exactly. This needs to be brought to the level of a hot button issue in this country. When the devastation caused by patent trolls exceeds a trillion dollars, which is the truth, something needs to be done. This issue is FAR more important than weather or not gays should marry. People need to talk more about this on the air. Videos with this subject matter seem to garner a like to dislike ratio of nearly 1000:1. This is so blatantly obvious. To everyone except trial lawyers, who only care about money. Trial lawyers are responsible for stopping the recent move to end this madness. Trial lawyers should not have the ability to lobby congress period. It's a huge conflict of interest. Does anyone have a valid counter argument? I'm listening.
I would say so in a patent system if we are to have one, it only can belong to the original creator and can't be sold to any individual. If a person wants to "sell" their patent, then I would say the patent becomes an agreement to go public. I mean if you are willing to sell YOUR idea out for others to make use of it, it should be a matter of allowing it for everybody and not just one select person/group unaffiliated with the original creator.
"Happy Birthday To You" was written in the 1880's, but isn't scheduled to become public domain until 2030. Time Warner brings in about 2 million dollars a year from usage in movies, TV, etc. Yes, there was supposed to be a time limit, but that was before corporations bought Congress and Congress decided that letting Mickey Mouse go public domain would be bad. They will just keep extending the copyright term every time Disney comes close to losing exclusive rights to Mickey.
. Patent burying has been going on as long as patents have existed. The auto and oil industries used to be the kings of it. All you need to do is read through old copies of Popular Science and Popular Mechanix. You'll find many things, like those that that would have given us 100 mpg cars 3 or 4 decades ago, that were invented but never saw the light of day because they were buried. .
I agree it really does hinder great advancements, check out the patent Citroën has had on hydro-pneumatic suspension since the 50's that to this day is leaps and bounds better then traditional suspensions in modern cars. Only Rolls Royce, Mercedes, and the military are among those that could afford the royalties to use this technology.
Which issues of "Popular Science" and "Popular Mechanix" feature things that would have given us 100 mpg cars 3 or 4 decades ago? Please cite your sources specifically so that readers can follow and verify claims. I would be interested in seeing this, thanks.
All patents and non provisional patent applications in the US are publicly available documents. They are not "buried". Go look online. This is a dumb statement
This is where the mobsters are supposed to step in. "Godfather, I have been successful here in America, but now a patent troll is suing me for preposterous and fraudulent claims. The courts won't throw out the case. This will cost me millions of dollars to fight and will ruin me. Can you help me, Godfather?" "I'll make this vexatious lawyer an offer he won't refuse." Seriously, these punk patent trolls are going to sue the wrong guy who's willing to risk 20 years just to prove the point that you don't steal from him.
Adam Carolla (the comedian) is doing this right now. he's fighting on principal on a patent that supposedly covers podcasts. maybe he'll win and invalidate the patent. But if the patent is valid and is upheld then he and everyone else who uses the invention will have to (and should have to) pay up.
@@SuspiriaX Well, X-Plane is still around, and according to a 2015 update on their website, the original claim was thrown out, and Uniloc then came back with other claims. I don't know the entire story; I imagine that X-Plane came through it in the end. But I did discover on Wikipedia that it's easier since 2014 to make patent trolls pay their victims' legal fees in the U.S.
how about a law where you have to show that anything you own (say a beach chair) is used every year or you forefeet it to someone who walks by your house and wants it?
Yes that's a good idea, there needs to be a system of scaling development/time scales etc. Not just some bit of paper that says 'i'll sue you if you copy this'
Jase SideFX So no protection for the inventor who comes up with an idea but does not want to practice it but wants to recover his investment in developing the idea by licensing. Again, go back and read the reasoning behind patents. It's a trade. Teach the world how you do what you do and we'll give you an exclusive right that idea for a period of time. Without it, more ideas will be kept secret and not published and technology innovation will slow. If that's what you want, then argue for no patents. But once you argue for patents then you have to treat them as property that the person who owns them is free to do what they want with them. That can be Elon Musk giving away the Tesla patents to electric vehicle technology, keeping it for yourself like Apple does or selling/licensing the patents to someone else. And finally if you really look at the issue of patents, it's not that the patent system is broken allowing people to extort money from people who practice their inventions. It's more that the patent office is giving away bullshit patents that then are asserted on people, taking high cost to defend. If we really want to fix the problem in this video, start there.
Raymond good call. Think about this. There are people that apply for disability correct? They have to prove they are disabled in order to get those benefits right? When we get a drivers license we all had to prove we were of age in order to do so. In order to by alcohol we have to prove we are of age in order to do so. And on and on and on. I agree with you 100% though not a 3 year mark. Prove you have a product during the application process.
A good halfway measure to end patent trolling would be to require that a patent be put into production as soon as practicable or 90 days.This would be a substantial deterrent to entering the business of trolling,and ending the patent one year after production[the definition of production could be a triable issue].
The public policy thinking of the patent systems is that it is a disclosure of new and inventive technology in return for the grant of a patent. In this way, the public can go to the patents database and get up to speed on cutting edge technology instead of wasting the country's resources reinventing the wheel. This helps innovation develop at a faster rate. The fact that the patent is granted means that it has already performed its part of the bargain, because US examiners don't allow it to be granted unless it is new and inventive. On grant, it is published for all to see. The fact that business owners have not made use of the system properly, and have in fact gone and wasted the country's resourced by reinventing what has already been invented, is not the concern of the patent owner. It is the responsibility of every business owner and director to understand the patent system properly. It should be a core course in most undergraduate degrees. The fact that its not explains a lot about why science and technology is taking a back seat in the USA, compared to countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
Monkeyherder3 No, you are incorrect when it comes to the topic of what a 'patent troll' does. This is an issue with tech concept patents, and software patents, not actual physical product patents. The thing about software is that there are usually only a few efficient ways to do something. And troll companies, as well as unscrupulous tech firms will file a patent on the "idea" of how a particular software system works, not the exact lines of code themselves. And then extort money from any other developer with an even vaguely similar idea, effectively chilling competition and killing innovation, contrary to the spirit of the patent system. The current patent system is not set up to handle this sort of abuse. You are correct that a business should research patents and know about this stuff before hand. But idk if you have ever tried to do a patent search yourself, or you would know how impossible it is to search for vague ideas. Especially something as natural and obvious as the authentication system talked about in this video. Remember that Mayer didn't get sued for copying code from established software, he got sued for THE IDEA of an authentication system to check if users software keys match up with a server-side database. a famous example of this in the game development industry is that of the "ghost car" patent filed by Midway games WAY back in 1989. They basicly own the concept of a "ghosted" version of your own car in a racing game showing your movements and speed last lap, to race against and improve. This is an idea that is very basic to the genera, any reasonable person could think up a similar concept, But you have to pay royalties to Midway, a LONG defunct game developer, if you even think of having a ghost racer mode in your game. This is a patent that needs to be voided, as it is an obvious and non-original idea (They were not the first developer to have a ghost racer in a game), not a specific product or particular lines of code. Trademark abuse is also rampant. Another example, also from the world of game development, and very recent, is that of King, maker of the "candy crush" series of mobile games. They trademarked the individual words "Candy" "Crush" and "Saga", not the title as a whole. This was brought to light when they sued a small indie developer that was about to release a game called "The Banner Saga", about vikings or some such, over the use of "Saga" in the title. Now you tell me. Is it fair that anyone else who wants to make a game with the word saga in the title has to pay King royalties on A SINGLE WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? This is a famous case of abuse of the US patent and trademark system, and should speak for itself for the need for major reforms, as well as retroactive voiding of overly broad and just plain stupid patents.
