News U.S. Patent Office Rules in Intel's Favor for $2.18 Billion VLSI Patents Case

[Admin]

U.S. PTO nullifies VLSI's 7,523,373 and 7,725,759 patents.

U.S. Patent Office Rules in Intel's Favor for $2.18 Billion VLSI Patents Case : Read more

 

[InvalidError]

If the USPTO had people actually competent in the fields they are responsible for approving patents in, I bet 90+% of patents that are on records today would have been rejected for being too obvious.

 

[DougMcC]

If the USPTO had people actually competent in the fields they are responsible for approving patents in, I bet 90+% of patents that are on records today would have been rejected for being too obvious.

Honestly I have yet to see a patent that didn't seem obvious. Probably the whole system needs to be thrown out. Human creativity is just too great for such a first-mover system.

 

[gg83]

Down with patent trolls!

 

[gg83]

Honestly I have yet to see a patent that didn't seem obvious. Probably the whole system needs to be thrown out. Human creativity is just too great for such a first-mover system.

Only an AI overlord could keep up with the complexities of human civilization. As long as it programs itself in our favor. We are to the point where AI is advancing research. Almost to the point where only an advanced computer can design a more advanced computer.

 

[Megangel1]

<cynicism>
And the winners are ......

the lawyers

the rest of us lose no matter which side wins as we end up paying for the lawyers though higher prices.

</cynicism>

 

[bit_user]

<cynicism>
And the winners are ......

the lawyers

the rest of us lose no matter which side wins as we end up paying for the lawyers though higher prices.
</cynicism>

Well, not really. First, patent trolls are suing for a lot more than their legal costs. Second, the more cases patent trolls win, the more incentive & resources they'll have to continue their activities. Patent trolls are most likely owned by a small number of already wealthy individuals, so they're essentially running an extortion racket on society to make themselves even richer. That's my cynical take.

If there's an upside, it's that having IP laws and litigation should theoretically incentivize more innovation. However, the current administration of the laws and the way these legal battles play out are too much of a crap-shoot. With out the predictability of good enforcement, innovation turns into yet another business risk and that has the opposite effect than what we want.

 

[MoxNix]

The problem with patents is they were originally intended to protect the little guys but the rich have turned it into just another way to take everything from everyone who doesn't have the resources to fight them.

 

[TerryLaze]

<cynicism>
And the winners are ......

the lawyers

the rest of us lose no matter which side wins as we end up paying for the lawyers though higher prices.

</cynicism>

If a company loses their patent they will have to either start paying for the license or invest in research to find another way to do the same thing (or buy IP) .
So if a company loses we not only pay for the lawyers but for that as well.

 

[TerryLaze]

The problem with patents is they were originally intended to protect the little guys

Link or it didn't happen....
Modern patents started in venice to protect the glass makers because that was one of the most lucrative business of the time.

 

[kjfatl]

Link or it didn't happen....
Modern patents started in venice to protect the glass makers because that was one of the most lucrative business of the time.

Where is the link? (I'm actually a bit curious about this).

 

[thestryker]

I hate being happy when a big corporation doesn't have to pay money, but every time a patent troll loses its a win.

Well, not really. First, patent trolls are suing for a lot more than their legal costs. Second, the more cases patent trolls win, the more incentive & resources they'll have to continue their activities. Patent trolls are most likely owned by a small number of already wealthy individuals, so they're essentially running an extortion racket on society to make themselves even richer. That's my cynical take.

If there's an upside, it's that having IP laws and litigation should theoretically incentivize more innovation. However, the current administration of the laws and the way these legal battles play out are too much of a crap-shoot. With out the predictability of good enforcement, innovation turns into yet another business risk and that has the opposite effect than what we want.

Since we've seen the rise of this sort of behavior I've thought a partial solution to it could be along the lines of if you're not the original patent holder and aren't doing anything with the patent it's invalidated after x years.

 

[bit_user]

The problem with patents is they were originally intended to protect the little guys but the rich

What I've heard is that patents were originally created to incentivize guilds to publish their methods, rather than keeping them secret. This would be prior to the rise of corporations and modern academia (which already lives by the motto "publish or perish").

 

[bit_user]

Since we've seen the rise of this sort of behavior I've thought a partial solution to it could be along the lines of if you're not the original patent holder and aren't doing anything with the patent it's invalidated after x years.

Yeah, I've heard variations of that. I don't know why you'd make a special carve-out for the original assignee, though.

