Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Businesses

The Patent Epidemic 273

Posted by Zonk from the catch-the-fever dept.
cheesedog writes "BusinessWeek is running an editorial titled The Patent Epidemic, which chronicles not only how abusive and absurd our patent system has become for software and business method patents, but how it hurts even traditionally innovative fields such as the automobile industry. Interesting commentary can be found in the regular places, with Right to Create suggesting action you can take to stem the spread of this epidemic, and Patent Prospector attempting to refute BusinessWeek's arguments."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Patent Epidemic More

The Patent Epidemic

Comments Filter:

  • No conspiracy to see here [OT?] (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:48PM (#14385914) Homepage Journal
    A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from a slashdot reader asking me if I'm behind a "libertarian" conspiracy on slashdot. I brought it up at an anarchocapitalist meeting I had at my place in the middle of December, and the AnarCaps generally laughed -- none of them have the time or the drive to back up my posts with positive moderation.

    Now I'm seeing similar "libertarian" pushes at various newspapers and even noted on my local TV morning news (Chicago's WGN9 news team, hilarious people) a more freedom-loving perspective on some of their opinion pieces.

    It confuses me -- as a freedom lover, I'm known to promote my views heavily one very blog and forum I'm on. For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?

    On topic: all the links provide interesting viewpoints on the problems with patents (and copyright and trademark and all that). The downside to the articles is that the recommended changes require MORE laws and MORE government intrusion rather than less. Does anyone really think that the same coercive laws can really be fixed with more coercive laws? Will we see laws "protecting" freedoms by taking them away?

    • The downside to the articles is that the recommended changes require MORE laws and MORE government intrusion rather than less. Does anyone really think that the same coercive laws can really be fixed with more coercive laws? Will we see laws "protecting" freedoms by taking them away?

      So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?

      If you are sympathetic to the idea of abolishing patents and you live on this planet, the best you can hope for is grad

      • Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws? (Score:5, Informative)

        by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:04PM (#14386058) Homepage Journal
        So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?

        The latter would be great. The current system of patents was completely broken from the start. Even if the US had the best patent law in the world, what stops other countries from ignoring it? I don't want to see the military going overseas to protect patents, and I don't like ANY trade deals as they are all forms of favoritism.

        If you are sympathetic to the idea of abolishing patents and you live on this planet, the best you can hope for is gradual change towards weakening the power of patent monopolies.

        How? There is no chance of things getting gradually better -- laws that protect 10 cartels worth billions are not going to get changed by 200 million individuals who might save $10 a year each because of the monopolies created. 10 people chasing $2 billion will work harder than 200 million people chasing $2 billion.

        Only by performing the experiment of reducing patent force can our society begin to see the benefits of less government interference in essential human rights, such as the right to build stuff and the right to create new things -- rights that patent monopolies prevent you from doing.

        I agree, but my argument from the previous paragraph stands: you won't see things becoming "kinder and better" as long as we allow Congress and the federal branches such abusive powers.

        Unless, of course, you are advocating sitting on our hands and letting the IP-maximalists continue to increase and concentrate their power.

        Their power that We the People granted them by ignoring the Constitution. We gave our federal branches the ultimate powers that they were never allowed, and we're surprised that they give those powers to the highest bidders?

        The solution is no more laws and more control/regulation. The solution is to remove those powers from the federal politicians, and return them to the People.
        • Even if the US had the best patent law in the world, what stops other countries from ignoring it? They'll have a hard time selling the patented goods in the US. Take China, which flouts computer/video game patents openly. However, they're very careful to obey the law regarding textile/electronics exports, because it's a large part of their economy.
        • Your views of the political world are very cynical. And I don't blame you -- our politicos inspire a lot of cynicism. And I absolutely agree that the corporate hijacking of our political process is discouraging.

          But I cannot allow myself to wallow in cynicism. As long as there is a good fight worth fighting, I'll fight it. To do otherwise is cowardly, isn't it?

          So, here's my challenge to you: if you don't like any of the proposed solutions, propose one that you do like, and let us know how to help and

          • Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:38PM (#14386336) Homepage Journal
            I don't need to propose anything, really, because my "dream" utopia is coming to fruition with almost NO need for me. I look at the Internet and see anarchy at work. Sure, many governments are trying to find ways to control the web, and megacorporations are, as well, but in the end the individual is finding just as much strength as everyone else. Do I fear Google or MS or Yahoo could take over at any minute? No, because anyone else can come up with a better product and get it in motion if the market wants it.

            eBay is a great example of anarchy in motion -- it isn't chaotic or nihilistic at all, it is two people with needs trading with one another and both parties profiting from the trade. Sure, eBay may rely still on some legal procedures, but they're connecting people in different countries with different laws and the process mostly works. The same is true of the blogs out there: how many bloggers include copyright symbols on their blogs? Quoting, sharing, linking -- it all works to get information out there in a controlled anarchy -- controlled by the market, not by the government.

            The only way I see anything falling apart is if the Internet gets regulated more, or if central authorities find a way to control it. I don't see that happening, especially with the anarchy of BitTorrent and AIM and other systems that provide for competitors to come in and give them a run for their money.

            • Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by cheesedog ( 603990 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:57PM (#14386472)
              The only way I see anything falling apart is if the Internet gets regulated more, or if central authorities find a way to control it

              But isn't that exactly what our current patent system allows? I.e., there isn't another priceline.com because priceline has a monopoly on Internet reverse auctions.

              When I look at the number of patents issued that cover essential Internet techonologies and even simple programming practices, I see a world that teeters on the edge of widespread regulation and central control.

              To date, many of these [defensive] patents haven't been excercised. But we are beginning to see the lawyers come out of the woodwork, so to speak, and trying to put anything up on the web is increasingly a process of obtaining the correct "permissions" from those holding exclusive patent monopolies.

              I know this from personal experience, having had to remove a simple research project, website, and java applet from the web while in college because of a cease-and-desist letter received from a patent holder. It didn't matter that I didn't think the patents applied to my work. It didn't matter that I thought I could win the "right" to continue my work in a court of law -- I didn't have the resources to go through that battle, so I folded.

              And I'm not the only one.

              In my case, the project I worked on wasn't earth-shattering, but I certainly think it could have made the world just a tiny-eeny-wee bit better had I been allowed to continue. My fear is that we are squashing a lot of really earth-shattering stuff that could benefit all of us, as well as their inventors.

      • Isn't this a false choice? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @03:14PM (#14386611) Homepage
        "So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?"

        Isn't this a false choice? I mean, the solution isn't limited to: (a) do nothing (b) get rid of patents.

        It could be something as simple as:
            Roll patent laws back to about 1960. Software is not patentable, regardless of the medium that it's fixed in. Business methods are not patentable, regardless of the medium that it's used or fixed in.

        I think that solves the problem nicely. And if I've missed something, I'll add another sentence or two.

    • It confuses me -- as a freedom lover, I'm known to promote my views heavily one very blog and forum I'm on. For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?

      ON topic more like- because this very article is "What the hell is going on here?". I'm one who rejects libertarianism as unworkable in the long run- though even my personal economic and political system (distributist democracy) certainly does contain
      • I have many Marxist friends -- many more than my AnarCap friends in number. I understand the Marxist philosophy, but it confuses me how a Marxist can't see that their end game can't come out of laws and regulations.

        AnarCaps (and libertarians) believe in the household is first ideals, too. We believe in the idea of unanimous democracy -- no law shall be passed unless everyone in the group agrees.

        Let's boil that down:

        If every single US citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the state.
        If ev
        • That's how distributism works- except for the assumption is the reverse. If a single household agrees with a set of laws and morals, that's the traditions of that household. Next up is the neighborhood, then the village, then the township, then the county, then the state, then the country. Of course- we accept only a 51% vote as well. But allowing people from outside to own land or invade the market- that's the bad part. Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that
          • But allowing people from outside to own land or invade the market- that's the bad part. Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally- the whole idea is to make manufacturers and consumers LOCAL to each other, so that business decisions such as pricing and wages can be made with full knowledge of the individual human beings involved and their situations, instead of canibalistically profiting off of strangers. The rest, would happen organically.

            This
            • This is where I disagree -- when you allow international trade, you open yourself to finding people who are more efficient at a given task than people local to you. This frees up the local people to find what they're most efficient at doing.

              That's what they tell us- but in practice it's not that easy to retrain for a different job- and in human happiness, this ends up a big negative for both cultures. A good example is what's happening between India and the United States right now- a small number (2%) of
              • That's what they tell us- but in practice it's not that easy to retrain for a different job-

                Really? I've changed markets with 1 year of retraining. Many people learn a career after being duped into believing the market exists -- all that exists in some markets is temporary preferential treatment by local governments. I can't believe how many people keep entering some markets that are on the verge of collapse because the government can't prop them up any more (after 20-30 years of help).

                But since it's onl
                • Really? I've changed markets with 1 year of retraining. Many people learn a career after being duped into believing the market exists -- all that exists in some markets is temporary preferential treatment by local governments. I can't believe how many people keep entering some markets that are on the verge of collapse because the government can't prop them up any more (after 20-30 years of help).

                  The grand majority of people can't even afford that one year of training- most go bankrupt after that without e
            • It also just occured to me that we're really talking about two different things here. E-bay is largely about luxury, not neccessity. Food is largely about neccessity, not luxury. The best part of distributism is that even if the whole grid goes down, you've got your neccessities in walking distance, supplied by people you know and trust. You can't know or trust people online- which is fine for luxuries, but God help you if you're trusting people you don't know for neccessities, because only he can.
          • Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally

            What's your definition of "locally", though? Is it OK to buy Hondas in Detroit, even though plenty of other cars are made there? What about buying Fords in Marysville, OH, where Honda has one of their largest manufacturing plants? In the case of Marsville and Honda vs. Ford, which one is "local"?

            For that matter, what's your definition of "made"? What if your local township had a company that makes widgets
            • What's your definition of "locally", though? Is it OK to buy Hondas in Detroit, even though plenty of other cars are made there?

