Not really.
Some patents are fantastically valuable to patent trolls. Some are not. A $500/year fee isn't going to deter a "company" of lawyers who are making millions soaking businesses with patents that should never have been granted.
If you want a scheme that actually does what you want, you'd need something like:
The owner of the patent chooses the fee that they pay per year. And anyone can pay that fee * the remaining years on the patent * some multiplier (probably in the 2-10 range) to prematurely end the patent.
So, if someone's got a patent on a hamster powered submarine, they can keep it for $1 per year (or whatever the minimum should be). And that's fine... because it isn't harming any one since no one wants to build such a thing.
But a patent that a troll is using to milk the industry with will need to have a pretty stiff fee or people won't play ball, they'll just buy out the troll.
So basically ending patents? If you invent something fantastic, say a way for a self driving car to perfectly sense its surroundings, Ford could just come in and pay whatever amount to invalidate your patent and prevent you from bringing your invention to market?
That sounds like a highly constructed example, and even if we take it for bare value, makes a lot of assumptions, for example that whatever you invent is patentable.
The way you phrase it also makes it sound like patents are all about individual contributions, when in reality the era of lone genius inventors is long over (if they ever existed). In the US, it's practice for your funding institution to keep all the rights to your inventions, so if you invented the perfect sense for self driving, it's highly likely that a company like Ford already has the patent, because they quite literally own your intellectual output.
Imo, I feel the same way like OP, there needs to be a use it or loose it doctrine, just like there is with trademarks. Overall the legislation around intellectual property and copyright feels to be in favor of big corps at the moment and should be heavily castrated.
The "you" in that case could very easily be a startup
Some people would say large businesses can make things cheap in a way that small businesses can't compete with. However, that turned out to not happen in practice as big companies chase huge profit margins, supported only by the government.
China doesn't have this problem the US does because they have weaker patent laws. Patents need to be eradicated ASAP or we will not be globally competitive. We are also harming humanity as a whole as the inventive utility of patents simply doesn't scale in proportion to the harms, with the large populations we have now, they are clearly harmful on balance.
The fundamental problem with patents is that the benefit has lower asymptotic complexity with respect to population size than than the harm does. When you exceed some population size, patents become harmful.
The utility of copying is N^2 since you have O(N) copiers and O(N) inventions to copy from.
The harm of patents is therefore O(N^2) since this is the copying that patents prevent.
What we find is that the benefits of patents seem to scale at most around some O(N /log N) ish metric. Doubling the population size increases the number of inventors, but the chance an invention was already invented by someone else increases as population size increases. Hence the benefits of patents scale worse than O(N). Applying that to the harm and we still get O(N(N/logN)) for harm and O(N/logN) for benefits. Clearly patents do not scale.
* Here I am using Log N as a substituite for the difficulty increase of finding an invention not already invented. This exact measure is difficult to estimate.
I get that people don't like patents because they sometimes get abused, but on the whole I think we wouldn't have a lot of the things we take for granted if they didn't exist.
This is where the patent system shines. Because he got a patent he could shop around, sell it to a company which made a tidy profit on it. He didn't need to raise capital to establish a factory and all that to bring it to market and the company buying it seriously got ahead without spending an inordinate amount of money and time inventing the thing.
A slightly different approach would be for patent owners to declare an estimated value and pay property taxes on that value to enforce their monopoly. (They may also wish to update the estimated value periodically as circumstances change, perhaps every few months or years.)
To keep owners honest, anyone is allowed to pay the owner a multiple (1.5x? 2x? 10x?) of the patent's current estimated value to invalidate it.
If the patent owner wishes to hang onto the patent but cannot afford the taxes then perhaps banks would be willing to offer a patent equity line of credit, like using any other income-generating property as collateral.
To use your example, if you estimate that your self-driving patent is a ten million dollar asset and Ford pays you twenty million dollars to invalidate it that seems like you come out ahead because you have more than the patent was worth and can still build your product.
