Patent system being abused?

C

Clak

CAGiversary!
I think we've hit on this a little in different discussions in the past, but it seems to be happening more and more as time goes on. What caused me to post this was this story about MSFT suing over a broad patent it claims is infringed on by Android, and thus any device running it.
The issue at hand here for Microsoft stems from a patent claiming Android uses "natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need; surfing the Web more quickly, and interacting with documents and e-books." -- Broad scope really but that is how patents work for better or worse.
Click to expand...
Now reading that, couldn't that cover nearly any mobile OS? It seems to me that MSFT created this circus tent of a patent to try and slow the development and proliferation of competing devices. And this isn't what the patent system was intended for.

Original MSFT press release.
 
Even the big companies hate the patent system. As ruthless capitalist entities they take advantage whenever possible, but they freely admit it that it's overall effect is to stifle innovation and profits.

Only patent trolls love the current system.
 
[quote name='Clak']I get the feeling I've made a "well duh" thread. :lol:[/QUOTE]

I don't think so, I just think that most people just don't understand the colossal amounts of money and innovation that are being wasted in litigation.

Patents may well be one of those necessary evils - but as a society we need to get smarter about how these limited monopolies are defined and implemented.
 
Software and business practices should not be patentable period. Protect them all you want. Hide the source code under your bed. But it's absurd that they can be patented. Media should get 20 years of protection. Processes should get 5. Everything else should get 2 (I'd prefer 18 months).

Innovate or die.
 
Litigation seems to take precedent over innovation these days. It seems that ti's become more lucrative to create these circus tent like patents and then just sit on them and sue others if they even get close. I mean really, how can you patent a hand motion? If that's the case then I want to patent raising the middle finger for purposes of angering the target.
 
[quote name='Clak']Litigation seems to take precedent over innovation these days. It seems that ti's become more lucrative to create these circus tent like patents and then just sit on them and sue others if they even get close. I mean really, how can you patent a hand motion? If that's the case then I want to patent raising the middle finger for purposes of angering the target.[/QUOTE]

Alot of the big companies use them as a deterrent - as in the case where one company sues another for violating a patent, and in turn gets slapped with 8 patent violoations themselves. It's a game.

It's not a question of being more lucrative, it's a question of protecting their assets. The only folks who have the potential of making money off this game are the small players who have nothing to lose, and their lawyers. These guys are usually looking for a big settlement - that's the payday.
 
Another rule: If you don't market it, you don't have a patent. I can draw pictures of guns that fire sharks all day long, but I shouldn't get paid if someone else actually makes it and sells it.
 
The whole point of a patent is to try and make it as broad as possible and then sue anyone who tries to make something remotely similar. That's just how the game is played. If you've actually got a case you work out a settlement and make some money - typically more than you would have made by selling and marketing the invention in question!
 
I'm going to guess here that very few CAGs have any first hand experience with the patent process. If y'all did, I think you'd understand why litigation is sometimes needed.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I'm going to guess here that very few CAGs have any first hand experience with the patent process. If y'all did, I think you'd understand why litigation is sometimes needed.[/QUOTE]

Of course litigation is needed (it keeps a ton of people in my office employed!) but a majority of these things are still settled before it gets that far.
 
You can pop into a thread and post something condescending, or you can explain yourself. You've chosen the former.

edit-Hosty that is.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I'm going to guess here that very few CAGs have any first hand experience with the patent process. If y'all did, I think you'd understand why litigation is sometimes needed.[/QUOTE]

I have IT patent experience and litigation is sometimes needed. I didn't think that point was ever in doubt.
 
Of course not, but patenting things and suing over them has basically become a business in an of itself. I mean isn't it designed to protect someone's ideas from being stolen and used? It's little more than another source of revenue for most large businesses. Then again, I guess if you're going to pay for lawyers you might as well use them.
 
[quote name='Clak']You can pop into a thread and post something condescending, or you can explain yourself. You've chosen the former.

edit-Hosty that is.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing that can really be explained in realation to this particular article you linked to. There is no mention of what specific patent number is under issue, not a copy of the claim that is allegedly being infringed, not even a link to the filed court documents. Just a sweeping generalization that MSFT is 'bullying' Android and the patent system is being abused.

You ask the question of "couldn't that cover nearly any mobile OS?" but without reading the entire claim, who could know? You characterize MSFTs patent as a "circuis tent" (twice even), but you dont even cite which patent is this so-called 'circus tent'. Thus, it's clear to me that you havent put much effort into really understanding the case. So if my response was a bit flippant, I felt it was warranted.

TL:DR - There's not enough information given to draw any reasonable conclusions. So I'll be no less vaugue than the links.

@Javery: Litigation, or the threat thereof, often does lead to settlement, yes. The courts are also the final arbitors of what is and isnt patentable. As I'm sure you know, sometimes suing an alleged infringer leads to the plantiff's patent being declared invalid. It's a necessary step in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top