fakiirification I am a patent attorney and I know exactly what the law is and what it is there for when it comes to patents, including software patents. In fact ALL patents are drafted to protect the broader concept - apparatus patents, software patents, medical compounds or any others. That is the point of getting patent attorneys to draft the a patent - they protect the bigger idea, and not just the embodiment that the inventor has come up with. As I have said, it DOES NOT "kill innnovation" - it stimulates innovation by allowing people to get up to speed on what the latest tech is, before they start development, and waste the country's resources in reinventing the wheel. Your example of ghost cars is disingenious, because in hind sight it seems obvious now, but back then it was not even considered or thought about. But it offers clear benefits and advantages to a gamer (as evidenced by its popularity in all games, despite the game developers having to pay license fees). It could not have been that obvious or else people would have done it before to get the benefits (but they did not, which is why it was new). You don't seem to understand that when a patent is filed, an examiner is appointed, and its their job NOT to let patents be granted for stuff that is not new and inventive AT THE DATE THAT THE PATENT WAS FILED. The fact that it WAS granted means that nobody else had come up with it before then, and nobody had even considered it as a possible solution to the problems that it solves. The fact that the the inventors came up with the idea that far back makes them bloody brilliant for having created a leap forward in the gaming space. Its just people who look backwards with the benefit of hindsight that don't seem to appreciate that they stand on the shoulders of giants.
MonkeyHerder3 the ghost car example is perfectly valid as any reasonable person who is a game developer should think of that idea as a possible feature even if they had never played any other racing games before. hindsight has nothing to do with it, and calming such means you know nothing about the creative part of the software development process. Some ideas are a result of natural thought progression. somewhat like: "lets add a time trial mode so that players can see their best time and their last lap time and current time, and compete against themselves to improve. hmm, why dont we also add a representation of their car on the best lap so they have something to actually race against?" The problem with software patents and "idea" patents in general is that its easy for independent parties to come up with the same idea completely separately, and oblivious to the fact that some asshat has decided to patent that obvious and natural idea and the USPTO is NOT equipped to fully screen these ideas, no matter what you say, or else this issue of patent trolls wouldn't even exist. Like the example of the authentication system in this video. Its something thats used by pretty much EVERY software manufacturer who sells licensed software, regardless of the actual implementation. so it makes sense that someone creating a new piece of software might want to write the system into their code. And it might not be immediately obvious that that particular 'idea' is owned by someone, since everyone uses it, and it should be public domain. That also goes for pretty much EVERY aspect of a program. How do you know that some asshat hasn't patented some vague algorithm that you just came up with on a paper napkin to solve a completely different problem? software patents are a cancer to the tech industry. of course you wouldn't see it, as a patent attorney, since the overwhelming burden on creators to make sure that the individual elements of their ideas have not already been claimed by someone else benefits you. but every dollar spent on pointless patent research is a dollar not spent on innovation. And it is a completely go/no-go issue to some really small personally funded startup ideas. who knows how many breakthrough technologies have never come to light because someone got threatened with life destroying lawsuits before they even had a chance to get going.
fakiirification You miss the point of the patent system completely. START the development process by seeing what the latest ideas are - by going to the patent system. Then develop from the cutting edge - else you are wasting time (and your countries resources) in reinventing what has already been invented. They are not "breakthrough" technologies if they already exist and are in the public domain. If a non practising entity sends you a cease and desist letter, and they have a granted, valid patent, then they will probably be open to licensing negotiations since the invention is not being commercialised. The fact is that corporate America cant stand little guys standing in their way wielding a huge stick. What is it with these little guys not letting them steal their ideas in peace. So the corporates pay their senator lots of money to make lots of noise about the poor Goliaths being "threatened" by the nasty Davids, and the press lap it up because they don't even remotely understand why the patent system is there at all. The USA has a re-examination system, where they can request that an examiner re-examine the patent, while providing new prior art. If they don't have any new prior art - well they can't request re-examination, because it REMAINS new and inventive, and hence deserving of a patent. If you are going to moan about ambiguous or poor patents, then moan about the standards of examination at the USPTO - not about the trolls. The trolls are simply meeting the same required standards that the corporates expect to meet. Those same corporates who moan about the trolls are more than happy to be the recipients of poor patents themselves, and to threaten others with them too. why should a person who has met the required standards be excluded from making money from their idea just because they don't have the revenue streams to be able to tool it, manufacture it and purchase stock? Are only the rich allowed to get richer? And frankly I think the USPTO do a sterling job refusing applications that are not new and inventive. They are pretty tough customers in my experience, and I like it that way.
fakiirification And I personally played lots of racing games that came out before the ghost car came into being. None of them had it. Why not? Because it was NOT obvious. It only becomes obvious once you have seen it. Before that, you are looking at lap times, and racing lines, and speed through the corner as a guess of where and how to reduce lap times. It was brilliant and a stroke of genius.
Yep, I also have had a few patentable ideas that I couldn't afford to go through with patenting, only to see them pop up years later in the market. Unfortunately, the high cost of the patenting process prices regular people right out of being able to do it.
Agreed. This idea of being able to sell off patents is entirely absurd. X-Plane is Austin's passion. He and his team have always been quick to resolve any bug issues for me in the past because they are all that dedicated to making their product the best it can be. By contrast, Microsoft couldn't care any less about the big problems I experienced with FSX. That's what led me to X-Plane in the first place. These Unilock people are nothing more than parasites looking for easy meals.
I love the suggestion above to abolish copyright law. I suppose the rationale behind such a suggestion is that every person is a willing participant in a voluntarist model? That if your design is a successful application of an idea no one else will copy your idea identically and undercut your success? Utopian ideals are dangerous, consider reality.
No, he used a service from Google. Here is an example of me using a Google Service: I start using an automated Gmail signature (found in preferences). A patent troll says that they have a patent on automated email signatures and goes after me for using Google's signature preference option.
I have a whole book of invention, most are mechanical in nature and most are improvements on other products.. I would say that maybe 1 in 4 of my ideas are actually worth $.. The sad part is, well a provisional patents are the cheapest but still very expensive. I've been born with a natural talent that is useless:( breaks my heart. I have so many ideas and what's worse is I've seen years later after I came up with an idea I've seen it pop up on shelves in stores:( I've been cheated out of a few
Here, it is just a question of the law. When you buy a book or movie, you legally own it for personal use, which includes lending, showing to friends, or reselling. That is the contract that the copyright law has currently made. We know have digital copies, where you can get a single use for a movie too, but you pay a different price. Copyright does not own people's thoughts. It is only in a question of sales. If you use my IP to earn money from your work, you may need to write a royalty check
The reason bootleg dvds are often shitty copies is because copying is illegal, so instead of getting a pro camera at a great angle with the best sound equipment, you get a guy with a handheld camera. If it where legal, great copies would be out the day the movie was released. 2. Yes, if you have to pay to make the movie and have the movie made, it would be cheaper for me to just have the movie made, always. This point is basically agreeing that is will be the end of big movies/shows/book.
So, they are not suing Meyer for the X-Plane program, but for the delivering sytem used to distribute the flight simulator (this thing with the code, which is also another program). So, where did he get the delivery system/software from? or did he write it by himself? Because this system is widely used by million people worldwide and I'm wondering if all these app developers are paying Uniloc every time a user downloads/pays for one their apps.
Property rights, including IP, is generally the best use for a government. Many economist see property rights as key to economic development, because without it, there is no people investing work and money if others can then take it from you. And we are not even talking "liberal" economist, the CATO institute has done work on this subject. It has been found to be a major deciding factor between countries that do and don't have good economic development. It can go bad too like with patent trolls.