I'm a firm believer in the idea of an ongoing license fee, in order to keep a patent viable. That should cut way down on the size of the patent war chests out there. You could even have the fee increase over time, which would make it incredibly expensive to hold a patent without using it.

 

[thestryker]

Yeah, I've heard variations of that. I don't know why you'd make a special carve-out for the original assignee, though.

I think it's important for individuals and learning institutions reaping the rewards of their work when there's no chance they'd ever be able to manufacture.

I'm a firm believer in the idea of an ongoing license fee, in order to keep a patent viable. That should cut way down on the size of the patent war chests out there. You could even have the fee increase over time, which would make it incredibly expensive to hold a patent without using it.

On the face of it this would seem like a great idea, and it would probably make companies ditch patents they weren't monetizing relatively immediately. I don't see how this would fix the patent trolls which go to court or just get licensing deals for their patents though.

 

[bit_user]

On the face of it this would seem like a great idea, and it would probably make companies ditch patents they weren't monetizing relatively immediately. I don't see how this would fix the patent trolls which go to court or just get licensing deals for their patents though.

Patent trolls tend to amass large numbers of patents, usually by buying them on the cheap, when another company goes bankrupt. The more each patent costs them to hold, the fewer of them they can afford to amass. The fewer patents they have, the fewer companies and industries they can go after, and the fewer times they can keep going back to the well.

The revenue from patent renewal fees should also better-fund the USPTO and help it do a better job of not issuing frivolous or redundant patents.

 

[TerryLaze]

Where is the link? (I'm actually a bit curious about this).

Just typing patent into google and this is the third result.

Patent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the first statutory patent system is generally regarded to be the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474. However, recent historical research has suggested that the Venetian Patent Statute of 1474 was inspired by laws in the Kingdom of Jerusalem that granted monopolies to developers of novel silk-making techniques.[12] Patents were systematically granted in Venice as of 1474, where they issued a decree by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. The period of protection was 10 years.[13] As Venetians emigrated, they sought similar patent protection in their new homes. This led to the diffusion of patent systems to other countries.[14]

 

[purpleduggy]

U.S. PTO nullifies VLSI's 7,523,373 and 7,725,759 patents.

U.S. Patent Office Rules in Intel's Favor for $2.18 Billion VLSI Patents Case : Read more

patents inhibit technological progress, and should be abandoned entirely along with copyright and trademarks, the ability to manufacture a quality competitive product while selling through reputable channels is all that is needed. if you can match a product or even its quality then the original inventor needs to outinnovate by overwhelming with quality and performance. patents and copyright and trademarks are solely for obsolete companies to protect their obsoletion from others who can do better.

 

[TerryLaze]

then the original inventor needs to outinnovate by overwhelming with quality and performance.

No, he could just use any invention of anybody else and expand his business making up the difference in that way.
If someone had the patent on "cake" and was getting money for others that also made "cake" and paid him royalties, if he loses that money from others he can just expand and also make "pizza" and/or "pie" and/or whatever else without paying royalties and make up for the loss.

Why innovate and make something new, that everybody will be able to use for free, if you can make money from somebody else's invention?

At least with patents whoever was responsible for the patent keeps getting money for it even if their business doesn't do well.

 

[purpleduggy]

No, he could just use any invention of anybody else and expand his business making up the difference in that way.
If someone had the patent on "cake" and was getting money for others that also made "cake" and paid him royalties, if he loses that money from others he can just expand and also make "pizza" and/or "pie" and/or whatever else without paying royalties and make up for the loss.

Why innovate and make something new, that everybody will be able to use for free, if you can make money from somebody else's invention?

At least with patents whoever was responsible for the patent keeps getting money for it even if their business doesn't do well.

patents are a nice idea, but the reality is you cannot use them to protect your inventions as you have to register them in multiple countries, imports make them pointless, and the guy who needs to protect his idea with a patent can't do it because they don't have the legal and financial ability to take on a large corporation anyway. the only people who in truth really use patents are patent trolls and as leverage in a merger with billion dollar public companies

i have over 20 proven financially lucrative patents in US and EU, that have sold many products and have never needed to defend them legally. in truth i cannot defend them and its not worth it. my competitors manufacture in china where I can't defend them. i would rather spend the time and money increasing my quality. if I could I'd never have registered the patents in the first place. total waste of time unless you're a billion dollar company. first to market, overwhelming quality, and first to build a reputation with clients counts far more than a wishful thinking patent. patents should be abandoned worldwide.