

Grove Says Patent System May Have Same Flaws as Derivatives - lnguyen
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=aw5EZ9BzrgtU

======
russell
"Patents have evolved to a point where they often aren’t developed into
products, and instead are instruments traded by speculators looking for the
highest possible profit"

My initial reaction to the headline, was that it was so much hyperbole, but
Grove makes the case that patents no longer serve their original function, and
patent challenges should be easier.

------
larryfreeman
I'm very glad when this issue gets attention. The software patent system is
severely broken.

There's something wrong when patents play a more important role as a defensive
play (for most companies) than as an incentive for inventors to implement
their ideas.

My own recommendation is that a company should lose its rights to a patent if
there is not at least one product released by the company in x years.

~~~
tc
_My own recommendation is that a company should lose its rights to a patent if
there is not at least one product released by the company in x years._

Why bother? It would be trivial to game.

------
ajb
The patent system is supposed to increase innovation, but there's a suprising
number of adverse feedback effects _from_ an increased rate of innovation
which distort the patent mechanism:

\- succeeding innovations are more likely to occur within the lifetime of a
patent

\- the patent office can't keep up, so it reduces the time for review

\- the time to issue (3 years and counting) becomes a huge problem for small
inventors, while being much less of one for trolls

\- the number of patents covering an integrated product increases. At this
point it is impractical to actually check whether you are infringing one

\- The standard of unobviousness, the crucial criterion of whether a patent
serves the public interest, is related to the state of the art. But as the
state of the art changes more quickly, this becomes more difficult to define,
and also more difficult for patent examiners to keep up with. (And the
validity of a patent may be decided by a court which has even less chance to
keep up).

------
geebee
It's so important for highly respected, heavy hitters like Andy Grove to weigh
in on this issue. When patents become weapons and products become targets, the
creation of real wealth becomes a chump's game. In this sense, the analogy to
derivatives is pretty brilliant. Opportunistic, sure, but pretty damn
insightful as well.

------
eugenejen
I can't help get the idea to solve this problem...

The idea is : "Move your factories, engineering teams to China, where patents
issued in USA are ignored". The drawback is the company can only sell products
outside U.S.

Am I joking? If the ShangZai manufacturers in China take a longer term view,
they can do this. They are capable to adopt U.S. patents for their own
products, except they will not be able to sell the products/services to U.S.
But they can flood all markets in Europe and East Asia with their new adopted
inventions.

------
sdurkin
The basic problem is one of power. A large corporate entity can muster greater
legal resources than a small startup to defend patents, even those that will
never be developed into products.

Perhaps a firmer "use it or lose it" deadline could shift the balance of
power, and streamline the process of patent challenges.

~~~
jam
Bigger companies can also "use it" easier than small companies. It would make
patent sqatting more expensive, but probably not prohibitively so.

