
Patent reform advocates are launching a ‘super-coalition’ to whack patent trolls - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/01/15/patent-reform-advocates-are-launching-a-super-coalition-to-whack-patent-trolls/
======
PythonicAlpha
The question is: Will it (only) hit the real problem makers?

For me, patent trolls are only a symptom and not the real problem. Patent
trolls are a symptom of an overstretched patent system, where everybody (with
enough money) can patent anything (also stupid and trivial stuff).

Where 50 years ago, one patent was made, 10 or 100 patents are made to secure
any detail of the "invention". And many, many patents are made, that would
have not have the smallest chance of been patented.

Remember: The patent application for the Z3 (one of the first computers) was
denied. [1]

The problem is: How to distinguish small inventors (for which the patent
system in former days should give security) which do not have the capital to
produce their invention from so called "patent trolls". My fear is, that the
legislation will fail to make a good enough distinction.

For big corporations it is a good thing to redirect the public agenda from the
patent system to the smaller topic of "patent trolls". Big corporations that
make many thousands patents a year, are also a part of the problem and not
"patent trolls" alone.

[1]
[http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5...](http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5edb66b4db4818001eb36agermany_zuse.pdf)
See Abstract

~~~
BurningFrog
The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and
always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year.

Fun thought experiment:

What if the patent office was only allowed to issue a certain number of
patents per year, and was directed to pick the most worthy ones.

~~~
Animats
_The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and
always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year._

That hasn't been true for several years, and the PTO has been very tough on
software patents since the Supreme Court decided _Alice v. CLS_. The PTO is
currently rejecting applications that fail the "machine or transformation of
matter" test, although sometimes they can be argued out of a rejection. The
_Alice_ decision is rather unclear, which annoys everybody.

The "patent troll" problem isn't that big. The EFF's data indicate that almost
all the bulk infringement claims come from three lawyers in the Eastern
District of Texas.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
Of course, every development also has its counter-development -- specially
when a big court gives new guidelines. Everybody (the examiners, people who
think about the system and judges) can see, that the system is overstretched.
So a reaction was very much necessary.

But there are strong forces, that are pulling the system into the wrong
direction. Big corporations, patent lawyers and investors want the
overstretched system, because it is good for their profit.

It is good for dinosaur corporations that want to defend their "claim" against
smaller and more agile competitors.

------
TheMagicHorsey
Watch, the trial lawyers association and the trolls will bring out the big
bucks too. Harry Reid killed the last patent reform bill based on a call from
the trial lawyers association. The GOP has no love for the lawyers so we may
see some progress now.

So the largely liberal Silicon Valley may actually see some tangible economic
benefits from the GOP controlling Congress.

~~~
throwawaykf05
There is also the possibility that judicial decisions (such as Alice) have
created enough change that reform is less necessary. See this interview or
Mark Lemley, a scholar who is often seen as a critic of the patent system:
[http://www.iam-
magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=28572386-7cf9...](http://www.iam-
magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=28572386-7cf9-4003-8513-12f3edb914a0)

Whether judicial activity as opposed to congress should set the de facto
policy is a good idea or not, I cannot say.

------
btilly
One of the challenges of patent reform is that there is a huge advocate of
strong patent systems in pharma, and they are good at lobbying.

They care because patent protection is how they recoup the costs of FDA trials
(which are north of $100 million per drug). Reforming patent law would become
easier if they were given what they need in the form of an alternate form of
temporary monopoly for having paid for the FDA trials.

~~~
aggie
A pragmatic approach would be to simply leave pharma alone, at least
initially, as they actually need strong incentive for R&D.

~~~
chongli
Or to socialize drug discovery using a competitive scheme akin to the XPrize
with the reward being a free ticket through clinical trials and safety
development (among other things).

------
layman
It's not just patent trolls (shell firms with no products of their own) that
are the plague on this world. There are also the extortionists (IBM, I'm
looking at you), and the litigants (Apple - threatening to kill VP8 by using
MPEG-LA)!

