Much as I believe that innovation is accelerated and improved without the impediment of patents, it is the system we currently have.... for better but mostly for worse. And the worse includes the subject of this post, namely the patent trolls.
Changing the laws around intellectual property will take time, and it will take patience and forbearance as we as community members and individuals build confidence and trust in each other through collaboration and sharing.
In the meantime we should look to the tactical battles that need to be won and the damage wreaked by Patent Trolls is one that should and can be fought today. Anthony Biller's suggestions are a very good start, augmented by Simon and others in the comments section. Maybe it wont win the bigger argument but we must stop the hemorrhaging of our nation's wealth and energy and these simple steps might just stem the flow. These steps may also initiate alternative or augmented approaches that eradicate trolls completely, but that is for steps 2 and beyond.
You have my support now what else can I or anyone else do to translate these thoughts into action?
Great article and much to digest, I would be very interested in a detailed case study if one exists and if EA is willing to share. The key take away is the importance of management support and a "light hand on the tiller". Command and control behavior tends to anathematize voluntary contributions, but someone needs to be steering the boat towards an appropriate harbor. The review boards and seeding of champions and sponsors is good architectural practice and this is a great example of how it can prosper.
Collaboration projects succeed with the right focus, the right resources and the right governance - all of which are well illustrated in the article, especially the learning that a few focused groups, with good active attendance, are better than many groups without those two characteristics.
My final observation - at least on this pass, is that much of the measurement applied is volume related. In other words it is activity and volatility that appears to more important than for example quality, though I am sure within the groups peer review will contribute to the group and public recognition of Subject Matter Experts.
Authored Comments
Much as I believe that innovation is accelerated and improved without the impediment of patents, it is the system we currently have.... for better but mostly for worse. And the worse includes the subject of this post, namely the patent trolls.
Changing the laws around intellectual property will take time, and it will take patience and forbearance as we as community members and individuals build confidence and trust in each other through collaboration and sharing.
In the meantime we should look to the tactical battles that need to be won and the damage wreaked by Patent Trolls is one that should and can be fought today. Anthony Biller's suggestions are a very good start, augmented by Simon and others in the comments section. Maybe it wont win the bigger argument but we must stop the hemorrhaging of our nation's wealth and energy and these simple steps might just stem the flow. These steps may also initiate alternative or augmented approaches that eradicate trolls completely, but that is for steps 2 and beyond.
You have my support now what else can I or anyone else do to translate these thoughts into action?
Great article and much to digest, I would be very interested in a detailed case study if one exists and if EA is willing to share. The key take away is the importance of management support and a "light hand on the tiller". Command and control behavior tends to anathematize voluntary contributions, but someone needs to be steering the boat towards an appropriate harbor. The review boards and seeding of champions and sponsors is good architectural practice and this is a great example of how it can prosper.
Collaboration projects succeed with the right focus, the right resources and the right governance - all of which are well illustrated in the article, especially the learning that a few focused groups, with good active attendance, are better than many groups without those two characteristics.
My final observation - at least on this pass, is that much of the measurement applied is volume related. In other words it is activity and volatility that appears to more important than for example quality, though I am sure within the groups peer review will contribute to the group and public recognition of Subject Matter Experts.
Thanks for posting