On reasonable patent reform

Posted May 17, 2007 21:20 UTC (Thu) by lordsutch (guest, #53)
In reply to: On reasonable patent reform by ronaldcole
Parent article: On Microsoft's patent claims

Ah, but if the invention loses its patent when the patent rights are sold, then patent rights would become worthless--nobody would buy them.

I'm not going to sit here and defend software patents, but some (perhaps even most) patents outside of software are important to fostering innovation, and inventors don't often have access to the capital needed to develop their innovations into marketable products. Hence the need for royalties and the right to sell patents.

On reasonable patent reform

Posted May 18, 2007 12:40 UTC (Fri) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242) [Link]

but some (perhaps even most) patents outside of software are important to fostering innovation

Do you have som research to back that up?

On reasonable patent reform

Posted May 18, 2007 22:15 UTC (Fri) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] (3 responses)

Did you read what I wrote? The patent right would not be worthless to it's inventor, the person for whom patents were invented to protect in the first place. But under my scenario, they would be worthless to acquire by society's "non-inventing" patent leeches; which is a desirable thing, IMO.

On reasonable patent reform

Posted May 19, 2007 0:06 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (2 responses)

You lost me. Are you saying the inventor should lose all his patent rights after he sells the patent? If so, you got your wish. That's how it works today. Or are you saying the buyer of the patent should end up with no patent rights? If so, why would he buy it? And if he wouldn't buy it, how would the inventor sell it?

On reasonable patent reform

Posted May 21, 2007 11:16 UTC (Mon) by aigarius (subscriber, #7329) [Link] (1 responses)

Exactly the point. There should not be the ability to sell a patent, only a limited licence to use such patent.
The idea being that only the inventors should be able to get any income from the patent. It should not be possible for a patent troll to buy a patent for peanuts and then sue people to oblivion.
OTOH, if an inventor himself is able to make a product out of his patent, then he would still have the ability to enforce his government-granted monopoly.
It is an interesting compromise, but eventually the patent system will fall as the basis of it (limited information about a product) has disappeared long time ago already.

On reasonable patent reform

Posted May 21, 2007 15:49 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

I don't think you've adequately considered the economic effect of a rule that patents can't be sold. It stifles invention, because it means that an inventor must also be a financier and patent enforcer. Financing is an essential part of the invention system because inventions tend to pay off over a long time, and many don't pay off at all. It takes a company with lots of capital, lots of patents, and marketing skills to do it. Similarly, it takes legal and marketing skills to get people to use a patent and to pay royalties if they do. It's hard to find all that, plus the technical skill to invent, in a single company. The system we have today allows the perfect division of labor to occur naturally.

It should not be possible for a patent troll to buy a patent for peanuts and then sue people to oblivion.

It isn't possible today, because there is an open market for patents. If there is a chance of suing people into oblivion, the patent's price is high. Like in any competitive industry, patent trolls tend to break even. The amount they get in royalties, whether paid voluntarily or by court order, just covers the price of the patent and the cost of enforcing it, on the average. Naturally, some hit the jackpot and come out way ahead.