
Patent that cost Microsoft millions gets invalidated - ingve
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/game-companies-knock-out-patent-that-slammed-microsoft-with-388m-verdict/
======
jcoffland
This is probably an unpopular opinion on HN but I don't think patents should
be transferable. If only the inventor were allowed to benefit from a patent it
would work closer to the original intent of the patent system which was to
incentivise creators. Since then it's purpose has been perverted into a right
to own IP. Ownership of IP only benefits lawyers and patent trolls. Please
note that I'm not talking about trade secrets which are another thing
altogether.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
The inventor can benefit from a patent by selling it.

Maybe they don't want to raise millions of dollars and spend years building a
business that may or may not eventually generate $20 million in profit over
the next couple decades, and would rather just sell it now for $1 million and
get back to creating!

Even if they wanted to take the time and risk to use it directly, the skills
required to invent something and the skills to profit from it aren't
necessarily the same.

~~~
modeless
> Maybe they don't want to raise millions of dollars and spend years building
> a business

But see, _this_ is the valuable part! _This_ is what we should be rewarding!
The idea is worthless without execution. The concept that someone who simply
had a relatively trivial idea should be able to extract rent from someone else
who had the same idea but actually spent years executing on it and building a
real business that benefits actual customers, taking on significant risk to do
so, is repugnant.

~~~
jamornh
This isn't absolutely true, if ideas are worthless without execution then
corporations would never spend millions and millions inside their R&D
departments creating inventions which may or may not come to market.

The assumption that ideas are always trivial isn't correct, sometimes the
inventor spends years and years perfecting a design in his own garage, but
doesn't have the means to bring it to market. Should the inventor not get
rewarded for his work? Nothing is wrong with the final invention nor is it
from the lack of trying to bring it to market, he just doesn't have the
financing necessary to pull it off.

~~~
chongli
_Should the inventor not get rewarded for his work?_

The patent isn't a reward for his work, though. The patent is a reward for
having an idea and filing for it. The inventor could just as easily spend
years in the garage and come up with nothing patent-able, thereby obtaining no
reward.

~~~
sliverstorm
The patent is the opportunity to be rewarded (paid) for your work, instead of
ripped off. Sans patent, BigCo just takes your great idea.

~~~
chongli
Sans patents, BigCos are forced to compete in a commoditized market even more
cutthroat than generic drugs (since those are at least regulated by the FDA).

------
WalterBright
There's a romantic notion with patent law about the garage inventor who
invents the better mousetrap, patents it, and makes a fortune.

Has this ever happened?

Lone inventors who did patent things seems to have spent their time in court
rather than getting rich (Eli Whitney, Edison, Wright Bros.).

~~~
raverbashing
Edison was probably suing more than getting sued (that's the reason film
production moved to the West Cost)

Apart from that, I guess it's really rare.

~~~
WalterBright
Edison sued, was sued, was used as a pawn in patent lawsuits, and was often
hired to invent a way around other patents. Whether the net of all this was
positive or negative for him or society is hard to say.

------
jsmeaton
The headline makes it sound like Microsoft spent millions to buy the patent,
but it was used against Microsoft and others to extract millions.

~~~
StephenConnell
Interesting, now that you mention it, I see how it could mean what you
thought. When I first read it, I read the correct meaning.

------
giancarlostoro
I always wondered why anyone not creating products behind their patents should
be allowed to profit off of them. If I make a new concept and patent it and
publish my idea into the market I should have my patented protection on my
product. If I buy a patent for something I don't produce, heck, if I don't
even produce _anything_ in my company, I shouldn't be allowed to keep said
patent. I'm not a patent expert or a law expert, but some things just bug me
out.

Edit: typos and such

~~~
NhanH
You could view patent collector to have roughly the same role as debt
collector: it's a specialization of enforcement for certain type of social
contracts in our system. In programming term, they would be an abstraction
black box the free others (creator) from doing mundane unnecessary jobs.

Now, of course the current implementation of IP is pretty shitty. And there
are argument to be made that the assumption of "no patent/ idea protection ===
no incentive for people to create thing" is flawed to start with.

~~~
Dylan16807
Imagine how awful it would be if a debt collector set their own prices. And
debts were racked up with extremely-vague terms from people you never met.

------
simula67
Microsoft did not invalidate anything

> claims to own the concept of "product activation" in software, had all
> claims ruled invalid by the Patent Trademark and Appeals Board (PTAB)

>The PTAB case against Uniloc's patent was filed by Sega of America, Ubisoft,
Cambium Learning Group, and Perfect World Entertainment

Microsoft paid the settlement and went on with business

> It was Uniloc's lawsuit against Microsoft that provided the company with its
> original headlines.

> Microsoft settled for an undisclosed sum

------
chris_wot
Can you sue to get your money back after a patent had been declared invalid?

------
thinkcomp
Uniloc may be a troll, but the issue of patent lawyers entirely--not just a
little bit--writing their experts' "opinions" for them is a real one. Only the
PTAB allows this; federal courts take a very different view.

~~~
doctorwho
I actually know Ric and some of the guys who worked at Uniloc. Back in the
day, they were doing real development work and R&D on activation and licensing
systems. The nature of the business may have changed after the Microsoft thing
happened, but there's a lot more to that story than ever makes it into the
headlines. All you hear now is the spin. Calling them trolls is sexier than
doing any kind of fact checking I guess. Microsoft (and others) helped create
the modern Uniloc by ripping off their IP, making it more profitable to
enforce their patent than to use it to their advantage or license it. As long
as the patent system exists in it's current flawed form, users have two
choices... license the patented IP they use or roll the dice. People who own
patents HAVE to enforce them or forfeit their rights, that's not really much
of a choice.

~~~
thinkcomp
I don't doubt that there's more to the story, and I'd be interested to hear
it. However, it's not true that patent owners lose their rights without
enforcement the way that trademark owners do. All you need to do as a patent
owner to maintain rights is pay the renewal fees.

~~~
prutschman
That's not quite true:

[http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.as...](http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=e6ca16c5-081f-4128-83d3-0699e2070381)

~~~
thinkcomp
The right to file a new claim at any time is what we're talking about, not the
right to pursue a particular old claim after an extended delay.

------
foota
Does this mean Microsoft can sue for their settlement back?

~~~
jcoffland
Not if they didn't own the patent at the time they were accused of abusing it.
Patent ownership does not work retroactively.

------
yuhong
List of patents used as prior art:

5,077,660

5,199,066

5,291,598

5,509,070

5,956,505

------
tehwalrus
It is heartening to see that US Software patents are starting to expire (the
patent in question here did so in 2014). So eventually we will be able to put
much of this nonsense behind us, even if the lawmakers don't wake up and smell
the coffee anytime soon.

------
throwaway_exer
Tesla is the best example. His patents plus VC became Westinghouse.

