
Obama Plans to Take Action Against Patent-Holding Firms - kuida0r3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324563004578524182593163220.html
======
hkmurakami
If the administration is able to concoct and pass a set of laws that can
actually systematically identify and lock down patent trolls but not companies
like ARM, it would be an amazing development. Yet this litigation dance is
clearly the trolls' domain of expertise. I'm afraid that any rules passed
would be adroitly evaded by the trolls and "evolved" shell companies that say,
take to putting on a camoflage guise like that of Intellectual Ventures (IV).

 _In addition, the president plans to ask Congress to pass legislation that
would allow sanctions on litigants who file lawsuits deemed abusive by courts,
officials said._

I wonder if "litigants" actually points to "people" rather than entities.

 _The president has taken a dim view of certain patent-holding firms. In
February, he said some firms "don't actually produce anything themselves.
They're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea to
see if they can extort some money out of them."_

As we all know, companies like ARM don't "make" anything. But they are a
legitimate operation by all means. But on the surface, IV might look like a
legitimate operation too, with their research staff and everything. And once
legislation passes, the now simple shell companies will surely take on a new
form that will be more difficult to discern from their legitimate
counterparts.

The fact that the administration wants to make this change is amazing. I love
it. Yet I have to be skeptical, not only for the aforementioned reasons but
also due to our political gridlock. I'm afraid that any legislation that
_does_ pass will be laden with intentional loopholes for the trolls to
exploit.

I am hopeful yet fearful.

~~~
jjuliano
I would like to know, why ARM is perceived as a patent troll?

And what about companies that sell IP's?

~~~
coob
ARM is not a patent troll and the GP post is not inferring that, in fact
precisely the opposite. ARM could not exist without IP protection.

------
AlisdairO
Patent trolls aren't the problem. We don't need patent-holding firms to be
restricted: there's nothing strictly wrong with them, _if the patents they're
holding are worthwhile_. All they do is create a wider market for intellectual
property. All restricting them does is stop one angle of oppression - large
companies will still be free to bully small ones as they wish.

The real problem is that currently it's profitable to have an idea, patent it,
and then sit on it until someone accidentally re-invents your idea. If an idea
is sufficiently obvious that there's a reasonably high likelihood of
reinvention (as opposed to copying), it should never have been patentable in
the first place.

If it makes sense for companies to tell employees _not_ to look at the
knowledge distributed by patents, you have too many obvious patents. Looking
at the information disseminated by patents should be a universal good: you
should be seeing ideas that you'd be unlikely to come up with yourself - that
will mostly only _add_ to your options for creating your product, not
subtract.

You don't need complicated, nuanced legislation to make this happen - you need
instead to do a hell of a lot of patent reevaluation.

~~~
tomelders
Perhaps every patent suit should trigger an automatic re-assesment of the
patent in question. Right now, it seems the biggest weapon in a patent trolls
arsenal is the über-general patent; patents so vague that they can literally
apply to anything in the past, present and future. Triggering a re-evaluation
of a patent every time it is used in litigation would, I think, serve as a
huge deterrent.

With regard to companies like ARM, who's patents are of a very high quality
and technically innovative and detailed, it would be hard for people to argue
that they don't deserve the patent. But people who have essentially patented
the internet without providing any worthwhile details would find it a lot more
difficult to retain their patent once other interested parties are given the
opportunity to call it out as bullshit.

I do think it is a little unfair to ask the patent offices to make the right
call every time with regard to patent filings, simply because of the sheer
volume they have to process. Giving them a second chance to evaluate a patent
with the input of experts in the field that a particular patent relates to
would be beneficial to everyone.

Going to an extreme: Maybe you could grant any and all patent filings
automatically, and only the patents used in patent suits are evaluated. So all
patents are worthless until tested. Or that might be a bad idea, I've not
given it much thought beyond this.

------
WildUtah
Here's a link that will actually get you around the paywall:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+Plans+to+Take+Action+A...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+Plans+to+Take+Action+Against+Patent-
Holding+Firms&oq=Obama+Plans+to+Take+Action+Against+Patent-Holding+Firms)

Just click on the top link to read it.

~~~
kuida0r3
Thanks. I'm usually signed in so I don't notice the paywall. The WSJ
experience for a nonsubscriber is highly aggravating...

------
eksith
Previously :

[http://gigaom.com/2013/02/16/obama-says-patent-trolls-
hijack...](http://gigaom.com/2013/02/16/obama-says-patent-trolls-hijack-and-
extort-so-do-something-mr-president/)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-patent-comments-at-
goo...](http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-patent-comments-at-google-
chat-2013-2)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/obama-calls-patent-
ref...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/obama-calls-patent-reform-
topple-trolls)

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2415469,00.asp>

And for folks who are getting upset at the those who don't like paywalls, I'm
quite happy to enable ads if your site has quality content.

If a paywall is how you get money, then keep your stories off Google. You
can't be Quora and The Well at the same time.

