
US patent chief to software patent critics: "Give it a rest already" - sciwiz
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/us-patent-chief-to-software-patent-critics-give-it-a-rest-already/
======
reitzensteinm
> He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone
> industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system
> like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up,
> it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.

Metric X is high, therefore disputed policy Y is boosting metric X.

If more people understood the inanity of this line of argument, the world
would be a much better place.

The head of the USPTO isn't even willing to have an intellectually honest
debate on the subject. It's pretty clear that change is not going to come from
within.

~~~
jeffdavis
> Metric X is high, therefore disputed policy Y is boosting metric X.

Although the reasoning doesn't exactly follow, it does still say something
important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation. In other
words, he's saying that we have something to lose, and he's right.

You can make a strong argument that we won't lose it, and I'd agree with you.
But it's not exactly proven. Actually, I don't think it's a simple win or lose
situation, I think that patents (or the lack thereof) change the nature of
things invented, and it's hard to quantify whether it's better or worse.

~~~
rohern
> the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation

This is like saying it wouldn't be so bad to be blind because blind people are
able to live fulfilling and experience-rich lives. Yes, that is true, blind
people do live rich and fulfilling lives, but this says nothing at all about
the richness of the lives they could be living if they were not blind.

We have fewer than five large companies dominating the smart phone space.
Let's ignore for a moment the fallacy that because smart phone innovation is
occurring that therefore all innovation is a-okay. There are no small players
in this space. This is like American car companies before Tesla and the other
new electric companies got started. We know from experience that the
domination of an industry by a few large players does not lead to innovation
in the long term. It leads to tit-for-tat competition with little novel
exploration of the space of possible products. These companies become
conservative and self-concerned.

I think if you do any research into the current patent system, you will find
it self-evident that the situation is untenable. Amazon holds a patent on
"one-click ordering". They own a 20-year patent on the notion of only needing
to click one button to make a purchase. Apple was just granted a patent on
"searching across multiple databases simultaneously". The absurdity of the
situation is apparent.

We are already in a period where large companies can use their patents to
crush startups. It does not matter if the patent dispute is spurious and the
startup clearly within their rights. Large companies with in-house legal staff
can drown a startup by requiring them to fork out enormous quantities of money
for legal representation in their self-defense. With a suite of patents, a
company like Apple can bring suit after suit until finally the small company
either loses one (these things are not decided by engineers or experts in
patent law, they are decided by juries, a curse and a blessing), or runs out
of money. This is analogous to the libel/slander situation in Britain, in
which the cost of defending against a libel suite is enough to ruin a
journalistic enterprise.

Read about what happened to Vlingo, as the situation I just described has
already occurred: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-
amo...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-
giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
jsnell
> There are no small players in this space.

There's a horde of small players in the space. They've been dropping like
flies, but there's a steady stream of new entrants both on the handset and
software sides. Most of these new companies will fail as well. But it's not
because of patents, it's because there are big economies of scale and the
network effects are even bigger.

~~~
ajross
Indeed. The irony of reading that statement _on this very web site_ is just
staggering. How many companies are in the current YC round again?

This argument shouldn't even be at issue. Of course we're seeing very rapid
innovation. The question is whether that's because of or in spite of the
current patent regime, which is very hard to answer. People like us see the
harm that bad patents can do and decide one way.

Other people look at (1) the fact that there is rapid innovation in the market
and (2) the patent system was designed to foster innovation as evidence to the
contrary. You're not going to win these people over by claiming that patents
are "killing" innovation. All they have to do is look in their pockets to see
that you're wrong.

~~~
pyre

      > How many companies are in the current YC round again?
    

The grandparent post was talking about 'small players' in the 'building a
smartphone' market. Unless a significant portion of the current YC round are
building smartphones, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

~~~
czr80
Small players in cell phones: [http://www.phonearena.com/news/10-cell-phone-
companies-youve...](http://www.phonearena.com/news/10-cell-phone-companies-
youve-probably-never-heard-of_id33406)

~~~
wtracy
Out of ten, one of them is U.S.-based. That seems to support the assertion
that something is wrong in the U.S.