Part of the problem is having a huge number of BS patents driving up the cost of going through all of them to figure out what's what.
Its not the only problem with patents, but i think a "property tax" solution would solve some of the issues. I'd like it to be incrementing each year - like first year $0/year, and increasing each year so the longer you keep things out of the public domain the more you need to be able to self-jystify its value.
In the future you can amend the value claim, but you can only adjust it down.
The two are very different concepts.
edit: this is why you don't patent every damned thing, just the things that you believe will be profitable over the next 20 years. Otherwise, the cost of researching and filing the patent, as well as maintaining it, may well exceed whatever profit you actually get from the thing.
Unless you work for a corporation, that owns your intellectual output anyway, and encourages you to submit forms for anything that looks even remotely patentable.
But even then, if you devise some thing that will be very useful if we ever get teleportation working, your employer may still not patent it, if they believe that teleportation is more than 20 years away.
If other people are better than you at seeing what some technology could be used for it, then maybe we should lower the barriers for those people. The whole point of the patent system should be to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
Companies and researchers should be free to patent to protect themselves, but patent trolls with no clear technological development (no lab, no product, no licensing+developing) should be stopped.
It seems easy to me to draw a bounding box around these behaviors with a simple test. Perhaps like a Howey test [1], but for patent trolling.
This seems like a pretty bad attempt at such a scheme.
Invalidity arguments and IPRs suddenly aren't things?
Presumption of validity is what makes patent trolling more lucrative than other forms of predatory litigation. You're guilty until proven innocent, because the law assumes that the patent office is generally doing the right thing.
It's just an evidentiary presumption that is trivially rebutted with any evidence.
I'm sure that you're aware that when you go to court, the result is never certain. Bad ruling happen all the time.
IP is property, and it's taxed at the value you declare that it's worth.
However, if you swear to the IRS that it's worth $500/yr, then you can't claim in court that a violation of it is costing you $10,000,000/yr in losses. That would be perjury.
Your patent is worth $10,000,000? Awesome! I bet your local school district will love to hear how much you'll be paying in taxes on it.
Instead of doubling every year, my proposal is 5-year terms: the first is free, then $1000 for the next 5, $10k for the next 5, $100k for the next 5, etc. Feel free to adjust the actual dollar amounts, but you get the idea. Most stuff would be in the public domain after 10 years, if not 5.
Congratulations on the massive net loss in taxable income in your country.
EDIT: Removed some mean words.
Companies are going to want to sell in one of the richest markets in the world; they can either pay for IP protection or not be granted it.
edit: I'm not suggesting these exact $ values as clearly being the correct ones, it's just an example.
You don't see how such a policy would spur terror among large, profitable companies with trade secrets, leading to them moving overseas?
If this is the only real problem, than why not just let them go overseas? Let the market play it out? The boon of progress and freedom X country would get from becoming even little more rational about IP would pay for itself and be better for actual people.
That's what China has been doing for decades, and "gongkai" [1] is just one tiny part of it. While life for the average Chinese citizen has gone up - the CCP managed to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty - the life of most Western populations has gone down the drain as entire industries, entire towns were unable to cope with unfair competition.
The societal consequences of that will haunt us all for many years to come.
What I like for IP laws is as follows:
When you create a protected work, you pay a very small fee. Say, $1 for copyright, maybe $500 for a patent.
Each year thereafter, if you wish to maintain your IP protection, you must pay double what was paid the previous year. Otherwise the property reverts to the public domain.
This ensures a period of protection if it's genuinely needed, but ensures that everything will eventually enter the public domain, especially in the case where no one is making any economic use of the material.
Currently, there's an incentive to disallow progress. If someone does not want to make use of their own patent, they are currently incentivized to sit on it and keep the ability to create that thing out of the hands of anyone else, "just in case". If we shorten the period as you suggest, to half (for example), then that freezes that progress for a decade.
If an incentive is created to put inventions into the public domain if one is not using them, then that is better for everyone.