              Not unless the Honda is made locally as well. Actually, ideally, Morgan should be encouraged to create a few more factories- and you should buy your Morgan from your next door neighbor who build and signed each first machined part.

              What about buying Fords in Marysville, OH, where Honda has one of their largest manufacturing plants? In the case of Marsville and Honda vs. Ford, w

    • Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?] (Score:5, Insightful)

      by God'sDuck ( 837829 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:12PM (#14386129)
      For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?

      it's a distance-from-center issue. 8 years ago, with a president chasing every tail on the hill and the biggest thing in the news being sex and violence on TV, most moderates found themselves to the right of government, and liberty-oriented activism was considered radical-far-left. now, when all the news is on domestic surveillance, republican dominance, and DRM, moderates find common ground with anarcaps. the point: enjoy the next decade - you'll be called crazy again in the twenties.
      • liberty-oriented activism was considered radical-far-left

        WTF? While I agree that the far right is not promoting liberty in its truest sense, the far left is no better.

        When on side promotes telling people what they can an can't do in private (the right), the extreme on the left promotes taking property from all and redistributing it based on _their_ beliefs (hardly true liberty there either).

        Liberty in truth lives in the middle or at least in a stange mix of both left (social) and right ( fiscal/ownership)
        • I see politics as a two sided coin: you have authoritarians on one side, and libertarians on the other.

          The authoritarian side has a left (socialism), a right (fascism) and a center (moderate). The libertarian side has a top (anarchocapitalism) and a bottom (anarchosyndicates).

          I don't really believe there is much "mixing" from either side into one-another.

    • Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?] (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dancpsu ( 822623 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:18PM (#14387720) Journal
      The problem with the current patent system is that it was made with the idea that the economy would be a craft/agrarian economy forever (when the patent system was invented so that craft makers could protect their inventions). In our main economy, the world has moved from agrarian, to a craft economy, to an industrial economy, to the modern design economy. At each stage the lower stages become streamlined and mechanized so that few people are needed at the lower levels. An agrarian economy falls to mechanized farming, a craft economy falls to the assembly line, and an industrial economy falls to robotic manufacture, or a highly mechanized assembly line. In essence, the western world is in a design economy, but mechanized fabrication is not well utilized thanks to extremely cheap foreign labor. At any rate, even without foreign labor, robotic manufacturing would have pushed us to a design economy by now, but now since ever larger teams of highly trained people are designing each new product to be manufactured, the patent system has now become an impediment to the moving forward of the new design economy. The main goal behind economic laws are to make sure that proper protections are given to people who contribute to the economy so more people contribute. A proper reform would be to do away with the patent system, and slightly expand the copywright system to make sure that designs can be copywrighted in their totality, but not tiny, minor, broad mechanisms.

  • PatentHawk charges $125/hour (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MLopat ( 848735 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:49PM (#14385927) Homepage
    Yeah I wonder why PatentHawk refutes the allegations, despite them being blatantly obvious...from their site "Patent Hawk facilitates and mentors individual inventors in getting their own patents, as a way of fostering innovation for those interested in learning how to obtain their own patents, and who might not otherwise be able to afford it.

    Read more about getting a patent with help from Patent Hawk.

    Patent Hawk services are nominally $125 per hour."

    If the US patent system is to be defended (can someone do it with a straight face?) then it should be done by someone with some credibility.
    • This is akin to "New study shows Microsoft Windows to be faster, more secure than Linux" by the independent outfit Tfosorcim Corp.

    • Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j@wwAUDEN.com minus poet> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:57PM (#14386003) Homepage
      as far as I'm concerned most patents aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I've been part of the 'process' several times because companies I was working for at the time pursued patents for their 'ideas' (not implementations), and it's pretty disgusting to see how patent attorneys and their clients conspire to create patents that have the exact opposite intention than what patents were originally created for.

      For example, it's not unusual to word a patent in such a way that a genuinely innovative company that would not even compete with the patent 'taker' will have to go and license (overbroad patenting by design).

      Then there's the 'suing for peace' group that basically takes out patents and then sues to settle for a number roughly $1 cheaper than what it will cost to litigate.

      I hate patents with a passion.

      Some Hot Chick [ww.com]

      • So you've worked for and with bastards that will try and take advantage of any system for profit. And its the patent systems fault? Sorry, I dont buy that. What if I was a small devloper that came up with somthing new and worthwhile. Shouldn't I be able to get protection from the sort of people you work for? Without patent protection a larger group could just take my idea and undersell me.

        • Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j@wwAUDEN.com minus poet> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @03:30PM (#14386762) Homepage
          I'm 40 years old, and have gained some experience since I was 20 or so and worked for these corporations.

          I think it's the patent systems fault because it explicitly allows the abuse of the system. There is absolutely no oversight on what gets patented and what not, it's *WAY* too easy to get a patent on something frivolous, it should not be possible to get something patented without actual development and the presentation of a working device. Business methods and software should NOT be patentable at all, or only for an extremely short period.


          The sort of people I worked (not WORK, I've been self employed for quite a while now) would do just about anything to make a buck, I was fairly young, fairly naive but I got wise and split with them and their ways.


