You may also be able to strike a deal with the patent trolls. We were able to take them down to 40k from 100k. That was still ridiculous for us but if you're paying a lawyer or paying the troll it's all the same to a business working on thin margins. We heard stories that they would accept as little as 10k.
For what it's worth the patent troll that targeted us is no longer operating under their original name. They were taken down by the EFF representing a vape company if I remember right.
and this is why patent trolls exist
In a single brush he dismisses those small business horror stories as “fairy tails”. Not to get to political, but the with the current us political environment it’s not entirely surprising.
Also using last century examples ( IBM and 3com ) is a little strange.
Maybe we don't discuss the proximate cause of the problem for some strategic reason, I don't know. But when we don't, we spiral into unproductive discussions about the innate morality of all patents. Maybe that's good but isn't going to solve anything in the foreseeable future.
And for the record, my biggest worry too is a fatal patent shakedown for my unlaunched startup. Actually I'm surprised the trolls haven't started selling "insurance" given the climate of fear they've created.
Maybe some of those attorneys are major Trump supporters.
Or maybe it's just generic hate for plaintiffs' firms. Which primarily support Democrats.
So why, then, is a Trump appointee playing to patent trolls in the audience in East Texas?
It's not like America just went bad suddenly when trump got elected. We've had issues like this for a very long time. It's just easier to see the corruption now when the guy in charge isn't pretending to be nice like all the other ones.
Upon reflection, it's more that Andrei Iancu is being quoted out of context. The featured quote is:
> "Remarkably, in what I believe amounts to Orwellian ‘doublespeak,’ those who’ve been advancing the patent troll narrative argue that they do so because they are actually pro-innovation. That by their highlighting, relentlessly, the dangers in the patent system, they actually encourage innovation. Right!"
It doesn't make any difference to them if they allow or reject patents. The more rounds of prosecution it takes means more counts for the examiner. Each round after the first requires additional fees from the applicant.
If it were differently administered would you be fine with it?
If the UKIPO is granting invalid patents the checks are that anyone can petition the comptroller to check the validity of a patent, anyone can submit prior art for the examiner's consideration. Then, a patent that's invalid should be useless in court and just accrue the holder their own, and the defendants costs.
In practice companies go for invalid patents because they can lawyer their way out, but that's the court system that's broken then.
TBH that doesn't sound like an awful bad idea.
(1) Informal norms among the fishermen as to how much fishing you should do. This system is not resilient to immigrants, who don't know the local norms (and may, not unreasonably, feel that the local norms already allot all of the fish to established fishermen), so fishing communities are often fiercely resistant to newcomers.
(2) Legal limits on how much fish you can catch. The idea is that an authority will determine the total quantity of fish to be harvested, and then allot rights to harvest smaller quantities than that piecemeal. Under this system, taking fish without an appropriate license is a crime.
You could move to a system more like our agricultural subsidies (paying people for the pigs they didn't raise), by giving money to anyone who owns a fishing trawler but didn't bring in any fish. But that seems obviously insane compared to the permitting system.
"Informal" cultural norms operate as laws on a small scale, maybe a pre-industrial community and a lake (or grazing commons, like various feudal Europe examples). Any scale that implies depleting oceanic fish is a way to big for this. I would be surprised if any modern era conventions applied to ocean fishing for migrants to have any influence at all.
Cultural norms generally operate on a small group of people. In the modern day, it doesn't take very many people to catch a ridiculous number of fish. So depleting ocean fish is better handled by cultural norms now than it was 500 years ago, when catching a lot of fish meant fielding a lot of boats.
That greatly depends on the type of fish and is not generally true. Many species of fish spend different parts of their lives at different locations. Tuna, salmon and many other pelagic fish travel pretty big distances.
The US government already does something similar for corn. Farmers are paid to not plant it to control market price.
Of course there are complexities to both the approvals and rejections (office actions), which have to be justified and potential reviews by other examiners. So it may be broken, but not the way you imply.
