Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Your Rights Online

Creating A Global Patent System 172

Posted by timothy from the gotta-snatch-'em-up dept.
prostoalex writes "May issue of MIT Technology Review discussed the implications of a globalized patent system. For small inventors, it argues, the cost of globalizing the rights for their invention are just unbearable. For example, in Europe it costs about $7,000 per country to file a patent application. As an article bonus, some people might like to take a look at the list of the largest patent holders per industry in PDF format."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creating A Global Patent System More

Creating A Global Patent System

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YeeHaW_Jelte ( 451855 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:44AM (#5832235) Homepage
    With the States current attitude towards international law & agreements, I can't see any form of global patent law being created, except if the U.S. forces the rest of the world to agree with it in some economic or political way.

    • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)

      by tankdilla ( 652987 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:53AM (#5832264) Homepage Journal
      Whatever country doesn't agree to global patent law must have weapons of mass destruction and will face consequences.

    • Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kisak ( 524062 )

      except if the U.S. forces the rest of the world to agree with it in some economic or political way.

      The US does not have the power to to force any such thing on the world. Yes, the US has the most deadly military but most conflict cannot be solved with killing of a third world dictator.

      The only way to get such a international patent system would be through the UN and with diplomatic means. The Bush administration has shown itself to be less then adequate in diplomatic negotiation, thinking it can bri

      • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)

        by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @06:31AM (#5832712) Homepage
        Tell that to the major phamaceutical companies. US companies produce AIDs and cancer drugs at 30$ a day to the patient, and then Indian companies such as Cipla under cut them by making the same drugs for less than 1$ per day. Indian patent law states that drug patents only cover the production method, not the actual drug, so long as the Indian company figures out a new way of making it then its ok.

        But...

        If countries buy these generic drugs rather than the US equivalent they get threatened with trade sanctions. Its happened in Thailand, South Korea, Brazil, and many others. I doubt its a coincidence that Rumsfeld used to head up.. ooo.. a pharmaceutical company! There was a global treaty for cheap drugs put around by the WHO a little while ago. Every single country wanted to sign up... expect the USA, who veto'd it.

        America has too much power.
        • Correction:
          American corporations have too much power.

          The problem with the US is not that they have too much power, it is that the government is corrupted by private interests. Like you stated, Rumsfeld used to head a pharmaceutical company, and probably still recieves kickbacks. Thus his views are bias. If you remove the corporate interests from the equation, the US really aren't that bad. But yes, in its current form, the US is a pain in the ass.

          And surprise surprise, I'm an American. And yes, I actuall

    • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ratamacue ( 593855 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:04AM (#5832790)
      Exactly. At the root of the issue, patent law is arbitrary. It's a complex, largely ambiguous system of law created and implemented entirely by government -- not a simple, "natural" law that would be inherently understood by human society and would be respected (or even conceived) with or without government.

      What does this mean? In short, there is no possible way that every country -- let alone every human being in the world -- could agree to this concept of "intellectual property". Therefore, the implementation of intellectual property requires a major initiation of force, the very thing it proposes to protect us against. Not only is the concept of IP itself questionable (many, like myself, would oppose it outright), but the implementation could take any one of literally millions of different forms. Who's right and who's wrong? There is no answer, there will never be an answer, and there never could be an answer.

      Like any law or set of laws that can't be agreed upon nearly unanimously, somebody will be screwed over in a big way. This is exactly why I advocate limited government -- beyond the core function of government (which is to protect the people against the initiation of force), every law is arbitrary to some degree, and necessarily screws over somebody at the expense of somebody else. IP does exactly that.
      • I agree that intellectual property is not uniformly conceived of by all, and so I agree with what I believe is the spirit of what you are saying. A few details:

        In short, there is no possible way that every country -- let alone every human being in the world -- could [uncoercedly] agree to this concept of "intellectual property".

        The agreement of every human is not necessary. The agreement of the countries (their governments) would be sufficient, if achievable.

        Therefore, the implementation of intelle

        • The agreement of the countries (their governments) would be sufficient, if achievable.

          I disagree completely. The people are not the government, and the government is not the people. The people are unique individuals who do not hold the power to initiate force; the government is a collection of individuals who do hold the power to initiate force.