------
Aloha
To get around the paywall.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+Plans+to+Take+Action+A...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+Plans+to+Take+Action+Against+Patent-
Holding+Firms&oq=Obama+Plans+to+Take+Action+Against+Patent-Holding+Firms)

------
belorn
If the president has taken such a dim view of patent-holding firms, maybe he
should focus on the PTO first who is giving out incorrect patents left and
right. Only one in ten patents, or 12% to be exact[1], are given out in
compliance with patent law.

Imagine if a bank teller had a 88% error rate when giving out loans, thus
handing out large sums of money to people who can't repay it. No bank in
history would allow such personal to still be employed, or they would go out
of businesses thanks to competition in the market. The PTO do not have any
competition, so instead we are left dealing with the after effect with 9/10
patents being incorrectly issued for fully 20 years periods. Patent trolls and
patent-holding firms would likely not exist, or would at least have extremely
smaller effect on the market if PTO actually did their job correctly.

[1]In an effort to assert the quality of patent, one can look at the result
from reexaminations. Like with code, if it is not tested, its quality is
indeterminable. The PTO publish yearly a report for ex parte reexaminations,
and during the latest period of 2011/09/30 -> 2012/09/30, the reexamination
certificates only gave 12% of all examined patents a pass with all claims
intact. This is averaged across all technical fields, as PTO do not have
numbers for specific markets. I would guess that software patents will have
slightly higher number of faulty patents (~95% of incorrect patents?), but
statistics over the IT industry patents doesn't seem to exist.

~~~
DerekL
So 88% of reexamined patents are modified or invalidated. But how does this
lead to the conclusion that 88% of all patents would be modified or
invalidated if they were reexamined?

An ex parte reexamination requires a fee. People don't randomly choose patents
for reexamination, they only challenge the weakest ones.

~~~
belorn
> So 88% of reexamined patents are modified or invalidated. But how does this
> lead to the conclusion that 88% of all patents would be modified or
> invalidated if they were reexamined?

Untested patents is of undetermined quality similar to untested code. How do
we know that untested code has bugs if most people don't write tests randomly?
Well, because developer experience would argue that untested code is not a
haven of bugfree or high quality software. Rather, code is seen as non-working
until testing has proven otherwise. Why should we treat untested patents
differently?

> People don't randomly choose patents for reexamination, they only challenge
> the weakest ones.

Got a source for that? Normally, people spend money on reexamination when
other people try to extract money from licensing agreements. When companies
tries to extract money from licensing agreements, don't they tend to use their
strongest patents as the stick? In that sense, people don't randomly choose
patents for reexamination, they only challenge the strongest ones which is the
ones used in patent litigation and patent licensing agreements. But I don't
have a source for that, so I guess the argument goes to the person with a
source.

------
bane
One of the difficulties of fixing the problem is going to be that you can't
just pass a law that says _poof_ "you must be the company that makes a thing
in order to have a patent on a thing". There are many legitimate reasons for
patents to be tradeable assets. Take for example the basement tinkerer who
comes up with and patents a completely novel widget. They may not have the
resources to build, market and sell that widget. But a Samsung might want to
buy that patent for a couple million and make those widgets themselves.

Sure the basement tinkerer could license the patent to Samsung, even an
_exclusive_ perpetual license, which is almost as good as owning it, and might
be the preferred path forward (though there can be some problems with that too
as companies start to defensively buy exclusive perpetual licenses with no
intention of making those widgets just to keep others out of that market).

But at this point, any law requiring such licenses would have to be for those
going forward. Any retroactive law would require either handing back legally
purchased patents (which destroys wealth) or require the originator to buy
them back (which may be impossible in many cases if they've already spent the
money on retirement homes).

The core reason patents become so valuable is because they last so damn long.
If they didn't last until the next ice age it would take much of the value out
of ownership and make licensing naturally make more sense anyway. The way to
attack this is at the root and revert back the patent expiration to something
far more reasonable.

------
fleitz
"don't actually produce anything themselves. They're just trying to
essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea to see if they can extort
some money out of them."

Silly patent trolls, don't they know that is the job of the politician?

------
WalterBright
Just render software unpatentable from now on.

~~~
oleganza
And everything else for that matter.

~~~
dnautics
"except for pharmaceuticals" (according to Posner, and notch)

(I happen to disagree)

~~~
bryanlarsen
You're probably better off designing an alternative protection scheme for
pharmaceuticals.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason that pharmaceuticals really need
patent protection is that the huge regulatory costs are borne by the patent
holder; generics can free-ride. Fix this problem and a viable funding model
for pharmaceuticals can emerge, even without patent protection.

~~~
oleganza
I agree. But with an annoying wording correction: no one _needs_ violent
protection. People _claim the need_ to be protected from some other people's
actions via brutal means. I can also claim that I need some protection against
a smile on your face. If I'm powerful and crazy enough I can even get a law
passed "against cultural harassment" using which I may drag you to court and
maybe prison.

If a pharmaceutical guy cannot figure out how to make a profitable business
without violent protection, it's not mine or your problem. If we cannot figure
out how to make efficient drugs peacefully without inventing "patents" and
"licenses" (that basically allow bullying others), then it's our personal
problem.

