Feeds

back to article Predatory IP threatening the progress of open innovation

The predatory use of intellectual property by companies and individuals is causing a serious impediment to the process of open innovation that is driving the latest changes in technology. Henry Chesbrough, executive director of open innovation at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, said that the patents were originally …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
g e
Silver badge
Holmes

Surely all you need

Is documentary proof that the patent owner is actively taking steps to implement the designs outlined which could reasonably easily be established, you'd think.

If not then until such time as they can show they ARE implementing their own IP then they don't get to defend it.

Real patent holders (note, not 'real patents' as in proper non-obvious and manly inventorising, snigger) like Apple, Google, IBM, Samsung, General Motors, etc are obviously using their portfolio but the Trolls are another matter and only exist to bend over 'legitimate' businesses for their lunch money. The law currently allows it, yes, but that doesn't mean that it should.

2
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Surely all you need

The problem with that approach is that it also impacts genuine innovators who, for certain reasons (cost, limitations of current tech, etc) cannot, yet, implement their own innovation.

Given that the real problem is patent trolls buying up IP with the intention to use that IP solely for the purposes of extortion, then the "must implement" doctrine should really only apply to 2nd hand patents.

Something like:-

If you buy a patent you must demonstrate real and consistent progress towards implementing that patent in order to defend it

Patent trolls are, first and foremost, scum of the first order. Their business is legalised extortion and should be outlawed as a priority in order to remove this huger barrier to genuine innovation.

2
0
WTF?

Re: Surely all you need

Is documentary proof that the patent owner is actively taking steps to implement the designs outlined which could reasonably easily be established, you'd think.

Or perhaps then, a return to the original concept of patents, you had to actually present your working invention/innovation to have it patented?

The problem with that approach is that it also impacts genuine innovators who, for certain reasons (cost, limitations of current tech, etc) cannot, yet, implement their own innovation.

And the problem with calling anyone with an active imagination a "genuine innovator" is that it's simply protecting the "I thought of it first" mentality. Rather than protecting the person who also thinks of it (completely independently), but then puts time and money into actually building it.

Either you agree that someone can think ideas all day, invent nothing and profit from those who do, or you agree that those who invent get first shot at exploiting their invention.

If you genuinely have a great new idea, keep your mouth shut until you can afford to build it. Unless there are people who exist who can mind-read, if someone else comes up with the same idea independently and then puts the hard work in to create it - they deserve the credit that comes.

Of course then if so many people can come up with the same idea we step into 'non-obvious' territory, so perhaps what is needed is a separate class of patents called "idea-patents" or something like that - where people can register an idea with a central office.

Then if someone later innovates on an existing tech, the number of separate idea-patents that it crosses with are counted, if it is above a certain threshold (many people had the same 'idea') then it gets dismissed as too obvious.

0
0
Silver badge
Trollface

"The predatory use of intellectual property by companies and individuals is causing a serious impediment to life as we know it" -- There, fixed that for you!

1
0
Bronze badge
Megaphone

It's the wrong kind of patent

If there is space for patents in the world of software I think it needs to be way smaller - a soft patent might last 18 months unexploited up to three ( or perhaps five ) years exploited. That way the potential for trolling is greatly reduced but it is possible to protect your IP for long enough to get your startup working if you are genuinely doing something with it. If this was applied retrospectively to existing software patents it would make everyones lives a lot less hassley and open the door to all kinds of exciting new endeavours.

1
0
Devil

I blame

the bloody americans. The whole problem started with them, it should end with them (getting blown out of existence would be nice but I'll make do with them sorting their own mess out). Christ, the "famous" americans all stole their stuff anyhow.

Just for kicks and giggles look up why the movie industry went to hollywood...

1
0
Silver badge

Patent and copyright abuse

Both exist to give the inventor/author a _limited_ time to profit from the work/invention.

Patent and copyright law have both been abolished and then recrafted in the UK as a result of widespread and systematic abuse (although one does have to go back a few hundred years). I suspect that before the end of this century there will be another great clensing.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.