Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Information Patents in the US and Europe 182

Posted by CowboyNeal from the we-got-patent-pending-on-that dept.
Over_and_Done writes "First Monday has an article up discussing the differences in information process patents between the US and Europe. The author mentions that the United States reform is too focused on process reform, arguing that they should be instead focusing on what is and is not patentable (i.e. Business Method patents). He also states that Europe is choosing to instead follow a different track, and make the process a little more restrictive, resulting in a rift between the US and Europe. The article raises a lot of interesting facts that I was not aware of, including the incident where the US threatened to walk out of the WIPO meeting because the proposed treaty did not 'mandate patents for all fields of activity.' The author, although critical of the policies on both sides of the pond states that the rift is in some ways healthy, as it encourages an open debate and requires people to look at the patent issue from many different angles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Information Patents in the US and Europe More

Information Patents in the US and Europe

Comments Filter:

  • Sorry, no more comments on this (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2003 @09:43PM (#5657763)
    I have a patent on writing comments on a news story for the purpose of discussion, and Slashdot doesn't have a license to use my technology.
  • What I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas, not patterns such as those making up the genome and so forth. Those belong to their owners therefore falling under the arena of copyrighting. IMHO.

    • Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bendebecker ( 633126 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @10:18PM (#5657948) Journal
      "I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas"
      Algroithms and scientific ideas should not be patentable. Patent law in the U.S. was orginally designed to 'stimulate invention and creativity.' The law was designed as a social contract, we will give you the exclusive rights to such and such an invention in exchange for you publically announcing not only that you have invented this but detailing how it works. The idea behind this is that you benefit somewhat from legal monoply while the public beenfits from having a new idea out there, one which it was assumed by the creaters of the law would be built upon and surpassed by better inventions by the time the patent ran out. The monolply that coems with a patent was only tolerated so that new ideas would be open to the public and creativity would flourish(not just by you but by the public since they could now view the patent.) However, we increasingly see people patenting things, not to stimulate craetivity and new ideas, but rather to supress craetivity and to prohibit people from building on inventions.
      Now we come to algorithms and scientific ideas. Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented? Imagine if the theory of relativity had been patented? Imagine if Rutherford had patented his ideas on the atom, or if the theory of elctromagnetism had been patented? The patenting of such things do not stimulate invention or creativity. Rather it creates a monopoly that stagnates a field of science. Such monoplies were not nor ever will be justifiable under patent law. In addition, patent law bars the patenting of processes that can be potentially thought through by a human. This is why mathemtaical algorithms (or proofs) cannot be patented. The algorithms that have been patented have been only patented since they exist on machines and even this is highly debated (in fact, depending on what district of the federal government your case is heard in decides if they take a computer algorithm to be patentable or not.) Algroithms can be thought out by the human mind hence they should not be patentable. In addition, scientific ideas are laws of nature which by patent law are not patnetable. What if Netwon patented gravity and then decided to take a royality from everyone making use of the idea? Every physicist on Earth and every physics textbook would have had to pay him.
      In the end, patent law (and copyright law for taht matter) were designmed to stimulate invention and creativity, not only by you but the public as well. the government never garuntees you will make money for an idea, they simply have decided that in some cases it is in the publics best interests to grant you limited control of an idea. Once such a protection is no longer in the publics best interests (teh governemnt considers the publics bets interests far more important tahn any indivisuals, the idea of government is utilitarian at heart), any such control of an idea is a violation of teh spirit of copyright and patent law.

      • Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:5, Funny)

        by LongJohnStewartMill ( 645597 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @11:04PM (#5658205)
        What if Netwon patented gravity and then decided to take a royality from everyone making use of the idea

        Newton would be rich, especially if it was a US patent. Since ~30% of Americans are obese, he could just walk around and make money off of fat people. "I believe you're using something that belongs to me. Pay the royalty please. Thank you. Here, have a candy. My treat."
      • Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented?

        Exactly right. In fact the article quote Gates saying that if this type of patent were possible in the past, the industry would be at a standstill, but he doesn't continue this quote as Lessig does in this presentation [randomfoo.net] where he (Gates) indicates his plan to do exactly that with our future. If you don't think he plans to use this to attempt to destroy Linux at some point, I've got a bridge to sell you.

