Theaetetus: The article's not wrong... if you define patent trolls as anyone who tries to enforce or license a patent but doesn't make a product with it, then yeah, you're sweeping all sorts of things into that bin, including those inventors in the article and research universities.And it also leads you down the wrong path to a solution - no one dislikes patent trolls because they don't make product. We dislike patent trolls because of extortionate demand letters, suing end-users rather than manufacturers, filing suits with weird joinder of giant companies and tiny individuals in order to screw with venue, using preliminary injunctions as a massive stick to force settlements, etc... none of which have anything to do with "not making product". Solutions need to focus on those real problems, rather than unrelated things like requiring patent owners to make product in order to maintain their patent, something that will unintentionally harm universities and small inventors.For example, in the AIA, the joinder rules got fixed... You can't now sue Microsoft in Seattle and Joe Schmoe in Florida in order to argue that Texas is the best place because it's halfway between. Unless Microsoft and Joe Schmoe are actually working together to infringe the product, then you can't join them. This has resulted in a huge decrease in the number of patent defendants. Similar changes to the induced/indirect infringement doctrines would eliminate suits against end users.
BKITU: Wait... a Slate writer with an armchair understanding of law got things... wrong?
Fear_and_Loathing: Edison was ruthless.
Theaetetus: The article's not wrong.
DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Theaetetus: The article's not wrong.It's Slate, you could have stopped there (without even reading the article).
Satanic_Hamster: Old news on Edison. Edison, while a brilliant man and highly influential on our country, was also an insane asshole.
iheartscotch: Didn't Edison screw over Tesla with patent law at some point? I seem to remember something along those lines./ alternating current lines; of course. Direct current lines are just impractical over long distances...// watts this? Electricity jokes?
Theaetetus: BKITU: Wait... a Slate writer with an armchair understanding of law got things... wrong?Byline: Adam Mossoff is professor of law at George Mason University, and a senior scholar in the Center for Protection of Intellectual Property at George Mason.And I said he wasn't wrong - the article notes correctly that, under the current definition of "troll", Edison and others would be trolls. But it stops there and never really says "okay, so what do we do about the problems?" If anything, the implication is "Edison was a troll, but Edison was awesome! Therefore, trolls are awesome too, and you should just shut-up, you naysayers."
Fenwick3: Edison was an ASSHOLE....
kasmel: If someone invents something, and licenses a patent for it, they are not a patent troll.If someone patents something that's already in common use and is in no way representative of an innovation, then tries to strong-arm people actually using said concepts, THEY are a patent troll.Edison was not a patent troll.
Geotpf: The solution is to give the patent office more money to more thoroughly examine patents for prior art. But that's "Excessive government spending", so we can't have that.
CodeMonkey4Life: Getting and enforcing a patent for something like vulcanizing rubber is vastly different than what we see in software with patenting "... but with a computer" type shiat and waiting to steal from from productive people who build things and certainly didn't need any of the "research breakthroughs" in troll patents.
Theaetetus: Geotpf: The solution is to give the patent office more money to more thoroughly examine patents for prior art. But that's "Excessive government spending", so we can't have that.It's even worse... The patent office is self funded through application and patent maintenance fees, and runs a surplus. But when it comes time to spend that surplus to upgrade databases or hire more Examiners, then Congress grabs it and says "no, we need it to build a bridge that no one wants in a place no one goes." It's quite literally charging inventors $X to "examine their patent application", then spending $X/2 on it and diverting the rest elsewhere.
Ivo Shandor: Patent troll and movie pirate. And then there was that elephant thing...You can thank Joseph Swan for your light bulbs.
Clemkadidlefark: Thomas Edison was a gigantic d*ck
Theaetetus: CodeMonkey4Life: Getting and enforcing a patent for something like vulcanizing rubber is vastly different than what we see in software with patenting "... but with a computer" type shiat and waiting to steal from from productive people who build things and certainly didn't need any of the "research breakthroughs" in troll patents.Yeah, it is vastly different, in that patents for vulcanizing rubber exist, but "... but with a computer" software patents don't.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 22 2017 10:36:14
Runtime: 0.228 sec (228 ms)