| "the belief that just because people could be evil, doesn't mean they will be evil" You might attribute the problem to immaturity. Behold the attitude in this thread: finger-pointing. A patent is not a right or an obligation to produce anything. In truth, it is a right to sue others. But surely, that is not how most patent applicants think about patents when they apply for them. We expect they are have intentions to produce something. We expect they will have products or services to sell or license. People on the web discussing patents are apt to mention government-granted monopolies and pull out quotes from the US Constitution about promoting the progress of useful science and the arts. Clearly, these people are not just thinking about patents as rights to sue: "If I obtain a lot of patents I can start threatening to sue other companies." They are thinking about companies that are planning to produce something and bring it to the marketplace, and the competition those companies might face. But the IT industry is showing us that indeed there are people who are thinking of patents as rights to sue. Thye even think this somehow constitutes a legtimate "business". Because that is the ONLY way they are using patents. "Patent troll" is a term coined by someone in the IT industry. That's where it was born. It's proliferation as a "business model" is being led by a former Microsoft employee. As is true of technology, a patent portfolio is not inherently "evil". It depends on how it is used. The IT industry is showing us how to use patents in the very worst way. I call it immaturity. Steve Jobs throwing a hissy fit and calling Eric Schmidt from Burning Man about Android. The problem is not patents. It is how the IT industry is using them. |