Talk To a European Patent Examiner 227
While the US Patent and Trade Office sparks more discussion on Slashdot, the European Patent Office and the patent examiners who work there do much the same job as their US counterparts, although they work under a different set of laws and regulations. John Savage is a European patent examiner, and he has kindly consented to answer questions from Slashdot readers about the EU patent process. Usual rules apply: One question per post, we send 10 of the highest-moderated questions to John about 24 hours after this post appears, and run his answers verbatim when we get them back.
I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
not just a rubber stamp (Score:3, Interesting)
Obvious question (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps you do not view them as unreasonable, but I myself see this kind of patenting of existing things plus litigating against large corporations as an ethically bankrupt "revenue stream".
graspee
Re:Obvious question (Score:3)
Re:Obvious question (Score:1)
I fully expect a European patent examiner to know about famous cases of patents and their "infringement" whether in the US or wherever.
He's bound to have views, and perhaps information that we don't know, e.g. "This couldn't happen in Europe because all our patents have to be approved by body XXX who traditionally reject anything that XXXXXX....." (or whatever, you get the idea).
graspee
WIPO (Score:2)
Thats where the WIPO come in, they make you life unbareable if you don't adopt someone elses (Normally the US?) patent.
So is the question, what do you think about the enforcement of US patents in Europe where a patent wouldn't have been granted in Europe.
Re:Obvious question (Score:2)
Re:Obvious question (Score:1)
Not to defend software patents, but this case was not about patenting existing things. The patent is _older than JPEG itself_.
Clarified obvious question (Score:2)
Please allow me to clarify what I think Graspee_Leemoor was trying to get at:
What is being done in Europe to stop [] abuses of the patent system similar to those we see in the US ? (I'm particularly thinking of the recent so-called "JPEG" fiasco).
Or perhaps you do not view them as unreasonable, but I myself see this kind of patenting of existing [] inventions or allowing patented technology into an international standard but then drastically changing the licensing terms[1] as an ethically bankrupt "revenue stream".
[1] added by yerricde to correspond more closely with the JPEG facts
Re:this question is impertinent (Score:1)
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Who grades your performance, and how?
Re:the us system (Score:2)
Thanks for explaining the details of the U.S. points system.
question: what is the US doing wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
oops, that's "misadventures" (Score:1, Informative)
frequncies... (Score:4, Interesting)
criteria for "standards" (Score:5, Interesting)
Prior Art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
I think I can answer that at least partly: They only search for prior art in their own patent database. This is just one of the flaws with software patents. Software is different from most of the other stuff that you can patent. The fact that software is immaterial and that you therefore can share it at zero cost, makes a big difference. The internet has made a big difference - how can they possibly search for prior art in all the open source software that exists and gets created each day?! None or only very few of the open source developers can afford to apply for a patent.
Odd Patents (Score:1)
Re:Odd Patents (Score:2)
Fine Grained Detail Vs Open Endedness (Score:5, Interesting)
if Patents were granted on ver specific fine grained processes. "Specific Process for doing X with Y by using Z in combination with A, B, C, to achive K..." Would you agree? Why or why not?
more difficult? (Score:1, Interesting)
World Trade (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:World Trade (Score:1)
paul: you know bill, they won't let us patent anything we want in europe.
bill: those bastards! no more XP for them!
paul: you're right. let's see how far this linux thing will get them.
bill: hehe, another step closer to world domination...
Re:EU patents and Globalisation (Score:2)
No, it doesn't.
I want countries to COMPETE, not homogenize, just as the states in the US are able to "compete" for citizens/business via better taxes, law, etc.
I'm glad some nations are smart enough not to grant monopolies on software, business methods, and genetic info. It's a mistaken idea that overly strong IP protection -- especially in rapidly evolving markets -- translates into a stronger economy. e.g. just the opposite would be true if the net was burdened with patents to begin with.
--
Differences. (Score:2, Interesting)
A simple question: (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you believe that your organization has enough employees to adequately review all patent applications? This includes all of the tasks that you're presumably charged with: examining the patent's relevance to its field, searching for prior art, etc. We don't hear much brou-ha-ha with regards to the European patent system, so presumably you folks are doing something right. I'm curious as to whether "a ton of staff" is the key.
