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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents

More Calls for Patent Reform 348

ibi writes "On the heels of the PriceWaterHouseCoopers report about the threat of SoftPats to innovation, comes a book by a Harvard B School and Brandeis economics professor about how broken the patent system is in general. In short their book argues that the entire system is a (stunned silence) scam. (They actually call it 'a creator of litigation and uncertainty that threatens the innovation process itself' instead but that's cause you don't get tenure for using words like 'scam'.) Interesting to see that its gotten so bad that a professor of Investment Banking at Harvard even thinks something oughta be done."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Calls for Patent Reform

Comments Filter:
  • Progress (Score:5, Insightful)

    by keiferb ( 267153 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:59AM (#10373065) Homepage
    People like this are exactly who need to get involved for things to take a positive turn. Technical folks can bitch and moan all we want, but until the non-techincal start to understand, no, care about, the implications, things just plain won't change.
    • Re:Progress (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:01AM (#10373080)
      but until the non-techincal start to understand, no, care about, the implications, things just plain won't change.

      More importantly, the financial folk from respected institutions.
      • More importantly, the financial folk from respected institutions.

        Most importantly: the people with Lots Of Money who own Big Businesses who actually run the US and have no intention of letting go of their patent cash cows.
        • Re:Progress (Score:2, Interesting)

          by bentcd ( 690786 )
          It shall be very interesting to see how many
          custom-built single-patent companies start popping
          up in order to cash in on a patent while shielding
          the mother organisation from retaliation suits.
          If this really starts taking off, then even large
          patent-holders might start rethinking their
          position. A patent portfolio will no longer be
          the suit of armour it used to be.
          • how many custom-built single-patent companies start popping up in order to cash in on a patent while shielding the mother organisation from retaliation suits.

            What do you mean by retaliation suits? Even if the company is legally separate from the parent, and no direct action can be taken, if it is clear that X Corp. are behind 'Baby x', and 'Baby x' takes action against Y Inc., then Y Inc. will use *its* patents against X Corp- directly or indirectly.

            (Disclaimer: IANAL; I am an ignorant Slashdot reader,
          • Re:Progress (Score:5, Insightful)

            by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:46AM (#10374917)
            It's not the patent stack that should be the asset of a businness. It should be the applications of those patents in products and services combined with support in a way that would make a company in front of others despite not holding the patent single handedly.

            Companies shouldn't just live on a successfull product based on some patents on which they cash in from other companies as well, economical growth and revenue increase should be formented by innovation in products, technologies and services and in the quality they provide them.

            And this is just the very tip of the iceberg.

    • Re:Progress (Score:2, Interesting)

      by samtihen ( 798412 )
      Well, that is only partially true. The technical people do have power to change things, it just takes time. That is to be expected though; when was the last time you saw public policy changed very quickly (outside of the patriot act)?

      In fact, the technical people are probably the only ones who will change things. I strongly doubt that the average Joe on the street will ever care about patent law. I mean, that is unreasonable to expect from today's public.
    • Re:Progress (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ipgeek ( 551180 )

      I'm afraid that there have been many economists for many years now who have called for a complete overhaul of the patent system. Many famous economists have been quick to point out the very tenous relationship between a patent incentive system and innovation.

      The difficulty is getting *non-economists*, i.e. lawyers and the public, interested enough to consider the implications if the patent system is broken.

      Hmm, and I am a little worried about some of the statements in this article. These particular ec

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:59AM (#10373067)
    Wealth creation and true creation are two completely separate things. Creators, in the inventor sense, need to protect themselves from others who would take their ideas without recompensating the creators for the time and effort involved in the invention process.

    Investment bankers know how to carve up a company into itty-bitty pieces, charge a fee for that, then move on to dooming the next bright-eyed startup company with two contracts to rub together.

    So you are getting the opinion of a destroyer of wealth on how and why to dismantle the mechanism of protecting creators of wealth.

    I understand we all hate patents and don't believe in IP, but this is just about the worst you can do in getting a spokesman.

    Dancin Santa
    • You need to go see Other People's Money. [imdb.com] Otherwise you will be forever doomed to not understand why a company might be more valuable to society if split up.
      -russ
    • by julesh ( 229690 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:03AM (#10373105)
      You have a strange idea of investment bankers. Where I come from, they are generally people who invest their bank's money, usually in a business they foresee as being profitable. Asset stripping is not usually part of the process.
      • Uh no. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Investment bankers typically help perform valuations on private companies wishing to go public. They underwrite the company and sell shares back to the owners of the company. Then with the remaining shares, the company is taken public on one of the many stock exchanges.

        What you are talking about are fund managers and loan officers. They are the ones who work at the bank and invest the bank's money. Investment bankers, for the most part, work at brokerage houses and do work far removed from what their t
    • Have software patents. However, make them good for only 5 years from the date of filing and on a first come first serve basis.

      Entire fields of technology come and go in 5 years time, so that seems like more than enough time to "profit" from a patent. Also, it reduces the incentive for filing patents for "ideas" that allow a lock on said "idea" with no intent of using said idea. If the "idea" is suitably ahead of its time, well, then you could attempt to hold off on filing it...then again, mere ideas aren't

  • by a_nonamiss ( 743253 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:02AM (#10373093)
    This comes across as more of a litigation problem, not really a patent problem. If I invent something, I don't think it's out of like for me to expect to be compensated for it. The problem is, there are too many damn lawyers. We are a litigious society, and that's really the root of the problem here. Why else would there be a warning on the Windex bottle warning me not to spray it in my eyes?

