RSS
Andy Grove On Patents: You Should Use 'Em Or Lose 'Em
from the good-for-him dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about a rather thoughtful analysis of the problems of the patent system by Intel founder and former CEO Andy Grove. His view was that patents separate the important part (the actual innovation) from the "asset" (the patent), and that allows for bad behavior. He compared it to mortgage-backed securities, where the underlying mortgages were completely separated from the "asset," and bad behavior ensued. Apparently, he received a lot of criticism for this view -- but he's not backing down (if anything, he appears to be getting more aggressive). The Economist's tech quarterly issue includes a fascinating look at Grove and his views on innovation as a whole, and the wider economy. He mocks the idea that the gov't should ever prop up failing business models, noting that it stalls innovation. At the very end, he's asked if he believes what he said earlier this year about patents, and he not only defends his earlier statements, but makes an even stronger one:
"You can't just sit on your ass and give everyone the finger."Unfortunately, with today's patent (and copyright) system, you can.
40 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Oh No! Car Dealers Might Have To Deal With Informed Customers! That Must Be Illegal!
- If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash
- One Reason Why The USPTO Granted Ridiculously Stupid Internet Patents: Patent Examiners Were Banned From Using The Internet
- The Web Is Saved: East Texas Jury Says Eolas Patents Are Invalid
- Tim Berners-Lee In Court To Try To Prevent Patent Troll Eolas From Patenting Key Web Concepts
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Never compromise, even in the face of armageddon
Always good to see people stand up to a messed up system. Even better to see those who have a loud voice do so.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
His point seems fairly clear. If you are going to get a patent it should be directed to products in your current and upcoming product portfolio. If it ceases to apply to either, dump it and move on to something else. Whatever may happen, it should not be separated from the invention/product and sold to the highest bidder merely because it holds some measure of exclusionary value.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
But What Consitutes "Use"?
But the devil is in the details. The problem that I see is that companies are now patenting concepts, such as "one-click". They are not patenting an actual device (asset). So what that means is that even if a patent troll owns a patent on some ambiguous "device" but someone else actually builds the device and puts it into the marketplace; the patent troll will still assert that the so-called patent is somehow in use, but that they were prevent by some nefarious obstruction from bringing it into the marketplace. For Grove's concept to work, we need to establish a clear definition of what a patent is and when a patent is actually put into use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Mikey is a corporate lackey
WTF did he invent ? A transistor, a semiconductor chip ?
Nope, he just managed to extract maximum profits from someone else's inventions
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
I'll make it easy for you, punky
According to Grove (and the rest of corporate shysters) the only good patent is a patent owned by a large multinational corporation like Intel or Msgit and used to maintain their monopoly on the market
All other patents are bad by his definition
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mikey is a corporate lackey
**I trolled with angry dude**
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Old Andy is delusional
Patents ARE property and like any other type of property they can be bought and sold
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mikey is a corporate lackey
MIkey probly does it too
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
shillin for livin
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I just had an interesting thought (patent pending obviously) - if copyrights and patents themselves are property in the way that some people claim - could they be subject to eminent domain in the way that physical property is?
In a way, this already happens with pharmaceutical patents - governments decide to manufacture their own generic drugs before the patent expires
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
"If he had ever invented anything in his life, he would understand. He hasn't got a creative bone in his body."
I mean, someone like you always lobs that gem out when Mike speaks againt the patent system. Oh, but with Grove you go with the big bad company line.
Who, in your mind, would be qualified to make a case against the patent system?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Breaking News
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But What Consitutes "Use"?
Certainly not that corporate stooge Grove or his cheap puppet Mikey
Someone who made a genuine contribition to human progress
Think Dean Kamen, or Raymond Kurzweil, or Robert Metcalfe, or Leroy Hood, or Gordon Gould etc. etc etc.
These folks made important contributions and improved the quality of life, including your life, punky
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
yeah, right, in Venezuela
Go live there punky
God save you from becoming seriously ill there
They have a shortage of just about anything right now.
A litlle more effort on Chavez part and they'll have to smuggle all new drugs from other countries
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
impostors be damned
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If patent doesn't make any money those are the only fees you pay to the government
If patent starts making money then you'll have to pay tax on that income of course
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Grove in his groove
Now the question Andy can answer for us is if his competitor or some entity outside of Intel infringed or wanted to buy this invention from Intel what would Intel and Andy do? This almost certainly happened what did Andy and Intel do in a real specific instance?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Grove in his groove
Now the question Andy can answer for us is if his competitor or some entity outside of Intel infringed or wanted to buy this invention from Intel what would Intel and Andy do? This almost certainly happened what did Andy and Intel do in a real specific instance?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the case of income earned from licensing, such income is treated as earned income and subject to ordinary income taxes vs. capital gains.