          Do you endorse 100% of what your government does? 75%? 50%? If it's any less than 100%, then you, like every individual, are being screwed over for the benefit o

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skermit ( 451840 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:45AM (#5832239) Homepage
    I've read a couple articles on patents and where they're going in the past two weeks. One takes a look at all the patents given in the US that don't and can NEVER be produced because they are physically impossible. The second article dealt with how the US government is INCREASING costs for patent filings because there's too much of a backlog as is, and they need more of an incentive to process current patents and to, wait for it..., DISCOURAGE new patents. *sigh*
    • One takes a look at all the patents given in the US that don't and can NEVER be produced because they are physically impossible.

      It's not the job of the patent office to determine whether the invention actually works, or can even be constructed.

      It's the job of the patent office to certify that, within the results of a reasonable search, what you registered is not already registered.

      This certification is a time-limited "license to sue" anyone else who does the same thing the same way - and a presumption t
      • I was always under the impression that patents were for inventions and not ideas (minus this crap about software patents).
        • I was always under the impression that patents were for inventions and not ideas

          That's right.

          [...] (minus this crap about software patents).

          Software is only patentable when it is an "invention". For a long time it wasn't patentable at all. If I recall correctly, the logjam broke when somebody snuck one through by describing a hardware device to do the same computation, then griped about it in court. And another patented an invention that included a software-driven component.

          IMHO a piece of softwar
      • Well. What if you write some vague description of a computer program or some device, but can't figure out how to make it work with all the details in it? That's where the problem comes in. They should require working models of the patented products (in the case of software: working source code if there really must be software patents)) so that you're sure that the person patenting the invention has done the real work of inventing something. Heck, by the logic of not having to have working models, you should
        • What if you write some vague description of a computer program or some device, but can't figure out how to make it work with all the details in it? That's where the problem comes in.

          Indeed. But part of the requirements that the patent examiner is checking is that the description is adequate for "someone expert in the art" to "perform the invention". Sometimes it's complicated enough, or enough beyond the examiner's expertese, that the examiner (who has limited time) lets it go through even if it really

  • $7000 per European country.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:46AM (#5832242)
    Yes, the European Patent Office does not exist. Go away [european-p...office.org] now!

    • No it's not $7000 per country.. It's $7000 more per country. When you calculate (app fee is $78K + $200K legal fee), the average is about $12K. So, it implies that his total patent cost in the US is about $5K.

    • Whilst there is a European patent office companies often put a patent application in with each of the individual patent offices. They do this because if you put it in with the euro patent office and it is rejected - then it will be rejected all over Europe, however if you put it in to the UK office and it gets rejected you still have a chance in Germany or France.

    • Re:$7000 per European country.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by kogs ( 221412 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @04:52AM (#5832526)

      OK here are some real numbers for a US-originating European patent application with 20 pages of text and 20 claims (somewhat on the low side when compared with US practice but multiple dependencies are positively encouraged in Europe not penalised as in the USPTO)

      Filing: $2200
      Examination: $1800
      Designation fees* (all states): $800
      Dealing with objections by Examiner: $4000
      Maintenance fees (say): $2000
      Grant and validation:

      • United Kingdom: $300
      • Austria: $1700
      • Belgium: $900
      • Cyprus: $1700
      • Denmark: $3600
      • Finland: $3300
      • France: $2300
      • Germany: $2500
      • Greece: $2250
      • Ireland: $700
      • Italy: $2100
      • Latvia: $1600
      • Lithuania: $2100
      • Luxembourg: $700
      • Monaco: $750
      • Netherlands: $2300
      • Portugal: $2700
      • Romania: $1500
      • Slovenia: $2000
      • Spain: $2000
      • Sweden: $3800
      • Switzerland: $1000
      • Turkey: $1900
      Sub-Total: $43,700
      Official Grant + Printing Fees: $1500
      Grand Total: $56,000 (plus US patent attorney's time and mark up.

      Most of the validation costs are for translations and some countries appear low because they share a language with another country, e.g. French is used in France, Switzerland and Belgium

      If you are not a pharmaceutical company, you would probably be looking for patents in the UK, France, Germany and perhaps Scandinavian countries, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Assuming the UK, France and Germany would give a cost per country of about $5200 per country.