    • by julesh ( 229690 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:08AM (#10373135)
      Why else would there be a warning on the Windex bottle warning me not to spray it in my eyes?

      Actually, I see that more as a problem with the legal system, not the lawyers. The lawyers are just doing their job, but the courts are coming up with the wrong answers, trying to protect people too much. You ought to be able to assume anything common sense... like the fact that cleaning fluids and sensitive body parts don't mix well. Just mark the bottle with the word "irritant" and assume everyone knows what that means.

      • Why is this warning a 'problem'? If you already know not to spray it in your eyes, than ignore it. If you want to spray it in your eyes despite knowing that it's dangerous, then do the same. Just be aware that you, and not the company involved, will be held liable.
      • Lawyers become politicians and go on to make laws which benefit who? The lawyers. Looks like a vicious cycle to me in which we get more laws, more lawyers, and more politicians - three of my least favorite things.
    • This comes across as more of a litigation problem, not really a patent problem.

      Did you see the word "trial" and "judge" and get lost?

      Yes, it's a law problem; a patent law problem. Patent law is a subset of law. Law determines litigation. So you're right, but only in the most vacuous way. If you read the aritcle, you'll see that they point to two changes in patent law (how easy it is to get patents and what sort of patent cases are heard by judges vs. heard by juries) that have led to the current patent

      • You know, if you really want to expose the root of the problem, it's not a problem with the law, lawyers judges or juries. That's just blaming the real problem on the people paid to enforce the status quo. The real problem is unscrupulous people that value money over ethics. Companies that want to get money for something that they did not create. And if one company does it, another says "look, they did it, so that means I should do it." People in this society don't think for themselves, and unfortunately we
        • 4. Make every effort to contribute to society in a positive way. (Don't be stupid, you know the difference between right and wrong.)

          You want that to be a law? What have you contributed today? What penalty are you prepared to accept if others think your contribution was negative?

          5. Above all, treat other people how you would want to be treated.

          Hang on, is this "law 0" (i.e. "above all") or "law 5"?

          If you're going to stick the golden rule in some people would argue you don't need the rest.

          Goo

    • by Anonymous Coward
      My significant other works at the USPTO, and here is my view of part of what is wrong....most of the burden for creating a proper patent should be on the applicant, not the examiner!

      Lawyers prosecuting patent applications basically lie and cheat to try and get the broadest patent possible...causing undue burden on the system.

      There is already rules about lawyers basically cheating, but no one enforces them...and they try to take advantage of examiners by writing obviousely too broad claims to get more than
    • Might is *possibly* be because some people are stupid enough to actually *spray* windex in their eyes?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This may be obvious, but it seems Linux provides the best case study for considering the argument that patents are required for innovation.
    • by julesh ( 229690 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:10AM (#10373164)
      I don't think it does. Linux is not particularly innovative. Almost all of its features were previously included in another operating system. I can't think of a single thing it does that ought to be eligible for a patent, even in a world where software can be patented.
      • I can't think of a single thing it does that ought to be eligible for a patent, even in a world where software can be patented.

        Nevertheless, if somebody were so inclined, they could probably get the USPTO to grant them hundreds of patents covering what Linux does. The prerequisite of novelty is not being enforced because the patent office doesn't do effective prior art searches, and the patent holder is not held accountable if their patent claims are later found to be invalid.

      • I concur. It seems the grandparent put in the keywords "Linux" and "best" and acheived the expected return...

        Anyway. What Linux DOES show is that really great and usefull things can come out when information is shared; which is nominally what the whole IP system was suppose to be for, you get a LIMITED time monopoly as an incentive, in exchange for the world getting to know and share and improve on your work in the future. Something like Linux is what we hope to happen in any environment after the pate

      • "Linux is not particularly innovative"

        By your definition, there have been no innovative operating systems in perhaps 40 years.

      • WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DarkMan ( 32280 )
        • Open Mosix [sourceforge.net] Transparent process migration, intended for clustering.
        • UML [sourceforge.net] Self hosted virtual machines.
        • Adeos [opersys.com] Nanokernel.
        • RTLinux [fsmlabs.com] Realtime microkernel/macrokernel work. Hell, it _is_ patented.
        • ReiserFS [fsmlabs.com] Filesystem based on dancing trees, with a plugin archtecture.
        • ZisoFS [freshmeat.net] Transparant handling of compressed ISO9660 filesystems.
        • Seperate LLC stack. Logical Link Control is handled by a single stack, rather than embeded into underlying protocols.
        • InterMezzo [inter-mezzo.org] Distributed filesystem, with network interrupt tr
  • logic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by period3 ( 94751 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:05AM (#10373119)

    Interesting to see that its gotten so bad that a professor of Investment Banking at Harvard even thinks something oughta be done."


    I don't follow - wouldn't a professor of investment banking at harvard be among the first people to realize that something oughta be done?
  • The Law Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Titusdot Groan ( 468949 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:08AM (#10373142) Journal
    The legal system which has always been somewhat parasitic, has now reached the point where it is killing the host. The amount of effort the legal system consumes is reaching an unviable level.

    Schools have to tear down playgrounds because of fears of lawsuits. My kids can't go on field trips without a 4 page medical release. My kids can't attend GYM CLASS without a waiver where we acknowledge that gym includes strenous physical activity.

    OB GYNs can't sneeze without ending up in court. People injured in car accidents get millions in settlements.

    Coffee cups have "Attention: Hot" printed down the sides of them. Radio ads include a "high speed small print" ramble at the end of them. There is an asterix and small print on everything around me. Half the price of football helmets is to pay for the companies lawsuits and insurance.

