Slashdot Log In
Patent Reform Bill Unable To Clean Up Patent Mess
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Mar 26, 2008 01:44 PM
from the need-a-rake-and-a-hose dept.
from the need-a-rake-and-a-hose dept.
First to submit writes "Ars Technica analyzes the Patent Reform Act that has passed the House and is being debated in the Senate. Unfortunately for those longing for real, meaningful patent reform, the bill comes up short in some significant ways. 'Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides, it is unclear if the legislation will do much to fix the most serious flaws in the patent system. A series of appeals court rulings in the 1990s greatly expanded patentable subject matter, making patents on software, business methods, and other abstract concepts unambiguously legal for the first time.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Patent Reform Bill Approved by House Committee 95 comments
Alex Forster pointed us to this PC World story that opens, "The House Committee on the Judiciary approved far-reaching legislation to reform the nation's patent system Wednesday.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 largely reflects the IT sector's lobbying effort to curtail lengthy, expensive patent infringement lawsuits, but Wednesday's committee deliberations centered on finding compromises acceptable to opponents — namely the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, manufacturers, and large research universities — so that the bill could win approval.
Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., described the current patent system as inefficient, bogged down by inappropriate litigation rules, unreliably funded, and resulting in patents of "questionable quality." The bill would make it harder to secure a patent and easier for rivals to challenge one, and it would change how courts determine an infringed patent's value."
Submission: Patent reform bill unable to clean up patent mess by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Because the software industry doesn't just employ programmers. There are also lawyers, many of whom depend on the existence of software patents to run their mansions and pay people to scrape the barnacles off the bottoms of their yachts. Think of all the poor servants who'd lose their jobs if software patents became illegal, and those lawyers were reduced to living in houses without proper servant quarters, garag
Re: (Score:2)
The 'something' will of course mean 'make things worse'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Translation: we will never see useful patent reform because it is not in the best interests of the entrenched powers. You're probably right, unfortunately. That's why representative democracy doesn't work. If you really want to remove the tyranny of the aristocracy, there's only one way to do it: a direct democracy. Of course, then you get the tyranny of the majority. Not sure which is worse. Either way, a signifi
Re:Its just about control. (Score:4, Funny)
By the way, I have a patent on this form of government. :-D Just kidding.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who know what they're doing seems to be the prerequisite to doing anything right. I'm not so sure even a tyranny would work, because if the tyrant knew what he was doing, he'd know that absolute power corrupts absolutely and would divest himself of it immediately.
Good, honest peo
Re: (Score:2)
What does it matter if the "people who vote" know what they're doing if their votes aren't going to have any impact on who gets "elected"?
And how will the people who vote "know what they're doing" if the information they get is tailored by a team of marketing professionals who work for those in power?
The Internet is the only thing preventing complete control of all media, and there are still people here who don't think Net Neutrality is important.
Pe
Re:Its just about control. (Score:4, Insightful)
As you hinted at, a significant problem underlying both a republic and a democracy is that of maintaining an informed electorate. How do you deal with the ignorant masses? Simply dismissing their vote isn't the answer. A tyranny of the informed is just that -- a tyranny, still -- and it's only one step shy of an aristocracy. It's still biased towards the well-educated and wealthy who have the time and resources to spend learning about issues and voting for them on a Saturday (or who simply know how to game the system). On the surface, that sounds great... why not let the best-informed and best-prepared make decisions for the rest of us? But well, take that idea far enough and we end up in a situation, much like today, where power is concentrated in the hands of the (supposedly intelligent and benevolent) elite. Unfortunately, human history suggests that those in power rarely act out of concern for the good of the greater populace and an effective system of checks and balances would be needed in either form of government.
Though the current federal checks-and-balances system does work at times, it fails to readily address times when all branches of the government unite/collude under circumstantial pressure (e.g. terrorism) and minority opinions (which may be more sane) are discouraged or ignored. The ultimate check in such a situation is supposed to be direct action -- i.e. the people themselves -- but recent government actions and the meek public outcry we've seen in response suggest that that doesn't always work (unless it's just a case of the vocal minority outspeaking the content majority). Does your proposed form of government include a better way to prevent abuses of power? I think we should keep in mind that in either form, people are open to manipulation from the powerful and the charismatic.
I want to re-state my opinion that I think the underlying problem is both deeper and simpler than the directness of our government: It's that people don't care enough or don't know enough about political issues that affect their lives. That applies to either form of government. It's not like the people are powerless in our current system; it's that not enough of us are bothering to flex that power. Why do you think it's going to be any different in a direct democracy? How do you get people to care enough, know enough, and participate enough?
Personally, I believe the solution is obvious, but difficult: Education. Lots and lots of it. Continuing, lifelong, high-quality education combined with life-long, unbiased, in-depth news reporting. In a perfect world, everything would be transparent and everyone would be omniscient, benevolent, caring, and incorruptible... but of course, government wouldn't even be necessary in such a world. So in reality, what can we do? Mandate university education for everyone? Form non-profit news agencies paid for by the people and independent of the other branches of government? Require governmental participation and provide universal time off to learn and vote about issues? Who's going to pay for all that? How do we convince them to do it? How do we overcome that fact these changes would be in direct opposition to the power and wealth of those who currently possess it? If the answer is still education and information for the masses, that just makes it all a Catch-22. It's basically calling for a revolution of the most difficult sort: Not an external one, but an internal one, where all people take it upon themselves to forever change their lifestyles from one of trying to fulfill only their immediate needs and wants to one incorporating a big-picture style of thinking that continually takes into account how every action ties into their community and world at large -- a lifestyle that recognizes that self-interest ought to be enlightene
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You honestly don't want observant Jews (or people who work on Saturday, and can't spare the time to sit in front of a computer for hours for the entire process, or the specific ten minutes for a single issue) to vote? That doesn't sound encouraging.
Ultimately, I don't care for it. IMO, governments draw their legitimate autho
Re: (Score:2)
Those problems are trivially solved, though. Just rerun the debates on C-Span throughout the week. Let people vote on the issues at any time during that week. The purpose for leaving ten minutes for voting is not to force the vote into ten minutes. The purp
ie (Score:5, Funny)
Humpty Dumpty Patent Reform (Score:2)
Patent Reform had a great fall
All the King's horses
And all the King's men
Couldn't put Patent Reform together again.
So let's start over.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a step in the right direction rather than a complete fix.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also somewhat unclear how long those court rulings are going
Constituents don't pay the bills (Score:5, Insightful)
only good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The only real reform would be require the following changes:
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it would cost more to administer, and the USPTO is arranged as a profit center, not to promote the advancement of science and the useful arts.
Oh, wait...
What really needs to be reformed (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, patents should cover the schematics of a product, not the ideas that went into the product. A car maker should be able to patent the final design of their latest product, but there should be nothing stopping someone from looking at it, and extending it in some meaningful direction without compensating them. All innovation is, after all, built on someone else's ideas.
extensions is a fundamental point of the system (Score:2)
While it's true that high-tech patents last too long, technology is also a field where many inventions are easy to implement once you know about them. Without patents, the R&D you do is automatically shared by the whole industry -- which reduces your motivation to do R&D.
Regarding extensions, a major point of the patent system (as opposed to making everything a trade secret) is to encourage everyone to publish their inventions so others can build up on them. Patents (in theory) only cover actual
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of R&D in the computer industry happened prior to software patents becoming legal.... Also, in a way, by patenting something, you are required to share everything with the whole industry. They just can't i
Campaign Finance Reform is the Key (Score:2, Insightful)
Tax Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030919.html [straightdope.com]
Re: (Score:2)
One has force of law, the other one doesnt. Can you guess which one?
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, we got what should have been expected: the current crop of politicos embed their judges for their interpretations. Personally, making judgments against the Constitution should be an impeachable offense, but none of the congress wants to touch that one.
Never happens (Score:2)
Technoliberation (Score:4, Insightful)
with the erasure of the last invidious border
when it remains for us to chart the attractors of thunder
and delineate the arrhythmias of drought
to reveal the molecular dialects of forest and savanna
as rich as a thousand human tongues
and to comprehend the deepest history of our passions
ancient beyond mythology's reach
So I declare that no corporation holds a monopoly on numbers
no patent can encompass zero and one
no nation has sovereignty over adenine and guanine
no empire rules the quantum waves
And there must be room for all at the celebration of understanding
for there is a truth which cannot be bought or sold
imposed by force, resisted
or escaped.
Greg Egan as Muteba Kazadi
Who has the biggest stick? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some real consideration should be given to getting rid of patents altogether. Really, do they serve any real usefulness other than the stuff of Big Corporate Sticks? It's way too expensive for the little guy to get a patent; still even more expensive for the little guy to defend his patent against VBCs that have deep pockets.
But, seriously, what would happen to the marketplace if patents were to be thrown out tomorrow? Would innovation cease? I don't think so. It would change for sure, but it may actually change for the better, giving the Little Guy an edge, a leg up, since he would not fear being crushed out of financial existence by VBCs.
Really, I don't know how the patent examiners could possibly be knowledgeable about all the various areas of mathematics, science, and technology that has grown exponentially since patents were created.
Re:Do we really need patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why they can't just write a law establishing that you own your ideas
How on earth can someone "own" an idea? Better yet, why would you think it's a good idea to try to pretend that someone owns an idea?
Patents and copyrights are intended to prevent people from free-loading off of the work of others
That fundamental misunderstanding is part of many of the problems we are seeing with the patent system today: patents exist to give you the first stab at exploiting your ideas. The notion that once someone has an idea it's theirs and no one can ever use it again is just plain ridiculous.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you said, not what I said. All I said was that there is no need for patents. You read "infinitely broad" into my comment, and that wasn't what I meant. Obviously any law would include exemptions, limitations, and other applicable criteria.
"How on earth can someone "own" an idea?"
How can someone own anything? Ownership is a legal construction. Owning ideas is no different from owning land
Re: (Score:2)
Again, why? Why do you want to pretend that ideas are physical objects? Ideas have no limited lifespan, thousands of people will routinely come up with the same idea, why would the first person to do so have any sort of absolute claim to it?
Copyright is currently granted without governmental approval, and it works better than the patent system does.
There most certainly is government approval, it's just automatic. From what I c
Re: (Score:2)
Nor does land. .
"why would the first person to do so have any sort of absolute claim to it?"
Again, you said that they should have an absoulte claim to it, not me. I just said they should have a claim to it.
"The concepts of "fairness" or "justice" have nothing to do with this - lots of things are unfair, we don't pass laws to correct them all."
We certinally try to! That's the whole reason we have laws! Why do you think we have them?
"If I'm remembering this correctly, the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they can. If Alice and Bob each independently create the exact same thing, then each one of them can get a copyright on it, and each can do whatever they like without infringing on the other. This is because copyrights do not require novelty, like patents do. It's unlikely, the more complex a work is, but the law does permit it. The main thing with copyrig
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what I was saying, except I would say that they created two distinct copyrightable works, which happen to be identical. My point was that one of the main problems with the patent system - granting of obvious, broad patents that prevent others from doing common things they arrive at independently of the
Re: (Score:2)
Automatically granted copyrights do not make any sense at all; it's a terrible idea.
Copyrights are meant to serve the public good by encouraging the c
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, I arrive at the same idea independently.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do we really need patents? (Score:4, Informative)
This statement is factually false. Go and read the US Constitution if you want to know what patents and copyrights are actually intended to accomplish.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why they can't just write a law establishing that pi is 3.
But seriously, you own your ideas as long as you keep them a secret. Once you reveal your idea (copying it into other peoples' brains) you can't own it. I don't mean it's not just or not desirable; I mean that it's not possible. You just transmitted it to someone, so you don't exclusively have it anymore, unless you're going to cut open other peoples' sk
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they did [wikipedia.org], more or less, but those pesky mathematicians shot it down. Damn them and their irregular ways!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That's just a weird statement, right there. "Intellectual property" is a terrible phrase, which is deliberately meant to confuse people. But basically, if anything, it would refer to a patent (or copyright, etc.) itself, and not the invention the patent pertains to, nor anything which embodies that patent, such as a tangible machine. So you seem to be saying that your gripe with patents is that there are federal
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to point out the following message listed on the comment page:
"The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
Why would Slashdot claim that I own the comment I've posted here? There's certainly no scarcity of comments. That's an important question, and I encourage you to think about it.
"So you seem to be saying that you
Re: (Score:2)
You've got me. They're often wrong. For example, my comments are in the public domain, and people frequently post works that they don't have rights to.
I suspect that they were trying to say that they don't make any claim on what people post here. If so, they could have worded it much better.
No, my gripe is federal regulation. I don't like the way that people have to submit an application to the patent office in order to have their intellectual
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's the courts who hear the patent law cases, not the patent office. If they are bad at it, t