      * seven buys all states

  • I think this could be a good and bad thing, What if they had a 7,000.00 fee for people to file their global trademark or patent, or whatever copyrighted material. It could be good for some products but bad for others. Because then you would have cyber squatters who decided to "register" their trademarks in bulk.. and then the people say linux.xxx, would be come a porn site...and what would happen to people who had already had copyrighted material? would that material then become void?? eh just a thought.

  • No thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:47AM (#5832247)
    No thanks!

    Some countries still have a respectible Patent System in place. Why would they want to be polluted with some (many) of the ridiculous Patents granted in the USA.

  • Only global patents make sense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eric Ass Raymond ( 662593 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:49AM (#5832253) Journal
    What is the point of patenting something if the patent is not global?

    Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.

    • Do remember that NONE the patents so far have been really GLOBAL !

    • Re:Only global patents make sense (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sure, but they won't be able to sell in the market where you have your patent. That's what you're protecting, not the ability to manufacture, but the right to sell.

    • Yes, you might think that it makes sense. But when a patent is to be granted, there must be no prior art. Therefore a global patent requires a global research for prior art. Consider the current quality of patents granted, how many are bogus. Consider the cost of researching for the admissability of a patent. Now would you want to reexamine ALL patents world wide or would you prefer the status quo? Thanks, Gerard
      • Prior art is already considered globally -- everywhere except the US. You can't patent an invention in the UK if it's already been invented somewhere else, for example. But you can patent it in the US even if it's in use in every other country in the world.

        Consider what that means. Suppose I patent something in Japan, for example. When a patent is issued, the details of the patent are made public. That means that someone else could take my Japanese patent and use it as a basis for their own US patent. I th

    • Re:Only global patents make sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tanveer1979 ( 530624 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @05:00AM (#5832542) Homepage Journal
      Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.

      American companies have been patenting commonly grown stuff and known medicines in poor eastern countries. If global patents were in place then lots of people will lose their right to practice something which their forefathers have done since ages.

      What stops an american corporate to patent a traditional chinese or indian mixture of herbs as its own creation. Most small scale industries now dont have the idea that they are violating patent.

      Such stuff has happened before.
      Examples
      Texamati : A variety of rice which is same as basmati which has been grown in india since more than 300 years
      Neem extracts : Historical texts have explained the usage since 2000BC
      Tulsi : Patent pending, used as a releif from flu and common cold since thousands of years.

      No thanks we dont want american patents to be slapped on us, unless the American patent office takes full responsibility for any bogus patents filed and gives compensation. Neem patent was defeated after Indian Govt intervention, and even after presenting the office with historical docs, it took more than a year.

      • Very very valid points. The point here is, we are not even talking about industry here; for instance, my grandmom, grows the tulasi plant for medicinal and religious reasons. Now, why should she pay, what in effect will be, tax to an (American) corporation, for what she's been doing for the last seventy years or so?

    • Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.

      ...and they will not be able to sell it in the country where your patent was granted, thet's the point.

      Perhaps you want to do the exploitation yourself? Or perhaps it is that a (*yuck*) independent country is doing it. No one is forced to respect *your* monopolies...

  • Why did we divide the world into three parts? Third World countries seem to be creating big headaches for the other two.

    Now, we have politically correct phrases like "Developing Countries" etc. Centuries old Third World ideas / patents are not honored by so-called Advanced Nations.

    The tech world has got the greatest lopsidedness in it's structure - Third World folks sitting in the First World and taking their creamy jobs.

    Knowledge is Power. If you have the Power to assert it.
  • It's called the USPTO.

    At least, that's what it seems like with all the cross-border lawsuits.

  • $7,000 may be expensive, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:53AM (#5832267)
    ... surely you would only patent something you thought would reap you many times that amount.

    And the price barrier to getting a patent (versus the plain old bureaucratic barriers) discourages companies / people from patenting silly things, where a patent would be a nuisance to the rest of society.

    • Re:$7,000 may be expensive, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by windows ( 452268 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:29AM (#5832353)
      The solution isn't to make it difficult to patent stupid things by making the price prohibitively high. The solution is for the patent offices to do their homework and actually review prior patents, get a clue as to what they're granting patents to, and make better attempts to verify that there isn't prior art out there already. Raising the price of the patents doesn't screw over the large companies. To them, $7,000 is a drop in the bucket. It hurts the small companies and independent inventors that don't have the money just sitting around. If the patent system were globalized and one large patent office replaced the ones for every country, and each country helped fund it, it might be possible to have a reasonable price and still be able to have the money for the office to do their homework and check up on things before granting patents.
      • Unwarranted patents also hurt consumers. Don't forget that. If the patent is wide, there is little incentive in improving radically until the patent expires. That is certainly not in the best interest of the consumer.