    The patent system is just another example. The copyright system is just another example.

    As a society we need a rework.

    • Nit (Score:3, Informative)

      by Xner ( 96363 )
      "Asterix" is the guy with the big friend with the little dog who likes to drink magic potion and beat up Romans.

      "Asterisk" is a little star used for notes.

    • Re:The Law Tax (Score:3, Insightful)

      by benzapp ( 464105 )
      I think a great way to revise the legal system is to replace all trials by court, with trials by ordeal, specifically combat.

      Nothing makes my heart cringe more than watching some poor helpless shell of man, sitting there powerlessly letting the sophists spin their web of verbal obfuscation, all the while realizing he has indebted, and thus enslaved himself, for years simply to gain his freedom.

      Far better I think, to fight for your freedom in a mediated, structured system of combat.
      • by dustman ( 34626 )
        Far better I think, to fight for your freedom in a mediated, structured system of combat.

        This would never work. Athletes (such as O.J. Simpson) would excel and never be "found guilty" of their crimes...
      • We should bring back duelling. If you have a real problem with another person, and you're each willing to stand those 20 paces away to make your points, then it's apt to be that a real conflict is taking place, not a faux conflict as happens each minute in America's court system. In short, duelling would get money out of the justice equation and put philosophy back in.
    • Re:The Law Tax (Score:2, Insightful)

      by arudloff ( 564805 )
      Here, here good sir.

      The concept of stupidity has been lost and replaced with victimization. It's not my childs fault he dove head first down the slide in the scorching heat. The slide shouldn't have been made of metal in the first place, and it can't be made of plastic because he might chew a peice of and swallow it. Get rid of it and give me money for my stupid child.

      It's like all the whiney cause heads and all the whiney victims converged and formed some sort of sick and twisted super whiner.

      I d
    • As a society we need a rework.

      Amen to that! It looks like there will be a show down between the doctors and lawyers [cnn.com] in Florida, Nevada, Oregon and Wyoming soon.
    • As a society we need a rework.

      All of this is inevitable. Think about it. If your not someone along the line of someone builds houses or a farmer or something that provides the basic necesities in life, you have to justify your existance in society.

      Lawyers are people who are employed because they know the rules of society. That is how complex our society has become. And these people are given tons of respect. Lawyers, doctors, and NASA employees for some reason give people glassy eyes when they hear
  • Without the ad (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:09AM (#10373154)
    Does the Patent System Need an Overhaul?
    By SABRA CHARTRAND
    Published: September 27, 2004

    SINCE 1793, the federal government has issued patents to inventors, giving them exclusive ownership of an idea as well as the right to prevent others from using it. Now some experts argue that achieving those rights stifles innovation. Two professors conclude in a new book that a couple of unrelated and seemingly innocuous administrative reforms of the patent system have caused a shift away from encouraging innovation in favor of exploiting patents largely for lawsuits. Josh Lerner and Adam B. Jaffe have written a book with a title: "Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What To Do About It," to be published in November by Princeton University Press.

    Mr. Lerner, a professor of investment banking at the Harvard Business School, and Mr. Jaffe, a professor of economics at Brandeis University, trace this breakdown to the early 1980's, when a single federal appeals court was established to hear patent lawsuits, replacing 12 regional courts of appeal. Then in the early 1990's, Congress changed the patent office's financing, so the agency could pay for itself with user fees. From his home outside Boston, Mr. Lerner last week described the patent system, 20 years after the reforms, as mired in "the land of unintended consequences."

    "Again and again in the patent system, we see people set out to do reforms with one thing in mind, but that have quite an unintended effect," he said. "The easier it became to get patents, the more people wanted to apply for them, and that led to a situation where examiners grappled with more patents to review, which led to them being pressed to do quicker reviews and a degradation in quality of patents issued." The patent agency has often struggled to keep up with the times. In recent years, the agency has confronted entirely new areas like biotechnology, software-related inventions, financial and business methods, Internet-based inventions and other information-technology innovations. Some of the changes designed to deal with these occurred amid extensive public debate. Others got little attention because they seemed like innocuous administrative reforms - like the ones that made patents easier to get, Mr. Lerner said.

    But many of those patents caused a secondary reaction, he added. "The ability to litigate and expect to get substantial award from litigation increased," Mr. Lerner said. "So as a result we've got somewhat of a vicious cycle. Once you get one firm in an industry beginning a strategy of aggressive patent enforcement, it creates an almost inevitable response - an almost arms-race dynamic - where everyone else in the industry says, 'We better be doing the same thing.' " He suggested that these changes for the worse occurred because "there's a relatively small group of people in the D.C. patent bar, and they have a very powerful influence on how patent policy gets decided. There is a powerful incentive for them to keep a patent system that is complicated, and one that involves protracted, costly litigation." Also, Mr. Lerner said, businesses often fail to understand the importance of subtle changes in patent law.