          Taking your 'idea' and underselling you is not the kind of abuse I was talking about. I'm specifically referring to submarine patents and patenting stuff with no intention whatsoever of ever marketing the device (or even developing a working prototype).


          The kind of protection that is needed would push the cost of a patent up quite high, but in my opinion that would be a good thing. It would be an initial barrier that would get people (and especially the corporations that take out hundreds of patents annually) to pay attention to the filing process and the requirements. It would also make sure that you only patent those things that you actually intend to spend development capital on.


          If it's 'just a good idea' you should not be able to patent it at all.


          If it took you hundreds of hours of sweat and labour and mortgaging your house to research your idea your patent should be a solid one.


          Right now a patent is just another gun in the armory of larger corps. As a small time inventor you will probably not have the stamina and the funds it will take to defend your patent, and as a larger corp you can use the patent system to beat up competitors smaller than you.


      • Imagine filing a patent in Jan 2001 and it not being reviewed for about 4.5 years! And everytime you call about it you get the /dev/null spill. The USPTO is broken. It is not beneficial to the average American. Only exists for the benefit of the corporate aristocracy. Don't even get me started on the ludicrous nature of the patent objections made by the USPTO. I seriously doubt they ever critically read the patents they cite and know for sure they are neither software engineers nor experienced in the field
    • Wow- slashdotters are everywhere! Read the first post on the Business Week article: Post from Business Week follows
      Nickname: Scott
      Review: You are correct, Microsoft would not be what it is today if it were not for the failure of Apple to properly protect its Windows GUI :)These companies can easily design around most, if not all of these patents. It's just arrogance and ignorance that creates these problems. Date reviewed: Jan 3, 2006 4:04 PM

      • Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... com minus distro> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:08PM (#14386088) Journal

        Businessweek, almost as uninformed as Forbes ...

        Microsoft would not be what it is today if it were not for the failure of Apple to properly protect its Windows GUI

        I seem to recall something about Microsoft stealing a TV set when Apple has already done the B&E ... (hint: google for "windows gui apple broke in stole tv")

        Xerox. Not Apple. Not Microsoft.

        Next we'll hear critics saying that "Lord of the Rings" is a "great piece of adult literature." It might be - to a kid. But go back and read it today. It'll put you to sleep.

        • Apple licensed the GUI concept from Xerox.
        • "Next we'll hear critics saying that "Lord of the Rings" is a "great piece of adult literature." It might be - to a kid. But go back and read it today. It'll put you to sleep."

          LOTR is not just any literature. It's history, ok? HISTORY. It's not supposed to be entertaining, it's supposed to be informative.

          It's the fucking HISTORY of another god-damned WORLD, OK? It's not a make-believe fairy-tale.

          Sheesus.
    • Yeah. didn't even check that myself, but I clicked the link thinking, "this is going to be a load of shit" but then quickly forced myself to at least listen to it.

      after the third time they reffered to the author of the article they were disputing as "BeavisWeek" though, I decided it was impossible to take them seriously.

  • Four examples (Score:5, Informative)

    by karvind ( 833059 ) <karvind@NoSPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:49PM (#14385929) Journal
    Patently Silly [patentlysilly.com]

    Totally Absurd Patents [totallyabsurd.com]

    IP funny [blogs.com]

    Patent of the week [patentoftheweek.com]

    I am sure there are more, but it gives you a glimpse of the absurdity in patents. Some of the patents are funny too .. so enjoy :) (just don't spill coffee while reading)

    • Re:Four examples (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cexshun ( 770970 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:33PM (#14386292) Homepage

      Well, while the above links may prove humorous, keep in mind that this does not in anyway speak poorly about the patent system. The issue with patents is not that stupid things are patented, but that patents are being thrown around on obvious inventions/methods.

      All of the patents on patentsilly are quite silly. However, they are valid patents. There is a HUGE difference between silly patents and absurd patents. A patent on a glove that chews your food for you is silly. A patent on a 'review system allowing consumers that purchased the item to review it for the public' is an absurd patent.

      If you think about it, a patent on a roller skate where the 4 wheels are placed inline seems quite silly. However, the inline skate is born and people are roller blading everywhere.

  • The only way to purge this infestation is to burn the infection out with high priced legal action!!

    Oh wait...

  • BeavisWeek? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Flaming Babies ( 904475 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:50PM (#14385942)
    I couldn't take anything in the Patent Prospector link seriously after reading that...
    When you can't make it through one paragraph before resorting to namecalling,
    you must not have a very strong argument to make.
    • When you can't make it through one paragraph before resorting to namecalling, you must not have a very strong argument to make.

      Of course they don't. They're busy trying to capitalize off the explosion in patents. They'd hate for the process to become fair and reasonable, because then the number of numbskulls they could charge $2000 for their services would dry up and they's have to go back to their paper routes.

      It's always easier to pooh-pooh complaints about a problem when you're helping to create the

    • Re:BeavisWeek? (Score:3, Funny)

      by ahsile ( 187881 )
      I concur. The namecalling (and the little picture they had beside it: "BeavisWeek: Lies") really turned me off the whole article. I believe the author should take a course in Critical Thinking. Even some slashdot posters can put together posts without letting insults fly (sometimes).
    • Someone should point out my sig to them :)

  • Patent-exploiters are hackers... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:53PM (#14385966) Homepage Journal
    They are not the ones, who built the exploitable system. They just use it -- legally.

