Is H.R.1907 Patent Reform that We Want? 283
"What is Trudel ranting against? I wasn't quite sure after reading his pages. Is his only gripe the publishing of patent applications 18 months after filing, whether or not the patent is granted? What does Trudel stand to gain or lose? Might Trudel have a hidden agenda against other provisions in H.R.1907?
What kind of "reform" are Trudel's antagonists proposing? I couldn't determine this from his rants either. (I haven't read H.R.1907 in its entirety, because frankly, I don't have time.) What do Trudel's antagonists stand to gain or lose?
What are the implications?
Could Trudel be right? Will the "reform" usher us into a world where US inventors and corporations are hurt by foreign concerns? I don't see how.
- If a patent is granted, the patent holder has his US monopoly, even if foreigners could read his application before the monopoly was bestowed.
- If a patent wasn't granted, it can't be argued that the patent application filer has lost anything because the idea was either: prior art, not innovative, or obvious. (Damn bloody obvious with how the PTO grants patents even for obvious methods!)
So what are the real issues?
What does it all mean?"
Re:"rant" is right (Score:1)
How to define "Obviousness" (Score:1)
Re:Hardware patents are your friend & other though (Score:2)
Partly right...the point of patents is to protect the little guy and the mega corporation.
Consider this: MegaResearchPharmaCorp spends millions of dollars and several years to develop a new medication. They must run clinical trials usually having over a thousand subjects. After all the time, money, and effort they finally manage to get the product approved and bring it to market.
Now, without the patent system, what happens? GenericPharmaCorp makes the same compound. (MegaResearchPharmaCorp might try to keep it secret, but determining chemical structures--"reverse engineering" the medication, if you will--is a fairly established procedure for chemical compounds, and can be done in a matter of days, if not hours.) GenericPharmaCorp does not have to do all the clinical trials, as the compound has already been shown safe and effective by the clinical trials of MegaResearchPharmaCorp. GenericPharmaCorp can have a production facility up and running in a matter of months, and they don't have to recoup the millions of dollars that MegaResearchPharmaCorp spent on developing the compound.
There's absolutely no way MegaResearchPharmaCorp can survive under such conditions.
Re:But what about celera's investment? (Score:2)
They have invested _billions_ to get this information, and they can't afford to give it away.
Tough cookies. If someone would "invest" few trillions of dollars in the development of the faster than light travel, and would find nothing, it would be his problem, too. The difference is that a person who failed to develop faster than light travel, even if he would think that someone has to compensate for his work, probably wouldn't demand an exclusive right to tax the use and production of all existing and possible vehicles from bicycles to spaceships.
Re:bah (Score:2)
Did velco exist before it was discovered/invented?
This is an interesting question even in this simple example -- velcro is an "improvement" of the mechanism that was used by various plants that distributed their seeds covered with hook-shaped thorns by attaching them to animals' fur. However there are two things that can justify the patent. First, velcro uses large flat surface to increase the strength of the bond, and materials that didn't exist in nature, so this is an improvement that never existed before. Second, the application is noticeably different -- velcro isn't limited to carrying objects on the surface, can be reused without damaging the hooks and losing them in the wool, and is designed to allow the use by humans without any tools.
However small those differences are, velcro didn't exist before, and humans knew about seeds that stick to wool and fabric for as long as humans exist, so it's definitely not a discovery. Velcro patent doesn't cover seeds, and I hope, no one will argue that it will apply to, say, nanotechnological equivalent of velcro if such thing will be developed later.
Re:bah (Score:2)
You make it sound like getting a patent is the end all of legal protection for your product. This is not true. You not only have to get the patent, you also have to protect it.
You would be right if government would pay everyone who challenge others' patents -- then after patenting everything would be under strict scrutiny. Unfortunately the reverse is true now -- one has to pay to challenge a patent (law prohibits challenging a patent without a patent lawyer), and fees that are involved in this process are incomparably higher than any fees spent on patenting, thus encouraging "blanket-patenting" obvious things and cross-licensing them in some exclusive "club" of patent-holder companies instead of challenging bogus patents.
Also, the existence of patent grants its holder a right to prevent others to do anything that is covered by the patent even if the patent itself was never challenged and thus should be considered to be unproven (PTO definitely doesn't do anything that can be considered "challenging"). This is even a deeper legal problem -- an accused person is presumed guilty and has to prove his innocence.
