
DRAM Industry vs RAMBUS 77
Greyfox writes: "The DRAM manufacturers are considering filing an anti-trust complaint against RAMBUS in an attempt to get their SDRAM patents declared unenforceable. "
USENET would be a better laboratory is there were more labor and less oratory. -- Elizabeth Haley
Patents are only good GOOD if... (Score:3)
unenforcible ?? (Score:1)
--
Let's not all suck at the same time please
Re:We need details (Score:1)
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
Re:Yes it is screwing consumers (Score:1)
Re:The patent on DDR RAM is bogus, anyway. (Score:1)
At least, they should pay all legal costs involving such lawsuits.
Re:Rambus is easy to dislike (Score:2)
Doesn't work. (Score:1)
Think "Microsoft", they'we probably spent billions on RD an still, they haven't invented a single thing yet.
If someone knows of a single technology that was born in MS's RD labs please follow up to this.
Ahh, yes I know, it's awfully easy to write this off as a Troll, truth hurts, doesn't it ?
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Re:Is there a good one anywhere? (Score:1)
[the specific case of pharmaceutical research, I think it is very clear that the patent system has sped up the development of new, useful, drugs]
That cannot be proven either.
Innovation would still happen, people would still invent/discover, courts would be less clogged. More would happen at the university level.
What is clear is that we get more of what we reward. This system rewards bureaucratic law manipulations and thats more of what we are getting
Patents could be GOOD (Score:1)
Contrast that with some of the patents that we've been seeing, that are basically (at least as they are portrayed in media) ideas. OneClick shopping is an idea that someone had, and Amazon implemented it. That idea is not an invention (although it may be considered an innovation), although a particular non-obvious implementation might be (cookies is the obvious implementation).
This doesn't mean that software patent don't have a use, by the way. Algorithms are implementations of an idea. However, that idea is not an invention, it is just an idea.
The difficulty that we are currently having, as I see it, is the notion of derivation. If I implement the same idea, the default seems to be that it is a derivation. The courts have not yet discovered where they wish to draw the [fuzzy] line here, and hence the problem. I cannot think of any other case in which the idea -> implementation -> production time has been so small as it is in software, so the distinction may never have been grasped by the courts, so this error in distinction may never have come up before.
My concern is what effect will this have in the long term. The question is not this year or the next, but 20, 50, or 100 years from now. All of the currently `obvious' patents will have expired, but will we have an entirely new set of `obvious' patents to deal with?
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
I believe if you do a news search of NYT/sfgate about patent law, you'll find a number of articles that refer to this factor in the accelerated ease of obtaining patents.
Yet another sweeping patent. (Score:5)
My car probably has a couple hundred, if not thousand patents. Still, my neighbors drive a car made by a different company, and neither of these companies has sued the other any time in recent history.
What makes rambus specifically? (Score:1)
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:5)
The other way to look at it is RAMBUS are effectively claiming a monopoly on the worldwide RAM market. They get to set the price of a given technology. They get to say that their madcap RAMBUS technology will be licensed for a slightly less extortionate rate than SDRAM. If that's not in breach of the Sherman Act I don't know what is.
Paul.
Re:Finally (Score:1)
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
Actually, the whole point of a patent is to give you a limited-time, legally valid monopoly. So, they are being monopolistic, but that's what they're supposed to do.
However, these other companies have invested years in development, and ramping up, of SDRAM. Pulling out now would cause a huge problem. I don't know if it would be possible to develop a new tech that could compete with RD-RAM, but I'm guessing that it couldn't be done for years. (and would require a redesign of all motherboards, etc).
The point of the patent system is to promote science, and innovation. Driving up the price of RAM so that you're crappier ram is cheaper probably does not help to promote science and innovation (In general, it might be detrimental to it, seeing how computers are used in all major science and engendering projects around the world, and cheaper RAM would help that out).
Additionally, revoking patents occasionally, when they cause problems, is probably not going to stop people from developing new RAM.
Nec suspends DRDram making... cool (Score:1)
Re:Patents are GOOD (Score:2)
Several of the Rambus patents are dead obvious. Like using the leading and falling edge -- they weren't the first to think of it, by a looooong shot: they merely happened to be the first to patent - note, patent, not apply it - to memory.
