Eminent Domain Applied to IP Due To State Secrets 312
NormalVisual writes "Wired recently ran a story about a group of inventors that found themselves unable to sue Lucent Technologies for infringement of a patent they held on a novel design for a pipe/cable connector. They had been working with Lucent on an underwater application for this connector, but unfortunately for the inventors, Lucent's application was being developed for an as-yet-unnamed branch of the U.S. government. The government is now claiming a state-secret privilege, and is refusing to let the inventors sue Lucent for patent infringement, citing national security concerns. In the meantime, Lucent continues to directly profit from their invention without paying any royalties or other compensation. The patent in question can be found online. It's doubly a shame because, unlike so many other patents that we've seen here, this one is actually creative and non-obvious." We've touched on this topic before.
Sweeeeet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Our government. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not eminent domain without fair compensation (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the 'Government Agency' is allowed this holier-than-thou stance then the plaintiff should just be able to ask: Are you using our tech as provided by Lucent? The agency can then just say yay or nay.
I'm pretty sure the value of the defence contract for Lucent isn't any kind of secret so the courts should award a *fair* share of that ammount to the plaintiff if it is found that Lucent infringed their IP.
state sanctioned theft.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom Line: Can't sue Feds and their contractors (Score:4, Insightful)
Misleading topic (Score:4, Insightful)
2) the company still has patent rights for other uses. Lucent can't license the patent to others for any non-secret projects.
It's more like Lucent is engaging in software or music piracy and thanks to "Kings-X" getting away with it.
Now, if the patent holders refused to license the patent at all, or put onerous restrictions on it, and the government siezed the patent in toto so industry could license it, and paid off the patent owner, that would be eminent domain.
they couldn't make it work... (Score:2, Insightful)
On Government (Score:3, Insightful)
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Hmmmm. IFF the Declaration held the power of law...
In all fairness ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it is in human nature, then when a system doesn't work, that we try to force it and tweek it to work even if it's premise isn't sound. If people would stop thinking about the "theory" of patents, and stop thinking about the "business" of patnets, and start thinking about the nature of patents - that is to coerce, threaten, and nickel and dime others who use shared ideas by imposing on them the full force of government. I think the debate about patnet problems would take on a whole new meaning.
Re:I'm SO confused! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are patents evil, or are they good?
...because you know everything has to be one or the other. It's not like some things could be beneficial when applied in certain ways (like traditional patents on non-obvious inventions) and yet be detrimental when used in other ways (patenting business ideas, existing inventions, existing common practices or ideas with "on the internet" appended, software patents, etc.). Can't someone please come up with simple absolute rules for everything so we don't have to think?
It's hard to let Slashdot tell me what to think when they post stories on _both_ sides of an argument!
Yeah we all hate it when a discussion site posts both good and bad things done by a person, organization, or process. That might foster, well discussion.
Man I hope you're trying to be funny, because some days I really can't tell on Slashdot anymore.
Re:I'm SO confused! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's doubly a shame because, unlike so many other patents that we've seen here, this one is actually creative and non-obvious.
Patents CAN be good, but in the current state the patent system is in it gets abused. But here we have someone using the patent system as it was designed, to protect non-obvious ideas and they can't fight it.
Closed courtroom (Score:3, Insightful)
How much the government is paying Lucent? What the end use of the technology is?
The US Government should either allow the lawsuit to proceed, in a closed setting, with NDAs all around (provided security checks pan out), or pay the inventors.
Is the not the purpose of the patent to allow dissemination of knowledge while protecting revenue sources for the inventor?
If the knowledge is not being disseminated, Lucent should not be protected by a patent.
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Organized crime never had it so good.
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
The right thing to do from a moral standpoint is to do as the grandparent says: have the government discuss that a tech is used without getting into details. Value of the contract and/or the contribution would help the judge establish a fair compensation.
As it turns out the moral thing is also the practical and strategic thing.
Re:state sanctioned theft.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um...pretty much all of them?
Ok, smarty pants... (Score:2, Insightful)
"I'd like compensation for DELETED, which consists of DELETED, and is worth DELETED on the market, because it's comparable to DELETED which costs DELETED yet is better because of DELETED improvements."