Hell, in their book, Levine and Boldrin give PLENTY of historical examples of when CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION FLOURISHED FOR LONG WITHOUT MUCH OF A PATENT REGIME AT ALL! Sure, there MAY be a case for SOME patent regulation, but today's regime is out of control, and it's not like THERE'S ZERO INNOVATION WITHOUT PATENT LAW.
If anyone has ever watch Shark Tank, you will know that Mark Cuban absolutely HATES bullshit patent law like this. Glad to see he has a foundation fighting this kind of innovation killing crap
"Happy Birthday To You" was not written in the 1880's, it was based off "Good Morning to All" which was written in 1892. The words date back to at least 1912 but the copyright dates to 1935. There are hard legal question to if that copyright is legal, but no one really challenged it. But other then your dates being write and incomplete, the general idea is right. It has to be post 1928, to the 'Mickey Mouse Protection Act' would not work.
While understand the monopoly argument being made it is not the issue. We need restore the patent/copyright back to its original state. Instead of some 150+ years of holding a patent/copyright we need to shorten the time back to 3-5 years so that people can still innovate but can't control what is already common knowledge
Actually, software is a set of instructions utilizing algorithms for a computer. That means that it wouldn't apply, since in the front end, a software is a product and not an algorithm. Though I do understand your concern, in this case, what you say just doesn't apply. Now, that being said, lawsuits based on software should just be improved. If the patent was made after the software was released, then it would just be BS if the patent troll can just take that away.
Yes.. those damn ancient Greeks... In the US patent law was set both in the Articles of Confederation and in the US constitutions in Articles of Confederation Article One, Section 8.
I'm with you on the distinction between a mathematical algorithm and software as expression of that but there is no such thing in law as a "product". Strictly speaking, an algorithm is a set of steps or instructions for solving a problem, as such, software belongs in that set. Software, as an expression of ideas is copyrightable but should never be patentable.
Trade secrets should be that a secret. And workers in a company should sign a contract forcing them to keep a secret. A person's trust worthiness should matter to others.
The USA is pretty much the only country in the known universe in which the plaintiff upon losing a case they initiated is NOT liable for the defendants' legal expenses.
patents are important thought to also help protect the makers of software so they do benefit from what they make. This video seems to give the impression that all protection is bad and that is not the case.
What a disgrace and shameful practice to be involved in. How can we move forward when these TROLLS are around the corner, waiting for the delivery man to leave your package on your doorway so they can come up and snatch it.
No, only in cases where the loser is the defendant. If you are suing, and you win, your legal fees should not be covered by the defendant. It can be that your winning cover the cost of your legal fees, but the defendant should not need to cover the suit and legal fees. Only when the defendant wins should the loser the legal fees.
That's the problem with software patents like this. A delivery system like that isn't some 'innovative' idea. Its a freaking logical one. Its simply checking if something was purchased. Simple as that, however someone goes about making the software for that end doesn't matter, it meets the same end. Its just the digital way of checking for a damn receipt. Nothing 'unique' about that, anyone would do this when they distribute something out of common sense.
Well there are a lot of people much smarter than me commenting so I will just keep my opinion to myself for now lol, but I will say good for him standing up for what he believes is right :)
Biggest supporters of software patents are Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Google. These companies are constantly suing small businesses of patent issues. Patents should only be allowed for 10 years for big companies.
I am so sorry to see Reason take this position. they have for years been the go-to place for discussion of private property rights, and intellectual property should be no different. Sure there are lots of "bad" patents issued, but the issue of someone making money off of their inventions either by practicing the invention or selling the invention is a core property right that Reason should be defending, not vilifying.
cheddyrod what makes you think I am a "troll" FWIW I've been on both the asserting and the asserted end of patent disputes and have seen both sides of the coin. But I have never worked for an NPE (Troll to you)... I would argue with you that so-called trolls are valuable and foster innovation to some extent. A robust market for intellectual property increases the incentive to invest in risky businesses that may build a portfolio but not get to market. That investor can recover their investment by selling the IP. If that were not allowed, investment in risky ideas would shrink and limit the innovation done by those companies.
***** I'm not sure I understand your comment. If you consider "intellectual property" to be "property" then the assertion of a patent is a perfectly reasonable and logical thing to do. If omeone is stealing your property you have every right to defend it and ask the courts for help. Now, if you don't believe in patents as property then that's another thing. But right now, that's the law of the land and in my opinion the bargain that the government gives inventors for the right to exclusively use their invention for a period of time is a good one. ( Remember, to patent someone you have to "teach" someone who is skilled in the art how to practice your invention. this allows them to take your idea and add to it and create new things, again fostering innovation. If I were to keep my methods secret and not patent them others would not learn what I have done and therefore may not be able to take the next step.
***** Neil, did you not read my initial response... Bad patents are bad patents, that has nothing to do with "trolls" but lots to do with the PTO issuing things that are junk. That has been happening for years (see a patent issued 20 years ago about how to swing a child on a swing, which yes, was issued) If the person in this lawsuit has evidence that the technology was previously described, than an invalidation of the patent is a reasonably easy process. As for "not inventing" something. A patent is issued to an inventor, so whatever patent is being asserted was invented by someone. Sure, there are patents that are sold from inventors to someone else, but that does not make it any less valid does it? As for reforms, the only one that I would seek is that a loser pays doctrine slips into the patent system (at least) because the hurdle for filing a suit gets much higher, i.e. you have to have a pretty good feeling that you are really going to win. It also makes it much harder to push for settlements because the cost of the lawsuit is so much more expensive. But the "reforms" that people mention like "if you don't practice it the patent is invalid" is the wrong way to go. And so-called "trolls" are a valuable piece of the technology business.
Patents for the most are part taking something that has no scarcity, or even a shortage of supply for demand, to artificially create a limited supply for something that never had any limitation to begin with. Add in the fact, that given the vague and frivolous nature of patent lawsuits, can permit almost any new vendor of a product, to be forced into paying royalty fees, to the owner of the patent, regardless of the fact that software is easily protected against theft, without patents.
Louie CK put out a stand up special on his website for $5 and made over a million, and made more per sale than going through a middleman DVD seller that jacked the price up over $25 or more. it was hugely successful and easily pirated. Why on Earth did anyone buy the special from him? Seriously, based on what you stated, this shouldn't have happened...but it did!
In my opinion, ideas or concepts is a very small portion of the inventing process. There are millions of people who think of great ideas everyday. It takes much more to actually take an idea all the way to market. Why do you think most of the people here work for someone else? Seems to me more than just an idea should be required to even qualify for a patent. In my opinion, This shift in America that vilifies businesses and successful and wealthy entrepreneurs is part of problem. I am really HAPPY that realtv is showing the other side of coin. There are always going to be people scamming systems, but when it goes on and on, right in front of everyone, and very little is done (case in point, government welfware scammers) one must draw a conclusion that someone in power does not want anything to be done. I have been a fan of X-plane for man years. I remember back around version 6 or 7, I had some problem, and the guy from laminar called me up and realized I had an old version. He sent me a free copy of x-plane 8 along with his business card. It sucks that there is so much pro-Taker sentiment in this country, and so much anti-Maker. Good luck to you guys!
There is a law that you are allowed to use existing patents if you make progress with it. You will probably have to give some of the profits the the original patent holder though.
I think you should start a grass roots campaign for donations to get rid of these blood suckers. If the idea is obvious or common knowledge it can't be patented. I wish you could hold the patent office responsible for frivolously granting patents for stuff like that. Plus there are ends to the life of a patent. Besides you are actually copy writing code, not patenting your flight program. A middle company is doing the distribution and security. They should be paying the security prog. fee.