------
pirateking
Fuck this guy and fuck patents.

    
    
      That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, 
      we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; 
      and this we should do freely and generously.
    
      - Benjamin Franklin
    

Bless Benjamin Franklin.

~~~
jeremiep
Thats how you create a better world for everyone. I'm pretty sure this guy
wants to create a better world for his corporate friends only.

~~~
roadnottaken
As someone who works in the biopharmaceutical industry, I couldn't disagree
with you more.

~~~
dickbasedregex
Surely you must be trolling.

~~~
roadnottaken
Not trolling. I work in biotech. This industry lives and dies on IP. It
literally costs hundreds of millions of dollars to run clinical trials and
most of them fail. If someone else can come along and make a knock-off of your
product and steal your profit then there's no incentive to run them. The whole
model of the pharmaceutical industry relies on ~15-20 years of patent
protection. People certainly play games with patents in biopharma, too, but
without some form of IP protection you wouldn't get new drugs. Simple as that.

~~~
jivatmanx
New drugs are an extremely specific and limited case of Patents, a chemical
formula.

If Biotech worked the way software did, you would be able to patent "A
combination of chemicals inside of a pill that cures headaches".

~~~
distant-uncle
Very true. Or even just: "A combination of chemicals".

What I also find remarkable is how much actual research in biotech is done
with public money. And how much big pharma spends on marketing, as opposed to
actual research.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-
comp...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-
marketing_n_1760380.html)

I think India's take on pharma products is enlightening. The pharma industry
has managed to effect some self-serving changes in India's patent laws.
However, as we speak the Supreme Court of India is hearing a case of
particular interest.

[http://theconversation.edu.au/david-and-goliath-novartis-
cha...](http://theconversation.edu.au/david-and-goliath-novartis-challenges-
indias-patent-law-9880)

------
jedberg
I met David a few weeks ago to talk about patents and software. I have to say
that coming out of that meeting I felt a lot better about things than going
in.

He has good intentions. He worked hard to get provisions in the new law that
would allow his office to fix the most egregious problems.

They are opening the first satellite patent office in San Jose specifically to
address software and technology hardware patents.

I have to agree with him -- we need to give the new laws a chance to work.
They just went into effect a few months ago.

~~~
heliosvc
It's true that the new law needs a chance. And it's true that all or the vast
majority of politicians and bureaucrats have good intentions and want things
to work. And it's unfortunately a reality that someone who is part of the
system (head of the PTO!) has to protect and defend the system.

The problem is that software patents are in fact fundamentally broken. Think
about it this way: does it make sense that the patent rules should be the same
in fields as different as software/web/internet and pharmaceuticals/biotech --
where the innovation cycle, product lifecycle, and R&D costs are so
dramatically different? If we had to design the patent system from scratch,
would we put in place the same rules?

The reforms may help a little on the margins. But more fundamental change is
needed in the software arena.

~~~
dmgrow
My view is perhaps a bit limited because I'm in the software industry. Are
other industries represented fairly well by the current laws and is it only
the software industry that are demanding changes?

Though government is adept at yielding to special interest and industry
groups, fundamental change may be difficult to hope for if the software
industry is the lone voice at this point.

~~~
rayiner
It's not even the software industry generally. My background is in embedded
software (military radios, heavy-duty network infrastructure), and I never saw
that kind of opposition. I got my degree in aerospace engineering, and even
among university kids nobody ever questioned the validity of the patent system
or the fact that the university took out patents, etc.

I think the difference is that most engineering industries are very capital
intensive. Defending the occasional patent lawsuit doesn't seem so onerous
when your capital expenditures are measured in the hundreds of millions or
billions.

------
scotty79
> "Our patent system is the envy of the world,"

I thought it was worlds lawyers wet dream and laughing stock of everybody
else.

I can't remember one mention of US patent that was not grotesquely funny. I
heard nothing of sorts about patents of any other country. The only thing I
heard about those is that they are hard to get, expensive and short lasting.

