The Economist on Patent Reform 315
ar1550 writes "The Economist recently posted an opinion piece on the state of patent systems, describing not just the mess that is the USPTO but flaws present in Europe and Asia. From the article, "In 1998 America introduced so-called 'business-method' patents, granting for the first time patent monopolies simply for new ways of doing business, many of which were not so new. This was a mistake." The article also describes the difficulty of obtaining legitimate patents. "
One-sided article (Score:5, Interesting)
But, what about the other side? What was the motivation for allowing business method patents? There must have been some reasoning behind it.
Anyone?
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Funny)
He allowed it to pad Halliburton's profits.
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One-sided article (Score:2, Offtopic)
So when a lone inventer/devloper wants to rpotect what they've created from large corporaations their just being greedy?
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, however the same rules apply. If I spend time and money devloping somthing why shouldn't I have a way to protect what I create? The idea of patents is sound, our current patent system is broken with too many 'duh' patents getting the rubber stamp of approval. It should also be noted that I speak from a position where this realy does effect my day to day life. I write software for ISO certification systems. So I'm writting software for buisness methods. A double whammy. According to a number of people on thee forums I shouldn't be able to make money at what I do, I should just hand my work over to IBM or some other jugernaught so that they can run me into the ground. For some reason I just dont agree with that.
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
If I spend time and money devloping somthing why shouldn't I have a way to protect what I create?
The ability to protect what you create is not a right; it is a privilege granted by the public to the creator for a specific purpose. If the public does not feel that a particular sort of creation is sufficiently valuable as to warrant protection, then you don't get to protect it. Keep in mind that one of the major reasons for patents is to prevent secrecy from being used as an alternative; it's a lot harder to keep business methods secret, and thus the public is not getting as much out of granting such patents.
So I'm writting software for buisness methods. A double whammy. According to a number of people on thee forums I shouldn't be able to make money at what I do
You can protect the software itself with copyright. It's the methods themselves that require a patent to "protect".
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
Because "protect[ing] what I create" costs the community money and time and bother, and creates all sorts of externalities
Many patents fail this public utitlity test. Indeed, the current patent regime fails this test. That is the problem.
The community doesn't have to shoot itself in the foot just because gun-sellers want to sell bullets and doctors want to get fees for treating gunshot wounds. And it doesn't have to erect a patent regime just because business feels it would make more money that way.
You stand on the shoulders of the whole history of western civilisation - when you pay the developers of the alphabet, the English language, common law, etc
Or maybe you'll get the clue that civilisation is a co-operative thing
The world has already given you a heck of a big start in life - perhaps *you* owe the world a living.
Re:All property is theft?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who created numbers? Who created mathematics? Language? Ideas cannot be owned. There is no such thing as "stealing" an idea, except in the ramblings of a few confused souls. The moment you transmit an idea to someone else, whether by vocal communication, pictures, software, or the written word, you relinquish control of that idea. You no longer have control.
Patents, copyright, and trademarks (so-called IP law) were instituted to extend the owner's control past the point of transmission, to encourage them to continue creating. It is an artifical limitation placed on a person's ability (as is most law).
If you wish to retain absolute control of your ideas, then don't breath a word of it to anyone else, ever. But don't be surprised if someone else comes up with the same idea.
Ideas are not property, IP law merely treats it as such. Sometimes, this abstraction is well founded, sometimes it's not. There is no shame in discussing its failings.
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. Copyright infringement occurs when one makes an unauthorised copy of a work. Theft occurs when you take the item away from its rightful owner. In the first case, the rightful owner still has the work and can continue to use it. In the second case, the rightful owner has been denied the use of their property.
Everyone agrees that theft is wrong. Most people would probably agree that copyright infringement is wrong - but not as wrong. Furthermore, it can
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really write software and not copyright it? That is the appropriate protection for software. You will find very few people around here who actually advocate the elimination of copyrights. After all, it's copyright protection which gives the GPL teeth.
The qu
Re:One-sided article (Score:2)
Keep in mind that you already have the protection afforded by copyright and trade secrets.
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently Jefferson disagreed with you:
From the Economist:
PATENTS, said Thomas Jefferson, should draw "a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not."
