Can The FTC And DOJ Do What The USPTO Won't? Crack Down On Patent Trolls
from the that-would-be-something dept
While the US Patent Office has officially declared its desire to put its head in the sand concerning the problem of patent trolls, it appears that other parts of the government aren't necessarily going to ignore the problem. The FTC and the DOJ are planning explore the issue with patent trolls at a public workshop next month (they use the currently popular term "patent assertion entities" rather than "patent trolls" but it's clear what they mean). And the indications are that they may be looking to use their power to crackdown on bad behavior, potentially even using antitrust tools:"There's a possibility of competitive harm here," said Joseph Wayland, who served as the Justice Department's acting antitrust chief until last week, when he stepped down to return to private practice. Mr. Wayland said officials are devoting "huge energy, particularly at a senior level" to this and other antitrust issues surrounding patents.This seems like a much more reasonable use of antitrust resources than some other recent activity.
Of course, the real irony here is the idea that the government may need to use its antitrust rules to crack down on patent abuse, when the whole reason that there's a "trust" problem in the first place is that patents are a government granted monopoly. So no one should be shocked to then see it lead to antitrust problems. Want to not have monopolistic activity? Don't hand out monopolies.
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: antitrust, doj, ftc, patent trolls, patents, uspto
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah Right?
Yep - that would be Thomas Edison - which is why they ARE in Hollywood - rather than on the East Coast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yeah Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa! Stop the internets! Mike proposes gov't action!
Now, just apply the principle of doing good against Megaupload and other "file-sharing sites" who are definitely giving out infringing material that don't belong to 'em and they've not paid for in any degree but can only operate with a legalistic dodge that exploits loopholes but is immoral, and you'll be nearly round to 'blue's view.
Every click for Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick is a click for him!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Do your part as often as you can! Click early! Click often!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoa! Stop the internets! Mike proposes gov't action!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoa! Stop the internets! Mike proposes gov't action!
The Megaupload case has nothing to do with antitrust so is an invalid argument.
Try harder next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope.
The heads of several patent troll firms have no shame in what it is they do. They fall back on the popular concepts of being poor folks being ripped off by these big mean players.
Until there is a requirement for a patent holder to at least try to do something with a patent, the system will remain broken.
Until there is some sanity in what is patentable, we'll keep having stupid patents issued with wildly broad terms that can and will be applied to anything remotely like it.
IP is our most valuable asset, the problem is it is now a weapon not the tool it was intended to be.
It has been marketed as a tool for destroying your rivals, keeping new concepts from reaching the market, and killing innovation.
It is another way to make obscene amounts of money for doing nothing beyond getting stamped approved.
Then like a pitcher plant they sit and wait for someone to arrive at an obvious or similar idea, then they start dissolving the hapless soul trapped in the legal quagmire.
Companies now buy up patents, like kids trade baseball cards, hoping to have something that will be valuable. Everyone wants the Babe Ruth rookie card.
Meanwhile some new innovative things will never happen because it isn't worth the risk. Some areas are so infested with trolls, no one dares to set foot into the forest of heavy patents... afraid they might cross an imaginary boundary owned by a troll squatting on the land waiting for someone else to plow the field and create something of worth and then extract the profits of others labors.
One only need look at the landscape of smartphones, it is slowly shrinking. Fields of new ideas being left to go fallow, because the trolls control all of the land and will demand high tribute for you daring to innovate an "idea" they "own".
When is the last time you heard about a ground breaking MP3 player? So many ideas owned by those who can keep their market share simply by making anyong with a new idea pay tribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP is not our most valuable asset
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What to patents protect?
Assuming this is the "Right" way to handle it (and the jury is seriously out on that): I don't think anyone should be able to assert an old patent when they have no invention based on the patent.
The "idea" is not what is designed to be protected. If it were, patents would not be publicly published, thus further protecting the idea.
Here's an unrelated idea.
Don't publicly publish the patents.
Then if two entities - even one very much later - submit very similar patents you can invalidate the original via "independent invention".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What to patents protect?
*Facepalm* Just FYI, the whole patent system was set up so inventions would be revealed to the public in exchange for a limited monopoly. If patents stopped being public then that'd shred the last tiny slice of legitimacy the patent system has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What to patents protect?
No... you could still make patents endure for the life of the inventor plus seventy years (or in the case of corporate or anonymous or pseudonymous inventions then a term of 120 years from the year of its creation). That would really shred the last slice of legitimacy.
�
Even then, that limited time would still be better than trade secrets. Once upon a time trade-secrets were referred to as �quasi-property�, that is, a trade-secret was no right against the world. If you didn't contractually agree to keep a secret, you could tell anyone you pleased, or publish in the New York Times. The lobbyists didn't like that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What to patents protect?
