Lawmakers Take Another Shot At Patent Reform 154
narramissic writes "Patent reform legislation was introduced yesterday (PDF), which, if it passes, would be the first major overhaul of US patent law in more than 50 years. (It should be noted that the new legislation is very similar to the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which died on the Senate floor last year.) The legislation would bring US patent law in line with global laws, and introduce 'reasonable royalty' provisions, which change the way damages are calculated and would reduce the likelihood of massive payouts for some patent holders. Representatives from Google, HP and Intel were quick to say that the changes would cut down on frivolous patent lawsuits. But the Innovation Alliance, a group representing patent-holders that oppose the legislation, said that it would 'devalue all patents, invite infringement — including from companies in China, India and other countries — and generate more litigation that will further strain the courts.'"
changes (Score:3, Interesting)
0. Any patent not being sold in a current product line shall pass into public domain.
Might as well add this to copyright reform too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:changes (Score:4, Insightful)
YES. That is why a whole bunch of products are protected by those "Patent Pending" labels and the like. At the very least, a patent needs to have been applied for but not necessarily granted.
There are a LOT of "inventions" that can be imagined for which adequate materials have not yet been developed. What if I were to patent "antigravity panel that uses an unknown material that acts against gravity when power is applied"? This panel material is critical to the invention and I can claim to have first thought of its use even before the material with said properties has been developed.
Patents need to GET USED not trolled. A great test for using a patent is actually producing a product for sale that works.
So the "protection" you are looking for is the "patent pending" label.
Re:changes (Score:4, Insightful)
For a start your anti gravity patent wouldn't get granted because you haven't reduced it to practice. In simple terms this means you haven't worked out all the details and written them down.
But just suppose you knew of a new material that made your thing work. You can make it in teeny tiny amounts on your kitchen table. But you need a big pile of cash, time, a large lab and a team of research scientists to take that kitchen table process and scale it up.
You could go round to some banks (ha!) or maybe a venture capitalist or some bored millionaire asking for help. But they all turn you away because under your system, you can't get patent protection until you have a product. So they all walk away because the risk is too great.
There are many inventions like this that are filed for by people who don't have the means to commercialize or even build a single prototype. For them, patents offer a valuable thing they can get that has value to investors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should look into what an "invention disclosure is"
http://www.patentapplications.net/disclosure/index.html [patentapplications.net]
I believe you can begin the patent process WAY before actually receiving a patent, and thereby protect yourself from people copying your product (in USA atlease) if/when you are given your notice of allow-ability.
Then if someone has decided to copy your product you can force them to stop, or license it to them and sit back and make money off of their work (because they are making money off of yours).
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the law should read:
In that patents are intended to protect actual inventions, no patent shall be granted on any hypothetical product or service, nor on any portion thereof, until such time as that product or service is rendered in a form suitable for use by others and is made openly available to the public in the form of sales of the product or use of the service. Should the product or service be removed from the market, the patent shall expire two years after the date that the product or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in my suggested wording prevents a patent from existing in a provisional state prior to the release of the product. Something like this would merely prevent patent litigation until the person or company who filed for the patent actually makes a product. If somebody steals a company's design, that company can still collect damages for any product their competitor produced without a patent license all the way back to the original provisional filing date. They just can't file the suit until they act
Re: (Score:2)
So add a grace period at the start of the patent where you don't have to market it (say 2 years). After that if you haven't started selling it, then the patent expires.
Re: (Score:2)
Without details of the material, what's the invention here? Your idea isn't much use outside a science fiction book.
Re:changes (Score:5, Insightful)
which is why IMHO:
1) get rid of software and business method patents
2) in order to patent something, you need to have a working model, or show that you have the means to produce said model within a certain timeframe.
I've had plenty of ideas. Some of them I could have patented. Why didn't I? I had no intention of going through the effort of building any type of prototype. If someone else does all of the work without ever seeing your work, then you should have no right to any type of money from that work, squatter.
Re:changes (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize, don't you, that all the words Patent Pending [wikipedia.org] do is put people on notice that they may be liable for damages later, if and when the patent is granted? In the US, at least, the phrase has no legal effect whatsoever, and is only used as a warning that borrowing the idea now might lead to trouble later.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is not completely without legal ramifications. For instance, the very same Wiki entry you linked cites this:
35 U.S.C. 292 False marking.
(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. But it's enough to discourage other people from outright copying the idea. At the very least, it makes other companies hold off on releasing their own products until they know the turnout of the patent application.