  • There is a European Patent Office you know... (Score:4, Informative)

    by pwagland ( 472537 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:54AM (#5832269) Journal
    For small inventors, it argues, the cost of globalizing the rights for their invention are just unbearable. For example, in Europe it costs about $7,000 per country to file a patent application.
    The EPO, when it grants a patent, grants a patent to cover all of the EU. I don't know what the costs are, but I am fairly certain that it is less than $84,000...

  • how long before... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kircle ( 564389 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:56AM (#5832274)
    How long before someone tries to patent the Global Patent System?

  • Wonderful... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wrexs0ul ( 515885 ) <mmeier&racknine,com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:56AM (#5832276) Homepage
    I can imagine the United States trying to implement a global patent office, only to be sued for infringing on someone's patent covering global access systems to public information. ...I bet it's already been issued somewhere, waiting for the day it can bite the hand that feeds it.

    -Matt

  • A Global Patent System Is Cool (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MoThugz ( 560556 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:57AM (#5832280) Homepage
    ... and all, but the problem is not with the system itself, but means to enforce the rights of the patent holder.

    eg. Let's say someone from Ghana created some cool gadget which has no predecessors or anything even remotely similar already available in the market. How soon would someone from the US inventing a similar gadget would know that there is already such thing patented a few days ago?

    Another scenario, assuming that local authorities are given the power to enforce this global patent protection law... would they be able to do it without bias? I mean if someone could build a pet robot dog that is just as intelligent and fun as the Aibo but is priced at 50% of the original Aibo, would the local authorities feel obliged to arrest this guy for patent infringement?

    And while we're at the subject of infringement, who decides whether an infringement has occured? And where will these records be stored? This might be one of the most massive database ever created (if this is feasible in the first place)!

  • Intellectual property needs broken down (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CrazyJim0 ( 324487 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:58AM (#5832282)
    Theres several categories of intellectual property.

    If someone owns the rights to a song, are you allowed to:

    Re-Record it
    Sing it
    Say the title in public
    Play it in public
    Parody it
    ?

    What if someone designs a part to allow flying cars steer? We don't have flying cars yet... But when we do, should we bow down to the inventor of the steering wheel even though anyone could create one. Oh lord almighty who walks on the earth, we must bow to thee because you wrote some dumb fucking thing on a piece of paper and sent it to the patent office.

    With all the confusion with current patents, and only big corporations having enough to buy expensive lawyers... Maybe a working system should be thought up before applying it to the world.

    Heres how the system currently works. Thousands of little buisnesses try. 90% of them fail. 9% eek out a living. 1% hit it big. A corporation sees the guy who hits it big with a good idea, and steals it for their own.

  • WIPO (Score:5, Informative)

    by millwall ( 622730 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @02:59AM (#5832286)
    There is a Swiss based organisation called World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) [wipo.org] with 179 member states promoting worldwide patents.

    From the Website:

    The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to helping to ensure that the rights of creators and owners of intellectual property are protected worldwide and that inventors and authors are, thus, recognized and rewarded for their ingenuity.

    • In other news: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There is discussion about the possibility of a world-wide standard set of measurements that uses decimal conversions between units. (The USA has filed for a patent to this invention, but would be happy to extend the invention to other countries, even France.)

      "Too long has the world been forced to multiply strange numbers in their heads when converting between feet and miles," said a US spokesperson, "This new system allows them to multiply by 1000, and we believe the world would be a better place should t

  • Send in the tanks, then Hillary Rosen (Score:4, Informative)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:03AM (#5832295)
    Guess who Bush sent into Iraq to help "modernise" its IP laws after the invasion? Good old Hillary Rosen.

    That's how you get a world-wide IP system: tanks and bloodsuckers. Your country could be next...

    TWW

  • How about a reversal? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rande ( 255599 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:24AM (#5832341) Homepage
    How about the Patent Office gets money for every patent denied?

    This will stop a lot of frivilous patents and only the really and assuredly original works will get through.