        • Betcha IBM could sink MS in a patent lawsuit contest, if Billy screwed with their big iron Linux, oh that's right Linux is Linux, Billy better pick on Sun and Oracle as he has in the past. Google seems like their best target right now, unless IBM buys them.
          • I don't think it is clear yet whether IBM is really going to use its patent inventory for or against Open/Free Source. I would expect them to wield them effectively against MS the same way we all hope they will smack down SCO and their ridiculous patent mining efforts, but neither will it surprise me if their IP departments turn against Linux and/or other OS projects when it suits them.

            They are clearly an interesting case as they were against software and business method patents originally, but they have

      • I'll go one further; it is as impossible to effectively patent algorithms and scientific ideas as it is to not think of pink elephants.

        Once you read a scientific paper, or see the documentation of an algorithm, it's imprinted on you; it colours any representation of the world and possible approach to computing you think of. To patent something as basic as that puts both fields at a standstill. The same goes for bussiness models.
      • there is a difference between algorithms and scientinfic ideas.

        the theory of relativity, ruthford's model of the atom, and maxwells laws - while all expressed as slgorithms - are not discoveries of nature and not patentable subject matter. not then, not now.

        google's search engine - also expressable as a mathematical algorithm - IS patentable because it is an invention, not a discovery in nature.

        the fundamental question is whether or not people have a right to own their ideas - not whether or not algor

    • Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zurab ( 188064 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @10:35PM (#5658049)
      What I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

      Great - corporations patent every new/old/used algorithm and idea in sight and use it as a part of their portfolio to scare off competitors. How is this helping innovation? If anything it is preventing anyone to actually act on the idea to innovate.

      Patent system is flawed - on top of what has already been said about it such as patents are too broad, many things should not be patentable, etc. - it is flawed in that USPTO receives money for every patent granted; it is to USPTO's advantage to grant more and more patents to get more funding. It is so ridiculous, I don't know that anything I do isn't patented already. The argument that patent database is open is not helpful - there's so many of them, you can't be expected to go through it next time you want to do something obvious.

      Can I raise my hand to pull over a cab without violating a patent? I don't know - I certainly can't swing on a swing [uspto.gov].
      • I certainly can't swing on a swing [uspto.gov].

        Sorry, thats too ridiculous to be believeable - whats the catch?
        • Sorry, it is not a joke.

          more information here [siliconvalley.com]

          This was actually posted on /. about a year or so back.

          The father filed the patent to teach his son about how the US patent system works, figuring something so ridiculous and obvious would never get patented.

          Two years later, he got back the news, patent approved.

          Oddly enough, it does not appear to have been overturned, or would I have to look someplace else to find that out?
    • If you had read the article, you would know that there is mounting economic evidence that this uncontrolled growth in what can be patented can be very damaging to economies. In particular software patents don't work well at all, and just create a lot of confusion for companies trying to make products. It won't be a surprise to /.ers that patents, particularly software and business method patents, are often used by unproductive companies that don't even have products on the market to hold-up productive companies for cash. Further, they give a big advantage to large organizations to keep out upstart competitors.

      Algorithms are essentially ideas, and ideas are neither patentable nor do they qualify for copyright. A particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted, and its use in a process can be patentable, but ideas are not, at least in principle. The idea that you can patent a naturally occuring pattern (i.e. a gene or genes) is ridiculous. It might be ok to give a patent on say a genetic test for a particular condition, but it seems to me that there isn't much invention beyond the basic science (idea) that links the gene and the condition.

      The truth is (as explained in this very good paper) that the patent authorities in both the US and Europe have bent over backwards to extend the scope of patents. The paper lays out how patent professionals keep pushing this, sometimes in spite of any attempt of anyone outside their circle to attempt to set policy, even lawmakers. Check this [caliu.info] out for an indication of just how out of control the EPO is. They make money from handing out these patents whether it is good for the rest of us or not, and there is little effective control on any of it.

      • The press release is in my opinion not fully correct on the EPO.

        Yes, the EPO is not bound by the EU.
        However, the EU can nevertheless issue directives (guidelines to amend national law) and regulations (binding law) relating to patents. This can be extended towards the EPO, by letting EU member states have it put in the EPC (European Patent Convention). For example, this happened with the biotech directive.