~~~
rayiner
The about-face Silicon Valley has done on this issue in the last decade or two
is pretty amusing. Back when Silicon Valley meant Microsoft making software
and Sun making hardware, people ranted and tore their hair out over how lack
of IP enforcement in developing countries was destroying innovation...

~~~
ori_b
The two aren't mutually exclusive. IP needs to be enforced in order for our
current system to work -- Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement. On
the other hand, if asinine patents and overly broad copyrights are handed out,
then it becomes difficult for everybody.

Copyright needs to be enforced, but on a narrower set of IP. Patents should
actually be innovative, unique, and original. Copyright should be specific,
with broad fair use and protected status for parodies and satires.

~~~
fierarul
>Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement

I remember Stallman saying something along the lines that GPL is using
copyright against itself.

So I don't think GPL "depending" on copyright enforcement is a valid point for
IP enforcement.

GPL is just specifically tailored for the current system and would just morph
to something else if the legal climate changes.

~~~
kd0amg
Without copyright protection, it would be pretty easy to interfere with two of
the Four Freedoms.

~~~
thyrsus
Without copyright protection, there would be less incentive to interfere with
any of the freedoms. Imagining a lack of copyright on software, the two
reasons I can think of to eschew sharing are to keep for oneself/one's group
an advantage provided by the program (whether that be a better search
algorithm or a better nuclear weapon simulator) or to prevent exposure of
assumptions made by the software to a competitor/adversary (e.g., avoid
illegitimate SEO, security through obscurity).

The advantages of sharing would remain: everyone with more access, a larger
number of people to help improve the software.

The pro-copyright claim is that the current system provides incentives for
more software to be built than the absence of copyright would; but that's an
economic model without experimental validation and not even as reliable as
tested economic models (e.g., Keynesian stimulation/damping).

------
noonespecial
That's not how democracy works. When people don't like what's going on, they
work until they change it. What they won't do is "give it a rest".

~~~
jeremiep
One could argue that we don't live in a true democracy. What we live in right
now is much closer to fascism. I'd even go as far as to say that the concept
of lobbying is a fascist idea.

This guy has huge ties to IBM, I'd have a very hard time believing he has the
public's best interests in mind. He's more likely to pass laws which would
help his rich friends instead.

Note that I'm not a strong believer of government to begin with. My rationale
is that if society is anything like software development, management should be
seen as counter-productive.

~~~
grecy
> I'd even go as far as to say that the concept of lobbying is a fascist idea

The people living in democracies without lobbying wholeheartedly agree. We
genuinely can't believe you let it happen.

~~~
danielrhodes
Lobbying is an essential and legitimate part of every democracy. Although it
often has negative connotations, the process serves a very important role in
the input of policy decisions. In the US, lobbying is constitutionally
protected, without which citizens would have no guaranteed way to communicate
with elected officials.

Your assertion that you and others live in democracies without such a process
is false. Moreover your implication that lobbying is wholly negative and
unique to the American democratic system undermines your position and
demonstrates what appears to be a bias against the United States in general
rather than an honest critique of the way lobbying is conducted in that
country.

~~~
kahawe
> In the US, lobbying is constitutionally protected, without which citizens
> would have no guaranteed way to communicate with elected officials.

Yet de-facto in the day-to-day it is not you-and-me average citizens lobbying
at the highest level but HugeCorps because they have the connections and means
to pay the right lobbyists that actual average citizens could never afford...

And the very word itself already has a bad connotation. It is not
"democratizing" or "participating", it is "lobbying" and nobody associates a
positive, generally beneficial democratic process with that.

------
swohns
The US Patent System is the envy of the world!? I'd love to have more
international opinions on this, but from my experience in Japan, France and
England, no one envies our patent system, and most programmers simply ignore
it even when working on products for the US market.

~~~
duked
I'm French, now living/workin in the US and I'm not too sure I agree with you.
Did you know that even small businesses when they register at "Chambre du
commerce" they usually protect their IP/Name through INPI. That's like the
first thing they do even if it's a food truck. So for me IP protection is very
present in our culture. Same for the companies I worked for we usually submit
patent to USPTO before EPO.

