More Calls for Patent Reform 348
ibi writes "On the heels of the PriceWaterHouseCoopers report about the threat of SoftPats to innovation, comes a book by a Harvard B School and Brandeis economics professor about how broken the patent system is in general. In short their book argues that the entire system is a (stunned silence) scam. (They actually call it 'a creator of litigation and uncertainty that threatens the innovation process itself' instead but that's cause you don't get tenure for using words like 'scam'.) Interesting to see that its gotten so bad that a professor of Investment Banking at Harvard even thinks something oughta be done."
Progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Progress (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, the financial folk from respected institutions.
Re:Progress (Score:2)
Most importantly: the people with Lots Of Money who own Big Businesses who actually run the US and have no intention of letting go of their patent cash cows.
Re:Progress (Score:2, Interesting)
custom-built single-patent companies start popping
up in order to cash in on a patent while shielding
the mother organisation from retaliation suits.
If this really starts taking off, then even large
patent-holders might start rethinking their
position. A patent portfolio will no longer be
the suit of armour it used to be.
Re:Progress (Score:2)
What do you mean by retaliation suits? Even if the company is legally separate from the parent, and no direct action can be taken, if it is clear that X Corp. are behind 'Baby x', and 'Baby x' takes action against Y Inc., then Y Inc. will use *its* patents against X Corp- directly or indirectly.
(Disclaimer: IANAL; I am an ignorant Slashdot reader,
Re:Progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies shouldn't just live on a successfull product based on some patents on which they cash in from other companies as well, economical growth and revenue increase should be formented by innovation in products, technologies and services and in the quality they provide them.
And this is just the very tip of the iceberg.
Re:Progress (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, the technical people are probably the only ones who will change things. I strongly doubt that the average Joe on the street will ever care about patent law. I mean, that is unreasonable to expect from today's public.
Re:Progress (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm afraid that there have been many economists for many years now who have called for a complete overhaul of the patent system. Many famous economists have been quick to point out the very tenous relationship between a patent incentive system and innovation.
The difficulty is getting *non-economists*, i.e. lawyers and the public, interested enough to consider the implications if the patent system is broken.
Hmm, and I am a little worried about some of the statements in this article. These particular ec
Re:Dream on (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO the only thing that will have a positive effect on either the patent situation or the copyright debacle we currently have is
1) to go back to the original time limits such protection is afforded the owner, and
2) the actual inventor/composer cannot sell/lease more than a 49% interest in the patent/copyright in aggr
Investment banking is far removed from creation (Score:3, Interesting)
Investment bankers know how to carve up a company into itty-bitty pieces, charge a fee for that, then move on to dooming the next bright-eyed startup company with two contracts to rub together.
So you are getting the opinion of a destroyer of wealth on how and why to dismantle the mechanism of protecting creators of wealth.
I understand we all hate patents and don't believe in IP, but this is just about the worst you can do in getting a spokesman.
Dancin Santa
Re:Investment banking is far removed from creation (Score:3, Interesting)
-russ
Re:Investment banking is far removed from creation (Score:4, Informative)
Uh no. (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are talking about are fund managers and loan officers. They are the ones who work at the bank and invest the bank's money. Investment bankers, for the most part, work at brokerage houses and do work far removed from what their t
Here's a simple logical idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Have software patents. However, make them good for only 5 years from the date of filing and on a first come first serve basis.
Entire fields of technology come and go in 5 years time, so that seems like more than enough time to "profit" from a patent. Also, it reduces the incentive for filing patents for "ideas" that allow a lock on said "idea" with no intent of using said idea. If the "idea" is suitably ahead of its time, well, then you could attempt to hold off on filing it...then again, mere ideas aren't
Re:Investment banking is far removed from creation (Score:4, Funny)
A lot of time and effort is expended in the development of patentable inventions, and if somebody wants to benefit from it, why stop them?
It's true that the patent system in the short term stifles innovation, and certainly slows innovation down in a direct sense. On the other hand, it gives financial incentive to do the inventing in the first place. (I know other incentives exist, but unless there's financial, most people can't afford to invent full time.) Additionally, the design of anything that's patented must be fully disclosed and on the public record, meaning that there is no secrecy involved on the part of the inventor, allowing others to improve the design, even while the patent is still valid, and license the improvement to the original inventor, license the rights to sell the original invention with the improvement, or to wait for the expiration of the first patent and then sell their improvement.
