Andy Grove On Patents: You Should Use 'Em Or Lose 'Em
from the good-for-him dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about a rather thoughtful analysis of the problems of the patent system by Intel founder and former CEO Andy Grove. His view was that patents separate the important part (the actual innovation) from the "asset" (the patent), and that allows for bad behavior. He compared it to mortgage-backed securities, where the underlying mortgages were completely separated from the "asset," and bad behavior ensued. Apparently, he received a lot of criticism for this view -- but he's not backing down (if anything, he appears to be getting more aggressive). The Economist's tech quarterly issue includes a fascinating look at Grove and his views on innovation as a whole, and the wider economy. He mocks the idea that the gov't should ever prop up failing business models, noting that it stalls innovation. At the very end, he's asked if he believes what he said earlier this year about patents, and he not only defends his earlier statements, but makes an even stronger one:"You can't just sit on your ass and give everyone the finger."Unfortunately, with today's patent (and copyright) system, you can.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andy grove, innovation, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Never compromise, even in the face of armageddon
Always good to see people stand up to a messed up system. Even better to see those who have a loud voice do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His point seems fairly clear. If you are going to get a patent it should be directed to products in your current and upcoming product portfolio. If it ceases to apply to either, dump it and move on to something else. Whatever may happen, it should not be separated from the invention/product and sold to the highest bidder merely because it holds some measure of exclusionary value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But What Consitutes "Use"?
But the devil is in the details. The problem that I see is that companies are now patenting concepts, such as "one-click". They are not patenting an actual device (asset). So what that means is that even if a patent troll owns a patent on some ambiguous "device" but someone else actually builds the device and puts it into the marketplace; the patent troll will still assert that the so-called patent is somehow in use, but that they were prevent by some nefarious obstruction from bringing it into the marketplace. For Grove's concept to work, we need to establish a clear definition of what a patent is and when a patent is actually put into use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
I'll make it easy for you, punky
According to Grove (and the rest of corporate shysters) the only good patent is a patent owned by a large multinational corporation like Intel or Msgit and used to maintain their monopoly on the market
All other patents are bad by his definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
"If he had ever invented anything in his life, he would understand. He hasn't got a creative bone in his body."
I mean, someone like you always lobs that gem out when Mike speaks againt the patent system. Oh, but with Grove you go with the big bad company line.
Who, in your mind, would be qualified to make a case against the patent system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
Certainly not that corporate stooge Grove or his cheap puppet Mikey
Someone who made a genuine contribition to human progress
Think Dean Kamen, or Raymond Kurzweil, or Robert Metcalfe, or Leroy Hood, or Gordon Gould etc. etc etc.
These folks made important contributions and improved the quality of life, including your life, punky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey is a corporate lackey
WTF did he invent ? A transistor, a semiconductor chip ?
Nope, he just managed to extract maximum profits from someone else's inventions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey is a corporate lackey
**I trolled with angry dude**
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey is a corporate lackey
MIkey probly does it too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Andy is delusional
Patents ARE property and like any other type of property they can be bought and sold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If patent doesn't make any money those are the only fees you pay to the government
If patent starts making money then you'll have to pay tax on that income of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the case of income earned from licensing, such income is treated as earned income and subject to ordinary income taxes vs. capital gains.
As you correctly note, maintenance fees are likewise a tax, payable at statutorily set times in order for a patent to remain in force.
Filing, prosecution and issue fees are the most pernicious of all. Historically they have exceeded the amounts actually spent by the USPTO. This has not gone unnoticed by Congress who promptly began diverting fees for purposes unrelated to the running of the USPTO.
These are just federal tax considerations. States do have concurrent power to levy taxes as well. To my knowledge, however, this is largely the exception and not the rule. For example, Florida at one time had (and may still have) its notorious intangibles tax. I say notorious because virtually everbody was unaware of the tax until a letter came in the mail saying "pay up".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, do tell us about the horrible maintenance fees. Cry us a river.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Patent Maintenance Fees
1551/2551 1.20(e) Due at 3.5 years 980.00 490.00
1552/2552 1.20(f) Due at 7.5 years 2,480.00 1,240.00
1553/2553 1.20(g) Due at 11.5 years 4,110.00 2,055.00
1554/2554 1.20(h) Surcharge - 3.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00
1555/2555 1.20(h) Surcharge - 7.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00
1556/2556 1.20(h) Surcharge - 11.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00
1557 1.20(i)(1) Surcharge after expiration - Late payment is unavoidable 700.00
1558 1.20(i)(2) Surcharge after expiration - Late payment is unintentional 1,640.00
These are not exactly miniscule amounts, unless you happen to be someone who dislikes patents and who believe that such fees should be large enough to cover the many stimulus packages floating around.
