Patent Reform Bill Unable To Clean Up Patent Mess

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.'"

To be fair...

... it is kind of hard to legislate common sense.

Re:To be fair...

Especially when it doesn't seem all that common to the legislators. Software patents being silly doesn't seem like common sense to someone for whom software is the magical system that does all sorts of handy things via some system. It seems very patentable then...

Re:

So its just a battle of the dollar bills. The wealthiest will win in the end, as usual.

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 wh

Re:Its just about control.

By the way, I have a patent on this form of government. :-D Just kidding.

Re:Its just about control.

If only people could require rational thought as a prerequisite for living, politics wouldn't be necessary. Government is just a symptom of the actual issue -- the ignorance and apathy of people.

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

ie

In other words, Ars Technica finds this reform patently absurd?

Humpty Dumpty Patent Reform

Patent Reform sat on a wall
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:

All is not lost in this set. Both proposed laws present a definite improvement over the current system so they should be passed. Once that's done we can all start moving on to the harder problems.

It's a step in the right direction rather than a complete

Re:

Exactly, the problem isn't going to be solved correctly the first try, this is indeed a complex issue and it's better to agree to improvements that definitely help now. The alternative is likely grid lock in which nothing changes, as that is the desired ou

Constituents don't pay the bills

I'm sure it's a debate between those in bed with the defensive patent holders and those spooning the offensive patent holders. They dare not make the bill too radical and wake any sleeping giants.

only good thing

Seems to be that patent trolls have to stick to jurisdictions they have a significant presence in, and can't go to courts that have been sympathetic to plaintiffs in patent cases. This isn't much of a reform to me. What about stopping these common sense patents and business model patents. Until that happens this is just a motion of appeasement, not a real solution to the problems.

What really needs to be reformed

I confess to being totally ignorant of how patents affect most industries, but it seems to me that the real problem with patents in IT is the fact that they grant such long protection for products with such short shelf lives. Several years ago, I tried to explain that to my congresscritter at the time, but he couldn't grok how his argument that we need to protect IT because it is so rapid at innovation actually is an argument AGAINST many aspects of strong IP law as they apply to IT-related products. For example, granting 17 years or more of protection to a video codec means that you own it for its natural life, plus 5-10 years in many cases.

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

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

Campaign Finance Reform is the Key

Watered down legislation such as this is clearly the result of the massive influx of dollars into the pockets of our politicians via the industries who thrive on ridiculous structures like the US Patent Office. Until we force our representatives to get of

Tax Patents

Nothing says goodbye like a tax.

Re:

Depending on your application, filing a patent already costs upwards of a grand. What could a tax possibly do besides hurt the smaller players in the game?

=Smidge=

Re:

Patents have maintenance fees that are due every couple of years. If you fail to pay, the patent becomes abandoned and unenforceable. That is basically a tax. A policy behind it is to give the public the patented invention if the inventor doesn't want it a

Re:

But corporations ARE "persons". That's what the law says.

Never happens

The established 'business' entities have too much... 'investments' riding on patents, as such a meaningful reform will never happen. What winning card player will ask to be dealt a new hand?

Technoliberation

It is not true that the map of freedom will be complete
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?

As we all know, patents today are little more than big sticks Very Big Corporations (VBCs) use against each other to gain leverage in the marketplace. The original intent of the patent is long since lost.

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?

Huh? The solution to patent and copyright problems is infinitely broad and permanent patents and copyright?

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.

Re:

reverse engineering is the basis of the computer industry. if compaq had not reverse engineered the original IBM pc bios there would never have been a commodity PC industry. which would have greatly slowed the pace of computer uptake. so basically one s

Re:Do we really need patents?

Patents and copyrights are intended to prevent people from free-loading off of the work of others

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.

Re:

My main gripe with patents is that they use federal regulation establish intellectual property.

That's just a weird statement, right there. "Intellectual property" is a terrible phrase, which is deliberately meant to confuse people. But basically, if anyth