And by doubling the fee each year, it becomes financially infeasible for even large companies to keep things out of the public domain forever. A fee of $500 that doubles annually would, at the 20 year mark that is the current patent lifespan, cost a half a billion dollars to renew for that year.
a ship declared the value of their cargo for toll purposes. They decided the price, but the catch was the customs could buy the cargo at that price.
There's clearly values I'd easily accept, you offer me a hundred grand for my car and you can take it whenever you want.
Now for regular items like a car this would be hard. How do I value it and how do I not get caught out when second hand sales spike and I don't follow the markets?
But we're not talking about everyone's car. We're talking about asking the state to forbid others to make or build certain things (yes I know it's more detailed but you get the meaning).
That extra “value” (or tax on people) you ascribe to your car may or may not be distributed in manner that societally makes sense
Or have I misunderstood your point?
It may not be intuitive how the math works but this would be exploited so hard it would cause serious social and political issues. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I am just savvy enough to the math to see how bad an idea this is. Which is probably why no government has seriously attempted it even though it is an old idea.
Lots of people don’t know what their IP is worth, and it can change with market and tech trends.
And the damages aren’t based on the harm to the IP owner, but on the benefit to the infringer.
I could have a patent that I think is worthless, but in 10 years I discover that a multinational flat out stole the IP after an NDA meeting. What is the value that I should have declared?
Some states also tax car as property.
What is not taxed is Intellectual Property. Because it is almost completely owned by the super rich. And, of course, these billionaires need all the help they can get. How about we change this? We can think of wiping out property taxes for homeowners (making homes affordable) and fund education from patent taxes. After all, the super rich are deriving these patents from the education system, its only fair they pay their fair share.
It isn't now, but we could make it so.
Those 'taxes' already exist (at least in the US system). They are called "maintenance fees".
See https://www.fr.com/insights/ip-law-essentials/everything-abo...
Failing to pay the fee causes the patent to expire, and be unable to be used to sue someone. So these troll firms must also be paying these fees to be able to sue based on the patent.
1st year = 2000 USD
10th year = 1m USD per year
20th year = 1bn USD per year
It becomes prohibitively expensive if you don't use it. After 23 years it would make only sense for the most insane blockbuster drugs to keep going for another year.
- small companies and private people can afford patents
- big corps do not get an advantage, in fact the bigger they get, the more expensive holding a patent becomes, ensuring they have to use those patents and not patent everything just because
- number of patents any single entity can hold is limited, unless they want to go in debt for holding patents
- there could still be a minimum yearly amount as proposed by you
There is literally no case in which society profits from a corp being split up into a thousand holdings.
Why punish patent holders because of patent trolls or garbage patents ?
Make it unprofitable to be a troll, and they will go away. Trolls need to be tagged , like pirates. There should be rules to make hunting for trolls profitable. For that, you need a "bounty". Here's my take:
In any patent dispute[1], the loser will pay as punitive damages (this is the "bounty") to the winner, the lower of (i) the winner's legal costs, OR the loser's legal costs x 2, plus (ii) loser must disclose the ultimate name of the beneficial owners (or material, if public) of the loser. EINs not allowed. The "trolls" are thus, branded.
The next lawsuit ensues. During research, it is found that one of the parties is a known troll that has lost 1 prior case. Now the damages, should troll lose, are 2X of any settlement OR punitive amount.
Should troll lose again, an extra 2x (total, 4x) gets applied on the punitive damage[1] to the troll and so on. If troll wins, his x is halved.
This does 3 things:
1- Incentivize public to seek out weak patents, or trolls, for a payout.
2- Makes Trolling much harder at scale.
3- Ensures huge companies face risks if they throw their weight around. Bigco can afford $$ penalties vs small fish, but cannot afford to be tagged a 2-4x troll. It makes them an attractive target for bigger fish looking for the 2X or 4X reward challenge of Bigco patent portfolio.
Erm, what service? A record in a database? How's that different from a patent office? I guess there's fancy registrar website...to do what...help me pay my recurring bill?