~~~
coffeeaddicted
Please do not confuse IP protection with the patent system. For example I love
the copyright system while I hate the patent system. You don't copy code
accidentally and to use your example - it's still relatively easy to research
if names are already used and you don't have to do that often.

But you have a really hard time figuring out if you break some patents while
developing software. Even lawyers and courts often have a hard time figuring
out if something steps on a patent or not. As software developer where you
develop new things every day you can basically only close your eyes and code
on hoping you don't trigger too many patent mines. Patents belong as little in
writing software as they belong in writing other things like books, articles
or speeches.

------
api
Self-serving bureaucrat defends his niche...

------
bpatrianakos
I'll be downvoted to hell for this but he has a point! We do need to let the
new get a chance to work. Technology has changed everything and patent law
just wasn't written to account for what's happening now. That's indisputable
but it doesn't mean the whole system is broken.

I don't think anyone can say "yes the patent system is broken" or "the patent
system works fine" definitively because it's not a cut and dry issue. You may
argue that patents are a disincentive to innovation while others feels
differently. It's really an ideological issue. It's subjective and not
objective like people want to make it.

Furthermore, everyone out there yelling about how we need to rebuild the whole
patent system from the ground up again or abolish it altogether are really the
ones who need to give it a rest. We can't just rewrite all patent law or get
rid of patents. That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much
has been built on top of and around patent law that making such drastic
changes would have ripple effects that would be worse than the original
problem.

That said, I can't stand behind Kaposs' statement that pace of innovation is
evidence of the patent system working. Did he even hear himself say that?
What's his definition of innovation? Sure, we have lots of touch screen
devices with different names coming out every single day but is that
innovation? But really that's neither here nor there. The pace of innovation
and the patent system working are wholly unrelated.

I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to
reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason. Again, I
swear its an honest question and I have an honest observation. To me, because
no one has explained it to me yet, it seems like there are a few trendy
startups and companies out there who got burned by the patent system. So then
they threw a fit about patent reform. The HNers and Silicon Valley types
picked up on this and now its the hip new cause to support. It reminds me of
when being anti-copyright and pro-piracy became cool. They seem to have this
really nice sounding ideology behind them that's very easy to adopt and so
people do. But to me, these ideas, which in a perfect world would work out
great, seem divorced from reality. In the case of startups/companies lobbying
for this, don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the
status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd
drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody
else? I do. Because I would.

~~~
nickik
> or get rid of patents

We could, its in the right of goverments to do that.

> That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much has been built
> on top of and around patent law that making such drastic changes would have
> ripple effects that would be worse than the original problem.

Thats hard to predict and otherwise its a really bad argument. It remindes me
of the argument against lowering inflation. Yes lowering inflation will always
creat problems, sometimes even very bad ones but that is no reason to just
keep going.

Taking a stand and hit the problem in the face, deal with the consequences and
from there on build on a much more solid ground like we did in monetary
policy.

> I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to
> reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason.

I for one think that it is simple a ineffective system that will just harm the
economy and the social live more general (specially in the case of
copyrights).

From a purly economicl view it seams clear that all form of IP are harmful.
Resources that are not limted do not need a propery rights system. I can not
prove this (and I think nobody can) the benefits from copying are much much
greater then the benefits from improved insentive.

If you look at sientific discovery and innovation, how it works is many small
steps and improving little by little. Revolutionary discoverys do not happen
very often.

There are many reason this is specially true in practice. In the real world
the patent system is ruled over by a goverment agency that is (like any
goverment agency) subject to lobbying and other problems discribed in public
choice theory (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory>).

> don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the status
> quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop
> their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I
> do. Because I would.

Sure they would. I would too. That is exactly why we have to change
insentives. As long as the system is as it is people will have the same
insentives (an we all know what these are).

The most importend economic book you will every read will just say "insentive
matter" on every page.

