Ex-Microsoft CTO Checks In On Patent Reform 144
theodp writes "Defending his controversial Intellectual Ventures in a less-than-hard-hitting CNET interview, ex-Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold finds it peculiar that some people get really wound up over patents. 'People generally don't have any problem with the patent system,' quipped Myhrvold, the inventor of Microsoft's patented Television scheduling system for displaying a grid representing scheduled layout and selecting a programming parameter for display or recording, which allows you to more efficiently select shows like Elimidate for viewing."
Not all patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Something (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of "process" and "business plan" patents, this is somewhat similar to what you are saying, because such patents are, by their very nature, vague.
In the case of software patents tho
Re:Something (Score:2)
Re:Something (Score:2)
Patents always sucked. (Score:2)
There may be good reasons for granting a monopoly to someone, but none of these can expressed in the rules for patents and even the rules on what constitutes a valid patent are vague. Such that the only rule a patent has to follow today to be granted is that it is new(and sometimes not even that).
Clearly the requirement of originality(sometimes called height of invention or inventiveness), whi
Re:Not all patents (Score:2)
Gotta love the idea of having to have a working implementation of the idea, that would at least weed out a fair amount of dodgy patents.
Only patents that don't matter.
---
zealotry [reference.com] n : excessive intolerance of opposing views. [microsoft.com]
WRONG! ... A Violent Protest Against Patents (Score:1, Troll)
Patents are directly responsible for the death of millions. They are
NOT "property" and especially not free market or capitalistic (contrary
to popular belief). In addition, the notion that patents help the "little
guy" is a fraud, people don't invent for patents, and patents financially
help lawyers far more than inventors or businesses. When it comes to R&D
patents have the effect of growing a few extra big trees at the
expense of killing the orchard. Patents drive u
Re:WRONG! ... A Violent Protest Against Patents (Score:2)
Re:Not all patents (Score:2)
Not all patents are a problem
If those patents underlie an important part of peoples' lives and are long-lived, then they become a problem.
They become a drag on the efficiency of the marketplace; they are no different from a tax or a transfer payment, even if they are called by a different name and dressed up in noble language.
Re:Not all patents (Score:1)
It's no different than any other industry. Seventeen years and it's open to everyone else to create and sell generic brands.
That's when the original pharm companies "add" another feature - adding a decongestive.
Here in Indy (Indianapolis), Lilly et alia have had to support their patents in court several times - trying to get the life of the patent shortened without a solid argument. Yes, Lilly is big, and important to the local economy, but I'm not defending them for being local - I'd
Re:Not all patents (Score:2)
Re:Not all patents (Score:2)
Re:Not all patents (Score:2)
Re:Not all patents (Score:1)
need another cup o' Joe (Score:3, Funny)
The first time I read that as "Myhrvold has pursued patentology.."
Re:need another cup o' Joe (Score:2)
I hope it's not one of those UFO cults, right?
"And now our heavenly society will rule the world with the use of patents..."
GAH!!!! whew... it was just a dream.
Re:need another cup o' Joe (Score:1)
One of the posted links was to a story last fall - speaking of him attending law school.
I don't know when he passed, but he did pass the bar and is focusing upon (exclusively) patent issues:
"You can't outde
No, no, no (Score:5, Insightful)
To wit: When you get slapped with a multimillion frivolous patent lawsuit from a tiny scumbag parasite company like Eolas which threatens your very livelihood and business that you have worked so hard to build, you can afford to have uncle bill toss gobs of money at litigating it, then gobs more money at settling or buying off the company if it starts to look like their chances of exploiting a legal loophole to win are nonzero. And in the end you don't feel a thing. Most people can't do this. As a result "people"-- i.e. not you, real people who live outside the ivory tower where half-decade lawsuits are a negligable cost-- do tend to have problems with the patent system.
Re:No, no, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, no, no (Score:1)
Re:No, no, no (Score:2)
But there would be a lot of things that would have to be worked out. Specifically, how do you fairly set that price point.
Besides, the biggest problem with patents is that they're given away like candy. With a 'let the courts sort them out' attitude.
Re:No, no, no (Score:2)
Litigation costs are not unique to the patent system.
Re:No, no, no (Score:1)
You don't think he might be bit biased on the issue, do you?
