I suppose you can argue there’s some problem with someone who pays a small amount of money for a patent and then sues for a large amount. But that only seems to be a problem when they pay too little. Would people feel similarly about people who buy cheap clunker cars and, refurbish them, and then sell them for much more? It’s quite the same thing. If the lawsuit were a slam dunk, the innovator could get more for the patent. A large award is a result of value added by the purchaser.

And, of course, if they use unscrupulous practices to push claims that wouldn’t hold up in court or intimidate people into paying licensing fees for patents they know are invalid, that is contemptable conduct. But it’s just as contemptable when done by an innovator against a competitor. The nature of the entity doing the abuse doesn’t make the abuse any different.

Patents are granted for a limited time? Yikes when did that happen? Why was I not informed? Does the Queen know?

What I am referring to is Big Co always having the patents on new improvements acquired from New Co. By exercising their dominance and playing the system they generate a perpetual patent estate that is too costly for New Co. to address.

“Do you trust Big Co. to always deliver for you at a competitive price?”

What competitive market between profit driven suppliers? There is only one supplier. New Co died. There is a profit driven supplier but no competition.

“Would you not rather see New Co. taking their invention to market and fairly competing with Big Co.?”

” it’s inherent in the patent bargain that someone or other is likely to have no market competition on its patented invention for a while”. Err patents are a negative monopoly correct? This is not inherent at all. It’s highly likely that New Co will have unfair market competition dawn on day one. We are not talking about a level “patent” playing field here.

I would rather have a true market determine the best root for monetization as opposed to a Troll. I have nothing in particular against Trolls. It’s also not good that Big Co charges monopoly prices even though through economies of scale they make massive margins.

“What about entrepreneurs who don’t want to sell their patents (and soul) on the cheap to Big Co. or to NPEs?”

What higher priorities? They do want to see enormous profit from their ideas and hard work. Not a rip off patent sale. There may be other reasons for business failure but a big one for many start-ups is dominant intractable patent estates owned by Big Co. Roll over and die.

“What is the value of all the enabling disclosures from Big Co. that are clearly not inventions and are of no use to humanity? “

I’m not talking about patents not being practiced. The patents I am talking about are those that lack utility but are a threat to the practice of technology protected by legitimate patents.

Disclosures that are clearly not inventions and clearly not useful have regularly issued from the USPTO and apparently last for 20 years (I looked it up).

Re-examination! Try getting a VC to pay for 100 re-examinations for commercial certainty before they invest. You know capitalists are a bit wobbly in these scenarios.

“The Big Co. patents were granted because the patent system does not function properly and they play the numbers game.”

You probably don’t realise this but I do know how to suck eggs. In my working life I have seen the game from all angles. Trust me very many Big Co patents are simply punts and they know it. If you think that large corporate patent portfolios are awash with innovation you are sadly mistaken.

They do protect great and genuine innovation but they also have patent drafting monkeys in far flung places churning out crap to file at the USPTO and guess what? Lots of crap gets granted. Are they bothered? No. Because it’s someone else’s problem.

What about them? You’d have to justify them under the Commerce Clause or something. Patents are granted for a limited time.

“Do you trust Big Co. to always deliver for you at a competitive price?”

Of course not, but I wouldn’t trust them to do that regardless of the patent system. However, I would trust BigCo to use economies of scale to undercut Joe Inventor on the exact same product while still turning a profit, and what more can one really ask of a competitive market between profit-driven suppliers?

“Would you not rather see New Co. taking their invention to market and fairly competing with Big Co.?”

Sure, but it’s inherent in the patent bargain that someone or other is likely to have no market competition on its patented invention for a while. That’s the price we all agreed to pay for innovation.

And for all you know, TrollCo might license the entire industry, so you’d have half a dozen companies fairly competing, instead of one independent inventor charging monopoly prices. TrollCo is profit-driven, after all.

“What about entrepreneurs who don’t want to sell their patents (and soul) on the cheap to Big Co. or to NPEs?”

What about them? People with higher priorities than profit shouldn’t complain that they’re not making enough profit.

If they want to start their own business, great. Businesses come with risks and costs. Businesses sometimes fail. A patent is no guarantee of business success, and was never meant to be. And if their business does ultimately fail, at least they can still sell their patent.