They encourage patent owners to abandon patents earlier than their maximum term (20 years after filing) if they don't want them any more.
2- Isn’t having to pay troll deterrent?
3- How would you fix it?
Assuming you're right, how would you fix the incentives?
That's a common story told to justify them, but US patents are meant to do what the US Constitution says about them: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Many people who do small startups think patents are a net negative for small startups.
Patents are business assets that can be very important for valuation during exits or funding rounds.
In most cases, due diligence auditors are going to want to see a company's patent portfolio. A bad or weak portfolio may not tank the deal, but it certainly impacts valuation.
I have seen this first hand, if BigCo is choosing between two or more companies to acquire, they are more likely to select the one with the stronger patent portfolio.
edit-to-add: trademarks are very important too -- and often overlooked by startups until it is too late. Trademark trolls are real too.
Source: filed a lot of patents and trademarks in my small startups, they were useful at exit, still hate patents with a passion.
Please prove me wrong that they aren't effective and are a myth.
Processes of how to do things often come down to engineering and math; if given the same goal a solution is likely to be similar at it's core as for any given problem there is probably an ideal bound and variations of effort will produce similar results or results optimized slightly to different circumstances.
(Yes, this is copied from a different post I made last night with respect to all sorts of intellectual property issues.)
Aha! Now we know why it was extra-important to pluck #10,000,000 out of normal order.
What I’d love to see would be the democrat party to refocus their policies to shift towards small business against large corporations. Re-invent the American Dream. This could tie in well with the green new deal. Rather than talk about jobs, talk about the tens of thousands of small businesses.
"Conservatives" complaining about "stereotyping" somehow seem more pathetic than liberals doing the same. Don't assume anyone cares about your feelings. Weren't you broadly opining about "sticks and stones" in the immediately preceding post?
Saying that somebody is "a rude boy" doesn't make "rude" a slur.
Pretty sure it does!
If you're compiling a list of slurs, do "rude" and "Democrat" come to mind first? Or is it words that you might put asterisks in?
I guess not. Use whatever words you like, just be aware of what they’ll convey.
Feel free to use "Democrat party" when your intention is to be insulting. When you aren't trying to be insulting, that phrase is poor communication.
And yes, it sees a lot of use. A testament to the effectiveness of the Republican propaganda machine.
That's not how it works. Unless all Americans are responsible for an American barn catching fire because the American owner tossed an American cigarette butt inside.
No, politics get ruined by politicians. And politicians are put there by some of the people. Not all of the people. I know you'd like to lessen the burden on your shoulders and try to spread the blame also towards the people who voted against them. But if you voted for the current crop of politicians ruling your country you (and all others casting the same vote) are directly responsible for the state it's in.
Being ashamed of that and diverting the blame just implies you accept you voted for the wrong people.
And you have to admit that the heavy-handed way the current administration had been conducting its business is a new low. Or at least a local minimum.
Fix that and 3rd parties would bloom.
Any wishing for 3rd party+ saving the people without a change to the rules is fantasy.
That problem becomes particularly acute as the US switches more to producing IP. The EFF’s myopia is to fail to realize that a balance needs to be struck. A world where you can release a chip or a drug or a jet engine and have a Chinese company immediately copy it and sell a competitor at a fraction of the price with no consequences is one that’s not good for Silicon Valley in the long run. Our competitors overseas can recreate YouTube much more easily than they can recreate Hollywood. India still hasn’t been able to create a jet engine domestically, even though HUL has been able to design and manufacture most of the rest of a jet fighter.
I have no problem living in a world where the government is unable to exact violence against people for copying data.
This seems to me to be an entirely artificial crime whose existence has been important for humanity so far, but which is now a human rights affront.
Let's say a U.S. company spends a billion dollars creating a chip design. You think that it should not be illegal for other companies to steal said chip design and manufacture it because it is just "copying data?" So the company that invested to design has to compete with a company that stole it, and therefore can price it lower because they don't have to recoup that investment?