And this [earlyamerica.com]:
Jefferson, a strong proponent of equality among all people, was not sure if it was fair or even constitutional to grant what was essentially a monopoly to an inventor, who would then be
Re:One-sided article (Score:2)
So when a lone inventer/devloper wants to rpotect what they've created from large corporaations their just being greedy?
Given the "quality" of many of those patents, especially business method patents, YES!
There are a few patents out there that are genuinely innovative and non-obvious. Unfortunatly, they are drowned in the sea of money grabs for the blatantly obvious.
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are the fuel for capitalism and are a good thing when used as they were originally created. Giving an inventor of a real/physical product a limited (no more then 10 years IMO for most not all industries) monopoly on that product will create incentive for that inventor and others both large and small to continue inventing knowing that their hard work will not be snatched up.
However, the greed and corruption of our (USA) politicians has allowed mostly big business to buy and pervert the patent systems to allow things like Amazon's "One-Click" patent. It is just insane to say that no other online merchant can allow their customers to purchase a product with one click without paying Amazon for that right. There is no invention in the "One-Click" patent.
I personally think software patents are bad. At the end of the day software patents are nothing more then mathematical algorithms. We don't allow some crazy mathematician to patent the process of adding two numbers. So why should we allow the big software companies to patent software? We don't allow a chef to patent recipes which would take away all the building-block tools of a chef. Yet we allow big companies to take away all the building blocks of software programmers.
"Innovation" is pretty much limited to the big corps. If a small-fish wants to get in the game, the best they can hope for is to get their product or their company bought out by the big-fish. The ability for a small-fish to actually invent a product and bring it to market is getting smaller and smaller with each corrupted patent that is granted.
Re:One-sided article (Score:2)
Where is your source for this sweeping generalization? I work for an IP law firm, and have drafted several business method patents. We actually have more small (10 and below) businesses doing business method patents than larger companies.
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this was a court decision (State Street?). I think the reasoning boiled down to the fact that the court believed a business method satisfied all the statutory requirements for patentable material, saw no prohibition against it, and said so.
The 'other side' in some sense, then, is legal inertia- good luck getting a law passed that says no to business method patents once someone's benefitting from them.
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it's worse (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One-sided article (Score:5, Insightful)
What was the motivation for allowing business method patents?
Someone convinced the Supreme Court that a business method was "science", and therefore worthy of patent protection.
The problem this faces is that a business method, by definition, is it's own reward.
Patents are supposed to further innovation by rewarding the inventors. The argument is that if you didn't reward the inventor, then they would not spend the time to make the invention.
But a "business method" that actually works is it's own reward - no further incentive is required, because the "inventor" gets (wait for it) *BETTER BUSINESS*. There is absolutely *NO* benefit to society for disallowing others to use said 'invention' without paying their competition a license fee.
In this case, allowing patents on "business methods" is actually *retarding* innovation, because it prohibits someone from independantly coming up with a similar method.
Actually (Score:5, Interesting)
One could also argue that there is no need for this type of patent, there have always been innovative accounting methods, financial instruments or services, even without the protection a patent affords. However, teh counter agruments were that due to rising costs, it becomes increasingly harder to create this innovative ideas and processes. Further, one could say that those that create these processes work just as hard as those who create physical technology. Why discriminate solely on the basis of subject matter.
Again, another counter argument can be made. When determining 'the cost' to business, what does cost actually mean. Is it more costly to a single business, when there idea is not patentable? Is it more costly to business as a whole, where they are excluded from using a patented method?
Really, IMHO, there are no definite answers. But I just wanted to inject some of the thoughts which go into this type of patent.
For more info, see: Patent Law and Policy: Cases & Materials, Second Edition by Robert Patrick Merges
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Informative)
It seems that a good idea in principle may have resulted in legislation that is not working in practice because of a flawed framework / companies taking advantage (your choice). Not that I agree with the idea of business-method patents in the first place, but this may make the idea behind them clearer.
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Informative)
Somehow, it makes sense -- the general set of criteria for patentability shoul
Re:One-sided article (Score:4, Interesting)
Answer: like any other type of patent, the motivation is to protect the invention and allow the inventor to take advantage of having discovered this business method.
