I get anxious every time I read another patent troll story wondering when my weekend creations will end up costing me $ when they accidentally infringe on a patent because I roll out some seemingly ubiquitous feature.<p>I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.
There is a simple solution to this problem. Make maintenance fees payable yearly, and make a requirement of getting the patent renewed proof that you're actually using it. People filing patents only to sit and wait until someone else infringes is a cancer on American innovation.
Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year.<p>If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.
As the article only touched on, this is precisely why the next computing giant will not come from Silicon Valley or anywhere in the US. The current software patent situation has ensured it.
As a co-founder of a startup, my most worrying thoughts are not finding customers or improving the product. They're "when will I get a scary legal letter that asks for millions over a patent I've never heard of".
Did anyone else click the "someone patented toast" link and actually read the claims? It's for toasting bread at 2,500-4,500 degrees, with specialized infrared ovens.
Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal <a href="http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invites_Controversy.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi...</a><p>They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive."<p>Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong.<p>And who, or what, do they think they are disrupting? Isn't IV the incarnation of the status quo?<p>Reading their website feels like reading a politicians...
One of the best TAL episodes in recent memory. The story mentions that modern patents (specifically software patents) lack the novelty that the patent system was originally designed to encourage. Did patent laws change at some point in history to allow this to happen?
I'm curious as who are the VC's who invested in IV? Are these typical tech VC's, or are they more of the private equity type that relish in making money off these so called opportunities or arbitrages that don't require actual productive work.
Is this an issue for companies owned by HNers?
Poll: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809951" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809951</a>
Two very interesting Econtalk podcasts on IP issues and economics, both of which argue that innovative industries can thrive in legal regimes which offer very limited IP protections:<p>Boldrin on Intellectual Property
<a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...</a><p>Blakley on Fashion and Intellectual Property
<a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/blakely_on_fash.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/blakely_on_fash.htm...</a><p>pg groupies may also want to check out the Econtalk interview with Paul Graham. Finding it is left as an excercise for the reader, primarily to encourage people to check out this amazing resource.
It's interesting to see more mainstream media outlets (npr and This American Life (public radio?)) talk more about patent trolling lately. As of a few weeks ago lay people I talked to had no idea programmers generally disliked patents.
In the audio version, they mention several times that patent law is founded in the constitution. I wish they would actually read it though, as it's not very complicated:<p><i>The Congress shall have Power 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.</i>
Is this sort of thing an issue in other countries. I'm a tech founder in Australia. I don't think we have the same level of anxiety about being sued for unknowingly breaching a software patent. Can anyone comment on this? Is our patent system different or can we expect to see our industry similarly affected in the future?
The solution is very simple. Create a simple how to patent template website, then have every developer apply for patents on any business and software process that they can dream of. Within two years you'll choke the entire system into change. Make it impossible for anyone to do anything.<p>1st idea, the collection, aggregation, and transmittal of electronic messaging data during a waste evacuation process. (i.e. checking your email while on the toilet)
I actually just heard this story over NPR Radio. It's concerning to think about how companies like this can strong-arm smaller startups. But at the same time that doesn't mean that we should hide in fear. We've got to keep on doing what we do best: developing innovative products and solutions for users everywhere. Torpedoes be damned.
Serious question: can/do patent trolls go after open source projects? I'm not thinking of businesses who sell/support open source software (e.g. Red Hat), but would it be a viable "defense" for an indie dev to simply release their project as open source? I've got an idea for a "weekend project" or two that I could conceivably make a few bucks with, or I could release them as open source so that I can at least benefit from the idea without worrying (as much?) about being sued for violating a patent. On the one hand if I'm not making any money from it one would think that the trolls would go elsewhere, but then again...<p>Just looking for a general idea here, I'm not looking for official legal advice here... :-)
If you're looking for an organization which is actively working to fix the software patent problem, you can look to End Software Patents: <a href="http://endsoftpatents.org/" rel="nofollow">http://endsoftpatents.org/</a>
What if you could pay for some kind of insurance product to protect against patent lawsuits? Or perhaps some kind of co-operative that owned a bunch of bullshit patents to be used for defensive purposes in such a scenario?
I wonder why people waste their time and money on defending themselves in court, why don't they hire Tony Soprano to fix their problem instead? It would be a pretty appropriate response.
Poll: What's you take on Intellectual Ventures with regard to innovation? <a href="http://wepolls.com/1510009" rel="nofollow">http://wepolls.com/1510009</a>
Admittedly I stopped reading the article when I got to "IV isn't a patent troll, we're simply just a big patent market connecting suppliers to consumers"<p>No, you're not simply a 'market'. A market doesn't come and sue you for buying your milk somewhere else.