Just because something can be copied more easily now than when it required a bunch of photocopying doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) a crime.
I can understand (though I disagree with) the pragmatic arguments you could make for copyright and patents for incentivizing creation. I cannot understand your insistence on pretending that copying information is actually stealing. You can't even plead technical legal truth, as they are absolutely not conflated legally. But when push comes to shove, this argument seems to reach for some 'moral' truth that one 'deserves' to be compensated for one's labor proportionately to one's investment, which is ultimately applied no where else in our society, since it's just the labor theory of value in a funny wig.
Let's say a mother spends tens of thousands and countless hours raising a child who never calls or supports her in her old age. Is this illegal? Our society depends much more crucially on the free labor of mothers and fathers than on the R&D of any chip company, even in purely economic terms. Pragmatically, one could say that people just don't seem to need as many guarantees/incentives to have kids as they do to innovate, so it's more important to have state incentives for the latter, and a temporary monopoly on usage is a sufficiently time-tested incentive. I can sort-of understand that argument. What I can't do, is somehow pretend that anyone should care more about the efforts of innovation going unrewarded than of any of the other crucial efforts essential to our society, for which no one is ever guaranteed a dime.
the primary reason is that it is not remotely comparable to the theft of trade secrets in my example. If the gardener put their garden in a greenhouse and put a padlock on the door, then the scenario would be more comparable, but then it wouldn't make a lot of sense to say it should "obviously" be legal for someone to break in and take a sniff, because it's just a sniff, right?
Your parent/child analogy is poor because you are just describing an investment that doesn't pay off for any number of reasons, not that somebody stole the value from you. Perhaps more comparable would be if a parent raised a child until adulthood, at which point someone stole the young adult, brainwashed them to think they were the parents, and the child visited the fake parents in their old age.
That sounds far fetched, but it is far more comparable to the scenario I introduced of someone stealing a company's intellectual property and profiting off of it.
Things are different now with respect to IP than they were when Tesla was filing patents. Don't you think?
But for Silicon Valley and US, it's debatable whether trying to maintain continued dominance through stronger IP is a good bet. China and elsewhere are switching to producing more IP faster, even if starting far behind. It's not a simple or binary choice, but consider whether over the next decades it will be more advantageous to make it easier for US firms to copy Chinese firms, or to make it harder for Chinese firms to copy US firms? I'm in favor of whatever lessens potential for non-digital catastrophic conflict.
Patents are business regulation. There is a civil liberties element to business regulation, but it’s well accepted that civil liberties concerns are attenuated when you’re talking about business conduct.
There are lots of regulations that hurt small businesses and have a civil liberties angle, such as overly burdensome occupational licensing. But you don’t see ACLU spending a lot of effort on those as a top priority. EFF spends time on patent far disproportionate to the civil liberties impact.
As to your second point. Copying is bad and destroys innovation. Look at what’s happened to PCs. The vast majority of PC makers, Lenovo, Asus, etc., produce no innovation. They release fungible machines at cut rate margins that leave no room for R&D. The only companies innovating are companies like Apple, who have huge IP moats. Copyright protecting iOS and MacOS. Patents protecting things like MacBook touch pads. Trademark protecting the brand. Trade secrets protecting their vertically integrated manufacturing process.
I haven't followed closely, but on why ACLU might spend less time on business regulations that have a civil liberties angle than they might: they don't ignore completely, but they likely have mixed opinions on extent to which such regulation protects workers or consumers, and being relatively liberal, are skeptical of deregulation. So market libertarian civil liberties entities like IJ are the ones dedicating lots of their time to business regulation with a civil liberties angle...and as far as I know ignore IP altogether, perhaps because to them all property is sacrosanct.
On "copying is bad and destroys innovation", I'd really love to read your take on the ideal set of innovation policies stemming from this assertion!
Personally, I feel like if we want to foster research and innovation, subsidizing them directly is easier than creating eminently abusable rights and monopolies.