OK fine want an ongoing patient fee ? Make it $9.99 per year just like a registrar, who gives you convenient ways to renew and pay fees from a working, modern site, and allow migration , with a few clicks.
Is that going to prevent trolls ? Unequivocally, no.
Parent was arguing for some ridiculous, unnecessary , tax. Then cited registrars as an example.
My point, 1 gives a service, one does not. If you want to charge for a service, then make it transparent and make the fee reflect the service, not argue "hey we already charge for registrars" to make his/her point about a new, unecessary tax.
Edit: It is also there to make it slightly more expensive to create scam sites, but mostly for the anti-hoarding.
Now, Patents already require fees and also substantial paperwork. In effect that is the "hoarding" control.
I stand corrected that the point of ICANN and registrars to charge something is to introduce a barrier to entry. Yet, I'd argue you are still providing a service if the fees go towards nonprofit activity to improve interoperability.
Yet, introducing a huge fee to patents wouldn't really be conductive to anything on the patent side, which is at the core my issue: I'm not making a judgement about the margin on fees, i'm questioning whether there's a semblance of service. From my vantage point, registrars have made massive improvements in accessibility and ease of use, and as you said, they have lowered the barriers to entry. | I can't say the same at all for patents.
I work for a registrar and know people working at registries so I know that is not the case. The reason they charge more than like 1-2 dollars per year is to make it expensive to hoard domains.
I worked for a registrar for a decade+ and worked with a lot of hoarders. Very early on in my career I actually dobbed one in to our local registry authority (because I was naive, and he was CLEARLY breaching the requirements for our ccTLD and so I thought 'Well this is wrong and I should report it') and is how I discovered nobody actually cares about hoarding and just wants to maximise revenue. (Well duh I suppose.)
So TrollCo will just pay a different homeless person $100 to be the owner on paper for each of their patents?
I don't think you fully appreciate how tough is to run a business with someone's name on top of every document. Not to say its not possible for a determined actor, but its going to eliminate a lot of options from the get go.
Then, let a judge find out!
The kicker is: the values are public, and if anybody wants to buy it for something higher than the assigned value (or maybe some fixed percentage above the assigned value), you HAVE to sell. Of course, the buyer is then taxed at the higher value.
is it is always a bad idea to ear mark a tax for a specific purpose. Especially if you desire to use the tax as a punitive measure to reduce that which you deem bad for society, if it works now you need to come up with the money for the thing you funded elsewhere because all government programs are permanent
Look at smoking, all kind of things were funded on the back of smoking taxes, and when those punitive taxes worked to reduce smoking the revenue dried up but the budgets for for those programs did not so now the money had to come from somewhere else....
Using the tax code to punish or reward behavior is always bad
You seem to misunderstand the entire concept of taxation, in its entirety, also. Taxes can either be used to raise revenue, or to correct for externalities. A tax that corrects an externality is valid on its own, EVEN IF, the revenue from that tax is burned or otherwise destroyed. It corrects for market failure, which leads to greater surplus.
Isn't that pretty much the entire purpose of the tax code and why it's so complicated?
It's one of the tools the government has to shape behavior.
Actual tax revenue doesn't really matter since a permanent deficit and ever-growing debt is apparently fine.
Allowing the government to use taxation for purposes other than public finance has been and will continue to be an avenue for abuse, and authoritarian control ultimately leading to tyranny
My rationale is that it means that only people that are rich can own property as they can afford the taxes, and especially if the property has increased in value over time and has no or small associated cash flows. By all means tax gains on realization (though I’d argue there should be a CPI adjustment to the basis but that’s another conversation)
The intention of legally enforced ownership is primarily to encourage development - and not to incentivize speculation as we seem to be doing in many situations. It seems reasonable to tax such speculation.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
What would this do to people who file their own patents to protect their own inventions? Historically, that's been the vast bulk of all useful inventions in this country.