Re:state sanctioned theft.. (Score:2, Insightful)
* exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
* exalts large corporationa above the individual, with the large corporations being supreme.
* stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
* stresses loyalty to big corporations, and submission to a single culture (=capitalism).
* engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.
* engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the big corporations.
So the comparison wasn't so far off, but {A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law">
With drugs, we've already paid for the research (Score:1, Insightful)
There is no question that this inventor and investors did get screwed, but with the pharmaceutical industry getting a lot of their basic research performed in public institutions with government grants, and then getting to patent the drug, we're the one's getting screwed. Twice!!
Land of the Free?! (Score:3, Insightful)
To all my US friends (and enemies if I have any) - RTFA!!!
This isn't about patents, so much as it is about how the executive branch of the US government (nope - not just Bush) can and does abuse its powers. Its used to allow kidnappings, extortion, and yes, the rip off of legitimate patent holders.
There is no oversight that conforms to the principles of natural justice - and to think that the US dares to want to train foreign judges on patent/copyright. The US executive branch is unfortunately comprised of a bunch of unaccountable hypocrites, speaking about freedom and democracy publicly, but doing exactly the opposite behind closed doors.
Each of you, if you truly believe in freedom and justice, should be writing to your members of the Senate and Congress. If you want a fair and just government - the type of government you thought the founding fathers had set out in the consitution, you should be reading the article, sitting down and making your thoughts known to those who can change this.
So - we can all advise that Lucent are bad partner (Score:1, Insightful)
One day, Slashdot will have a longer subject line.
What company would want to partner with Lucent given this story? For the sake of a couple of hundred grand even, this might cost Lucent a couple of contracts in the future if WE, and everyone we tell, or who hears about this story, ensures that our bosses who may be considering such things hear about how bad it is to do business with them.
Re:Let me explain this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:state sanctioned theft.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
Nation above the individual: Patriot act, Bush's "You're either with us or with the enemy" speeches, etc.
Party above the individual: Republican's "No abortion" policy.
State supreme: Pushing judges that want to expand the interstate commerce clause to regulate EVERYTHING, including california only medical marijuana.
2. stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
More of "You're with us or against us". The whole "We have 55%, so we'll push our agenda into law for everyone".
(Remember: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting that vote.)
3. engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.
Hmm... well, this will probably get me modded down for something, but:
a. Corporations get large tax breaks, incentives, etc., and
b. More and more corporations get control over individuals, by a society that requires you to do business with them, and those corporations requiring that you sign contracts giving up rights. Said "You give up your rights in order to do business with us" upheld by courts.
See: Any music/software "shrinkwrap" license. Any credit card company. Any software system/Windows OS/modern computer (excluding Linux). Probably more. See: General need for insurance, and the general impossibility of self insurance. See: More and more people being able to use your credit score to decide any/every thing of their business with you.
"Combined with the interest of the state". Well, we're looking at high unemployment, lots of foreigners being imported to work, more and more people getting into financial binds, new bankrupcy laws that basically make your finances all government business for 3-5 years, etc.
I won't go as far as to say "Everyone is a criminal, we can arrest anyone at any time", but some states are making criminals work for the state, right?
Re:state sanctioned theft.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, you just don't get it (and you should; enough other people have pointed out points I chose to skip). I repeat, try READING the article. Notice how it does not say anything about HAVING a state-controlled life. It says typified by ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL.
And if you can't see where that is happening (can you say Patriot Act, for example?), then there is clearly no point in trying to further your education. Hopefully the lurkers will give your posts the weight they deserve.
We need jury nullification. (Score:4, Insightful)
LK
Re:Clearing up the issues (Score:1, Insightful)
When did the two become mutually exclusive?
Re:Clearing up the issues (Score:2, Insightful)
Which ones? Which freedoms. Which Americans. Because you're already dividing which freedoms and which Americans you do protect on this relatively simple issue.
You "believe" in freedom? How so? Because you seem very willing to part with it if it means saving your ass by putting down the lives and means of other Americans.
And why does your statement have a "but"? But what? Our freedoms are paramount that they are more important than single individuals, yet stem directly from those same individuals. Frankly, you're one of those "Americans" where losing your freedom is less important than losing your life. You no longer recognize that one is and defines the other.