Anyone who doesn't see the problem with firms like this should go read Feynman's "What do You Care What People Think?". . . and demand your dollar for every thought that ever enters your head.
KFG
Re:Mod this up... (Score:2)
Nice point.
Re:No, no, no (Score:2)
Re:No, no, no (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that most software developers believe software patents are dumb. That the other 99% of the population doesn't care is not a convincing argument th
Re:No, no, no (Score:2)
Actually, most people don't have a problem with the patent system, because they have no idea that there might in fact be anything wrong with the patent system. Fun experiment: Ask someone you know in real life what they think about software patents. If they respond to you with more than a blank stare, they're an exception rather than the rule.
Most people in the software industry have problems with software patents, but being that they make up a relatively small subset of the unwashed voting masses, this do
Re:No, no, no (Score:2)
a) Too stupid to understand the problem
b) Too ignorant to understand the problem
c) Not imaginative enough to concieve that there could be something better
d) Already using the patent system to screw society to their own advantage.
The stupid and the ignorant don't see the corelation between things like retardedly overpriced drugs and patents. They don't see the problem with patents on lifeforms. They don't see the ramificati
Re:No, no, no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, no, no (Score:4, Insightful)
The social security comparison might be good but the problem is this. Social security dates from seventy years ago, and while there are very valid criticisms of it both practically and ideologically, it (1) has had at least some quantifiable positive effect mixed in with the bad and (2) was implemented to aid a specific and real crisis, which it did.
Software patents however were quietly created by court court decisions in the 80s in response to no pressing need, and have never produced a plausible benefit. The industry didn't look for it; the industry didn't need it to build the computer revolution or the internet or any of these other things that brought the world to where it was today; the industry doesn't use it now except to defend itself from the patents of other companies within the industry; hell, patentability of software is something that the industry scarcely even noticed for the first decade of its existence. The only reason we're talking about patents now is that the only people who ever figured out what kind of use to get out of patents started using it for very bad purposes. This isn't just a case of the bad outweighing the good. This is simply a case of a bad thing where any good side effects are hard or impossible to find or, at least, never really seem to be produced by the people defending patentability of software.
Rather than comparing it to social security-- something that we should fix the problems with because the nature of the problems indicate a need for maitanence of a system that's worked in the past rather than removing a system that's never worked, at least in the views of many people-- maybe we should compare the software patent situation with the War on Iraq, something we got into without really debating it or thinking about it much and now have committed ourselves to and can't get out of. Something that probably we could mend rather than ending but that still, frankly, we really didn't need to go in there in the first place and if we had actually thought about it more beforehand rather than just rushing in, we wouldn't have.
Make the call (Score:5, Insightful)
What do they say when you call to tell them that you've patented their DNA?
Re:Make the call (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Make the call (Score:2)
Amount Slashdotters pay: $0 in lieu of no infringing uses on record
Re:Make the call (Score:1)
Amount Slashdotters pay: $0 in lieu of no infringing uses on record
Er... I think there are infringing uses, as normal daily metabolism requires replication of cells, and thus DNA. How else does that wound you got when you on the playground as a kid get healed?
Re:Make the call (Score:2)
Re:Make the call (Score:2)
*snort* You and your heathen ideas. What next? Heliocentrism?
In all seriousness: whoops, you're right. In my haste to make a "/.ers don't have sex" joke, I failed to think the science through.
Re:Yes but.... (Score:2)
Re:Make the call (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Make the call (Score:3, Insightful)
Or "Mein Gott!"... (Score:1, Offtopic)
BTW, next time you hear "but nobody's complaining," point out that (1) Adolph was elected by popular vote; and (2) very few people complained about him and his crew<*> until it was waaaay too late.
<*> whom I have deliberately invoked to terminate the thread.
Re:Make the call (Score:2)
Most people.. (Score:2)
Listen to Bill (Score:5, Interesting)
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.
-- Bill Gates in a 1991 internal memo (Source: http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/quotes/index.en.html#
Re:Listen to Bill (Score:1, Flamebait)
You misunderstand.
Bill thinks this is a good thing, and is literally unable to see how anyone could think otherwise.
These people really do believe that what's good for them is good for everyone. Typical Republicans.
Re:Listen to Bill (Score:1)
Very smart..
Until he's amongst the first against the wall... (Score:2)
Re:Listen to Bill (Score:2, Interesting)
First, we do not live in a democracy. A democracy is when three wolves and a sheep vote what's for supper. We are a republic.[1]
-----------------
No, that's not what Republicans believe in.
