The patent system as it works today seems to be accomplishing the exact opposite of its original intent.

Those are 2 BS patent infringments, connectly wirelessly to the internet?! Really! Moving video files? WTF

As someone who has seen first hand the amount of money and effort Google, MS, Apple Etc has spent acquiring purely "defensive" patents (having a big book of patents you can say the other guy is violating when he comes after you for violating his) I can say the system is irepairably broken, and the real downfall came when Judges started granting Patent, rather than copyright protection for software and when "business method'patents started applying to the Internet.

Time to lay an axe to the whole twisted structure. If I were king this is what I'd replace it with:

First the time for tech patents needs to be 1/4 or less of a traditional patent. When a hardware cycle is 3 years tops, tech patents particularly on software, should not extend more than 5 at the most.

Second there needs to be an "active implementation/affirmative noice" clause for these kinds of patents, where to keep a patent you show you are, in good faith, trying to make something utilizing your patent, or licensing it to others.

Third, you should also have a duty of notice where you must inform those you believe are infringing on your patent the moment you are aware of their product, NOT years later when they've built a billion dollar business out of it. Failure to do so should result in mandatory licensing of the patent at a statutory rate.

And finally, while I'd prefer to do away with "notional" patents entirely (IE me getting a patent for "travelling interstellarly use a drive that warps space time" even though I haven't the foggiest clue about how to build such a device or even whether it's physically possible) absent that, I would allow an affirmative defense of "We also thought this up on our own" where your "silent" ie non-implemented patent would be voided if the alleged infringer could show that while totally unaware of your patent or method, they thought one up on thier own to do the same thing.

Here's a better idea: Do away with lawyers.

Geotpf: This particular example is a case of the two sides being too stubborn to settle. They need to do what all the big guys usually do-meet in a room with all their lawyers and a big stack of printouts of all their patents. If the two stacks of paper are around the same height, they need to shake hands and cross license everything in the pile for free.

Way too much bad blood here. Google bought Motorola because they were pissed at MS for extorting $10/handset from Samsung for every Android device as a "licensing fee" for BS patents MS bought in bulk years ago. After that "rockstar Consortium" mess confirmed to Google that apple and MS were gonna keep playing this game, Google eyed the last giant repository of under-utilized patents in existence and bought them up for "defensive" purposes, so they could sub-license them to any Android maker being sued and allow them to counter sue and force Aplle et al to settle.

Apple and MS are hardware makers who have an interest in keeping hardware prices high to protect thier profits. Google is an Ad company who wnats everyone to have a sub _$50 smart phone so more people will Google things and see thier ads.

Since I want a $49.99 smart phone, I know who I"M rooting for in this

Theaetetus: Riche: The patent system as it works today seems to be accomplishing the exact opposite of its original intent.

I know. I mean, I'm still stuck with this mid-90s brick-sized cell phone, and having to reboot Windows every four hours due to memory leaks.

So there's been progress despite patents? I'll make sure to let the R&D departments that could have used the money from these multi-million dollar patent deals know. I mean, it's not like they could have progressed the sciences or Arts with that money.

Theaetetus: Riche: The patent system as it works today seems to be accomplishing the exact opposite of its original intent.

I know. I mean, I'm still stuck with this mid-90s brick-sized cell phone, and having to reboot Windows every four hours due to memory leaks.

** sigh **

Help me out fellow Farkers. Is this guy a troll or just belligerent and stupid? I can't tell anymore.

Theaetetus: I'm sorry if the sarcasm was too confusing for you. Allow me to explain...
If the patent system is discouraging innovation, then shouldn't we see evidence of a decline in the rate of innovation? Anecdotes about "I know a guy who knows a guy who had a really great idea, but he never bothered doing it because he was afraid of patent infringement" aside, there should be some objectively measurable statistics, no?



OK, Belligerent and stupid it is.