IP Europe chief denounces ‘patent troll myth’ The head of a corporate alliance that includes Nokia and Ericsson has urged the EU to ignore the so-called ‘patent troll myth', which he said has “little basis in fact”.In a letter to The Financial Times, published today, January 21, IP Europe executive secretary Francisco Mingorance said that the narrative of abusive litigation by ‘patent trolls’ was a “calculated attempt to create a false rationale for weakening the patent protections of technology innovators in Europe”.
I love free markets, but how does a free market protect an author or artist from having his work stolen and copied by others? How does it protect me, the engineer and inventor, from having my work stolen? For that matter, how does it protect you when you park (or drive) your car on a public street from having it stolen?
Jeffree Tucker has written extensively on the history of innovators and patent/copyright. The gist of it is, the original innovator almost always has the market advantage of being the first one to produce whatever it is they produced first be it technology, art, etc.. What you are saying sounds intuitive at first but just isn't the case, historically speaking.
The non-practicing entities that this paper is referring to, are companies that actually do R&D or actually licenses peoples patents on their behalf to other companies. These are not the same companies buy up swaths of patents, and then actively search out products that may be infringing on one of their patents, for the sole purpose using litigation to extort licensing fees.
But we need those laws to protect property. If my intellectual property is being stolen, or appropriated by someone else, that is a crime, and should be a crime.
The system certainly needs overhaul...the length may need to be adjusted...SW patents probably need to go... but there must be some temporary protection/exclusivity for those who invest in long-term research to bring a new technology, compound, process, etc to market. Some things take a long lead time to research, but can easily be copied. If there is no protection, fewer people and companies will be willing to make these long-term investments, shifting to cheap, incremental "innovation".
"Loser pays is not the answer - if the troll wins now you get to pay their legal bills" I don't think you really know how the "loser pays" system works. The troll is bringing a lawsuit. If he loses, he pays both sides' legal fees and a penalty. If he wins, he pays for his own legal fees and the defendant pays for their own fees, less an insurance payout provided by the court system or via private insurance.
They actually grouped together and no there nothing repaying someone defending themselves against a lawsuit. THere are ppl who make stupid lawsuits. Seems to me they seem to go after average ppl sueing fastfood for hot coffee spills but its perfectly ok for corporation to sue small companies or individuals
Yes, you can find the rare occasion that things work, because it cost almost nothing and people are willing to pay for it like in the case of Louie CK. Does that change the fact that without Parent and Copyright laws all investment drops to ~0? No. Louie CK did not put up $500K to find up if his investment might work, he put up one nights work... So? Based an math, no one person should win a lotto, but people do, every day... what does that tell you? Ppl should play the lotto? nope...
Agreed, but then again, it's usually elements of software (ex, "Sanity system for video games" patented by Nintendo) that are patented. Also, I do believe that something as vague or common as the video mentions should not be patented. Especially common. That is a flaw of the U.S. patent system.
Of course. And your copy of 30 Rock with less commercials would be a suitable substitute product that would enjoy a higher demand. It's a free market. The innovation comes when I offer 30 Rock with Smell-O-Vision (or some other way to differentiate, such as even less advertising) as a result, and now my 30 Rock is in higher demand. Then you copy that, and I innovate yet again, ad infinitum.
I'm an engineer and an inventor. Without provisional patent protection I cannot seriously market or discuss an invention/idea with someone who might be interested in it's implementation because I will have no way to keep them from stealing and using what I have developed. In such a world the only way that I will be able to retain my ownership of the products of my own mind will be to keep them secret. This would also be true for any author or artist.
This would kill 99% of innovation. Why would any company spend millions inventing a new tech when as soon as it is released to market, another company can by one, copy it and then will it for less because they did not have to invent it. No one could earn a living on books or movies or software. Stopping all patent and copyright would be one of the worst things you could do to mankind. We advance by innovation. We invent in innovation for profit. Without patents there is no profit in innovation.
Free the patents. We make the laws in this country. Start a movement, contact your representatives, repeal the ridiculous patent laws that are choking innovation or establish laws to protect innovation. Patent trolls are the worst kind of opportunistic parasite.
There is a bigger problem with information technology patents. The society's composition has changed and the patent system is simply not applicable in that domain: blog.didenko.com/2013/03/patentless-it.html
No. I reject the notion that government laws are needed to keep us free. The government system we have now has no concept of property rights and is ripe for abuse; voluntary contracts in a free market is what is needed.
That's ridiculous. People make books and movies because they make money from people wanting to read/watch them, not because of copyright and patent laws. Profits encourage innovation, not government.
There's plenty of kick-ass web series out there either on sites like UA-cam that are driven by ads, or services like Netflix that have regular fees and basically limitless use. Even if you pirated all of your digital content you still need to pay a service provider unless you're freeloading off of someone else' internet access, in which case you're a jackass. Also steel is pretty hard to develop.
Uniloc sickens me beyond anything. They will probably sue me if they see this comment as they probably have a patent on the phrase "so-and-so sickens me".
If only something unfortunate wouldhappen to Brad Davis, say hitby a bus, attacked by a pack of rabid dogs. Better yet, if only something unfortunate would happen to uniloc headquarters, say a wild terrorist organization declareswar on them and then continues to pick everyone off in the company one by one and each time sending videos of the tortured employe to everyone left, lmao. I got a million other ideas too. I should socome upwith a horror/action movie based on something like this.
The idea behind copyright isn't in-&-of itself anti-liberty, it's the current government-backed system that is wrong (notice how the patent trolls use the force of government to screw entrepreneurs who haven't stolen anything). Also, in a free society, book/film creators would contract with distributors to sell their product; copying in the manner you outline would subsequently be wrong b/c the creators agreed to let a publishing/distribution co. distribute their art, not just anybody.
Taken from web.mit.edu/tlo/www/community/preserving_patent_rights.html Not sure if this helps, but it's worth a try, especially since I love this simulator and want it to stay!!!!!!!! 1. What are the rules if I want only a U.S. patent? The U.S. patent law system is among the most lenient in the world with regards to prior disclosure of your invention. It allows you to publish your invention or offer it for sale prior to filing a patent application, provided that you file your patent application within one year of the publication or offer for sale. If you wait longer than one year, your patent rights are forfeited. The one-year period is a "grace period."
Imagine where we would be right now if you could patent mathematical theorems.
Welcome to America. It's called legal extortion
+Michelle Sullivan True.
exactly. This needs to be brought to the level of a hot button issue in this country. When the devastation caused by patent trolls exceeds a trillion dollars, which is the truth, something needs to be done. This issue is FAR more important than weather or not gays should marry. People need to talk more about this on the air.
Videos with this subject matter seem to garner a like to dislike ratio of nearly 1000:1. This is so blatantly obvious. To everyone except trial lawyers, who only care about money. Trial lawyers are responsible for stopping the recent move to end this madness. Trial lawyers should not have the ability to lobby congress period. It's a huge conflict of interest. Does anyone have a valid counter argument? I'm listening.
@@billybbob18 you are pin-point right
I would say so in a patent system if we are to have one, it only can belong to the original creator and can't be sold to any individual. If a person wants to "sell" their patent, then I would say the patent becomes an agreement to go public.
I mean if you are willing to sell YOUR idea out for others to make use of it, it should be a matter of allowing it for everybody and not just one select person/group unaffiliated with the original creator.
"Happy Birthday To You" was written in the 1880's, but isn't scheduled to become public domain until 2030.
Time Warner brings in about 2 million dollars a year from usage in movies, TV, etc.
Yes, there was supposed to be a time limit, but that was before corporations bought Congress and Congress decided that letting Mickey Mouse go public domain would be bad.
They will just keep extending the copyright term every time Disney comes close to losing exclusive rights to Mickey.
