Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....

[Greg Rundlett]

On 10/17/07, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:53:59 -0400
> Bill McGonigle <bill at bfccomputing.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there something inherently wrong with the business model of a
> > small inventor who licenses his inventions but outsources protection
> > prosecution?
> >
> > I recognize many patent trolls don't resemble this arrangement, but
> > it would be easy to squish the former in an attempt to squash the
> > latter.
>
> This is a very difficult question. I think the problem is how do you
> write a law that both enables the inventor to assign (or outsource
> patents) but at the same time outlaws patent trolling.  Take a case
> where a company invents and patents a widget. That company at some
> future time, decides to sell the patent because they may no longer be
> receiving revenue from that product. They sell it to a patent troll
> whose business is to buy and enforce patents. The problem here is that
> by legislating restrictions to outlaw patent trolling would also be
> preventing a company from selling an asset.
>
> In the case of the 3 patents in the Red Hat/Novell case, we are talking
> about Xerox, not a small inventor. But, you certainly have a very valid
> case.

I don't believe patents have a place in modern society.  I'm speaking
of all patents, not just the most obviously insane extension of
patents to 'business processes and software'.  The current system is
completely stacked against any such notion as a 'small inventor'.  And
what's the point anyway?  The patent system is supposed to entice
innovation and discovery (by providing monopoly) so that invention is
not hoarded as a trade secret.  But that rationale was born in an era
framed by travel, communication and technology that were completely
different from today.  Today there is so much innovation and discovery
that there is no way to keep up with it.  There is surely no way (for
any 'small' inventor) to keep up with patent filings (that would
'prevent' the small inventor from inventing something).  There are
better ways to entice innovation and discovery.  Take
http://innocentive.com/ as an example.  They match 'seekers' and
'solvers' with cash bounties for up to $100,000.

Due to the patent system, the world is limited to basically two large
consumer products companies that sell coffee.  Why? because canisters
come in round or square shapes (triangular being rather impractical --
although maybe there is an idea I should patent).  Those shapes are
patented and so nobody else can package coffee in a canister without
violating a patent.  Proctor and Gamble (or Procter & Gamble depending
on how they want to hide similar patents) has the patent on round [1]
(think Folgers coffee.), and Kraft has the patent on square (think
Maxwell House coffee).  Why does society need to increase the cost of
innovation and discovery so that there can be monopolies on the shape
of a coffee canister?  Actually, they own the design of the container
for any purpose -- not just coffee.  This is just a simple example;
you could get a lot more serious on the topic.

[1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=N3QOAAAAEBAJ&dq=patent:D480312

We'd all be better off with patents (like slavery) abolished.