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
Since it isn't patented in Canada, among other places, you can judge for yourself how it has or has not impeded innovation. I'd have to agree that it has. And the blowfish, IDEA, Diffie-Hellman, et al. algorithms are variously available without restriction in some or all parts of the world, so I don't think that the only way to encourage innovation is via patents. Especially for algorithms -- patents should be allowable on *implementations*, and the algorithms can be kept a secret of course, but patents on a pattern of thoughts (eg. an abstractly described algorithm or look-and-feel) are pretty ridiculous.
Re:Genetic patents should be equiv. to software (Score:2)
If I can come up with it, so can thousands of guys just like me. Wavelets would have been discovered, they are the obvious next step up from fourier analysis.
Agreed, I thought of it when studying sin, cosine, and parametric equasions. It seemed only sensable that the constants would be more compact than the sample values. I then wondered about using other waveforms that might more closely reflect natural sounds. In particular, the triangle, square (pulse), and sawtooth waves from the SID chip in a C64 which were actually the summation of an infinite series of sine waves. Those waves can all be expressed and computed much more simply than the summation they represent (much as the endless series of epicycles astrologers and astronomers were using were DRASTICALLY simplified by elipses which actually are the summation of an infinite series of epicycles).
Some of the specific techniques for breaking a sample into wavelets may well be non-obvious and novel, but the wavelets themselves are obvious even to a rank amateur.
Re:Genetic Patents (Score:2)
I don't know, whats the diffrence between software and a physical device?
That is an interesting philosophical consideration. On an immediatly practical level, the difference is that the gene sequence will likely occur in nature eventually, while the CPU probably won't. As for the philosophical, it's a hard question, and I'd like some time to think about it :-)
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
Contrast this with the one-click shopping patent, where "what you can do" is definitely disclosed, but "how you do it" is only partially disclosed, as you can certainly see any cookies deposited, but you can only make intelligent guesses as to exactly how they are used.
Thje problem with the one-click patent is that any good programmer/analyst can make those guesses in less than an hour. Many probably thought of it already, but didn't implement due to liability issues (what if someone else (like a three year old) one-clicks while a parent is in the bathroom? If the customer disputes, we can't argue that they were specifically shown an invoice which they accepted by pressing submit, etc...). In fact, I thought of it in '96 and discarded it for exactly that reason. If the one-click patent were invalidated today, I would be most happy, but would still STRONGLY reccommend against using it.
Another Possibility: Net.Kook (Score:2)
The thesis of the Oh, No! The Japanese are bribing the US Patent Office Out of Existence site isn't terribly clear. When the argumentation isn't completely coherent, it can be tough to tell apart someone that's got a good idea, but can't quite spit it out right, and feels too strongly about the matter to be completely coherent, from someone that is a completely loony raving nutter.
Re:Summary of HR1907 (Score:2)
(As you seem to already be familiar with the bill, mainly this message is intended for everyone else that's reading this thread, not necessarily you.) This is correct. You cannot be sued for patent infringement if you're a non-profit and continue using the patented subject matter in the same capacity, BUT that doesn't mean the patent can't still be ruled invalid.
You can still counter-sue (or if the bill passes, just send a letter to the PTO with all of the relevant documentation) and get the patent invalidated on the basis of prior art.
The law *does* indicate, however, that a patent cannot be deemed invalid based solely on a person's successful use of this defense. (Though I'm sure a decision like that would help the PTO along in their own decision.)
Re:But that's what gene patents are (Score:2)
I have no trouble with companies wanting to keep information about genetic code they've sequenced secret. They should be able to license the information any way they see fit (it's their information after all), but that should never hamper another organization's efforts to sequence the same genetic information and make it available or use it independently how *they* see fit.
Patents are not the way to go with naturally occurring genetic sequences. I agree 100%.
Re:Title VI Sections 2-3 are Trudel complaints (Score:2)
''(2) Nothing in subsection (b) shall derogate from the duties of the Secretary of State or from the duties of the United States Trade Representative as set forth in section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171).
''(3) Nothing in subsection (b) shall derogate from the duties and functions of the Register of Copyrights or otherwise alter current authorities relating to copyright matters.
''(4) In exercising the Director's powers under paragraphs (3) and (4)(A) of subsection (b), the Director shall consult with the Administrator of General Services.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Most heads of major government agencies have some form of similar power to request and use various domestic and foreign government resources if (with APPROVAL) he sees a need to do so.