    "It is perhaps because of the complexity of patent issues, and because there is no long tradition of work by economists in this area, because a lot of corporations see it as second order relative to tax policy changes, for example, which directly affect their bottom line," he explained. "Patent policy has an indirect affect." The book lays out a strategy. "Our idea is that three things will potentially make a big difference," Mr. Lerner said. "First of all, this idea which may well have made sense in 19th century of a patent examiner being able to sit and in few hours figure out what a relevant technology is, and then go out and make a decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not, that really doesn't make sense in an era like today. "Second, to see the patent revie
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:11AM (#10373167) Homepage Journal
    the summary. I read the article(admittedly I haven't read the book), but the following statement seems to miss the point entirely: In short their book argues that the entire system is a (stunned silence) scam.. Um, no it doesn't. What the NYT article states is that the authors see a lot of the changes made to patent law and how the patent office is funded since the 80's has only rewarded trial lawyers.
    They don't say that patents should be done away with entirely. They recommend some serious reforms to the system such as a much stricter patent review process where 3rd parties are allowed to have input. They also say that most businesses are more worried about tax reform than they are about patent damage. These are good ideas, and a start to reform.
    Gah, I really, REALLY wish people would stop putting bias into their summaries, but this is /., I'm expecting too much I guess.
  • Duration (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:11AM (#10373172)
    There is nothing wrong with software patents, except that when the average product lifecycle is three years the patents are too long for software. I think everyone could be kept happy by limiting patents on software to some shorter term (say 5 years) ... The inventor gets a licensed monopoly for the life of the product - then it becomes public property. This seems to be the easiest way to address the patent imbalance without the costly process of changing the mechanism...
    • Programming was originally considered to be mathematical in nature, therefore couldn't be patented. But unfortunately, software patents are common now. There really shouldn't be patents on software. Copyrights, yes. Patents, no.
      • The coward has a point though. Do we really think we can just turn back the tide now, and put an end to software patents? As a compromise, a short-term patent that matches the lifecycle of software is a good place to start, and would possibly be backed by enough large corporations who could bribe its way through congress. The only people hurt by such a plan are the one trick ponies who come up with one thing, and who are desperate to hold onto it as long as they can.
        • Shorter term software patents are just as impossible as no software patents in your view, because the TRIPs treaty requires that all patents are treated the same way. Changing that would also mean "turning back the tide", as it would result all owners of software patents to be stuck with patents which suddenly are no longer valid (instead of for 15 more years or so).

          FWIW, asking for software patents to be abolished in the US is at least as realistic in my eyes as proposing yet another reform which is suppo
    • Re:Duration (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AnotherBlackHat ( 265897 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:05AM (#10374464) Homepage

      There is nothing wrong with software patents,


      There is nothing right with software patents.

      Software patents do not promote science and the useful arts.

      Software patents have not caused an increase in the amount of software being written.

      Software patents have harmed some software developers by forcing them into costly litigation.

      Software patents have a chilling effect on developement. Knowing that a piece of software you are writting might be patented makes it less likely that you will work on it.

      What good thing has happend as a result of software patents?

      Software patents should not be allowed to start, and in countries where they've already started, they should be abolished.

      -- Should you question authority?
  • by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:12AM (#10373180) Homepage Journal
    "...that's cause you don't get tenure for using words like 'scam'."

    And they told me it was because I didn't have the necessary education, experience, publications, or ability.
  • It is amazing that in the year 2004 there is no real IT department that is competent enough to head up the reforms of the patent office. Everyone who understands enough about software that is involved is looking out for the interests of someone or something other than consumers and people. A search for the keyword "patents" on /. returns so many hits, new stories abound, it is perfect illustration of how hot a topic it is, but who can we trust to have our best interests in mind when writing legislation?
  • About time! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ost99 ( 101831 ) * on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:14AM (#10373198)
    But will it help?

    Even if the patent system is reformed, who's going to make sure a new system isn't dictated by the robber barons who own congress.

    I bet the a system would favor the current corporate patent holders with large patents portfolios, while reducing the power of smaller IP-only parasites (EOLA, bellboy etc.).

    - Ost
  • I do not understand how patents can be bad for some technical fields and good for others. They work just fine for machines and medicines then why not for software? In fact, medical research thrives on patent protection. We have no problem with patented golf club and toys, then what is the problem with software? Perhaps, the nature of software is unique and needs different kind of system. While OSS looks a fine idea today and the community momentum is great, there is no guarantee that it will last forever.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      These are very different... A medicine is like finding a needle in a haystack. The drugs companies have to sift through millions (billions?) of candidate compounds, before finding any that are worthy of trial... Then they have to fund the trial. In other words the work to produce a patentable drug is very high.

      The problem is examplified when a group of software developers sit around a table and write a couple of patent applications in an afternoon - How can a 25 year monopoly be justified by 1 afternoons w
    • by rdc_uk ( 792215 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:28AM (#10373311)
      "In fact, medical research thrives on patent protection."

      And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.

      Nice call there.
      • And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.

        Very nice, very flip. You conveniently ignore, of course, the simple fact that, were it not for patents, nobody would get new medications, since nobody would invest the billions necessary to develop them.
    • do not understand how patents can be bad for some technical fields and good for others. They work just fine for machines and medicines then why not for software?

      Because medicines and machines, once developed, are usefull for decades to come, vs. software that lasts maybe 3, 5 years. Because research into medicines likely wouldn't happen without the promise of a limited time monopoly, as it's highly expensive and speculative. Unlike software, where you can get people to work for free from home in their

      • by Shirotae ( 44882 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:06AM (#10373739)

        I think you have missed the point that is actually contained in what you wrote. The problem is not that patenting machines is acceptable but software bad, but that patenting genuinely new ideas is acceptable but trivial modifications is not. I think the reform would be much more likely to succeed if we managed to change the slogan from "software patents are bad" to "trivial patents are bad". If the examination process had better ways to filter out the trivial and the obvious it would go a long way towards fixing the problems.

      • Because medicines and machines, once developed, are usefull for decades to come, vs. software that lasts maybe 3, 5 years.

        This, I believe, is the important difference.
    • I do not understand how patents can be bad for some technical fields and good for others. They work just fine for machines and medicines then why not for software?

