anyone who finds it, or creates it. I should be able to open up a device, find a way to make it better, and release my own version of that device, or see if I can find a cheaper way to produce it, and release a similar one.

It's retarded that advancement is halted by artificial limitations such as patents, copyright and other red tape like that. If it was not for all that crap we'd be extremely evolved even further. Look at China, they're basically a 3rd world country, but because they don't care about copyright and all that bullshit, they are more advanced than lot of 1st world countries when it comes to technology. They'll find information anywhere, and put it to use. They are resourceful.

Naive crackpot confirmed.

Are there instances where the patent system has not operated optimally? Sure. I will be the first one to say that it is not perfect. But for every story exemplifying a negative use of the system, there is an equal and perhaps more heartening story that exemplifies a positive use of the system

As to your citation of inventors that want to develop technology with no ambition for profit, I'm not sure whether to applaud them or slap them across the face. If a technology truly changes the world, someone will make a profit off of it. The only thing those inventors are doing is giving up the opportunity to be the one to make that profit. Are those actions morally laudable? Perhaps. But it could also be argued that they are simply idiotic.

With respect to your comments as to how we would be far more advanced without a patent system, I would like to know how you are able to cross time and space and see what would have had happened had society taken some other course of action in the past, not to mention how you are able to predict the future. Do you have a working time machine? If so, send me a PM with the specs. I would be happy to draft and submit a patent application on your behalf.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

There's tons of examples with software too. Smartphone companies not allowed to do something a certain way because someone patented it. etc Something as stupid as having slide to unlock button on it.

Riddle me this, grasshopper. If a technology or feature will likely make a product profitable, but cannot be used by company A because company B has a patent with claims drawn to that technology or feature, what is company A likely to do?

Potential Answers:

A. Conduct research and design around the claims of the patents in question, deriving a new way to execute the technology or feature in a way that does not infringe the patent claims.

B. Try to invalidate the patent

C. License the patent

D. Some combination of A-C

E. Close up shop, go home, and play russian roulette until the big bang occurs. Because [whiny voice] it ain't fair that company A can't use a technology that company B developed. [/whiny voice]

As a patent practitioner, I'll tell you that the answer is most often A or C. B is somewhat expensive and not always reliable.

 

[alkemyst]

I like the comment above about how it's unfair a corp patented something that the other person wanted to own.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

I'd laugh so hard if another big company would also patent stuff that was around much longer already (by doing the same as Apple and simply bribing everyone of course) and then would refuse to license it to Apple making it impossible for them to produce pretty much any phone, tablet or computer without getting sued.

 

[CanOWorms]

Having some IP assets prior to seeking seed money can make fundraising easier, as the VC can attach a lien to the IP assets

IP is usually transferred to the corp itself early on for the founder's stock.

 

[Kantastic]

a patent is only as good as your ability to defend it.

In a perfect society with a half competent and functional judicial system, yes, that would be true. In America, no.

 

[her209]

I'd laugh so hard if another big company would also patent stuff that was around much longer already (by doing the same as Apple and simply bribing everyone of course) and then would refuse to license it to Apple making it impossible for them to produce pretty much any phone, tablet or computer without getting sued.

You mean like patents on seeds and livestock?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I'd laugh so hard if another big company would also patent stuff that was around much longer already (by doing the same as Apple and simply bribing everyone of course) and then would refuse to license it to Apple making it impossible for them to produce pretty much any phone, tablet or computer without getting sued.

Bribing who? The patent office? The chances of that actually happening are extremely small.

 

[Anonemous]

Moral of the thread: Patent Lawyers always win, Corps profit, consumers lose...

 

[alent1234]

I'd laugh so hard if another big company would also patent stuff that was around much longer already (by doing the same as Apple and simply bribing everyone of course) and then would refuse to license it to Apple making it impossible for them to produce pretty much any phone, tablet or computer without getting sued.

sue, show prior art in court, win, get patent thrown out

happens all the time

 

[Sho'Nuff]

In a perfect society with a half competent and functional judicial system, yes, that would be true. In America, no.

It always amazes me how ATOT posters are keen to make definitive (and utterly incrrect) statements based on little or no information.

Seriously, do some research and stop making comments based on headlines derived from a tiny minority of patent cases.

 

[alent1234]

Nickel Cadminum batteries as a source of power for a car, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80
%93metal_hydride_battery#Patent_encumbrance_in_electric_vehicles

History of EV1 Car, interesting stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?
http://vimeo.com/19863733 This one is interesting.
http://mrevergreen.hubpages.com/hub/What-destroyed-the-electric-car

There's tons of examples with software too. Smartphone companies not allowed to do something a certain way because someone patented it. etc Something as stupid as having slide to unlock button on it.

it's a conspiracy

over 15 million cars are sold in the US every year. car makers sell millions more around the world

5000 EV1's were made and there was no interest in mass production

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Moral of the thread: Patent Lawyers always win, Corps profit, consumers lose...

I thought it was that most ATOT members know nothing about patent law?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

IP is usually transferred to the corp itself early on for the founder's stock.

Understood. Perhaps I should have said "hard" IP assets, i.e., patents, trademarks, etc.