Re:A simple question: (Score:1)
Re:A simple question: (Score:2)
We don't hear much brou-ha-ha with regards to the European patent system, so presumably you folks are doing something right.
Sadly, this is not true :( I'm no expert in these matters, I can tell you that we already have software patents in Europe and we have some bad ones too. Right now you have to apply for a patent in each country (AFAIK, but I'm not 100% sure about it), hat they are about to do right now is to change that so you only have to apply once for all of EU.
In regards to stupid patents - we have a patent that makes it impossible to use special Danish letters in domain names (this is actually a world wide patent). Online banking is patented too.
Re:A simple question: (Score:2)
Well, that is one of the problems - most people don't know this - you can't and don't complain about something you don't know.
EP0504287B1: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REMOTE DELIVERY OF RETAIL BANKING SERVICES [delphion.com]
Software patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Qualifications? (Score:2, Interesting)
Patent requirements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically, do you feel that patent requirements have had to be relaxed because of the nondemonstrable qualities of many patent applications recently?
Honoring U.S. drug company trade patents. (Score:5, Interesting)
Could you ever see the same measures taken in terms of technology to help bridge the digital divide?
Thanks!
tcd004
Read the EXTREME Worst-Case Scenario Guidebook [lostbrain.com]
I.P. Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
With the millions of technical papers, conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, textbooks, previous patents, and other publications, how does the patent office verify that technical content is acutally patentable (novel and non-obvious) and owned by the submitter? Further, is there a way that the technical communities could assist in preventing these troublesome patents?
Too bad... (Score:5, Funny)
It's too bad we can'r interview a US patent official. My first question then would be "Does it hurt to have your head that far up your ass?".
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
Response: "No, actually it feels great because I came across this great 'body bender assister' gizmo while reviewing patents. It was registered to goatse.com"
Patent defence (Score:5, Interesting)
They basicly can stop me from using my research and take all my work from my posession.
My University does not stand up to any accusations. They do not have lawyers and any research is not worth a lawsuit even if I have strong evidence that my work was independant from their and only based on prior art.
My question is "Is there any way I can question their patents several years after they were accepted without involving large sums of money or my university?"
Re:Patent defence (Score:2)
Needless to say, companies that pull this kind of crap piss me off. They probably aren't even aware what damage they are causing to this particulary field of technology.
(ObOntopicUrl: League for Programming Freedom [mit.edu])
Re:Patent defence (Score:2)
Infact I am so scared that they will slap a patent on my work before I finish my thesis that I keep publicly available a version of my thesis as I write it.
Re:You think black and white (Score:2)
I dont have a large company behind me. They are quite happy to let me do research in the area but when it comes to place a patent or make a product they can claim its theirs. They will probably wait until they can squease the most out of me before killing me off.
I try to publish as often as possible but they don't have to defend their patent to keep its validity.
Re:Patent defence (Score:2)
I think searching for "aggressive patent program" [google.com] might be a clue.
The Sun ones are fantastic. Do you know any more?
My favorite was after 30 years of asynchronous computers a patent for an asynchronous processor was passed.
Who are you btw?
All opinions are my own and are not of my employer. I reserve the right of having opinions based on but not limited to my imagination, paranoia and insanity.
Pressure from big business (Score:5, Interesting)
we're sitting around a campfire... (Score:5, Interesting)
Software Patents (Score:1, Interesting)
What is the basic philosophy behind EU patent law? (Score:5, Interesting)
The US system is based on the power of courts to arbitrate on ownership and validity after the fact. What would you describe as the basic theory behind the EU approach.
Re:What is the basic philosophy behind EU patent l (Score:2)
(I'm not sure I agree that the current state of the US system has any close connection with the system's basic underlying philosophy, btw.)
Re:What is the basic philosophy behind EU patent l (Score:2)
I think I can partially answer this one. The important fact to note is that the European Patent Convention (the document constituting the EPO) isn't part of the body of treaty law comprising the EU. This creates some interesting problems, especially when the EU passes patent directives that could require member states to try and alter their obligations under the EPC (while all EU members are parties to the EPC, not all EPC parties are member states of the EU).
The basic upshot of this is that there is no single European patent that can be overseen and enforced by a transnational judicial system (i.e. the European Court of Justice). Instead, the grant of a patent from the EPO is recognized and enforced by the domestic courts of each party to the EPC. Effectively, you get a "bundle" of national patents in countries with quite similar patents law (as the EPC requires).