I've written several business method patents involving methods of providing life insurance. When the client first came to us, it was tough to figure out what they had discovered. The did find a unique way to fund life insurance, and wanted to make sure they were the only ones who could provide this service. As they had spent several years developing this method, I see no reason why they should not be able to protect their invention.
One thing I was shocked to learn while drafting the patent application- there are many patents involving insurance funding (our client was unique). There were even some that got through in Europe (which will allow a business method to be included if attached to something that is patentable).
While part of me thinks it might retard competition, I do have to say that companies invest time & money into developing these methods- and want rewards.
Re:One-sided article (Score:2)
No.
We have a legal right because some government has granted us monopoly. Why? Because said government has deemed it beneficial to Commerce, in the belief/hope that it would stimulate innovation.
Unfortunately the prevailing attitude seems to be that Intellectual Property
Re:One-sided article (Score:2)
The article only presents one side of the picture, albeit, the slashbot side.
It wouldn't be much of an opinion piece (it is clearly identified as such at the top of the page) if the author didn't state an opinion and then write in support of that opinion! In matters of opinion, the middle of the road is the best place to be hit by a car.
It is up to those who disagree to write their own articles.
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really think that The Economist, one of the most respected news magazines in the world, and one with a generally pro-corporate slant, is actually in the business of presenting "the slashbot side" of arguments?
A more reasonable interpretation, IMNSGDHO, is that when a source that is the very embodiment of suit-think agrees with the generally anti-corporate
Re:One-sided article (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent bubble will lead to burst (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patent bubble will lead to burst (Score:2, Interesting)
That's why, really, if you have something REALLY valuable you DON'T patent it, you just keep it secret.
Re:Patent bubble will lead to burst (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe... but how would it burst? A small company may need a patent to get VC fundend, then they get bought by one of these patent portfolio companies that sue the small companies competitors who can't afford to fight in court. Sounds to me, the only way to change that is to change the laws, there is no economics in it that will make things like this go away.
Also, the EU will probably adapt the US patent system. So the mess in the US will probably transfer to Europe and I can't see any reason why any bubble
Re:Patent bubble will lead to burst (Score:2)
It's already bursting. Listen [ugent.be] (mp4 audio, 3.9 MiB) to what someone [m-cam.com] who knows what he's talking about [m-cam.com] has to say about it (especially from 2m40 and on in the clip).
Re:Patent bubble will lead to burst (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is this: other bubbles work by inflating the prospects of future returns on investment, creating a pyramid scheme in which new investors are lured by the prospect of huge rewards while old investors sell out and actually make the rewards. When the pool of new investors runs out, bubble bursts and granny loses her savings.
The patents bubble is not based on this model at all. Rather, it's a scheme by which a small group of people have turned the law into a tool for extortion. As long as they don't extort more from the system than it can bear, the business of patents will continue. At a certain moment the tax that this creates on normal business activity will cause those economies which allow it to become uncompetitive and thus die.
The end-game for the patent players is to get a global hegemony because then uncompetitiveness does not matter any more. But this is highly unlikely: the advantages to small countries of having unfettered technology will outweigh any advantages of being compatible with the USA's "policies".
So we'll see about 5 more years of fighting for positions, then 10-15 years of ruthless extortion during which technology advancement suffers and stagnates, and then revolt by either government as they start to see the impact on economic growth and tax income, or by smaller to middle-sized businesses as they find themselves unable to operate normally.
A better parallel would be the monopolised telecoms industries in the west, which lasted for 50 years or so, and which caused serious hinderence to technological progress until they were dismantled by regulators.
The patent business will be dismantled around 2025, at the earliest. From 2010 to 2025, if you are a small independent technology producer you will have three choices:
1. illegality, black-market.
2. join a patent club and pay the costs (equivalent to merging with a larger business).
3. relocate to a patent haven such as Liberia.
Options 1 and 3 are pretty similar since any business using foreign software which violates patents will be subject to penalties.
And it won't be sufficient to say "this software does not violate patents", you will need a certificate of conformity, period. Like selling a car.
It's a sad prognosis for OSS, which is my main business, but I think it's inevitable. Money talks, and we are seeing a true gold rush here.