        Besides that, it is still possible to invalidate patents in front of a national court and in the fut

        • The press release is completely consistent with what the paper says about the EPO and their resistance to any outside influence. I can't point to the exact statements in the paper, but it is clear about both the EPO and the USPTO being incredibly resistant to even proper policy making authority. They seem to think they are the masters of this turf, and that nobody can tell them what to do. The press release is quite chilling about the way even the patent examiners themselves can be told to just shut up a
    • I was rushed on the first post. Expanding on what I said, patents should only last several years before they are voided so that the person holding the patent has enough time to market it. In addition things should only be patentable if they are within reason.
    • Although I am not in favour of this, it might have helped development in certain ways.

      Gauss was generally known as a prick, keeping all his algorithm for himself. When someone came up to Gauss showing him a just developped algorithm, Gauss would just brag that he had developped the same over ten years ago. He just kept everything to himself.
      This is just an example, similar cases are known for other famous mathematicians.

      Imagine what would have happened when Maxwell wouldn't have had Gauss' theorems at hi

  • Is there a theme here? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sky Lemon ( 633088 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @09:47PM (#5657788) Homepage Journal
    US threatened to walk out of the WIPO meeting because the proposed treaty did not 'mandate patents for all fields of activity.' Just like the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty since Bush "will not accept a plan that will harm our economy." Or, just like the U.S. is "upholding international law" by walking out on the U.N. when an absolute mandate for war was not immediately and unconditionally accepted.

    • Re:Is there a theme here? (Score:5, Informative)

      by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @10:39PM (#5658067)
      While Bush may have formally pulled out of the treaty, he didn't really have a choice. Treaties require consent from the Senate. The Senate voted 95-0 [state.gov] not to ratify it.
      • He had a choice. He could always have waffled, and re-submitted it "with corrections to the translations". He still wouldn't have gotten it through, but he didn't need to be offensive.

        (I don't think anyone expected him to get the treaty through, when he clearly didn't want to. But they also didn't expect him to be gratuitously offensive.)

    • I think you're misunderstanding something here. The end game is not equality between nations, or even the environemnt, it is freedom and liberty.

      The problem with patents is that too many people assume that patents are just like other property rights. Normally, property rights protect freedom and free markets. Patents do not. Unlike other properties they are an artificial construct of government without any foundation in the real world, or without any foundation such as finite physical utility.

      This pro
      • Patents protect property rights reasonably...after 17+ years.

        The only saving grace of patents under the US system is that they expire. That's it.

        That statement is actually a bit overdone. There are reasonable arguments for patents in areas requiring a large amount of up front investment of capital. I'm not certain that they are valid, but in such cases they become much more plausible. In those cases the main argument against patents is the incredibly bad way in which they are implemented, and the fact

  • Software patents... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Software patents lead to innovation only within the company that owns them.
  • Strangely, software development continues in the rest of the world [catalyst.net.nz] without patent protection.

    (sorry, couldn't help the shameless plug!)

  • The nexus between business and government (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @10:03PM (#5657872) Journal

    The patent hijinks in the US in recent years seems to highlight the strong nexus between government and business in America. Intellectual Property has been willingly converted from a protective 'shield' designed to foster innovation into a 'sword' to strike down competitors. The most obvious example is the various startup companies who have no actual products, just a patent, and who proceed to work their way up the food chain suing others for patent infringement or demanding royalties.

    As a non-American, it seems logical to me that you should expect your government to make a conscious decision before a legal doctrine should undergo such a transformation. Instead, you have a situation where business has made the decision and then gradually weaselled it into law through undue influence of your executive (patent office) and parliamentary government.

    Reforming your patent laws might help this particular problem, but if you want a long term solution to this kind of crap then some more fundamental separation of private and public interests is in order. Campaign finance, political donations, and restrictions on the activities of lobby groups might be a good start...

    • As a non-American, it seems logical to me that you should expect your government to make a conscious decision before a legal doctrine should undergo such a transformation. Instead, you have a situation where business has made the decision and then gradually weaselled it into law through undue influence of your executive (patent office) and parliamentary government.

      You sir, have just explained "the American Way" to us all!
    • You guys need to stop being cynical and start fixing this problem.

      Jefferson and co. weren't perfect themselves, but I think they would be quite upset if they could see the current arrangement in action.
    • As a non-American, it seems logical to me that you should expect your government to make a conscious decision before a legal doctrine should undergo such a transformation.

      Democracies don't make concious decisions. They're mobs that allow the shewd to get ahead at the expense of the simple, and can all too often lead to tyrannies of the majority.

      The USA prides itself on being a demoracy. We may have been forced to put in safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, and there have been several times w
      • I must disagree.

