Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
<< Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
|
Ted Talks: Ben Kacyra: Ancient Wonders Captured in 3D >>
http:www.ted.com Drew Curtis, the founder of fark.com, tells the story of how he fought a lawsuit from a company that had a patent, "...for the creation and distribution of news releases via email." Along the way he shares some nutty statistics about the growing legal problem of frivolous patents.
Apr 17, 2012 11:04 AM
Re: Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
At this point, we're well past the renaissance, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the sixties, and the information age. As we enter the collaborative age, private ownership of ideas has long since outlived its usefulness. Pretty much all intellectual property law needs to be abolished. Or, we can allow the patent, trademark, and copyright trolling industry to make all our lives an escalating hell for a few more decades, and only *then* abolish intellectual property law.
That shit barely even worked in distant centuries.
That shit barely even worked in distant centuries.
Re: Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
I think there should be some window of exclusivity as a reward for researching and developing a novel solution to a problem. I'd say three years to initiate commercialization or lose it (more than generous). Once you do bring it to market (through licensing or direct), you get the reward of 10-15 years of reaping what you've sewn. No extensions. There should also be a higher bar for non-obvious, novel ideas.
I'm trying to envision what a patentless world would look like. Food for thought. My initial view is one where large companies steal all good ideas with no recourse.
"Google, here's my good idea for smell search ranking (heh - rank), and here's my patent. It's taken me 5 years and $3 million to perfect. It's yours for $50 million." Check is written, dude signs papers and lives happily ever after.
"Google, here's my good idea for smell search ranking. It's taken me 5 years and $3 million to perfect. I'd like you to pay me $50 million for my idea and research, pretty please with sugar on top? Where are you going?" A year later, Google NoseDive is making billions in restaurant and food ads, and this guy is dead in a sewer.
I'm trying to envision what a patentless world would look like. Food for thought. My initial view is one where large companies steal all good ideas with no recourse.
"Google, here's my good idea for smell search ranking (heh - rank), and here's my patent. It's taken me 5 years and $3 million to perfect. It's yours for $50 million." Check is written, dude signs papers and lives happily ever after.
"Google, here's my good idea for smell search ranking. It's taken me 5 years and $3 million to perfect. I'd like you to pay me $50 million for my idea and research, pretty please with sugar on top? Where are you going?" A year later, Google NoseDive is making billions in restaurant and food ads, and this guy is dead in a sewer.
Re: Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
Here's my idea for smell search ranking. It's taken me 5 years and $3 million to perfect. It's also taken that guy up the street 5 years and $3 million to make a similar system. Too bad for him, I got to the patent office faster.
When we set a one-size-fits-all rule, such as the term of all patents at a standard duration, we pretend that all inventions advance technology by the same amount. Patent term length must attempt to match how much of a contribution the invention really is. Alexander Graham Bell was awarded the patent on the telephone, despite the fact that Elisha Gray had concurrently invented a better device, and several other inventors were only weeks or months behind. Why should Bell get a government-enforced seventeen year monopoly on telephones, when he was not seventeen years ahead of the competition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy#First_to_arrive_at_the_patent_office
In a patentless world, all engineering is completely unencumbered. People just make stuff. There's no reason why an inventor or artist must be paid after -- not before -- creating something. Once an idea exists, it's part of the world, and should never be censored by any means, for any reason. If big corporations steal from us, it might be time to question whether we want to organize society around big corporations stealing. The patent system doesn't protect us from that problem, it only adds another layer of opportunity for big corporations to steal from us. They tend to have fancier lawyers and more money, with or without an additional labyrinth of intellectual property laws.
Learning from one another is not stealing. That's called human civilization and culture. Nobody should be discouraged from making something for fear of tripping over a dozen undetectable patents somewhere in the system.
When we set a one-size-fits-all rule, such as the term of all patents at a standard duration, we pretend that all inventions advance technology by the same amount. Patent term length must attempt to match how much of a contribution the invention really is. Alexander Graham Bell was awarded the patent on the telephone, despite the fact that Elisha Gray had concurrently invented a better device, and several other inventors were only weeks or months behind. Why should Bell get a government-enforced seventeen year monopoly on telephones, when he was not seventeen years ahead of the competition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy#First_to_arrive_at_the_patent_office
In a patentless world, all engineering is completely unencumbered. People just make stuff. There's no reason why an inventor or artist must be paid after -- not before -- creating something. Once an idea exists, it's part of the world, and should never be censored by any means, for any reason. If big corporations steal from us, it might be time to question whether we want to organize society around big corporations stealing. The patent system doesn't protect us from that problem, it only adds another layer of opportunity for big corporations to steal from us. They tend to have fancier lawyers and more money, with or without an additional labyrinth of intellectual property laws.
Learning from one another is not stealing. That's called human civilization and culture. Nobody should be discouraged from making something for fear of tripping over a dozen undetectable patents somewhere in the system.
Re: Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
No system is perfect. In assessing whether this particular system (or at least aspects of it) ought to be binned, I need to somehow get a clear understanding of the pros and cons of it.
You and others have demonstrated very convincingly that the system is inherently unfair as well as occasionally damaging to the collective interest (preventing the best ideas from being implemented, for instance).