That is as it should be. A patent-pending notice shouldn't have any legal power. If it did, then there's no point in having the patent application process; all you'd need is the patent-pending application process.
Now, you can argue to change things so that there are two classes of patents
Re:changes (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not so much the Patent Pending label that's important it's actually having the pending patent.
There's no reason we can't have provisional approval for products that don't exist quite yet. The problem is patent protection for products which don't exist and which the patent holder never intends to actually create, or which are actually impossible to build beyond theory.
Essentially the basic question comes down to whether patents are designed to protect and promote ideas or whether they're designed to protect and promote implementation.
If you put stringent requirements on actual implementation of patents, you have the potential to shaft the little guy. You'd have to ensure a number of additional protections such as ensuring that large companies can't just refuse to fund new ideas and then develop them after the patent has expired due to lack of implementation. That's certainly possible to do though.
The flip side of that argument is that patents which aren't turned into products stifle innovation because they stop anyone else from developing said product, and harms society as a whole.
All that aside, patents which are overly generic, vague, or which even given full funding the "inventor" couldn't actually create, should not under any circumstances be granted, and should be culled where they have already been granted. To use an example that's been mentioned earlier. If you can build a tiny anti-gravity machine, but it's prohibitively expensive to build a full scale one without some other development, you should probably get a patent. If your full scale one cannot function without some additional development, then you haven't actually invented anything and you shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I may well be wrong here, but my impression is that the original intent of patents was to protect the implementation, as you had to have, at the very least, a working model to get a patent. (Note that Abraham Lincoln actually built a model of his invention, which still exists, although a full-scale copy was never made.) Now, it seems tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that SOME time needs to be allowed to get from patent to production, but it should be considerably less than the full life of the patent. For example, if after 5 years you are essentially no further towards offering a product than you were the day the patent was applied for, you probably never will.
Likewise, if you introduce the product and it flops to the point that you withdraw it from the market AND you don't manage to sell or license it to someone else, the patent should go away to give othe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be just fine, as far as I'm concerned. If nothing else, it would completely kill the patent troll's business plan. Of course, there are sometimes problems that slow down bringing a patent to market and it might be fair to have a way for a business to get an extension to the grace period, but they'd have to prove that they were really working on it and not just stalling. As always, t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you have 1 year to file a patent application from when you offer a product for sale that uses what's claimed in the application. If you take longer than a year, then your own work would count as a reference against you under 35 USC 102(b).
If somebody did copy your work in the interim, and then they tried to use their copy to invalidate your patent, their copy would be a 102(a) reference (unless, of course, you waited more than a year afterwards to file your application). You would simply have to
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
...it would 'devalue all patents, invite infringement -- including from companies in China, India and other countries...
Pardon my ignorance, but even if that is true does it matter? These countries, especially China, have a long history of not respecting patents and they don't look set to change that attitude.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Further, since when is a patent's value determined by how big of a legal payday (triple damages) you receive for infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
Since acquire-a-patent-and-sue become a common business model.
Re: (Score:2)
The governments you're thinking of will change their attitudes when enforcing patents will gain their own industries a net profit.
It already happened in Japan and other eastern countries.
What? No Child Porn & Terrorism? (Score:5, Funny)
But the Innovation Alliance, a group representing patent-holders that oppose the legislation said that it would 'devalue all patents, invite infringement -- including from companies in China, India and other countries -- and generate more litigation that will further strain the courts.'
These guys really need a new PR firm. Vague insinuations about the threat of SEAsia and clogged courts is soooo pre-9/11. It's all about child porn and terrorism now, guys - get with the program.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't support perverts and terrorists! Help the children and support America! Don't pass patent reform laws!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That comment was soooo 2002ish. Child porn, drugs, gambling, and prostitution ARE terrorism these days, Bob - get with the program.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about child porn and terrorism now, guys - get with the program.
Maybe they can combine them to, you know, improve their pitch and make the effects of patent reform sound doubly scary and dire. If we don't all want to go home and lock our doors when they are through then this PR firm hasn't done their job to make patents safe for trolls everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, Child Porn and Terrorism are soooo last administration. Now its all about saving American jobs...