So, a general answer to your question would be: while there are many similarities in the way the EPC countries treat patents, there will be differences according to the system of law employed domestically by each country. So while the UK would have a similar approach to the US, the civil law countries on the European continent will have minor, but not insignificant, differences. Since I'm no expert on civil law, I can't give you any more information than that.
Patent Process? (Score:3, Interesting)
How is the patent office paid for? (Score:2, Interesting)
As the well-known principle goes, if the regulations say X, and the financial incentive is for Y, then people get creative about how to derive Y from X. (And lawyers specialize in exactly this form of creativity.)
So my question is how are the European patent offices funded, and what safeguards are in place to keep them from only representing the desires of (would-be) patent holders?
Dealing with incomprehensible patents. (Score:4, Interesting)
Low caliber but quick qn (Score:2, Insightful)
is there any hope? (Score:2, Interesting)
Current patents inhibit innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that patents that are issued in the area of computer science are often of similar doubtful validity.
I thought that the purpose of a patent was to encourage innovation and technological advance, whereas what is happening now is quite the reverse.
Would rate of progress in genetics and computing slow if patents were abolished in these fields, copyright provides sufficient protection for the few years until the technology is overtaken by something newer and better.
Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:4, Interesting)
Time interval that patents are valid (Score:1)
What can we do? (Score:4, Interesting)
Tax free status (Score:2)
Assuming that removing this status would roughly double the offices wage cost (which is obviously a major part of the budget), which would entail the costs of applying for a patent rising by a significant amount, what do you think the effects would be?
Less applications, those that apply can afford it anyway, what? Are the EU tax-payers supporting big business or the small inventor in this way? Not a troll, just hoping for a discussive answer!
education... (Score:2, Interesting)
Prior art (Score:1)
Incentives for striking down bad patents (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess you wouldn't support compensating those who do knock down bad patents out of the Patent Office Employees Pension Fund? :)
Coping with new EU states? (Score:5, Interesting)
With new states set to join the EU, and perhaps even more joining in the future, how will the patent office deal with this?
For example, a company in Romania could have a national patent on, say, a form of compression. A company in the EU may also hold a similar patent.
When Romania joins the EU what happens to harmonize the patent law across the EU? Does the EU patent immediately get preferential treatment? Or does the older patent of the two get the final EU patent?
If this is the case, could a company in a country currently outside the EU get broad patents for a whole bunch of areas, and then claim licencing fees when they join the EU and have their patents validated?
Also, what happens to patents currently held in multiple countries already in the EU? Does the EU take precedence, or do the countries have to fight it out? For example, people in Sweden and the UK might both have patents on the same thing!
Re:Coping with new EU states? (Score:2)
The EU is becoming a federation.. in effect, a country of its own. Each current country, France, Germany, UK, etc.. will become a 'state' within the EU.
Now, if you can hold patents within individual states within one large master country.. then that's great. But it sure doesn't work that way in the US. You can't hold patents in, say, Alabama and another in Texas.. they're for the whole country.
Europe is quickly becoming a single country, hence I raised the question.
Technical Qualifications (Score:3, Interesting)
Software patents, i hope not. (Score:1)
"Best Mode" not required in European process? (Score:1)
For example, a U.S. inventor is required to indicate the "best way" to use her invention as part of the patent process. A European patent application is required to include at least one potential use of the invention, but it doesn't even need to be a particularly good use.
Do you see potential abuses of that absence in the European system? Do companies and individuals avoid disclosing potential uses of their inventions, thinking of those uses as guarded business secrets, or do they see it as in their best interests to specify use as clearly as possible in order to strengthen the patent? (I'm thinking of examples like "one-click" ordering, where the patent seems to be as much on the potential use as it is on any distinct "invention.")
British Patent Lawyers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you. MadDad32.
The Sum of All Fears (Score:1)
European copyright law enters the USA with moral rights and non-registration, while US patent law enters Europe with business model patents and software patents. This is done, without the former weaker protection (i.e. the patent system or copyright protection) is modified. The sum is a new framework for intellectual property protection where the current author or inventor is handed a shiny toolbox of protection, possibly making it harder for the future author or inventor to create new works or innovations without the consent or license from the current author or innovator.
