Legislation To Overhaul US Patent System 336
FutureDomain sends us to a PC World report on the filing yesterday of legislation to overhaul the US patent system completely. The US has the only system worldwide that tries to ascertain who first invented a thing — everywhere else the criterion is who filed first, and the new legislation would bring the US into line. Identical bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate by, in each case, bipartisan sponsors. The corporate roster of backers includes Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, and nearly everyone else. From the article: "The provisions of the Patent Reform Act would... restrict damages that patent holders can receive for infringement lawsuits, create a new procedure to challenge the validity of a patent after it has been granted, and boost resources for the US Patent and Trademark Office."
First Post! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Post! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is going to break it worse than it already is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First Post! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree here - this is a horrible development.
In my view, the extreme solution is this:
A more agreeable solution would be this: Patents only last 5 years.
That will truly spawn innovation, because for anyone to make a buck, they will have to create new novel things. And the consumer will benefit, because innovations in manufacturing efficiency will mean that things take fewer resources to manufacture and last longer - differentiation will be in the product attributes, not in the patent portfolio. Sure, some people will claim they won't be able to recoup development costs or whatever, but that will just mean that development costs will have to come down or people will actually have to *gasp* do something truly innovative to get business. This is mostly Big Medicine, and if Big Medicine can't manage to be profitable at the prices the public is willing to pay (generic prices) without patent protection, then they (and the public) need to rethink the model: The public can either have new drugs and pay a lot to support the development costs, or have cheap generic drugs and no new ones. Supply and demand, free-market style (without the protectionism of patents).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Same thing with the game consoles market. How long was that Cell processor Sony was making in development? We
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but what? Are you serious here? Let's say that the cost to research and d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, this is not to say that the bill would not break the US patent system any more than it already is, but one really can't tell that just from reading a summary. You should read the actual bill before concluding that it makes any problems worse.
Re:First Post! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's already pretty clear that it will be bad as it will benefit patent trolls and hurt technologies developed by consortiums or open source projects (neither of which tend to patent their ideas--consortiums just establish standards that define the technologies, and open source projects normally don't waste the money on patents). For example, look at the Verizon vs. Vonage case where Verizon was the first to patent, but as of a Slashdot story yesterday it seems that a consortium of various IT companies actually met and established the standards/protocols/underlying technology of VoiP in question at least a year prior to Verizon filing for a patent.
Re:First Post! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have two arguments against your statement, and I'm only half joking.
First, the bill is backed by every large technology corporation. The only bills large corporations ever approve of are ones that increase their profits, usually at the expense of smaller companies or individuals. And if both Microsoft and IBM agree to it, this trips all my warning alarms and signals about "bad ideas".
The other argument is that Congress is horribly, horribly broken, and I simply do not trust them to pass good or useful legislation. This country needs fewer laws, not more laws. In general, if they're passing a piece of legislation, it's going to be bad for us regardless of the topic.
That said, I'm actually looking forward to reading the bill. I mean the USPTO is already pretty screwed up, so this offers the faint glimmer of hope that it really will reform them. But I'm also prepared to be severely disappointed.
Not a prior art problem (Score:2, Informative)
Trade secrets, however, get a good hosing. If you keep something secret and someone else patents your secret, you could suddenly find yourself paying royalties.
No more prior art? I think not. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. Prior art should still hold in that you can't patent something that was described by DaVinci, Ben Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell, Erosthanes, or some dude in Ohio in 1998 on his web site. What first to file means is that the USPTO no longer needs to flip a coin when it gets three applications for the same thing and needs to determine who made the invention when.
See http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86141 [heise.de] which makes if pretty clear that Germany -- a first to file country -- considers prior art in judging the validity of patents.
Of course, I'm no patent expert, and the US Congress with a little help from the lobbiests is capable of coming up with absolutely abominable legislation . But I'd keep an open mind on this one at least for a while for a while.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing to do with prior art - prior art invalidates patents in first-to-file countries* as well as first-to-patent countries.
It's more when two inventors develops something novel at the same time. Who gets the patent? First to invent - or first to file?
