Let's take it as read that the patent system can't be abolished overnight, the upheaval would be too extreme, and there are - frankly - too many interested parties who would be directly affected and able to successfully lobby against such a move. Ideally the system would never have been created in the first place; but until I complete work on my time machine, that simply isn't an option.
So what's to be done in order to curb the current system of its worst excesses? I've seen a few suggestions both on various articles and in this mailing list. First, some goals that seem to fit in with current feelings: - Small inventors/innovators should be able to protect themselves from large companies looking to steal their ideas, it shouldn't be possible for the larger company to throw lawyers at the problem and simply lock matters up in a legal quagmire while they continue to infringe. - Innovation should be encouraged over litigation - The "patent trolling" business model should be made unprofitable, driving such firms out of existence - No company should be exposed to the unlimited risk that occurs if a patent suit is be brought in the current climate. It shouldn't be necessary to maintain a sizeable war chest or to hold back from new hires in order to protect yourself from such a threat, neither of these benefits engineers or the economy at large - Nor should it be necessary to maintain a large patent portfolio of your own, for the sole purpose of counter-claims - All patents should enter the public domain within a "reasonable" timespan (unlike copyright, nowadays...) - Taxpayer funding to the USPTO and the courts that hear these cases should remain (at most) at the same level. Preferably, such funding should be reduced - Many small companies seek to be acquired at around the time they're getting big enough to become visible on the radar of patent trolls, thus gaining the protection of the patent portfolio as held by the larger company. This shouldn't be necessary, companies should have more control of when and if they're acquired, instead of being driven by the threat of litigation - On the other hand, many perceive patents to have value. If a company *does* want to be acquired, then they should be able to use this in their negotiations The solutions? - Cap the maximum payout possible from patent litigation. I suspect that different per-user, per-unit and overall caps would be needed, depending on the nature of damages being sought - Such caps to be *significantly* reduced for holders of patents who aren't actively using them - Prior to a patent suit, the must holder should fund a full investigation by the USPTO to eliminate prior art and determine if it's truly valid. This would allow for a relatively cheap initial filing, but provide the necessary resources to weed out the rubbish if anyone seeks to use a patent in anger - The same goes for anyone looking to use a patent in a counter-defense - The length of validity for software patents should be reduced, perhaps this is best done gradually - A new tax should be introduced on the legal fees paid towards litigation, this to be used for providing free beer for anyone in the future who chooses to forego the filing of a patent On 10 August 2011 14:41, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > But people should have the right to sell their IP if they want to. And that > should include companies as well. So I think the no-transfer option is DOA. > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Carl Jokl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That might also prove a disincentive to having big companies acquiring >> lots of little ones just to get hold of the patents. This might be a >> good thing i.e. all patents are invalidated if a company ceases to >> exist. This would not preclude a company existing as a subsidiary of >> another but at least the company would maintain identity in its own >> right. >> >> On Aug 10, 2:23 pm, phil swenson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > In the no-transfer scenario, what happens in an acquisition? The >> > patent is just invalidated? >> > >> > 2011/8/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: >> > >> > >> > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot < >> [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > >> > >> Non-transferable is even worse. That does absolutely nothing to the >> patent >> > >> trolls but hurts the very rare Joe Inventor quite a bit. You can buy >> a >> > >> company and leave that company intact, injecting whatever lawyer >> power you >> > >> need for that company to start the court cases. >> > >> > > Do explain. Let's say there is a 3 year deadline and no transfer >> right. A >> > > company or an inventor comes up with an idea and patents it. >> > > How does a patent troll take advantage of that patent? >> > > -- >> > > Cédric >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
