Slashdot Log In
Patent Reform Bill Unable To Clean Up Patent Mess
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Mar 26, 2008 02:44 PM
from the need-a-rake-and-a-hose dept.
from the need-a-rake-and-a-hose dept.
First to submit writes "Ars Technica analyzes the Patent Reform Act that has passed the House and is being debated in the Senate. Unfortunately for those longing for real, meaningful patent reform, the bill comes up short in some significant ways. 'Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides, it is unclear if the legislation will do much to fix the most serious flaws in the patent system. A series of appeals court rulings in the 1990s greatly expanded patentable subject matter, making patents on software, business methods, and other abstract concepts unambiguously legal for the first time.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Patent Reform Bill Approved by House Committee 95 comments
Alex Forster pointed us to this PC World story that opens, "The House Committee on the Judiciary approved far-reaching legislation to reform the nation's patent system Wednesday.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 largely reflects the IT sector's lobbying effort to curtail lengthy, expensive patent infringement lawsuits, but Wednesday's committee deliberations centered on finding compromises acceptable to opponents — namely the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, manufacturers, and large research universities — so that the bill could win approval.
Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., described the current patent system as inefficient, bogged down by inappropriate litigation rules, unreliably funded, and resulting in patents of "questionable quality." The bill would make it harder to secure a patent and easier for rivals to challenge one, and it would change how courts determine an infringed patent's value."
Firehose:Patent reform bill unable to clean up patent mess by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Translation: we will never see useful patent reform because it is not in the best interests of the entrenched powers. You're probably right, unfortunately. That's why representative democracy doesn't work. If you really want to remove the tyranny of the aristocracy, there's only one way to do it: a direct democracy. Of course, then you get the tyranny of the majority. Not sure which is worse. Either way, a signifi
Re:Its just about control. (Score:4, Funny)
By the way, I have a patent on this form of government. :-D Just kidding.
Parent
Re:Its just about control. (Score:4, Insightful)
As you hinted at, a significant problem underlying both a republic and a democracy is that of maintaining an informed electorate. How do you deal with the ignorant masses? Simply dismissing their vote isn't the answer. A tyranny of the informed is just that -- a tyranny, still -- and it's only one step shy of an aristocracy. It's still biased towards the well-educated and wealthy who have the time and resources to spend learning about issues and voting for them on a Saturday (or who simply know how to game the system). On the surface, that sounds great... why not let the best-informed and best-prepared make decisions for the rest of us? But well, take that idea far enough and we end up in a situation, much like today, where power is concentrated in the hands of the (supposedly intelligent and benevolent) elite. Unfortunately, human history suggests that those in power rarely act out of concern for the good of the greater populace and an effective system of checks and balances would be needed in either form of government.
Though the current federal checks-and-balances system does work at times, it fails to readily address times when all branches of the government unite/collude under circumstantial pressure (e.g. terrorism) and minority opinions (which may be more sane) are discouraged or ignored. The ultimate check in such a situation is supposed to be direct action -- i.e. the people themselves -- but recent government actions and the meek public outcry we've seen in response suggest that that doesn't always work (unless it's just a case of the vocal minority outspeaking the content majority). Does your proposed form of government include a better way to prevent abuses of power? I think we should keep in mind that in either form, people are open to manipulation from the powerful and the charismatic.
I want to re-state my opinion that I think the underlying problem is both deeper and simpler than the directness of our government: It's that people don't care enough or don't know enough about political issues that affect their lives. That applies to either form of government. It's not like the people are powerless in our current system; it's that not enough of us are bothering to flex that power. Why do you think it's going to be any different in a direct democracy? How do you get people to care enough, know enough, and participate enough?
