
Patents Are Eating the World and Hurting Innovation - hype7
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/patents-are-eating-the-world-and-hurting-innovation/
======
josaka
The chart in the article, showing patent suits filed as a function of time, is
a little misleading. It appears to hockey stick in 2011 (after a long upward
trend). It's worth noting that in 2011, the rules on how many defendants you
can group in a suit changed, causing what used to be a single suit to spawn
multiple separate suits, even though the number of companies affected didn't
necessarily change. I think a better chart would lists defendants as a
function of time.

~~~
ximeng
What is the best way to get data on who is litigating, who is being sued, and
over what patent? For only 5000 lawsuits it would be relatively easy to
understand the scope of the problem.

~~~
WildUtah
It would be nice to just read in the court filings, which are a public record,
and produce data extracts to explain the world. Unfortunately the PACER system
-- officially a public agency -- charges you by the page for those public
documents.

Once you've got them, they're free for you to share, but sharing projects
threaten the revenues of the system and the publishers (Westlaw and Lexis)
that prosper from the lack of public access to public data. Those publishers
and PACER have worked hard to block and shut down and even bring unrelated
federal prosecutions against people who organize free systems.

One of the reasons Aaron Swartz was a major target of federal prosecutors even
though his nominal accusers didn't want charges brought is that he was active
in promoting free access to federal court documents. [0]

Companies like Lex Machina [1] work with the officially supported publishers
to offer analysis of patent lawsuit filings and patent office documents (also
officially but not really public) to answer questions like yours for very
wealthy clients.

[0] [http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/8/3968824/aaron-swartzs-
battl...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/8/3968824/aaron-swartzs-battle-to-
free-the-pacer-legal-document-database)

[1] [https://lexmachina.com/](https://lexmachina.com/)

------
pjc50
Since the thread is full of insane suggestions for reform, I'll make some
sensible ones:

1) non-physical implementations or items already covered by copyright should
not be patentable. Pure software and media carrying it should be treated as
speech and creative works; it should not be possible to infringe a patent
simply by writing _or running_ software.

2) re-introduce the requirement to deposit an example of what's being
patented. A set of photos plus manufacturing drawings in usual electronic form
should be acceptable as a substitute to avoid a storage problem for the patent
office. (Want to patent a chip? Send Verilog or GDSII along with your
application)

3) following from that, if there is a software component in the claims then
the source must be provided in the patent application.

------
niels_olson
What has a better return on investment? A Comp Sci BS or a JD? I'm betting the
Comp Sci has a higher mean, median, and max.

~~~
jonnathanson
Should be pretty easy to find aggregate stats on both.

Law follows a bimodal distribution, though, so you'd need to factor that into
account. Basically, there are two types of law degrees, and two types of
lawyers: those from top-N schools, and everyone else. Those who land
prestigious clerkships, and go on to practice things like securities or
corporate M&A at top BigLaw firms, and those who don't.

When we speak of a "JD," we can't really speak of it as a homogeneous class.
You could argue that this effect could be found with any degree, for instance,
that a CS degree from Stanford leads to much better outcomes than a CS degree
from a mid-tier university. But the effects of school, class rank, career
track, and prestige in the legal profession are near-total, and the divide in
outcomes is quite dramatic.

------
fancyfancy
I agree that patents are making innovation difficulat. This company seems to
be changing that, and may help solve the problem. I thought it was
interesting, at least! Bideas:
[http://bit.ly/bideas_com](http://bit.ly/bideas_com)

------
obsurveyor
The only fix patents really need is a decrease in time. Make it 2 or 3 years
instead of 20(retroactive, no grandfather clause) and dump
software/DNA/genetic patents. Go back to patents being actual inventions
instead of ideas and processes.

~~~
jrkelly
If you drop DNA patents would you recommend it be covered by copyright? Tough
if there is bothing preventing direct copying.

------
jayvanguard
Have there been any proposals aimed at reducing the transferability of
patents? Perhaps the lifetime of the patent could halve each time it is
transferred to a new legal entity along with some reduction in possible
damages.

------
mellisarob
true but initiates need to be taken by the legislative if they wish to
overcome these patents.

------
jgilliam
I read the headline as "Parents are eating the world and hurting innovation."

~~~
Alupis
I couldn't agree more with the article. The US Patent system is broken and
needs revisions to meet today's marketplace.

Patents are awarded to non-practicing entities and people who can't act on nor
implement the very patent they were awarded.

Idea's should not be patentable. If you can think of something, so can I.
_Especially_ when it comes to software, since software is nothing but an idea
written down.

Idea's that oneself cannot implement and/or act on, should not be patentable.
To be awarded a patent, you should, at the very least, be required to provide
a working POC. I'm tired of companies being awarded absurd "future thinking"
patents that have vague wording along the lines of "something will happen when
the user does something, etc".

Patent Trolls (aka Non-Practicing Entities) should not be able to hold patents
if they are not using and/or implementing them. How can you collect money on
an idea for years/decades but not have the capacity yourself to perform the
service/make the product the companies you are suing are doing?

The US needs drastic patent reform. It is stiffling innovation.

------
dougabug
The expression "X is eating the world" is eating the world.

~~~
kaonashi
I can't believe X ate the whole thing.

~~~
recursive
No, it's still eating.

------
shiven
Here is a hypothetical solution:

(0). Make patent issue fee ridiculously expensive (100k+ ?).

(1). Increase the salaries of every patent examiner to ridiculously high
levels, supported by the extremely high fee.

(2). Make every patent examiner personally liable for approving a patent, to
the extent of a lien on their personal assets. No bankruptcy allowed (as for
student loans).

(3). If any patent is later proved to be carelessly approved, infringing on
prior art or broader than it deserved to be, the patent examiner should be
held liable and pay damages for every patent they approved that was struck
down.

That might help cut down the indiscriminate issuance of patents that should
never have been allowed in the first place.

~~~
pjc50
_(2) Make every patent examiner personally liable for approving a patent, to
the extent of a lien on their personal assets. No bankruptcy allowed (as for
student loans)._

This is never going to happen and would be an abusive illegal employment
practice if it did.

~~~
keithpeter
You could make the agents self-employed on a bounty basis rather like the old
Lloyd's Names

[http://moneyweek.com/how-to-become-a-lloyds-
name-42723/](http://moneyweek.com/how-to-become-a-lloyds-name-42723/)

However, the inevitable Black Swann event caused changes even in that very
high risk system...

 _" Historically, Names had unlimited liability to the risks they were
underwriting. In the late 1980s/early 1990s, Lloyd’s entered the most
traumatic time in its history. Unexpectedly large legal awards in US courts on
asbestos, pollution and health hazard policies (APH) served up huge losses to
many Names, a large number of whom lost their shirts. Names’ numbers dropped
from over 30,000 to below 10,000."_

I think just giving patent examiners enough time and resources to actually
verify the claims would probably cut down a lot of the problem. That and a
specialised court like

[http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-
building/patents-...](http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-
building/patents-court)

instead of a general purpose district court sitting with a lay jury