  • It ain't so easy at all.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr Europe ( 657225 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:25AM (#5832344)
    The problem is real but there are severe diffulties on the road to global patents.
    1. Many developing countries have no interest in commiting to such international agreements. They see the cheap labour their only weapon to get to the international market. And they cannot afford much research.
    2. The consept of patent varies a lot. As a well known example many ideas patented in US could never get a patent in Europe.
    3. Many countries are trying to protect their own industry and reluctant to accept unbiased treatment of foreign and own patents. That the real world situation. And I'm now talking about the "civililized"/rich countries with many international contracts.

  • Ideas (Score:2)

    by rf0 ( 159958 )
    I would love to be able to pantent something. Unfortunatly all my ideas such suck. I mean who would ever need things like a solar powered torch? No actually wait thats a good idea. Damn its already [rainbowtradingpost.co.uk] been done.

    rus

  • Patent issues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:27AM (#5832350) Journal
    The cost of filing in several different countries is largely irrelevent to a small inventor. The income from one country alone could often result in a significant return on investment. There are other issues though:

    1. The cost of filing in one country. Most inventions are failures. $7000 just for one country is a lot of money to invest in a product that the world just isn't ready for. With careful budgetting, this could support the inventor for another few months, allowing for him to perfect his invention

    2. Timeframes. 20 years is far too long. Nothing that's 20 years old could ever be considered at all modern. Most cars last about 10 years. Computers are out of date in about 3. Even industrial equipment is usually outdated much more quickly than that. If something has not returned the investment cost within 5 years, just about any organisation would consider it a failure.

    3. Lack of protection for independent inventors. It's actually very likely that several people will come up with the same idea at the same time. - for example, Bell beat Edison and others to the invention of the telephone by a short time - Shouldn't others be entitled to actually finish their invention without being charged with breaching a patent that hadn't been granted when they started?

    • Re:Patent issues (Score:2, Insightful)

      by A Life in Hell ( 6303 )
      "Timeframes. 20 years is far too long. Nothing that's 20 years old could ever be considered at all modern."

      The thing is, that's actully completly not true - the whole point of patents are to protect things that are completly revolutionary. A good example of this, is we're still using RSA public key crypto, who's patent expired a couple of years ago. Public key crypto is still clearly modern, 20+ years later. There are many other examples of this.

      Yes, many things go out of style quickly, but then, man

    • ...for example, Bell beat Edison and others to the invention of the telephone by a short time...

      Great choice for an example: Bell wasn't the first [popular-science.net] to invent the telephone, and the case ended up in court. [alecbell.org]

      • Thanks for the link. This bit: "although he was too poor to protect his inventions with a patent (this would have costed him $250, that he did not have)". makes it seem very relevent. Patent costs arte just the first step. Defending your patent costs considerably more.
    • Here's another interesting issue for small-time inventors: taxes!

      A friend of mine patented an interesting improvement to some method of industrial production, which he hoped to sell to other companies. The next year, he (or rather: his company) received the estimate for that year's tax from the tax office (which you will have to pay up front!). In the statement was a sizable amount listed, with an explanation: 'Your patent #123 will by our estimates generate x euro's in revenue in Holland. Your patent
  • With patents being more expensive, the public (ie the people patents were meant to protect) will not be able to afford them. You also have the 'small' problem of organizing it.

  • And while we're at it. . . (Score:3)

    by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:35AM (#5832370) Journal
    Let's make the global standard for patents five years non-extendable and let's put copyrights around ten years.
    Oh, and how about penlties for obfuscatd patent applications since the goal is to increase the knowledge in the public domain. That is the goal, right?
  • As much fun as it is to try and crane my neck to the left so as to read a PDF file that has been posted sideways, I'll just go on and assume that the list shwos some huge modern corporation, or some part of the American Military Installation (possibly, even the United States Military itself).

    Want to patent something? Patent PDF files that don't suck!
  • 3,000 Patents!!!!! I guess I better not invent anything.

  • Patents do help (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @04:03AM (#5832434) Homepage
    Patents do help drive some technology but only when they are low cost (how much did Edison pay for his early patents?) and the patent office does check for prior art. Unless the a patent office has a better database than google, they simply can't do their job.

  • He was robbed! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @04:05AM (#5832436)
    His lawyers advised him badly. I work as a patent attorney for a major automotive systems company and their plan is to patent only in US, UK, France, Germany and Japan.

