Apple set up colocated servers across the world and changed the Facetime protocol significantly to work around a single patent (a patent for direct device to device communication of all things).
I can’t imagine a patent dispute actually stopping them if they were firm on making FT an open standard.
I come from a land where patents don’t really work. I often wonder, are there any examples of patents in the field of software engineering that worked like they supposed to, protecting small collectives from powerful corporations?
Many of the troll cases actually do trace back to a small time inventor, very often a failed small startup. They then sell their patents to various intermediaries which winds up in the hands of a ‘troll.’ So the original inventor does get paid, even if it’s an NPE doing the actual litigation against the big companies. The reason these trolls are so abhorrent is that they seek to maximize their economic value in the patent by trying to extend it as far as they can go, which gives them a bad reputation, but they play an important role in the system which can reward small time inventors. Big companies don’t really buy patents from small inventors any more, so the only route to monetization for an invention is through NPEs.
Yes, that is generally how investments work. Companies determined to spend more money than they are able to make off of patents might have exist, but not for long.
As someone who pays attention but does not proactively search out patent litigation information most of the time, I would say it’s rare. The most benefit I see for smaller collectives is:
- Patenting an idea that’s core to their business. Doesn’t really prevent immediate attacks from clones, but it does make it much easier for them to get funding from VCs.
- Inventors who license the ideas: they patent, then contact manufacturers.
Note: These are not really software-specific as I’m not aware of any software cases where patents benefit smaller businesses.
Maybe we should call it patent fraud and make this kinda thing illegal? Patents should be for companies actually making products to get a market edge of sorts. Not a portfolio of things you never intend to build but instead berate other companies for cash over. Its okay if they are actually still in the process of building the thing but if your company has one single employee and 0 products...
Also wondering where WebRTC stands against that patent.
[not defending patent trolls, just poking what seems to be a hole in the concept]
> Its okay if they are actually still in the process of building the thing
what should happen with a patent holder who sells off their R&D department, and thus stops "developing things"? should they be allowed to keep their patents? (to keep receiving e.g. licencing fees for the stuff they did develop; i think that's how it works?)
Yeah, the problem people seem to have is with the transferability of patents. But the alternative is some sort of personal right rather than a property right, and the huge companies would run roughshod over a system of personal rights to inventions, only enriching the FAANGS of the world at the expense of literally everyone else. Think it through before you go attacking the patent system.
As described above, the trolls play an important part of the system that does reward small players at the expense of large entities. What if you have a startup that intends on making something, but for myriad reasons you go bust, and then you sell your patent to an enforcement entity? That’s what usually happens in these cases.
They should just expire much more rapidly. 20 years is an eternity in the software world, and 10 years, or even 5 years, should be enough to develop a lead, profit a bit, and fund your next invention(s).
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2018/06/06/make-facetime-an-open-standar...