Last week I wrote a little bit about so-called "Patent Trolls", but this week we learned more about them in class so I wish to revisit the topic. These Non-Practicing Entities, or NPEs, seem to spark a lot of controversy.
It seems that NPEs are able to make use of loopholes in patent law, or simply abuse it to their advantage by carrying out lawsuits against companies for patent infringement, while not actually manufacturing any products whatsoever. All their money is made simply through lawsuits.
Although this seems morally questionable, is it indeed wrong? NPEs are operating within the full extend of the law. Additionally, if they truly own patents then that means that they came up with the ideas first, for which they should indeed hold credit. Of course, there are many scenarios where NPEs abuse patents that other people mistook for commonplace or common sense. In other cases, other parties claim to have thought of it first. Although these are indeed issues of patent law, the other parties' failure to seize an opportunity is their own problem, as unfortunate as it may be. I know it's socially accepted that Patent Trolls are evil, but sometimes it's hard to define what's right and what's wrong...
Evil might not be the right word for an NPE. I think maybe they should be called amoral or pointless at best. Sure, they operate within patent law, but just because the law says so doesn't make it right, and looking at it from a purely humanistic perspective, NPEs simply don't deserve to exist. They contribute literally nothing to society, and in fact are detrimental to society since they actively prevent others from developing technology that might be of benefit. That counts as amoral in my book, and I really hope patent law changes so that those bloodsuckers can no longer profit from such exploitation.
ReplyDeleteI find something about NPE online this week as well. I think you are right that it's really hard to tell if it's right or wrong. However, I do find some companies do benefit through the law, such as Nokia which makes most of the profit through patent law. I do agree with Kevin that it block developing technology, but at some point, it also saves some companies and gives them some time and money to develop new technology.
ReplyDeleteI feel that NPEs are just taking money that are lying on the table. If the original patent owner had the means to do so, they would have sued everyone that used their product, and the NPEs would have been redundant. However, the original patent owner is probably in a distressed situation, and has no ability to take on the lawsuits. This means that there is an opportunity for money, but the patent owner is just unable to get it. the NPEs may instead be the good one, buying the patent from the owner, making the owner happier, and then taking over the ownership of the patent to collect the rest of the income which the original owner could not.
ReplyDeleteNPE's might not be necessarily evil--in a sense they are providing a patent developer with an opportunity to cash out on the developer's idea. Additionally, NPEs are creating value for their stakeholders by purchasing patents at presumably low prices and then suing another company to generate revenue.
ReplyDeleteAs an engineering student I can't say I approve what NPEs do, but they are making investments in the form of patents. While people believe there is a loophole to the current regulations, patents have become popular only recently. Since there are so many ideas in the world over the past centuries to account for, it will take a period of settling the grounds for all currently available patents before the laws protecting ideas and inventions can really take place.
ReplyDeleteNPE's are not necessarily bad, but I think that people look at the news and there is a negative connotation associated with people who fight corporations for patents.
ReplyDeleteThe ambiguity of the definition of a patent troll is definitely something that should be considered. I feel that too many people outright reject patent trolls as corrupters of the patent system, but the reality is that universities and small time inventors should be rewarded for their research and development efforts, and be able to fight back against large companies that may have taken their ideas.
ReplyDelete