So whoever now owns that patent (Google? maybe some patent troll picked it up?) could, in theory, sue the author of this article for patent infringement, right? Even though they invented it independently and never once used or looked at your patent. Do you think you made the world a better place or a worse place by filing that patent?
_Can_ they sue them for patent infringement? They just described a technique (that you can see in the patent filing anyway) and not selling a product based on it. I think there's nothing to sue here. I'm curious is my understanding of this is correct.
One of the benefits of the patent system (that now seems to be far outweighed by negatives) is that patents are public information. Your invention is documented for all to see. I don't think that someone writing about public information is a punishable office, but IANAL
No. The author could not be sued for this successfully. All they did was write a blog post about an interesting technique. They could literally read the patent application and write a blog post about that, assuming the methods are the same.
What percentage of your actions are based around making the world a better place, instead of personal fulfillment or gain?
> All they did was write a blog post about an interesting technique. They could literally read the patent application and write a blog post about that, assuming the methods are the same.
Okay, change "sue" to "prevent from creating a marketable product without paying a royalty to the patent owner in return for having provided nothing of value." The point remains.
> What percentage of your actions are based around making the world a better place, instead of personal fulfillment or gain?
Many harms are unavoidable, but I make a point to at least not go out of my way to make it a worse place, for example by filing software patents. The company I work for provides financial bonuses for filing software patents, and I will never participate in that program. (I've even tried to convince the lawyers to license our patents similar to Red Hat's open patent promise, because they claim they are intended only to be used defensively... but no luck so far.)
> Do you think you made the world a better place or a worse place by filing that patent?
Come on, what does this contribute to this conversation? The poster clearly is aware of the drawbacks of such patents, and didn't clearly play any role in filing the patent (they said "we … filed it," not "I filed it"). This kind of response just encourages people not to mention such things; it can't possibly change their past behavior, and, since Pebble the company per se doesn't exist any more, is also unlikely to change future behavior.
> The poster clearly is aware of the drawbacks of such patents, and didn't clearly play any role in filing the patent (they said "we … filed it," not "I filed it").
A person with the same name as that commenter is listed as an inventor on the patent.
> it can't possibly change their past behavior
Obviously, but it can change future behavior. Maybe realizing that they made the world a worse place by filing that patent will prevent them, or a reader of this discussion, from doing it again in future.
Well, given that the technique itself makes the world a worse place, anything that impedes its use is probably positive...
And, no, they couldn't do anything meaningful to the author of the article. They could get them ordered not to do it any more, and they could recover their economic damages... which are obviously zero.
First of all, it's not just a game, it's an outright battle to the death (of your company). Sure, you can choose not to wield patents, even in self defense, but good luck with that.
You can also choose to legally declare that your patents may only be used for defensive purposes. But no one ever does this, because they do not actually intend to use them only for defensive purposes. This is a bogus defense of software patents.
Nope. That’s not how piles of patents are wielded defensively by the big companies. They don’t protect their IP with defensive patents, they defend their company using the threat of using unrelated patents offensively against the attacker.
Yes, I know. That's what this part of my post means:
> may only be used for defensive purposes
It's done with a clause in the public license like "if you sue us, then we revoke this license to you and may in turn sue you." You retain the MAD defensive benefit of the patents, while also not hampering innovation with your patent's existence. If the patents truly exist only for defense, then there is no reason not to do this.
Berating people for filing patents in self defense is not how we fix this problem. The government put these rules in place. Businesses have to at least accumulate patents to use defensively (you found a patent of yours that you think I'm violating? Well let me do a quick search through the patents I have...what's that? Nevermind, I'm not actually infringing your patent? Good, that's what I thought.)