The difficulty in the patent system is not inherent, though certainly, one can admire men like Benjamin Franklin who did not patent his inventions. The problem with the patent system is that often inventions that should be considered "obvious", and therefore exempt from being patented, are not, and are patented. Of course, these can be contested, but it's arduous, and hardly worth the time against a megacorp.
Unfortunately, the resources do not exist for true experts to check every patent application thoroughly.
(My) Conclusion: the patent system is not inherently bad, it just has problems of Pragmatism.
Re:Investment banking is far removed from creation (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some inventions which are just totally mysterious to the user. Trying to figure out how a computer chip works by examining it is generally impractical. It is much easier to just make a different one which behaves the same in the circumstances of interest.
There are some inventions which could be figured out with a bit of examination. The workings o
Society doesn't get value from software patents (Score:3)
That's the theory. But in practice, software pat
Re:Investment banking is far removed from creation (Score:2, Interesting)
A solution to a problem may well be something quite simple, like a shaped surface (e.g. a wing). I could spend years experimenting with a wind tunnel, and different shapes for a wing, gradually refining it until I manage a more efficient surface. Once I've developed it and sold it, all my competitor has to do is measure it. Any attempt to prevent reveerse engineering will interfere with the functionality.
Why would I bother with the research in the first place? It's
This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I see that more as a problem with the legal system, not the lawyers. The lawyers are just doing their job, but the courts are coming up with the wrong answers, trying to protect people too much. You ought to be able to assume anything common sense... like the fact that cleaning fluids and sensitive body parts don't mix well. Just mark the bottle with the word "irritant" and assume everyone knows what that means.
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:3, Interesting)
That's like saying that IT project managers are programmers. The two clearly have a lot of domain specific knowledge in common, and programmers often become project managers later on in their careers, but they are entirely separate and distinct jobs.
The laws in question are almost certainly "common law"; that is they were never actually written in governmental
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:2)
Did you see the word "trial" and "judge" and get lost?
Yes, it's a law problem; a patent law problem. Patent law is a subset of law. Law determines litigation. So you're right, but only in the most vacuous way. If you read the aritcle, you'll see that they point to two changes in patent law (how easy it is to get patents and what sort of patent cases are heard by judges vs. heard by juries) that have led to the current patent
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:2)
You want that to be a law? What have you contributed today? What penalty are you prepared to accept if others think your contribution was negative?
Hang on, is this "law 0" (i.e. "above all") or "law 5"?
If you're going to stick the golden rule in some people would argue you don't need the rest.
Goo
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Lawyers prosecuting patent applications basically lie and cheat to try and get the broadest patent possible...causing undue burden on the system.
There is already rules about lawyers basically cheating, but no one enforces them...and they try to take advantage of examiners by writing obviousely too broad claims to get more than
Re:This seems more like a litigation problem (Score:2)
Linux as case study. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux as case study. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux as case study. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevertheless, if somebody were so inclined, they could probably get the USPTO to grant them hundreds of patents covering what Linux does. The prerequisite of novelty is not being enforced because the patent office doesn't do effective prior art searches, and the patent holder is not held accountable if their patent claims are later found to be invalid.
Re:Linux as case study. (Score:2)
Anyway. What Linux DOES show is that really great and usefull things can come out when information is shared; which is nominally what the whole IP system was suppose to be for, you get a LIMITED time monopoly as an incentive, in exchange for the world getting to know and share and improve on your work in the future. Something like Linux is what we hope to happen in any environment after the pate
Re:Linux as case study. (Score:2)
By your definition, there have been no innovative operating systems in perhaps 40 years.
WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
logic (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't follow - wouldn't a professor of investment banking at harvard be among the first people to realize that something oughta be done?
The Law Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Schools have to tear down playgrounds because of fears of lawsuits. My kids can't go on field trips without a 4 page medical release. My kids can't attend GYM CLASS without a waiver where we acknowledge that gym includes strenous physical activity.