  • How about this simple change- (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GWSuperfan ( 939629 ) <crwilson@@@gwu...edu> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:54PM (#14385976)
    In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting. Otherwise, the product/concept/business process/whatever else we've decided is patentable this week is subject to invalidation if someone else can produce a working example first. This would completely eliminate "patent trolls" and would provide a much larger incentive for entities seeking patents to bring their ideas/concepts/products to market more quickly.
    • Unfortunately, that rule may defeat the entire purpose of having a patent.

      Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're a real life engineer with a real life idea for a genuinely useful (and non-obvious) device. The problem is, these devices are extremely difficult to construct, requiring equipment or materials outside the reach of the individual.

      As it stands right now, you could apply for a patent for your device. Assuming you're approved, you can then take your design to a company with the resources to
      • Then maybe the requirement should be for a 'realistic design' or blueprint that includes specifics of how, exactly, it works. That at least would narrow down the area that the patent covers. No more patenting a general idea that covers many different implementations. Software application patents would have to actually have code.

        The patent could also cover anything directly derived from the design, so the company you go to in order to get your device built can't just take your idea and improve upon it and
      • I don't see why it would fail. Heck, I'd add that you must either manufacture your device in commerically suffcient quantites within 1 year of granting of the patent, or be subject to mandatory licensing, at a fixed rate. Now, that seems harsh, but the purpose of patents is not profit. Profit is just an incentive to create, and the intent of patents is to encourage creation.

        If you've invented the first bread-slicing machine, keep it secret until you've got VCs on board. I hate to say it, but the days of
        • I hate to say it, but the days of the super-inventor working in his garden shed are over.

          Right, they're more likely to work in their home office where they have electricity and a computer.

          Just because today's technology seems too complicated for you to imagine being able to invent something yourself doesn't mean the rest of us are so handicapped. The goal should be to protect the individual inventor more, not less. For example, the tools of nanotechnology, devices that can manipulate matter on a molecular l

    • Here are some more fixes (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @03:43PM (#14386867)
      1 - Make patents like trademarks, they have to be actively used and defended. This means that a patent holder must actively be engaged in the manufacture or production of the patented item (or at least show demonstrable intent to do so - like arranging funding to build a factory). That would effectively end the "patent troll" business model of being in business to only licence patents. If the holder is "too small" to own the factory individually himself ,then he can be a principle of the corporation or business that does.

      2- If not ending software patents altogather, limit them to 5 years. Five years is practically forever in the software market. (perhaps they should do this with software copyrights too)

      3- Because patents (and IP generally) are the work of the human mind, make patent ownership non-transferable and limited to the private individual who actually used his mind to invent it. No corporate ownership allowed.(Oh? You say that IBM funded the lab and not the indivdual inventor? IBM paid his salary? Well, then IBM can contract with the inventor to have a favorable or royalty-free license.) Corporations would be able to license, but never own. Provision can be made for joint ownersship in small limited partnerships when more than one person collaberated.

      4 - Elminate method patents completely. If a method is secret, then it is already protected as a "trade secret".

    • In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting.

      Not a new idea -- in fact, once upon a time, you were required to submit a working model with every patent application (in the US). The USPTO still has a museum of these working models, but storage became a problem.

      Otherwise, the product/concept/business process/whatever else we've decided is patentable this week

    • How about this simple change: In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting.

      That's the way the Patent Office actually worked between 1834 and 1880. In 1880 they dropped the requirement for a model to be submitted along with the patent application and made it "subject to request by the Patent Office if they thought the application was infeasible for some reason or an

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:56PM (#14385998)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Best quote from the article (Score:5, Funny)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:56PM (#14386001) Journal

    From Business Week: Old Economy companies face similar trouble. Apparel maker VF Corp., for instance, regularly gets letters complaining it has infringed bra patents. "In the old days you would think of these things as the tinkering of a technician who knew his way around women's apparel...and wouldn't even think about getting a patent on it," says Peter Sullivan, the attorney who filed the brief in the KSR case on behalf of VF and others. "How many bra patents can you possibly have?"

    That says it all.

  • a friend of mine in high school (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kevin.fowler ( 915964 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:58PM (#14386015) Homepage
    16 year old kid invents 2 cool things, takes them to 2 companies for good-faith reviews. both are patented by the companies within a month and are never commercially marketed.

    just one of many seedy things i've heard patents being used for. of course the situation is different, but it leads to the same result... stunted innovation.

    • Re:a friend of mine in high school (Score:5, Informative)

      by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:09PM (#14386103) Journal
      That's why publishing your invention (assuming you're willing to give up overseas patent protection) is so important to keeping knowledge in the public space. In the US, you can publish and still file within a year of disclosure, which means you can get feedback on your invention and introduce it to the public, without fearing that some asshole patent portfolio will scoop it up and use it as another tollbooth against industry and innovation.

