#1 I feel this is just a scapegoat with allowing people to hope and wait 5 years for bullshit patents to expire; I don't know what a fair length of advantage time, temporarily monopoly should exist.
#2 If someone isn't infringing, then sure - troll should pay. But a lot of unknowns could invalidate a patent, perhaps just decidedly not detailed enough by a judge who ends up reviewing it, which I don't think makes sense to be a point of having the troll pay for it. If a patent is seen as invalid, then it can no longer be used to sue people.
#3 Agreed.
#4 It would be impossible for either party to prove, so then this just leaves costs open ended for the person who owns the patent.
#5 This is confusing. They seem to be trying to deal with a problem not directly associated with patents themselves? More they just want more information to make it easier if it'd be a good idea or not to infringe? You could always send an email and ask if what you're doing infringes - assuming you're not trying to patent something on top of existing patents further. Though I imagine that's not a tactic most people would be comfortable with.
#6 Define what a small fraction is, vs. how important something is in an application; It could be the most valuable piece in some overall 'bloated' scheme
#7 If you look at benefit to the economy, currently measured by GDP, any money being spent (on lawyers) is positive for GDP, and therefore for the economy..
In conclusion, I think these suggestions put forward by EFF are meant to deal with stopping the damage and strain trolls put on the system, though not fairly take into consideration real innovation, that actually is created, and used. Things like "swipe to the right to unlock" - I don't think that's complex enough to consider it patentable - but it is patented (I believe) - but never should have been. I am sure there are much more complex systems that people can come up with, that might take many years to develop or discover - but once known and concepts turned into something tangible, it would not take long to re-engineer, so there may not then be any incentive to attempting to develop said system; It could even take years of looking for someone to fund what you want to create that you have a patent on, especially if it's "so far out there" that people might have trouble understanding its value. Anyway - it'll be interesting to see where it all goes. I think all patents, software and not, should be thrown out. Other mechanisms would surface to allow innovation to move forward.
Regarding #3 I think they want the patent holder to prove he is actually using the invention for a (commercial) benefit. If you invent a copy protection scheme they want to see you actively sell it to third parties or actively use it in your own product.
I think that makes sense to be honest, people shouldn't be able to sleep on an invention until they find a suitable company to sue for high profit margins.
Edit: This is in reply to points about software patents only.
Isn't it rather possible that the right answer for software is not like the right answer for drugs, and that it takes an expert in a particular field to propose a sensible reform (assuming one is needed in that field)?
Comments
#1 I feel this is just a scapegoat with allowing people to hope and wait 5 years for bullshit patents to expire; I don't know what a fair length of advantage time, temporarily monopoly should exist.
#2 If someone isn't infringing, then sure - troll should pay. But a lot of unknowns could invalidate a patent, perhaps just decidedly not detailed enough by a judge who ends up reviewing it, which I don't think makes sense to be a point of having the troll pay for it. If a patent is seen as invalid, then it can no longer be used to sue people.
#3 Agreed.
#4 It would be impossible for either party to prove, so then this just leaves costs open ended for the person who owns the patent.
#5 This is confusing. They seem to be trying to deal with a problem not directly associated with patents themselves? More they just want more information to make it easier if it'd be a good idea or not to infringe? You could always send an email and ask if what you're doing infringes - assuming you're not trying to patent something on top of existing patents further. Though I imagine that's not a tactic most people would be comfortable with.
#6 Define what a small fraction is, vs. how important something is in an application; It could be the most valuable piece in some overall 'bloated' scheme
#7 If you look at benefit to the economy, currently measured by GDP, any money being spent (on lawyers) is positive for GDP, and therefore for the economy..
In conclusion, I think these suggestions put forward by EFF are meant to deal with stopping the damage and strain trolls put on the system, though not fairly take into consideration real innovation, that actually is created, and used. Things like "swipe to the right to unlock" - I don't think that's complex enough to consider it patentable - but it is patented (I believe) - but never should have been. I am sure there are much more complex systems that people can come up with, that might take many years to develop or discover - but once known and concepts turned into something tangible, it would not take long to re-engineer, so there may not then be any incentive to attempting to develop said system; It could even take years of looking for someone to fund what you want to create that you have a patent on, especially if it's "so far out there" that people might have trouble understanding its value. Anyway - it'll be interesting to see where it all goes. I think all patents, software and not, should be thrown out. Other mechanisms would surface to allow innovation to move forward.
You're missing the negative effects on innovation in your analysis of #7. It's estimated that the existence of patent trolls costs the economy $29 billion/year: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/new-study-same-au...
For your #7, I urge you to look up the Parable of the Broken Window[1]. It's fundamental to understanding economics.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
I agree that #1 and #4 are problematic, and to a lesser extent #6.
#3 sounds good, but how do you stop people from submitting code written in Brainfuck or TECO or something?
Regarding #3 I think they want the patent holder to prove he is actually using the invention for a (commercial) benefit. If you invent a copy protection scheme they want to see you actively sell it to third parties or actively use it in your own product. I think that makes sense to be honest, people shouldn't be able to sleep on an invention until they find a suitable company to sue for high profit margins.
Edit: This is in reply to points about software patents only.
The classic drug pipeline includes pure research companies that would be NPE's.
Isn't it rather possible that the right answer for software is not like the right answer for drugs, and that it takes an expert in a particular field to propose a sensible reform (assuming one is needed in that field)?
A lot of the questions about what patents tend to do seem to have different answers in different fields: http://inventors-against-patents.org/faq.html#is_abolition_o...
US healthcare has an abysmal cost-to-benefit ratio in comparison with most of Europe.