Both Democrats and Republicans stand for big:
Republicans believe in big business - generally, via supply side economics: when businesses have enough resources & needs, they'll need more people to fill those jobs, and the employed will benefit by having more money to spend, which will put
Re:Listen to Bill (Score:2)
As usual in this audience, very wrong. What you've said above is, in short: we don't live in a democracy, because we don't have a king . Completely non-sensical. A republic is simply a form of state that has a president as its head instead of a monarch. Nothing more, nothing less. Shining examples of republics are the The Peoples Republic of China, the for
Re:Listen to Bill (Score:2)
The dictionary disagrees with you [reference.com]. Notably: "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them." Also known as a "representative democracy".
Athens is the only "true" democracy in history. However, even they were prejudiced. You had to be a white male landowner to have a vote - kin
Re:Listen to Bill (Score:2)
Furthermore, if we're talking about representative democracies, there is no fundamental difference between a democratic republic as the US, France and Germany, or a democratic monarchy such as the UK, the Netherlands and Scandinavia other than that
Why there are libertarian techies (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd take a shot and say it boils down to Kersy temperment. I'll give a simplified version of KT, that my dad used to use with salespeople to help them gain rapport and make a sale.
There are four types of temperments. The type of temperment you are determines how you decide whether to trust somthing (and thus, in a sal
Reposted- same post, correct italics this time (Score:2)
Quiz Question: Why is it the political leanings of most people who work in the technical arena (geeks & nerds) - not people who are key-entry operators are more libertarian in general??
I'd take a shot and say it boils down to Kersy temperment. I'll give a simplified version of KT, that my dad used to use with salespeople to help them gain rapport and make a sale.
There are four types of temperments
Re:Bill (Score:2)
Interesting quote from Bill...the implication is even more interesting. He acknowledges that if patents had been available before, the market would be at a complete standstill. He goes on to suggest that they patent all they can...and if one logically extrapolates, it's presumably so that they can help bring the market to a standstill. I guess market stagnation is fine, as long as you're an entrenched player.
The more I think about this, the more I wonder what in HELL they where thinking when they decided t
Or: Bill is an idiot (Score:1, Insightful)
So let's make sure the industry grinds to a complete stanstill and patent everything under the sun
yeah, thanks billy boy!
Not always an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not always an issue (Score:2)
Re:Not always an issue (Score:1)
Oh, I thought that patents were a part of this mystical "intellectual property". Patents exist because we want them, not because some big corporation "deserves" them.
Re:Not always an issue (Score:1)
so.. (Score:2)
It's more "I don't care because no one ever told me to" rather than "I'm well informed and I think it's fine".
Software patent frenzy (Score:5, Insightful)
With software patents, people are patenting the most simple of ideas, and they're doing it in a frenzy.
Microsoft's 'IsNot' patent is just one of the pathetic reasons why so many people have become anti-patent.
Software patents seem to be used mainly as an anti-competitive action, rather than used for protection of clever and innovative ideas.
Anybody who can't understand what the fuss is about is either completely ignorant of this situation, a moron, or plans to use his own patents in an anti-competitive way.
Re:Software patent frenzy (Score:2)
No, not ignorant, it was an oversight.
My point is that Microsoft has applied for a patent on something that is so simple - apparently eager to use patents in a way that restricts competition.
Just by applying for a patent, Microsoft stirred people up.
If you're not ignorant on the subject you'll know that many
Since stepping down (Score:4, Funny)
Someone has got an investor's money (Score:5, Interesting)
Myhrvold: Well, this is even stranger. We actually did a study on this. The overall number of lawsuits for patents is growing, but so is the overall number of patents. So explain that to me.
- this guy doesn't need anything to be explained to him, he is a crook. He did a 'study'? Let him point to the study. Let him show us that study. I bet it was nothing like a study. I bet he sit down with a couple of guys over a beer and talked about how much money they could make from litigation and that was his study.
If you then look at it and ask, what fraction of those lawsuits are due to companies that have no products, the IP-only companies--it's about 2 percent. If you look at it and say what fraction of lawsuits are due to large technology companies, it's about 2 percent.