      A lot of people will tell you that you should file before disclosing, but who can afford to file? Big companies with lawyers on salary, research universities with lawyers on salary, and companies that are made up of nothing but lawyers.

      If you can't make truckloads of money on something you invented, at least you can make sure that people can benefit by the knowledge that you have gained. And if enough people start believing in the stuff that you've created, you might stand a better chance of getting the money and support to patent, produce, and market your NEXT invention.

      At least, this is my opinion, having researched the process for something I built and thought was obvious in the field, but people kept telling me I ought to patent.
      • For your information, there is a so-called Provisional Patent Application available in US. It costs just 100$ to have your priority date locked for a 1-year grace period.

        Better read about patent system first before posting ignorant comments
      • That's why publishing your invention is so important to keeping knowledge in the public space.

        I'm really curious about this. I'll explain more in a minute, but I have an idea but I don't want to pay thousands of dollars to get it patented. I do, however, want to start production in the next few months, and want to make sure my idea is protected, at least in the US (I'm not that concerned with overseas markets, if this one takes off maybe I will be for my next one). How does it work to publish your idea, and
      • Won't publishing your invention jeopardize your ability to obtain a patent for your invention in other countries? I believe some countries will not issue you a patent if your invention becomes public knowledge even one day before you file an application.
    • My Master's thesis advisor pressured me into filing a patent on an UWB antenna I designed. I never did bother to file, mostly because I wouldn't have made any money on it. Although he refused to forward a paper I had written for an IEEE Transactions because he was afraid of losing patent elligibility. I don't know if he ever filed, he never contacted me about it, and I invented it.
    • Introduce your friend to the acronym NDA [wikipedia.org]. (s)he'll thank you from his/her yacht later...

  • Patent the patent system (Score:4, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:06PM (#14386081)
    Then nobody will be able to do anything.

  • Patents In and Of Themselves Are Not Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:16PM (#14386160) Homepage
    The problem with patents is not that they are being granted at all, as some intellectual anarchists would have you believe, it is that they are being granted for entirely obvious "inventions" that are not really inventions at all. I will not bother to list them, one only has to look into the portfolio of a Jeff Bezos to see that these things are not being reviewed for prior art, orginality or utility, but are instead being rubber-stamped by reviewers more intent on clearing their desk than doing their jobs. Even when they try to do their jobs, rarely does it seem that they know what they are looking at, and rarely do they reject anything for being an entirely obvious application.

    Until such time that patents are made more valuable by requiring an invention to be truly unique, the problem of patents being used predatorily to stifle competition will continue. This will take a sea change in Congress, and will be fought tooth and nail by the large corporations with large patent portfolios. They'll naturally claim that each and every patent is indeed a wonderful thing and that each and every patent that they hold should be upheld.

    The only thing I can see coming of this is another windfall for lawyers who'll end up battling this out in the courts, one way or the other. It may sound pessimistic, but the truth is that the people and fairness will lose out in the long run.

    • The problem with patents is not that they are being granted at all, as some intellectual anarchists would have you believe, it is that they are being granted for entirely obvious "inventions" that are not really inventions at all.

      Patents are no more "not evil" than marxism/communism is a viable alternative to democracy/captialism: in a perfect world that doesn't include humans it'll work just great.
      The expected outcome of patents is to create more innovation: unfortunately there are additional results (

  • If the Patent Office closed its doors today it would need two years just to clear the backlog.

    How about a 2 year moratorium on patents?

  • To Clear Things Up a Bit (Score:5, Informative)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:24PM (#14386227) Journal
    First off, I believe some of their citations are a bit dubious. They mention these great critics without citing any, and use the period of two decades with no supporting fact for the decline over that time. The Patent backlog has only worsened in recent years and the only way I can think they came up with the two decade number is because that is around the time SCOTUS opened the door for software and business method patents.

    Interestingly enough, the case they pointed to is in a field not covered by either of these, but this is their attack. This is probably because these have become the two hotbed matters of discussion so it is best to stick to what infuriates readers the most, I suppose. However, a decision by SCOTUS would affect all patent areas, so maybe they aren't too far off...but still.

    They say the obviousness bar has been lowered. However, I truly believe it was only lowered once when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), decided to require motivations for making combinations and throwing "the one of ordinary skill in the art" out the window. Some have said this was an overreaction to hindsight issues in obviousness rejections.

    They only mentioned one side of the brief as well. If I remember correctly an amiscus (that might be spelled wrong) brief was also filed against the arguments made by KSR. You see your technologies sit on one side while the bio-techs seem to be sitting on the other side, meaning two of the largest industries are pulling for opposite sides of the fight.

    While they use the number of patent issuances going up, they seem to ignore the fact that patent filings have also sky-rocketed along with them. If the percentage of allowances per examinations are the same, then the stat is pretty irrelevant since the number would just be a case of more cases being viewed because of greater numbers of filings and more examiners examining cases.