. Patent burying has been going on as long as patents have existed. The auto and oil industries used to be the kings of it. All you need to do is read through old copies of Popular Science and Popular Mechanix. You'll find many things, like those that that would have given us 100 mpg cars 3 or 4 decades ago, that were invented but never saw the light of day because they were buried. .
I agree it really does hinder great advancements, check out the patent Citroën has had on hydro-pneumatic suspension since the 50's that to this day is leaps and bounds better then traditional suspensions in modern cars. Only Rolls Royce, Mercedes, and the military are among those that could afford the royalties to use this technology.
Which issues of "Popular Science" and "Popular Mechanix" feature things that would have given us 100 mpg cars 3 or 4 decades ago? Please cite your sources specifically so that readers can follow and verify claims. I would be interested in seeing this, thanks.
All patents and non provisional patent applications in the US are publicly available documents. They are not "buried". Go look online. This is a dumb statement
This is where the mobsters are supposed to step in.
"Godfather, I have been successful here in America, but now a patent troll is suing me for preposterous and fraudulent claims. The courts won't throw out the case. This will cost me millions of dollars to fight and will ruin me. Can you help me, Godfather?"
"I'll make this vexatious lawyer an offer he won't refuse."
Seriously, these punk patent trolls are going to sue the wrong guy who's willing to risk 20 years just to prove the point that you don't steal from him.
Adam Carolla (the comedian) is doing this right now. he's fighting on principal on a patent that supposedly covers podcasts. maybe he'll win and invalidate the patent. But if the patent is valid and is upheld then he and everyone else who uses the invention will have to (and should have to) pay up.
You can own an idea as long as nobody else knows your idea.
Thanks for standing up to them, Austin.
Good luck to Austin and the whole team that is fighting this.
Please keep tabs on this story. I would love to see this guy and others get justice against patent trolls.
It is now 10 years later
Update?
@@SuspiriaX Well, X-Plane is still around, and according to a 2015 update on their website, the original claim was thrown out, and Uniloc then came back with other claims. I don't know the entire story; I imagine that X-Plane came through it in the end. But I did discover on Wikipedia that it's easier since 2014 to make patent trolls pay their victims' legal fees in the U.S.
I feel so bad. He's my hero for standing up to them. I want to buy X-Plane just because of what he is doing.
How about a law where the patent holder has 3 year period where they have to show some level of significant progress?
how about a law where you have to show that anything you own (say a beach chair) is used every year or you forefeet it to someone who walks by your house and wants it?
Yes that's a good idea, there needs to be a system of scaling development/time scales etc. Not just some bit of paper that says 'i'll sue you if you copy this'
Jase SideFX So no protection for the inventor who comes up with an idea but does not want to practice it but wants to recover his investment in developing the idea by licensing.
Again, go back and read the reasoning behind patents. It's a trade. Teach the world how you do what you do and we'll give you an exclusive right that idea for a period of time. Without it, more ideas will be kept secret and not published and technology innovation will slow. If that's what you want, then argue for no patents.
But once you argue for patents then you have to treat them as property that the person who owns them is free to do what they want with them. That can be Elon Musk giving away the Tesla patents to electric vehicle technology, keeping it for yourself like Apple does or selling/licensing the patents to someone else.
And finally if you really look at the issue of patents, it's not that the patent system is broken allowing people to extort money from people who practice their inventions. It's more that the patent office is giving away bullshit patents that then are asserted on people, taking high cost to defend. If we really want to fix the problem in this video, start there.
Bill Jackson i agree but its such a big issue can't really deal with it here
Raymond good call. Think about this. There are people that apply for disability correct? They have to prove they are disabled in order to get those benefits right? When we get a drivers license we all had to prove we were of age in order to do so. In order to by alcohol we have to prove we are of age in order to do so. And on and on and on. I agree with you 100% though not a 3 year mark. Prove you have a product during the application process.
Loser pays is not the answer - if the troll wins now you get to pay their legal bills. Software patents is the problem.
A good halfway measure to end patent trolling would be to require that a patent be put into production as soon as practicable or 90 days.This would be a substantial deterrent to entering the business of trolling,and ending the patent one year after production[the definition of production could be a triable issue].
Did the bill go through? is this still a thing?
The public policy thinking of the patent systems is that it is a disclosure of new and inventive technology in return for the grant of a patent. In this way, the public can go to the patents database and get up to speed on cutting edge technology instead of wasting the country's resources reinventing the wheel. This helps innovation develop at a faster rate.
The fact that the patent is granted means that it has already performed its part of the bargain, because US examiners don't allow it to be granted unless it is new and inventive. On grant, it is published for all to see. The fact that business owners have not made use of the system properly, and have in fact gone and wasted the country's resourced by reinventing what has already been invented, is not the concern of the patent owner.
It is the responsibility of every business owner and director to understand the patent system properly. It should be a core course in most undergraduate degrees. The fact that its not explains a lot about why science and technology is taking a back seat in the USA, compared to countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
Monkeyherder3 No, you are incorrect when it comes to the topic of what a 'patent troll' does. This is an issue with tech concept patents, and software patents, not actual physical product patents. The thing about software is that there are usually only a few efficient ways to do something. And troll companies, as well as unscrupulous tech firms will file a patent on the "idea" of how a particular software system works, not the exact lines of code themselves. And then extort money from any other developer with an even vaguely similar idea, effectively chilling competition and killing innovation, contrary to the spirit of the patent system. The current patent system is not set up to handle this sort of abuse. You are correct that a business should research patents and know about this stuff before hand. But idk if you have ever tried to do a patent search yourself, or you would know how impossible it is to search for vague ideas. Especially something as natural and obvious as the authentication system talked about in this video. Remember that Mayer didn't get sued for copying code from established software, he got sued for THE IDEA of an authentication system to check if users software keys match up with a server-side database.
a famous example of this in the game development industry is that of the "ghost car" patent filed by Midway games WAY back in 1989. They basicly own the concept of a "ghosted" version of your own car in a racing game showing your movements and speed last lap, to race against and improve. This is an idea that is very basic to the genera, any reasonable person could think up a similar concept, But you have to pay royalties to Midway, a LONG defunct game developer, if you even think of having a ghost racer mode in your game. This is a patent that needs to be voided, as it is an obvious and non-original idea (They were not the first developer to have a ghost racer in a game), not a specific product or particular lines of code.
Trademark abuse is also rampant. Another example, also from the world of game development, and very recent, is that of King, maker of the "candy crush" series of mobile games. They trademarked the individual words "Candy" "Crush" and "Saga", not the title as a whole. This was brought to light when they sued a small indie developer that was about to release a game called "The Banner Saga", about vikings or some such, over the use of "Saga" in the title. Now you tell me. Is it fair that anyone else who wants to make a game with the word saga in the title has to pay King royalties on A SINGLE WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? This is a famous case of abuse of the US patent and trademark system, and should speak for itself for the need for major reforms, as well as retroactive voiding of overly broad and just plain stupid patents.
fakiirification I am a patent attorney and I know exactly what the law is and what it is there for when it comes to patents, including software patents. In fact ALL patents are drafted to protect the broader concept - apparatus patents, software patents, medical compounds or any others. That is the point of getting patent attorneys to draft the a patent - they protect the bigger idea, and not just the embodiment that the inventor has come up with.
As I have said, it DOES NOT "kill innnovation" - it stimulates innovation by allowing people to get up to speed on what the latest tech is, before they start development, and waste the country's resources in reinventing the wheel.
Your example of ghost cars is disingenious, because in hind sight it seems obvious now, but back then it was not even considered or thought about. But it offers clear benefits and advantages to a gamer (as evidenced by its popularity in all games, despite the game developers having to pay license fees). It could not have been that obvious or else people would have done it before to get the benefits (but they did not, which is why it was new).