How much intellectual property protection is just right (or "lagom" as we would say in Sweden [pawlo.com]) and how do you in your daily work weigh patentability against copyright to find a result where creativity is ensured and not stifled?
Regards
Mikael
Lobbying and patent debate in Europe (Score:2, Interesting)
Could you tell us if you, as a patent examiner feel lobbies pressure ? And if yes, how ?
Re:Lobbying and patent debate in Europe (Score:1)
I had posted this reply as coward, and I'd prefer not being modded down for this...
Please mod the other.
Ignoring USPTO (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you see any chance of the rest of the world succeding in forcing USA to behave? For example, could we threaten to exclude USA from the international patent treaties, and stop enforcing US patents anywhere else?
Re:Ignoring USPTO (Score:2)
Hmmm. I wonder how many patents fit the pattern of "amusing X with Y"?
Overly Vague (Score:3, Interesting)
What are the limitations you use in relation to overly vague or broad patents?
"Method of swinging on a swing" (Score:2)
How does the "little guy" fare? (Score:2)
Re:How does the "little guy" fare? (Score:2)
How is your day spent? (Score:1)
My question: out of any 100 patents you review on any given day, how many:
1. really impress you as having widespread industry implications; whiz-bang innovations
2. are rejected
3. are rejected for being completely asinine
4. implicate an ethical debate
Many Thanks,
-FC
Education/training (Score:4, Interesting)
And what about enhancing your knowledge? How do you tackle new technologies that are coming out. What tools are given to you in order for you to do your job? (training, seminars, courses, books, etc...)
Incentives to be fair (Score:1)
If so, then what incentive does the patent office have to be impartial?
If you agree the system is skewed in favour of granting patents then do you have any ideas on how to make the patent system fair to both those seeking patents and also to those who may be challenged from a patent holder?
Regards,
Why do you do it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is the patent process valid as is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Evidence of innovation? (Score:2, Interesting)
That is, there are several factors which would deter a lone inventor or small company from trying to enter an innovative field. These include:
- The time and expense of a thorough patent search
- The time and expense of preparing a patent (especially if a lawyer is hired to do the job properly)
- A large company somewhere is bound to have a patent at least tangentially related to the product in question, which could be used as a tactical weapon against the smaller company. Even if the product is found not to violate the patent, the cost of defending such cases can sink a small company.
Do the benefits of the patent system outweigh the above disadvantages?Talk to a Live Nude European Patent Examiner (Score:1)
1. You say your name is John. Is that an honorific or is that your real name?
2. If my substantial claims, upon examination, are denied because of prior art, what appeal rights do I have?
3. Are European Patent Examiners better than American Patent Examiners?
4. When you open up a patent application, what is the first thing you look at?
5. Have you examined Cowboy Neal's claims? Are the actually novel or have you seen everything?
I've lost track. Maybe you can help? (Score:3)
In Defense of the USPTO (Score:1)
Software Patents already granted (Score:4, Interesting)
At a conference I attended end of last year, the EPO's director admitted that software patents had been accorded to companies, without a legal basis from the EU.
What is the legal status of these patents? Do they have any value, or could any court throw them out? Does it even have to go to court? And how does the EPO justify such (IMHO, illegal, but IANAL) practice?
Effect of Open Prosecution (Score:2)
Ranked Patents? (Score:2)
Do you see any value in a ranking or grading system for patents themselves?
Clearly, some patents are more ingenious than others. If there was a "strength" ranking system, then it may make it easier for smaller companies to defend against weak or silly patents.
Switching the burden... (Score:2)
This implies that if you take the path of least resistance (underfunded patent examiners/time constraints/whatever/...) by default, the patent will pass, and a monopoly on the device (albeit temporary) is given out. Effort has to be made to stop a patent application.
Isn't this placing the "burden of proof" at the wrong side? Shouldn't it be so, that by default the patent should NOT be given out?
I've heard (don't know if this is correct) that with the USPTO the patent examiners get rewarded for every patent granted. Shouldn't the patent examiners get a reward for every patent application blocked?
Could "sideways swinging" be patented in Europe? (Score:2)
Could this patent have been granted in Europe, and, if not, what would have prevented it?