Or, to clarify, worse prospective patenter. Since a trade secret lasts forever they are always preferred to a patent except where it is clear that either:
a) Independent invention is likely.
b) The nature of the "invention" implies that the methods being patented will be easy to reverse engineer from the product.
Thus the patent system manifestly fails to address the major issue that it is supposed to address - namely the publication of ideas that would otherwise be kept secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What to patents protect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What to patents protect?
seems like a valid idea, wonder why it was dropped...
oh, i know, to 'encourage' more (faux) innovations...
*snicker*
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What to patents protect?
With everything developing so quickly, does anyone actually go to published patents as a way of actually finding a solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What to patents protect?
Ummm... the entire reason for patents is to stop people from keeping their discoveries a secret. If patents aren't published publicly and with enough detail to replicate them, then there is no reason to have them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the USPTO run the patent courts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 2 would be altering the system, we do have several patents for teasing a cat with a laser pointer and making a PB&J sandwich.
When the people incharge refuse to even acknowledge there is a problem, it makes it harder for there to be any changes made to a broken system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop bringing common sense into the conversation. we're talki9ng about the government, here and, of course, all those that gain financially because the government does these ridiculous things. those responsible for starting this muddle should be penalised as well!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be self obvious by now
In other words, the FTC and DOJ simply want to cut the 'little guys' out of the patent wars. So no, this will in no way solve the problem of patents stifling innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limited "monopolies" of a patent here and there are fine.
It's simply old wisdom that you kids are too "smart" to know: BIG IS BAD. It's also BAD to try for unearned income: TAX THE HELL OUT OF UNEARNED INCOME TO STOP SUCH ABUSES.
Support Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick's proprietary interest!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
He innovated the term all by himself! He alone! It's HIS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited "monopolies" of a patent here and there are fine.
Are you asserting that Mike claims some sort of IP right over the term "Streisand Effect"? If so, citation please: it would seem out of character, as that's the sort of lunacy he usually decries in others.
Or are you criticising his claim to have coined the term? Assuming he did coin it (and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise), I can't see anything wrong with his saying so, unless he's being smug, big-headed, or petulant about it; again, citations would be good.
Or if you assert that he did not in fact come up with it, please share your sources with us.
Ta everso.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited "monopolies" of a patent here and there are fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited "monopolies" of a patent here and there are fine.
it is only 'old news' that 'big equals bad' if you don't pay attention to our last couple hundred years of his story where -in fact- 'big equals good'...
now, it is my personal opinion, that any time an organization gets beyond the normal range of tribal sizes (say, 20-200), then the organization begins breaking down from stunted democracy, toxic secrecy, and lack of accountability...
the internal checks and balances are then gamed by the players who have the juice (and/or borderline personality)to hijack the system to their favor...
that essentially describes our whole crony-capitalist system at the present time... patent/copyright trolling is only a subset of the overall problem...
'solving' the patent/copyright trolling problems STILL leaves an inhuman and inhumane system in control...
on the other paw, 'solving' the system itself will also align patent/copyright issues to the benefit of us 99%...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited "monopolies" of a patent here and there are fine.
Do you think Techdirt could hold a whip round to gather up some funds to get OOTB the psychiatric help he so desperately needs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help for OOB
My opinions are my own. And in no way reflect those of my employers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited "monopolies" of a patent here and there are fine.
So why are you using it?
Shouldn't you be paying for a license?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This oughtta be funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe not, but if a hole was found in say.... tax code; it would be fixed in minutes, I suspect.
This ability to be a 'patent troll' is contrary to the spirit of the law (to progress innovation) and can easily be looked at as a 'hole' - that needs patching, quick.
So perhaps another agency *does* need to get involved, but then it's handing over "content control" to that same agency. Often, with government, the public is better off when nothing gets done anyway.
Just saying if the laws are tilted towards big corporations, expect the "little guy" to disappear from the world of innovation. And in that world the "little guy" is the important one, with all the new and bright ideas. The big corporations style of "innovation" will be to regurgitate the same content OVER and OVER again - as evidenced by network television, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USPTO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USPTO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: USPTO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: USPTO
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57553509-37/samsung-claims-ipad-mini-latest-ipod-viola te-its-patents/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: USPTO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lies and damned lies
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: �we�re using your invention and we�re not going to stop or pay�. This is just dissembling by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. To them the only patents that are legitimate are their own.
It�s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I�ll show you a weak economy with high unemployment. Does that remind you of any present day country?
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don�t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back into the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all patentees, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world�s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are hacks representing themselves as legitimate journalists receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don�t have any.
http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]