Booting the troll from under the bridge? (Score:2, Insightful)
A good first step, but . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a good first step. The US *should* be on a first to file system. Venue for patent suits *should* be restricted to venues that make sense (rarely ED TX).
But some provisions go too far. Damages should be linked to some market definition - NOT what the trial court thinks is reasonable. Also, we need a change to the laws that provide incentive for innovation in regulated industries. Patents are most valuable in the life sciences. We need reform here. We need to better align value with innovation. We've still a long way to go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US *should* be on a first to file system.
Why?
Why shouldn't the person or company that actually invented it first get the reward? Why should we put a premium on getting your legal paperwork in order first over getting your research and development done first? While I like the bit about people working on the same type of invention at the same time getting some immunity from patents issued to one of the parties, I don't see why the person with the fastest lawyers should be the one to profit from everyone who comes later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but patents are damn expensive. If Joe Blow invented a thingamabob in his garage, there is little chance he could afford to patent it.
So Joe goes out and tries to find a financier to pay for the patent. But one of his prospective financiers decides to cut joe out and just "invent" the thingamabob themselves. They file for a patent and Joe is screwed. Since first to invent doesn't matter, he can never invalidate the financier's patent.
Granted, most patents are filed by companies, not Joe Blows, but
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to cost ridiculous amounts of money to obtain a patent. Despite what patent lawyers may tell you, if you have sufficient time and effort you can obtain a patent all by yourself. The filing fees are more than some can afford, but are not outside the realm of reasonableness given the amount of patent examiner time needed to evaluate the application.
The most difficult part of a patent application is writing concise claims and properly citing any prior art.
Current USPTO fee list [uspto.gov]. Note, you even
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fees for the patent filing itself are less of an issue than the skills needed, which is where the patent attorneys or patent agents [energy.gov] make the big bucks and the cost of obtaining patents rises sharply. There are extremely stringent application requirements, and small errors or the failure to include minor details can disqualify the entire patent application. It is often beneficial to the Joe Blow or small company without experience with the process to hire someone if they can afford it (which is a big "if
Re: (Score:2)
Well to begin with, Joe needs to have a signed agreement with his financier regarding his invention in any event.
From there, the primary reason patents are expensive and difficult in the US is because the US is not a first to file system.
An incredible amount of money and time has to go into researching, verifying, and defending claims of prior art. The process is convoluted, arcane, and expensive.
In a first to file system, it doesn't have to be that way. Joe Blow should only need to fill out the required pa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the same reason the US switched to first to invent. (The US used first to file in the past)
Re: (Score:2)
Alexander Graham Bell.
Re: (Score:2)
Parallel development is a poor use of resources (Score:4, Interesting)
Patents should reward putting your invention out in the open. Having a huge period in which to do secret development is the anti-thesis to what patents should reward.
The only problem with first to file is that there is no grace period.
Lawyers hate grace periods, because if a paper without a million of legalese claims holds any value in court that diminishes their contribution to patents ... they see the exact wording of those legalese claims as somehow more important than the subject covered. Which is ridiculous ... in the areas I'm an expert I can recognize the innovative parts of a paper better than a lawyer can capture it in claims.
I think the first to file vs first to invent difference is just being played up by lawyers to disguise the fact that the real thing they want to get rid of is the grace period.
Re:A good first step, but . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
Because "first to invent" encourages the tactics similar to that of submarine patents:
1. Invent something.
2. Wait for others to invent it too and start using it.
3. File for the patent.
4. Sue everyone who had been using your invention.
5. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
1. Invent something.
2. Wait for others to invent it too and start using it.
3. File for the patent.
4. Sue everyone who had been using your invention.
5. Profit!
Actually, if everyone is using it, it is no longer innovative, ie. it is common knowledge to experts in the field, and so would not qualify for a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if everyone is using it, it is no longer innovative, ie. it is common knowledge to experts in the field, and so would not qualify for a patent.
Just the opposite. The ability of a company or companies to monetize a new invention is actually one measure of its novelty, at least in the US system as it exists today.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the opposite. The ability of a company or companies to monetize a new invention is actually one measure of its novelty, at least in the US system as it exists today.
In order to patent, it must not be common knowledge to practitioners in the field. Monetization has nothing to do with this particular clause. You can monetize plenty of old technologies, but they are disqualified because the techniques are common knowledge.