Trudel likes to call the Director a czar, but I really fail to see how his power can really be abused. Sure, an evil Director could try and move the PTO's offices off-shore (for whatever reasons which I cannot fathom at the moment), but then he'd be violating these clauses in the bill, wouldn't he?
I really think this thing is being blown way out of proportion. Lots of directors of lots of agencies, can, with some form of consent, do far worse things than what is allowed here, yet they don't. Firstly, people placed into positions of this nature do not tend to be secretly evil and wish to take over the country. Secondly, our government still has oversight. The president can remove the guy from office, congress can pass legislation removing him from office, etc., etc. This isn't a constitutional amendment.
That's not quite what I mean (Score:2)
What I'm talking about *is* the unique creation of a sequence of genetic code. Take some basic (un-patentable and naturally occuring) genetic sequences and put them together to construct a unique and useful genetic code, or, if you're the adventurous sort, code the base pairs by hand. THAT should be something patentable.
This is exactly like writing software. You take known building blocks (while loops, procedural calls) that can be individually broken down to known, simple, obvious components, and put them together to create a program that has a specific functional use.
Now that I give it some more thought, maybe this should fall more under the realm of copyright law instead of patent law?
he he he...he said "innovation" (Score:2)
I really don't know, but I haven't heard of any major ones. I know quite a few small (in scope) innovations have been patented. LZW, RSA, MP3 compression. But since each of these has non-patented alternatives, I think it is safe to say that innovation would not be hurt where it mattered if software patents were not issued. Where innovation was hurt, it would be more than made up for by the increase in programmer productivity from not having to worry about stupid patents.
--
Patenting human genetic code cannot be justified. (Score:2)
It could also be argued that because the gene is part of my body, it is my property, therefore granting exclusive rights to use that gene to someone amounts to the illegal seizure of my property. The key point here is that patenting genetic code discovered through the sequencing of human DNA implies the human DNA came from a person or group of people. The only argument that needs to be made is that a person legally owns their own DNA. Once that assertion is made, there is no justification for patents on human DNA sequences.
The only problem is that this argument might work for human DNA, but it won't invalidate other animal or plant DNA patents.
Dastardly
Re:bah (Score:2)
Re:a practical solution? (Score:2)
Secondly, having a special kind of time-limited patent is often proposed, but I don't think it is the answer. Even with a one-year patent, you still have the problem that it's impossible to do a patent search on a large program, and you would still have the situation of companies amassing large chunks of patents and then demanding protection money from software developers. And most importantly, I don't think patents of any kind are actually needed - we have copyright which provides sufficient incentive. Most innovation and progress (IMHO) is due to strong competition, not due to restrictions and lawyers.
Re:bah (Score:2)
The overall effect of software patents is so bad that we will just have to grit our teeth and exclude all software from patenting. There is no easy way to distinguish a 'worthwhile' patent from a useless or obstructive one - certainly I don't think the USPTO could ever manage it, and it could get very hairy in court.
But fundamentally, I'm not sure that patents are necessary for software - we have to ask, would these algorithms be developed anyway? Companies like IBM say that without getting a patent monopoly, they would not - but 50 years of computer history shows otherwise.
Re:Cliff's arrogance... (Score:2)
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
This is another reason why software patents are a very bad idea. More and more of everyday life is automated using software; if we allow patents on software, then any everyday process or business model can effectively be patented.
Instead of a Post (Score:2)
This must be evident to anyone who considers it, for only production gives rise to an absolute and perpetual claim of ownership. Could one man claim absolute dominion of the whole soil, all others would be his slave, for none could exist without his consent. Ideas, too, cannot be held out of general use indefinitely, or we might remain in caves while the descendents of the first discoverers of fire and the wheel would be the only ones permitted to use it.
Yet, there is an interest secured by intellectual property, limited in scope and duration. For it is an incentive, not to invention itself, but to disclosure. In the absence of IP, every idea would have to be independently discovered by each person who would employ it, for those desiring a competitive advantage would be strongly inclined to keep their ideas as secret as possible.
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
Patents had nothing to do with the creation of wavelet compression or of fractal image compression. If anything, it has dramatically held back progress in fractal image compression, by creating a bottleneck.
Wavelet compression is a class of sub-band coding. People were already using sub-band coding for audio and images before any of the wavelet coding patents came out; wavelets are a cleaner and more efficient way to do subband coding but that's what it is. There's been truly innovating work in wavelets, notably by people like Ingrid Daubechies, leading to fast wavelet transforms, but most of these folks were motivated by getting publications and tenure, not patents.