As you correctly note, maintenance fees are likewise a tax, payable at statutorily set times in order for a patent to remain in force.
Filing, prosecution and issue fees are the most pernicious of all. Historically they have exceeded the amounts actually spent by the USPTO. This has not gone unnoticed by Congress who promptly began diverting fees for purposes unrelated to the running of the USPTO.
These are just federal tax considerations. States do have concurrent power to levy taxes as well. To my knowledge, however, this is largely the exception and not the rule. For example, Florida at one time had (and may still have) its notorious intangibles tax. I say notorious because virtually everbody was unaware of the tax until a letter came in the mail saying "pay up".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grove in his groove
Let me guess...
Screw the competitor using the patent Intel does not practice itself ?
Right, Andy ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, do tell us about the horrible maintenance fees. Cry us a river.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What would angry dude do?
Speaking of double standards, yes, I know that I call Mikee a corporate shill. And yes, I just raged and bitched about the system as it is screwing me over. And Mikee is against that system. But I am angry, so I am against everyone. Current system favors corporations with lawyers and it makes it hard for small fry. But to change it would mean admitting that I am wrong and there is no way in hell that's happening. Going back to being angry.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
impostors be damned
you have no clue
yes, patent game favors large corps but sometimes even small fry can get a lucky break
But I'd love to see this country without patents
How do you think non-compete employment agreements would look like ?
Ever gave this any thought ?
Any good engineer working on new high-tech products will be able to enjoy much better job security in a corporate world without patents
Wonderful !!!
Not gonna happen, dude
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The point I want to make is this
But that is not what Andy, Mikey & Co are advocating
They advocate making patents a sport of kings so only rich and powerful corporations can benefit
Screw you all, Andy, Mikey and Co.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Patent Maintenance Fees
1551/2551 1.20(e) Due at 3.5 years 980.00 490.00
1552/2552 1.20(f) Due at 7.5 years 2,480.00 1,240.00
1553/2553 1.20(g) Due at 11.5 years 4,110.00 2,055.00
1554/2554 1.20(h) Surcharge - 3.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00
1555/2555 1.20(h) Surcharge - 7.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00
1556/2556 1.20(h) Surcharge - 11.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00
1557 1.20(i)(1) Surcharge after expiration - Late payment is unavoidable 700.00
1558 1.20(i)(2) Surcharge after expiration - Late payment is unintentional 1,640.00
These are not exactly miniscule amounts, unless you happen to be someone who dislikes patents and who believe that such fees should be large enough to cover the many stimulus packages floating around.
Next time you want to wax poetic on an issue it would behoove you to first get the relevant data.
As I noted, these maintenance fees are just one part of the taxes that are levied against those who participate in the patent system.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The point I want to make is this
Oh and BTW, IP is NOT real property--never has and never will be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The point I want to make is this
Ah well, you don't have either so why do you care, punky ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The point I want to make is this
They advocate making patents a sport of kings so only rich and powerful corporations can benefit
Really? When have I ever suggested anything like that?
I have pointed out, repeatedly, that I think the current patent reform on the table makes things worse, not better. I don't quite understand why you keep insisting that I'm in agreement with it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: impostors be damned
When have I ever advocated getting rid of patents altogether? If that's what I was in favor of, I wouldn't have to bust Mikee's balls here. You are one of the sheeple here that follows everything Mikee says and now you are trying to pretend you are me and turn everything upside down. Go do something useful, punky.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Err... what on god's green earth does anti-trust have to do with patents? And in case you have not heard of Intel (you seem to be confused about them), they have quite a broad patent portfolio that they use to beat up competition and others quite well. And that's under current system. Of course, why use facts when you can make shit up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: stop the shilling!!!
They just want to weaken patents in the hands of smaller upstarts and private individuals so they can keep their monopolies going on forever
This was precisely the purpose behind attempted patent "reform" - to make patents unaffordable and unusable to smaller underfunded patent holders
But I'd love to see those employment non-compete agreements for engineers in a world without patents :-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Patents
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment