Steal This Idea 222
Steal this Idea: Intellectual Property Rights and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity | |
author | Michael Perelman |
pages | 272 |
publisher | Palgrave Macmillan (April 2002) |
rating | Worth Reading |
reviewer | Lloyd Dalton |
ISBN | 0312294085 |
summary | A hard-hitting look at the state of the U.S. patent & trademark system. |
Most of the themes and arguments in Steal This Idea will be familiar to anyone who's read a Slashdot thread on patents. Michael Perelman is an economics professor at California State University. In Steal This Idea, he takes the position that patents (and trademarks, to a lesser extent) hurt science and the economy more than they help. He makes a pretty convincing case.
Roughly half the book is devoted to the negative effects of patents on scientific research. Perelman claims that tying research to intellectual property skews the balance of study away from basic research on fundamental problems, and toward short-term research geared toward improving existing products. Several real-world examples are given--many of the most potent come from the world of biological and pharmaceutical research:
Two decades ago, Philip Needleman, then a researcher at Washington University, in St. Louis, and his co-workers postulated the existence of two cyclooxygenase enzymes, COX-1 and COX-2. By 1990, Dr. Needleman, then chief scientific officer at Pharmacia, had guessed that the COX-2 enzyme plays a critical role in inflammation. By 1992, three other groups, including one at Rochester, had confirmed the existence of the enzymes by describing the genes that control their production. Although Rochester won the patent, the competing teams at UCLA and Brigham Young University claim that their work was fundamental.
Whether UCLA, Brigham Young, or Rochester deserved the patent is beside the point. More important is the idea that the granting of a patent on a bodily substance permits the owner to demand royalties from any company that produces a medicine that targets the substance.
Perelman gives historical evidence of IP hampering the development of new technology. His best example is the thicket of radio patents that entangled the baby radio industry, until the U.S. government voided many of them in the interest of accelerating radio technology during WWII.
Finally, Steal this Idea makes the case that scientific progress in the last half of the twentieth century owes a greater debt to basic research from academic and publicly-funded scientists and researchers than to corporate research. The concern is based on the large amount of time (decades, rather than years) needed for basic scientific discoveries to become marketable products is largely ignored by corporate research, which is focused on quarterly results.
It's curious that the internet--maybe the most obvious example of this, is barely mentioned. After all, business research has failed miserably at defining network protocols that match the resilience and utility of the network designed by publicly-funded scientists in the 60s. This may be because Perelman is less interested in obvious examples than lesser known ones, of which there are several in the book.
The second half of the book argues against patents (and Intellectual property in general) in terms of economic theory. Economics is Perelman's area of expertise, but it is not mine. I had to read most of these chapters twice before I understood them. They're interesting stuff, though. Perelman illustrates various ways economists attempt to shoehorn non-tangible goods (information) into economic models based on "lumpy objects." He illustrates the flaws in several of these models, and how these flaws translate into inefficiencies in actual markets.
Good:
The book isn't just a rant, although it sometimes reads like one. Perelman is firmly biased against IP, and he sometimes uses a few paragraphs to rail against corporations in general. But the book is logically laid out, and presents evidence in well-defined pieces, always clear about what each example is meant to illustrate.The examples. Those mentioned above are just a few of the many real-life events noted in Steal this Idea. They comprise the bulk of Perelman's case against patent IP. It's always tough to build an argument on anecdotal evidence, but in this case, there's a great deal of evidence.
The scope. I had doubts that a 211-page book could do justice to the issues with every type of intellectual property. Fortunately, Perelman doesn't attempt to cover copyrights, and barely touches trademarks. The overarching theme of the book is that intellectual property (mainly patents) in the hands of corporations works against the original goals of its creators--to encourage innovation and help the economy. The book does a solid job of supporting this claim.
Bad:
IP is supposed to be a "limited" monopoly. Patents are, arguably, the most "limited" of the three types of IP in the US (copyrights, patents and trademarks). Perelman could have acknowledged this, and given concrete examples of why the limits aren't enough to balance the monopoly power. He doesn't explicitly do so.Copyright is nowhere to be found. That's not all bad, since any book would be hard-pressed to do a better job of handling copyright issues than Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright . Still, Steal this Idea might have included a few more references to copyright-specific cases or works, if only to encourage further reading (patent & trademark examples include many references).
Perelman gives some illustrative figures about why the patent mess is so bad, and why the USPTO is unable to control it. But there's not much meat there. Hopefully, someone will take a more in-depth look at the USPTO itself, and how it operates.
Conclusion:
Steal this Idea has a great deal of information, packed into a fairly short book. It's a good companion to Digital Copyright, and well worth reading for anyone interested in how IP works (or doesn't work).
You can purchase Steal This Idea from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can we do this? (Score:3, Funny)
They both have patents pending on this. Since neither of them have found any prior art, the PTO will probably grant one of them
steal this comment! (Score:2)
Mike
Re:steal this comment! (Score:2)
Re:steal this comment! (Score:3, Funny)
by sweeney37 (325921) * on 12:03 PM June 5th, 2003 (#6124520)
geez, what's with all the theft in book reviews as of recent?
Mike
Theft is rampant in these parts.
Re:steal this comment! (Score:2)
by Surak (18578) * Alter Relationship on Thursday June 05, @04:15PM (#6124653)
(http://colonialfamilies.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday May 24, @11:56PM)
steal this comment! (Score:2)
by sweeney37 (325921) * on 12:03 PM June 5th, 2003 (#6124520)
geez, what's with all the theft in book reviews as of recent?
Mike
Theft is rampant in these parts.
My journal has hot
Steal nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Until our goverment is more worried about pissing off the constituents instead of the "sponsors" we'll get a government run by the corporations.
Money talks, bullshit walks. Welcome to the U$A.
Re:Steal nothing. (Score:2)
Hey, that's pretty good! You should trademark it.
Re:Steal nothing. (Score:2)
How about World Class Trade Negotiation Leverage? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, let's print more money!!!
Seriously, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that there is an *almost* undeniable correlation between money and freedom. I too believe that personal wealth very much affects personal freedom, and I believe in creating wealth.
I also understand that nazi pro-consumer law hurts free enterprise when it restricts free trade, but I'm *ALSO* very familiar with pro-corporate laws/intitutions that do just as much if not more to restrict trade.
Examples of Anti-Consumer Laws/Institutions that Restrict Trade
* FCC Regulation of TV/Radio which favors long-range/high-ratings broadcasting with expensive licenses.
* Local/County/State/FCC Regulation of local telecommunications giving one company exclusive access to right-of-ways and infrastructure built with public money.
* The US Patent Office - Costing up to $500,000 in legal fees to disqualify a patent, this institution (with the courts help) restricts the free trade and innovation of both obvious and nonobvious technology by giving every asshole the opportunity to "call dibs" for it's exclusive use while bearing very little risk to both the patent office and the filer if the patent was fucking obvious and/or shortly inevitable.
If you want to keep believing that we're #1 because purely because we're a capitalist then you need to learn a lot about "other factors".
Other Factors:
* Trade Negotion Leverage
* Natural Resources
* Corruption (Equal Justice under Law)
* Workforce Skills
* Infrastructure
That's just to name a few...
Re:Patents've been around since the dark ages, alm (Score:4, Insightful)
Since something like the 14th or 15th century patents have been around. Talking about the patent system like it's a broad affront to free trade looks a lot like biting the hand that fed you.
What I am disputing is your simple minded argument. Oh, and patents go far back as the 12th century in Italy.
I'm not going to debate whether patents are good or bad, because this is a stupid debate. I understand that the patent system has given the right people the right amount of incentive to develop technology to accellerate us into the future.
Edison is a perfect example. Would he have really been so persistant if he knew he wouldn't be rewarded? Probably not.
His invention was TRUELY novel, one of a kind and would be the catalyst for an explosion of technology.
Unfortunately, the world isn't full of Edisons. Most people's ideas are stupid, obvious or pointless. We want to AVOID rewarding stupid and obvious ideas and some how reward the novel ones, especially when they make it harder for smart people to innovate.
All this is supposed to be balanced out with:
* Intelligent Patent Clerks
* A backup system to nullify obvious/imminent patents when the Patent Clerk fails to indentify obvious/imminent patents. (Let alone prior art)
* Adjustable expiration times for classes of technology so as to balance incentive so it does not obstruct innovation.
* Common Sense
Instead we have a system run overrun by lawyers who have an incentive to file as many frivilous patents and sue as many people who violate these privilous patents.
* The Little Guys gets Screwed
* The Corporations get Screwed
* Only The Lawyers Win
Do you get it now?
Red Title (Score:2, Redundant)
Screenshot [hogens.com]
Re:Red Title (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Red Title (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Red Title (Score:4, Interesting)
http://books.slashdot.org/faq/subscriptions.shtml [slashdot.org]
Re:Red Title (Score:2)
'Take the red title, and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes'.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
How about 2002 (Score:2)
steal the idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:steal the idea (Score:2)
Like anything else ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with being able to make a few bucks off of something unique, new and original of yours?
Just like anything else, *abuse* of the system is the problem. How do we sort the wheat from the chaff?
I'm not entirely sure. I think part of the problem lies in the USPTO. They probably need to have some subject-matter experts on hand who can check all the patent applications thoroughly.
Part of the problem is that there are *SO* many applications, that the USPTO can't handle it.
Any suggestions on how to improve?
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:5, Funny)
Any suggestions on how to improve?
Well, if the problem is too many original ideas, then the simple solution would be to introduce into the general populous:
Oh, wait. We've already tried that, haven't we?
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting. While I'm not dealing with any teenagers at the moment, so I don't know what slang they are developing, I'm not so sure the dialects I've come across have any less information carrying capacity than the subset of standard spoken english that they would use if they didn't have their slang.
I think that it might be less that the developed dialect not having the capacity and more that the typical set of ideas in the sub-culture is limited. That is to say, they ain't got nuttin to talk about, so 'day ain't needin' all 'dem big words.
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:3, Funny)
wd u lk fries wv that?
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
As for your criticisms of slang and dialect, it is obvious you have never studied linguistics. The differences i
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent is big business. Takes a regular person $6k or so to get one. Takes 3 years AFTER the filing last I checked. Used to be 2 years 4 years ago. At this rate before long, patents will expire before granted.
Only big business can defend a patent - look at lemon or whatever his name was who is #2 most prolific patenter ever and invented lots of the automated manufacturing but was not paid by the major automakers until he was like 65. Patents do not result in knowledge sharing etc.
I think everyone knows these things. Too many systems of our government made sense at the beginning of the industrial age but were never deprecated.
Clearly this is why one-world government is bad. The nation that structures around advancing knowledge rather than lawsuits about it will surpass the U$A. We need more competition in governments rather than more unification.
Would you vote for a candidate who sought to fix the patent technology roadblock? I would.
Tim
Lemelson (Score:3, Informative)
His name is Lemelson, and he has licenses of over $1 Billion. There are various places to find information on him, such as the Lemelson Foundation [lemelson.org] and The Lemelson Center [si.edu].
Kind of odd to see him being hailed as a hero on /., considering his heirs are suing anyone they can think of
Re:Lemelson (Score:2)
He filed, as has been stated, very general patents a long time ago. He then used a loophole in patent law which is peculiar to the USA. While a patent in any country usually runs for a number of years from the date of initial filing (typically 20 years), the USPTO allowed an amended filing to get a new filing date, rather than the original one. By repeatedly filing amendments, the patents can last far longer than the intended term.
Lemelson used this technique to run patents from
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Only big business can defend a patent - look at lemon or whatever his name was who is #2 most prolific patenter ever and invented lots of the automated manufacturing but was not paid by the major automakers until he was like 65. Patents do not result in knowledge sharing etc.
You mean Lemenson. The story is quite different from that. I remember reading about it in the NYT. Apparently, he patented many things which were plausible and fairly common sense ideas, although impratcical at the time. One of them
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Why not create a non profit org to take money from Slashdotters and apply for all sorts of technology patents before the big companies can... that way, the org could just decide not to enforce the patents and everyone would live happily ever after.
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Abuse of the system is the *syptom*. The problem is that it's a system that lends itself to abuse, as currently designed.
Part of the problem is that there are *SO* many applications, that the USPTO can't handle it.
Decentralize it? Does there really need to be a single PTO for the entire country? The Constitution doesn't mandate that, it simply provides Congress the authority to set it up.
International patents work pretty well... if the 50 states could each decide how they wanted to process patent applications, they could try different things. Hopefully you'd get some real innovation in dealing with the problem.
(And you could decentralize it even further, I'm sure, with some imagination...)
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
I'm affraid you'd end up with a few states implementing weak requirements for origionality in order to soak up patent filing fees from disingenuous "inventors." With one patent office, at least there's no competition for business.
Also, I think there's virtue in limiting the number of patents that can be filed. With only one slow (broken) patent office, it's like being shot with a pistol i
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Perhaps if the patent system made RAND royalties mandatory it might begin to serve the inventors and public in the way you assume, and that without getting into the wheat and chaff issue.
Which, not to be a conspiracy theorist about, I feel the US administration is hoping tha
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let's fast forward to today. In major corporations (I work in one), I'm paid to work on scientific research. ALL of my inventions are property not of me, but of the company. My new innovations are patented by the company, and they own it, not me. Okay - so my "benefit" for providing patents to the company is my pay which compensates me for my innovation and advancement to science. No problem there. The problem is how those patents are then used. Since my ideas are the property of the company, I have no control over them once they're owned by the company. So what you see today are patents being used not to protect a new innovation, but to prevent others from using that new innovation. This is the key point. Patents are granted to companies who have no intention of making the innovation a reality to benefit mankind, but rather, something to use in competition with other companies to prevent the other company from gaining an edge over them.
See the difference between how patents used to be and how they're used now? You are also right that the USPTO is part of the problem, granting patents for things that should not be granted. My personal favorite is one where a company claimed a small amount of an inorganic chemical provided a benefit in a plastic, and the inorganic chemical could be made of anything in the periodic table of the elements. Utter bullshit. The point of the whole matter is that the patent system is broken in how it is used, and how patents are created - but the abuse of how patents are used is THE major problem here.
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I make a few bucks out of "new and original" work (Score:2)
Comparable few people make a living of selling their IP rights directly.
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
You do realize that if an idea is original then there is no subject-matter expert? (Well, I'll grant you that new ideas build upon old ones, but when Einstein published his theories there were no experts on relativity.) If your idea is really
Don't argue in terms of "IP" (Score:2)
The book review states
The parent poster states
Neither of you appear to know what you're talking about when you argue in terms of "IP" (intellectual property). I would hope that this thread would bother to distinguish between the disparate areas of law that are covered under the largely useless term "IP".
Trademarks, copyrights, and
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Reply:Like anything else ... Who did all the work? (Score:2, Interesting)
How can one company/person/university/... take the credit for creating anything that is unique, novel, and useful today with global communications and travel, internet seminars/conferences and universities,
I am not sure,
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Plus, suppose you estimate the value of a cure for cancer is
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
The issue with pills is that the first pill costs half a billion dollars, and the rest cost 15 cents api
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
This is a classic version of the slippery-slope fallacy. In essence, you are saying, âunless society allows the max
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
I'm perfectly open to compromise solutions - there is no reason that the return HAS to be the maximum one possible. However, the problem is that if you leave it to the voters to decide what the best price is they will vote "Free!". Everybody wants everything free - that's jus
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree with the AC that until you've had the opportunity to live beyond the shelter of your parents and the academic lifestyle that you probably lack the perspective you need to have a well-formed opinion on the subject regardless of how much reading and thinking you may have done on the issue.
I al
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
So I should just stop thinking?
"I'm inclined to agree with the AC that until you've had the opportunity to live beyond the shelter of your parents and the academic lifestyle that you probably lack the perspective you need to have a well-formed opinion on the subject regardless of how much reading and thinking you
Re:Like anything else ... (Score:2)
Again you've done nothing to enlighten readers on what you believe, you've simply stated your credentials as a sophmore who reads a lot and are now expecting us to accept your unjustified declarations as the truth. You'll have to do a lot more than just rant before
the thicket of radio patents ... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! Now if only the U.S. government would do the same thing with computer patents, things would be grea ...Oh, wait. I forgot that the U.S. government is now formally a subdivision of Microsoft/AOL/TW/Fox/MPAA/RIAA. Oh well. Nice while it lasted.
The case against patents (Score:5, Informative)
They help, and they hurt. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
I don't think there is a solution to this, orgs with lots of resources can usually win over orgs with few resources, presuming compentency on both sides.
Remember that 'invention' for hair styling called the 'topsy tail'? Its a basicly
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
What's wrong with licensing the patent to the large corporation? If you invented something and it is useful, do you really have the capability to build and market it yourself. Most "little guys" don't, so the reason for the patent is to
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
Nothing at all, unless you are being forced into it by someone.
Without patents, there would be consortiums (Score:2)
As it is, inventors rarely make money from patents. They usually have to hand them over to the employer and just get a fixed salary. So individuals won't lose much.
Of course, there would be problems like motivating companies to join the consortium rather than just waiting for others to develop the technology. But the patent system has many problems as well. Who knows which
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
His detailed scientific and economic analysis reveals that they do. So, ditch 'em.
There - just stole his idea.
-renard
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
There is much more than that. It causes a patent holder with a toe hold on a monopolized item to cling to old technology instead of opening up to new technology they do not monopolize. While this happens even without patents, patents aggravate the occurance. This seems to be particularly true in drug companies. The case has been made that much less innovative research is being done by companies more worried about their control of patents than making people well.
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
Re:They help, and they hurt. (Score:2)
As far as the scientific debate goes, I think the people who are protesting "gene patents" et cetera would really have no negative opinion if they had discovered and patented them first.
Maybe George Washington would have behaved like the George III had he been born as royalty in England. And maybe RMS would like proprietary software if he controlled the software market like Bill Gates does.
The interesting hypotheticals, which may be true, are part of the question of how much of a blank slate individual
Stolen things... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's ironic that the Hoffman book is found online in it's entirety after being brought to mind by a book about copyright protection and IP law. The universe has a strange sense of humor/justice...
Re:Stolen things... (Score:2)
Re:Stolen things... (Score:2)
Particularly random weight (ie, sold by the pound) goods like meat, the price is usually encoded into the barcode. The first part will be an item class code, the second part is the price, as calculated by the actual weight of the item. Its trivial to print some new tags using whatever symbology the store uses and stick it on top of the existing label.
You'd have to be pretty damn cheap to go to the trouble of printing new
Re:Stolen things... (Score:2)
Re:Stolen things... (Score:2)
Taking it further, you could retag normal items with valid UPC/GTIN numbers from other cheaper products, preferably of the same brand. But that would be much more obvious as you wandered around the store, peeling sticker
Re:Stolen things... (Score:2)
Re:Stolen things... (Score:2)
Kintanon
Clarification on the enzyme issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe the patent was on the COX-2 enzyme itself, only it's application for medicines to reduce inflamation. If someone found a different use for the enzyme, I don't think the patent would cover it.
Who cares if it was fundemental. They researched it, found it, and claimed "FIRST POST!^H^H^H^H^HPATENT!" It's their right to get a patent for their work. Yes, it would be great if other drug companies could compete and make said drug for cheaper. However, you get into the "chicken and egg" problem of drug companies not doing research because it's not profitable. Besides, the author states that "scientific progress in the last half of the twentieth century owes a greater debt to basic research from academic and publicly-funded scientists and researchers than to corporate research." So why didn't they find it first? Prior art would have killed the patent. The truth is that corporate research provides an important contribution. If it didn't, this wouldn't be an issue.
Re:Clarification on the enzyme issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
And here we have an elegant example of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question"; that is, assuming for your argument the very conclusion which is under contention: whether or not there is, or should be, a right to exclude others from a discovery in fundamental science, simply because one manages to file it first.
(It is the claim of the U.S. Constitution, for instance, that patent and copyright are not natural rights akin to life, liberty, and property: they are, rather, privileges created by Congress for a purpose. They rest on a consequentialist ethical system rather than a natural-law one: specifically, they exist to promote progress in the sciences and useful arts. If they fail to meet that purpose, then they fail to be justified.)
There has been no evidence cited that the consequentialist argument defends the extremity of patent (and copyright) that is presently enforced. Pursuers of greater copyright restrictions, and pursuers of vague and obvious patents, both assert that artists and researchers would have greater incentive to create and discover, if their works received greater monopoly protection.
However, this is a bare assertion without any evidence for it; a statement of faith and not of reason. It should not motivate the restriction of the public by further onerous laws. In the absence of evidence for the claim that a restrictive law would further the public good, a free nation should err on the side of preserving liberty and not on the side of extending further monopolies for the already-privileged.
Re:Clarification on the enzyme issue. (Score:2)
There are many reasons you can be wrong here. They most likely were the ones to find it first. Now the reason a company has a patent on it brings me to my next series of probabilities (which you would know are common if you have ever done reading on the subject). The company could have given the Uni. some funding with attached strings, such as the corp. gaining "IP" rights to all the research in question. Second, Uni's do basic research, which is of utmost importance.
Re:Clarification on the enzyme issue. (Score:2)
The true economic argument against patents is that they actually encourage too much investment in research. In this case, all those companies spent enormous sums on research, gambling that they would win. But onl
Re:Clarification on the enzyme issue. (Score:2)
Not the usual anti-patent rant (Score:5, Interesting)
However, when searching for the mythical Novell Unix patent a the patent office [uspto.gov] I was really struck by how bad every software patent was.
For example, when searching for patents assigned to Novell (search criteria AN/Novell), the very first patent returned is number 6,567,873, which is a patent having to do with spinlocks in an SMP kernel. Basically, the patent covers the idea of exponential backoff for a contented resource. This is something which ethernet has done for 30 years, and I'm sure there's even further prior art.
Another Novell patent involves resizing FAT file partitions on the fly, and involves no real insight at all.
But it's not these two patents. Almost every single patent is either just this obvious, or just this derivative of prior work. Check it out yourself -- pretty much every computer program ever written must violate hundreds of patents.
Re:Not the usual anti-patent rant (Score:2)
This has adventages, but when IP is protectable and defendable making use of these certificates as the core defense, these office should be granted the budget of any legal office. It's not, IMO. The USPO seems horribly out of touch with modern or detailed technology. The experts they employee are either *not* or *incred
Re:Not the usual anti-patent rant (Score:4, Interesting)
This behavior was justified by the need to have a sufficient patent portfolio when bartering with other technology companies. Rather than battle out an infringement claim in court, companies would just trade patent rights, like high-tech marbles in the schoolyard.
So I and my team went to work and developed some pretty nifty stuff . I got four software patents out of the deal. Not because I particularly felt the work was patent worthy, but because I got a grand for each one, and a pretty cool plaque in a Handsome Plastic Frame.
Every one of those patents are bogus. I borrowed all the technology - regular expressions, IP-IP protocols, and just plain-ol-object embedding. When I would tell this to the patent lawyers, they said the patent was viable because of the context it was presented in. That is, if the base idea for the patent itself is obvious, it can be argued that its application is not. Ergo, cha-ching!
Re:Not the usual anti-patent rant (Score:5, Insightful)
My field has only three huge multinational corporations. As I was debating whether or not it would be worth it in the long run to toss my patent application in the shredder, we got hit by a patent by Philips, one of those big three. We had prior art on this patent. We had been doing it for ten years. We had never patented it because it was so bloody obvious, with art prior to ours dating back to the Apple Lisa. I was thinking Philips was going to get a swift kick in the butt by our attorneys. But no, we decided to cross license for it. It turned out that it was cheaper to let them use one of our worthless patents in exchange for their worthless patent instead of spending two hours of court time listening to a judge laugh his head off at the absurdity of the patent.
I came to the realization that patents in the modern world are nothing more than a set trading cards used by corporations. Some of those cards, like a Mickey Mantle, might have some genuine value to them, but most are worthless obviousness.
Patents have become valueless commodities. It doesn't matter about any indivual patent, so long as you have more patents than your competitor.
patents and pills (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent scope (Score:5, Insightful)
Have to disagree there. At least I can't violate copyright without actually copying someone else's work. Patents can deny me the right to my own, independently developed ideas. They don't last as long, but they're much more powerful.
Re:Patent scope (Score:2)
Obviously, you've never heard of the George Harrison copyright infringement suit [vwh.net]. He independently created the song "My Sweet Lord", but the authors of the song "He's So Fine" sued and prevailed, saying Harrison copied the song.
Read the finding more carefully. (Score:3, Informative)
He independently created the song "My Sweet Lord", but the authors of the song "He's So Fine" sued and prevailed, saying Harrison copied the song.
That is not my reading of the document you linked to:
"With all the evidence pointing out the similarities between the two songs, the judge said it was "perfectly obvious . . . the two songs are virtually identical". The judge was convinced that neither Harrison nor Preston consciously set out to appropriate the melody of HSF for their own use, but such was not
Avoid? (Score:2)
According to this finding and admission [in Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs], the work was not independently developed, but was copied from the original, even if subconsciously.
What specific steps can a songwriter take when writing a song to avoid subconsciously copying a published musical work?
Property and Rights are Different Things (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't blame patents for this (Score:2, Funny)
His best example is the thicket of radio patents that entangled the baby radio industry
Baby radios are a fucking stupid idea. I'd rather listen to country and western, even.
Happen to own a copy of the book... (Score:4, Interesting)
Property and Rights are NOT different ! (Score:3, Interesting)
A tangible object only becomes property when rights attach to that object. The core property right is the right to exclude others from using the subject property. To use another real estate example, think of the law of trespass. Trespass laws prevent others from using real estate.
Take this now to the next level - intellectual property. Because IP is based on an intangible ("an idea" as the author of this book has called it), the property is defined by the bounds of the rights in the intangible. The right to exclude is inextricably bound with the intangible and becomes part of the definition of the right. Therefore, the right is coextensive with the property because it IS the property.
To go back to the real estate example, the right to exclude is coextensive with the physical boundary of the land in question. That is why estates in land and the land itself are two very different things. The land itself is nothing. The estate in the land (that is, the rights attached to the parcel) is the property.
Most people (even most lawyers) never make this distinction when it comes to patents. You will sometimes hear talk about the "patent monopoly," but this term has been rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the federal appeals court with exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases in the United States). The Court has made clear that patents define the metes and bounds of a piece of property and do not grant monopolies. There are sound reasons for this distinction that I hope you will forgive me for not discussing here. it is enough for this post that the distinction exists.
Re:And monopolies are? (Score:2)
Re:Broad patents (Score:2)
Move burden to claimers (Score:2)
How that portion is divied up is between patent claimants, not the manufactures. Thus, if you use ideas or potentially use ideas, then the different patent claimers will have to battle with each other instead of the manufacturer or user.
It might look like "yet another tax", but we pay anyhow now, just in a less organized fashion. This recommendation just moves the legal haggling to an area t
Difference between an idea and its execution (Score:2, Insightful)
The few examples that are mentioned in the book are what's wrong with patents. Pate
Evil Patent Agents/Lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
In Canada, you do not have to go to law school to become a patent agent. You simply work as a trainee at a firm for at least one year then write the appropriate exams.
After going through a s
Patent Avoidance Library (Score:2)
I read a few good points that Don Lancaster Made on his website [tinaja.com]. I have to admit that his audience is people who really has mastered a technology and can do something better than anyone else, for them putting out a patent is an invitation to theft. But it is also a good read for anyone thinking of patenting their good idea, it might be more sound to be beaten down in your shoes and walking away feeling like a looser than being talked into protecting something that wouldn't really hold on closer scrutiny.
Amazon one-click patent is a bad example (Score:2, Interesting)
No site had, and no programmer before or since would ever feel comfortable letting someone buy something without a second click for a confirmation. This is well documented, and any programmer of any age would tell you this. It was a true innovation in thought to both the online community and the programming community.
A better example would be something that was an imminently obvio
Let's beat bogus patents with 'Prior Art Registry' (Score:3, Interesting)
mhack
yes it's a very rare virus (Score:2, Funny)
forward this comment to twenty friends or all the rest of the titles will turn red and other horrible things will happen.
David Fleer in Manitoba, Canada only forwarded this comment to 19 friends and this is what he said: "My god, it's full of red titles"
George Tan of Maine completely ignored this comment and later died of syphillis.
Coincidence? you be the judge.
also, if you forward this comment to five hundred people Bill Gates may or may no
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but how much of that progress occurred because of the patent system, and how much in spite of said system?