For example, maybe the fee is $10000 for the first year. This doesn't come close to recouping the cost of a single enforcement action, but it makes sure that someone has some skin in the game. Then every year the cost gets 10x more expensive. Of course you are free to choose your own base and multiplier.
For someone to keep a patent for 5 years, the total cost would be $10k + $100k + $1M + $10M + $100M = $111110000. Maybe it's worth it for a patent like the light bulb. Probably not worth it for a drinking bird toy. But either way, the value decision is up to the patent holder, and the cost of the patent incentivizes rapid monetization rather than squatting.
amusing opinions that remind me not to trust them
Why only those things?
Those are not patent troll companies. Patent troll companies file patents and then sit on the patent until they can sue another party for infringement, and never make an attempt to commercialize their patent.
Another example of not using it in the use it or lose it scenario is Pfizer's acquisition of Esperion Therapeutics in 2004. Esperion was developing a competitor to Lipitor, so Pfizer purchased Esperion for $1.3BB and shelved the technology to prevent competition with their best selling drug. Had Pfizer "lost" their patent for failing to commercial Esperion's drug, that drug could have entered the market as a generic to compete with Lipitor and severely reduced the cost of statin drugs for consumers.
Patent trolls will point to their prior victims as current licensees, proving successful commercialization.
Many of the patents asserted by trolls were not actually filed by the trolls. Most often the troll company simply purchased the patent from the original owner (or, often, a bankruptcy court) and then they proceed to go about suing others using their newly acquired weapon.
We really need a patent troll version of anti-SLAPP laws. To go past the shell company, and hit the people who run them.
This is Qualcomm's big business (and others), getting their patents into standards like 5G and then charging people a fair amount to use it - and they have to license it to everyone, even their arch nemesis. Or you just buy their chips.
For a patent of something you invented, but did not submit to become part of a standards-body, you absolutely can choose not to license it for any amount of money.
Patent holders are not required to license their patents last time I checked. You are simply required to acquire a license prior to using patented technology.
If they don't want to license it, you're SOL.
(edit: if you were speculating on what should be, and not what is, then my bad... :)
That is apparently right and I learned it wrong (but it does seems wrong to me).
edit: after reading the siblings answer, I apparently wrongly overgeneralized the way it works with patents in standards
If you invent something, there's a work product. There is documentation, notes, blueprints, CAD files, software, etc. You can sell this and license it however you want. You can sue people that use it without a license. More importantly, you as the original author can use the IP as you see fit.
All of that is what I would put under the category of "use it." If you stop licensing it, then you "lose it."
Personally I don't think you should be able to sell the invention as an idea to another company that only relicenses it, but I get that there needs to be a market for IP itself.
These would only be protected by copyright. So if you invent something but do not have the resources to create the implementation yourself (and therefore cannot patent the invention under the scheme proposed by GGP), but you licence the work products (documentation, software) to one or more companies who can then implement it, a larger, well-resourced competitor can just reimplement it without paying you as long as they did not need to use any of your documentation or software. So that reduces the value of your work products.
But if the converse happened, e.g., your customer reimplements something invented by the large competitor, they can get sued, because the large company, being able to implement their invention, can therefore file a patent. So it amplifies the effect of having more resources.
It would be fairer to treat the large company the same way, and only let them copyright the work products rather than patent the invention, putting them on the same level as a smaller inventor.
One example is ARM, which licenses the processor designs they create, and do not build or sell the chips themselves.
It is a bespoke kind of business, tailored to the specific technology and investment network of the people involved.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...
: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
"Exclusive Right" means exclusive right. And I don't think the definition has changed much since the US Constitution was written.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusive
I think it must at least be licensable, or authors couldn't sell copies of their works. But whether the IP rights can be sold is another question.
Authors and inventors are mentioned with the same language in the clause. Since it has always been true that authors can basically only profit from their writings by selling copies or originals of their works (without selling the right to the copyrighted material itself) then some form of licensing is necessarily included in the clause for both copyright and patents.