-Look at that, he's got some numbers! I bet he just pulled those numbers out of thin air. I don't know how many companies are out there suing each other over stupid patents but I am sure it is not 2 percent. It is either something very very small like 0.0001 percent or something very large, like over 60 percent but saying it's 2 percent doesn't make any sense. It's not a real number.
---
This guy hopes to make money on litigation that much is clear. He calls himself an inventor. Inventor my ass! I 'invented' things. Plenty of things. One of them is in my russkey [mozdev.org] extension - selecting text in a browser and transforming it into a different type of text right on the page. There. An invention. I bet anyone can come up with that. And I bet it would stiffle innovation if I started suing other people for doing the same.
Re:Someone has got an investor's money (Score:1)
Maybe that's why he's gotten Microsoft, Google, and Sony to invest - following LBJ, they'd rather have this g
Re:Someone has got an investor's money (Score:2)
The said it plainly: we will come up with ideas and then we will not implement them, we will wait until someone else comes up with the same idea, implements it and then we will be there waiting for our money.
It's a mafia in the making, what are you, asleep?
Patent (Score:1)
Re:Someone has got an investor's money (Score:2)
I am sure this will happen more and more frequently- companies with large patent portfolios threatening anyone who they think *might* be infringing, can usually extend the pain- even if it is discovered that the initial patents may not have been infringed, they can always threaten to find some that are...or just accept some money and go away. I'd lik
Re:Someone has got an investor's money (Score:2)
BTW., Google is named as one of the investors. What happened to 'Do No Evil' policy?
How about this, I patent the process of sitting with a couple of guys over a couple of beers and 'inventing' things so that such ridiculous ideas no longer come to fruition.
Or how about this: patenting a process that allows patenting obvoius ideas. If this passes than USPTO will have a hard time getting a license from me.
Re:Someone hasn't got a brain (Score:2)
Ok, I will. You see, when something is so deplorable that it practically mandates a "screw or get screwed" m.o., guess what people will do? DUH. Does he really believe his audience is that stupid?
Re:Someone has got an investor's money (Score:2)
Ignorance. (Score:2)
They generally think outsourcing is good because they can buy things for half the cost, and drive to Canada to pick up prescription medication because it's more than they can afford here. If they were fully informed about how much the current patent system was costing them fewer would be on the fence about it.
wound up? damn straight (Score:1, Interesting)
here is how it goes...
you've got a bunch of bucks so you group a bunch of clever guys. you look carefully at the state and direction of technology and you predict points of accreation, or 'invention'.
because it is not necessary to provide a working example you file both broad and bottle neck patents on these 'inventions'. that is you file broad ones covering the accreation and
I'd say (Score:2)
Given that patent officers are bureaucrats and not technical experts, and that companies and individuals file patents for almost anything, it's not surprising that so many bullshit patents are granted.
The US IP system definitely need restructuring. But it is important to remember that patents
Paleontology (Score:1)
Abolish the current patent system. 5 Year Maximum! (Score:5, Insightful)
One loose theory of why religion is originally formed is that it is a mutation of the set of rules the tribal elders set down in order to protect ones tribe. The banning of pork products made sense in the dessert as pork very hard to keep in such harsh conditions. Rules on sexual interaction were originally intended to prevent the spread of STD's in ancient times. These very rules were later warped by the church (which had turned the "rules" into its own organization) in order to force a population increase in their followers. By promoting a warped version of this rule the church now contributes to the spread of STD's, one of the very things its founders most likely hoped to prevent.
How dose this relate to software patents you ask?
Well patents were not intended to strangle progress of smaller companies, they were intended to prevent big companies with huge R&D budgets from stealing smaller companies ideas, and either beat them to market with their own idea, or buy off the researchers from the smaller companies with huge bribes.
But in order to prevent the smaller companies from becoming the very entities that threatened innovation by hoarding their ideas, patents had a time limit on them that was reasonable.
5-10 years was the norm for most countries I think, but I'd have to look it up.
Then a funny thing happened. As the means of production became more efficient, i.e. companies needed LESS protection from the competition, patents started to get Longer and Longer. So companies started to buy up patents, or lobby for longer patent lengths.
The very system that was meant to help innovation is now the main reason that innovation is suffering.
Re:Abolish the current patent system. 5 Year Maxim (Score:2)
It is analagous to the romans selling their right to vote for bread and circuses.