Likewise, the Amazon one-click. AFAIK, they didn't invent it: they just managed to patent it, and no one who did do it as prior art wishes to invest resources in trying to prove it. Especially as applies web design: it's a bitch to prove that your work was dated '94 and not '99.
Patents aren't bad.
But they are being put to bad use. Patenting obvious methods that you didn't invent is bad.
--
Re:Is there a good one anywhere? (Score:2)
There are tons of these, actually.
Seriously, there are many technological advances that are a huge improvement over the status quo, and where it was far from clear that the device or process in question could work, and, if it did, it was valuable to know how it was built or implemented. This was not the case for things like one-click ordering, of course, but probably was the case for such stunning advances as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique of amplifying DNA samples or some of the great new silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology in the semiconductor industry.
Moreover, in the world of drug development, patents are almost certainly required to spur investment in the stupendously costly (but necessary in the long run) clinical trials one needs to get a drug certified by the FDA for a particular use.
There is a lot of slop that gets patented, and this is an unfortunate twisting of the ideals behind the patent system. But there are fistfuls of patents for technology that really does matter and for which the availability of patent protection has advanced the state of the art.
The laws of physics aren't democratic (Score:1)
Different technology... yeah maybe in some alternate universe. Maybe there you can add a cherry on top of your product and not have the laws of physics trash it to pieces.
It's like saying if companies want to compete in the bottled refreshment industry they have to use different Hydrogen and Oxygen. I hate to burst your bubble but that's the curse in this universe.
Hint: that's why software was invented. Adapter cards are dead weight much like a water wheel without water. Software is the key. Software allows engineers to get out of the confines of physics.
The laws of physics aren't democratic. They don't give a crap about what you intend to do, only tell you what will and won't work. You can't just pull an idea out of your arse and say let there be light. With patenteers (those who don't need the protection to survive), it becomes extremely difficult to get in the game. There's very little room in the laws of physics for new products. There's a lot of room in the production stages for better quality. However you can't even talk about better quality because you're not even allowed to build the general thing itself. In a sense a WHOLE class of devices are patented by one patent.
That's just how science works. Everything you design comes back to haunt you. Every step you make is going to be a road block. No way around it. Just look at caches in cpus. Every improvement fucks up something else. Nature is a stubborn bitch.
Consumers don't give a damn about new ideas only useful things that should work. This means making a buck means making the same old shit better than everyone else. In specialized markets it means using the SAME technology, just taking better care of the component parts. Different technology is for quacks who have money to burn.
Isn't this all invalid because... (Score:1)
Re:/. sells out with 31337 h4x0r banner (Score:2)
Meow?
Who is getting sued? (Score:1)
Why isn't the Patent Office held accountable for questionable patents that result in millions of dollars of legal fees? If anyone should be getting sued here, it should be those people that granted this virtually unlimited monopoly power to a company like Rambus for a technology that they didn't invent.
Until those that issue bad patents are truly held accountable for not doing the research needed to insure good patents, then we're just going to go through this same problem over and over again. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Amazon, Rambus, or Microsoft. There desperately needs to be a check and balance that doesn't involve lining the pockets of even more lawyers.
Let's talk facts (Score:1)
Key points:
1 - It is alleged that Rambus failed to comply with the JEDEC rules (id est; sat on a patent without revealing an interest) that it had agreed to.
2 - It is alleged that there is prior art for the key patents that Rambus holds. nota bene; not all the patents, just the key ones vis a vis competition in the DRAM manufacturing industry.
Now (1) implies - should they in fact have been disingenuous - that regardless of whether they _mentioned_ their IPR claim(s) at the time or not, it is void by virtue of their *explicit* agreement to the terms of the joint standardisation effort. This is not a monopoly/trust issue. If they were not bound to mention then what they bring up now then all power to them. That is called being clever (geek respect for brainpower, geek disrespect for sneakiness and failure to give dues to peers, such has the libertarian/communitarian axis ever been stressed)
So, (2). Not at all a follow on from (1). Establishment is a question of mostly fact with a salt of interpretation.