    Their competitors can knock off as many copies as they like in third world countries like Ghana, Cambodia or Belgium, but if they can't import them into the major markets then it is pointless.

    Always focus your patents on the countries you will sell in, and use them to block imports from elsewhere.
  • Firstly IBM tops the league by miles. SCO on the other hand do not even register, which given the recent news suggests SCO are on a hiding to nothing(or just a hiding).

    Secondly Ericsson tops the telco's league. Considering they seem to still be losing money faster than, well actually I can't think of anyhing that is losing money faster than Ericsson, it goes to show bucket loads of patents is not a guaruntee of success. You still have to do something sensible with them.
  • Such a system would be fine but if, it'd also offer for a minimal (or better : null) fee the possibility to "unpatent" inventions, in order to publish some invention in the public domain, it'd be a GOOD idea.

  • WIPO (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    uhm doesn't the World Intellectual Property Organization essentially fill this role?

    WIPO

    http://www.wipo.org

  • Total cost for Euro patent (Score:3, Informative)

    by LucVdB ( 64664 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @04:44AM (#5832512) Homepage
    According to the European Patent Office [european-p...office.org], it comes to about EUR 29800, or over US$ 32700. I'd better start saving.

  • MIT (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    MIT has soooo much to gain by this patent system.

    "The small inventor", Ya sure...

    MIT has one of the hugest patent portfolios.

    Anyone who tries to do some innovating in an MIT field is gonna end up oweing them cash.

  • World Feudalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rknop ( 240417 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @05:45AM (#5832612) Homepage

    We're not heading towards World Democracy or even World Communism, but World Feudalism. It is rapidly getting to the point that if you want to invent or create something, you will need to do so under the aegis of a large corporation. You will need the legal and financial backing of a large corporation (your feudal lord) to protect you (with their own patent portfolio) if you want to create anything-- otherwise, one of the other fedual lords will quash you, and you won't be big enough to defend yourself. In exchange, you will show fealty to your corporate feudal lord by signing over any rights to anything you create, hopefully being reasonably well paid in the process.

    Most people may be relatively comfortable, or at least fed, but the individualist creator simply won't be able to exist. (And, alas, nobody will think there's anything wrong with this. Most of the world doesn't really care about freedom of thought. Once they're fed and comfortable, people seem to care care more about bread and circuses (or SUVs and HDTVs) than actual liberty.)

    Yes, global intellectual property concerns are making the world safe for medieval forms of government and social organization.

    -Rob

    • Re:World Feudalism (Score:3, Interesting)

      by axxackall ( 579006 )
      There are feudal lords (in fact the hierarchy of them) and there is monarch king. Lords are headquaters of international corporations as well as goverment cabinets of various countries, the king is the US administration (whatever is current).

      The law is as it always was:

      • whoever is closer to the top has more power and thus more freedom to do whatever he wants;
      • whoever is unhappy with the current position must be smart enough to kill (damage) someone higher him to erase the place and to get it;

      Lords alwa

  • Not a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jeppe Salvesen ( 101622 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @05:58AM (#5832648)
    Such a system would be a disaster for tinkerers and smaller, specialized companies. Frankly, patents should be harder to obtain but quite cheap. That way, we'll get more innovation.
  • Economically it is not a good idea for a developing country to institute patents. This seriously hinders progress. As it already does this in counties like the U.S. it is even worse for those countries not at any level to compete. Imagine what the U.S. and other countries seem like to these little guys. It would seem that they just see everyone is trying to steal from them. Plus, I've said it once and I'll say it many times again, before it finally goes away: Patents are one of mans worst ideas which

  • so, instead... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @06:54AM (#5832762)
    Right now, the cost of international patent filings is pretty much the only reason why many patented inventions are still available in source form somewhere--$7000/country/patent plus lawyer fees even matters to corporations.

    If companies can just file patents world-wide, it means that source code implementing something patented will probably become unavailable world-wide. This matters even if people don't intend to violate the patent--a lot of open source implementations of patented inventions take place in countries where the invention isn't patented, and as soon as the patent expires, those implementations are available world-wide.