~~~
bpatrianakos
Fair enough, good points. But do you kind of see what I'm getting at toward
the end? You may have some strong beliefs on patent law but does everyone?
Really? Is it just me or does anyone else see this as a bandwagon thing. The
next hip cause to support. More people regurgitating something someone told
them without reading up on it on their own. That sort of thing. Everything
else aside, that's what bothers me most about this issue.

~~~
nickik
> Fair enough, good points. But do you kind of see what I'm getting at toward
> the end? You may have some strong beliefs on patent law but does everyone?
> Really?

I do understand. I think its a valid point but I also think the hype throws a
lot more attention on the issue. Attention that is rightly there.

------
arocks
Reminds me of a Sanskrit sloka roughly translated as:

 _The wealth that cannot be stolen,_ _neither abducted by state,_ _nor can be
divided amongst brothers,_ _Neither it is burdensome to carry,_ _The wealth
that increases by giving,_ _That wealth is knowledge_ _and is supreme of all
possessions_

Intellectual 'property' is an oxymoron. The treatment of knowledge like a
physical asset in that, it must be possessed and contained, is an exercise in
futility.

------
suresk
This is depressing to read, and I think he is wrong, but the more I think
about this, the more I think reforming patent issuance is not going to be as
helpful as we think.

Think about it - if the PTO stopped issuing software patents today, we'd still
have over a decade of software patent litigation.

The real problem is our legal system - it is too expensive for a someone
accused of patent violations to defend themselves. Even if you win, you are
still going to be bankrupt or severely weakened by legal fees, and all you've
"won" is the right to continue doing what you were doing in the first place.
This is the only reason patent trolling is so successful - nobody can fight
back.

Start requiring entities who file patent infringement (and other) lawsuits pay
the defendants legal fees if they lose, and require an upfront bond (because
otherwise they'd just sue with shell companies and declare bankruptcy if they
lost). Everyone is going to be concerned about how this hurts the proverbial
"little guy" and his ability to sue a big company that has taken his idea, but
the little guy is already getting screwed by patent trolls - a big company
like Google or Apple has the resources to fight patent litigation, but even
one lawsuit is likely to be lethal for a small company. If the "little guy" is
going to get hurt either way, I'd rather we tilt things to be in favor of the
defendants.

------
gridaphobe
> He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone
> industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system
> like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up,
> it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.

I don't think anyone has been arguing that innovation is no longer happening,
but rather that the mess of software patents is making it increasingly
difficult for newcomers to enter the industry.

I also like how he completely dodged the question of whether software patents
should be allowed at all, from a philosophical perspective..

------
jvehent
They created a system where a government lawyer makes a law that corporate
lawyers can use to make a lot of money. In return, the corporate lawyer pay
taxes to the government so that the government lawyer can have a fancy title
in a fancy agency.

This is lawyers talking to (and for) lawyers. This doesn't concern engineers
or consumers.

------
charonn0
If you want an honest assessment a company, business, or agency, don't ask the
guy who stands to be fired if there's anything wrong.

~~~
hexagonc
_It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it!_ \-- Upton Sinclair

------
erso
Given that he was nominated to the post by the Obama administration and
confirmed by the Senate, where should a grassroots movement to get him shucked
out of office be directed?

~~~
mindslight
Towards rejecting the entire autonomous bureaucracy he is but a small part of.
However, given that most of the US is contentedly employed in service of the
top-down government, agorism is the best bet.

------
sageikosa
Here we see in action the big government mindset solution to big government
induced problems, more big government. I for one, am not surprised, but I have
read Ludwig von Mises' book "Bureaucracy".

Seriously, did anyone think a department whose "business" is to accept fees
and keep patent examiners employed is going to shrink their market domain?
There's plenty more regulatory jobs to be squeezed out of the innovation
business to be had yet, this time on the back end.

~~~
nickik
Since you seam to have a intressted in this kind of thing I would recomond (if
you dont know it) public choice theory.

Here are some awsome podcasts on the subject:
<http://www.econtalk.org/archives/public_choice/>

There are also podcasts about Mises and many other intressting things on
there.

~~~
sageikosa
Yes, that is interesting.

~~~
nickik
He had like 5 nobel laureates on there, including Milton Friedman with 96 and
Ronald Coase with 102.

------
MattyRad
This guy is the head of the Patent and Trademark Office? I think we can now
see where part of the problem resides. "Envy of the world." He's either lying
or blind.