* Which include the Phillipines as well as the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody, because it's "obvious to one skilled in the art"?
Actually, if two people develop it, it's no longer 'novel' by definition and so fails the validity tests.
Re: (Score:2)
It has never been first to invent anyway -- that's just a red herring. The entire question is, who has the money to defend the patent in court. Because if you don't, the odds are, you're going to lose it as soon as someone wants it. It's a corporate favoritism scam. It's always been a scam. It's not just a scam because of this, either. If we both invent something, you might ta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only that were the case. Patents are the least of pharma's issues. Liability is the number one reason that new drugs are not being developed or released. There is a whole industry of class action lawyers constantly sear
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Are they going to patent this new system? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation ... Garage inventer will be screwed! (Score:2)
Re:Translation ... Garage inventer will be screwed (Score:5, Informative)
The old system just had the option of companies not filing patents and not publishing their results could come in and claim they invented the idea first.
The new system is much less corrupt and more open.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In most of the world publishing is valid prior art on the day it happens. You can try to file a patent on something like that but it'll be struck down on the first challenge.
In the use publishing is *not* prior art unless you've been published for at least a year. That means if you for example you release a program that does something cool you *must* patent prior to release or lose it - hence you end up with the clusterfuck that is the US patent system, because damn obviou
Re: (Score:2)
Define "publish" - because in theory anything I put on paper is copyrighted, but trying to get a plagiarism suit proven based on my napkin scribblings of a kid wizard at a school named Frogwarts is gonna be tough.
I suppose prior art is a type of "publishing" but this makes it even harder for a patent to get overturned. Most of the headaches of the curre
Re: (Score:2)
Right there.
A invents X.
B invents X.
C invents X.
C files for patent.
Under the current system, C can't have the patent because A and B have prior art. (Assuming the USPTO does its job.)
Under the proposed system, accor
Re: (Score:2)
A invents X
A publishes X
B invents X
B files patent on X
A files patent on X
B gets patent, A is screwed
Why wouldn't B get the patent, thus screwing original inventor A? Where does prior art even come into it in first-to-file? If B doesn't get the patent, shouldn't it really be called fist-to-publish rather than first-to-file? Of course, it's not
Oh, well, that changes things.... no, not really (Score:2)
Wouldn't this actually be a huge step BACKWARD?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
This legislation basically sounds like a free pass for companies to do this, and throw out the idea of "prior art" altogether. It's little wonder the big IP corporations are behind this (since they have the resources to file scores of patents, strong-arming out the little guys who may have actually invented them). And it's little wonder the patent office is behind it (since it GREATLY simplifies their job). But, for the consumer in particular, and for innovation in general, this could be one of the biggest bonehead moves out legislators have ever made (and that says a LOT).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't this actually be a huge step BACKWARD? (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't just money, you know. It is the promise of jobs after government employment. Low-rate loans. "Speaking" engagements. Lecture tours. Book deals. Boats. Houses. Sex. Vacations, junkets and "fact-finding" missions. Access to people in power. Tips - market and otherwise. All manner of free dinners and drinks. Power for its own sake. Oh, and of course - money.
There is no more corrosive environment than a political position in Washington DC. It's a wonder our representatives don't outright grow horns the first day on the job. Sadly, a 100% corrupt person looks just like one that isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."-Douglas Adams
Re:Wouldn't this actually be a huge step BACKWARD? (Score:4, Insightful)
The horse had a bad broken leg before, now we're going to add a bullet through its skull and still try to ride it.
Re:Wouldn't this actually be a huge step BACKWARD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't this actually be a huge step BACKWARD? (Score:5, Informative)
Filed first is just the decider when two applications are made for the same invention (which was secret until the applications).
In most of the world the person who gets to the patent office first gets the patent and the one who gets there second gets nothing. In the US you can claim that you invented it before the other party and try to prove it with dated notes etc. which were previously not published. In theory the first to have the invention gets the patent not the first to file. This leads to messy legal fights.
In the rest of the world the incentive is to file (and therefore publish) first which gives a clearer decision on this issue.
