Absolutely. The design of the patent system needs to be significantly updated. Every single new thing seems to be violating an assortment of patents, most of them for extremely obvious or common things.
When Apple introduced the LiDAR sensor on iPhone, lots of people started building apps to map out the interior of homes to break the monopoly that Matterport seems to hold on that part of real estate technology.
I started researching that stuff for a tangentially related idea that I have, and if you want to go from a LiDAR point cloud to a set of polygons representing a room, it seemed like you would have to violate a dozen of Matterport's patents. Truly ridiculous stuff. As I dug into the documentation around it, I realized that Apple will actually do the spatial reconstruction for you if you want, which is nice because that presumably means that Apple is the one violating the patents instead of you, right? It's hard to say. I wonder if even a lawyer could give you a straight answer to that question.
Similarly, maybe I want to make a better kind of 2D barcode. QR Code patents supposedly won't be enforced against anyone implementing or using them for QR-compatible codes, if I remember correctly, but... a few years ago when I looked into this, I saw that the company that owned the QR Code patents had continued publishing new patents seemingly in order to extend their hold over QR Codes (and similar 2D barcodes) in perpetuity.
So, if you make any kind of 2D barcode that is even remotely similar to a QR Code, talk to some lawyers or... good luck?
And those are just two examples of things that I have run up against as an individual with ideas who would love to innovate, but feels restricted by the infinite number of patents that exist.
I think some serious reform of intellectual property rights could spur significant new innovations and societal benefit, while still protecting people who are actually innovating and applying those innovations.
presumably means that Apple is the one violating the patents instead of you, right? It's hard to say.
Maybe Apple is even licensing the patents. It would be kinda nice to think that the system was actually working as intended, for once. Somebody invents; somebody else wants the idea; the license is made available at a reasonable price and they get paid for it.
The "system working as intended" would mean that blatantly obvious ideas could not be patented in the first place.
There are only so many ways to do basic things. I'm sure most engineering students could come up with an algorithm to go from a point cloud to a set of polygons, and their algorithms would likely violate a bunch of Matterport's patents, because those patents are so overbroad.[0] That's not okay, in my opinion.
It's like the infamous Mobileye patent that patented the idea of using a camera and a computer to read a speed limit sign while a vehicle was in motion, and then to react to that speed limit in real time. It is written so generically that there is literally no obvious way to avoid violating that patent if you want to have a self-driving vehicle (or vehicle with a strong ADAS) react automatically to posted speed limit signs. As human drivers, we are essentially violating that patent every time we read a speed limit sign, but somehow it's different when a human does it with their eyes (cameras) and brain (computer)?
[0]: Keeping in mind that I am, of course, not a lawyer. Maybe a lawyer would find those patents to be far more specific and complex than I did when I was doing some research, and therefore anyone can implement scene reconstruction without fear of judgment. If that were true, that would be nice.
When Apple introduced the LiDAR sensor on iPhone, lots of people started building apps to map out the interior of homes to break the monopoly that Matterport seems to hold on that part of real estate technology.
I started researching that stuff for a tangentially related idea that I have, and if you want to go from a LiDAR point cloud to a set of polygons representing a room, it seemed like you would have to violate a dozen of Matterport's patents. Truly ridiculous stuff. As I dug into the documentation around it, I realized that Apple will actually do the spatial reconstruction for you if you want, which is nice because that presumably means that Apple is the one violating the patents instead of you, right? It's hard to say. I wonder if even a lawyer could give you a straight answer to that question.
Similarly, maybe I want to make a better kind of 2D barcode. QR Code patents supposedly won't be enforced against anyone implementing or using them for QR-compatible codes, if I remember correctly, but... a few years ago when I looked into this, I saw that the company that owned the QR Code patents had continued publishing new patents seemingly in order to extend their hold over QR Codes (and similar 2D barcodes) in perpetuity.
So, if you make any kind of 2D barcode that is even remotely similar to a QR Code, talk to some lawyers or... good luck?
And those are just two examples of things that I have run up against as an individual with ideas who would love to innovate, but feels restricted by the infinite number of patents that exist.
I think some serious reform of intellectual property rights could spur significant new innovations and societal benefit, while still protecting people who are actually innovating and applying those innovations.
(Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer.)