In reality an antitrust suit will live by the argument that standards promote competition, and that by _appearing_ to support a standard and then undermining it Rambus is being anticompetitive. This is like beds (bear with me). It is a *good* thing that every fitted queen size sheet fits every queen size mattress; this allows us to buy our sheets and mattresses from different manufacturers with ease.
So Rambus is trying to say "pay us for the privilege of a standard bed size". And this is where they may get caught by anti-trust legislation. Remember, Sherman is not about details of what you did, but about *effects*, and that is the beauty of it.
My bet is that they quietly license some tech for less than they could get if they enforced the patents, because it saves everyone time, and in semiconductors time is even more valuable then money...
M
Patents ware made to... (Score:2)
The way it currently is is somewhat unpleasant as patents are used only to press money out of others who want to use the system. In the case of Rambus, it is even used to force the spreading of a somewhat strange, half-mature technology.
Oh, and about "Open-Sourcing" standards like video compression: look what these standards are actually being used for. We can be glad that QuickTime was ported to Windows because apple uses it to promote their own systems. Indeo is somewhat different, but as it is an Intel development, I'd be surprised if it wasn't "optimized" for Intel systems (though, we can expect to have some more or less open port to Linux and Be form Intel themselves as they like the system *g*). The "best" of all standards however is - IMHO - DVD. It's locked to mainly two OSs, Windows and MacOS for some obscure reasons (OK, this is off topic...)
See something? Many "standards" are just set up to promote some proprietary system(s). Not what it was meant to do.
Paranoids of the world, Unite!
M$ Innovation (Score:2)
Because the feds don't wanna admit they screwed up (Score:1)
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:2)
The real issue, however, is that this article suggests that the patents were on technology that was pre-existent, and therefore the patent was improperly issued. The defence is one of "prior art", though I'm not really familiar with the topic.
Re:Isn't This Backwards? (Score:2)
There's a common misconception that the Sherman Antitrust Act makes monopolies illegal. That is not true. What it does do is restrict the behavior of monopolies and groups of companies (i.e. trusts) which collectively control an industry.
If Rambus controls RDRAM technology (which is undisputed), and controls SDRAM technology through patent licensing (which is what all the lawsuits are about) then they effectively control a trust of RAM device companies. Therefore the Sherman Antitrust Act requires them to avoid anticompetitive behavior. There are a lot of details missing in my description, but that's one part of the DRAM's tack. The other, of course, is getting Rambus's patents on technology developed in the JEDEC conference invalidated, since those weren't theirs to patent.
----
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
Then they popped up exclaiming "Oh, look what I've just found in my back pocket!"
I thought this wasn't allowed in Patent Law.
IIRC, you must vigorously defent every patent infringement or lose your ability to sue altogether. This was sone to prevent this exact problem.
I hope RAMBUS gets slapped with a countersuit (how I don't know) over this. Companies should be responsible for their actions.
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:2)
Happens all the time. Not just in this way either. There are also speculative patents known as "submarine patents." These are usually vague, sweeping patents that are kept forever in the processing phase until such time as enough commercial products exist to provide targets for lawsuits. At that time, the patent owner has his lawyer do whatever is needed to get the patent approved (and since it hadn't been approved yet, nobody could have seen it or disputed it), at which time they proceed to sue the pants off of anyone making anything that they believe infringes on their patent. It's usually faster and cheaper for these companies to pay the royalties than to try to dispute the patent (thanks to our wonderful PTO). That's why these guys often get away with these scams.
It doesn't sound like this is exactly what happened with RAMBUS, but it isn't much different.
Patents preempt independent thought (Score:2)
Let's assume RamBus' patents are valid and not fraudulent (this is a big if). Let's further assume that other companies independently arrived at some of the same innovations (this is quite likely; it happens all the time).
If Company A arrives at an innovation before Company B independently arrives at the same innovation, Company A can still get a patent, issued perhaps ex post facto to Company B's work, and the patent will still hold up! That is the way patents work. That is the way patents are supposed to work. That is why I believe patent law is immoral, unethical, and evil the way it is constituted.