 

[pmv]

I worry that "Intellectual property" laws are getting out of control.

I think its a very interesting topic though, someone must have written a properly researched book on the topic surely?

Firstly it seems as if copyright has a tendency to get extended continually, as the longer it gets the more money (rent) copyright owners get, hence the more political power they have, hence the more they can push for further extensions and more rent. There seems to be a potential for a (bad) positive feedback effect there.

Secondly it seems as if the more technology advances, the more complex the economy gets, the more ownership of 'ideas' becomes more important than that of physical capital, the greater the number of patents existent and applied for becomes, and also the harder it gets for the state to accurately judge when its appropriate to award patents (not least because the state probably can't pay the people who assess patents anywhere near as much as the corporations can pay those who apply for them).

I'm wondering whether at some point the economy will get excessively bogged down in legal actions and well-funded corporations and law firms suing everybody, with fewer and fewer people in a position to actually produce genuinely new ideas.

Its certainly not at all obvious to me that IP laws as they stand actually encourage innovation more than they impede it. There doesn't seem to be any general sociological/political reason to assume that IP would develop in a necessarily benevolent way.

 

[pmv]

Riddle me this, grasshopper. If a technology or feature will likely make a product profitable, but cannot be used by company A because company B has a patent with claims drawn to that technology or feature, what is company A likely to do?

Potential Answers:

A. Conduct research and design around the claims of the patents in question, deriving a new way to execute the technology or feature in a way that does not infringe the patent claims.

B. Try to invalidate the patent

C. License the patent

D. Some combination of A-C

E. Close up shop, go home, and play russian roulette until the big bang occurs. Because [whiny voice] it ain't fair that company A can't use a technology that company B developed. [/whiny voice]

As a patent practitioner, I'll tell you that the answer is most often A or C. B is somewhat expensive and not always reliable.

But C is likely to be expensive and involves paying money to your direct competitor. Hence it limits new entrants to a market, surely? How is that good for the consumer?

And A means a lot of wasted effort reinventing the wheel. Which is not just wasted effort for the company involved, but is a waste of resources and work for the society as a whole. How does that benefit society?

Given that the only justification for patents at all is a utilitarian one, that has to be an important question.

I am unconvinced patents should be granted on something as trivial as 'slide to unlock'. I just think that is wrong. Patents should be for the bleeding edge, not the bleeding obvious.

 

[pmv]

PS, I wouldn't take this argument to the lengths that RedSquirrel does above. Just saying that just maybe there's possibly a point at which the IP system starts to do more harm than good, and it might have its own logic that takes it past that point.

 

[alent1234]

lets see

Intel rules the CPU market, and ARM sneaks in with a totally different design mentality and is starting to kick intel's ass

BB rules the smartphone market and apple comes in with a totally new design and RIM is going to be sold off soon

hundreds of companies researched and then pooled their patents to give us the DVD and blu ray after Philips made the first CD

nvidia blew the competition out of the market years ago and now PowerVR came back with low power mobile designs and is kicking nvidia's ass again

 

[pmv]

lets see

Intel rules the CPU market, and ARM sneaks in with a totally different design mentality and is starting to kick intel's ass

BB rules the smartphone market and apple comes in with a totally new design and RIM is going to be sold off soon

hundreds of companies researched and then pooled their patents to give us the DVD and blu ray after Philips made the first CD

nvidia blew the competition out of the market years ago and now PowerVR came back with low power mobile designs and is kicking nvidia's ass again

(a) those are all patents on things far less trivial than 'slide to unlock'. I would never argue that patents are always harmful

(b) are you _sure_ that the DVD and blu ray came about because people couldn't just copy the CD design? Really? I don't know that I believe you. Seems to me they came about because improvements in other technologies made higher density data storage possible.

(c) I see no reason to believe that any of those examples are due to the existence of patents.

 

[alent1234]

PowerVR couldnt copy nvidia's design so they went back and came up with something new

at some points almost every market changes and a lot of times the existing large companies get pushed out due to new competition.

powervr has their own patents so nvidia or anyone else larger than them can't just come in and steal their work

 

[zinfamous]

The small entity filing fees are currently $560. The new america invents act mandates the provision of microentity fees that are even smaller.

A patent application of average complexity takes about 40 hours of atorney time to draft. Depending on the firm and the attorney's billable rate, the cost of that time may range from $3000-10,000.

U.S. patent applications typically go through a few rounds of examination. If no extensions of time are needed, each round costs ~$500 for small entities.

I do think that copyright/patent is very, very important, but the structure is simply set up for abuse and despite it's intent, tends to stifle innovation, if such protections were constantly applied.

I submit that there would be no film industry had Edison had his way with his patents. Hell, his crumugeonly attempts to stuifle and destroy new industries essentially gave birth to a very large west coast economy, and what is now a world-wide cultural industry (for good or ill).

In a way, industry had to flee his ogrisheness to thrive--something of an inconsequential benefit to the patent system, for a particular region, anyway--but being that he was the Steve Jobs of the day in terms of patent trolling, there would be very few industries to speak of related to his inventions.