Re:Abolish the current patent system. 5 Year Maxim (Score:3, Funny)
Bacon flavoured ice-cream is actually quite tasty.
Re:Abolish the current patent system. 5 Year Maxim (Score:2)
Were you joking?
http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/0504/050422-br i tishfood-e.html [breakingnewsenglish.com]
http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/leisure/food/display. var.655783.index.weird_and_wonderful.html@ [ealingtimes.co.uk]
[The Fat Duck, voted the world's best restaurant, is well known for its bacon & egg ice cream]
Re:Abolish the current patent system. 5 Year Maxim (Score:2)
Re:Abolish the current patent system. 5 Year Maxim (Score:2)
Re:Abolish the current patent system. 5 Year Maxim (Score:2)
In the computer industry an idea might get obsolete in the time it takes to take a bogus patent to court and get it invalidated. (Given you have the money needed).
In the pharmaceutical industry it is easy to search for prior art in computer industry it is not. This makes it very hard for software companies to know if they are violating somebody elses patent.
To a software company patents mean an unknown business risk. To pharmaceutical
religion and patents (Score:2)
Also, consider that pigs are very immunologically similar to humans. Influenza in the past was massivly lethal, and often moved into the human population from the avian population (particularly ducks) through a pig intermediary.
In addition to STDs, I'd imagine various sexual laws were also intended to confine pregnancy to marriage.
in order to force a population increase in their followers
Of cou
Re:religion and patents (Score:2)
I was going more along the lines of intended vs. actual consequences.
Not Sleeping with everyone, I.E. Abstinence = good when no birth control, or STD protection was available.
This gets turned into Sex is Evil and so is birth control in Modern times. The rule was NOT meant to be one of "Morals" but one of common sense. I.E. it was stupid to sleep around with out protection (as NONE was available). The very same argument family planning centers make today, except t
Because real people Ignore them. (Score:1, Interesting)
Either the violators don't care (or more likely) don't know because the patent is something completely obvious.
Then there are the patent holders who either don't know about the violation because they're lazy and incompetent, don't know simply because it's impossible for them to check all other products / private nonreleased infringements - or they know about it but have chosen not to do anything about it.. yet.. in the hopes of suing a
Think about what your saying. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a very convincing argument when you consider that most people don't have a problem with the patent system because they don't know there's a problem in the first place. Once in a while some patent will go through that will garner some attention (patent on the swing, Smucker PB&J patent, etc) but in general the patent issue flies under the radar. No doubt that's the way they like it though.
They don't want to implement their ideas (Score:2)
I think it is very important to make the following change to the patent office rules:
Whoever it is that comes up with the idea must implement it. If there is no implementation, than the idea cannot be patented at all. Period.
What this means is that noone can patent their 'idea' without implementation so that they do not dis
It seems to me.... (Score:2)
For the patent offices and patent laws to make sense, it requires that those working in the patent offices and patent law professions to be kept abreast of all develo
He's attacking Straw Men (Score:5, Informative)
The European Patent Convention says that software is not an invention and cannot be patented.
That the US Supreme Court has said in various rulings in software cases that:
Transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or thing is the clue to the patentability of a process claim
Whether the algorithm was in fact known or unknown at the time of the claimed invention, as one of the "basic tools of scientific and technological work," it is treated as though it were a familiar part of the prior art.
insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process
If you invent something like a new and nonobvious physical rubber manufacturing process it is certainly a patentable physical process whether it mentions software or not. Software does not prevent a an otherwise patentable invention from being patentable.
Software is not a "process". Any possible software is to be treated as a "familiar part of prior art". You cannot turn unpatentable software into a patentable process without some signifigant post solution physical activity. All from the Supreme Court.
Lower US courts have violated those Supreme Court rulings, particularly in the State Street Bank case which esentially ushered in software patents. Software patents which were previously and properly rejected. These lower court rulings upholding software patents only remain standing because the US Supreme Court has entirely neglected patent law for far too long.
-
Re:He's attacking Straw Men (Score:2)
or, alternatively, because the SCOTUS has been bought and sold by corporations for so long - like the rest of our government.