Joseph
Re: (Score:2)
As for what the rest of the world does, who the hell cares? First, standardization is not something that makes a patent system achieve its goals better. Second, just b
Re:Wouldn't this actually be a huge step BACKWARD? (Score:4, Insightful)
We care because a lot of people here are saying "This couldn't possible work! I can imagine it will lead to all kinds of bad effects like this..." and they then go on to describe something that is known to not happen in the rest of the world where first-to-file has been the norm for decades.
These people remind me of nothing so much as a Renaissance mystic's response to Galileo's observation of the Jovian moons. He said that because there were seven seas on the Earth and seven openings in the human skull, there must be only seven planets in the heavens, so Galileo must be wrong. It "just made sense" to him that extra planets were impossible.
Empirical evidence is always the final arbiter of reality, and should be the final arbiter of policy, and the people here who are basing their beliefs about the consequences of first-to-file on the contents of their imaginations need to start looking beyond the end of their own cerebral cortex.
Just look at how attention to foreign implementations has been fucking up our copyright laws.
Actually, speaking in my capacity as a foreigner, what is happening is quite the opposite. The US is continually trying to bully us into adopting your crazy copyright system. [theglobeandmail.com]
Empirical fact. It's not just for scientists any more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but this is still not an affirmative reason to adopt first-to-file.
Actually, speaking in my capacity as a foreigner, what is happening is quite the opposite. The US is continually trying to bully us into adopting y
First to File (Score:2)
First to file does work, but it means that from your pri
Re:Wouldn't this actually be a huge step BACKWARD? (Score:2)
I've got a bunch of ideas I wouldn't mind patenting, but haven't a clue how to do it, nor the money to waste on lawyers..
With this new system, companies would be able to set themselves up doing nothing other than watching smaller companies, then patenting their ideas, only to use those patents to sue the actual creator. That being their entire business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the US under the present system prior art has to be published for 12 months before it's valid.. which is what needs fixing first. Hopefully the new rules will fix this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone patented something and you possess prior art items, you could still get the patent invalidated but you would not be able to claim the patent for yourself anymore.
Bizarroworld (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bizarroworld (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And are they going to lower the costs of this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with the cost of filing. It is the cost of defense that you should be concerned about. Compared to that, the cost of filing is nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, this worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think I understand the rationale for changing the law, but as an application developer it worries me. I'm not interested in trying to patent software that I create, or any of the techniques that I use. I'm more interested in creating applications that are so compelling that they set a high standard that is difficult for competitors to meet, and then continously innovate to stay ahead of them.
However, I have always felt like I could
Re: Publishing Defense? (Score:3, Insightful)
And is there a fast & dirty way to "publish" that's free?
Seems to me this could be a great sneaky gift to OSS types, who LIKE publishing their work.
Question: Can we outrace the Closed Source shops until "all the good stuff is open?"
Good news, bad news (Score:2)
Still, if Big Pharma is against it, it's probably a good thing overall.
Pork for the big companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Each of these companies is well-known for abusing Software patents; the first two in order to maintain their monopolies. Usually "reform" by these folks means "give me a bigger piece of the pie in order to stifle innovation and keep the little guys out".
Pardon my suspicions, but I doubt this so-called "reform" is here to help us. TFA isn't clear on this, but it sounds like this is just to establish the first-to-file basis of patents, rather thna first-to-invent. First-to-invent is advantagous for the little guy, so it's no wonder the big companies are behind this dubious "reform". This is not good legislation.
If they really wanted to reform the system, it would be better to either toss out Software Patents (and harmonize our system with much of the rest of the world) or at least require a working prototype before a Software Patent is granted.
Re:Pork for the big companies (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pork for the big companies (Score:4, Informative)
Models or exhibits are not required in most patent applications since the description of the invention in the specification and the drawings must be sufficiently full, clear, and complete and capable of being understood to disclose the invention without the aid of a model.
A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.
When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the applicant may be required to furnish specimens of the composition, or of its ingredients or intermediates, for inspection or experiment. If the invention is a microbiological invention, a deposit of the micro-organism involved is required.
