Stanford Professor Insists Consumers Are Helped By Patent Trolls

from the why-does-stanford-hire-these-people dept

Mon, Oct 5th 2015 11:42am — Mike Masnick

Bloomberg has a weird story about Unwired Planet's patent trolling. As we've discussed, Unwired Planet is a company that's gone through many forms over the years, from Phone.com to Openwave and then Unwired Planet. It's true that the company was something of a pioneer in early WAP browsers, but WAP browsers were a joke that never caught on. The mobile internet didn't really catch on until the rise of smartphones and higher bandwidth wireless data connections -- which Unwired Planet had nothing to do with. So like many failed tech companies, it decided to go full on patent troll. A few years ago, we wrote about it buying more than 2,000 patents from Ericsson that it was then using to shake down companies that didn't fail in the same space that Unwired Planet did fail in.

The Bloomberg article is mostly unremarkable, other than calling the company the "inventor" of the mobile internet. That's misleading. It was one hyped up company that helped push a failed vision of a mobile internet, that eventually went nowhere. And now it's patent trolling. But the other bizarre part of the article is that it quotes Stanford professor Stephen Haber as claiming that consumers benefit from patent trolls:

“The losers from a world without patent litigation would, in the end, be consumers,” said Haber. Inventors won’t innovate unless they can ensure they are paid for their invention, he argued.

He may argue that, but he's wrong. Like, really wrong. Actual research shows that the leading reasons for innovating have absolutely nothing to do with patents. Rather, people and companies tend to innovate because (1) they need something themselves or (2) they see a need in the market. And the "ensure they are paid for their invention" makes no sense. If they have an invention people want, then they can sell that product and make money that way. You don't need patents for that. Yes, some others may enter the market as well, but that's called competition, and that's a good thing.

Amazingly, if you look at Stephen Haber's official bio, you'd think he'd know this. After all, it says:

Haber has spent his academic life investigating the political institutions and economic policies that delay innovation and improvements in living standards. Much of that work has focused on how regulatory and supervisory agencies are often used by incumbent firms to stifle competition, thereby curtailing economic opportunities and slowing technological progress.

Regulatory agencies used by incumbent firms to stifle competition is basically the definition of the patent system. Yet, instead, Haber has been spending the last few years preaching the wonders of patent trolling, insisting that lots of litigation is just fine and that there's no evidence that it's harming consumers. That's ridiculous. Tons of studies have shown the massive costs of patent trolling on innovation.

Having a Stanford professor spout such nonsense reflects incredibly poorly on Stanford.

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: innovation, mobile internet, patent trolling, patent trolls, patents, stephen haber
Companies: unwired planet

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael, 5 Oct 2015 @ 11:54am

“The losers from a world without patent litigation would, in the end, be consumers,”

As a consumer, I think that this is an acceptable loss and would be happy to suffer the consequences to allow for better innovation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 11:58am

Would be better if your slant was off patents as such and on unproductive grifters.

Advocate that actual industrialists making goods should have protections, but not mere shell corporations that never make goods. It's not a subtle difference, easily tested first thing in a court.

There. Off top of my head, I've given an actual bullet point that you could take and advocate (for free! without even attribution!), but I predict that you'll continue your unbroken string of only kibitzing, never taking any position.

Heck, you even make it difficult to impossible to get the comment in here! 8th try... Why do I bother, then? -- To point up what an empty shell Techdirt is! No actual plans, not even wishes, just complaints! The more difficult commenting here is, more that needs emphasized!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 12:05pm

Re:
Advocate that actual industrialists making goods should have protections, but not mere shell corporations that never make goods

What about the back shed inventors? They do not make stuff, or are you claiming that only corporations can invent things?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 5 Oct 2015 @ 12:06pm

Re:
It's not a subtle difference, easily tested first thing in a court

Have you ever been the defendant? This statement alone makes your argument terrible. Patent trolls expect to lose in court. They are banking on the cost to even get to court is going to make waging any sort of fight stupid from a cost-benefit standpoint.

The only way you could make your argument make sense would be if the test you are referring to (which, by the way, would be anything but easy in court) helpful would be if you could pass legislation that forced the court to award attorney's fees to the defendant if the troll was found to be "non-practicing". You very quickly run into barriers there because the attorney's have a lot of lobbying power and would not want this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 12:16pm

If they have an invention people want, then they can sell that product and make money that way. You don't need patents for that.

True. You need patents to keep your competitors from copying what you did and undercutting you on price (since they didn't have to do much in the way of R&D).

There are lots of abuses in the patent system, and lots of patents out there that never should have been granted. There are lots of ways in which the system doesn't serve its intended purpose, and it may well be that the best answer is to burn the whole system to the ground (metaphorically) and start over (or maybe not start over at all).

But in considering that, we shouldn't lose sight of the underlying intent. It was the belief of the framers that people would have an increased incentive to innovate if they believed they could profit from their inventions. Thus, they believed, someone who invented something truly innovative should be temporarily guaranteed the exclusive right to make that invention. Hence, patents. I have trouble seeing how, in principle, this is a bad thing.