    I think an equally big problem with the patent process today is the number of simultaneous directions a company can use to defend itself. However, while you are waiting for a decision on one of the routes you may be decided against in another. The perfect example of this is RIM and NTP. RIM is waiting for the completion of re-examinations before the USPTO of NTPs patents and a case before SCOTUS on NTP's ability to sue RIM because of their location and operation as a Canadian company, but the District Court judge does not want to wait to hear from these cases (or the injunction case of ebay and Merch Exchange) and may force RIM into an expensive settlement that turns out to be pointless.

    In the end, the blame for obviousness problems lies fairly firmly on the CAFC who added the unnecessary burden on the examiner of providing motivation for the combination of references. If this gets overturned it would send many patents tumbling and make rejections a lot easier. The last line of the article, however, is just plain wrong. I would be willing to wager that obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103 are the most common form of rejection used by the USPTO. It is very rare that anyone files for a patent for a device that has been previously released and would be rejectable under 35 USC 102. The article does provide some good information, but it also sorely lacks facts and definitely shows some degree of bias on the issue; however, it is an op-ed piece, so bias is fairly inherent.

  • Litmus test for patents (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheSkepticalOptimist ( 898384 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:27PM (#14386250)
    I think the simple solution is to employ some form of litmus test when a person applies for a patent.

    The test I would suggest is as follows:

    "If the innovation in question can be duplicated by an individual, or a group of individuals with limited time, resources, and money, then the innovation in question cannot be patented. Period!" If I can create the same technology in my garage over the weekend, there is no reason why I should have to pay royalties or licensing to implement the technology.

    Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded). I simply can't understand how a patent for putting a hyperlink in a web page or a special button on a device has the same legal standing as developing a hybrid car engine or a new innovative propulsion system that will take us out of the solar system, i.e. REAL INNOVATION!

    Another aspect of the patent litmus test is to question whether the patent is ACTUALLY a unique innovation, or whether countless other people have the same idea and simply don't have the resources or time to go through the patent process. What right does someone with a high priced team of shysters have over winning a patent over a thousand other shmoes that wake up one day with the same idea but without the resources to make the patent happen. These days, patents are nothing more then a race to see who among hundreds or even thousands can cut through the red tape quickly enough.

    Also, why not insist that if the innovation has merit to benefit mankind, then the patent will only be awarded if it becomes public domain. I.e. a process to create medicine to save the world from AIDS or Cancer cannot be licensed or impose royalties on to those companies willing to make the product a reality. This will separate those looking to profit from the suffering of mankind to those people looking only to make a quick buck squating on some new web idea.

    Finally, a patent should only be awarded to a company or individual willing to make the innovation a reality. There are lots of companies being established that simply buy ideas off of the average joe or create think tanks and finance the patent into existence without EVER desiring to actual create the innovation or product in question. They instead rely on greedy licensing fees, or sit on the patent waiting for that fateful time when some other company actually creates a product that patent might infringe on, even if it has nothing to do with the original patent purpose, and sue the pants off that company.

    In all honesty, the whole patent process is out to lunch, allowing of millions of meaningless and trifling ideas to become legally binding innovations when they can either be easily duplicated or are thought up by thousands of other people.

    Someone should patent the patent process, this will end this stupid industry once and for all.

    • Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded). I simply can't understand how a patent for putting a hyperlink in a web page or a special button on a device has the same legal standing as developing a hybrid car engine or a new innovative propulsion system that will take us out of the solar system, i.e. REAL IN

    • Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded).

      This statement is completely at odds with your next one:

      What right does someone with a high priced team of shysters have over winning a patent over a thousand other shmoes that wake up one day with the same idea but without the resources to make the patent happen.
    • I think it is just because of term 'intelectual property'. Copyright, patent, trademark is NOT property. It is time limited monopoly, granted by goverment. So there comes the biggest misunderstanding of modern economy (maybe specially wished misunderstanding?).

      Shareholders want to see anything created by company to stay it's property (well, except open source driven companies). So, CEOs and legal teams came up with vision of 'intelectual property' - with idea that idea can be OWNED. Absurd, isn't it? How ca
  • Q) What do patent lawyers and terrorists have in common?

    A) The more fear, uncertainty, and doubt they spread...the better they do.

    Most software patent claims are defensive. They are made in anticipation of being sued at some future date over an implemented algorithm. If companies had reassurance that such a thing was impossible they wouldn't be making the patent claims...and a lot of lawyers would be out of work. It's a very old form of racketeering. You have to pay for 'protection' from other organiz
  • I've seen this critique of the PTO growing from multiple directions. What bothers me is that it's all too easy to find the bad patents we can all laugh at. If we need non-obvious, and non-trivial, and truly unique patents, how about if someone provides a few examples they judget to be just so? I don't want to hear of Patent XX which is bad. I want you to point out a half dozen patents that you think DO meet an acceptable standard of non-obvious.

    Instead of taking the cheap shot saying what has not met st

  • Everyone loves to hate patents, but... (Score:4, Informative)

    by maillemaker ( 924053 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @02:58PM (#14386480)
    I know lots of people here love to bash patents, but really, they are a good thing.

    I am a mechanical designer. I am listed on several patents for designs that I have been created or been involved with.

    Yes, a lot of patents seem absurd. Hell, a lot of them probably ARE absurd. There is a reason for this.