      As I understand the problem it is this: with physical inventions, like say a bean sorter, the inventor must provide technical drawings and schematics etc showing how the machine works and is constructed. Now no one else may build precisely that machine. However, if I come up with an innovative new bean grabber/combine/conveyor mchanism that does

    • Who says patents are necessarily good for other technical fields? After the steam excavator was patented the technology stagnated for 50 years until the patent expired, at which point they were deployed through the mining industry and developed rapidly.
    • by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:40AM (#10374182)
      Here [ugent.be] is an overview of studies which explain what is so different about software. And FWIW, many scholars (and people from the field) also have doubts whether the patent system is still useful elsewhere.

      It has nothing to do with "technical fields", except in the TRIPs treaty (which is why the European Parliament simply stated that "data processing does not belong to a field of technology", although of course the means with which you perform data processing can).

  • Point of No Return (Score:5, Insightful)

    by starseeker ( 141897 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:15AM (#10373215) Homepage
    There exists a point where economic interests, given a political system which can be bribed, become so powerful that they effectively have total control of the system. As far as the downward spiral of individual liberty at the expense of corporate profit, this is the Point of No Return. Yes, on the books they don't have the power, but practical realities and what the books say are often very different things.

    Realistically, the power of the people to speak louder than money is only felt if a) said people are interested in exercising that power at the expense of personal convenience and b) they are willing to think for themselves. This seldom happens, and only when things get Really Bad. I'm not talking about IP laws, I'm talking about not being able to get the basics of life. Abstract economics doesn't get people excited, because its not important enough. Tomorrow's meal or the kid's latest cold is what's important for most people.

    As long as powerful economic interests are able to keep most of the people relatively comfortable, they will never have to deal with popular uprising about MP3 downloading or stupid patents. People ignore these things unless it impacts them personally, and it seldom does enough to hurt.

    Beyond the Point of No Return, corporate power is able to use the statistics of democracy to run the country. Barring the crumbling of their power due to total economic collapse, they control the media and can use it to influence and placate people as they see fit.

    So brace yourself geeks, because we don't have a Voice. We are without economic or political power, and we are so small a minority in the democratic whole we can be ignored no matter how loud we yell. Because most people don't care about what we care about. In a two party system, massive numbers and middle of the road are the order. We are neither.

    Which doesn't mean we should just go gentle into that good night, but bear in mind the patent system being profitable to the people abusing it is more politically important than the little (relatively quiet) guy being squashed. If we fight, we need to fight smart and not charge at the problem head on. Because we might as well be a flea going head to head with a rhino.
    • Brace yourself? We are *past* the Point of No Return already.
    • by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:18AM (#10373878) Journal
      This is not a one way trip. We are not "doomed" or "fucked." We overcame monarchy. We overcame slavery. We have dismantled patriarchal sexual customs that have 40,000 years of tenure. The progress of our civilization is highly dynamic and we are sitting on a 100 year winning streak.

      This did not happen just by sleepy proletarian mobs being occasionally jolted awake by famines and wars. Our progress is the result of small groups of dedicated, intelligent individuals who overcame their own cynicism and defeatism and got their hands dirty. These are not people richer or more powerful or luckier than you that you imagine really take care of everything. This is you. Right here, right now, posting on this stupid website.

      Frankly the biggest enemy you have to face after ignorance is helplessness. You are not helpless. Reading recent history is often the best cure for that feeling, and I urge you to read it.

      Unhealthy intellectual property policy affects our entire society, through its economy and its quality of intellectual and artistic life. Our patent regime is especially pernicious; software patents in particular are obviously, prima facie unjustifiable.

      Oh, we have hot button poltics, and bread and circuses like always. But never forget that money is what really moves politics in this country. And software patents are very, very bad for business, at all levels.

      Everyone wants to make money, to push growth. The problem is the prisoner's dillemma; software patents are bad if everyone has them, but they're theoretically good for me (if I'm one giant company). All that has to happen is lining the natural opponents up and letting them work. It will take time; the community needs to develop the conventional wisdom that with software patents everybody loses.

      Just be smart, and be willing to work. Once tension builds, it often takes a dramatic event to tip the balance. Say, a bunch of tiny upstarts suing Microsoft for billions over patents and any of them winning?
      • > This is not a one way trip. We are not "doomed" or "fucked." We overcame monarchy. We overcame slavery.

        Monarchy often meant starvation.
        Slavery usually meant being worked to death.
        Both outcomes provide a powerful incentive to "overcome" the system (which is what the GrandParent post [slashdot.org] tried to say).

        Also, do not forget that both triumphs required bloody, violent, armed revolutions.
    • So brace yourself geeks, because we don't have a Voice. We are without economic or political power, and we are so small a minority in the democratic whole we can be ignored no matter how loud we yell

      You forget we program the voting machines.

  • What will happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:16AM (#10373221)
    1) These high profile people will convince congress that the system needs change.
    2) Business interests will direct the changes.
    3) The system will be worse than today.
  • by tigress ( 48157 ) <rot13.fcnzgenc03@8in.net> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:18AM (#10373230)
    Profesors of Investment Banking have opinions just like the rest of us. One of the fircest opponents to soft patents that I know is a lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property. Interesting? Yes, but not surprising.

    The thing is, having an strong opinion and announcing it loudly causes publicity. Both for the opinion itself, and fhr the one announcing it. Publicity for the one announcing it makes their other opinions noticed too, as well as their ideas, services and books.

    I'm not saying that they've got the opinion because it's a means to get the public's attention, but it certainly doesn't hurt their exposure.