OB GYNs can't sneeze without ending up in court. People injured in car accidents get millions in settlements.
Coffee cups have "Attention: Hot" printed down the sides of them. Radio ads include a "high speed small print" ramble at the end of them. There is an asterix and small print on everything around me. Half the price of football helmets is to pay for the companies lawsuits and insurance.
The patent system is just another example. The copyright system is just another example.
As a society we need a rework.
Nit (Score:3, Informative)
"Asterisk" is a little star used for notes.
Re:The Law Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing makes my heart cringe more than watching some poor helpless shell of man, sitting there powerlessly letting the sophists spin their web of verbal obfuscation, all the while realizing he has indebted, and thus enslaved himself, for years simply to gain his freedom.
Far better I think, to fight for your freedom in a mediated, structured system of combat.
Re:The Law Tax (Score:2, Funny)
This would never work. Athletes (such as O.J. Simpson) would excel and never be "found guilty" of their crimes...
Re:The Law Tax (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Law Tax (Score:2, Insightful)
The concept of stupidity has been lost and replaced with victimization. It's not my childs fault he dove head first down the slide in the scorching heat. The slide shouldn't have been made of metal in the first place, and it can't be made of plastic because he might chew a peice of and swallow it. Get rid of it and give me money for my stupid child.
It's like all the whiney cause heads and all the whiney victims converged and formed some sort of sick and twisted super whiner.
I d
Re:The Law Tax (Score:2)
Amen to that! It looks like there will be a show down between the doctors and lawyers [cnn.com] in Florida, Nevada, Oregon and Wyoming soon.
Re:The Law Tax (Score:3)
All of this is inevitable. Think about it. If your not someone along the line of someone builds houses or a farmer or something that provides the basic necesities in life, you have to justify your existance in society.
Lawyers are people who are employed because they know the rules of society. That is how complex our society has become. And these people are given tons of respect. Lawyers, doctors, and NASA employees for some reason give people glassy eyes when they hear
Re:The same question I always ask (Score:3)
No, they sue because it costs them nothing and they might get a ton of cash out of some defendant with big pockets. Rights has nothing to do with it.
Introduce a 'loser pays' system and people can sue as much as they want... but they won't do so unless they have a real case and aren't just relying on the jury being retards.
Re:The same question I always ask (Score:3)
The problem with a "loser pays" systems, is that it will have a chilling effect on some of the smaller cases, which are probably right but are facing a big enough opponent, that they may still lose due to "the jury being retards". For example, if you had a good case against Microsoft, perhaps they infringed on a valid patent you he
Without the ad (Score:5, Informative)
By SABRA CHARTRAND
Published: September 27, 2004
SINCE 1793, the federal government has issued patents to inventors, giving them exclusive ownership of an idea as well as the right to prevent others from using it. Now some experts argue that achieving those rights stifles innovation. Two professors conclude in a new book that a couple of unrelated and seemingly innocuous administrative reforms of the patent system have caused a shift away from encouraging innovation in favor of exploiting patents largely for lawsuits. Josh Lerner and Adam B. Jaffe have written a book with a title: "Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What To Do About It," to be published in November by Princeton University Press.
Mr. Lerner, a professor of investment banking at the Harvard Business School, and Mr. Jaffe, a professor of economics at Brandeis University, trace this breakdown to the early 1980's, when a single federal appeals court was established to hear patent lawsuits, replacing 12 regional courts of appeal. Then in the early 1990's, Congress changed the patent office's financing, so the agency could pay for itself with user fees. From his home outside Boston, Mr. Lerner last week described the patent system, 20 years after the reforms, as mired in "the land of unintended consequences."
"Again and again in the patent system, we see people set out to do reforms with one thing in mind, but that have quite an unintended effect," he said. "The easier it became to get patents, the more people wanted to apply for them, and that led to a situation where examiners grappled with more patents to review, which led to them being pressed to do quicker reviews and a degradation in quality of patents issued." The patent agency has often struggled to keep up with the times. In recent years, the agency has confronted entirely new areas like biotechnology, software-related inventions, financial and business methods, Internet-based inventions and other information-technology innovations. Some of the changes designed to deal with these occurred amid extensive public debate. Others got little attention because they seemed like innocuous administrative reforms - like the ones that made patents easier to get, Mr. Lerner said.
But many of those patents caused a secondary reaction, he added. "The ability to litigate and expect to get substantial award from litigation increased," Mr. Lerner said. "So as a result we've got somewhat of a vicious cycle. Once you get one firm in an industry beginning a strategy of aggressive patent enforcement, it creates an almost inevitable response - an almost arms-race dynamic - where everyone else in the industry says, 'We better be doing the same thing.' " He suggested that these changes for the worse occurred because "there's a relatively small group of people in the D.C. patent bar, and they have a very powerful influence on how patent policy gets decided. There is a powerful incentive for them to keep a patent system that is complicated, and one that involves protracted, costly litigation." Also, Mr. Lerner said, businesses often fail to understand the importance of subtle changes in patent law.
"It is perhaps because of the complexity of patent issues, and because there is no long tradition of work by economists in this area, because a lot of corporations see it as second order relative to tax policy changes, for example, which directly affect their bottom line," he explained. "Patent policy has an indirect affect." The book lays out a strategy. "Our idea is that three things will potentially make a big difference," Mr. Lerner said. "First of all, this idea which may well have made sense in 19th century of a patent examiner being able to sit and in few hours figure out what a relevant technology is, and then go out and make a decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not, that really doesn't make sense in an era like today. "Second, to see the patent revie
Ah nothing quite like submitter putting bias into (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't say that patents should be done away with entirely. They recommend some serious reforms to the system such as a much stricter patent review process where 3rd parties are allowed to have input. They also say that most businesses are more worried about tax reform than they are about patent damage. These are good ideas, and a start to reform.
Gah, I really, REALLY wish people would stop putting bias into their summaries, but this is
Duration (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Duration (Score:3)
Re:Duration (Score:2)
Re:Duration (Score:2)
FWIW, asking for software patents to be abolished in the US is at least as realistic in my eyes as proposing yet another reform which is suppo
Re:Duration (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing right with software patents.
Software patents do not promote science and the useful arts.
Software patents have not caused an increase in the amount of software being written.
Software patents have harmed some software developers by forcing them into costly litigation.
Software patents have a chilling effect on developement. Knowing that a piece of software you are writting might be patented makes it less likely that you will work on it.
What good thing has happend as a result of software patents?
Software patents should not be allowed to start, and in countries where they've already started, they should be abolished.
-- Should you question authority?
Gawsh Durn it! (Score:4, Funny)
And they told me it was because I didn't have the necessary education, experience, publications, or ability.
Who can be trusted to get the reforms correct? (Score:2, Interesting)
About time! (Score:4, Informative)
Even if the patent system is reformed, who's going to make sure a new system isn't dictated by the robber barons who own congress.
I bet the a system would favor the current corporate patent holders with large patents portfolios, while reducing the power of smaller IP-only parasites (EOLA, bellboy etc.).
- Ost
Re:About time! (Score:2)
But it will not help us at all (open software comunity)
- Ost
Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is examplified when a group of software developers sit around a table and write a couple of patent applications in an afternoon - How can a 25 year monopoly be justified by 1 afternoons w
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.
Nice call there.
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:2)
Very nice, very flip. You conveniently ignore, of course, the simple fact that, were it not for patents, nobody would get new medications, since nobody would invest the billions necessary to develop them.
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:2)
Because medicines and machines, once developed, are usefull for decades to come, vs. software that lasts maybe 3, 5 years. Because research into medicines likely wouldn't happen without the promise of a limited time monopoly, as it's highly expensive and speculative. Unlike software, where you can get people to work for free from home in their
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you have missed the point that is actually contained in what you wrote. The problem is not that patenting machines is acceptable but software bad, but that patenting genuinely new ideas is acceptable but trivial modifications is not. I think the reform would be much more likely to succeed if we managed to change the slogan from "software patents are bad" to "trivial patents are bad". If the examination process had better ways to filter out the trivial and the obvious it would go a long way towards fixing the problems.
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:2)
This, I believe, is the important difference.
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:2, Interesting)
As I understand the problem it is this: with physical inventions, like say a bean sorter, the inventor must provide technical drawings and schematics etc showing how the machine works and is constructed. Now no one else may build precisely that machine. However, if I come up with an innovative new bean grabber/combine/conveyor mchanism that does
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:2)
Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else.... (Score:4, Informative)
It has nothing to do with "technical fields", except in the TRIPs treaty (which is why the European Parliament simply stated that "data processing does not belong to a field of technology", although of course the means with which you perform data processing can).
Point of No Return (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, the power of the people to speak louder than money is only felt if a) said people are interested in exercising that power at the expense of personal convenience and b) they are willing to think for themselves. This seldom happens, and only when things get Really Bad. I'm not talking about IP laws, I'm talking about not being able to get the basics of life. Abstract economics doesn't get people excited, because its not important enough. Tomorrow's meal or the kid's latest cold is what's important for most people.
As long as powerful economic interests are able to keep most of the people relatively comfortable, they will never have to deal with popular uprising about MP3 downloading or stupid patents. People ignore these things unless it impacts them personally, and it seldom does enough to hurt.
Beyond the Point of No Return, corporate power is able to use the statistics of democracy to run the country. Barring the crumbling of their power due to total economic collapse, they control the media and can use it to influence and placate people as they see fit.
So brace yourself geeks, because we don't have a Voice. We are without economic or political power, and we are so small a minority in the democratic whole we can be ignored no matter how loud we yell. Because most people don't care about what we care about. In a two party system, massive numbers and middle of the road are the order. We are neither.
Which doesn't mean we should just go gentle into that good night, but bear in mind the patent system being profitable to the people abusing it is more politically important than the little (relatively quiet) guy being squashed. If we fight, we need to fight smart and not charge at the problem head on. Because we might as well be a flea going head to head with a rhino.
Re:Point of No Return (Score:2)
Please, though, consider this (Score:5, Insightful)
This did not happen just by sleepy proletarian mobs being occasionally jolted awake by famines and wars. Our progress is the result of small groups of dedicated, intelligent individuals who overcame their own cynicism and defeatism and got their hands dirty. These are not people richer or more powerful or luckier than you that you imagine really take care of everything. This is you. Right here, right now, posting on this stupid website.
Frankly the biggest enemy you have to face after ignorance is helplessness. You are not helpless. Reading recent history is often the best cure for that feeling, and I urge you to read it.
Unhealthy intellectual property policy affects our entire society, through its economy and its quality of intellectual and artistic life. Our patent regime is especially pernicious; software patents in particular are obviously, prima facie unjustifiable.
Oh, we have hot button poltics, and bread and circuses like always. But never forget that money is what really moves politics in this country. And software patents are very, very bad for business, at all levels.
Everyone wants to make money, to push growth. The problem is the prisoner's dillemma; software patents are bad if everyone has them, but they're theoretically good for me (if I'm one giant company). All that has to happen is lining the natural opponents up and letting them work. It will take time; the community needs to develop the conventional wisdom that with software patents everybody loses.
Just be smart, and be willing to work. Once tension builds, it often takes a dramatic event to tip the balance. Say, a bunch of tiny upstarts suing Microsoft for billions over patents and any of them winning?
Re:Please, though, consider this (Score:2)
Monarchy often meant starvation.
Slavery usually meant being worked to death.
Both outcomes provide a powerful incentive to "overcome" the system (which is what the GrandParent post [slashdot.org] tried to say).
Also, do not forget that both triumphs required bloody, violent, armed revolutions.
Re:Please, though, consider this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Point of No Return (Score:2, Funny)
You forget we program the voting machines.
What will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Business interests will direct the changes.
3) The system will be worse than today.
Interesting? Yes, but not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, having an strong opinion and announcing it loudly causes publicity. Both for the opinion itself, and fhr the one announcing it. Publicity for the one announcing it makes their other opinions noticed too, as well as their ideas, services and books.
I'm not saying that they've got the opinion because it's a means to get the public's attention, but it certainly doesn't hurt their exposure.
That much said, I applaud their stance. The patent system is totally broken and needs to be either thrown out completely or severely reworked.
Concepts of Property (Score:3, Interesting)
Before your panties get in a twist, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I think ownership needs to be redefined in both the copyright and patent space. I just see patent reform as an uphill battle because of the simple to understand arguments against it.
Free the information in our lifetimes: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should the system of patents be obliterated? No. Without a patent system, industry has no point to develop a product. Now true with our system of consumerism there is brand name importance, and a loyalty to those that produce a superior product; many executives feel that innovation without a garantee of being the only suplier of a nich market is unacceptable.
What could be a simple solution?> Limit the length of a patent to seven years, with eligibility to renew for another seven if a product is developed.
Why seven years? For most products, it takes seven years for the idea of the product, or a compound for medical research, to be aproved to reach the market. With this system a company cannot hold a patent of a vauge idea for decades, hoping for someone to develop a patent in the field of the patent, and deman royalties. It would also prevent a company hindering the development of a field that would render their product obsolete.
This would give the drug companies an incentive to keep developing new products, quickly, and for other companies to patent products that they have already developed. This would also stop companies like Amazon and Microsoft from patent-whoring. Its pretty win-win, and allows more technology to eventually reach an open community, where others can innovate on the ideas, improve the product, and compete with their "better" products.
And they say Leninism is dead.../i?
Re:Free the information in our lifetimes: (Score:2)
Re:Free the information in our lifetimes: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes they do. It's called making money. They will create ideas to help their business, or their competitors will eat them alive. The only difference is, instead of trying to make money based on a government-enforced monopoly of ideas, they'll have to make money by providing actual goods or services to their customers.
One Missing Ingredient (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't see any recommendation for shorter terms for exclusive monopoly rights that I think would help cure this problem on many fronts.
The 17 year term might have been justifiable in the 18th century when trading ships took many weeks to cross the Atlantic, but now, overall progress would be improved if the terms were reduced to something more like 2 years.
And, while we're at IP reform, copyrights should be cut down to a shorter period as well. This 75 year mouse extension is ridiculous, especially when Disney mines fairy tales in the public domain (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.) for their cartoon movie ideas.
But, once the artificial market is created, the vested interests (owners of IP, litigators of IP) don't want to see it go away.
So just reduce terms of exclusivity gradually, a year at a time, until things become sane again.
Re:One Missing Ingredient (Score:5, Interesting)
2 year patents for pharmaceuticals would make it useless to develop new medicines, due to the extensive testing required by the FDA prior to marketing. This is why most drugs are only on the market a few years before the patent expires, allowing generics to be developed.
The proper amount of time is very dependent upon the nature of the patent an the industry it is involved with.
Another side of the patent mess... (Score:2, Informative)
Clarity in the specifications would be a start (Score:4, Interesting)
One way to make a significant improvement to the system would be to reverse the way vagueness is handled. At the moment it seems that ideas described in vague and general language are considered to be covered by the patent, and the idea is considered new enough if it is not a blatant direct copy of something that has already been described (which is usually interpreted to mean patented).
If the assumptions were reversed, the vague and general patents that are close to things that have already been done should be eliminated. It seems to me that those are the ones doing the most harm, so this would be a big step in the right direction. If there was a penalty (no protection) for any part of the idea hidden in obscure language, it would make the whole process much easier to use, and harder to abuse. Clear and simple descriptions would be much easier to relate to existing ideas, so you would need real novelty in the idea rather than a novel way to create a convoluted description of the idea.
OSS developers should start patenting (Score:2, Insightful)
Please clarify: Stallman on patents (Score:5, Interesting)
I accept that the patents system as it stands is far from optimal, or even fair. But could someone please clarify this for me: how could it be an alternative to abolish patents on software ideas altogether when this would remove the financial incentive for someone to protect their software invention? We'd all like to live in a world where financial gain meant less than it does, but is it really a realistic option? What IS the alternative without making the patent system even more cryptic and complex? What am I missing here?
Re:Please clarify: Stallman on patents (Score:3, Informative)
If a minor, temporary reduction in the free use of inventions resulted in a much more significant increase in the number of inventions created, there is a net gain for society. That it happens to involve giving protection for inventors is purely secondary; it's the means by which we accomp
Mabye a troll or flamebait, but the obvious it is (Score:2)
Media, government, stupider people: Bah, that's hogwash! What do you know about economics? (translation: We don't want to think, we just want to fallow someone who does the thinking for us and refute you so you can't challenge him.)
Now, lets see what happens when a professor says something about it
bankers are not inherently evil, you asshole (Score:2)
Changed I'd make... (Score:2)
Second, no software patents. There will be a time when no new company will be able to innovate as any new idea could somehow be construed to impact on a patent. Old companies won't innovate because that's not what old companies do. Technological innovati
Three-point Plan for Patent Reform (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only does USPTO not receive any tax money, since 1992 much of the money collected in fees by USPTO has not been available to it. From fiscal 1992 through fiscal 2001, more than $675 million has been diverted [aipla.org]. Because of the economic damage cause by invalid patents, this is no way to save money. USPTO's ability to conduct meaningful examinations is already compromised. Last year, USPTO Director Q. Todd Dickinson warned of an imminent "reduction in patent quality" resulting from yet another inadequate budget.
Inadequate USPTO budgets benefit only one group of people -- those who get invalid patents. Everyone else suffers. Fund USPTO so that it can afford to attract and retain highly skilled examiners, as well as maintain a world-class library of international patents, journals, catalogs, and other information. A patent office without full funding is the economic equivalent of a fully loaded B-52 bomber with no maps, no compass, and an untrained navigator.
2. Stop and reverse patentability creep
Would the economy be better off if Bruce Springsteen were allowed to patent rhyming "back" and "Cadillac" -- and sue any other songwriter who did so, even if the new song was nothing like "Pink Cadillac?" Would the economy be better off if the Green Bay Packers were allowed to patent the best defense against a particular play, and sue any team that used that defense against them?
Would the economy be better off if a high-priced defense lawyer were able to patent the use of a legal argument, and sue any other defense lawyer who used it on behalf of his client?
Clearly, the answer to all three questions is no. We're all better off when we can hear new songs, watch good football games, and get a fair trial without getting several patent licenses a day. Unfortunately, several court decisions in the 1980s and 1990s have resulted in the patentabilty of mathematical algorithms and of business methods, which is for programmers just as ludicrous as the above three examples.
Software and business methods patents are examples of "patentabilty creep" in action. Federal judges, legislating from the bench, are expanding the scope of patentable content to not only overwhelm USPTO, but also to do grievous economic harm.
3. Fix USPTO's incentive system to reward quality, not quantity
The Department of Commerce should populate USPTO's advisory committee with members from outside the patent bar, with a view to helping USPTO work toward the economic health of the nation as a whole and not for any special interest group. Employee incentive programs within USPTO should be tied to patent quality, not quantity.
Patentability is sometimes an asset to everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists have known for years that merely injecting someone with "good" cholesterol could help ease congestive heart failure, but because it's something we all produce anyway, it couldn't be patented and nobody was willing to spend the money to manufacture a low-margin commodity.
Somebody noticed, though, that residents of a small town in Italy died with baby-smooth arteries and almost never had heart attacks. A researcher found that they produced a mutant form of cholesterol that functioned like "drano for the arteries." Because it was a mutated form, it was patentable, and the researcher sold out to Esperion, which Pfizer bought within months for more than a billion dollars.
I think people on here, understandably, are coming at this from a software background. There is really no other industry, though, where innovation comes as cheaply and easily. MS et al. have definitely abused the system, but it might be a better idea to militate for software-specific patent reform than for patent reform more generally, as 20 years is not a lot of time in some industries (the airline industry comes to mind, where it takes more than a decade to produce a new passenger jet) to recover the costs of innovation. Another benefit is that the longer the patent lifespan, the longer the period a company has to amortize its R&D costs, and the less they have to charge up-front.
5th amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
For the same reason that copyright reform may be difficult to bring about, as postulated by Mr. Lessig, Mr. Knopf, and others, it would literally cost the government a fortune to deprive owners of patents their due value, for a public purpose, as the 5th amendment guarantees them just compensation.
The lackadaisical politics is in essence digging its own grave, ensuring the continuation of a terrible intellectual property system, as the government will be unable to afford to compensate the existing privileged in the name reform for the public good.