    As far as the "small inventor" is concerned, with few exceptions, the patent system stopped working somewhere in the 20th century anyway. Even if you manage to get a patent these days as a small inventor, chances are that whoever has more expensive lawyers and better patent bargaining chips will win, and that won't be the small inventor. All we are discussing when discussing changes to the patent system is how much we want to let ourselves get screwed.

  • Patent costs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by canpat ( 669322 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @06:56AM (#5832771)
    I have been working in the patent field for a few years and I feel bad for the inventor mentioned in the article. There are ways that the costs can be structured to avoid the cash crunch he experienced. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT, which is administered by WIPO) now operates to allow an inventor up to 30 months from filing in their first jurisdiction to decide whether to file in other PCT member nations. Most of the world is part of the PCT (with the exception of much of the Arab world, some of South America, and Taiwan). The PCT process is an application which is subject to a prior art search, like any other patent office, and to an optional examination. Therefore, a current inventor faces the following costs (approximately): Day 0 $7000 for preparing and filing in the US Month 12 File a PCT application (charges about $4000); File in non-PCT countries Month 14 $3000 in legal fees for examination process in US Month 30 File in other PCT countries ($$$$$$) While the costs at Month 30 are huge, as mentioned in the article, the inventor has hopefully been marketing his invention since Day 0. By Month 30, the inventor can decide whether the invention is marketable and to what extent. Depending on his cash flow at that point, he can decide how much he has to spend on getting patent protection around the world. One of the big costs to filing in other countries is the translation costs. Japanese translation costs can hit $7,000, as much as to draft and file the patent. Therefore, you can also target a few major languages such as French, Spanish, German etc. Many countries will accept a patent translation in one of these languages and thus you keep your costs to a minimum. As far as the debate about which countries to file in goes, producers vs. consumers, the answer is "yes". With limited funding, generally you would patent in major consumer countries, because their legal systems are generally more patent friendly. With more funds, you would then start to target producer countries. The reason is that it may be easier to stop one producer than dozens of distributors. However, much of this decision rests with the type of product and the nature of the industry. Remember when we're feeling sorry for an individual inventor (and I work with with many of them) that a patent is an asset and that the cost of assets are part of the startup costs of any business. Most small businesses fail just as most inventions fail. The main reason that inventions fail is not in the patent system, but in the marketing. Just a thought to keep in mind.

  • I've just been granted a patent on reading between the lines. Everyone must now take every Slashdot article and posting at their literal value only. Failing to do so may incur patent suits. Also it is forbidden to try and find hidden meanings and sarcasm in this post as doing so would clearly infringe on said patent.

    Note that creating a mechanism that circumvents the above is a clear breach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

  • 1) Don't the latest WTO accords force menmbers to recognize and respect each other's patents? The US had to slightly change their patent laws, the rest of the world had to change their own laws as well (More so than the US did). We already have this "global patent system."

    2) Why should getting patents be cheap? Yes, patents should be expensive, and if anything, much more well-researched before being granted.

    I'm much more afraid of patents being too cheap than too expensive.

  • ...towards U.S. global domination. As a U.S. citizen I'm firmly opposed to any national attempts to build empire, whether it be militarily or economically. I hope this thing falls flat on its face, and that many developing countries out there take the things that have been given ridiculous patents in the U.S., 'steal' them, and then turn a nice fat profit off of them.

    Perhaps then my people will see that they aren't capable of imposing a world-wide dictatorship and will just give up on this insanity altog
  • Patents define things which only the filer of the patent is allowed to do.
    This power to deny comes from the goverment that grants the patent.
    Doesn't that mean the government claims ownership of all ideas,
    even the ones that haven't been thought of yet?

    -- this is not a .sig

  • MIT Technology seems to come with the attitude that whatever is good for (big) business is good. No further justifier like "for the country" is needed.

    They cover many topics quite well, but their pro-business is so grating that I'm not planning on renewing my subscription. Even at times when they attempt to promote small businesses, their idea of a small business is one with a 200-300 employees, and planning on how it can go public. And their focus is not noticably on the good of any people except in th
  • The main purpose of patents is to promote the creation of inventions, not to guarantee profit for the inventors. Any reward to the inventor is just a means to an end.

    If the patent from your own country was sufficient to urge you to create the invention, you need no further incentive -- it has already been created.

    The only question is whether there are uncreated inventions lurking out there that would be created if and only if global patents exist. I doubt there are a sufficient number of those to justif

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Close