        Pure democracy, in which every decision is made by every individual en masse would perhaps fit your description. The congress and senate, however, serve to reduce the process to a more manageable size through representation. Bush's tax cuts or the GOP's policies aren't the result of some amorphous, mob-driven process, they're the result of active, conscious thinking that leads to a particular decision.

        I'm afraid most 'democracies' are effectively oligarchic in nature and fundamentally weak
        • I'm afraid most 'democracies' are effectively oligarchic in nature and fundamentally weakened in terms of democratic priciples by the process of representation - the US more than most thanks to your huge population, low voter turnout and (not meaning to sounds offensive, but the amount of money changing hands is quite ridiculous) somewhat corrupt electoral system.

          Well, yeah. Democracy invaribly leads to corruption. The entire federalist system was designed so that the corruption of any one segment would
      • Nah...the US is a replic, which is slightly different from a democracy, pedanticaly speaking ;)
        • If you are going to be pedantic can you clear up this issue as it keeps getting mentioned on /. you see I'm not sure they are mutually exclusive. From the concise OED -

          Republic:- A state in which supreme power is held by the people or its elected representatives or by elected or nominated president.

          Demoncracy:-(A State having) government by all the people, direct or representative.

          So USA is a republic and UK is a monarchy. Both are representative (not direct) democracies. Although you could argue a country

          • The definition of a true democracy is a state where everyone has the right to directly vote for all of those who get to attain a position of public power.

            A republic does this (ie approaches that ideal) by limiting who can vote and by having certain positions be indirectly voted for.

            Also please note that the historical democracy (that of the greeks) severely limited who could vote by denying women, mentally incompetents, slaves, people with too little money, invalids, criminals, and anyone the voting publi
    • One of the main (and most disturbing) points being made in the paper is that most of this shift has been within the patent issuing bodies with just a little help (in the US) from the courts. These bodies are largely immune to economic arguments and legislative policy setting, and business doesn't really set the agenda either. Businesses are somewhat separated from the process by patent experts (in-house or through trade and industry associations), and the process continues blindly without any real input f

    • Reforming your patent laws might help this particular problem, but if you want a long term solution to this kind of crap then some more fundamental separation of private and public interests is in order. Campaign finance, political donations, and restrictions on the activities of lobby groups might be a good start...

      This will do nothing, because it treats the symptom and not the cause. If you want to keep business out of government - then first keep government out of peoples business. Then they will hav

    • I blame the ability of corporations to "sponser" Government members. How on Earth did a practise like that get started? Surely others can see it as buying your way into the Government and nothing more. A massive key to doors of corruption and greed.
      • The start was when it became legal to give "campaign donations". Everything else is a smooth expansion from there...

        But if you can't give and accept campaign donations, then only the very rich can run for office...

        The FCC used to require stations to make time available equally to all candidates. Now they just have to be willing to sell time to all the candidates. (And I'm not sure just how well that requirement is enforced, but all they need to do is charge enough, and then make the campaign donations
    • "The patent hijinks in the US in recent years seems to highlight the strong nexus between government and business in America."

      Nexus?

      It's a fsking orgy.

      And us?...

      We're the fsking lubricant, man... the fsking lubricant.

    • There was a conscious decision made in the executive branch. It was one of those subtle choices, that take awhile to show their importance, but which could be predicted ahead of time by those who bothered to think about it.

      To whit: Instead of patent clerks being evaluated on how well they did their job, the terms were shifted to evaluating them on how many patents they granted. (No penalites for subsequent patent reversals by the courts.)

      I think that this happened during Reagan's term in office, and th
    • European governments are notorious for subverting international law for the benefit of business. In fact, in Europe, governments own whole swaths of industry that are private in the US. German firms seeing rough times? Hey, sell chemical weapons to Libya. French weapons firms on the skids? Break the military embargo to Iraq. Need oil from Arabia? Bribe any dictator there who will sell it to you. (Europe gets the majority of its oil from the Gulf, whereas the US gets 16% from there.)

      I agree with your point

  • Sorry lost you (Score:5, Funny)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @10:08PM (#5657902)
    Slashdot and other news sites present high quality peer-reviewed commentary by involving large numbers of members of the web community in recommending and rating items.

    I was with them until this point.
    • No, it's just like peer review, because of course Slashdot moderators are authorities in a subject area relevant to the posts they moder.... oh wait, never mind.

