"Patent troll" sounds terrible, but without them inventors get nothing as no individual inventor has resources to enforce their patents against the likes of Intel and Apple (and even patenting is very expensive, so for most inventors it is a losing proposition).
The theory behind patents and the reality that has emerged are mostly different things. The concept of the small, individual, independent inventor is mostly a thing of the past.
Unfortunately but true. Just like how Intellectual property laws have been perverted to benefit big corporations. People don't seem to realize that the people protect corporation's IP and we provide that protection in exchange for that work eventually becoming public domain to enable a base for future inventors, artists, ect. Now though? Companies have lobbied for changes to the laws so that IP essentially stays out of the public domain for the life time of multiple humans. It used to be 20 years (which is more then enough time to capitalize on things you've made).
In essence, the protection of IP is an infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of expression (no one can use those ideas during the period of copyright). It is needed but in it's current form it is utterly draconian.
Typically they buy up patents of failed companies or looking at it in this case possibly patents of companies that have moved out of an area of business. They are usually marked by the fact that they make nothing except patent lawsuits and have no intention of ever using the technology. Thus patents are not to protect their line of business, they are their line of business.
Mostly they go after smaller companies that are patent unaware and don't have the resources to fight the legal battles. Going after bigger companies is less common as they have big IP lawyer groups and will fight back.
Since they produce nothing they have the significant advantage that the target can't hit them with counter infringement claims. For real companies this usually ends up in a cross licensing agreement.
whats terrible is the level of dishonesty and fraud in ppl like you. inventors existed long before patents and exist today despite patents not because of them.
all patents should be thrown into the toilet as unconstitutional and against the 1st amendment. the constitution does not permit such a thing as banning thought because some one else thought of it first. How can you tell a cancer patient you are not allowed invent a life saving drug because someone else invented that drug first and you have to die if you dont get a license. this is very different from copyright, in that case you have to show that some one stole your work. in patents you just show that its the same idea.
That's because we are so used to patents we start to believe in them. I'm not in the anti patent camp, but I can see how not having patents would be an improvement. Even better If patents would have a short lifetime. Like 3 years for IT.
No IP ? No copyright law ? that sounds a lot like shehnzen . Inventors(companys) need something... , else why do R&D? But then , will Musk, Bezos pay back the US Gov for all the free rocket tech they employ ..
Your description of § 7 of the Clayton Act isn't quite accurate. It doesn't cover "unethical business practices." It prohibits one corporation from acquiring the stock of another where it would lessen competition or create a monopoly. That section is most often used by federal antitrust regulators to contest proposed mergers. It's a little different from § 1 of the Sherman Act for reasons that aren't worth getting into here.
I don't find this ironic at all. Sure Intel and Apple have done some greedy things with there patents but at least they make the stuff they go after people about. I'm thrilled they are going after Softbank because smaller companies can't fight back. I bet we find out they have milked a lot of smaler companies so in a sense they are protecting the little as well.
seriously? so claiming to have invented a brick with rounded corners? I could go on but wont. Both Apple and Intel have for years (and still do) extracted the maximum from the public whilst holding back innovation Intel by doing nothing whilst AMD was in the doldrums Apple by being simply anti competitive with its Business model and not allowing free competition on its own app platform and hunting down jail breakers (sony too in this case), its very Ironic to me at least that they now have to defend them selves against a company that has rights and financial muscle to hold them to account something they have both smashed smaller innovators with in the past, softbank has tried to negotiate but they refuse to play ball figuring they are both beyond reproach due to the size of each of them, for them to climb into bed together like this softbank must have a real strong case. The rights or wrongs are not really the discussion here more the fact they both seem to have been avoiding paying for a tech or product they have used and profited out of
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
Back to Article
peevee - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
"Patent troll" sounds terrible, but without them inventors get nothing as no individual inventor has resources to enforce their patents against the likes of Intel and Apple (and even patenting is very expensive, so for most inventors it is a losing proposition).jeremyshaw - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
The inventors usually get little anyways - just their name on the patent. Ownership is a whole other thing.twtech - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
The theory behind patents and the reality that has emerged are mostly different things. The concept of the small, individual, independent inventor is mostly a thing of the past.evernessince - Sunday, November 24, 2019 - link
Unfortunately but true. Just like how Intellectual property laws have been perverted to benefit big corporations. People don't seem to realize that the people protect corporation's IP and we provide that protection in exchange for that work eventually becoming public domain to enable a base for future inventors, artists, ect. Now though? Companies have lobbied for changes to the laws so that IP essentially stays out of the public domain for the life time of multiple humans. It used to be 20 years (which is more then enough time to capitalize on things you've made).In essence, the protection of IP is an infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of expression (no one can use those ideas during the period of copyright). It is needed but in it's current form it is utterly draconian.