Re:5th amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a relevent bit in the US constitution: [house.gov]
Unlike natural rights, people don't have exclusive rights to their "writings and discoveries" unless Congress grants it. The reason Congress grants that right is for the public good. If Congress chooses not to grant this right, it isn't taking anything away. It's just not exercising it's power to grant the right. And there's no "property" taken from the inventor in violation of the 5th ammendment.
Re:5th amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact the constitution clearly states that copyrights and patents are a government mandated monopoly that is to be short term - genuine rights don't have an expiration date.
Re:5th amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is different in that the primary concern is the lengthy term of the copyright. It may in fact be very difficult to shorten that term and it would take over a century to let the existing copyrights run out. Existing patents would be gone within twenty yea
Oh, it's MORE... (Score:3, Funny)
WOW, I wrote this letter just thismorning.... (Score:4, Informative)
This morning I saw an article in the SD Tribune touting how benificial patents were to the biotech industry from the perspective of a lawyer. I wrote this reply to the author before I even saw this on slashdot .... must have been a psychic thing! :)
To: michael.kinsman@uniontrib.com
Dear Michael Kinsman,
After reading a recent article you wrote in the Union Tribune, I really think you should consider the "other side" of the Patent system. I found it ironic that the article I'm thinking about referred to a lawyer, because of all people - a lawyer is probably the least qualified to understand what's good for technology industries and what isn't. In fact, even in the article, the lawyer referred to, defended against patents in one case and imposed them in another. Lets face it, when all is said and done, the people that benefit the most from this two way milking process is lawyers and not business. I don't work in biotech, but I've worked in allot of other technology companies and this is the way I see it:
In the tech industry I know, most people get patents not because they are some glorious protection, but rather a glorious hassle that is necessary to use defensively against frivolous lawsuits. They are also used to get into cross-licensing agreements that would have otherwise made it impossible for the small innovative companies to compete against entrenched patent and lawyer filled giants. This is hardly the patent system that helps the small inventor working in his garage that everyone talks about.
In the tech industry I know, the entire industry is defined by people who defied patents. For example, the IBM compatible PC was a drastic success for the computer industry, because it was a drastic patent failure where anybody could make an IBM compatible PC even if they weren't IBM. Silicon valley, wouldn't exist without the engineers who routinely revolted against companies who wanted to patent off their innovations, and created new startups in defiance.
In the tech industry I know, the overwhelming majority of patents were issued for innovations that were incremental, and were going to happen anyhow with or without patents. The patents didn't help anything, they just got in the way time and time again. Even worse are the thousands of patents issued for things that were obvious and could be made by any competent high school programming student, like a cursor that blinks!
One time I worked for an innovative startup that got bought out by a huge global multinational corporation - whose only motive was grab some key patents and lock out competition in an important area of the market. This didn't benefit the consumer who got gouged, it didn't benefit the employees who mostly got laid off, it didn't benefit the tech industry who was cut out from using the technology, and it stopped the innovation that was going on cold in it's tracks. But, on the bright side, it did benefit greatly a large staff of lawyers on hand!
However the most revealing patent issues didn't happen in the IT industry at all. It happened when American pharmaceutical companies tried to sue the daylights out of dirt poor African nations who wanted to make generic AIDS drugs on their own. And then how pharmaceutical executives went to the papers and said how they had no incentive to make pharmaceuticals without these lawsuits, that their patents were property, and they were very generous to Africans. Of course when it was pointed out that those points were very similar to the incentive/property/generosity arguments used by plantation masters in the 1800's - they backpedaled in a hurry and got the government to put 13 billion of my tax money towards fighting AIDS in Africa instead. (buying patented pharmacutical products, of course)
So the questions you should be asking is not whether patents are beneficial to the industry or not, or whether they will secure venture capital, bu
Re:hypocrites, the lot of 'em (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hypocrites, the lot of 'em (Score:2)
Re:Eh? Hmmmm. Zzzzz. (Score:2)
I haven't read the book, but they're probably arguing for a system where failing to disclose a patent when proposing somebody else uses an invention it covers renders it invalid. This case (if my memory of the details is correct) is a good example of where such a law would help.
Re:Great news... (Score:2)