Of course, then comes the onerous task of determining what lead time between publica
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I propose also that there be new rules for certain patentable product categories such as pharmaceuticals whereby:
a) A patent application is filed upon a drug reaching a stage of development where efficacy in treating, preventing or curing a disease or condition has been demonstrated.
b) Clinical trials are completed until final FDA approval is issued.
c) Patent is issued, issue date being that of the FDA approval date. Patent duration is to be 5 years.
The key with a plan like this is that the long per
Re: (Score:2)
You have to show due diligence in reducing your invention to practice (usually meaning filing your application) from before they start using/selling their invention until you actually do reduce your invention to practice. Most patent trolls don't bother building what they are asserting, so camping on the idea to try to catch someone later will likely result in your application being rejected or your patent being invalidated.
It's much easier and safer to just invent something, get your patent, and then wait
Re: (Score:2)
Damages should be linked to some market definition - NOT what the trial court thinks is reasonable.
Why, so that the law can be out of date before it's even passed? The market is constantly changing. The only way to have reasonable amounts is to let the court decide what's reasonable then and there.
Re:A good first step, but . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me explain the debate a bit -
The bill proposes to link reasonable royalties to what the court deems is the value of the technological innovation of the patent. This removes any market valuation of the patent, i.e. what a patent holder can extract from a potential infringer through a negotiated settlement. Instead, the court will assign the value of the patent by sitting back and thinking about how valuable the technology is in this instance. What it fails to take into consideration is that, in most cases, patents can be used to PREVENT someone from making, using, selling, etc. the invention.
This inherently devalues the patent. If you can only extract the value of the added quantum of technology added by the patent, you sometimes won't be able to get damages at all. For instance, if an infringer used your patented technology, but they could've alternatively used some public domain non-infringing technology, you won't get much in the way of a damages award. There is a problem with this arrangement - it changes the fundamental nature of a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
"it changes the fundamental nature of a patent."
Isn't that the point? The fundamental nature of a patent right now is 'a tool to sue someone with'. Instead, it should be a tool to help grow your business. If you patent a process that can be done just as easily/well/efficiently/etc with a public domain process, it has no value anyhow!
Re: (Score:2)
Damages should be linked to some market definition - NOT what the trial court thinks is reasonable.
Why?
Also, we need a change to the laws that provide incentive for innovation in regulated industries.
Such as what? Why should regulation stifle innovation?
Patents are most valuable in the life sciences.
If you're talking about genetic engineering, I don't think life should be patentable. Your neighbor plants some genetically engineered corn and it pollinates your crop and you owe Monsanto patent fees. Why shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Damages should be based on the market value of your product and the scale of infringement.
This prevents your competition from undercutting you with the same product, and it discourages large companies from integrating your invention without a licensing agreement. It also completely stops patent trolls in their tracks, because patent trolls have no product on the market and no intention of bringing a product to the market.
The only detriment to this is somebody else coming out with a product convered under yo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are many ways outside of patents. Be the first to market. Be the best implementer. Be the most frequent innovator. Be most in touch with consumers. Generate the strongest brand. Solidify dominance, through branding, in a certain market segment.
Some of these actions require more resources than others, but there is almost always a way to do them well on the cheap . . . depending on how broad or how narrow your marketing plan is. The broader your targeted market, the more you're going to have to
Re: (Score:2)
Netscape made money!
Would the situation today be better if they had a monopoly position? For them, sure ... for me? Oh hell no.
Re: (Score:2)
Innovation Alliance == Patent Trolls (Score:5, Informative)
The Innovation Alliance, which opposes these patent reforms, include some of the best and brightest in patent/IP trolling [innovationalliance.net]. One prominent company is the Canopy Partners, which is famous for its previous ownership of The SCO Group and Tessera, which is suing everyone in the wireless industry right now.
Re:Innovation Alliance == Patent Trolls (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Innovation Alliance == Patent Trolls (Score:4, Funny)
Great New Association Acronym. Too bad they'll get sued by the Patent Infringement Troll Association.
BTW, New Acronyms Make Baby Lesus Angry.
Respect for Patents? That's a laugh. (Score:2)
"...it would devalue all patents, invite infringement â" including from companies in China, India and other countries.
Er, yeah, because other countries have such a high regard for patents and trademarks(cough, black market, cough) today...
Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Innovation Alliance, a group representing patent-holders that oppose the legislation said that it would 'devalue all patents, invite infringement - including from companies in China, India and other countries
Yeah, because our American patent system has certainly stopped China and India from infringing thus far! Are these people nuts? Why the hell should these countries obey our patent laws regardless of whatever they happened to be? We're not the law there!
And another thing while I'm at it:
The legislation would bring U.S. patent law in line with global laws
This legislation would have the best chance for getting China and India to respect our patents, since we'd be adhering to a global standard and not a local one.
So this Innovation Alliance is, as far as I can tell - arguing against the very legislation that would have the best chance of supporting its agenda. In other words - yeah. They're nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because our American patent system has certainly stopped China and India from infringing thus far! Are these people nuts? Why the hell should these countries obey our patent laws regardless of whatever they happened to be? We're not the law there!
There are treaty obligations that over ride (or force conformity upon) local laws.
You can't just say "we're not the law there" and expect to be right 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Treaty laws override local laws only if the government deems it to be so.
It's a catch-22.
The only thing that really works in this case is negotiation and soft power.
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't need luck - it happened at my last job. We used to make an OBD2 car code scanner.
The Chinese would buy them, disassemble them, reverse engineer them, and then sell clones. Not just patent infringement but blatant theft of IP. They'd copy our units even down to the bugs.
And there are loads of patents in this particular product space. I worked on a team that wrote about half of them.
Good enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Not just patent infringement but blatant theft of IP.
I hate it when people steal my IP. I'm all like "Here's a good idea.." and then they just reach into my brain and TAKE it, and then it's gone. I can't even remember it anymore, because they stole it. Hell, for all I know, all the products lining the store shelves were *my* ideas.
Or did you mean "not just patent infringement, but blatant, wanton, bad faith patent infringement? Either way, I'm suing the fuck out of whoever steals my next idea. What wer
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:4, Interesting)
And you are showing your naivete. China knows there is no way to enforce this.
Examples, you ask? Sure.
Here is the family of devices I worked on. [actron.com]
Here is an absolutely infringing device being sold. [dhgate.com] It is as blatant of a ripoff as you could possibly get. They didn't even change the freaking color of the unit.
They reverse engineered our unit and built clones. We know this because we bought one and used it. It duplicates subtle bugs in our unit. It is absolutely 100% certainly an illegal copy. And the patent space in the OBD2 market is carved up VERY tightly, so they are certainly breaking patent law by selling this unit. Not to mention the whole "theft of IP" issues.
And you'll notice that nobody is kicking down any doors to get these people to stop.
Face it - this sort of thing is absolutely unenforceable. It's naive to think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the whole "theft of IP" issues
You keep using that word ("IP"), but I don't think it means what you think it means. You seem speak of something in addition to patent infringement (otherwise why say "not to mention"), but what is left?
Trademark? Unless they used your name or you have a trademark on that particular color, you don't have a case there.
Copyright? That only covers the artistic expression of the work. Not much of a case there either.
Trade secret? If it was as easy to reverse engineer as you claim it was, then it may not qu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in software - I don't do legal stuff.
I do know that my company at the time was taking in almost $50M a year and didn't have the cash and the resources to fight them. It was decided that it was more expensive to pursue the matter.
So while there may be legitimate avenues to pursue with regards to these sorts of complaints, I also know that a company taking in that kind of money decided it wasn't even worth it to try.
So make of that what you will.
don't touch it (Score:3, Insightful)
17 years is bad. but it ends comparatively soon.
i'm sure if they touch it , it is going to come out at 50 years or longer.
NO, Faster-issued, shorter lifetime patents. (Score:3, Interesting)
So overall, I'm not sure this is the right direction that we want to go.
Re:NO, Faster-issued, shorter lifetime patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We need long patents in regulated industries (namely, bio and pharma).
Yeah because they never abuse the patent system. They really need to patent 20% of our genes to protect their massive profits because the
5000% markup on AIDS drugs doesn't earn them enough.
Re:NO, Faster-issued, shorter lifetime patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so no one should be patenting "genes" period. It's a separate discussion the list of things that may be considered patentable that shouldn't be.
His point is valid, patents are intended to promote innovation. In many industries they're actually retarding it, particularly in many EE/CS/ME areas. Investment in these areas is pretty cheap, and the innovation alone is its own reward in most cases. The real issue is that these patents are often obvious enough and essential and trivial such that they really shouldn't have ever been granted. The right thing would be to toss them out a window...
