It's fascinating how our legal system, and patent law, have apparently created what is little more than an (apparently) legal extortion scheme.
IV Purchases all these (typically low-quality, frequently obvious, very seldom "Advancing the Arts" class) patents, and then approaches companies to license their various patent portfolios.
The brilliant part of all this, is that if you don't license directly from IV, instead of IV suing you for patent infringement, they _sell_ the patent to a third party, who then attempts to license them to you, or, if they are unsuccessful, sues you.
It feels an awful lot like "Buy some of my insurance, or something bad might happen to your warehouse." And it's all totally legal!
What's strange here, is that Apple (A "Mall") purchased the License (some "Insurance") - and now the people who sold that insurance are going around burning down stores inside that mall, after the little storekeepers didn't buy "insurance."
Apple is going to make the claim that because they bought the "Insurance" that all of the store inside should be protected as well.
And, at no part in this conversation, is Apple even really challenging whether it should be having to purchase "Insurance" - because they do the same thing to other companies, so they have some interest in protecting the status quo.
Now, yes, I realize that there are useful patents, particularly in the drug industry, where it may take 100s of millions of dollars and many years to invent something, and it's almost certain that most of those drugs would never, could never have been invented without patent protection (or massive government subsidies).
In my view of the world, I thought that Patents were supposed to be about "Advancing the arts" - not lining the pockets of the already very rich, to make them even richer.
I have to wonder when the this system will (finally) be overthrown and replaced with something half sane.
I'm not a fan of software patents, but one of those linked in the article is the first software patent that gave me pause (patent 7620565). Most software patents I read consist of "apply <canned algorithm x> to <situation y>". This one doesn't read like that. I think it's very important that this patent is pure fluff - it does not actually keep you from producing a good product in any given field.
The patent was filed in 2006. From my recollection, I can't think of any websites or devices that used this sort of feature before 2006. Today it seems fairly common, but in tech people are so used to blindly copying features (because its so easy to do after someone else has already done all the research) that I can't rightly say this innovation didn't originate with the inventor. All the devices used by potential infringers involving this patent existed for years prior to the filing of this patent, which to me says its not as easy to dismiss as obvious.
The patent was also created by someone who seems to be focused on inventing things. People rail against software trolls because they don't produce an actual product, but if the inventor could not license or sell this patent, this fairly common feature might not exist today.
Because of all the above, this isn't a patent I would point to as an example of why we need to abolish software patents. That said, I'm still not a fan of software patents, and think abolishing them would be a net good.
if the inventor could not license or sell this patent, this fairly common feature might not exist today.
Bzzzzt, I strongly disagree with this supposition. If the inventor approached Apple, was rebuffed, and then Apple copied the invention in the creation of its iOS ecosystem, I might agree with you. However, it appears that what has happened here is that the invention was independently created subsequent to the patent filing.
Which suggests to me that it would have been invented any ways and thus the ability to patent the idea has no bearing on whether the invention would or would not have been discovered.
p.s. By :"bzzzzt," I mean that I am "buzzing in," not making a rude noise intended as an insult!!!
True, assuming the first iPhone had this feature, when comparing the dates of the patent filing to the date of the first iPhone release it's likely that it was independently invented.
IV Purchases all these (typically low-quality, frequently obvious, very seldom "Advancing the Arts" class) patents, and then approaches companies to license their various patent portfolios.
The brilliant part of all this, is that if you don't license directly from IV, instead of IV suing you for patent infringement, they _sell_ the patent to a third party, who then attempts to license them to you, or, if they are unsuccessful, sues you.
It feels an awful lot like "Buy some of my insurance, or something bad might happen to your warehouse." And it's all totally legal!
What's strange here, is that Apple (A "Mall") purchased the License (some "Insurance") - and now the people who sold that insurance are going around burning down stores inside that mall, after the little storekeepers didn't buy "insurance."
Apple is going to make the claim that because they bought the "Insurance" that all of the store inside should be protected as well.
And, at no part in this conversation, is Apple even really challenging whether it should be having to purchase "Insurance" - because they do the same thing to other companies, so they have some interest in protecting the status quo.
Now, yes, I realize that there are useful patents, particularly in the drug industry, where it may take 100s of millions of dollars and many years to invent something, and it's almost certain that most of those drugs would never, could never have been invented without patent protection (or massive government subsidies).
In my view of the world, I thought that Patents were supposed to be about "Advancing the arts" - not lining the pockets of the already very rich, to make them even richer.
I have to wonder when the this system will (finally) be overthrown and replaced with something half sane.