In Defense of Patent Trolls
|
Last Updated on Friday, 18 September 2009 11:44
Written by dbhalling Friday, 18 September 2009 11:44 |
The term patent trolls is usually applied to companies that enforce patents that they are not practicing. These Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) include companies specifically organized for this purpose such as Intellectual Ventures. However, it also includes Universities and divisions of most large corporations such as IBM. Many of these corporations complain about NPEs. However, any consistent definition of a NPE (troll) would include these hypocrites.
The moral argument against NPEs is that they are not practicing their patents, so they are not entitled to enforce them. The U.S. has consistently rejected a working requirement for patents. The only time the U.S. had a working requirement for patents, was in early 1800s and only for English inventors. We do not argue that a landowner has to work his land in order to keep his property rights in the land.
From an economic point of Intellectual Ventures and other so-called patent trolls are the beginning of a secondary market in patents. Most of these companies got their start in the failed companies of the dot.com bust. These patent investing companies bought the patents of failed dot.com companies. This reduces the cost and the risk associated with R&D. The VC’s I knew were going to let these patents expire, resulting in zero return to the investors. Patent investing companies like Intellectual Ventures should not be vilified, but appreciated for the valuable secondary market they are creating. Like all new markets, the pioneers took enormous risks but also paid very little for the assets they acquired. Their success will encourage other entrepreneurs driving up the prices for patents (excess R&D). This will reduce the cost and risk associated with R&D, which will result in more investment in high technology start-up companies.
Vilifying patent investment companies is like vilifying investors in the physical assets of failed enterprises. These investors recycle assets and make them part of the productive economy again. While it is sad to see a business fail, failure is part of the innovation process. Putting the assets of a failed enterprise back to work as soon as possible would be considered a humanitarian effort if performed by a non-profit. However it is just as valuable or more valuable to the economy when done by a for-profit enterprise.
1 Comment
Leave a Reply
Subscriber Count
Recent Comments
- Exodus: How the US is Losing Its Most Talent People | Blog of Dale B. Halling, LLC - Intellectual Property & Patent Innovation, Attorney - Powered by Clvr.Tv on US Brain Drain
- dbhalling on Food Stamps’ Multiplier Effect: Economic Voodoo
- Rob on Food Stamps’ Multiplier Effect: Economic Voodoo
- Rob on Food Stamps’ Multiplier Effect: Economic Voodoo
- dbhalling on JOBS Act a Small Step in Right Direction
Recent Posts
- Exodus: How the US is Losing Its Most Talented People
- Does 1.6% Growth in Patents Qualify as an Explosion?
- Foundations of Patent Law
- UN to Spend Trillions Trying to Create a Perpetual Motion Machine
- Prometheus Fall Out: The SmartGene Case
- Twitter’s IPA”: The Rise of Trade Secrets and the End of Innovation
- Mark Cuban’s a Mythical Patent Creature
- How Do You Determine if it Makes Economic Sense to File a Patent?
- We’re Number 1, We’re Number 1 in Taxes
- Wall Street Journal Proves its Patent Ignorance

[...] the rallying cry of “patent troll” to kill off the beginning of a secondary market – see http://hallingblog.com/2009/09/18/in-defense-of-patent-trolls/ For more information see Jump Starting a Secondary Market for Patents [...]