In bio/pharm, I'm still not sure 17 years or whatever it is, is the right number, it seems awfully long for the way things are today... but it does cost a crapload of money to research and test and create the new ideas. Patents are still needed to keep companies interested in R&D.
Re:NO, Faster-issued, shorter lifetime patents. (Score:4, Informative)
In pharma, it takes a long time after the patent is granted before you get your product onto the market, because you have to do lots of tests on it to satisfy the regulators that it is safe. Generally they have about five years of sales under patent before the generic manufacturers can move in.
If tech patents lasted 5 years, that would take us back to around the time WIndows XP SP2 was released. I think we could live with that.
Re:NO, Faster-issued, shorter lifetime patents. (Score:4, Informative)
In pharma, you generally get 5 years of sales under patent.
In electronics/tech, you generally get 5-10 years before the tech is "stale." Unless you're like Intel or IBM or some other big company that can get their patent into the "root" of a tech standard and force everyone else to pay for the use of your patent. This is why Sony put DVD drives in the PS2 and Blu-Ray in the PS3, and spent tons of money pushing Blu-Ray on everyone: if they can get their stuff to be "the standard", then they stand to make a mint. They've also managed this with certain other technology (Beta, for instance, survived quite well in the TV production industry where quality mattered more than relative price).
In manufacturing/tech, you can sometimes have the full run of your patent to make money, either by being the "exclusive" provider or (again) by getting people to license it.
What's absurd isn't those limits, but the oddly strange "copyright" limits. If copyright terms were the same as the current patent terms, you'd see a lot less DRM and other foolish bullshit-crap being forced on consumers, because the primary reason for a lot of DRM (think, for example, printer cartridges [hojohnlee.com]) is to try to "copyright" [drmwatch.com] what should, at best, be covered under a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
In patent terms, I don't agree that you only get 5-10 years, because the newer technologies build on older technologies.
The operating system I am using at the moment is based on 1970s Unix technology. Yes, it is much more advanced that anything that was available in the 1970s, but all the inventions contained in 1970s Unix are still present in my system.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why Sony technologies almost never win in the marketplace. That, and their amazing sense of timing.
Yes Beta-max failed, but BetaCam and it's follow up formats Digital Betacam and HD-Cam have pretty much dominated the broadcast market for decades. I'm not sure the mountain of cash they ultimately made off of that could be considered a format failure. While I'm talking about video formats, I think Video 8 and High 8 did pretty good back in the analog days. miniDV did/does fairly well as the digital replacement for those. Let's see who's where those... Oh yeah, Sony had all three of those too. Wow, I guess
Re: (Score:2)
3 1/2" floppies were Sony? That's funny. I though that was IBM [wikipedia.org]. Do you have a citation for that?
Stuff they partner with other people like CD-ROM, DVD, SP/DIF (Philips) miniDV (JVC, Panasonic and others) only prove my point because they relinquish control in the partnership and are unable to hose it up. Philips has excellent timing.
Digital8? Licensed by Hitachi for a little while on a few models, otherwise and currently yet another Sony-only medium. Just like MiniDisc, MemoryStick, UniversalMediaDisc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oftentimes there are patents that cover several technologies - a patent in medical imaging can cover the field of medicine, engineering and sometimes even natural sciences. There will always be an uncertainty in deciding the shelf life of any technology and even more difficult in determining how long before it gets obsolete in a given discipline.
The duration of a given patent is an issue best left alone. However it would be nice if we make the process a little faster and have some way to filter out patents
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be all for cash reward coming from taxes. Imagine our healthcare taxes going into the active development of new and useful treatments and remedies that aren't too expensive to use?
Let the government buy these patents or otherwise compensate the developer in some what in exchange for the royalty-free ability to manufacture and sell drugs for the lowest price available.
Part of the drug patent problem is that big pharma keeps changing the drugs, often making them more dangerous or otherwise having more ri
Re: (Score:2)
if only it was that easy. (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole thread has a lot of assumptions about how easy it is to define, delineate, and value so-called intellectual property. If it was so easy to do all that, as easy as marking the boundaries of a bit of land, then the patent system could be patched up. It's not that easy, and the patent system needs serious rolling back, starting with at the very least no more patents on software or "business methods".