There may have been journalists at the time who wrote works for newspapers owned by others. If so, this would be a reason to include the right of selling all of the rights to one's writings or inventions in the clause. I genuinely don't know if this was the case though.
There are plenty of laws which have been ruled unconstitutional. But it takes someone making the complaint to a court for this to happen. Otherwise the legislature does whatever it wants.
Currently a majority of the US Supreme court thinks that the status quo at the time of the writing of the US Constitution or its amendments has bearing as to the meaning of those texts. Thus I mentioned back then authors sold copies of their works while retaining all other rights as indicating that "licensing" is within this clause. Whether or not total sales of the rights to the work is within the purview of the clause is another question that I'm curious about.
Which laws are those? I'm not sure why it wouldn't be in the scope of the constitutional grant of authority to congress. "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" The use of exclusive here makes perfect sense with how things worked then, and today. I think you are getting caught up in non-existent semantics. What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? what would be secured in the exclusive rights that benefits the furthering of arts and science if inventors and authors couldn't exploit their exclusive rights? I'm a copyright and patent litigator and I've never heard anyone make the argument you are making.
Not that they can't sell their work, but that they can transfer their exclusive rights in such a manner that they themselves can no longer exercise those rights.
And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to someone by allowing them to (both post-hoc and especially pre-hoc) permanently transfer those rights.
Especially the pre-hoc transmission of rights as seen in various contracts (work for hire, etcetera) completely flouts the "securing" basis of the constitutional IP clause in that under no circumstances whatsoever did the rights ever belong to the author/inventor. The Constitution did not grant congress the authority to make laws allowing intellectual property protections to a pre-hoc transfer, but only possibly to transfer in which the author/inventor first had exclusive rights. Therefore any contracts which automatically assign any rights to any creations to another party the moment those creations are created cannot be covered by intellectual property protection laws created pursuant to Article 1, section 8, clause 8 powers, but must have some other constitutional basis (possibly under the commerce clause?).
I guess you could get around this argument fairly easily by saying that the "limited time" is X number of years or until sold. But then I still don't understand under what authority the purchasing party gets these IP rights, as they are not the author or inventor, and thus not entitled to any securing of rights under this clause. If they do have rights it must be under either common law which pre-existed 1789, or under another section and clause of the Constitution, since this is not a 9th or 10th amendment issue. Congress can't just make law willy-nilly however it wants to, but must do so under one of its enumerated powers.
I guess another way around this, and possibly the way it is done in IP law (you would know better than I), is that these rights aren't literally sold to another, but instead a permanent licensing contract is signed in which the author/inventor grants use of their exclusive rights to the licensee to do with however they wish. In this way the "exclusive rights" would still be secured to the author/inventor, though exercised by the other party. This seems like sophistry, but much of the law is.
I don't follow that those words are the "laws" you are talking about. The security of the right is the intellectual property. The patent secures the space the invention covers. The copyright secures the space the novel expression covers. Your interpretation of "secure" is completely specious and has no basis in law.
Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"? It seems like you are doing the opposite than what you claim to be. Rather than reading "secure" as they meant it at the time, you are reading a new definition of "secure" based upon how you feel IP should be resolved today.
This is all besides that if an owner can license, then transferring the IP itself is trivial, as one can grant a license that covers all aspects of the exclusive rights.
I find it a bit ridiculous that you write "ways around this" as if your argument has any actual basis in law. It doesn't, and it seems like you have no experience in licensing IP rights. While that's not necessary to have an opinion, it certainly has not left you with an understanding of how things work such that you could base a reasonable opinion off of that.
> Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"?
I'm a regular person who is trying to interpret the law. I'm failing. This is probably because I'm getting too lost in thought. But the law should be clear enough that regular people can understand it without citation or legal knowledge. It should not be a specialized field except that specialists have broad facility in application. It's a definite improvement that modern laws abandoned parsimony for as precise as possible definition of terms.
That's all.
