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. "
Patent bubble will lead to burst (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn what a patent is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In developing countries... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem isnt so much the system (Score:4, Insightful)
patents, when applied for and granted PROPERLY are a good thing. However when they`re just used to cover your bases, so you can wait for some unlucky person to come along and try to do what youve patented, you can slam him with a lawsuit.
i think it was suggested a fair few stories like this back by someone for a use it or lose it style system, although it would create more lawsuits short term. it might just reduce the lawsuits which wait for a company or person to become nice and fat, for skimming.
The best solution would be to have those staff at the US patent office especially, but also other patent offices around the world to have the time, staff, training and ability to scrupulously check every single application.
perhaps barring those who apply for dodgy patents for a year or two? might be a little extreme to do that but its an idea at least.
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In developing countries... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent Article, but Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't have patents in Star Trek. They don't have copyright problems.
The only times I saw where a lawyer was absolutely needed in Star Trek was Star Trek IV when Kirk is in trouble for disobeying orders, and Star Trek VI (But remember, these were the Klingons, not part of the UFP, so not really an issue)
Star Trek *IS* the perfect model.
Star Trek is life.
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
What was the motivation for allowing business method patents?
Someone convinced the Supreme Court that a business method was "science", and therefore worthy of patent protection.
The problem this faces is that a business method, by definition, is it's own reward.
Patents are supposed to further innovation by rewarding the inventors. The argument is that if you didn't reward the inventor, then they would not spend the time to make the invention.
But a "business method" that actually works is it's own reward - no further incentive is required, because the "inventor" gets (wait for it) *BETTER BUSINESS*. There is absolutely *NO* benefit to society for disallowing others to use said 'invention' without paying their competition a license fee.
In this case, allowing patents on "business methods" is actually *retarding* innovation, because it prohibits someone from independantly coming up with a similar method.
One simple patent reform (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the patent holder loses, it has to pay all of the challenger's legal costs.
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Superficial article (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too surprising, really.
Now I'm no economist, but when it comes to the balance sheet, "Tax and Spend" makes more sense to me than "Just Spend".
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:3, Insightful)
How to evaluate the patent system (Score:5, Insightful)
The article points out that we need a way of evaluating whether or not a patent system is meeting its goals of fostering innovation. The article suggests:
That's a good idea, but I think there's a better way to determine if the patent system is successful at promoting innovation: analyze how the patent database is used. The stated goal of the system is to provide inventors with a short-term monopoly in exchange for public disclosure of their inventions, in order to spur more invention. That makes sense, right? If you get good ideas out in the public where people can see and build on them, you'll generate even more ideas, some of which will also be good. Ideas spark ideas.
This implies that if the patent system is working, you should see inventors perusing/searching the patent database on a regular basis, in search of good ideas to spark their thinking, or in search of solutions to specific problems they're trying to solve in their own inventions. I imagine a scene something like this:
Engineer: Hey, boss, you know that tricky database search problem we've been trying to solve? I just spent a few hours searching the USPTO site and I came across patent #123456789. It's a *perfect* solution! It'll not only address the problem we had, but it will make our product even more flexible and easier to use.
Manager: Great! Get me the contact information for the patent holder and I'll contact them to check into licensing terms. If they're reasonable, this could save us a bundle in development costs. We've put several hundred man-hours into this problem already. Maybe the patent owner will have an implementation they'd like to license us, too.
Engineer: Sounds good. I'll tell Jim to shift his focus to tracking down that nasty memory leak, on the assumption that the search problem is solved. Meanwhile, while I was looking through the patent database I also came across another patent which we can't use, but which gave me another interesting idea...
Does anyone use the patent database like this? No. Especially not with software patents. In fact, in every corporation I know of the attorneys explicitly tell developers *not* to search the patent database, as it's generally better to remain ignorant, both to avoid allegations of "willfull" infringement, and also because it's just a waste of time. Most patents are contestable anyway, and even for the ones that might hold up in court it's generally more cost-effective to just cross-license using your own patent arsenal.
I think the measure of the patent system should be whether or not its required disclosures are observably fostering innovation. If not, it's broken.
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully the USPTO then has more resources to really make good patent decisions about the "important" patents. Plus, under this system, the challenger can present evidence agains the patent's validity, and cheaply.
It's not going to avoid lawsuits entirely -- if the USPTO thinks your patent is valid but I still don't, I can still throw lawyers at you. But hopefully the USPTO decisions will be more informed, and therefore, more easily upheld in litigation, and therefore reduce the amount of litigation over bad patents.
Not a complete solution, but an intriguing proposal I think!
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you might be confused. My father subscribes to The Economist. I read /. While you don't qualify your perception of /.'s political "demographics," I would suggest The Economist is somewhat more pragmatic and a little further to the right than /.
I do enjoy the idea random /. posters would be questioning the bonafides of The Economist. I realize they only print on dead trees and they have a weird editorial policy you're unfamiliar with, but last I checked the had a slightly higher barrier to entry than the hoops one has to jump through to post on /.