Re:He's attacking Straw Men (Score:4, Informative)
The Office has traditionally been opposed to software patents (along with business methods; take a look at this site [bitlaw.com] for one discussion of this) and so rejected it, but the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and it's predecessor, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA), have been hot to trot to permit software patents. This position ended up in the Supreme Court with the Benson case back in the 1960s; the CCPA had reversed the PTO, who o appealed to the Supreme Court, who finally ruled in favor of the PTO (i. e., reversing the reversal of the CCPA).
Scrambling to recover from this smack down, the CCPA and successor CAFC have strained to interpret Benson and other cases as narrowly as possible; as I recall they reversed a PTO rejection of a natural language algorithm, stating Benson only applied to "mathematical" algorithms.
As you have said, the CAFC continues to follow its "Anything under the sun is potentially patentable subject matter" concept as far as it thinks it can stretch beyond the wording of the Benson and Diehr cases; it will take a flat reversal by the Supreme Court or an act of Congress to change this, neither of which looks likely any time soon.
Elimidate (Score:2)
on Slashdot.
Frivolous Patents (Score:1)
Modern patents and reality. (Score:5, Interesting)
So I did my research and found one of the better IP lawyers in the state. I walked into his office with a preprint of my academic paper, copies of existing academic articles which may be considered prior art, everything I thought he'd need.
His first question was whether I was willing to go bankrupt for this idea. "Uh... what?" I asked. That wasn't what I was expecting to hear.
The average cost for a successful patent, he explained to me, runs around $7,000. That news floored me; isn't the patent system supposed to be accessible to private citizens?
Oh, no, he told me, that's not the price. That's the price for a successful application. Right now, only about 35% of all software patents are granted. So the amortized cost of a software patent is about $20,000.
Then it starts getting even worse.
About one patent in ten will ever make their original investment back from licensing fees. The overwhelming majority of patents issued fail to recoup their initial outlay. Most patents are not used to get licensing fees; most patents are used to deny other people entry into your market. If a patent can keep other people out from your business, then it might make financial sense; but as it currently stands, since I have no business in this area of the security field... I'd be looking at one chance in ten of recouping my patent cost.
So, in other words, take the amortized cost of a patent ($20,000) and subtract from it the speculative revenues I'd be receiving ($20,000 *
That's considerably more than I make in a year as a graduate student. I could possibly, if I sold all my worldly possessions, get that much money together, but I'd probably have to declare bankruptcy as soon as it came time to pay my student loans. Hence, his question: is this idea worth going bankrupt over? Especially given the unavoidable fact that, if I did manage to beat the odds and get good licensing, all the major players would simply threaten to sue me for infringing on patents of theirs I didn't even know I'd infringed, and would offer just a no-cost cross-licensing deal that would let them have access to my patent for free, and all I'd really get out of it would be the mercy of them not suing me?
I'm not opposed to the existence of software patents. I think they're wildly overused, and overused in unethical ways, but there are some algorithms which are so breathtakingly new and innovative that they deserve patent protection. (RSA comes to mind as an example.)
I am opposed to a patent system which is priced far outside the capabilities of private citizens.
I am opposed to a patent system which is structured in such a way that large companies can get unlimited access to the small guy's patent portfolio just by threatening a lawsuit.
I guess you could say I'm opposed to practically every dimension of how patents are currently practiced.
Where Open Source Come In (Score:2)
If everyone simply followed the old system your idea will essentially go to waste, unused.
You don't have the money to set up a business to take advantage of your idea. You can't use the patent system to try and licence your idea to companies. You cannot benefit fro
Re:Where Open Source Come In (Score:2)
But we also live in a world where we have to pay the bills. I have to pay for graduate school somehow. I wasn't expecting to get independently wealthy off this idea, but I was hoping to be able to pay for a couple of semesters of grad school from the proceeds. That's a reasonable hope, I th
The Problem with Software Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
The original reason for the patent system was to give an innovator time to market and profit from his o
Re:The Problem with Software Patents (Score:1)
But how will this be established, and how much additional time will be devoted to this determination? The current examination process already is burdened enough with prior art searching and application to have this thrown in the mix. In fact the following provi
How can he patent that (Score:1)
Prior Art to be abolished? Is anyone catching this (Score:2, Informative)
Folks this proposed change has nothing to do with "fixing" the patent system, this would be a whole sale intelectual property land grab.
"The head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has endorsed some key reforms that Congress is scheduled to consider this year."
"Patent Office chief Jon Dudas said Monday that federal law should be
Uhmm, this is not that surprising... (Score:2)