    That much said, I applaud their stance. The patent system is totally broken and needs to be either thrown out completely or severely reworked.
  • Concepts of Property (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dougoxley ( 688508 ) * on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:18AM (#10373240) Homepage
    Any patent reform proposals will be fought with basic, easily understandable, concepts of ownership and property. Something like, "I wrote it, I should benefit from it's creation."

    Before your panties get in a twist, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I think ownership needs to be redefined in both the copyright and patent space. I just see patent reform as an uphill battle because of the simple to understand arguments against it.

  • by Upaut ( 670171 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:19AM (#10373246) Homepage Journal
    The current patent system allows the holder of the patent to have a monopoly on the supply of its holdings for a period of roughly 24 years, with the ability to renew. After that the patent expires, and the information covered by the patent becomes, more or less, open source. Unfortunatly, a company can hold a monopoly on a very vauge idea, stifiling development in a field, and for roughly fifty years. This is just unacceptable.
    Should the system of patents be obliterated? No. Without a patent system, industry has no point to develop a product. Now true with our system of consumerism there is brand name importance, and a loyalty to those that produce a superior product; many executives feel that innovation without a garantee of being the only suplier of a nich market is unacceptable.

    What could be a simple solution?> Limit the length of a patent to seven years, with eligibility to renew for another seven if a product is developed.
    Why seven years? For most products, it takes seven years for the idea of the product, or a compound for medical research, to be aproved to reach the market. With this system a company cannot hold a patent of a vauge idea for decades, hoping for someone to develop a patent in the field of the patent, and deman royalties. It would also prevent a company hindering the development of a field that would render their product obsolete.
    This would give the drug companies an incentive to keep developing new products, quickly, and for other companies to patent products that they have already developed. This would also stop companies like Amazon and Microsoft from patent-whoring. Its pretty win-win, and allows more technology to eventually reach an open community, where others can innovate on the ideas, improve the product, and compete with their "better" products.

    And they say Leninism is dead.../i?
    • I would say that patents should be eliminated for just about everything except mechanical devices (what the patent system seems to work best for anyway). Even then, there are needed areas of patent reform, including IMHO the requirement that in order for a patent to be issued, that an actual prodcut or proof of the technology must be completed showing the concept in actual use with a further requirement that the concept of the patent actually causes legitimate "progress for the useful arts and sciences".
    • Without a patent system, industry has no point to develop a product.

      Yes they do. It's called making money. They will create ideas to help their business, or their competitors will eat them alive. The only difference is, instead of trying to make money based on a government-enforced monopoly of ideas, they'll have to make money by providing actual goods or services to their customers.

  • by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:21AM (#10373256) Homepage Journal

    I didn't see any recommendation for shorter terms for exclusive monopoly rights that I think would help cure this problem on many fronts.

    The 17 year term might have been justifiable in the 18th century when trading ships took many weeks to cross the Atlantic, but now, overall progress would be improved if the terms were reduced to something more like 2 years.

    And, while we're at IP reform, copyrights should be cut down to a shorter period as well. This 75 year mouse extension is ridiculous, especially when Disney mines fairy tales in the public domain (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.) for their cartoon movie ideas.

    But, once the artificial market is created, the vested interests (owners of IP, litigators of IP) don't want to see it go away.

    So just reduce terms of exclusivity gradually, a year at a time, until things become sane again.

    • by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:33AM (#10373355) Homepage
      overall progress would be improved if the terms were reduced to something more like 2 years.

      2 year patents for pharmaceuticals would make it useless to develop new medicines, due to the extensive testing required by the FDA prior to marketing. This is why most drugs are only on the market a few years before the patent expires, allowing generics to be developed.

      The proper amount of time is very dependent upon the nature of the patent an the industry it is involved with.
  • This is, uh, make that WAS, a submission that, as I write this reply, was still marked as "pending"...I can see that I don't write as well as other folks but I do find a good balance of links:

    A hard look at our patent system
    NY Times briefly reviews a new book [nytimes.com] [NYTimes is not for the electronically homeless: you must be able to make up a username and an email address to get access] by two lawyers on just how F...ed up our patent system is. There are several trends underlined that some /. folk have al

  • by Shirotae ( 44882 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:50AM (#10373538)

    One way to make a significant improvement to the system would be to reverse the way vagueness is handled. At the moment it seems that ideas described in vague and general language are considered to be covered by the patent, and the idea is considered new enough if it is not a blatant direct copy of something that has already been described (which is usually interpreted to mean patented).

    If the assumptions were reversed, the vague and general patents that are close to things that have already been done should be eliminated. It seems to me that those are the ones doing the most harm, so this would be a big step in the right direction. If there was a penalty (no protection) for any part of the idea hidden in obscure language, it would make the whole process much easier to use, and harder to abuse. Clear and simple descriptions would be much easier to relate to existing ideas, so you would need real novelty in the idea rather than a novel way to create a convoluted description of the idea.

  • Major open source groups should patent everything they can get their hands on and then when Microsoft goes postal, lock down all of those patents. Basically it should be a simple game of "if we can't do what we want, then no American company will be allowed to make software products without our permission."
  • by scrm ( 185355 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:19AM (#10373895) Homepage
    Last night I attended a talk by Richard Stallman [stallman.org] entitled The Danger of Software Patents [linuxdays.lu] in Luxembourg. He made a convincing case as to how the patent system when applied to software ideas was poorly executed (a legal mess, scope defined too widely, etc.) He concluded that the patents system on software ideas stifled innovation and hurt Joe Developer while making "the Mega-corporations" (his word) richer. (I won't list his arguments because I'm sure you're all familar with them.)