Fractal image compression has been held back by patents; they've just created a huge bottleneck. The theory behind the patents is and has been fairly mainstream, so if the patent holders were never born it wouldn't have set progress back much.
Patents only make a difference in cases where substantial investment is needed to produce the invention, that is, it's so expensive that no one would bother to try unless they had some means of getting substantial returns. Nothing in math is ever like that: your expense is pencil, paper, and maybe coffee. Similarly for anything one person can code up on a PC.
New drugs cost millions to bring to market. Semiconductor fabs cost even more (around a billion dollars, no not a typo). Patents in those areas promote progress, by helping people recover their investments.
Long English description of bill (Score:2)
American Inventors Protection Act of 1999
November 29, 1999
Michael V. Seitzinger
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service
Summary
After several years of consideration, on Friday, November 19, 1999, Congress gave final approval to a bill which makes major changes to the patent laws. On this day the Senate passed the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 as part of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, attached by reference to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Major provisions of the bill include provisions to protect inventors from unscrupulous invention marketing services, reducing certain patent fees, allow an infringement defense for one who first develops and commercially uses the subject matter, extend patent terms in cases of administrative delay by the Patent and Trademark Office, provide for publication of the patent after a certain period of time, provide for optional inter partes reexamination procedures, and transform the Patent and Trademark Office into an independent agency under the policy direction of the Secretary of Commerce.
After several years of consideration, on Friday, November 19, 1999, Congress gave final approval to a bill which makes major changes to the patent laws. On this day the Senate passed the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 as part of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, attached by reference to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000.(1) This report summarizes major provisions of the patent reform bill.
Subtitle A: Inventors' Rights Act of 1999
This subtitle requires an invention promoter to disclose certain information to a customer in writing before entering into a contract for invention promotion services. This information includes the total number of inventions evaluated by the invention promoter for commercial potential in the past five years and how many of these received positive and negative evaluations, the total number of customers who have contracted with the invention promoter in the past five years, the total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received a net financial profit as a result of his services, the total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received license agreements as a result of his services, and the names and addresses of all previous invention promotion companies with which the invention promoter has been affiliated in the past ten years.
A customer of an invention promoter injured by any material false or fraudulent statement, omission, or disclosure of required information may recover in a civil action, in addition to reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, actual damages or damages not exceeding $5000. In certain circumstances treble damages may be awarded.
Complaints made against invention promoters are to be made available to the public.
Subtitle B: Patent and Trademark Fee Fairness
This subtitle reduces certain specified patent fees. Additional authority allows adjustments in trademark fees with respect to fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index. A study on alternative fees is authorized. Trademark fees are required to be spent on trademark-related operations.
Subtitle C: First Inventor Defense
This subtitle allows an infringement defense for one who actually reduced the subject matter to practice at least one year before the effective filing date of the patent and commercially used the subject matter before the effective filing date of the patent.
The sale of a useful end product produced by a patented method shall exhaust the patent owner's rights to the extent that the rights would have been exhausted if the sale had been made by the patent owner.
The defense to infringement is subject to a number of limitations and qualifications. For example, a person may not assert the defense unless the invention is for a business method. A person asserting the defense has the burden of establishing the defense by clear and convincing evidence.
The earlier inventor defense is apparently important to many small and large businesses, especially in light of the 1998 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group,(2) which held that methods of doing business are patentable.
Subtitle D: Patent Term Guarantee
This subtitle would extend patent terms in instances in which there have been administrative delays by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In most instances the patent shall be extended one day for each day of delay after the end of a specified period.
If the issue of an original patent were delayed because of the failure of PTO to issue a patent within three years of the actual filing date of the application in the United States, the term of the patent shall be extended one day for each day after the end of that three-year period until the patent had been issued.
The period of adjustment of the term of a patent would have to be reduced by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application. An applicant would be deemed to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application if he had not responded within three months to PTO requests.
Patent term adjustment requests would be appealable to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Subtitle E: Domestic Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad
Applications for patents filed only in the United States shall be kept confidential by PTO.
An application for a patent shall in most cases be published promptly after the expiration of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought.
An application shall not be published if it is for a design patent.
A patent would include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who during the publication period had used the invention.