Learn what a patent is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Learn what a patent is (Score:2)
That person is specialised in figuring out the real value of patents (that's what his company [m-cam.com] does), and the picture he paints is not a pretty one. No
How to benefit the consumer. (Score:5, Funny)
This will balance out the patent system and make the system fair for all involved. Clearly, such a patent system will benefit the consumer.
Re:How to benefit the consumer. (Score:2)
Your fines come to $97,000 based on RIAA lawsuit settlements for infringement (on the reasonably assumption that you make more than that much per year, but that it will also serve as a deterrent to future infringement) OR 30,000 pages of patent applications to provide work for USPTO employees to justify laying off an additional 12.5% of their workforce.
Re:How to benefit the consumer. (Score:3, Funny)
Which makes a great new joke -
Question - How many workers does it take to patent the lightbulb?
Answer - one thousand!!!
B'dum tsch!
In developing countries... (Score:3, Interesting)
And rule one of capitalism: without incentives, there's no innovation.
See for example Ricardo Hausmann and Dani Rodrik, "Economic Development as Self-{Discovery" [nber.org]
Re:In developing countries... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In developing countries... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we got rid of currency and patents and lawyers (Score:4, Funny)
We could do things for the sheer GOOD of doing them, people would be creative for creativity's sake. Just think Star Trek and don't tell me I'm wrong.
Thanks, commrade!
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:3, Funny)
And no copyrights,
We'd all share our software,
And reach new creative heights.
You may say I'm a dreamer...
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:2)
And it would be even better if all people contributed equally to society, instead of some choosing to be supported by it. The utopia of socialism ends where human laziness and greed begin.
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:2)
Patent issues, tax issues, etc., are going to keep piling up until society can't ignore it anymore. How long this takes, I don't know. Hopefully something is done within the next 20 years.
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:3, Insightful)
And it would be even better if all people contributed equally to society, instead of some choosing to be supported by it. The utopia of socialism ends where human laziness and greed begin.
I think most people want to do something useful, or at least entertaining to others. Of course, there are those exceptions who would become perminant couch potatos. If we can expand automated production enough that we can afford to carry those sorry few for now, they will eventually die of sheer apathy and the problem
Systems (Score:3, Informative)
Whether we keep or get rid of income taxes, it doesn't matter for this idea...
Fix it so 30% of the total federal tax revenue is redistributed. If this means raising taxes, so bet it. If this means cutting wasteful spending, so be it. But with spending over a half trillion per year on "defense", I'm sure we could cut a big part of that, although some would disagree.
Semi-free college educatio
Re:If we got rid of currency and patents and lawye (Score:3, Insightful)
If we got rid of the ravenous parasites on the economy that is ownership of capital and government, and replaced the ideal of maximizing profit with that of maximizing production, and replaced corporate management with self-management by labor, there's good reason to believe that we could all work for a few hours a day and maintain or improve our standard of living. No replicators needed.
A different angle (Score:4, Funny)
This a nice smoke screen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This a nice smoke screen (Score:3, Interesting)
If a certain law is faulty, taking it through a slow process where the same people in power are currently involved in making the law worse is definitely not the solution. Right now the laws are being made according the lobbyists. We can all scream all we want on slashdot about the problems and solutions, but that doesn't make a difference. I doubt many people here trully spend the time thinking about the subject and how the
the problem isnt so much the system (Score:4, Insightful)
patents, when applied for and granted PROPERLY are a good thing. However when they`re just used to cover your bases, so you can wait for some unlucky person to come along and try to do what youve patented, you can slam him with a lawsuit.
i think it was suggested a fair few stories like this back by someone for a use it or lose it style system, although it would create more lawsuits short term. it might just reduce the lawsuits which wait for a company or person to become nice and fat, for skimming.
The best solution would be to have those staff at the US patent office especially, but also other patent offices around the world to have the time, staff, training and ability to scrupulously check every single application.
perhaps barring those who apply for dodgy patents for a year or two? might be a little extreme to do that but its an idea at least.