Re: (Score:2)
For a former patent examiner I am quite surprised that you don't know the history of IBM's monopolies in both mainframe and PC computing, and the fact that they used their patent portfolio very aggressively to protect those monopolies. Though AFAIK they were never convicted of legal monopoly status.
It took serious money for Compaq to reverse-engineer their BIOS enough to run MSDOS on their first PC clone. For years afterward there were various BIOSes that had d
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pork for the big companies (Score:4, Interesting)
Certainly, since your claimed expertise isn't technology, I'll repeat this again. IBM has had a monopoly for over 50 years in the mainframe business. There was an anti-trust case taken by the U.S. government back in the 1950's IIRC against them. Contrary to popular myth, the mainframe business is very much alive and well, and in Q4 last year, it was their largest growth segment.
I say "almost all" because there's a small startup which is selling mainframe-class computers which runs IBMs software directly. IBM didn't like this, so they filed a Software Patent lawsuit against the company.
The company is called "Platform Solutions", and they are apparently using Linux to achieve their emulation.
So, in short, IBM has filed a Software Patent lawsuit against a Linux company. Here's some Press Coverage:
"IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove." [informationweek.com]
IBM has a VERY long history of patent abuse in the mainframe business; software patents are only the latest variation on a theme. Please check Wikipedia if you want to learn more about the Consent Decree that IBM had to operate under until possibly recently.
"Actually, some of the reform these guys have proposed and the briefs they have written for SCOTUS cases have been in favor of things that would REDUCE the number of patents."
Prove it (but you can't). The standard argument is that first-to-file INCREASES the number of patents, since large companies find it easier to generate more patents than small companies do.
"First to invent is a mess."
And First-to-file stifles innovation. It is pure pork for the big companies. The patent system was supposed to be about encouraging innovation, not stifling it. I agree the whole system needs to be redone. But First-to-file is neither necessary nor sufficient to bring about the changes that are needed.
"Um, working prototype is currently a requirement FOR ALL PATENTS. You do not patent an idea, you patent an invention"
Really? Do you mean all those patent trolls who never ship any product have a working prototype? I'm a little surprised to hear this claim from a supposed Patent Attorney. I can think of several Troll companies which don't have a working product. This is usually their standard operating procedure.
A copy of the prototype binary and source code ought to be a part of any current Software Patent, IMHO.
I'm not sure I get it (Score:2)
There are many things broken with the current patent system, but how exactly is a first-to-file system better? Seems like this only makes it easier to patent the useless and ridiculously broad crap that the current system is clogged with.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has no bearing on patenting beer, the sky or sex, which ought to be covered by other rules (novelty and non-obviousness to start, but also the fact that they naturally exist). Or at least it shouldn't have... this is the USPTO w
Only Country . . . (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with being the only country, especially when we're right.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the bill does seem to give the patent office additional resources to get thier job done.
We will see how this proceeds through Congress (Score:2, Interesting)
More like fine-tunning (Score:5, Interesting)
Or the "Get a bunch of specialists in a room and ask them 'How would you solve problem X' and then patent the solutions" approach to "innovation".
Not to mention that the change from a "Prior-art has precedence" system to a "First to patent wins" one means the anybody that has loads of ideas but no money to patent them will loose against "Big corp with loadsa money for whom the costs of filling a patent are short change".
Couple this with the ability to patent business methods (whether encoded as a software/hardware mix or not) and you'll see things like "selling ice-cream on a beach" being patented.
The real revolution would be dropping patents for business methods (software encoded or not) altogether.
The fact that BSA is for it (read: the big boys in the software world), should be ringing alarm bells in everybodies minds.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, how do you distinguish that from an actual invention, which usually takes two or more ideas that already exist and combine them in novel ways?
The problem is equivalent to distinguishing originality from opportunity. As wireless communication becomes cheaper for example, it becomes economically feasible to do things wirelessly that were not feasible before. Eventuall
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a bit like officially staking ownership to a piece of land on Mars and then waiting until people get there.
The thing is, in IT related areas, given the speed of technological evolution and the way too long duration of a patent, wild land grabs before the necessary technology exists are a viable business model since technology will often catch up before the patent expires.