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, however the same rules apply. If I spend time and money devloping somthing why shouldn't I have a way to protect what I create? The idea of patents is sound, our current patent system is broken with too many 'duh' patents getting the rubber stamp of approval. It should also be noted that I speak from a position where this realy does effect my day to day life. I write software for ISO certification systems. So I'm writting software for buisness methods. A double whammy. According to a number of people on thee forums I shouldn't be able to make money at what I do, I should just hand my work over to IBM or some other jugernaught so that they can run me into the ground. For some reason I just dont agree with that.
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:would this fix the bulk of the problem? (Score:1, Insightful)
Should we extend patents to 30 years? 50 years? Forever?
The right term(s) is a matter of BALANCE. If 90% of ideas take less than 5 years to bring to the market then the original poster's suggestion makes perfect sense, if only 10% of ideas can be commercialized in 5 years, then initial 5-year term is too short and needs to be longer..
And again it is not just a matter of protection of patent holders, it's also a matter of protection of society from ill effects of patent monopoly..So, again we are talking about BALANCE here..A general feeling is that now balance has shifted too much towards protecting patent holders. The original suggestion shifts the balance back towards society..Does it overshoot the best balance? Perhaps, but you didnot put any counterarguments..
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the ideas in the article that matter, not who said them. Appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] is a common fallacy.
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
If I spend time and money devloping somthing why shouldn't I have a way to protect what I create?
The ability to protect what you create is not a right; it is a privilege granted by the public to the creator for a specific purpose. If the public does not feel that a particular sort of creation is sufficiently valuable as to warrant protection, then you don't get to protect it. Keep in mind that one of the major reasons for patents is to prevent secrecy from being used as an alternative; it's a lot harder to keep business methods secret, and thus the public is not getting as much out of granting such patents.
So I'm writting software for buisness methods. A double whammy. According to a number of people on thee forums I shouldn't be able to make money at what I do
You can protect the software itself with copyright. It's the methods themselves that require a patent to "protect".
Patents don't help the lone inventor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patent bubble Bubbles == Diablo II (Score:2, Insightful)
The weirdest trope just occurred to me:
I remember when a barb with whirlwind and two life-steak greatswords was unbeatable. Now I don't really care whether it's bash-pallys or static field sorceresses that are in vogue, I just play to have fun and enjoy myself.
They nerfed barbs, and just like DotComs got nerfed, so will the patents be nerfed by the invisible hand of the economy. Better to just think about building a career and a family than to worry about which field is "hot."
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:3, Insightful)
If we got rid of the ravenous parasites on the economy that is ownership of capital and government, and replaced the ideal of maximizing profit with that of maximizing production, and replaced corporate management with self-management by labor, there's good reason to believe that we could all work for a few hours a day and maintain or improve our standard of living. No replicators needed.
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Typically in The Economist, an opinion piece will be included in an issue with factual articles corresponding to the topic. "Peace" of crap though you believe it to be, the editorial is significant because the newspaper is influences powerful people--such as members of Congress who are responsible for reforming the USPO.
Fewer heads of state and business leaders read Slashdot than The Economist, but other than them, your demographics comment is accurate.
The Economist is fiscally liberal (from the European definition of liberal) and socially liberal (from the American definition). In fact, the previous issue had an editorial on the subject of liberalism. You might have found it, too, shockingly void of statistics and other lies on which to rest your wearied intellect.
Re:One-sided article (Score:2, Insightful)
What was the motivation for allowing business method patents?
Re$t a$$ured, $everal $tudie$ were a$$e$$ed, illu$trating the nece$$ity of $oftware and bu$ine$$-method patent$. The$e $tudie$ were $upported and/or $pon$ored by heavyweight$ in the indu$try. Re$ult$ conclu$ively $how that $aid patent$ boo$t innovation, not $tifle competition.
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are the fuel for capitalism and are a good thing when used as they were originally created. Giving an inventor of a real/physical product a limited (no more then 10 years IMO for most not all industries) monopoly on that product will create incentive for that inventor and others both large and small to continue inventing knowing that their hard work will not be snatched up.
However, the greed and corruption of our (USA) politicians has allowed mostly big business to buy and pervert the patent systems to allow things like Amazon's "One-Click" patent. It is just insane to say that no other online merchant can allow their customers to purchase a product with one click without paying Amazon for that right. There is no invention in the "One-Click" patent.
I personally think software patents are bad. At the end of the day software patents are nothing more then mathematical algorithms. We don't allow some crazy mathematician to patent the process of adding two numbers. So why should we allow the big software companies to patent software? We don't allow a chef to patent recipes which would take away all the building-block tools of a chef. Yet we allow big companies to take away all the building blocks of software programmers.