“What is the value of all the enabling disclosures from Big Co. that are clearly not inventions and are of no use to humanity? “

Nothing, if you’re going to phrase it that way. Disclosures that are clearly not inventions and clearly not useful should not issue to patent.

If you think particular patents don’t disclose an actual invention, or they’re clearly lacking in utility, request re-exam for them. If you think they’re “of no use to humanity” because they’re not being practiced, I refer you to post 46 upthread.

“The Big Co. patents were granted because the patent system does not function properly and they play the numbers game.”

You don’t actually know that about every single hypothetical patent granted to this hypothetical company. It’s easy to hate on big companies, but that doesn’t mean any or all of their patents are necessarily worthless. A big company is just as entitled to a patent as an independent inventor would be for the same invention.

What about them? You’d have to justify them under the Commerce Clause or something. Patents are granted for a limited time.

“Do you trust Big Co. to always deliver for you at a competitive price?”

Of course not, but I wouldn’t trust them to do that regardless of the patent system. However, I would trust BigCo to use economies of scale to undercut Joe Inventor on the exact same product while still turning a profit, and what more can one really ask of a competitive market between profit-driven suppliers?

“Would you not rather see New Co. taking their invention to market and fairly competing with Big Co.?”

Sure, but it’s inherent in the patent bargain that someone or other is likely to have no market competition on its patented invention for a while. That’s the price we all agreed to pay for innovation.

And for all you know, TrollCo might license the entire industry, so you’d have half a dozen companies fairly competing, instead of one independent inventor charging monopoly prices. TrollCo is profit-driven, after all.

“What about entrepreneurs who don’t want to sell their patents (and soul) on the cheap to Big Co. or to NPEs?”

What about them? People with higher priorities than profit shouldn’t complain that they’re not making enough profit.

If they want to start their own business, great. Businesses come with risks and costs. Businesses sometimes fail. A patent is no guarantee of business success, and was never meant to be. And if their business does ultimately fail, at least they can still sell their patent.

“What is the value of all the enabling disclosures from Big Co. that are clearly not inventions and are of no use to humanity? “

Nothing, if you’re going to phrase it that way. Disclosures that are clearly not inventions and clearly not useful should not issue to patent.

If you think particular patents don’t disclose an actual invention, or they’re clearly lacking in utility, request re-exam for them. If you think they’re “of no use to humanity” because they’re not being practiced, I refer you to this post.

“The Big Co. patents were granted because the patent system does not function properly and they play the numbers game.”

You don’t actually know that about every single hypothetical patent granted to this hypothetical company. It’s easy to hate on big companies, but that doesn’t mean any or all of their patents are necessarily worthless. A big company is just as entitled to a patent as an independent inventor would be for the same invention.

I’m so pleased you mentioned the patent system and its purpose. My faith is restored…partially. Patents are a wonderful invention…… really.

If the patent system functions properly? In the real world or your world?

What about perpetual monopolies? How about competition for Big Co.? Do you trust Big Co. to always deliver for you at a competitive price? Would you not rather see New Co. taking their invention to market and fairly competing with Big Co.? What about entrepreneurs who don’t want to sell their patents (and soul) on the cheap to Big Co. or to NPEs? Is this innovation? What is the value of all the enabling disclosures from Big Co. that are clearly not inventions and are of no use to humanity? Should they be allowed to outweigh the highly valuable enabling disclosure of New Co. in the way that they do with the consequnces we see? The Big Co. patents were granted because the patent system does not function properly and they play the numbers game.

Not sure this looks like the result we expected or need.

We all lose because this situation stifles innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit. Patent Trolls at the extreme are bad (just) for some. LPEs with anti-competitive patent estates, that swindle the system, are bad for all.

Not if the patent system functions properly. We get an enabling disclosure of the invention, the inventor gets his reward which encourages future inventors to do the same thereby promoting the useful arts, and BigCo uses the invention in products we can buy.

That’s the bargain we all agreed to some centuries ago, when we decided that patents were a good idea. Are you saying we cut a bad deal? Should we ask for our $24 worth of trinkets back?

It’s a trick question. It’s all of us.

I did, but I thought it would be impolite to call attention to him.