You don't seem to understand that when a patent is filed, an examiner is appointed, and its their job NOT to let patents be granted for stuff that is not new and inventive AT THE DATE THAT THE PATENT WAS FILED. The fact that it WAS granted means that nobody else had come up with it before then, and nobody had even considered it as a possible solution to the problems that it solves. The fact that the the inventors came up with the idea that far back makes them bloody brilliant for having created a leap forward in the gaming space. Its just people who look backwards with the benefit of hindsight that don't seem to appreciate that they stand on the shoulders of giants.
MonkeyHerder3 the ghost car example is perfectly valid as any reasonable person who is a game developer should think of that idea as a possible feature even if they had never played any other racing games before. hindsight has nothing to do with it, and calming such means you know nothing about the creative part of the software development process. Some ideas are a result of natural thought progression. somewhat like: "lets add a time trial mode so that players can see their best time and their last lap time and current time, and compete against themselves to improve. hmm, why dont we also add a representation of their car on the best lap so they have something to actually race against?"
The problem with software patents and "idea" patents in general is that its easy for independent parties to come up with the same idea completely separately, and oblivious to the fact that some asshat has decided to patent that obvious and natural idea and the USPTO is NOT equipped to fully screen these ideas, no matter what you say, or else this issue of patent trolls wouldn't even exist. Like the example of the authentication system in this video. Its something thats used by pretty much EVERY software manufacturer who sells licensed software, regardless of the actual implementation. so it makes sense that someone creating a new piece of software might want to write the system into their code. And it might not be immediately obvious that that particular 'idea' is owned by someone, since everyone uses it, and it should be public domain.
That also goes for pretty much EVERY aspect of a program. How do you know that some asshat hasn't patented some vague algorithm that you just came up with on a paper napkin to solve a completely different problem? software patents are a cancer to the tech industry. of course you wouldn't see it, as a patent attorney, since the overwhelming burden on creators to make sure that the individual elements of their ideas have not already been claimed by someone else benefits you. but every dollar spent on pointless patent research is a dollar not spent on innovation. And it is a completely go/no-go issue to some really small personally funded startup ideas. who knows how many breakthrough technologies have never come to light because someone got threatened with life destroying lawsuits before they even had a chance to get going.
fakiirification You miss the point of the patent system completely. START the development process by seeing what the latest ideas are - by going to the patent system. Then develop from the cutting edge - else you are wasting time (and your countries resources) in reinventing what has already been invented. They are not "breakthrough" technologies if they already exist and are in the public domain.
If a non practising entity sends you a cease and desist letter, and they have a granted, valid patent, then they will probably be open to licensing negotiations since the invention is not being commercialised.
The fact is that corporate America cant stand little guys standing in their way wielding a huge stick. What is it with these little guys not letting them steal their ideas in peace. So the corporates pay their senator lots of money to make lots of noise about the poor Goliaths being "threatened" by the nasty Davids, and the press lap it up because they don't even remotely understand why the patent system is there at all.
The USA has a re-examination system, where they can request that an examiner re-examine the patent, while providing new prior art. If they don't have any new prior art - well they can't request re-examination, because it REMAINS new and inventive, and hence deserving of a patent.
If you are going to moan about ambiguous or poor patents, then moan about the standards of examination at the USPTO - not about the trolls. The trolls are simply meeting the same required standards that the corporates expect to meet. Those same corporates who moan about the trolls are more than happy to be the recipients of poor patents themselves, and to threaten others with them too. why should a person who has met the required standards be excluded from making money from their idea just because they don't have the revenue streams to be able to tool it, manufacture it and purchase stock? Are only the rich allowed to get richer?
And frankly I think the USPTO do a sterling job refusing applications that are not new and inventive. They are pretty tough customers in my experience, and I like it that way.
fakiirification And I personally played lots of racing games that came out before the ghost car came into being. None of them had it. Why not? Because it was NOT obvious. It only becomes obvious once you have seen it. Before that, you are looking at lap times, and racing lines, and speed through the corner as a guess of where and how to reduce lap times. It was brilliant and a stroke of genius.
Yep, I also have had a few patentable ideas that I couldn't afford to go through with patenting, only to see them pop up years later in the market. Unfortunately, the high cost of the patenting process prices regular people right out of being able to do it.
Agreed. This idea of being able to sell off patents is entirely absurd.
X-Plane is Austin's passion. He and his team have always been quick to resolve any bug issues for me in the past because they are all that dedicated to making their product the best it can be. By contrast, Microsoft couldn't care any less about the big problems I experienced with FSX. That's what led me to X-Plane in the first place.
These Unilock people are nothing more than parasites looking for easy meals.
I love the suggestion above to abolish copyright law. I suppose the rationale behind such a suggestion is that every person is a willing participant in a voluntarist model? That if your design is a successful application of an idea no one else will copy your idea identically and undercut your success? Utopian ideals are dangerous, consider reality.
No, he used a service from Google.
Here is an example of me using a Google Service:
I start using an automated Gmail signature (found in preferences). A patent troll says that they have a patent on automated email signatures and goes after me for using Google's signature preference option.
I have a whole book of invention, most are mechanical in nature and most are improvements on other products.. I would say that maybe 1 in 4 of my ideas are actually worth $.. The sad part is, well a provisional patents are the cheapest but still very expensive. I've been born with a natural talent that is useless:( breaks my heart. I have so many ideas and what's worse is I've seen years later after I came up with an idea I've seen it pop up on shelves in stores:( I've been cheated out of a few
Here, it is just a question of the law. When you buy a book or movie, you legally own it for personal use, which includes lending, showing to friends, or reselling. That is the contract that the copyright law has currently made. We know have digital copies, where you can get a single use for a movie too, but you pay a different price. Copyright does not own people's thoughts. It is only in a question of sales. If you use my IP to earn money from your work, you may need to write a royalty check
Yes to the Electronic Frontier Foundation! Would someone please draw a model of how we the collective can fight the trolls?
Where is Mr. Meyer and X-plane at on this issue? Has it been resolved? Delayed? Ongoing? Can we get an update?
According to X Planes web site the case is still on going
Pinscher Graphics
Thought so..
www.x-plane.com/2015/12/patent-troll-update/
The reason bootleg dvds are often shitty copies is because copying is illegal, so instead of getting a pro camera at a great angle with the best sound equipment, you get a guy with a handheld camera. If it where legal, great copies would be out the day the movie was released.
2. Yes, if you have to pay to make the movie and have the movie made, it would be cheaper for me to just have the movie made, always. This point is basically agreeing that is will be the end of big movies/shows/book.
So, they are not suing Meyer for the X-Plane program, but for the delivering sytem used to distribute the flight simulator (this thing with the code, which is also another program).
So, where did he get the delivery system/software from? or did he write it by himself? Because this system is widely used by million people worldwide and I'm wondering if all these app developers are paying Uniloc every time a user downloads/pays for one their apps.
Property rights, including IP, is generally the best use for a government. Many economist see property rights as key to economic development, because without it, there is no people investing work and money if others can then take it from you. And we are not even talking "liberal" economist, the CATO institute has done work on this subject. It has been found to be a major deciding factor between countries that do and don't have good economic development. It can go bad too like with patent trolls.
Hell, in their book, Levine and Boldrin give PLENTY of historical examples of when CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION FLOURISHED FOR LONG WITHOUT MUCH OF A PATENT REGIME AT ALL! Sure, there MAY be a case for SOME patent regulation, but today's regime is out of control, and it's not like THERE'S ZERO INNOVATION WITHOUT PATENT LAW.
IP stifles innovation. You can't own an idea.