------
SoftwareMaven
I'm not going to lie, the patent office was the last place I expected a "think
of the children" argument. And, just like every other time I hear that
argument, I immediately feel that I'm being lied to and manipulated for
somebody else's gain.

------
ceautery
No, I don't think I'll give it a rest. The patent system drives a business
model where companies can produce no products, but instead buy patents and sue
people. That's a grievance that people should petition redress of. Sorry,
Kappos, until that business model isn't profitable, I'm going to keep
bitching, in line with my first amendment rights.

------
pmahoney
We got his attention.

Now I'll write two letters per week.

~~~
nickik
I read your comment and smiled. Thank you for this. Have an upvote.

------
ynniv
In light of this compelling argument, I have changed my stance on software
patents. Mission Accomplished, Mr. Kappos!

------
jivatmanx
None of his comments even address the problem of patent trolls. When
legitimate tech companies such over patents, the obvious defense is to sue
back. There is hope that they will realize the futility of the patent war and
either do binding mediation or simply decide the war has to end.

Retaliatory defense doesn't work against trolls, who have nothing to defend.
Even if the troll company folds for whatever reason, you can just pass the
patents to another shell company and start again.

For the IBM lawyer and others saying that the patent system doesn't need
reform because there were patent lawsuits 100 or so years ago, please cite an
example of the trolls that Rockefeller, Edison faced.

------
hexagonc
I think part of the problem with patents for software is precisely the point
that has been made again and again -- software is much closer to mathematics
than any other type of patent. If you have a large group of people who are
smart and tackling the same software problem, then the nature of the problem
itself will often funnel them all toward similar solutions. I mean, there is a
thing in software engineering called _refinement_ which is the process of
reducing a software requirement specification into working code. In some
cases, this can even be done mechanically with CASE tools. Since the optimal
code for achieving a particular goal is often a logical (or near logical)
necessity of the goal itself, it's hard to see what innovation is really being
protected by software patents. It seems to me that where the innovation is
actually occurring is in the very act of noticing that a problem needs solving
in the first place. But that is not what is patented.

EDIT: Just to clarify my last few sentences. Software patents seem to reward
the wrong thing. It seems to me that the innovation occurs in the very act of
specifying the requirements for the software. In a sense, the software that
best implements the requirement is less a creative invention and more of a
_discovery_. Now, I agree that there should be some kind of
reward/prize/compensation for companies that choose to pursue unusual goals
but I'm not sure that patents are it. Favorable market position may be reward
enough.

------
ronyeh
Historical Patent Activity:
[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.ht...](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm)

From the OP: "The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how
the patent system wires us for innovation," Kappos said. "It's natural and
reasonable that innovators would seek to protect their breakthroughs using the
patent system."

Or maybe...it is natural to file patents _as fast as possible_ to protect
ourselves from an increasingly broken system?

It'd be nice if companies could be restricted on the number of patents they
could file per year. Let's say a company with 1-10 people can file 1 patent
per year. 11-100 people => 5 patents per year. 101-1000 people => 10 patents
per year. 1001-10000 people => 50 patents per year.... Then maybe companies
would only file their most important "breakthroughs."

Of course, this system would mean that we would have fewer patent prosecution
lawyers, and maybe even fewer examiners.

------
burgreblast
Those who profit from patents will always support them.

The best way to undermine patentability is to publicly disclose the invention
in advance, thereby creating prior art that no one can patent.

To me, the simplest solution would be "CantPatentThis.com" where you disclose
your ideas/sketches. Think GitHub for ideas, not necessarily working code.

Thoughts?

~~~
tomrod
Sure, but it defeats the purpose of what the patent is getting at--rewarding
an inventor and innovator for creativity in application of new principles. The
whole intent of a patent is to give the holder a monopoly on the technology
for a given time period so as to encourage innovation. The other shoe is a
trade secret--publishing trade secrets would ensure literally no economic
rents to the innovator.

Probably a better set of reforms that would solve a host of problems: * 5 year
patent length limit * Nontransferability of patent (can't sell IP, say) * No
software patents. If it's written in code, get a copyright.