Reduce the length of a patent on IT to 2 years and
Re: (Score:2)
Or the "Get a bunch of specialists in a room and ask them 'How would you solve problem X' and then patent the solutions" approach to "innovation".
I am assuming you are going for an obviousness angle on this, and this IS NOT HOW OBVIOUSNESS WORK! I cannot say that enough. Do you not think these companies had a room of specialists to solve a problem and then work to file a patent? More than one person or one group of people might have the same idea, but that does not make it obvious and it should not make it unpatentable. The only exceptions to this are pretty minimal and usually so absurd they are not work discussing.
Not to mention that the change from a "Prior-art has precedence" system to a "First to patent wins" one means the anybody that has loads of ideas but no money to patent them will loose against "Big corp with loadsa money for whom the costs of filling a patent are short change".
Just don't buy it. I really
No, you don't want this (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not reform we need, it is reform large corporations need.
Yes, the patent system needs some changes, but that is no reason to accept ANY change just for the sake of change.
What the patent needs is to remove business methods and software patents. The rest of it is pretty good, expcially compared to other countries.
Contact you legislators and tell them no, this isn't broken.
Woohoo! (Score:2)
This particular "prior art" rule, wasn't one of them.
The US patent system just got worse.
Worse than before (Score:2)
First to file (Score:2, Insightful)
The new procedure for challenging validity (whatever it might be, and if it addresses such cases at all) is likely to cost even more (requires a lawyer, where it's at least theoretically possible to get a patent without one for on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Prior ar
BSA (Score:5, Insightful)
uh oh (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell makes that 'great?'
If it's a good idea, then it needs to be good on its merits. It cannot become a good idea just because it is a popular one. In fact, it happens to be a bad idea, and probably unconstitutional in the US, since it rewards early filers, and not the actual inventor. (The second guy to 'invent' something is no more the inventor than the one millionth guy; I could com
Damage Caps Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh, I love that. So it's going to be enough for the big guys (who are all backing it) to kill upstart competition. But if the big guys think they can ship a lot of product, they can simply; ignore the little guy's patent, bury him in lawyers if they do get sued, and in the unlikely event that the little guy can withstand that onslaught, the most the big guy risks is one quarter's worth of profits. Excellent.
Ingenious (Score:2)
That takes more than a lack of intelligence or a lack of common sense, it takes a lack of that something special that sets politicians apart from the rest of us.
TWW
Why (Score:2)
Also patents shuld be for actual inventions,
filed first vs. invented first compromise (Score:2, Insightful)
First to file is presumed to be first to invent.
2nd to file gets no rights but can cancel the patent.
Fraudulent first-files don't count. The next guy in line is the first to file.
What I'd like to see... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is our patent system IS getting abused. Left and right. And part of the problem there is that it has just become so profitable, and is really handy at trying to create a state of monopoly or semi-monopoly.
----------------
The solution isn't to make it easier to abuse the system. The solution would be to make it harder to get a patent in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
They never do anything useful, you silly person. They're the federal government. They're operating largely outside the bounds of the constitution and their primary foci are to (a) consolidate power, and (b) accrue money and distribute it to the power holders. See their current "interpretation" of the commerce clause for details. I'll give you a capsule: The constitution says the feds can govern INTERstate commerce. The feds say that means they can govern INTRAstate commerce. See how that works? Black is white, white is black, and your complaints are double-plus ungood. Now go back to sleep like a good citizen.
Legalized theft! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I'm curious to know what provision there is, if somebody deliberately puts something into the Public Domain, and somebody else applies for a patent on it afterward.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Legalized theft! (Score:4, Informative)
Anyhow. This legislation makes it much MUCH easier for open source projects. Instead of having to write something, and then find out someone else claims to have invented it, and they filed a patent before you published, you just have to search filed patents. If it isn't there, publish your general idea, and write your open source project.
Similarly, both the parent and grandparent seem to totally miss that you most definitely cannot patent something from an open source project, as, anything which is available as open source, is already published.