    Corporations like to build webs of patents around their products. It is not sufficient or desireable to just have a single patent. The idea is to create a web of patents around your product so that when someone infringes on one of your patents, and you take them to court, and they manage to use their highly paid lawyers to wiggle out of the infringement, you then can slap them with infringements on a bunch of other patents.

    Another thing a web of patents do for you is they allow you to horse trade. Let's say someone comes against you with a lawsuit that you are infringing on one of /their/ patents. Well then you whip out your portfolio of patents and thumb through them until you find some things that /they/ are infringing on of yours. Then you horse trade: "Hey...I'll let you off the hook for THESE infringements if you let us off the hook for THOSE infringements..."

    Sounds corny, but consider this - when Kodak tried to get into the instant film business to compete against Polaroid, Polaroid took them to court for patent infringement. Kodak had nothing with which to horse trade, and Polaroid refused to negotiate - they drove them out of the market. This after Kodak had invested millions in new plants and employees. You never want to get caught with no bargaining chips at the patent negotation table.

    But more importantly, patents protect intellectual property. I know, I know, everyone likes to poo-poo the idea of intellectual property. But without such protections, there would be little incentive for companies to pay people like me to invent new products, because as soon as we did, they would be copied by places like China, and sold back in our markets for pennies on the dollar for what we could be able to sell them for.

    Let's face it, folks, thought (IP) is one of the last marketable things that our country (USA) produces. Just about everything else that can be mass produced is now made somewhere else. Without some mechanism to protect IP, it will become worthless, and then we are going to be in some deep shit.

    No one likes patents, until someone takes /your/ idea and makes a fortune off of it leaving you with nothing.

    Steve

    • Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @03:43PM (#14386861) Homepage

      All true a decade ago. Today, though, you aren't going to be sued by someone who makes something. You're going to be sued by a patent holding firm whose only "product" is patent litigation. What good is your patent portfolio when your opponent doesn't make anything that could infringe on your patents? You can't horse-trade when you don't have anything the other guy wants (except money).

      As far as protecting intellectual property goes, again most of the problem patents these days are of the "Balance your checkbook using exactly the same procedure used by millions of housewives for decades, but LETTING A COMPUTER PERFORM THE STEPS!" sort. That kind of "intellectual property" doesn't need or deserve protection.

    • Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No one likes patents, until someone takes /your/ idea and makes a fortune off of it leaving you with nothing.

      You had nothing to start with. An idea is just an idea --- we all have them. What you are describing is simply envy that someone else has managed to make money out of an idea when you yourself didn't.

      As an electronics engineer and software architect with many years behind me, I have a stack of notebooks absolutely brimming with novel ideas, the vast majority of which I will never use in any product
    • Upto your Kodak example, you're basically arguing:

      "Patents are good, because you need patents to defend yourself against patents"

      See the circular logic here? If there were no patents there would be no problem in the first place.

      As for your point about "protecting intellectual property" - I'd echo the sentiment that other people had - you could steal other companies' ideas too, and the advances in your field would actually advance much faster! Don't forget you're standing on the shoulder of giants - in scien
    • Corporations like to build webs of patents around their products.

      Corporate abuse of a broken system does not justify the system being broken in the first place.

      But without such protections, there would be little incentive for companies to pay people like me to invent new products, because as soon as we did, they would be copied by places like China, and sold back in our markets for pennies on the dollar for what we could be able to sell them for. . . . Let's face it, folks, thought (IP) is one of the las

  • Nice [mis]use of stock ticker codes there:

    "Defeating even a dubious patent can take tremendous resources. After Storage Technology Corp. (MSFT) sued Cisco for patent infringement, it took Cisco six years and $10 million to get a jury to declare last June that StorageTek's patent was invalid. (StorageTek was purchased by Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) a week before the verdict.)"

  • Too bad USPTO and /. can't unite... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by denis-The-menace ( 471988 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @03:51PM (#14386955)

    Imagine creating a Prior Art section in Slashdot.
    One or two articles per day is posted describing in English (not USPTO-ease) a software patent being applied for. /.ers would most likely find/remember prior art quickly and quash most software patents if not all of them.

  • 1st patent this year: $200
    2nd patent this year: $400
    3rd patent this year: $800
    4th patent this year: $1600

    not so bad for the 'little guys' that patents are supposed to protect, huh?

    50th patent this year: $112,589,990,684,262,400

    better pick 'em carefully, though :)

    or maybe the first patent you hold costs $2000 and the Nth patent you hold costs $N,000, regardless of time?

  • Recommend Everyone Read This Guy's Comment (Score:4, Informative)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:30PM (#14387802) Homepage

    And his article referenced therein.

    Nickname: Stephan Kinsella
    Review: As a practicing patent attorney, I've observed that both proponents and opponents of the patent system use unprincipled, flawed, utilitarian (wealth-maximization) reasoning to support their position. The primarily principled opponents of patents are anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists. The solution is to realize that there is a non-socialist, pro-property rights, principled case against patents, as I have laid out in my article Against Intellectual Property, available at Mises.org http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf> .
    Date reviewed: Jan 3, 2006 8:54 PM

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close