Personally, I believe the solution is obvious, but difficult: Education. Lots and lots of it. Continuing, lifelong, high-quality education combined with life-long, unbiased, in-depth news reporting. In a perfect world, everything would be transparent and everyone would be omniscient, benevolent, caring, and incorruptible... but of course, government wouldn't even be necessary in such a world. So in reality, what can we do? Mandate university education for everyone? Form non-profit news agencies paid for by the people and independent of the other branches of government? Require governmental participation and provide universal time off to learn and vote about issues? Who's going to pay for all that? How do we convince them to do it? How do we overcome that fact these changes would be in direct opposition to the power and wealth of those who currently possess it? If the answer is still education and information for the masses, that just makes it all a Catch-22. It's basically calling for a revolution of the most difficult sort: Not an external one, but an internal one, where all people take it upon themselves to forever change their lifestyles from one of trying to fulfill only their immediate needs and wants to one incorporating a big-picture style of thinking that continually takes into account how every action ties into their community and world at large -- a lifestyle that recognizes that self-interest ought to be enlightene
Parent
ie (Score:5, Funny)
Humpty Dumpty Patent Reform (Score:2)
Patent Reform had a great fall
All the King's horses
And all the King's men
Couldn't put Patent Reform together again.
So let's start over.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a step in the right direction rather than a complete fix.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also somewhat unclear how long those court rulings are going
Constituents don't pay the bills (Score:5, Insightful)
only good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The only real reform would be require the following changes:
What really needs to be reformed (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, patents should cover the schematics of a product, not the ideas that went into the product. A car maker should be able to patent the final design of their latest product, but there should be nothing stopping someone from looking at it, and extending it in some meaningful direction without compensating them. All innovation is, after all, built on someone else's ideas.
extensions is a fundamental point of the system (Score:2)
While it's true that high-tech patents last too long, technology is also a field where many inventions are easy to implement once you know about them. Without patents, the R&D you do is automatically shared by the whole industry -- which reduces your motivation to do R&D.
Regarding extensions, a major point of the patent system (as opposed to making everything a trade secret) is to encourage everyone to publish their inventions so others can build up on them. Patents (in theory) only cover actual
Campaign Finance Reform is the Key (Score:2, Insightful)
Tax Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never happens (Score:2)
Technoliberation (Score:4, Insightful)
with the erasure of the last invidious border
when it remains for us to chart the attractors of thunder
and delineate the arrhythmias of drought
to reveal the molecular dialects of forest and savanna
as rich as a thousand human tongues
and to comprehend the deepest history of our passions
ancient beyond mythology's reach
So I declare that no corporation holds a monopoly on numbers
no patent can encompass zero and one
no nation has sovereignty over adenine and guanine
no empire rules the quantum waves
And there must be room for all at the celebration of understanding
for there is a truth which cannot be bought or sold
imposed by force, resisted
or escaped.
Greg Egan as Muteba Kazadi
Who has the biggest stick? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some real consideration should be given to getting rid of patents altogether. Really, do they serve any real usefulness other than the stuff of Big Corporate Sticks? It's way too expensive for the little guy to get a patent; still even more expensive for the little guy to defend his patent against VBCs that have deep pockets.
But, seriously, what would happen to the marketplace if patents were to be thrown out tomorrow? Would innovation cease? I don't think so. It would change for sure, but it may actually change for the better, giving the Little Guy an edge, a leg up, since he would not fear being crushed out of financial existence by VBCs.
Really, I don't know how the patent examiners could possibly be knowledgeable about all the various areas of mathematics, science, and technology that has grown exponentially since patents were created.
Re:Do we really need patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why they can't just write a law establishing that you own your ideas
How on earth can someone "own" an idea? Better yet, why would you think it's a good idea to try to pretend that someone owns an idea?
Patents and copyrights are intended to prevent people from free-loading off of the work of others
That fundamental misunderstanding is part of many of the problems we are seeing with the patent system today: patents exist to give you the first stab at exploiting your ideas. The notion that once someone has an idea it's theirs and no one can ever use it again is just plain ridiculous.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do we really need patents? (Score:4, Informative)
This statement is factually false. Go and read the US Constitution if you want to know what patents and copyrights are actually intended to accomplish.
Parent