When you say that "you don't need patents" to create and sell something, you're setting up a strawman. Nobody's saying that patents are essential to creating products, that they're essential for innovation, or that profit is the only incentive people have to innovate--all of these are demonstrably false. But to deny that profit provides any incentive to innovate just doesn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 12:27pm

There we go again!
Inventors won’t innovate unless they can ensure they are paid for their invention, he argued.
The "All or Nothing" argument in it's most horrible form.
I am tired of listen to these smucks putting this out there and basicly getting away with it every time.
Every journalist should swear an oath to call people out in the loudest possible way when this occurs.
It is always:
Choose: Terrorism, pedophile rapists, and Anarchy vs giving the govt total power.
Full copyright for you and your grandchildrens grandchildren or no art.
Patent trolls and innovation vs. becoming a 3. world contry where you will starve to death in the steets.
It is so sad that people actually buy this mother of craps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 12:28pm

The absolute certainty that I would be shaken down, sued, or be the subject of a hostile takeover guarantees that anything I create will be alternatively distributed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 12:36pm

Re:
Why do I bother, then?

I dunno. I'd certainly prefer if you didn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 1:19pm

Re:
There. Off top of my head, I've given an actual bullet point that you could take and advocate (for free! without even attribution!), but I predict that you'll continue your unbroken string of only kibitzing, never taking any position.

Why do you keep insisting that Techdirt doesn't take a position on how to fix patents?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110819/14021115603/so-how-do-we-fix-patent-system.shtml
h ttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/18322919680/judge-posner-mission-to-fix-patents-we-have-so me-suggestions.shtml

This has been pointed out to you in the past, and you keep insisting otherwise. Why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
connermac725 (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 1:41pm

Never a Dull read here
I always come here for the funny comments and I am never disappointed
sorry to those who thought they were serious but funny is funny right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 5 Oct 2015 @ 1:58pm

Bad assumptions lead to a bad result.
You may not see the bad side of patents, but Jefferson did. He was our first patent clerk and none of the BS that goes on today would have passed muster with him.

The original English patent system was created so craftsmen would not hoard knowledge and people would not be recreating things. However, it is clear that the cost of "recreating things" is far preferable to the current situation. Necessity is the mother of invention, not avarice. People will "invent" simply because shit needs to get done. They don't have any idea of "owning" it.

Unfortunately, anyone's work can be hijacked by all manner of trolls claiming to own the obvious. Even mere consumers can be eggregiously harrassed by this nonsense.

There are entire frameworks for sharing academic knowledge so the value of sharing knowledge through patents would be disputable even if patents weren't worthless as documentation.

It's so bad that undergrads and even school children can see an "invention" and immediately recreate it without any documentation of the inner workings of the "device".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 2:09pm

those who can't.... teach
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 3:50pm

Re:
those who can't.... teach

And those who really can't, blog angrily while personally attacking those that disagree with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 3:53pm

The possibility of him raking in money for this is pretty high up there , but now he's selling his soul for a few dollars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 3:57pm

Re: Re:
And those that have nothing to say in response, attack personally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glenn D. Jones (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 4:07pm

Take a look at who funded some of his papers
Here's a paper co-authored by Haber, entitled "AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF PATENT HOLDUP":

http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/3/549.full.pdf

Take a look at who contributed financially (double-daggered on the first page):

To ensure academic freedom and independence, both PCI and IP2, along with all work associated with them, have only been supported by unrestricted gifts. All such work, including this article, reflects the independent views of the authors as academics. Some majore donors have included Microsoft, Pfizer, and Qualcomm.

(emphasis added)

He has co-authored papers that defend Microsoft before:

"EU Antitrust Nonsense": http://www.techpolicy.com/Articles/E/EU-Antitrust-Nonsense.aspx

"Microsoft’s European Experience Troubling for Other U.S. Companies": http://www.techpolicy.com/Articles/M/Microsoft-s-European-Experience-Troubling-for-Othe.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 4:17pm

Re: Take a look at who funded some of his papers
More personal attacks. Lots of academics on all sides get corporate funding. Can't you address the merits of what he writes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 4:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm happy to engage Mike on the merits. I've been trying to for many years. He runs away every single time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 5 Oct 2015 @ 5:10pm

@Glenn D. Jones
Reading about the professor made me immediately wonder who bought him. Thanks for the answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 6:02pm

Re: Re:
".. are you claiming that only corporations can invent things?"

Corporate wet dream
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 6:04pm

Re:
out_of_the_blue just can't stand it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shill boss, 5 Oct 2015 @ 7:01pm

Re:
Back away from the keyboard!!! You are currently too drunk or high to type coherently. I recommend you cool down a bit before typing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2015 @ 8:47pm

Fiction innovates more so than fact
“The losers from a world without patent litigation would, in the end, be consumers,” said Haber. Inventors won’t innovate unless they can ensure they are paid for their invention, he argued.

Wrong on so many levels. Innovation.. true innovation is often born of necessity, not profit. An inventor thinks of how to improve the quality of life, not put a tax upon it.