------
CoachRufus87
I'll believe it when I see it.

------
protolif
16 minutes into Obama's "Fireside Hangout", the topic of patent reform is
introduced. Watch for yourself.

<http://bit.ly/obama-on-patents>

------
pasbesoin
For a start, there are some fairly "simple" things that can/could happen in IP
regulation. A reassessment of effective (versus stifling) term limits in
copyright. The elimination of most "evergreening" of patents under the rubrik
of "obviousness" (e.g. extended release where the extended release
method/mechanism is not truly novel). The investigation and prosecution of
business practices that seek to remove legitimate generics from the
marketplace -- monopoly regulation might be a ready avenue.

I put "simple" in quotes, because I've left the political factor out.

If we can't do the above, I have to wonder what any process involving
"political compromise" can or will achieve. My hopes are not too high.

------
aashaykumar92
_"Those are among five executive actions and seven proposed legislative
changes that Mr. Obama is expected to recommend"_

Until these actions and changes are stated, it is really tough to have a good
debate about the topic. The article is pretty general and can really be
condensed into a tweet, maybe even less. There has to be more substance behind
how they plan to determine the so-called trolls versus companies such as Arm.

------
tehwalrus
Go Obama! I'm glad someone with the reins of power has noticed that this
blackmail is going on and wants to fix it.

------
eoswald
[http://www.techpolitik.com/2013/06/04/patent-trolls-get-
thei...](http://www.techpolitik.com/2013/06/04/patent-trolls-get-their-
comeuppance/)

------
rantee
Paywall politics aside however one feels about them, would be great if HN mods
would just never put through a link to one... Waste of time for most of us.

------
HydrogenFakes
Put "say hello to cheaper hydrogen" and ask yourself why the media never
reported about the Los Alamos National National laboratory press release.

------
Fuxy
Lol... Locked by paywall. The news may be interesting but I'm not interested
in paying for a website i may not see ever again.

------
wedtm
Hey WSJ, go fuck yourself.

~~~
CoachRufus87
Writers have to feed their families somehow...

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
Yeah the early internet really spoiled us. We're so used to "Free" being the
default that anything else is instantly a disappointment. I'm kind of glad
we're moving away from that though, from content to music to services,
everything's being turned into a paid/stick-around model rather than a free-
for-3-years/go-bankrupt one. Look at how much money it's made for app creators
alone.

~~~
obstacle1
Yeah, we're not really moving away from that. And even if we were, it's hard
to see why you'd be glad, unless you hate freedom.

Almost none of the money that online distributors pull in (music, video,
content vendors) makes it back to the actual content producers. So I can't say
I'm sad to see this particular iteration of the industry crashing and burning.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
Thank you for opening my eyes. I just realized I hated freedom all this time.
At first I though maybe I liked people getting paid for the things they made.
I guess the millions of people selling their music/art/movies/games/scripts on
codecanyon/steam/kickstarter/amazonmp3/bandcamp/gumroad are not getting paid
at all. They're all being tricked. What suckers... Everyone should just live
like you, a collage student without a job or bills yet who values the "free"
in freedom and the ability to share and consume whatever you want without
those evil corporate snobby rich people getting tons of free money.

~~~
obstacle1
>Everyone should just live like you, a collage student without a job or bills

You're awfully presumptuous for someone who can't spell "college" correctly.

The problem is there is still a giant gap between what makers and sellers
earn. It is no longer the case that distribution costs are prohibitive, makers
no longer need massive upfront investment to sell things. So why is it
acceptable to you for such exploitation to continue?

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
Dude it's 2013, Gumroad & Kickstarter only take 5%, Steam and others take 30%,
Amazon and ebay take 11% to 25%. Online distributers are not record labels.

Your argument that _"Almost none of the money that online distributors pull in
(music, video, content vendors) makes it back to the actual content
producers."_ is complete nonsense. It's no excuse to want everything for free
or hate paid content. You really are a young entitled college student that
wants everything for free. We all were. I was. Money was tight and went
towards noodles and living expenses and we pirated everything because we
couldn't afford it. Life changed, we grew up, graduated, got jobs, appreciate
an income and now pay for things. One day when you bust your ass making
something you'll appreciate someone paying you for it.

~~~
obstacle1
You have no idea who I am, what I do, or my economic situation.

And further, even if I were a broke college kid that wouldn't itself
invalidate my actual argument. It's a fallacy to discredit a point because of
the social status of the point-maker.

Reading through your blog, I understand why you're so invested in the
irrational position you hold.

Good luck with turning things around.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
After seeing that I've hit a soft spot with you, that you refuse to listen to
common sense, that you assume distribution platforms operate like record
companies in the 90s. I'm going to take the high road and apologize. I'm sorry
if I made fun of your economic situation and I hope you find peace in whatever
you are going through. The truth is, I am on the side of the reptilian
shapeshifters and I really do hate freedom. We've been trying to destroy it
for several decades. We've tried everything from wars to assassinations but in
the end, the answer was right underneath our scaly noses. The paywalls.