------
shmerl
Yeah, software patents should be given a rest - an eternal rest.

 _> He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone
industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system
like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it
cannot be said that the patent system is broken_

Innovation happens in spite of the sick patent system. Not because of it. I.e.
if not for the system, innovation could have been even faster.

 _> Indeed, Kappos suggested that the volume of patent litigation in the
smartphone industry was a sign that the patent system was working as
intended._

This is lunacy. He suggests that the point of the patent system is increased
litigation? He should look in the constitution more often.

------
OldSchool
Having been shaken down a few times in business myself, I learned to call this
threat "The Sword of Damocles."

To an extent your likelihood of a shakedown is tied to your market share, but
not necessarily.

As a rational person your instinct that your work was developed independently
and/or earlier or other well-known work is prior art is irrelevant to the
parasites because they are not interested in facts, only money. You can only
hope they don't try to kill the host.

Without naming names and amounts since settlements are bound by secrecy, I'd
like to hear some (hopefully successful) battlefield stories of handling the
dreaded troll letters and blind-side lawsuits?

------
malachismith
The money quote, "Rather than engage in this empirical debate, or even
acknowledge its existence, Kappos acted as though it was self-evident that
stronger patents always create a larger incentive for innovation."

And, of course, we have copious illustrations of how he is wrong (and how he
is right). So perhaps we should spend the time to determine _if_ patents
"always create a larger incentive for innovation" or not.

------
ricardobeat
> do we demand today's innovation on the cheap via a weaker patent system that
> excludes subject matter, or do we moderate today's consumption with a strong
> patent system so our children enjoy greater innovations?

Moderate today's consumption, what does that even mean? Save your innovations
for the children? No, thank you, I don't want to slow down progress so that
your friends can make more money.

~~~
kbutler
He's asserting that the objections to patents are from consumers: Let me have
this stuff without paying inventors (patent holders). (This would be bad
because it reduces the incentive for innovation).

In my experience, the objections to patents are from innovators: Let me invent
without paying people who have been trying to landgrab the intellectual
frontier. (This is good because it reduces barriers to innovation).

------
manaskarekar
This is an idea my colleague suggested:

Form an alliance of companies that boycott people who abuse patents. All these
companies pool in their patents and form a super patent alliance. Given a
large number of patents, anyone who want to fuck around with patents gets
black balled from the Super Patent Alliance.

~~~
Kliment
That's how Intellectual Assholes... uh Intellectual Ventures got started. They
are now probably the number one patent troll worldwide.

------
code_duck
Reminds me of the DEA insisting that it's worth spending billions to 'defend'
citizens from marijuana.

------
jheriko
Ignorance is bliss... or in his case a massively overpaid job that doesn't
need to exist.

What a prick.

------
jimrandomh
Transcript of the actual speech:
<http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp>

He doesn't seem to understand what's going on or why we're angry.

~~~
rorrr
He is either corrupt or incompetent (or both).

------
bicknergseng
>"innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours
in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be
said that the patent system is broken," he said.

Nice non-sequitur.

------
maked00
Patents are evil. They are simply a way for predatory one percenters and
lawyers to steal from society.

Look at the fashion industry. Thriving and innovating, with 0 patents.

Trademarks Yes / Patents No

------
donbronson
> [Kappos] argued would allow the patent office to weed out low-quality
> software

I wonder how he would define "low-quality software"

------
datashaman
This sounds to me like he's protecting his own income. The American patent
system is the envy of the world. I Loled.

------
bitops
Honestly? Give it a rest? I'd usually try to write a more objective comment,
but in this case it's pretty simple.

Not. Bloody. Likely.

------
vacri
_"Our patent system is the envy of the world"_

I'd really like to meet the people who sit around envying a patent system. I
mean, seriously, how many people can there be that understand patent systems
to the detail required to separate the US one out from other first-world
nations (since this comment really is a jab at contemporary nations), who then
sit around envying it?

------
Vivtek
Well, I guess I know who's part of the problem, then.

------
bjhoops1
Let's get rid of this clown.

------
Nux
The chief is an idiot.

------
xer0x
What terrible news.