Perhaps we'd better off if a better example were adopted straight from some fictional story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 10:06pm

Re:
Why do I bother, then?

Because you're stupid as f*ck?

*clicks report*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 5 Oct 2015 @ 10:26pm

Someone must be studying it
I don't see anything there that says his intent is to curtail those "evils".

Based on his arguments above, I would guess he is a leading proponent of using those tools for the advancement of the interests of incumbent corporations. Specifically, using them to "curtail opportunities", "slow economic progress" and "delay innovation" on the part of upstart corporations such as, for example, Uber.

It shouldn't be a surprise: someone must be studying how to use these things to suppress competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 12:59am

Re:
Those who can't.....get an MBA, run companies and take control of other people's work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 6 Oct 2015 @ 5:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's called "having better things to do than argue with an idiot troll who will never understand and continue to throw shit".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 6 Oct 2015 @ 6:19am

Re:
" Thus, they believed, someone who invented something truly innovative should be temporarily guaranteed the exclusive right to make that invention."

That wasn't really the intent. The purpose of the patent system is less to encourage innovation (although that's a part) and more to offer an incentive for inventors to reveal what it is that they invented so that others can build on what they did.

I agree that a patent system can be a very good thing. I also agree that the patent system we have is broken and doesn't do much toward accomplishing its goal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 6:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, great. It's Chicken-Noise-Counts-As-Arguments Man again. Don't you have an account to log into? Or are you once again admitting that your sole purpose is to troll, spam, and be an asshole?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 6:23am

Re: Re: Take a look at who funded some of his papers
Your addressing of merits turns out to be nothing but barnyard impersonations. Hardly someone qualified to lead by example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 7:42am

Re: Re: Re: Take a look at who funded some of his papers
Bawk! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan (profile), 6 Oct 2015 @ 7:49am

Better for consumers
Patent trolls mean fewer choices, so it's just like how I give my kid only 2 options when asking what he wants for dinner.

Prof. Haber is our wise parent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 7:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or, a chicken of a man who can't defend anything that he says because he knows it's all nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 7:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bawk! Maybe one day, Mike will be able to link to even one single comment where he bested me. After five plus years, I'm starting to think that will never happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 8:00am

Re: Re:
"Run companies" is too gracious. More like, come up with a bunch of dumb ideas that don't pan out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moonkey, 6 Oct 2015 @ 9:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Out of all the commenters on this website I have seen, you may have the thickest skull. And what I just said probably contradicts what I'm about to say.

Like I said in another article, speak professionally. Don't speak with insults, speak with what you believe in. Have it challenged and graciously accept the challenges. Don't respond to those challenges with insults or aggravation. Be true to yourself, and be patient.

Many ignore you or discredit you because you speak to discredit others without reasonable evidence, using only your opinions as cannon fodder.

Mike does not want to stoop to that level, so don't give others a reason to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moonkey, 6 Oct 2015 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you're sadistic.

Then by all means have a hayride. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm here all day long, every day. If you or Mike ever wants to talk specifics, I'm all ears. I suspect that you, like Mike, never want to say anything specific. It's so much easier to discredit our enemies that way, right?

Anyway, you name it, I'm here. Any specific thing you want to discuss on the merits, I'm your guy. I doubt you ever will be. It makes me sad that you can't, but that's my burden.

Challenge accepted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 5:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdir t.shtml#c1210
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2015 @ 9:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You think that consumers are helped by companies that demand other companies for money - just because they use commercially available scanners to scan documents into pictures and attach them to emails? Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2015 @ 3:01am

Re:
You use the word grifters a lot. It describes you well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kromlin, 8 Oct 2015 @ 11:16am

Human brain bad at reasoning...
"they see a need in the market. And the "ensure they are paid for their invention" makes no sense."

The brain is bad at reasoning and reality, see the science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kalem tez hazırlama (profile), 24 May 2016 @ 2:07am

PREPARATION OF THESIS
PREPARATION OF THESIS
You have to prepare a thesis for graduation in license, master and doctorate education. While the preparation of the thesis coincides with the education got in master and doctorate period, this is the chose of one of the departments in license education. In other words license thesis is generally given by the decision of the department. The primary aim of thesis preparation is to enhance the academic research skills of the students. In addition creating a strategic plan, the regulation of the researched and collected information within the plan is among the other aims of the preparation of the thesis. The preparation of thesis requires a disciplined approach and patience. The success in the preparation of thesis is possible with strategic planning, research, compilation and specificity.

If you are looking for perfection but you have obstacles such as time and resource, don’t worry about it. Contact us; we will prepare a perfect thesis for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kalem tez hazırlama (profile), 24 May 2016 @ 2:10am

PREPARATION OF THESIS
source web: http://www.kalemtezhazirlama.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2019 @ 10:12pm

Once more, with feeling:

There once was an average_joe
Who worked as an average ho
He straddled Chris Dodd
Kissed down his Chris bod
And gave him an average blow
[ link to this | view in thread ]