  • It aint nuttin new (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This abuse of patent law is nothing new. I forget his name, but in the early days of automobiles, someone actually put a patent on the car. He forced everyone to pay royalties until a determined Henry Ford fought him in court and won. Oh yeah, just giving everyone notice, I am putting a patent on the process of breathing. You will all now have to pay me a royalty or stop breathing altogetherl
  • Info patents in The U.S. and Europe can Not patent haikus
  • the society that chooses to elevate thought to the level of ownership (and thus crime) will grow afraid to think. the proper place for thought is not collected in little jars, sedimented w/ the salt and mud of bygone praries now wasting and dessicated; instead, it's best to let the thought flow, harvested by a waterwheel or even a great dam, but in the end essentially unhindered, to the sea, so that in time the rains may come again.

    what to hold, what to let go,
    what to kill, what to let grow?
    and wha

  • How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @10:58PM (#5658165)

    People are putting too much faith in the patent system, and even worse is that they're assuming that patents are good for commerce, business, and free markets. IMHO, this is a bad road to go down, the problems of patents are well documented, and things will only get worse as society gets more advanced.

    • Re:How about an angle of "no patents" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bagheera ( 71311 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @11:22PM (#5658314) Homepage Journal
      Patents are, unfortunatly, not a cut and dried issue. As many have noted, there are companies who make a business model of "Get patent: Sue competitors: Profit" which is plainly an abuse of the intent. (Much as the current fiasco of copyright law is painfully UNLIKE the original intent, but I digress.)

      The original intent was to give an inventor time to get some return on their investment in an invention to help promote development. After some set period of time the patent would expire and others could benefit from the invention and manufacture it. Note: invention. They were implying some form of device. Not business model or one-click-shopping.

      Now, the patent system still has some benefits. The biotech industry is a good example, where the development costs are staggering and the times to market are long and arduous. It can take years to get a new drug approved, and by then the patent may nearly have expired.

      I'm glad the EU countries have a differnt take on it. Unfortunately, the US government is becoming notorious for not caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The "best method" is probably somewhere in the middle, but we'll never see it in the US as long as the business that bought the government still get their way.

      • The original intent was to give an inventor time to get some return on their investment in an invention to help promote development. After some set period of time the patent would expire and others could benefit from the invention and manufacture it. Note: invention. They were implying some form of device. Not business model or one-click-shopping.

        The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The simple fact is, that if you give the little guy the power to lock out the big guys, then you also can not

        • The biotech industry is the worst example as demonstrated by it's close cousin the pharmacutical industry - who litterally went to the papers and said that they had no incentive to develop a cure for AIDS unless they could effectively have the power to lock out millions of Africans dying from AIDS. IMHO, quite a price to maintain an artificial government granted monopoly. Even worse, is how the patent system has made it nearly impossible for research firms to cooperate and collaberate on finding a cure.

          Ne

          • Never said it was easy. The problem is there is no incentive for the companies to do the raw research to develop the anti-(insert disease here) drug if they'll never get a return on the investment...

            And perhaps Ford has no incentive to invest billions of dollars in safety research unless the govt can grant them a monopoly on making cars. - NO, I don't buy it. Sorry, but the world is full of lunatics and governments who have no incentive to do big public goods unless they have the power to impose their

            • And perhaps Ford has no incentive to invest billions of dollars in safety research unless the govt can grant them a monopoly on making cars. - NO, I don't buy it. Sorry, but the world is full of lunatics and governments who have no incentive to do big public goods unless they have the power to impose their crazy schemes on society to ensure it's worth it. Fine, if they believe in it that strongly than form a co-op and make it work for themselves within. If I have AIDS, I assure you, the thought that someone

              • You're losing me here. There was actually very little research into vehicle safety until the government started mandating vehicles become safer. Ford's incentive to do researc...

                Arrgh, Ford had nothing to do with it - just because someone claims a great incentive does not automatically give them the right to impose their will on every other part of society. This kind of attitude always leads to disaster.

                Basic economics says it's not worth developing a product of ANY form if there's no payout in the en

        • You are rigth. The biotech industry is the worst example where many companies just want to patent something and get paid royalties.
          BUT the pharmaceutical industry would simply not exist without patents. There would be not incentive whatsoever to spend 500 million dollars on a new drug if the following day someone can copy it and sell it for a tenth of the price.
          Even worse, is how the patent system has made it nearly impossible for research firms to cooperate and collaberate on finding a cure.
          What does t

      • I'm glad the EU countries have a differnt take on it. Unfortunately, the US government is becoming notorious for not caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The "best method" is probably somewhere in the middle, but we'll never see it in the US as long as the business that bought the government still get their way.