Next time you want to wax poetic on an issue it would behoove you to first get the relevant data.
As I noted, these maintenance fees are just one part of the taxes that are levied against those who participate in the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shillin for livin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
impostors be damned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just had an interesting thought (patent pending obviously) - if copyrights and patents themselves are property in the way that some people claim - could they be subject to eminent domain in the way that physical property is?
In a way, this already happens with pharmaceutical patents - governments decide to manufacture their own generic drugs before the patent expires
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
yeah, right, in Venezuela
Go live there punky
God save you from becoming seriously ill there
They have a shortage of just about anything right now.
A litlle more effort on Chavez part and they'll have to smuggle all new drugs from other countries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breaking News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grove in his groove
Now the question Andy can answer for us is if his competitor or some entity outside of Intel infringed or wanted to buy this invention from Intel what would Intel and Andy do? This almost certainly happened what did Andy and Intel do in a real specific instance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grove in his groove
Now the question Andy can answer for us is if his competitor or some entity outside of Intel infringed or wanted to buy this invention from Intel what would Intel and Andy do? This almost certainly happened what did Andy and Intel do in a real specific instance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grove in his groove
Let me guess...
Screw the competitor using the patent Intel does not practice itself ?
Right, Andy ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would angry dude do?
Speaking of double standards, yes, I know that I call Mikee a corporate shill. And yes, I just raged and bitched about the system as it is screwing me over. And Mikee is against that system. But I am angry, so I am against everyone. Current system favors corporations with lawyers and it makes it hard for small fry. But to change it would mean admitting that I am wrong and there is no way in hell that's happening. Going back to being angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
impostors be damned
you have no clue
yes, patent game favors large corps but sometimes even small fry can get a lucky break
But I'd love to see this country without patents
How do you think non-compete employment agreements would look like ?
Ever gave this any thought ?
Any good engineer working on new high-tech products will be able to enjoy much better job security in a corporate world without patents
Wonderful !!!
Not gonna happen, dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: impostors be damned
When have I ever advocated getting rid of patents altogether? If that's what I was in favor of, I wouldn't have to bust Mikee's balls here. You are one of the sheeple here that follows everything Mikee says and now you are trying to pretend you are me and turn everything upside down. Go do something useful, punky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point I want to make is this
But that is not what Andy, Mikey & Co are advocating
They advocate making patents a sport of kings so only rich and powerful corporations can benefit
Screw you all, Andy, Mikey and Co.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point I want to make is this
Oh and BTW, IP is NOT real property--never has and never will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point I want to make is this
Ah well, you don't have either so why do you care, punky ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point I want to make is this
They advocate making patents a sport of kings so only rich and powerful corporations can benefit
Really? When have I ever suggested anything like that?
I have pointed out, repeatedly, that I think the current patent reform on the table makes things worse, not better. I don't quite understand why you keep insisting that I'm in agreement with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Err... what on god's green earth does anti-trust have to do with patents? And in case you have not heard of Intel (you seem to be confused about them), they have quite a broad patent portfolio that they use to beat up competition and others quite well. And that's under current system. Of course, why use facts when you can make shit up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stop the shilling!!!
They just want to weaken patents in the hands of smaller upstarts and private individuals so they can keep their monopolies going on forever
This was precisely the purpose behind attempted patent "reform" - to make patents unaffordable and unusable to smaller underfunded patent holders
But I'd love to see those employment non-compete agreements for engineers in a world without patents :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You can't just sit on your ass and give everyone the finger."
Also, you still have one hand free to 'use' the patent however you like, so Andy's otherwise excellent suggestion will quickly be undone by the myriad 'uses' a clever one-handed lawyer can still discover for the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]