« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: Dodd-Frank kills innovation, Cybersecurity marches on, Lodsys patent trolling

Tech at Night

Good evening. Care for your latest dose of regulation crushes innovation and competition? If you’re unhappy about the lack of innovation in America for mobile payments like they have in Japan, blame the Dodd-Frank bill. It prevented the wireless industry from getting together and making it happen. But we sure stuck it to the bankers, eh? Our faces are sure spited from cutting off our noses like that.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the Democrats from continuing to try to take power. If it’s not the PROTECT IP bill to institute national censorship of the Internet, it’s the continuing push to insert government with “cybersecurity” as the wedge. Never let a crisis go to waste. This time it’s the Playstation Network, but anything will do. This is the party that brought you the Clipper Chip designed to let the government spy on any encrypted data in America. When they say cybersecurity they mean their security, not yours or mine.

Slow Monday, so I’ll close with a story of a patent. I’ve been saying in this space that the only reason to keep patents around is to help the small inventor be protected from large companies or even entire cross-licensed industries. If it can’t do that, then it’s failing and will only stifle innovation rather than encourage it. The story of Lodsys demonstrates that we still have work to do.

Lodsys, you see, doesn’t make things. It doesn’t sell products. It doesn’t produce value. It is a firm designed solely to sue people over patents and shake down actual producers for money. Companies like these are reasonable when they invent things, but Lodsys doesn’t actually invent things. It holds patents for obvious things that the entire industry does. That is, Lodsys is a patent troll.

Normally Patent Trolls go after deep pockets hoping for a settlement. Not Lodsys, though. Lodsys is going after everybody, including small time software developers. One man operations who certainly cannot afford to defend themselves from dedicated teams of lawyers trained to harass society’s productive people. These people, if pushed hard enough, won’t have the luxury of Going Galt. They’ll just go out of business. They won’t have a choice. This they will do even if they’re not actually infringing on the patent in question, because the little guy cannot afford to fight back.

As a result, people are angry. Is there a chance this will be the case that finally changes the laws? Maybe. Probably not. But I hope so.

PS If anyone tried a comment at RedState as condescending and trollish as that comment on the Lodsys website, I’d be looking for any excuse to ban. There’s not a shred of good faith in anything Lodsys does. The system is broken, and Lodsys has a business model of explotation of that broken system. Software patents aren’t the problem: a system that allows ideas, not inventions, to be patented is the problem. A system that allows obvious ideas to be patented is the problem. A system that prices out the little guy from defending himself, either as the patent holder or as the alleged infringer, is the problem.

I support patents, but I demand patent reform.

COMMENTS

  • saintgeorgegentile

    It’s kind of like Righthaven’s ploy with copyright.
    http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/
    (not a link to righthaven)

  • phlogiston

    A few thoughts regarding patent trolls. How would you differentiate so-called “patent trolls” fromyou average state university? Neither makes or sells the products it patents, at least not directly. If that is the bell-weather of a patent troll, then we might want to consider who the patent trolls are before we decide to punish them.

    The purpose of the patent system is not to protect small companies and individual inventors only or even primarily, and rightfully so. Its purpose is to reward and protect innovation, regardless of its source. It is designed to do so because that benefits society at large, by preventing free riding which would discourage innovation, creating less of it. And I suspect more vaccines and antibiotics come from large companies than from individual inventors.

    Mistakes are made in the patent system, but if Lodsys’ patents are so obvious and/or nebulous, there is a mechanism for them to be challenged and not just through litigation. It’s called reexamination. If they are creating so many enemies arbitrarily, it would be a simple matter for those who feel wronged to band together and fight it.

    The attacks on the patent system that have become so chic lately remind me of something H.L. Menken once said: (paraphrasing) For every problem there is a solution that is simple, straightforward, and wrong.

  • drfredc

    Patents are basically a protection scheme that has government protecting Widgets Inventors for about 20 years. Two centuries ago, twenty years was what it took for just about anything to make it to all possible market niches. Today, this can be done in weeks or months in some markets, longer in others.

    It is actually quite simple to reform the patent system to be sensitive to different markets. Allow the owner of a patent to get X percent tax break if they give up X percent of their patent term.

    If Widgets Inc has a patent for the all-purpose widget (APW), instead of paying 36% corporate tax on profits from APW sales, they could half their patent term to ten years, and pay 18%. Or go to 5 years and pay 9%. Let the market decide what works best. If Widgets can make a buck without any patent protections, fine have at it — and pay no corporate taxes. And possibly employ lots of workerbees who will pay taxes, and possibly pay big dividends to retired stockholders who can use some dividends to help their retirement financing. Just possibly, it might bring more innovative companies back into the US instead of driving them away with high corporate tax rates.

    Yes, this sort of solution doesn’t directly answer the Dodd Frank problem, or the Lodsys issue. However, it might make patent protections more market sensitive and fluid, which in turn would mitigate the negative effects of patent abuse, over regulation and abusers.