Finally (Score:1)
Rambus is easy to dislike (Score:2)
Rambus is a sham... a company that does nothing but sell rights to some questionable "intellectual property". They will be made irrelevant by the progress of technology and the free market system.
Re:Eric Raymond inspires me (Score:1)
Jerks who post stuff like this on
RAM, er, BUS screwing DRAM over (Score:1)
"Rambus was... in JEDEC... but pulled out... in 1995."
Despite the premature withdrawal last time, evidently they're hoping to get another chance to screw their old buddies good this time.
Hitachi has bent over, but I'm expecting a premature ejaculation.
I guess I don't understand this... (Score:3)
This isn't a troll, I'm hoping someone can either explain this to me or point me to where I can find more information, but why shouldn't Rambus be able to get royalties for this patent. Sure, it's pretty crappy of them to sorta screw consumers by driving up competing prices, but that isn't using monopolistic powers badly. If companies want to compete, shouldn't they have to make a better product with different technology?
Like I said, I don't get it, but it makes no sense to me.
-Jer
Patents are GOOD (Score:1)
Would Rambus and Amazon.com have any reason to create new technologies if they wouldn't profit from them? If every other retailer immediately instituted One-Click Shopping, then what would have Amazon.com gained? Nothing!
So why do we so people rag on patents? Because they want to use that technology! People want to open-source stuff like Quicktime (and, more importantly, the Indeo codec) -- which would, of course, benefit them. There's nothing wrong with saying that it should be open-sourced, but you have to keep in mind that these people are acting in their own self-interest. They'd benefit from QuickTime being open-sourced, so of course they're going to be against the Indeo patent.
In other words, patents aren't bad. The people trashing patents are largely those who would benefit from claiming that technology for themselves. We have a word for this: JEALOUSY.
Isn't This Backwards? (Score:3)
Didn't I see somewhere on Slashdot (as if that made it true) a post by someone saying that, according to the courts, enforcement of a patent can never be deemed an anti-competetive act with respect to anti-trust law? Anyone have facts on this point? What tack are the DRAM companies actually pursuing?
Schwab
was that a troll? (Score:1)
Copyrights? what copyrights?
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
Re:Eric Raymond inspires me (Score:1)
You're certainly living up to your Redneck status!
THANK GOD (Score:1)
Interesting precedent quote (Score:1)
Regarding Dell being forced to waive patent claims as a result of participation in an industry stantdards forum. I wonder if this could also be applied to Frauenhofer's (sp!) patent on Layer 3 MPEG Audio encoding, or Apple's patents relating to MPEG4 encoding?
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:2)
Re:Isn't This Backwards? (Score:1)
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
Re:Yet another sweeping patent. (Score:1)
The patent on DDR RAM is bogus, anyway. (Score:2)
What these compaines should be doing is challenging the patent on DDR RAM in court, on the basis that it is overly obvious.
After all, your memory clock has two edges. So if you're already transmitting data on one of the edges, why not transmit it on the other one as well. I just don't see how anything like that could ever be considered anything but "obvious".
Yes, the patent office is so poorly mismanaged these days that it will grant stupid patents like this all the time, but that's why it needs to be challenged in court! Get it in front of a judge and show him how simple it is, and then it will be thrown out! They shouldn't even be bothering with the anti-trust stuff until after they try that tack first!
Re:Patents are GOOD (Score:5)
What the current system does promote is predatory patent portfolio arbitration. Corporations have long figured out how to maximize profit and stifle competition, all without appriciably "innovating", and all in the name of "patent" protection.
Corporations are blatantly misusing patent law so they can use their patents as poker chips in the grand game of Who-Can-Patent-As-Many-Concepts-As-Possible.
The corporation with the most patents has the largest supply of ammunition should they become the target of a patent infringment lawsuit. Invariably, such lawsuits end in a out of court-settled cross-licensing deal.
I speak from first hand experience as I have worked in the R&D department of several large corporations. There is always a race to patent your silly idea first, and if you have alot of them to back you up, when you inadvertently step on somebody else's patent, you have a good chance of being able to continue your work.