Here is the thing. Any public disclosure (prior to filing) invalidates a patent. Now, I am allowed to talk with a friend, to further developement, but, to cover your ass, you really should get him/her to sign an NDA before talking about it, because simply talking about it constitutes a public disclosure. Proving that public disclosure can be an issue.
Now, what this legislation does is, it says that between 2 people (corporations, groups, committees, whatever) who have the same idea, and both try to patent it, provided that neither has published anything, and it is a useful, non-obvious idea, we will give the patent to the one who files first. This eliminates confusion about who should gt it, with both parties "no, I had the idea first. So, for the most part, to avoid infringement, you just have to search relevant patents. There is still some time, between when a provisional patent is filed, and when the USPTO accepts (and publishes) it that you could have various "submarine" patents get into an open standard, or your open source project, but this legislation doesnt make it possible, at all, for some-one to take your OS project, and start filing patents based on it. Parent and GP are crying wolf, without understanding what they are talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
honest reform = kill all patents (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right, it never does, it's like slave reform. Any "solution" that puts off complete elimination only openes itself up to the next level of abuse. Patents are arguably more evil than slavery. Like 15 million impovrished Africans being sued in the world court not to purchase generic AIDS drugs from India, like safety devices in cars held back 20 years while over a million people died in auto accidents. Like 20 million elderly being subjected to overpriced drugs that have unknown chemichal distortions only because safer classes aren't patentable. It's amazing the number of people we are willing to torture and kill in the name of fradulent property rights. People say "well, we would never be so barbaric as to allow fradulent use of the word 'property' to justify the torture and murder of innocent people like they did in 1850, we would never be like those idiots who just wanted the slave states to get along with the free states". NOT!
Last time they did "patent reform" they created a patent court. But being a patent court means they had more incentive than ever to expand their influence by expanding the scope, role, and influence of patents. It totally blew up in our faces. This time it will probably mean that all the small company innovators who can't hire a staff of lawyers to file first are going to get screwed. Yeah, they may have prior art, but yeah they will need to hire an army of lawyers to defned it.
The bottom line is that innovators and scientists are good at inventing things. Lwayers and governments and conglomerates are good at controling things. Think about it. Patnets punish people who share and collaberate, and now with first file that will be more true than ever, who will share R&D when that very sharing could lock them out and screw them. If people think R&D costs are high now, just wait, and watch .... then they will say "wahhh, we need more patnets because R&D costs more than ever". The phrase, "the bad tree bears bad fruit has never been so true as with patnets."
Re:honest reform = kill all patents (Score:5, Insightful)
There would be limited insentive for anyone to invent anything new. The people who spent the time, and invested the money in inventing new products and developing new ideas would have to live with anybody comming along and releasing a knock-off of their product. Honest inventors who developed new things would be very limited in their ability to capatilize on them. Patents allow for people responsible for something to get a head start to market before the patent expires (you might argue that currently they get too much time, and I might be persuaded to agree with you there).
You talk about the drug companies, and how evil they are. But regardless of anything else they invent things that extend and improve our lives, don't they deserve to make money from it? Perhaps a tiered pricing model, which would allow people who can't afford it to buy their meds at a lower price would be a good thing, but at the end of a day, they deserve to make back their investment in the research to create a new drug, and patents allow that to happen. Without patents there would be much less incentive for research companies to invest all that money in new drugs, which means no future drugs that could improve our lives.
There is more to the patent system than abuse, and just because some people abuse it doesn't mean that we should dismanle the entire system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not granting exclusive monopoly rights does not mean not paying for the research. The damaging monopoly aspects of patents, such as litigation warfare, overincentive for marketing, reduced competetive pressure for efficiency and slowed down dissemination of new products in the market can be removed while we could still very well pay the actual innovators as their products get used.
"But regardless of anything else they invent things that ex
Re:honest reform = kill all patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Then perhaps the patent system can return to the way it was when it was designed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that countries where half of the population has AIDS, need to pay up or wait 20 years for medication?
Mmm, I wonder why they don't agree with your view of things... They must not be very well educated, such as yourself for example.
Or is it perhaps because these countries risk milions of deaths and total collapse?
Your reasoning for cold blooded capitalism without any regard for human life is simply put disgusting. Citin