Re:the problem isnt so much the system (Score:2)
I would like to see the courts smack some of the these ridiculous patents around, hopefully setting p
Re:the problem isnt so much the system (Score:3, Informative)
This is as valid for a set of rules encoded as a construct of laws as it is for any set of rules determining usage/access of/to a system.
I sugest some form of punishement sh
Frivolous Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
The article suggests that competitors could perform this task if the application process were made more open. This makes the patent process somewhat similar to obtaining planning permission (putting up notices saying what you plan, and giving people a chance to object in some period of time).
One thing seems certain, that only if more patents are rejected by the patent office, will people file fewer frivolous patents. But as the system stands, the patent office has little incentive - they just want to collect their fee without too much hassle. Only by changing the system so that the patent office suffers each time a patent it granted is later found in court to be dubious, will they be motivated to improve the quality of the vetting procedure.
Re:Frivolous Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
How 'bout a fixed, limited number of patents? Companies/individuals/organizations can bid on filed patents & the top $N grossing patents are granted to the winners, and everything which ends up below the cutoff mark becomes public domain. Obviousness & prior art are still allowed to be factors (which would greatly affect the bidding price, since a patent which w
Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Today in the US, patents are submitted to the USPTO, where they are researched and approved or rejected. If approved, they are presumed valid, unless/until someone else challenges it and requests a review.
The USPTO is overwhelmed and in no position to accurately judge the validity of every one of these patents.
So why try? why bother reviewing them upfront? The USPTO could accept all patent applications, catalog them, make them public, but do not endorse them as valid until proven otherwise.
When patent conflicts arise, as they do today, companies can ask the USPTO to rule on the existing patents. At that time, all parties have a chance to supply relevant evidence to the USPTO about the patent's validity or invalidity.
The plus side is that the USPTO stops pretending it can deal with all this work effectively. It only spends effort on patents that companies think are worth fighting over (and before litigation).
The downside is that companies must publicly submit information about their patentable ideas without a guarantee that they will receive a patent. But, that is a healthy incentive to avoid spurious patents, which is missing today.
What do you guys think?
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully the USPTO then has more resources to really make good patent decisions about the "important" patents. Plus, under this system, the challenger can present evidence agains the patent's validity, and cheaply.
It's not going to avoid lawsuits entirely -- if the USPTO thinks your patent is valid but I still don't, I can still throw lawyers at you. But hopefully the USPTO decisions will be more informed, and therefore, more easily upheld in litigation, and therefore reduce the amount of litigation over bad patents.
Not a complete solution, but an intriguing proposal I think!
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:2)
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Crazy idea: accept all patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Just steal it anyway (Score:3, Funny)
um... no (Score:2)
T
Good News (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to patent the business model of treating employees like shit. Then I'll sue every company for patent infringement.
One simple patent reform (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the patent holder loses, it has to pay all of the challenger's legal costs.
I have a patent idea (Score:5, Funny)
However, then I thought it might be better to phrase the claim as a technique for being robbed instead. This ought to be more lucrative. The perpetrator may not get caught after all, and the victim probably is insured anyway.
Sweet! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm going to accept money in exchange for goods or services. Anyone else who decides to copy this business model must pay me, oh, how about $699...
would this fix the bulk of the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, keep things as is, but limit the patent term to,say, 5 years. After that patent owner can extend it to the full 17 year term but make the extension EXPENSIVE (say, 40K per patent).. Basically, the idea is that 5-7 years of goverment protection should be enough to prove/disprove commercial viability of almost anything...And if idea is commercially viable, then 40K is not that much money, and if a patent is not viable, even IBM is unlikely to pay 40K for a useless piece of paper...
Of course, an (intended) side effect is that most companies will stop filing valueless patents.
(as 5 years is too short a term to bother and full term is too expensive)...The problem of submarine patents would simply go away...
Re:would this fix the bulk of the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
The system you suggest already exists and has existed for decades, albeit at about 1/10th the costs you propose. It is called Maintenance Fees [uspto.gov]. See 37 CFR 1.362 et seq. [cornell.edu] These fees are due at 4, 8, and 12 years after issuance. Big companies are charged higher amounts than small ones.