If you are in a small business, or are an "independant" inventor (arguably the main things patents supposedly serve to protect) you are screwed if your widget happens to use somebody elses "obvious" idea.
In all these battles, I have NEVER seen the best techology win, and I have NEVER witnessed a patent (issued OR pending) that "incentivized" innovation or invention. It's all about the benjamins, never about science.
Just a nit pick, the Bill of Rights doesn't mention patents and copyrights. It is covered in Article 1, Section 8 in the main body of the Constitution.
Finally, I'd like to close with a little quote from Jefferson, just to clarify what our Founding Fathers could POSSIBLY have been thinking when they decided to take this path.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Too bad corporations have brainwashed everybody into thinking financial incentive always leads to innovation. Jefferson would be spinning in his grave.
Re:Patents are GOOD (Score:3)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
FYI the actual Patent Act is MUCH longer and was enacted in 1790.
Also,
here [ladas.com] is a good short history of Patent Law in the US.
Re:Patents are GOOD (Score:1)
Re:Isn't This Backwards? (Score:2)
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
1) There's no such thing as a straightforward patent in days when the patent office pays people on the number they approve per month.
Excuse me? A quick check with the USPTO web site [uspto.gov] shows that patent examiners are paid on the GS scale (grades 5 to 11), just like the majority of the federal government. These are annual salaries -- their pay has nothing to do with "the number they approve per month." Where did you hear that piece of information? Or did you just make it up?
BTW, GS-5 is a ridiculously low salary for the work they do (starts at $21,370 a year) so it's no wonder they're understaffed..
-Orion, PS-5 government employee
Re:Patents are only good GOOD if... (Score:1)
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
That's only for trademarks. Copyright and patents are very different, and do not require you to pursue infringers to hold the patent/copyright. You are allowed to pick and choose who you sue and who you don't...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:2)
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
Well actually many of their patents infringe on IBM's patents which cover nearly all aspects of computing platforms in general including RAM. I am wondering where they are in all of this. Big Blue could easily come in and put the smack down on this little punk. Either way, there is more prior art then needed to tell Rambus to fuck off.
I don't see how Rambus will sell anything at three times the price with no performance gain.
More bandwidth. Lower pin count. Better granularity. I'm not going to sit here and argue about whether or not Rambus's RAM is technically superior or not -- that's been done at length here already.
Latency. It has been argued here, extensively I might add, how much Rambus sucks. Where have you been?
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
Sad...there is a paperclip for vi (Score:1)
Guess I will have to learn emacs.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
1) Our patent system is screwy. The patents last WAY to long in these days of 6 month product cycles. Further, as illustrated by this case, the patent office does a poor job of looking for prior art and seems to rely merely on the submissions within the patent itself (like a fox being in charge of the chicken coop...)
2) The anti-trust claims seem to have some meat if they did indeed participate in the JEDEC committees then pulled out.
3) I KNOW there was prior art. For goodness sake, moving data/addresses relative to a clock - there is a novel idea. Ever heard of Synch SRAMS? They existed back in the early 90's when I was still doing board design. Data clocked out relative to "CAS" on a normal DRAM is essentially a synchronous data cycle. "CAS" is acting as a clock. I'd really love to know what is so novel about their data interfaces that hasn't been done a 1000 times before on other synch busses. Wouldn't a burst data cycle from a memory system within a main-frame count???
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
2) And even if there way, RAMBUS wouldn't be it. They filed a 'simultaneous patent' after engaging in talks & work with most of these companies -- who were working on the technologies on their own.
3) 'Tis to say, it's not clear the technology is theirs -- what is clear is that they've muddied the issue and are using legal brinkmanship to try and get $s out of the technology, whether or not they own it.
Which makes them a class act, 'specially as we're paying up the nose for it.
RAMBUT would be a better name, but it's the rest of the industry's butt...
Re:Patents are GOOD (Score:2)
What I have a problem with is when litigation stemming from supposed 'patent infringement' ends up scaring away competition and/or innovation. Now I'm not saying this is the case with RAMBUS--in fact I'm almost willing to say it isn't.