RBFL - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
Typically they buy up patents of failed companies or looking at it in this case possibly patents of companies that have moved out of an area of business. They are usually marked by the fact that they make nothing except patent lawsuits and have no intention of ever using the technology. Thus patents are not to protect their line of business, they are their line of business.Mostly they go after smaller companies that are patent unaware and don't have the resources to fight the legal battles. Going after bigger companies is less common as they have big IP lawyer groups and will fight back.
Since they produce nothing they have the significant advantage that the target can't hit them with counter infringement claims. For real companies this usually ends up in a cross licensing agreement.
azfacea - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
whats terrible is the level of dishonesty and fraud in ppl like you. inventors existed long before patents and exist today despite patents not because of them.all patents should be thrown into the toilet as unconstitutional and against the 1st amendment. the constitution does not permit such a thing as banning thought because some one else thought of it first. How can you tell a cancer patient you are not allowed invent a life saving drug because someone else invented that drug first and you have to die if you dont get a license. this is very different from copyright, in that case you have to show that some one stole your work. in patents you just show that its the same idea.
rpg1966 - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
That's one of the silliest comments I've ever read on this site.Samus - Saturday, November 23, 2019 - link
Just this site? This comment is worthy of a post on Yahoo Answers :)Foeketijn - Sunday, November 24, 2019 - link
That's because we are so used to patents we start to believe in them. I'm not in the anti patent camp, but I can see how not having patents would be an improvement. Even better If patents would have a short lifetime. Like 3 years for IT.MASSAMKULABOX - Wednesday, November 27, 2019 - link
No IP ? No copyright law ? that sounds a lot like shehnzen . Inventors(companys) need something... , else why do R&D? But then , will Musk, Bezos pay back the US Gov for all the free rocket tech they employ ..Samus - Saturday, November 23, 2019 - link
It isn't patent troll.In our PC society, they prefer to be called a "patent assertion entity"
Now don't be a bully and go in the corner for a 10 minute timeout, you jerk.
believeland - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
Your description of § 7 of the Clayton Act isn't quite accurate. It doesn't cover "unethical business practices." It prohibits one corporation from acquiring the stock of another where it would lessen competition or create a monopoly. That section is most often used by federal antitrust regulators to contest proposed mergers. It's a little different from § 1 of the Sherman Act for reasons that aren't worth getting into here.Anton Shilov - Friday, November 22, 2019 - link
Thank you a lot for that, fixed.I am from Europe, so I do not know all the laws or how they work.
alufan - Saturday, November 23, 2019 - link
lol the ironyFreckledTrout - Saturday, November 23, 2019 - link
I don't find this ironic at all. Sure Intel and Apple have done some greedy things with there patents but at least they make the stuff they go after people about. I'm thrilled they are going after Softbank because smaller companies can't fight back. I bet we find out they have milked a lot of smaler companies so in a sense they are protecting the little as well.speculatrix - Sunday, November 24, 2019 - link
Softbank are a huge investor in companies which innovate, like Arm.vladx - Friday, November 29, 2019 - link
Lol, you mean Softbank "milks" companies instead of investing in them.alufan - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
seriously?so claiming to have invented a brick with rounded corners? I could go on but wont.
Both Apple and Intel have for years (and still do) extracted the maximum from the public whilst holding back innovation Intel by doing nothing whilst AMD was in the doldrums Apple by being simply anti competitive with its Business model and not allowing free competition on its own app platform and hunting down jail breakers (sony too in this case), its very Ironic to me at least that they now have to defend them selves against a company that has rights and financial muscle to hold them to account something they have both smashed smaller innovators with in the past, softbank has tried to negotiate but they refuse to play ball figuring they are both beyond reproach due to the size of each of them, for them to climb into bed together like this softbank must have a real strong case.
The rights or wrongs are not really the discussion here more the fact they both seem to have been avoiding paying for a tech or product they have used and profited out of
Trikkiedikkie - Saturday, November 30, 2019 - link
Like the rounded corner?Apple has not invented much, ever. They only improved most of the time. So pretty much it is all existing tech they sued over.