Subtitle F: Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure
A new chapter 31, entitled "Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedures," is added to title 35 of the United States Code. Under this new chapter any person at any time could file a request for inter partes reexamination of a patent on the basis of cited prior art.
Not later than three months after the filing of a request for inter partes reexamination, the Director of PTO is required to determine whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request. The Director may at any time determine whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised. A determination by the Director is final and nonappealable.
If the Director finds that a substantial new question of patentability has been raised, the determination must include an order for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the patentability. The order may be accompanied by the initial action of PTO on the merits of the inter partes reexamination.
Reexamination must be conducted according to procedures established for initial examination, subject to certain exceptions. The patent owner is permitted to propose any amendment to the patent, except that no proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent is permitted.
The patent owner involved in an inter partes reexamination may appeal concerning any decision adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent and may be a party to an appeal taken by a third party requester. A third party requester may appeal concerning any final decision favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent or be a party to any appeal taken by the patent owner.
When the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director shall publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable.
Once an order for inter partes reexamination has been issued, neither the patent owner nor the third party requester may file a subsequent request for inter partes reexamination until an inter partes reexamination certificate is issued and published, unless authorized by the Director.
Once a final decision has been entered against a party in a civil action that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim or if a final decision in an inter partes reexamination proceeding instituted by a third party requester is favorable, that party may not later request inter partes reexamination of any patent claim on the basis of issues which that party raised or could have raised. This does not prevent the assertion of invalidity based on newly discovered art unavailable to the third party requester and PTO at the time of the inter partes reexamination proceedings.
Third parties can appeal a PTO determination that a reexamined patent is valid to the PTO Board of Appeals and Interferences but not to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Subtitle G: Patent and Trademark Office
This subtitle would establish the Patent and Trademark Office as an independent agency within the Department of Commerce. It would be subject to the policy direction of the Secretary of Commerce but would retain responsibility for decisions concerning the management and administration of its operations.
This subtitle would also establish a Patent Public Advisory Committee and a Trademark Public Advisory Committee. Each committee would have nine voting members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for a term of three years. Members of each committee would be required to be citizens of the United States, would include members representing small and large entity applicants in proportion to the number of applications filed by these members but in no cases would small entity members constitute less than 25 percent of the members, and would include persons with achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science, technology, and office automation. Each committee would include a nonvoting representative of each labor organization recognized by PTO. The duties of each committee would include reviewing the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of PTO and advise the Director on these matters.
All fees authorized or established could be used by PTO in carrying out its duties.
Subtitle H: Miscellaneous Patent Provisions
Miscellaneous provisions include the treating of the abandonment of provisional patent applications, international applications, electronic filing, a study and report on biological deposits in support of biotechnology, and prior art exclusion for certain commonly assigned patents.
Footnotes
1. Patent reform provisions in the 106th Congress passed the House on August 4, 1999 (H.R. 1907) and the Senate on November 2, 1999 (S. 1798). The House-Senate Conference Committee incorporated patent reform in Title IV of H.R. 1554 (See H.Rept. 106-464). Congress approved the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (S. 1948) on November 19, 1999. The Act is attached to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000 (H.R. 3194; H.Rept. 106-479).
2. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Re:bah (Score:2)
Yes it is not obvious. But it was discovered. You can not grant patents for SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
Meyer, Gabor, Daubechies, Donoho and other scientists that made this methods possible do not own any patents on these discoveries. Why should some jerk be able to rip off their hard work, package it nicely and get a monopoly on a useful method? Greatly delaying its widespread use?
Patents are useful - they force to disclose trade sectrets - in exchange for monopoly of course.
Nothing that can be discovered may be a trade secret for long. Thus there is no use for this trade off. Software patents should be banned for good.
You're wrong. (Score:2)
There was no discovery in noticing a sticking plant. It was known. The usage of this knowledge that was inventive. With wavelet data compression, there was nothing inventive - only careful implementation of a scientific knowledge.
Copyright protects implementations - not patents.
Re:wtf are you doing?? (Score:2)
God save the Anonymous Cowards! Thanks for making me laugh!
I'm *still* laughing!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
would be reduced, as the potential of making back the investment would be greatly diminished.
"Patently" untrue (ahem...)
Businesses will still need technologies to sell and to enhance their own efficiency. Do you imagine that in the absence of patents they'd all just close up shop? Would they bollocks. No, all that would happen is that instead of licensing other firms' technologies they'd either get them for free if they were out in the open (and I'm sure those able to do so would *not* be moaning about the loss of the patent system)...or else they'd happily re-invent what others have but are keeping secret.