Re:would this fix the bulk of the problem? (Score:2)
In the fairy tales it is, yes. In reality, you need at least US$ 500k to even wage a patent infringement lawsuit. It is already the case today that the rich gobble up all patents, and now the rich are even getting together [slashdot.org] so they can gobble up even more patents.
patents for the rich/poor (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe a system would be best where patents and copyright (etc.) is granted (exept for software and businessmethods, obviously) for a period of 5 years, being renewable every 5 years untill a total of 20 years. Each time the fee could get up, say from 1000 to 5000 to 25000 to 125000.
With an adequate social correction-mechanism, which allows individuals and small companies to do it for less (for instance 1/10th for an individual developer), and augmenting it depending
Re:patents for the rich/poor (Score:3, Informative)
How to evaluate the patent system (Score:5, Insightful)
The article points out that we need a way of evaluating whether or not a patent system is meeting its goals of fostering innovation. The article suggests:
That's a good idea, but I think there's a better way to determine if the patent system is successful at promoting innovation: analyze how the patent database is used. The stated goal of the system is to provide inventors with a short-term monopoly in exchange for public disclosure of their inventions, in order to spur more invention. That makes sense, right? If you get good ideas out in the public where people can see and build on them, you'll generate even more ideas, some of which will also be good. Ideas spark ideas.
This implies that if the patent system is working, you should see inventors perusing/searching the patent database on a regular basis, in search of good ideas to spark their thinking, or in search of solutions to specific problems they're trying to solve in their own inventions. I imagine a scene something like this:
Engineer: Hey, boss, you know that tricky database search problem we've been trying to solve? I just spent a few hours searching the USPTO site and I came across patent #123456789. It's a *perfect* solution! It'll not only address the problem we had, but it will make our product even more flexible and easier to use.
Manager: Great! Get me the contact information for the patent holder and I'll contact them to check into licensing terms. If they're reasonable, this could save us a bundle in development costs. We've put several hundred man-hours into this problem already. Maybe the patent owner will have an implementation they'd like to license us, too.
Engineer: Sounds good. I'll tell Jim to shift his focus to tracking down that nasty memory leak, on the assumption that the search problem is solved. Meanwhile, while I was looking through the patent database I also came across another patent which we can't use, but which gave me another interesting idea...
Does anyone use the patent database like this? No. Especially not with software patents. In fact, in every corporation I know of the attorneys explicitly tell developers *not* to search the patent database, as it's generally better to remain ignorant, both to avoid allegations of "willfull" infringement, and also because it's just a waste of time. Most patents are contestable anyway, and even for the ones that might hold up in court it's generally more cost-effective to just cross-license using your own patent arsenal.
I think the measure of the patent system should be whether or not its required disclosures are observably fostering innovation. If not, it's broken.
Re:How to evaluate the patent system (Score:3, Interesting)
you should see inventors perusing/searching the patent database on a regular basis
Except that, where I work, engineers are told to avoid looking in the patent database. That way, the company cannot be sued for "willful patent infringement" when they inadvertently develop something that's similar to something that's already patented.
Patents don't help the lone inventor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patents don't help the lone inventor (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to act as your own lawyer in a patent case, either. You DO, however, need to be able to compensate a lawyer for their fees.
If you have a valuable patent in the first place, it should be easy to find one to work on contignency.
Terrible idea. Patent fees would be insanely high
Patents on space tech. (Score:2)
With all this shit flying around regarding software patents, I was wondering how the aerospace companies might patent everything in their respective field.
The idea being that no one will develop outer space but these companies and, of course, NASA.
No Patents for "Self-Disclosing" Inventions? (Score:5, Interesting)
But with regard to software patents, particularly ones like Amazon's one-click patent, there are many inventions that are effectively self-disclosing: if you see that it is done, you know how it is done.
I wonder if it would be possible under U.S. patent law to challenge these patents on this basis? I strongly doubt it, but the very fact that such inventions are patented is a measure of how badly the patent system needs reform.
Ideas are not property, and patents do not grant property rights. They grant monopoly rights in exchange for something else. What is the "something else" in the case of things like the one-click patent? What are we, the public, getting that we would not get otherwise?