However, the idea that props up the patent system is a powerful one. Sure, it isn't a perfectly fair system, but how does one go about determining whether or not the purported innovation incentivization function is real and significant in its effect. Simply asserting that it isn't... I mean, surely that doesn't cut it. One could argue that the burden of proof is on those who are proponents of the patent system. The problem here is that it's a well-established practice. It's not just a story of the little guys vs. the greedy corporations, right? You're proposing a revolutionary change. You've got a great story, but I find that it's lacking in certain areas. I'm convinced that your ideas will never prevail until all but the least informed and most dogmatic are aware that there is an other way of doing things that is most likely a better driver for innovation. Loads of objective evidence is required here. I don't know that such evidence currently exists.
(I'm not suggesting that the political component of the debate is irrelevant. People love fairness and generally dislike exploitation. It's a powerful motivator. Money speaks louder than words, though. I'm suggesting that activists need to find a way to move the debate to within the business community. If you're right about patents, then I don't think it's absurd to let businesses fight it out amongst themselves. Talk of corporate theft isn't really a big draw among those people, while hard facts are. There's a lot of money to be made here.)
You and others have demonstrated very convincingly that the system is inherently unfair as well as occasionally damaging to the collective interest (preventing the best ideas from being implemented, for instance).
However, the idea that props up the patent system is a powerful one. Sure, it isn't a perfectly fair system, but how does one go about determining whether or not the purported innovation incentivization function is real and significant in its effect. Simply asserting that it isn't... I mean, surely that doesn't cut it. One could argue that the burden of proof is on those who are proponents of the patent system. The problem here is that it's a well-established practice. It's not just a story of the little guys vs. the greedy corporations, right? You're proposing a revolutionary change. You've got a great story, but I find that it's lacking in certain areas. I'm convinced that your ideas will never prevail until all but the least informed and most dogmatic are aware that there is an other way of doing things that is most likely a better driver for innovation. Loads of objective evidence is required here. I don't know that such evidence currently exists.
(I'm not suggesting that the political component of the debate is irrelevant. People love fairness and generally dislike exploitation. It's a powerful motivator. Money speaks louder than words, though. I'm suggesting that activists need to find a way to move the debate to within the business community. If you're right about patents, then I don't think it's absurd to let businesses fight it out amongst themselves. Talk of corporate theft isn't really a big draw among those people, while hard facts are. There's a lot of money to be made here.)
By: wadadde
Re: Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
There's a tremendous amount of potential technology that just goes undeveloped for fear of patent booby traps. It's basically impossible to know whether there's a patent or ten lurking around the PTO files that will bite you on the ass years later. The solution has been for big companies to amass war chests of thousands or millions of patents to use against any market competitor who tries to sue them. But that approach only works against rivals who actually build something. Patent trolls don't build anything. They make nothing, and exist solely to sue in court.
Far from protecting small-time inventors from being ripped off by big players, the patent system actually facilitates it in a different way. Small operators don't have massive patent war chests to fight their competitors under mutually assured destruction. They get screwed by big corporations with huge patent libraries and legal departments. This is only distinguishable from ordinary patent trolling, in that those companies actually make products. The main purpose of those patent libraries is to defensively threaten big competitors with countersuits, but the secondary purpose is to offensively lock small competitors out of starting up in the market.
It's basically impossible to build anything technological these days without violating dozens, or thousands of existing patents you never knew existed. Some are held by legitimate competitors; some held by pure patent trolls. There's no way to find them all because they're intentionally written to be sweepingly broad and unsearchable. The only way to find out for sure about a patent booby trap is to wait for legal action to come down years after production has been underway. When that happens, you're pretty much screwed. The more successful your innovation, the more attractive it is to be harvested by someone you never heard of. They just wait for you to do all the work, and then grab it.
Far from protecting small-time inventors from being ripped off by big players, the patent system actually facilitates it in a different way. Small operators don't have massive patent war chests to fight their competitors under mutually assured destruction. They get screwed by big corporations with huge patent libraries and legal departments. This is only distinguishable from ordinary patent trolling, in that those companies actually make products. The main purpose of those patent libraries is to defensively threaten big competitors with countersuits, but the secondary purpose is to offensively lock small competitors out of starting up in the market.
It's basically impossible to build anything technological these days without violating dozens, or thousands of existing patents you never knew existed. Some are held by legitimate competitors; some held by pure patent trolls. There's no way to find them all because they're intentionally written to be sweepingly broad and unsearchable. The only way to find out for sure about a patent booby trap is to wait for legal action to come down years after production has been underway. When that happens, you're pretty much screwed. The more successful your innovation, the more attractive it is to be harvested by someone you never heard of. They just wait for you to do all the work, and then grab it.
Re: Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
"Why should Bell get a government-enforced seventeen year monopoly on telephones, when he was not seventeen years ahead of the competition?"
Because the hope of attaining the seventeen-year monopoly is what motivated both Bell AND his competition to innovate. That's the point of patent law, and it works pretty well most of the time.
No, it isn't a perfect system. Patent trolls are a problem. But I don't see you proposing a better system.
Because the hope of attaining the seventeen-year monopoly is what motivated both Bell AND his competition to innovate. That's the point of patent law, and it works pretty well most of the time.
No, it isn't a perfect system. Patent trolls are a problem. But I don't see you proposing a better system.
By: quisph
Re: Ted Talks: Drew Curtis: How I Beat a Patent Troll
Drew cleans up well and his points are pointed. Fark 'em if they can't take a joke!
By: scalpod
