[xKarl]

Explain yourself.

I don't see any reason to not own patents in order to protect your work from being patent trolled.

Let's say you invent the novel. Right? You don't patent it because you think patents kill babies. Then I act fast enough and quickly patent the novel, because no one did so before. I did it quickly enough to make it unclear who was first. Then I sue your company for copyright infringment.

Yeah, that means I'm an asshole. Doesn't matter, I'm rich now. That's why you should patent you ideas, even if you don't mind other people using them.

[DanBC]

> I don't see any reason to not own patents in order to protect your work from being patent trolled.

Patents last a long time. Longer, sadly, than many companies. A good-faith company that owns several patents has no control over those "assets of the company" if they go out of business. If those patents end up in the hands of patent trolls there is nothing that the good faith company (or the ex-employees) can do.

Your novel analogy shows just how broken the patent system is.

[Alderin]

Perhaps here is a simple and effective minimizer to the evils of patents: make them non-transferrable. The original legal person (natural person or corporation) that was granted the patent holds it until expiration or death/dissolution/acquisition. Fewer patent trolls could operate if there are no patent transfers.

[learc83]

>Then I act fast enough and quickly patent the novel, because no one did so before.

This is incorrect. Prior art would invalidate the patent, since someone is already selling novels--patents have to be novel(no pun intended). You can't patent the idea just because it hasn't been patented already.

If you don't mind other people using your idea, all you have to do is establish prior art by releasing it to the public, either by selling it or publishing it, to prevent anyone else from patenting it.

If you want to make doubly sure the patent office actually finds your prior art when doing a prior art search after someone else applies for a similar patent, you can file and abandon the patent by failing to pay the fees.

[jedbrown]

In practice, novelty is determined by prior patents because that is what the examiners search.

"Yes, for the patent definition of obvious, basically all the parts are going to have to be either patented, or in some printed publication." -- Patent Examiner "lordnecro" (http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/ww982/iama_patent_e...)

See the rest of the thread for the example where an idea is used in open source software prior to a patent application by a third party. The patent examiner concedes that this would likely not be found by the examiner, therefore the patent would be granted. It likely would not stand up in court, but that doesn't help anyone that can't afford the legal defense.

[learc83]

Did you skip the part where I said to ensure the examiner finds it you can file and then abandon?

[jedbrown]

You still have to prepare the application and pay some fees. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm

If a doubly-linked list is patentable, how many things have you built this month that are also patentable? Do you really have time to write all those bogus patent applications? In academia, it's a much better use of time to publish scientific papers, present at conferences, and put it in open source software. Industry has market-driven motivations.

[xKarl]

It has been said before, there is a huge gap between the prototype and the product that will be sold. That means that a company powerful enough will be able to sell/patent your invention faster than you do if they can lay their hands on the prototype. You'll be screwed, and there's nothing you'll be able to do about it.

[learc83]

This is just ridiculous. I'm not a fan of most patents, but you don't need to invent a bigcorp bogeyman. You seem to be deteremined to believe that bigcorp can completely screw you regardless of the evidence.

Commercial products are often different than the prototype. However, if it uses the same basic innovation, it's generally not going to be so different that the patent doesn't protect it. Patent protection is generally pretty broad.

If the final product doesn't actually use the novel innovation demonstrated by the prototype what advantage does the prototype offer bigcorp?

For example I invent a screwdriver that can work with any screw without a bit change, and I make the handle from rubber, I then file for a patent and am granted it.

Bigcorp comes along and decides to file a patent for the same thing, but for the production version that uses injection molded plastic instead of rubber.

The patent office will reject bigcorp's patent.