--Tom
Re:No Patents for "Self-Disclosing" Inventions? (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes no sense. Should the guy who invented the zipper not get a patent, just because it's obvious once you see it? What about the vacuum cleaner?
The Gauntlet (Score:3, Informative)
- You have to know how to do a patent search. This is fairly mechanical,
but many don't know how to do it.
- You have to know what keywords to search on. There can be many different
names for the same things, particularly between different disciplines (eg,
singular-value decomposition, principal component, Karhunen-Loeve, reduced
rank, and eigen-whatever can all mean the same thing). Even experts in the
field might not be able to think of all possible terms.
- You have to know how to read patents in general. This is no small thing.
- You have to be able to understand the particular patent you are reading.
Good luck. Patents can be remarkably opaque. I've read patents in areas
that I'm expert in, and been left with only a vague idea of what they were
about.
- After you understand the technical aspects of the patent, you have to analyze
exactly what is and is not covered by the patent. In many cases this can
take considerable legal expertise. It may even require the services of a
patent lawyer.
- Even when you have determined that an invention is covered by a patent, is
the patent valid? For example, a three-year-old patent might describe a
method that's been well known for a decade - in other words, it's prior
art. A common occurrence is that only part of the patent might be invalid.
Do you take the risk of ignoring the patent?
- Has the owner of the patent been paying the patent maintenance fees? Has
there been a judgement overturning or limiting the patent?
I'm sure others can add to this list.Re:The Gauntlet (Score:3, Informative)
It's far easier to search if you use the classification. Rather than hoping you get the right terms, it acts like an index. This alone should narrow down your search to 100-5000 patents, and don't forget they are all cross referenced before being issued and related patents are listed on the front page.
My $.02 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent Article, but Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too surprising, really.
Now I'm no economist, but when it comes to the balance sheet, "Tax and Spend" makes more sense to me than "Just Spend".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not if you are a supply sider (Score:3, Interesting)
Laffer, Mundell, et al. can explain this far better, of course.
Actually, they can't. Supply side economics has been nothing but a hoax from the beginning. The problem, of course, is that economics is a rather sophisti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not if you are a supply sider (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing that has kept the economy going since the eradication of the gold standard [wikipedia.org] has been its constituents belief in it. (Or more abstractly, it could be argued, its belief in itself.)
This is aided by the idea that the basic unit of the U.S. economy, the U.S. Dollar, is backed by the "full faith and trust of the government of the United States of America", whatever that means. (For one thing, it means that all Americans are insured for money in the bank for up to $100,000.)
Remember too, that Alexander Hamilton was an enormous proponent of the government operating in a deficit - he felt, among other things, that the debt of a government to its people would incur some accountability (no pun intended) beyond Jefferson's espoused "natural law". One could argue that a government's responsibility to its people is flexible and changing ("...but some animals are more equal than others"), but owed money is owed money in any monetary society, which helps keep the government in check (again, no pun intended).
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It made quite a row when they endorsed John Kerry for President, considering their staunchly fiscally conservative point of view.
I think you actually mean "It made perfect sense that they endorsed John Kerry for President, considering their staunchly fiscally conservative point of view." Bush is a walking fiscal nightmare- no intelligent businessman should support someone whos entire economic policy amounts to "Charge it!"
The Economist's endorsement of Kerry was the most damning commentary on Bush's presidency I've seen. The election cover was sheer brilliance: "The Incompetent or the Incoherent". I love the magazine- it's the last bastion of intelligent conservatism out there.
But then again, don't mind me, I'm just bitter. I didn't leave the Republican party- it left me.
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the ideas in the article that matter, not who said them. Appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] is a common fallacy.
Economist writers (Score:3, Insightful)
The Economist doesn't do by-lines. They give the reason for it on their website:
Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you might be confused. My father subscribes to The Economist. I read /. While you don't qualify your perception of /.'s political "demographics," I would suggest The Economist is somewhat more pragmatic and a little further to the right than /.
I do enjoy the idea random /. posters would be questioning the bonafides of The Economist. I realize they only print on dead trees and they have a weird editorial policy you're unfamiliar with, but last I checked the had a slightly higher barrier to entry than the hoops one has to jump through to post on /.
Re:Superficial article (Score:4, Informative)