Correct.
If anyone has ever watch Shark Tank, you will know that Mark Cuban absolutely HATES bullshit patent law like this. Glad to see he has a foundation fighting this kind of innovation killing crap
Thank you so much. Such an important video!
"Happy Birthday To You" was not written in the 1880's, it was based off "Good Morning to All" which was written in 1892. The words date back to at least 1912 but the copyright dates to 1935. There are hard legal question to if that copyright is legal, but no one really challenged it. But other then your dates being write and incomplete, the general idea is right. It has to be post 1928, to the 'Mickey Mouse Protection Act' would not work.
While understand the monopoly argument being made it is not the issue. We need restore the patent/copyright back to its original state. Instead of some 150+ years of holding a patent/copyright we need to shorten the time back to 3-5 years so that people can still innovate but can't control what is already common knowledge
you are obviously trolling but the people who can't recognize it honestly deserve it. So carry on.
Actually, software is a set of instructions utilizing algorithms for a computer. That means that it wouldn't apply, since in the front end, a software is a product and not an algorithm. Though I do understand your concern, in this case, what you say just doesn't apply.
Now, that being said, lawsuits based on software should just be improved. If the patent was made after the software was released, then it would just be BS if the patent troll can just take that away.
Yes.. those damn ancient Greeks... In the US patent law was set both in the Articles of Confederation and in the US constitutions in Articles of Confederation Article One, Section 8.
I'm with you on the distinction between a mathematical algorithm and software as expression of that but there is no such thing in law as a "product". Strictly speaking, an algorithm is a set of steps or instructions for solving a problem, as such, software belongs in that set.
Software, as an expression of ideas is copyrightable but should never be patentable.
Trade secrets should be that a secret. And workers in a company should sign a contract forcing them to keep a secret. A person's trust worthiness should matter to others.
The USA is pretty much the only country in the known universe in which the plaintiff upon losing a case they initiated is NOT liable for the defendants' legal expenses.
wont let me like this video.
damn, hope is in this guys hands.
patents are important thought to also help protect the makers of software so they do benefit from what they make. This video seems to give the impression that all protection is bad and that is not the case.
What a disgrace and shameful practice to be involved in. How can we move forward when these TROLLS are around
the corner, waiting for the delivery man to leave your package on your doorway so they can come up and snatch it.
Boycott and petition Uniloc.
No, only in cases where the loser is the defendant. If you are suing, and you win, your legal fees should not be covered by the defendant. It can be that your winning cover the cost of your legal fees, but the defendant should not need to cover the suit and legal fees. Only when the defendant wins should the loser the legal fees.
That's the problem with software patents like this. A delivery system like that isn't some 'innovative' idea. Its a freaking logical one. Its simply checking if something was purchased. Simple as that, however someone goes about making the software for that end doesn't matter, it meets the same end.
Its just the digital way of checking for a damn receipt. Nothing 'unique' about that, anyone would do this when they distribute something out of common sense.
Wait will the pc version of xplane still be around no matter what?
What's the status so far?
Well there are a lot of people much smarter than me commenting so I will just keep my opinion to myself for now lol, but I will say good for him standing up for what he believes is right :)
The problem is that since they don't do anything, there is no business to disrupt.
Biggest supporters of software patents are Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Google. These companies are constantly suing small businesses of patent issues. Patents should only be allowed for 10 years for big companies.
There should be a law stating that people have a certain amount of time to produce their claims or it should expire.
I am so sorry to see Reason take this position. they have for years been the go-to place for discussion of private property rights, and intellectual property should be no different.
Sure there are lots of "bad" patents issued, but the issue of someone making money off of their inventions either by practicing the invention or selling the invention is a core property right that Reason should be defending, not vilifying.
A troll defending trolls :P
cheddyrod what makes you think I am a "troll" FWIW I've been on both the asserting and the asserted end of patent disputes and have seen both sides of the coin. But I have never worked for an NPE (Troll to you)...
I would argue with you that so-called trolls are valuable and foster innovation to some extent. A robust market for intellectual property increases the incentive to invest in risky businesses that may build a portfolio but not get to market. That investor can recover their investment by selling the IP. If that were not allowed, investment in risky ideas would shrink and limit the innovation done by those companies.
***** I'm not sure I understand your comment.
If you consider "intellectual property" to be "property" then the assertion of a patent is a perfectly reasonable and logical thing to do. If omeone is stealing your property you have every right to defend it and ask the courts for help.
Now, if you don't believe in patents as property then that's another thing. But right now, that's the law of the land and in my opinion the bargain that the government gives inventors for the right to exclusively use their invention for a period of time is a good one. ( Remember, to patent someone you have to "teach" someone who is skilled in the art how to practice your invention. this allows them to take your idea and add to it and create new things, again fostering innovation. If I were to keep my methods secret and not patent them others would not learn what I have done and therefore may not be able to take the next step.
Bill Jackson so you're a troll trying to justify your trolling. Sad
*****
Neil, did you not read my initial response... Bad patents are bad patents, that has nothing to do with "trolls" but lots to do with the PTO issuing things that are junk. That has been happening for years (see a patent issued 20 years ago about how to swing a child on a swing, which yes, was issued) If the person in this lawsuit has evidence that the technology was previously described, than an invalidation of the patent is a reasonably easy process.
As for "not inventing" something. A patent is issued to an inventor, so whatever patent is being asserted was invented by someone. Sure, there are patents that are sold from inventors to someone else, but that does not make it any less valid does it?
As for reforms, the only one that I would seek is that a loser pays doctrine slips into the patent system (at least) because the hurdle for filing a suit gets much higher, i.e. you have to have a pretty good feeling that you are really going to win. It also makes it much harder to push for settlements because the cost of the lawsuit is so much more expensive.
But the "reforms" that people mention like "if you don't practice it the patent is invalid" is the wrong way to go. And so-called "trolls" are a valuable piece of the technology business.
It's a great sim with a great community behind it. Buy it just to support him or you can just make a small donation to the defense at his website.
Patents for the most are part taking something that has no scarcity, or even a shortage of supply for demand, to artificially create a limited supply for something that never had any limitation to begin with. Add in the fact, that given the vague and frivolous nature of patent lawsuits, can permit almost any new vendor of a product, to be forced into paying royalty fees, to the owner of the patent, regardless of the fact that software is easily protected against theft, without patents.
Louie CK put out a stand up special on his website for $5 and made over a million, and made more per sale than going through a middleman DVD seller that jacked the price up over $25 or more. it was hugely successful and easily pirated. Why on Earth did anyone buy the special from him? Seriously, based on what you stated, this shouldn't have happened...but it did!
In my opinion, ideas or concepts is a very small portion of the inventing process. There are millions of people who think of great ideas everyday. It takes much more to actually take an idea all the way to market. Why do you think most of the people here work for someone else? Seems to me more than just an idea should be required to even qualify for a patent. In my opinion, This shift in America that vilifies businesses and successful and wealthy entrepreneurs is part of problem. I am really HAPPY that realtv is showing the other side of coin. There are always going to be people scamming systems, but when it goes on and on, right in front of everyone, and very little is done (case in point, government welfware scammers) one must draw a conclusion that someone in power does not want anything to be done. I have been a fan of X-plane for man years. I remember back around version 6 or 7, I had some problem, and the guy from laminar called me up and realized I had an old version. He sent me a free copy of x-plane 8 along with his business card. It sucks that there is so much pro-Taker sentiment in this country, and so much anti-Maker. Good luck to you guys!
BS patents. I hope Austin Meyer wins this!
There is a law that you are allowed to use existing patents if you make progress with it. You will probably have to give some of the profits the the original patent holder though.
