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 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
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 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.
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.
It is a bespoke kind of business, tailored to the specific technology and investment network of the people involved.
One example is ARM, which licenses the processor designs they create, and do not build or sell the chips themselves.
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?
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.
that usually seems to lead to blathering "sovereign citizen" nonsense