However, I'm not a fan of companies that patent business practices, or concepts. Unless RAMBUS paptented the idea of faster memory, it's perfectly acceptable for other companies to develop another technology different from RAMBUS's which will allow for faster (and hopefuly cheaper memory)
This is the way it should work. patents are good, when they assist in innovation--but when you've got the Amazon.com's of the world patenting ideas and not implementions--that's when things get a little crazy.
That and when innovation dies at the end of a lawsuit. Too much litigation, if you ask me, and not enough innovation.
I don't understand (Score:1)
Fred Persec,
CTO Dyna Quist Industries Inc.
well. (Score:1)
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
We need details (Score:2)
Problem is, we don't really know. Any enterprising individual want to lookup the patent and translate it for us Slashdotters? Until we get those details, we cannot make an informed evaluation.
Re:Patents are GOOD (Score:1)
Is there a good one anywhere? (Score:1)
Show me a patent people are cheering for and I will show you a group of cheering lawyers.
Time for an amendment to patent law.. (Score:2)
Thou shalt not spend more on patent lawyers than thou hast spent on R&D.. *grin*
I think that sums up it nicely!
S(L)DRAM would have been there without Rambus (Score:1)
Re:Isn't This Backwards? (Score:1)
Yes it is screwing consumers (Score:1)
Re:Rambus is easy to dislike (Score:3)
-B
Re:I guess I don't understand this... (Score:1)
Apparently, some company there just patented the bottle. Yeah, glass bottle for storing all kinds of liquids and stuff. They invented it. Really. Pay up man.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Rambus is easy to dislike (Score:1)
I'm not saying that they deserve it, or not. I'm just saying, I don't blame them for not wanting to have their healing hemmorhoids ripped open again.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Is there a good one anywhere? (Score:1)
I have to disagree.
Answer this question: Would any of these wonderful things not have been developed if they could not be patented?
Re:Is there a good one anywhere? (Score:2)
The answer to that is, in general, unknowable, in that it's counterfactual. But I am unaware of any evidence that suggests patent systems have slowed the rate of invention, and it's easy to see how they could speed the rate of invention. (Unfortunately, a poorly-run system can also increase the rate of non-invention that you can claim as invention; this is the real problem).
But in the specific case of pharmaceutical research, I think it is very clear that the patent system has sped up the development of new, useful, drugs. In order to market a new drug in the US, you have to prove that it is both safe and effective, and this essentially entails the fact that you provide all of the information about the drug so that somebody skilled in the art could synthesize it. This process of proof, however, is hideously expensive to the point that you have to hold out some possibility for gain, whether it be though the patent system or some other mechanism, to get anybody to engage in the process. (OK, you could try and argue that this should be a governmental function, but then I'd ask you for any evidence that this would be faster or cheaper than the current system.)
And, again, I think this points out what is wrong about the current system: you can too easily get a patent for non-inventions, which helps nobody. There was nothing novel or unobvious about any number of web commerce patents out there (to name a particularly annoying category); the same cannot be said about most drug patents out there. Indeed, we know that this is the case because many clinical trials, even when conducted with strong prior information that a compound should be effective lead to the rejection of the drug in question as a clinically meaningful substance. In otherwords, the result was non-obvious.
Re:Patents are GOOD (Score:1)
>Would Rambus and Amazon.com have any reason to create new technologies if they wouldn't profit from them? If every other retailer immediately instituted One-Click Shopping, then what would have Amazon.com gained?
Nothing!
RAMBUT is using patent law to claim it owns something it didn't make on its own... so it can force its stock price up and get money from whomever caves in (not to mention how often Hitachi, Toshiba and RAMBUT executives are in bed together anyway...).
Amazon did nothing that wasn't really, really obvious.
In both cases, the 'patents' discourage others and hurt the marketplace. Patents are supposed to strike a balance between rewarding innnovation and allowing cheap, easy use -- not provide a playground for money-hungry corporations to gobble up whatever they can as the lawyers duke it out, while (I've said it before) the rest of us take it up the BUTT).
Re:Finally (Score:1)