As things stand, the system has led to very expensive and endless arguing and litigation about wh
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine our healthcare taxes going into the active development of new and useful treatments and remedies that aren't too expensive to use?
And imagine Harry Reid deciding which drugs are worth investment?
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, Posner's initial article
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't "abolishing" mean "ending with zero"?
[/temporarily playing along with your conflation between copyrights and patents]
[/temporarily playing along with the conjecture that patents perform the opposite function as intended]
Re: (Score:2)
There already is MASSIVE software copyright infringement going on globally. Who really thinks legislation in any shape or form is going to stop that?
this legislation will stop that, seeing as it deals with patents, not copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
There already is MASSIVE software copyright infringement going on globally. Who really thinks legislation in any shape or form is going to stop that?
I don't think many people think this legislation will stop that, seeing as it deals with patents, not copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
There already is MASSIVE software copyright infringement going on globally.
No there isn't. Software patents are not valid outside the US. In fact patent trolling seems to be far worse in the US than most other countries. I don't know why that is. Patent offices world wide approve of equally lame patents. Perhaps its just the litigious culture in the US?
Re:Ridiculous arguments against, obvious need for. (Score:4, Informative)
Do you think the Chinese patent-infringing manufacturers care about US laws?
They do if they want to sell their wares here.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're not asking for permission to make the product, they're sure as hell not going to ask for permission to sell it. You don't just slap a Sorny store up in the middle of town and go about your business. The whole point of making knockoffs is to either compete on price through illicit channels (i.e., sidewalk or back alley stores), or to introduce the product to a legitimate marketplace via illicit means (i.e. substituting a counterfeit in an order for a legitimate product).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But they're usually satisfied with selling in the Chinese market. There's little money and a lot of red tape here. There's a lot more money in China. Which is why a lot of established, 1st world companies are trying to break into China. There are companies trying to do the reverse, but that's much rarer, and they probably operate in a market segment where IP is not an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing redeemable about Forgent Networks' JPEG RLE patents (which is *extremely* trivial), the infamous Acacia project-killer, the Alcatel-Lucent MP3 patent trolling, Creative Labs' game audio innovation lockdown and zfail-Shadow Volume-Patents etc.
All of these used trivial patents to squash companies that were actually producing something. They contribute nothing and just act like bloodsuckers. I doubt anybody would be sad to see these go.
Also, you seem to think that only large companies want thi
The JPEG patent is not trivial ... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with the JPEG patent was it's non enforcement for all those years.
AFAICS the inventor in question was the first to combine RLE+VLC coding and the first to use zigzag scanning of DCT coefficients. Both pretty inventive steps for which I see no real prior art at the time. Nothing at the time could get anywhere close to his results.
Although I'm opposed to software patents in general, I think this one was more deserved than most.
Re: (Score:2)
RLE + VLC? This is one of the first things people try when toying with data compression. Of course, usually the VLC of choice is huffman or arithmetic coding. Huffman has been around since the 50s, RLE even longer, combinations of the two were omnipresent in early archive formats, among others. Now, patenting one very specific VLC technique, that is another matter. But patenting RLE + VLC in general is just braindead.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no R&D involved in patenting a damn progress bar, tabs, RLE + VLC etc. These are weaponized trivial patents, used to crush competitors and/or for extortion.
Non-trivial patents are another matter. But, say hello to submarine patents. Lets use the Creative Labs example: Carmack figured out the ZFail Stencil Shadow method on his own for Doom 3. Little did he know that a guy at Creative Labs figured it out years before. One cannot blame Carmack, there are bazillion patents, it is impossible to exam
Re: (Score:2)
How about the poor who have ideas that are anywhere from useful to revolutionary?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So in summary if you are poor forget patents. You just told everyone your invention.
The only winners in the current system are the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I know one thing EXTENDING the duration of patents is definitely *NOT* the way to go if COPYRIGHT is any indication.
If you extend Patent Coverage from 20 years to 50 years then we will end up with technological stagnation in much the same way that Copyright has lead to cultural stagnation. It will also set precedence for further extending patents later down the line (slippery slope is valid logic given the close relation of Copyrights to Patents). Do we want patents that NEVER expire? Can we afford pat
Re: (Score:2)
...Survivor: Another Stupid Island...
Hey, great idea! Now that you've suggested it, I'm going to say "Patent Pending". See you in court! ;)