    I accept that the patents system as it stands is far from optimal, or even fair. But could someone please clarify this for me: how could it be an alternative to abolish patents on software ideas altogether when this would remove the financial incentive for someone to protect their software invention? We'd all like to live in a world where financial gain meant less than it does, but is it really a realistic option? What IS the alternative without making the patent system even more cryptic and complex? What am I missing here?
    • Well, the purpose of a patent system is not to provide rewards, but rather to promote the interests of society generally. People want new inventions to be created. They also want to be able to freely use those inventions.

      If a minor, temporary reduction in the free use of inventions resulted in a much more significant increase in the number of inventions created, there is a net gain for society. That it happens to involve giving protection for inventors is purely secondary; it's the means by which we accomp
  • Commoner: Aye! Look, the Patent' system es Brooken! Patent's arre given uut like candy to chil'ren, and onleh those wit' moneh' can enferrce their pa'ent's or defend themselves from large mul'ehnationals.

    Media, government, stupider people: Bah, that's hogwash! What do you know about economics? (translation: We don't want to think, we just want to fallow someone who does the thinking for us and refute you so you can't challenge him.)

    Now, lets see what happens when a professor says something about it
  • What the fuck is with the investment banker digs? While many bankers are assholes, it's true (and it's true of any profession), bankers keep the economy liquid and make sure that everything is priced as fairly as possible. That means that if a company has the best technology or provides the best return for its investors, it will fetch the highest price. Pure meritocracy.
  • First, no business patents. Can you imagine if such patents were around in the 1800s?! Someone would have patented horse and buggy repair shops, grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. These examples seem ludicrous, but they would all be perfectly legal now.

    Second, no software patents. There will be a time when no new company will be able to innovate as any new idea could somehow be construed to impact on a patent. Old companies won't innovate because that's not what old companies do. Technological innovati
  • by kc_cyrus ( 759211 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:40AM (#10374181)
    1. Give USPTO the funding it needs to do its job.

    Not only does USPTO not receive any tax money, since 1992 much of the money collected in fees by USPTO has not been available to it. From fiscal 1992 through fiscal 2001, more than $675 million has been diverted [aipla.org]. Because of the economic damage cause by invalid patents, this is no way to save money. USPTO's ability to conduct meaningful examinations is already compromised. Last year, USPTO Director Q. Todd Dickinson warned of an imminent "reduction in patent quality" resulting from yet another inadequate budget.
    Inadequate USPTO budgets benefit only one group of people -- those who get invalid patents. Everyone else suffers. Fund USPTO so that it can afford to attract and retain highly skilled examiners, as well as maintain a world-class library of international patents, journals, catalogs, and other information. A patent office without full funding is the economic equivalent of a fully loaded B-52 bomber with no maps, no compass, and an untrained navigator.

    2. Stop and reverse patentability creep

    Would the economy be better off if Bruce Springsteen were allowed to patent rhyming "back" and "Cadillac" -- and sue any other songwriter who did so, even if the new song was nothing like "Pink Cadillac?" Would the economy be better off if the Green Bay Packers were allowed to patent the best defense against a particular play, and sue any team that used that defense against them?
    Would the economy be better off if a high-priced defense lawyer were able to patent the use of a legal argument, and sue any other defense lawyer who used it on behalf of his client?
    Clearly, the answer to all three questions is no. We're all better off when we can hear new songs, watch good football games, and get a fair trial without getting several patent licenses a day. Unfortunately, several court decisions in the 1980s and 1990s have resulted in the patentabilty of mathematical algorithms and of business methods, which is for programmers just as ludicrous as the above three examples.
    Software and business methods patents are examples of "patentabilty creep" in action. Federal judges, legislating from the bench, are expanding the scope of patentable content to not only overwhelm USPTO, but also to do grievous economic harm.

    3. Fix USPTO's incentive system to reward quality, not quantity

    The Department of Commerce should populate USPTO's advisory committee with members from outside the patent bar, with a view to helping USPTO work toward the economic health of the nation as a whole and not for any special interest group. Employee incentive programs within USPTO should be tied to patent quality, not quantity.

  • by RCulpepper ( 99864 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:10AM (#10374557)
    There are some cases in which being able to patent something is the only way a company will invest the time or resources to develop. Take as an example Esperion Pharmaceuticals, who developed a drug that will save me from all the cheeseburgers I've been eating.

    Scientists have known for years that merely injecting someone with "good" cholesterol could help ease congestive heart failure, but because it's something we all produce anyway, it couldn't be patented and nobody was willing to spend the money to manufacture a low-margin commodity.

    Somebody noticed, though, that residents of a small town in Italy died with baby-smooth arteries and almost never had heart attacks. A researcher found that they produced a mutant form of cholesterol that functioned like "drano for the arteries." Because it was a mutated form, it was patentable, and the researcher sold out to Esperion, which Pfizer bought within months for more than a billion dollars.

    I think people on here, understandably, are coming at this from a software background. There is really no other industry, though, where innovation comes as cheaply and easily. MS et al. have definitely abused the system, but it might be a better idea to militate for software-specific patent reform than for patent reform more generally, as 20 years is not a lot of time in some industries (the airline industry comes to mind, where it takes more than a decade to produce a new passenger jet) to recover the costs of innovation. Another benefit is that the longer the patent lifespan, the longer the period a company has to amortize its R&D costs, and the less they have to charge up-front.
  • 5th amendment (Score:4, Interesting)

    by debrain ( 29228 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @12:40PM (#10375486) Journal
    The US has to be careful with patent reform, perhaps because of the lesser used part of the 5th amendment. Ie.