And the plain meaning of "secure" at the time was: "The sense of "get possession of, make oneself master of" is from 1743." https://www.etymonline.com/word/secure With "no one can serve two masters" a biblical phrase that Jefferson would have been well familiar with.
> This is all besides that if an owner can license, then transferring the IP itself is trivial, as one can grant a license that covers all aspects of the exclusive rights.
Exactly. I did eventually figure this out. I still think that it's a sophistic end-run around the plain text of the clause, unless said license includes a clawback provision that the author/inventor can unilaterally initiate.
But I also believe that the founders knew about the Sophists, Shakespear's Merchant of Venice, and the like, as well as some of the arguments at the time over what to include in the Constitution. And that if they wrote ambiguity into Constitutional provisions, they likely did so on purpose. Definitional changes accounted for. Which puts me at odds with most jurisprudence.
It’s a bit of a joke, and I guess you don’t realize it. But the point about academic references is that you are making an academic argument. You’d think that if your point was true, that it is SO OBVIOUSLY beyond the plain meaning of the word, SOMEONE else would have said something in the ensuing 200 years. Yet here we are, you telling me you know what the founders meant, despite all the evidence and common sense running against you. Okay buddy - good luck with that.
The Constitution only allows congress to "exclusively secure" IP rights to the originators of the material. It does not allow congress to "exclusively secure" rights to anyone else. The only way I can make this work is through an originator licensing a work to a single other entity, and in said license guaranteeing that other entity that the originator will not otherwise use any rights they own except to the extent of the exclusive license to the other entity.
This works. I still think it only really works if the originator has the unilateral power to break the agreement. But I can understand someone legitimately making a counter-argument.
In an originalist sense, the founders were very much against royal grants of monopoly, so limited the power of the government to grant monopolies solely to the originators of ideas.
I'm no longer confused, so yes we can drop this line of discussion. I hope you understand that I wasn't talking about just one word, but the word in the context of the rest of the clause.
The only people who would advance an argument against transfer of IP rights are those who don't have standing to make such an argument.
(what could they do with it then? you realize not all inventors are interested in running businesses? licensing was not a new concept to the founders. obviously you have no rebuttal to this, but I just want to hit the point home because I find your argument so obnoxious in the profundity you think it belies)
including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents.
In my "arguments" as you call them I am not citing jack shit other than the constitution, time-specific definitions, and some recollections.
AGAIN I AM A CITIZEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW BY READING THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE LAW.
> including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents.
There were a lot of distinctions written into the constitution that separated it from preexisting common law and royal prerogative. Titles of nobility, etcetera. So when trying to understand the basis of the law I necessarily revert to the knowledge that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and thus it's text is definitive as to jurisdiction and powers.
AGAIN, I SAID THAT I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY CAN EXCLUSIVELY LICENSE THEIR RIGHTS. BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINATOR. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS. *I NOW UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS!!!!* I still think there are holes in it, or of my understanding of it, but these aren't killer holes.
FOR GOD DAMN SAKE. HOW IS IT OBNOXIOUS TO WANT A COMMON CITIZEN TO UNDERSTAND THE VERY LAWS HE LIVES UNDER? AND THEN CALL HIM ASININE AND OBNOXIOUS FOR TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT VIA DIALOGUE?
that usually seems to lead to blathering "sovereign citizen" nonsense
No, you're talking out of your ass, and you wont listen to reason.
>AGAIN, I SAID THAT I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY CAN EXCLUSIVELY LICENSE THEIR RIGHTS. BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINATOR. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS. I NOW UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS!!!! I still think there are holes in it, or of my understanding of it, but these aren't killer holes.
Not sure why you think repeating yourself in caps-lock makes a difference. Congress can't grant a patent or a copyright to anyone else but the inventor or the author. The author and the inventor are free to do what they want with that property right. Nothing you said about the word exclusive or anything else changes. This is entirely common sense as I've pointed out to you several times. I also pointed out that your reading of the text is baseless, defies common sense, and the plain definition of any of the words. You, of course, insisted otherwise and that you were obviously correct despite a complete dearth of any kind of support. There's no reason for you to be electronically yelling at me, you got yourself here on your own. You were pompous and rude, why should I be courteous to you at all?