"Innovation" is pretty much limited to the big corps. If a small-fish wants to get in the game, the best they can hope for is to get their product or their company bought out by the big-fish. The ability for a small-fish to actually invent a product and bring it to market is getting smaller and smaller with each corrupted patent that is granted.
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:3, Insightful)
And it would be even better if all people contributed equally to society, instead of some choosing to be supported by it. The utopia of socialism ends where human laziness and greed begin.
I think most people want to do something useful, or at least entertaining to others. Of course, there are those exceptions who would become perminant couch potatos. If we can expand automated production enough that we can afford to carry those sorry few for now, they will eventually die of sheer apathy and the problem will be solved.
The real problem with socialism is that there are some jobs that need to get done that nobody in their right mind will do for a living unless threatened with starvation. Because those jobs tend to emphasize mind numbing repitition and back breaking labor over any sort of thought or skill, they are also typically held in low esteem, thus they pay very little. Modern capitalism 'solves' that problem by making sure there are a sufficient number of people threatened with starvation to fill those jobs. Before that, the problem was 'solved' by slavery. Those are the jobs that need to be automated out of existance. Most of those jobs are the sort that CAN be automated out of existance.
Re:One-sided article (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the argument is that a patent protects the concept (i.e., the algorithm or "flow chart"), whereas copyright only protects the implementation. Somebody could avoid copyright infringement by recreating the same algorithm in a different programming language.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It made quite a row when they endorsed John Kerry for President, considering their staunchly fiscally conservative point of view.
I think you actually mean "It made perfect sense that they endorsed John Kerry for President, considering their staunchly fiscally conservative point of view." Bush is a walking fiscal nightmare- no intelligent businessman should support someone whos entire economic policy amounts to "Charge it!"
The Economist's endorsement of Kerry was the most damning commentary on Bush's presidency I've seen. The election cover was sheer brilliance: "The Incompetent or the Incoherent". I love the magazine- it's the last bastion of intelligent conservatism out there.
But then again, don't mind me, I'm just bitter. I didn't leave the Republican party- it left me.
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:All property is theft?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who created numbers? Who created mathematics? Language? Ideas cannot be owned. There is no such thing as "stealing" an idea, except in the ramblings of a few confused souls. The moment you transmit an idea to someone else, whether by vocal communication, pictures, software, or the written word, you relinquish control of that idea. You no longer have control.
Patents, copyright, and trademarks (so-called IP law) were instituted to extend the owner's control past the point of transmission, to encourage them to continue creating. It is an artifical limitation placed on a person's ability (as is most law).
If you wish to retain absolute control of your ideas, then don't breath a word of it to anyone else, ever. But don't be surprised if someone else comes up with the same idea.
Ideas are not property, IP law merely treats it as such. Sometimes, this abstraction is well founded, sometimes it's not. There is no shame in discussing its failings.
Re:Patents don't help the lone inventor (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to act as your own lawyer in a patent case, either. You DO, however, need to be able to compensate a lawyer for their fees.
If you have a valuable patent in the first place, it should be easy to find one to work on contignency.
Terrible idea. Patent fees would be insanely high (higher than a year of legal fees).
My $.02 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Patents for "Self-Disclosing" Inventions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Economist writers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. Copyright infringement occurs when one makes an unauthorised copy of a work. Theft occurs when you take the item away from its rightful owner. In the first case, the rightful owner still has the work and can continue to use it. In the second case, the rightful owner has been denied the use of their property.
Everyone agrees that theft is wrong. Most people would probably agree that copyright infringement is wrong - but not as wrong. Furthermore, it can be legitimately argued that copyright infringement is not morally wrong; there is a clear moral basis for denouncing theft but copyright is a much more artificial construct. Copyright infringement is certainly illegal, but it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it should not be.
function vs. mechanism (Score:1, Insightful)
For Amazon's One-Click Purchase, the function (allowing people to purchase items with a single click, rather than messing about with shopping carts and delivery options and confirmations) might be clever and original, but the mechanism is unremarkable, non-inventive software engineering. It's a "what to do" not a "how to do", and patents are supposed to cover "how to do"s.
It's like patenting the idea of automatically killing mice rather than a specific mousetrap. Functions should not be patentable.
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
Because "protect[ing] what I create" costs the community money and time and bother, and creates all sorts of externalities
Many patents fail this public utitlity test. Indeed, the current patent regime fails this test. That is the problem.
The community doesn't have to shoot itself in the foot just because gun-sellers want to sell bullets and doctors want to get fees for treating gunshot wounds. And it doesn't have to erect a patent regime just because business feels it would make more money that way.
You stand on the shoulders of the whole history of western civilisation - when you pay the developers of the alphabet, the English language, common law, etc
Or maybe you'll get the clue that civilisation is a co-operative thing
The world has already given you a heck of a big start in life - perhaps *you* owe the world a living.
Business model patents (Score:2, Insightful)
If the methods they develop are any good, wouldn't they be a reward in itself? It is after all methods of making money they are developing?