The Economist on Patent Reform 315
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. "
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Informative)
It seems that a good idea in principle may have resulted in legislation that is not working in practice because of a flawed framework / companies taking advantage (your choice). Not that I agree with the idea of business-method patents in the first place, but this may make the idea behind them clearer.
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Informative)
Somehow, it makes sense -- the general set of criteria for patentability should apply to most legal subject-matter (not sure that it would be wise to grant a patent to a new process to produce Cocain
Just my two €urocents...
Re:Superficial article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently Jefferson disagreed with you:
From the Economist:
PATENTS, said Thomas Jefferson, should draw "a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not."
And this [earlyamerica.com]:
Jefferson, a strong proponent of equality among all people, was not sure if it was fair or even constitutional to grant what was essentially a monopoly to an inventor, who would then be able to grant the use of his idea only to those who could afford it. His feeling that all should have total access to new technology was one of the reasons he never took out a patent on his own inventions. This is consistent in his belief in the natural right of all mankind to share useful improvements without restraints. He felt that inventions can not, in nature, be a subject of property and that the promiscuous granting of patents was not only against the theory of popular government, but would be pernicious in its consequences. (Curtis, 1901) In fact he referred to patents as "embarrassments to the public" (McLaughlin, 1989).
The Gauntlet (Score:3, Informative)
Re:would this fix the bulk of the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
The system you suggest already exists and has existed for decades, albeit at about 1/10th the costs you propose. It is called Maintenance Fees [uspto.gov]. See 37 CFR 1.362 et seq. [cornell.edu] These fees are due at 4, 8, and 12 years after issuance. Big companies are charged higher amounts than small ones.
Re:the problem isnt so much the system (Score:3, Informative)
This is as valid for a set of rules encoded as a construct of laws as it is for any set of rules determining usage/access of/to a system.
I sugest some form of punishement should be introduced for patent applications deemed to be frivolous, duplicate or over encompassing.
Re:patents for the rich/poor (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Gauntlet (Score:3, Informative)
It's far easier to search if you use the classification. Rather than hoping you get the right terms, it acts like an index. This alone should narrow down your search to 100-5000 patents, and don't forget they are all cross referenced before being issued and related patents are listed on the front page.
While this is a problem, the law states that if the patent does not clearly convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make and/or use the invention, it is legally deficient. I'm not making an excuse for all patents, but while 99.9% of the patents may be cryptic, you might be surprised how readable they are when you are "an person of ordinary skill in the art". Again, I'm not excusing all patents.
This one is easy. If the patent has not expired or been abandoned, it is valid until a judge says otherwise. All live patents are presumed valid until proven otherwise in court.
Systems (Score:3, Informative)
Whether we keep or get rid of income taxes, it doesn't matter for this idea...
Fix it so 30% of the total federal tax revenue is redistributed. If this means raising taxes, so bet it. If this means cutting wasteful spending, so be it. But with spending over a half trillion per year on "defense", I'm sure we could cut a big part of that, although some would disagree.
Semi-free college education at the least. Do something like this...
In exchange for a free college education, the person would pledge 5% of their income for 20 years to help pay for this. So not only would someone be contributing to the regular tax system by having a better job, but they'd be putting 5% of their income into this system. 5% of $0 is $0, so if you don't earn a dime in a given year, no big deal. And it's over after 20 years, hopefully by age 42 or so.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the IRS and get rid of property taxes, and simply go on a consumption/sales tax system, provided that the rebates are kept.
The 30% thing I mentioned earlier, let's play around with it. If current federal income taxes results in $2000 billion, 30% of that would be $600 billion. We could cut a large chunk out of the DoD, and modify some tax brackets too.
-
Now we got $600 billion among nearly 300 million citizens. That's $2000 per person, but we don't want people having babies just to get the money. Solution: Limiting it to just adults would result in about $2666 per person, if there are 225 million adults. Or maybe just limiting it to anyone who is age 5 and up, which is kind of like anyone who is school age.
-
If a college tuition is $4k per year, this could very well help. This could help seniors too. And those who are homeless on the street who get $0 now, this would surely help.
Inventor's view on the subject on AlwaysOn (Score:2, Informative)
I just recently wrote a piece for AlwaysOn with a similar view, from the perspective of the inventor.
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=57 63_0_5_0_C [alwayson-network.com]