None of this shit is "obvious" without understanding a lot of legal basis. I didn't understand the legal basis until this discussion.
Dedicated patent trolls will trivially overcome any hurdles by cheaply doing just enough to legally demonstrate they are working on future commercial applications blah blah honest.
Meanwhile, it likely puts up a prohibitive cost that will prevent the smallest genuine inventors from inventing?
In such a society, the rules need to be enormous and complex, much more than a 2 sentence HN post, to eliminate all the edge cases and loopholes everyone will naturally want to take advantage of.
I'd be more on-board with the idea if non-software patents only had say a 5 year lifespan
Pretty sure the original idea of patents was to protect the inventor while they brought a product to market or licensed the patent to others to improve their products.
Holding a patent without even attempting to bring the idea to market should invalidate the patent after some reasonable amount of time.
The whole system as it is today needs a hard sanity check.
It was to protect the inventor so that when they did take it to market, or license it, someone else couldn't just make a copy of the same thing and sell it for cheaper not having to recoup r&d costs.
>Holding a patent without even attempting to bring the idea to market should invalidate the patent after some reasonable amount of time.
Patents are already invalid after a certain amount of time. I'm not sure what you think a reasonable time to bring a new invention to market is, but it's not far off from what the limits on patents are already today anyway.
By the way, where do you think these patents come from? They belong to companies that couldn't succeed in the market for various reasons. They go under and they sell their assets, which in these cases include any claims that could accrue to them by the short period of exclusivity granted to them for their invention.
Would it be possible to pass a law that says you can't own a patch of land unless you develop it sufficiently for some public utility? You can't own it unless you build a house on it, or an office? What about all the rough land, that isn't close to a development yet, but is anticipated to be? If someone can tell me how a law like this has been shown to work, perhaps even in a limited case like densely populated zones, then I might be persuaded.
This is exactly how mineral rights work. The federal law says you need to do $100 worth of development on every claim every year to maintain it [1]. This is not something new.
[1] - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-B/chapter-II/...
>You can't own it unless you build a house on it, or an office? What about all the rough land, that isn't close to a development yet, but is anticipated to be? If someone can tell me how a law like this has been shown to work, perhaps even in a limited case like densely populated zones, then I might be persuaded.
And as for this, we already have this. It's called a land value tax. A tax that discourages unproductive land use.
the moment you put an expiration date on patents due to lack of use, watch moneyed competitors sitting around waiting for your patent to expire instead of using yours to bring it to market
What is at the core of this need to steal other people's ideas? HN is supposed to respect the rule of law and western respect for innovation and collecting the fruits of your labor.
If someone won't give you a decent price, reverse engineer their work and come up with a creative alternative.
I'm not arguing that its OK to patent code or abstract ideas that are the basis for BS "catch all" patent infringement lawsuits or amazon 1-click buy nonsense. I'm talking is about real inventions. Television, radio, wheeled luggage, etc.
I also think that code should be copyrighted, but cannot be patented.
you could have just written about it on your blog and been the same place and been a net positive for society
I'm talking is about real inventions. Television, radio, wheeled luggage, etc.
I also think that code should be copyrighted, not patented.
Patents use to mean something else, and I can see we are talking about different things.
You're looking at 10k to file it, and then all it gives you is the ability to sue. If [insert company] violates it, you could easily be looking at 100k+ for litigation that you may or may not win.
> So if I invent something
My problem is you don't need to "invent" anything. You just need to be the first to file the paperwork (and have the cash to do so).
"[sensor] on [smartwatch, glasses, goggles, belts, chairs, whatever]" and now nobody else can do it for 20 years. Even if it's blatantly obvious that an chair can sense if you're sitting in it to turn on the tv automatically.