

Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls - MilkoFTW
http://www.tuaw.com/2013/06/04/obama-to-propose-plan-targeting-patent-trolls/

======
TallGuyShort
I like this - it sounds like it's just adding transparency to get rid of the
legal mind-games and intimidation. I had feared was that the plan was to
effectively stop honoring patents under certain conditions. Although that
would certainly be great in this specific situation, it presents a scary idea
that rights or property* can be nullified after you've paid for it.

More transparency and openness is good - not only in this case, but in almost
all others.

* And yes I know the meaning of the term "property" in IP is frequently debated on HN.

~~~
JamesArgo
IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy
you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-
granted IP rights.

~~~
TallGuyShort
As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP
doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for
yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and
energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the
government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point.
I'm still thinking through this myself so healthy debate is welcomed :)
Libertarians generally believe the government should exist enough to protect
individual rights. They're okay with the government getting involved to stop
one person from destroying another person's life or property. Although I'm all
for innovation, I think there's a certain amount of lameness when people
immediately steal another person's ideas just to compete directly against
them. In such cases, I think a certain amount of IP is inherent and the
government merely protects rights that already exist. I certainly agree with
you that once patents can be sold multiple times and non-practicing entities
can sue, this idea goes right out the window and I would completely agree with
you. Even when I think it's just lame to take another's original idea and use
it against them, I admit that lame != illegal, which is why I think it's a
hard line to draw, and I'm not entirely convinced of my own opinion here - I'm
just saying I think the increased transparency would be a definite
improvement.

~~~
JamesArgo
Why 20 years? That's entirely arbitrary. Regarding your point about commerce,
and the 'lameness' of an arbitrary class of competition, libertarians should
encourage economic competition. Why does it suddenly become "lame" when a
competitor "steals" someone's idea? Implementation is just as important as
imagination. If another guy can beat you to the market even after you have the
innovator's head start, you deserve to lose.

~~~
showerst
I think it's because in the modern (say, post 1900) world, many inventions
that increase utility (both for individuals and for everyone as a whole) cost
a ton of money to research.

If your competition can instantly use that research, you may not recoup your
costs, and thus have no incentive to do it in the first place. Drug patents
are a clear example of this (although you might argue that altruism can also
be a motive for researching drugs, in which case think jet engines or
something).

Both individual and global welfare are improved if the drug is researched, but
it won't happen without a government incentive; a drug has to be sold well
above it's cost to produce + a small margin to recoup research costs, but it's
possible for the competition to copy a drug once it's out and sell it for
costs + a small margin and make a big profit.

20 years is arbitrary. In theory it's the number that the people come to as
the best balance of allowing costs to be recouped without unduly hurting
global utility due to monopoly, in reality it's a consequence of where
lobbying takes us.

~~~
JamesArgo
In general, I think patents slow innovation. My intuition is trade secrets
would work well enough for most industries. It usually takes a significant
amount of time to reverse engineer a product, and in doing so one might gain
new insights into how said product can be improved. Drugs are an exception, I
admit, but I don't think most of the innovation in medicine this century will
be in easily-synthesized drugs as we understand them.

~~~
showerst
I think I agree with you, but I'm not so sure on the difficulties of reverse
engineering.

Small electronics are a good example to both our points; once a new device
hits a factory in china it's as good as pirated (sometimes it's pirated in the
same factory after hours!), but that hasn't terribly hurt the companies
cranking out cheap USB drives, and companies like Apple have just moved way
the up value chain.

I do think they have significant use for things like engines and heavy
equipment, where (everything but the metallurgy) is reversible, but they take
$BN investments.

Software patents (and really all 'business method') patents are total trash,
if only because the USPTO can't possibly keep up with the pace, so people get
patents for linked lists (in the 90s!) and shopping carts and such.

------
proland
Anyone else find it ironic that the article opens with Apple being the victim
of a broken patent system, when they have a long history of using the same
broken system to their own ends?

~~~
marshray
Thus the problem with framing the discussion around patent "trolls" rather
than patents themselves.

------
ywang0414
My vote, get rid of utility and design patents. Those are usually used for
trolling and killing innovation.

~~~
sporkologist
Having seen quite a few design patents, and copyrighted designs, I'm not even
sure where the line is between the two. Utility patents are the traditional
patents in question (software and functional objects). I don't think you can
get a design patent for software.

I'm all for utility patents, if the patent examining system is changed to get
more help or advice from experts in the field, to more quickly find previous
pertinent patents that could expedite invalidation of infringing applications,
or decide if it's too broad.

------
eldr
I'm no expert on the US IP system, but it seems to me like a big part of the
problem is that the USPTO grants patents for ideas which are both obvious and
not novel. Some more ridiculous examples are the patents on making toast and
the server patent mentioned in "When Patents Attack" where over 5000 patents
for "the same thing" were in existence when that one was filed. Even then the
patent was invalidated on the basis that the filer failed to mention his co-
inventors rather than on the basis of prior art. I'm confused as to how those
could ever get through the approval process in the first place, am I missing
some finer points here?

~~~
darkarmani
The Carmack Reverse is an easy example software developers can understand.
Paraphrased: "How can something that can be solved by a week of work by a
professional in the field be something that can be patented?" Sure it's novel,
but it only took an expert a week to re-invent by following a causal chain of
reasoning about the problem.

~~~
sporkologist
This of course violates the purpose of patenting in the first place, to create
and market something not obvious to those currently working in the field. The
fact that the patent system is that broken is pretty chilling.

------
rexreed
Is it possible that the 2-part series by This American Life ("When Patents
Attack") had a tangible effect here?

~~~
crisnoble
Not sure if it is what is prompting the Obama admin to issue the executive
order, but it is worth a listen to anyone even remotely interested in the
topic.

------
ColinWright
Also being discussed here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5820657>

Split discussion, both on the front page.

------
BigBalli
as usual, a lot of talking, proposing good stuff but 1% gets done.

~~~
d23
When he does stuff, it's not enough (Obamacare) and it's too much (Obamacare);
when he gets blocked, it's his fault it wasn't closed (Guantanamo) and he's
threatening our freedom by trying to close it (Guantanamo); when he withdraws
from wars he's cutting and running from our enemies (Iraq and Afghanistan) and
he's a warmonger who isn't withdrawing fast enough (Iraq and Afghanistan).

~~~
ramidarigaz
To be fair, it's not the same people on both sides of each of your examples. I
suspect every politician ever will be subject to completely opposing criticism
from both sides.