    ... [No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    For the same reason that copyright reform may be difficult to bring about, as postulated by Mr. Lessig, Mr. Knopf, and others, it would literally cost the government a fortune to deprive owners of patents their due value, for a public purpose, as the 5th amendment guarantees them just compensation.

    The lackadaisical politics is in essence digging its own grave, ensuring the continuation of a terrible intellectual property system, as the government will be unable to afford to compensate the existing privileged in the name reform for the public good.
    • Re:5th amendment (Score:5, Informative)

      by bigdavex ( 155746 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:44PM (#10376131)

      The US has to be careful with patent reform, perhaps because of the lesser used part of the 5th amendment. Ie.
      ... [No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      For the same reason that copyright reform may be difficult to bring about, as postulated by Mr. Lessig, Mr. Knopf, and others, it would literally cost the government a fortune to deprive owners of patents their due value, for a public purpose, as the 5th amendment guarantees them just compensation.

      The lackadaisical politics is in essence digging its own grave, ensuring the continuation of a terrible intellectual property system, as the government will be unable to afford to compensate the existing privileged in the name reform for the public good.

      Here's a relevent bit in the US constitution: [house.gov]

      The Congress shall have Power . . .
      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

      Unlike natural rights, people don't have exclusive rights to their "writings and discoveries" unless Congress grants it. The reason Congress grants that right is for the public good. If Congress chooses not to grant this right, it isn't taking anything away. It's just not exercising it's power to grant the right. And there's no "property" taken from the inventor in violation of the 5th ammendment.

    • Re:5th amendment (Score:4, Insightful)

      by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:54PM (#10376230)
      The constitution never implied patents (or copyrights) were a property right any more than slaves on the plantation were. This property propaganda is a bunch of crap made up by lawyers and the RIAA, and has absolutely no solid foundation in common law or constitutional law at all.

      In fact the constitution clearly states that copyrights and patents are a government mandated monopoly that is to be short term - genuine rights don't have an expiration date.
    • Re:5th amendment (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mdfst13 ( 664665 )
      That only applies to *existing* patents. The system can always be changed as regards new patents. Also, it's worth noting that patent abuses are in fact patent abuses. If the patent is not legal in the first place, then nothing is taken away.

      Copyright is different in that the primary concern is the lengthy term of the copyright. It may in fact be very difficult to shorten that term and it would take over a century to let the existing copyrights run out. Existing patents would be gone within twenty yea
  • by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:22PM (#10375936) Journal
    Who else read this as "Moore Calls for Patent Reform" ????
  • by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:29PM (#10376011)

    This morning I saw an article in the SD Tribune touting how benificial patents were to the biotech industry from the perspective of a lawyer. I wrote this reply to the author before I even saw this on slashdot .... must have been a psychic thing! :)

    To: michael.kinsman@uniontrib.com

    Dear Michael Kinsman,

    After reading a recent article you wrote in the Union Tribune, I really think you should consider the "other side" of the Patent system. I found it ironic that the article I'm thinking about referred to a lawyer, because of all people - a lawyer is probably the least qualified to understand what's good for technology industries and what isn't. In fact, even in the article, the lawyer referred to, defended against patents in one case and imposed them in another. Lets face it, when all is said and done, the people that benefit the most from this two way milking process is lawyers and not business. I don't work in biotech, but I've worked in allot of other technology companies and this is the way I see it:

    In the tech industry I know, most people get patents not because they are some glorious protection, but rather a glorious hassle that is necessary to use defensively against frivolous lawsuits. They are also used to get into cross-licensing agreements that would have otherwise made it impossible for the small innovative companies to compete against entrenched patent and lawyer filled giants. This is hardly the patent system that helps the small inventor working in his garage that everyone talks about.

    In the tech industry I know, the entire industry is defined by people who defied patents. For example, the IBM compatible PC was a drastic success for the computer industry, because it was a drastic patent failure where anybody could make an IBM compatible PC even if they weren't IBM. Silicon valley, wouldn't exist without the engineers who routinely revolted against companies who wanted to patent off their innovations, and created new startups in defiance.

    In the tech industry I know, the overwhelming majority of patents were issued for innovations that were incremental, and were going to happen anyhow with or without patents. The patents didn't help anything, they just got in the way time and time again. Even worse are the thousands of patents issued for things that were obvious and could be made by any competent high school programming student, like a cursor that blinks!

    One time I worked for an innovative startup that got bought out by a huge global multinational corporation - whose only motive was grab some key patents and lock out competition in an important area of the market. This didn't benefit the consumer who got gouged, it didn't benefit the employees who mostly got laid off, it didn't benefit the tech industry who was cut out from using the technology, and it stopped the innovation that was going on cold in it's tracks. But, on the bright side, it did benefit greatly a large staff of lawyers on hand!

    However the most revealing patent issues didn't happen in the IT industry at all. It happened when American pharmaceutical companies tried to sue the daylights out of dirt poor African nations who wanted to make generic AIDS drugs on their own. And then how pharmaceutical executives went to the papers and said how they had no incentive to make pharmaceuticals without these lawsuits, that their patents were property, and they were very generous to Africans. Of course when it was pointed out that those points were very similar to the incentive/property/generosity arguments used by plantation masters in the 1800's - they backpedaled in a hurry and got the government to put 13 billion of my tax money towards fighting AIDS in Africa instead. (buying patented pharmacutical products, of course)

    So the questions you should be asking is not whether patents are beneficial to the industry or not, or whether they will secure venture capital, bu

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...