Hacker News Reader

Comment by ruffrey | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps I have become jaded or a conspiracy theorist, but I see this as the following:

- the drone space is increasingly easy to enter into - IBM sees non-tech companies might get into drones - they identify potential markets where drones would be useful - they spend minimal resources developing a "prototype" and file for a patent - Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts come along with coffee delivery drones ~3 years later - IBM shakes down Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts for $x.00 per delivery, now has new stream of extortion recurring revenue

View on HN

My evil(?) plan is to create a society of engineers that sits around and dreams up patentable ideas, and patents them, creating a portfolio which we could market to big companies ($$) as a defense against trolls, and to small companies (free) who want to build cool stuff and not worry about trolls.

I think you underestimate the size of the space of "patentable ideas" :)

I realize you may be saying this tongue-in-cheek, but that's such a hilariously compelling idea (speaking as an engineer pipe-dreaming about ideal jobs) that I'm making this rather unsubstantive comment to both encourage and say "give me a ping if you do"...

(the mental dissonance for me is that while I'm no fan of software patents, and even broader patents as they stand now, attempting to motivate that change in parallel with capitalizing on the existing state of affairs seems pragmatic, if hypocritical; I've had to bang my head against this due to filings through work already)

To be honest, the discussion started out as a hack so that we could use a 'company' to share health care costs rather than the exchanges. As the population in the Bay Area ages there are those who still like to talk about tech, draw on whiteboards, write code, and build stuff. While at the same time having accrued enough wealth such that actually working for someone isn't required. So we asked ourselves, "What are the good things about working at a company?" and the answer was smart people to exchange ideas with, facilities that you could leave "set up" while working on a project, and for some, an absence of interruptions by others. The "bad things" you don't benefit proportionally from your work effort, usually they want to own what you do and not let you share that, and if you take too many days "off" they ask you to leave.

From that the 'League of Extraordinary Engineers' was born :-). Basically membership dues covers the cost of the facility, patent filing, and healthcare, and as the patent portfolio grows (the 'endowment' if you will) those costs go down.

This is where I respond "And my axe."

The downsides you list resonate really strongly with me; compounded by the "all or nothing" nature of most employment in that I've noticed even negotiating a sabbatical for most of my line-engineer peers is a non-starter. (Story is different for those in management/very senior) God knows the pittance you get for filing at most bigCos doesn't align incentives/value, as well.

My only concern for feasibility would be as you say, "having accrued enough wealth such that working isn't reqired", seeing as the current healthcare/social safety net situation becomes prohibitive even to those who might be upper-middle, begging the question of potential conflict of interest for those who don't have true "fuck you money," to put it crassly. (Clearly I'm speaking selfishly here)

Completely understand. And it is within that discussion which is the 'hard bit'.The spreadsheets get a bit thick too. Understand this has been percolating for over a year at this point.

Feel free to contact me off list if you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested in the thinking that has been done so far on this concept.

Well you'd be disappointed to know that plenty of companies are doing exactly this with their R&D budget and manpower.

Not disappointed, encouraged :-) It suggests that once the portfolio (endowment) is large enough the idea could be self sustaining, then it gets really interesting.

Note you don't have to develop the prototype to get the patent; you just have to dream this up while waiting for your coffee.

No, you're not a conspiracy theorist, that's exactly how the patent system works. Many companies who won't admit it in public are knowingly engaged in exactly this practice. It's anti-competitive, it stinks, everyone knows it, and nothing is being done about it.

Would the patent system be better and less trolly if you were legally required to produce whatever you patent?

How many units? 1? 1000?

Could IBM make 1000 drones with a coffee cup attached?

maybe at least a prototype and expires after 2 years if you haven't commercialized it!

They would play around with the definition of "commercialized".

"Technically we offered it on sale for $500,000; nobody buys it so we've never made one, but it's still on the market!"

No, that would ensure only people with the means to produce things could secure patent rights to their inventions.

In the law we have the concept of "commercially reasonable efforts". Therefore we could in fact have a law which requires ongoing commercially reasonable efforts to manufacture and market the invention. This would empower a company who wanted the use a dormant/squatted patent with cause for action. In such a situation IBM would either have to make such an obvious go of it that nobody would waste the time attempting to prove a lack of commercially reasonable effort (subjectively interpreted by the courts), IBM could play act like they're making a reasonable effort and roll the dice in court, or relinquish the claim.

In IBM's case, is producing 1,000 units just to prove commercially reasonable effort sufficient? The GOOD thing about the subjectivity of "commercially reasonable effort" in the law is that one could argue 1,000 units is not enough for a company with the resources of IBM.

The hot mess that it the U.S. patent system is just a specific example of a much more general problem: a company benefits financially from a bad law, to the point where they make enough money that they can spend some of it to influence the political system to maintain this bad law and still turn a net profit. This positive feedback loop keeps the bad low in place despite the fact that it only benefits this one company. The Citizen United decision has made this problem that much worse.

You're not alone, my mind went here immediately too. Although I think my word association game response to the word "patent" at this point is always going to be "troll".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com