Is there a point to patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, the only reason patents exist is to convince inventors to put their research out there for everyone to see and build upon (after a certain time period).
So, if these inventors are supposed to look at a patent and it's supposed to be "reduced to practice" then they're supposed to be able to implement it, right? Which means that they have to understand the patent right? If they're expected to EXTEND the patent, then they have to understand the current patent right?
But they can't understand a patent since they're not patent lawyers...
It makes no sense to me. If people are assumed to be unable to understand a patent unless they're patent lawyers, and if the only reason patents exist is to let engineers avoid reinventing the wheel by reading and understanding the patents, then aren't they worthless?
Or if not, could you explain the legal contortions that give two totally separate meanings to "understanding" a patent?
Experts and patents (Score:2, Interesting)
No incentives for patent examiners to do their job (Score:2)
There are NO penalties for a lazy patent examiner who ignores tons of well known prior art and just signs off automatically on every ridiculous piece of crap that lands on his desk.
Here's how it can be fixed:
1) patent examiners get paid some very low base rate for examining a patent
2) patent examiners get a bonus for every prior art they can find which invalidates the patent
3) patents which are invalidated via prior art in court result in the responsible patent examiner's payment for that patent being revoked
4) examiners who have a history of patents being invalidated are suspended or fired.
Essentially, the patent examination process would then provide REAL incentive for examiners to do exhaustive research to invalidate patents -- as it should be.
Right now there is NO incentive for patent examiners to do a proper prior art search. And this leads to extensive abuse of the system from bogus and invalid patents. The most incredible crap gets signed off these days, and it's obvious the examination process needs a total overhaul.
Re:No incentives for patent examiners to do their (Score:2)
Re:No incentives for patent examiners to do their (Score:2)
you make it sound as though the patent office allows EVERY case it recieves. this is in fact VERY incorrect. in excess of 90% of applications are rejected the first time. The average application takes several years after it is filled before it gets a first examination by an examiner. Afterwards it takes months-years before it becomes abandonded or allowed.
If an examiner allows the vast majority of cases on their docket on the first action, their boss would wonder what is going on. the patent ofice makes money in the US via fees, the more time you have to ammend and add new claims, the more revenue the office recieves.
btw im a US examiner.
PATENTS Questions. Pick ONE. (Score:2)
How can American and European startup companies possibly compete against foriegn markets if they must pay patents on ridiculously long patent lifetimes vs foreign companies who do not have such startup costs?
How can American companies hope to do any sort of research if they have huge legal battles ahead of them in patent research, into Biotech or Software for example, if foreign companies of other nations do not have these problems in thier own domestic markets?
Do you feel patents lead to monolithic, and very unhealthy non-diversivied, economics in the high tech industry of countries that issue patents? If so why and if not why not?
Do you think a high tech industry heavily patented is more healthy than one that is not?
I tend to feel patents should have a maximum lifetime of 2 years for the following reasons:
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
Hack
Re:PATENTS Questions. Pick ONE. (Score:2)
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
A patent is a limited MONOPOLY granted to a inventor in exchange for the inventor disclosing how theinvention works to the public. without such a system, there will be little public disclosure of new invention except through peer reiew publications. what does that mean? Well, through a published patent, the public learns about new inventions and can use that base invention to make improvements and in turn file a new patent. With out a patent there is no incentive to make such information public and everything in industry would likely be a trade secret. Technology would likely develop at a slower rate since it would be more difficult for peple to learn how things work except through reverse engineering, which in some cases may take an inordinate amount of time.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
I would tend to disagree. Without patent protection, someone can easily copy your invention and manufacture it outside the country and possbily reimport it or use it to develop their own products and out sell you.
if a forgien company wants patent protection for a product they wish to sell in the US, they have to file a patent, likewise in their own country.
Re:PATENTS Questions. Pick ONE. (Score:2)
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Especially when the patient has to take the drug on a DAILY basis, in this case?
I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years.
It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Very very BAD example my friend.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it. You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it.
In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels.
I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels.
I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON.
That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business.
This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain.
Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
-hack
Re:PATENTS Questions. Pick ONE. (Score:2)
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Perhaps you can do it for 2 years AFTER the FDA approves the treatment. By that time under your proposal, the patent would have expired. Besides, you are asuming that the drug would be patented/approved worldwide at the same time, a US patent is not enforced in another country, the inventor/asignee has to have a patent in another country as well. In the US, you can't get a patent on something which was made public or on sale in the US or another country at least one year prior to the date of filing.I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years. It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Yes as you said, it takes everyone years to get to market because you have to go to the FDA, even generic manufacturers. In the US, a patent is good for 20 years from DATE OF FILING. It takes several years(currently as many as 4+) for a patent to be approved via the US patent office. Now, add in another 2-4 years for the FDA and you are down from 20 years patent protection to 12-14 years. It may only take a few months development, but not every drug can be patented, heck not every drug developed by companies can even go to market (the sucess rate is certainly less than 100%). I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but on the patent side, you have to believe the inventors specification and research when it comes to the effectiveness of the drug (if they are coming up with a new treatment that has never been done before, there is nothing to counter it).Very very BAD example my friend. ..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it. ,/p>
YOU CAN NOT DO THIS. DOING SO PREVENTS YOU FROM GETTING A PATENT. (I am a patent examiner, that is a violation of 35USC 102 (a): the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.) You have then relinquished your right to a patent because you have disclosed it to others. Don't beleive me? Well, there have been more than a few cases of this. You can't disclose the invention until after you submit the application to the patent office, unless you work for a company, because most likely you assigned all IP that you create to that company. This does absolutely nothing for an independant inventor. Hence 2 years is still not enough. Now, you can file then go out and try to sell your invention while the patent is waiting to be examined.
You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
I tend to disagree, again as I said, I am a patent examiner, and used to work in sales engineering at one point. It easily takes months or years to sell anything to someone which is not a commodity (i.e. some proprietary system).It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Yes, it does. I have the real world experience to prove it.Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it. In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels. I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels. I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
They are entitled to do so, a patent is a monopoly. Without it, what incentive do they have to create the product?This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
I don't remember microsoft patenting MSDOS or patenting Windows. You can't patent an operating system via a single patent, you need dozens-hundreds to do so. Monopolies aren't inherently wrong (although lack of competition isn't good for the consumer). Microsoft used the money the recieved from being the only player in the business market, a position they gained because IBM did not seem to consider the OS market to be important. Did, you know that back in the early days of digital electronics, no one bothered patenting electronics because things changed so rapidly? The result was that everyone copied everyone else. Now was there innovation derived from that copying, most certainly yes and the world of electronics advanced, but early inventors were clearly shortchanged from their rights and ability to profit.Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON. That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business. This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain. Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
Well, all the inventor has to do is get a patent. Microsoft then has to fight it in the courts like everyone else. They can use their accumulated wealth to squash it from a marketing perspective or investment prospective, but they can't buy the examiner (you can't accept large sums of money/gifts from a company, its called bribing a federal offical). You can not get a software patent in the US. However, if you read the "software patents" claims, they usually read something like: A computer readable medium on which...... That is a slight distinction. Software patents really aren't that usefull (and you can't get a patent on algorithims), because the marketplace changes so quickly (as I stated above with early digital electronics). Buisness methods on the otherhand are another story. Actually my friend I am an expert on this. Want to know why? I deal with it every day. I am a patent examiner, I use google for prior art. You can't just use what the applicant provides you for prior art because it is compromised (the search firms have a financial interest in finding the prior art). The problem is this, if I'm working on a patent which was filed in 1999, and today is 2002, i cant use something which was published on google in 2000. People dont seem to realize it that the examiner does their search for the state of that art at the time that the invention was filed! You can't use hindsight reasoning for ovbiousness as well. Has microsoft done some "evil" things, sure, but so did the train barons of the 19th century. What you are arguing seems to be that for biotech and software, patents should be treated differently. You might not be aware of this, but the bigest application filers are in the ELECTRONICS/TELECOMMUNICATIONS industry. Likewise, for someone who patents machinery, do you believe that they should be entitiled to a 2 year patent? The mechanical device industry does opperate differently and it may take longer than the 2 years you suggest for all industries to recover the costs of development. Perhaps a better arguement is that software patents should last 2 years, but as an examiner, i see more than just software type patents, as such, I can't see how the vast majority of companies/inventors can recover their profits in only 2 years on physical devices. The software patents/biotech patents are not the only ones issued worldwide.Removing the legalese (Score:2, Interesting)