        Did it ever occur to you that this "best method" attitude is why the EU is becomming so irrelavent? Right or wrong, we should at least have the balls to consider things taken to their

    • Now that's a good point: if at all, patents should only be granted to a party which is involved in the actual application (ie making a usefull product) of that patent.

  • New patent administration method (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think removing the creator's ability to dictate use in general could solve a lot of the current problems with "intellectual property". The radio industry, oddly, is a good example in that any station can play any music without having to negotiate separately with each distributor. Instead, they pay a central collection organization based on how many times they play each song.

    I believe this would be a good model for patents etc, because it would remove not only the uncertainty relating to lawsuits but also
    • > Instead, they pay a central collection organization based on how many times they play each song.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that organization the RIAA? Who most /.ers hate because of the corruption and obsolescence?

  • whoops (Score:2)

    by Griim ( 8798 )
    I read that as "Information Pants in the US and Europe"

    Pants! What is the fastest land-based animal?

    Argh, maybe I should go back to coffee...

  • /.ers oppose software patents! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It seems that the majority of the /. crowd (including myself) opposes most modern US patent activity in general and software patents in particular. For me, this is strong evidence that the system is horribly broken.

    We, the /.ers, are the ones the patent system is supposed to protect. Innovators, with wildly creative ideas and the will to implement them. Small players, who cannot afford the tactics of large corporations for profiting from their innovations. Contributors to the greater technical and soc

  • Now that Bush and his henchmen have essentially told the rest of the world to f*ck off with regard to military and diplomatice endeavors, and chosen to invade Iraq unilaterally, perhaps the larger planetary community can return the favor in a manner that will make their displeasure truly felt?
    IE: by telling US big bidness and the USPTO to go bite the big one!
    • Humm...I don't get why people seem to think about "U.S. and the rest of the world" that often...it's not one big country (the U.S.) against another big country ("the rest of the world"), it's one country against many others.

      First of all we have seen, that many countries - not only in the Arab world - are economically dependent of the U.S. and others are not. In fact that's probably what made the echoes to the USUK-Alliance so inconsistent.

      Telling the U.S. to stick their patents where the sun don't shine w

  • The Stacker Case (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Carewolf ( 581105 )
    It's a great and lengthy article, but am I the only one who feels that they misrepresent the Microsoft vs Stac case?

    They first state it as a victory for patents, but didnt Stacker go bancrupt during the case, because of the violation by Microsoft?
    And Microsoft didnt break the negotiations and develop their own product infringing on a patent. They broke the negotiations and released code stolen from Stacker as their own.

    With this "poster" case punctured, can anyone come up with a case where a patent has pr
  • There is a strong Anti-Patent movement in Europe. The German based organsation FFII [ffii.org] is a very important player in the defence against lawyer interest groups. The EU wanted to introduce software patents back in 1999, the battle is still not over. Eurolinux alliance started an petition against Software patents [noepatents.org] with more than 140 000 signatures. Of course everybody shall try to talk to EU parliamentarians, esp. Arlene McCarthy(UK labour), Würmling (EVP) ecc. They have Email. European parliament: http://w [eu.int]
  • I would like to point out that most companies are not patenting everything possible so they can control the world. My company, a large well-known systems company has about 3000 patents (not IBM, who has 30,000). We have never actively sued someone for patent infrigment. Once we went after someone who sued us for another reason and we counter-sued with patents in hand. But 99% of the time we wait for a start-up or even a large company to come after us and then attend the meeting with 10-15 of our patents
  • The official report of the discussion is here [wipo.org]. The part in question starts on page 27.
  • incident where the US threatened to walk out of the WIPO meeting

    That is the bottom line for current american diplomatic efforts... not getting your way? drop out like a baby.

    this is ABSOLUTELY on-topic and relevant... how can the world "negotiate" with a nation that acts like this????
  • The thing is, patents are a good thing, it's abuse of the system - and its original intent - that is the problem.
    Those in power should realize how much of a problem this is, and do something to reform the poor patent system. If the US can't do it, then maybe another country can to set a good example. It's not the idea that's broken: it's the system, and perhaps those using it.
    Like anything of good intent, sometimes people need a stern punishment for abusing the process (people in this case being large cor

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Close