I think you should start a grass roots campaign for donations to get rid of these blood suckers. If the idea is obvious or common knowledge it can't be patented. I wish you could hold the patent office responsible for frivolously granting patents for stuff like that. Plus there are ends to the life of a patent. Besides you are actually copy writing code, not patenting your flight program. A middle company is doing the distribution and security. They should be paying the security prog. fee.
IP Europe chief denounces
‘patent troll myth’
The head of a corporate alliance that includes Nokia and Ericsson has urged the EU to ignore the so-called ‘patent troll myth', which he said has “little basis in fact”.In a letter to The Financial Times, published today, January 21, IP Europe executive secretary Francisco Mingorance said that the narrative of abusive litigation by ‘patent trolls’ was a “calculated attempt to create a false rationale for weakening the patent protections of technology innovators in Europe”.
I love free markets, but how does a free market protect an author or artist from having his work stolen and copied by others? How does it protect me, the engineer and inventor, from having my work stolen? For that matter, how does it protect you when you park (or drive) your car on a public street from having it stolen?
Maybe there should be a crowd-sourced think tank that can help push legislation that would destroy patent trolls. Or just a lynch mob.
Anonymous needs to go against such companies (Uniloc)
I agree. This is the problem, not Patents and Copyright.
Jeffree Tucker has written extensively on the history of innovators and patent/copyright. The gist of it is, the original innovator almost always has the market advantage of being the first one to produce whatever it is they produced first be it technology, art, etc.. What you are saying sounds intuitive at first but just isn't the case, historically speaking.
The non-practicing entities that this paper is referring to, are companies that actually do R&D or actually licenses peoples patents on their behalf to other companies. These are not the same companies buy up swaths of patents, and then actively search out products that may be infringing on one of their patents, for the sole purpose using litigation to extort licensing fees.
But we need those laws to protect property. If my intellectual property is being stolen, or appropriated by someone else, that is a crime, and should be a crime.
regelemihai
Yea but it's getting ridiculous.
The system certainly needs overhaul...the length may need to be adjusted...SW patents probably need to go... but there must be some temporary protection/exclusivity for those who invest in long-term research to bring a new technology, compound, process, etc to market. Some things take a long lead time to research, but can easily be copied. If there is no protection, fewer people and companies will be willing to make these long-term investments, shifting to cheap, incremental "innovation".
The worst firm is Innovation Ventures. One gigantic troll house!
"Loser pays is not the answer - if the troll wins now you get to pay their legal bills"
I don't think you really know how the "loser pays" system works. The troll is bringing a lawsuit. If he loses, he pays both sides' legal fees and a penalty. If he wins, he pays for his own legal fees and the defendant pays for their own fees, less an insurance payout provided by the court system or via private insurance.
it does matter. It is really there property if its somthing that been free like the air breath.
They actually grouped together and no there nothing repaying someone defending themselves against a lawsuit. THere are ppl who make stupid lawsuits. Seems to me they seem to go after average ppl sueing fastfood for hot coffee spills but its perfectly ok for corporation to sue small companies or individuals
Good luck Austin.
So just pursue litigation regardless?
Yes, you can find the rare occasion that things work, because it cost almost nothing and people are willing to pay for it like in the case of Louie CK. Does that change the fact that without Parent and Copyright laws all investment drops to ~0? No. Louie CK did not put up $500K to find up if his investment might work, he put up one nights work... So? Based an math, no one person should win a lotto, but people do, every day... what does that tell you? Ppl should play the lotto? nope...
I really hope this guy wins.
Agreed, but then again, it's usually elements of software (ex, "Sanity system for video games" patented by Nintendo) that are patented.
Also, I do believe that something as vague or common as the video mentions should not be patented. Especially common. That is a flaw of the U.S. patent system.
I played Microsoft flight simulator back in the day
Of course. And your copy of 30 Rock with less commercials would be a suitable substitute product that would enjoy a higher demand. It's a free market. The innovation comes when I offer 30 Rock with Smell-O-Vision (or some other way to differentiate, such as even less advertising) as a result, and now my 30 Rock is in higher demand. Then you copy that, and I innovate yet again, ad infinitum.
I'm an engineer and an inventor. Without provisional patent protection I cannot seriously market or discuss an invention/idea with someone who might be interested in it's implementation because I will have no way to keep them from stealing and using what I have developed. In such a world the only way that I will be able to retain my ownership of the products of my own mind will be to keep them secret. This would also be true for any author or artist.
This would kill 99% of innovation. Why would any company spend millions inventing a new tech when as soon as it is released to market, another company can by one, copy it and then will it for less because they did not have to invent it. No one could earn a living on books or movies or software. Stopping all patent and copyright would be one of the worst things you could do to mankind. We advance by innovation. We invent in innovation for profit. Without patents there is no profit in innovation.
The loser should pay legal fees in every lawsuit. This is just common sense.
Free the patents. We make the laws in this country. Start a movement, contact your representatives, repeal the ridiculous patent laws that are choking innovation or establish laws to protect innovation. Patent trolls are the worst kind of opportunistic parasite.
I don't think we should get rid of patents entirely... But software patents are BS.
I think Uniloc will pull out.
There is a bigger problem with information technology patents. The society's composition has changed and the patent system is simply not applicable in that domain: blog.didenko.com/2013/03/patentless-it.html
No. I reject the notion that government laws are needed to keep us free. The government system we have now has no concept of property rights and is ripe for abuse; voluntary contracts in a free market is what is needed.
That's ridiculous. People make books and movies because they make money from people wanting to read/watch them, not because of copyright and patent laws. Profits encourage innovation, not government.
There's plenty of kick-ass web series out there either on sites like UA-cam that are driven by ads, or services like Netflix that have regular fees and basically limitless use. Even if you pirated all of your digital content you still need to pay a service provider unless you're freeloading off of someone else' internet access, in which case you're a jackass. Also steel is pretty hard to develop.
Uniloc sickens me beyond anything. They will probably sue me if they see this comment as they probably have a patent on the phrase "so-and-so sickens me".
Up with free-market?
Get your stoopid Congress to stop this stifling activity! Damn leeches! Keep it up Austin. And yes, she is a little Elfish!
PLEASE DONT GIVE UP ON X-PLANE
if both sides had to pay their own lawyers waaaaaay less lawsuits
If only something unfortunate wouldhappen to Brad Davis, say hitby a bus, attacked by a pack of rabid dogs. Better yet, if only something unfortunate would happen to uniloc headquarters, say a wild terrorist organization declareswar on them and then continues to pick everyone off in the company one by one and each time sending videos of the tortured employe to everyone left, lmao. I got a million other ideas too. I should socome upwith a horror/action movie based on something like this.
Software isn't just algorithm.
The idea behind copyright isn't in-&-of itself anti-liberty, it's the current government-backed system that is wrong (notice how the patent trolls use the force of government to screw entrepreneurs who haven't stolen anything).
Also, in a free society, book/film creators would contract with distributors to sell their product; copying in the manner you outline would subsequently be wrong b/c the creators agreed to let a publishing/distribution co. distribute their art, not just anybody.
nice choice of airplane.
down with copyrights down with pattns. down with trademarks
Taken from web.mit.edu/tlo/www/community/preserving_patent_rights.html
Not sure if this helps, but it's worth a try, especially since I love this simulator and want it to stay!!!!!!!!
1. What are the rules if I want only a U.S. patent?
The U.S. patent law system is among the most lenient in the world with regards to prior disclosure of your invention. It allows you to publish your invention or offer it for sale prior to filing a patent application, provided that you file your patent application within one year of the publication or offer for sale. If you wait longer than one year, your patent rights are forfeited. The one-year period is a "grace period."