Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Patents Can Stifle Innovation (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I do have ideas that I think could work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but this diary is mostly about presenting facts with some of my own personal analysis mixed in. But since you asked so kindly, I will tell you fully what I think: the U.S. Patent Office needs to be enlarged significantly, with new hires including people with computer science and engineering backgrounds. There needs to be more funding so that the backlog can be cleared up, and there needs to be more employees who have some kind of an understanding of the patent that they just approved. There needs to be a stronger filtering system so that invalid patents aren't left for the courts to invalidate. This is, in the current political environment, a pipe dream. But this is the first step to fundamental patent reform in the U.S.

    You know what I think about Apple and Samsung? They can both be patent trolls at times. So has Oracle and Google. And any other large tech company. It is required to be aggressive sometimes to survive in this broken patent system. Perhaps my definition of "patent troll" is more expansive than yours - the term itself is very fluid. But you asked for my opinion, and here it is.

    •  Generally I agree (0+ / 0-)

      But the problem is not just staffing and resources, but also a poorly defined and antiquated system/categories that leave too much room for broadly defined and specious claims.

      There should be classes of patents, some more limited than others and more restrictive rules on defining embodiments.

      There should also be tighter restrictions against claiming natural properties as inventions, such as one of the cases I elaborated, which is a common way to corral existing (unpatented) practice and build a portfolio of "variations on a theme" to extend the term of license.

      But copyright is even a bigger mess.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:11:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

      The term "Patent Troll" is normally applied to "Non-Practioners", i.e., companies that buy or apply for patents for the purpose of extracting royalties or judgements but do not use the technologies to produce anything.

      Something you might find interesting is the Wikipedia chronology of the Smartphone Wars, which tracks the history of litigation and ITC suits.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:42:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Non-practicing entities (0+ / 0-)

        is one way to call patent trolls, to be sure, but not necessarily the other way around.

        You seem to be very informed about the history of smartphone patent lawsuits, thanks for the information!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site