The Economist on Patent Reform

ar1550 writes "The Economist recently posted an opinion piece on the state of patent systems, describing not just the mess that is the USPTO but flaws present in Europe and Asia. From the article, "In 1998 America introduced so-called 'business-method' patents, granting for the first time patent monopolies simply for new ways of doing business, many of which were not so new. This was a mistake." The article also describes the difficulty of obtaining legitimate patents. "

How to benefit the consumer.

[rice_burners_suck]

I have an interesting idea: Pass new legislation that makes it ILLEGAL for an individual or small business with less than 1000 employees to obtain a patent. Then, only large businesses can obtain them. Further, some additional clauses in the legislation will require that such small businesses, if they wish to license the patent, will have to pay additional monies besides the license fees, such as additional taxes, penalties, and fines, which the government will spend on fancy furniture and catering for patent office employees. Any patent application filed by a corporation with 20,000 employees or more, or at least 5 billion dollars in liquid assets, will be automatically approved. Corporations smaller than this will have to go through a patent approval process, the complexity and expense of which will be inversely proportional to the size of the corporation. Thus, a corporation with the minimum 1,000 employees will have to endure the most difficult patent approval process, and a corporation with, say, 10,000 employees will go through a process only half as difficult.

This will balance out the patent system and make the system fair for all involved. Clearly, such a patent system will benefit the consumer.

If we got rid of currency and patents and lawyers

[omghi2u]

If we got rid of currency and patents and lawyers, think how happy the world would be.

We could do things for the sheer GOOD of doing them, people would be creative for creativity's sake. Just think Star Trek and don't tell me I'm wrong.

Thanks, commrade!

Re:One-sided article

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it happened in 1998, I blame Bush.

He allowed it to pad Halliburton's profits.

A different angle

[TheMeuge]

Give these guys a break ;) They're just trying to help out the ailing hordes of patent lawyers. I mean if one could no longer patent the very process of 'post-factum patent squatting litigation', what would happen to the poor folks?! Personally, I have filed a patent for the "process of gaining permission for sexual activity with a previously unknown person through the use of mood-altering and/or intoxicating substances". Upon the patent being granted I expect to file no less than 10'000 lawsuits/day for patent infringement, mainly around college campuses.

Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye

[omghi2u]

I will bring your issue up with the United Federation of Planets immediately!

Just steal it anyway

[g0hare]

Base your corporation in Delaware, use the patents illegally, and pay yourself huge sums of money. If people get mad they can sue the corporation, but you don't care because you aren't the corporation.

Good News

[dfn5]

business-method' patents, granting for the first time patent monopolies simply for new ways of doing business

I'm going to patent the business model of treating employees like shit. Then I'll sue every company for patent infringement.

I have a patent idea

[ajs318]

I have an idea for a robbery technique. I was thinking to patent it, as it depends on a recent change and so there cannot be any prior art. I don't see why the criminals should be the only ones making money out of crime! Let them steal goods and money, for sure, but they'll have to pay me royalties if they want to do it the way I thought up.

However, then I thought it might be better to phrase the claim as a technique for being robbed instead. This ought to be more lucrative. The perpetrator may not get caught after all, and the victim probably is insured anyway.

Sweet!

[foreverdisillusioned]

I've got a great new idea, even better than Amazon's revolutionary one-click shopping!

I'm going to accept money in exchange for goods or services. Anyone else who decides to copy this business model must pay me, oh, how about $699...

Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents

[zx75]

Innocent until proven guilty? What a novel idea, one thinks this might have applicable usage in other areas of law as well as it seems move obvious by the day that the system does not follow any such noble ideal.

Re:In developing countries...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was "You don't talk about Capitalism."

Re:How to benefit the consumer.

[JonnyCalcutta]

Thomas Alva Edison would have to have 1000 employees before he could patent the light bulb!

Which makes a great new joke -

Question - How many workers does it take to patent the lightbulb?
Answer - one thousand!!!

B'dum tsch!

Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye

[Hatta]

Imagine there's no patents,
And no copyrights,
We'd all share our software,
And reach new creative heights.

You may say I'm a dreamer...