Second, what research there was would largely result in work which would remain trade secrets, which impede progress as much as overbroad, overlong patents do.
I don't see any evidence for such a conclusion.
Under the current patent system, you are not allowed to reinvent and if the owner of the patent doesn't want to licence to you then you are stuffed. If we abandon the patents system then anyone is free to invent or re-invent whatever they want. Isn't that a more natural system for a free market economy?
The current patent system only preserves monopolies, it doesn't facilitate progress at all.
The only possible downside is the cost of reinvention. But in that case, who is the loser anyway? The company doing the reinventing only pays for its own R&D instead of stumping up royalties to the firm that could afford the most expensive lawyers. So the overall costs to such companies probably don't change much. But *even if* more money is being spent overall, then this money still isn't going into a black hole. It's being spent in the form of salaries to the scientists and engineers doing that R&D. IOW, the money is still circulating, but it's circulating through salaries to the extra R&D workers rather than through dividend payments to Acme Corp's stockholders. Do you have a problem with that?
In other words abandoning the patent system would result in no net effect upon the economy, but in the training and employment of more scientists and engineers, less idle rich parasite investors lounging around... and much less employment of Intellectual Property lawyers
(As I wrote that I just had a beautiful vision of thousands of redundant IP lawyers begging for a job at Macdonalds.)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:bah (Score:2)
Allow me to attempt a suitable pair of definitions to illustrate the difference (this is certainly how these words *should* be used IMHO):
A "discovery" is the invention of a fundamental truth that holds independently of invention, i.e. would exist anyway even if man did not (OK, you know what I mean by this and so does everybody else so DON'T start on about philosophy again). The courts are not about to entertain notions about trees falling silently in deserted forests).
An "invention" is the discovery of a process or mechanism that requires man for its construction and operation.
PS. FWIW I agree with you about the youngsters and their obsession with nihilism. Kids today, huh? Actually I have to admit I too read Sartre and Nietzche as an angst-ridden teenager...and thus it ever was, probably.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:a practical solution? (Score:2)
Lengths of patents *must* be brought into line with the development timescales of the technologies involved.
Five years still might as well be forever.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
But a business will weigh the risks and potential rewards for any project. With the risk of patent lawsuits removed, and the knowledge that careful protection of one's trade secrets will still protect one's investment, the only new risk to a business contemplating the development of a new product is that of a competitor paying for their own research, taking the same risks and competing fairly in the same market. This happens all the time anyway; the proportion of cases where a patent prevents any entry to the same market is fairly small.
I see no indication that allowing companies to re-invent a particular technology - which is all this is about - would harm companies in any way. And since it would enable competition in those markets where one company *does* have a lock on a particular technology, the consumer would certainly benefit.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
compensation != monopoly power (Score:2)
Patents are nothing more than a legal tool used by big business to keep up their market's barrier to entry, and browbeat any and all of their competitors out of the market.
The sooner the whole system is dead and buried, the better it will be for anyone who wants to develop and market a product (regardless of whether it is software).
________________________________
Re:How to define "Obviousness" (Score:2)
There is, however, I believe a clause that says that a patent is not valid if it is 'obvious' to 'one skilled in the art.'
Granted that the weight of legal precedent is such that it might as -well- be a law that says, 'The only person who may make a determination of obviousness is a patent attorney who is also an expert in the field, and then only in conjunction with supporting piecemeal prior art.'
And we all know how many patent attorneys have time to go and get a second degree in a science or engineering field.
My point, btw, was that the above post is correct in practice, but the post above that was correct in the written law disregarding court precedent. IMHO, IANAL.
--Parity
Re:bah (Score:2)
"Inventions can be patented but discoveries cannot" seems like a really simple guideline, but it isn't so simple.
So are any patends valid? It seems that it would take much more than a law degree to answer that question.
Re:"rant" is right (Score:2)
Most interesting things in it I've found so far are:
1. Better regulation of the "invention promotion services" industry (ie. the "Do you have an idea?" TV spot guys).
2. Any 3rd party can request the reexamination of a patent based on prior art. (this IS DEFINITELY a step in the right direction...)
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
IP Law Review Board (Score:2)
For example, one year electronics patents would be determined to last 15 years, and software patents for 5 years. The next year, they might adjust electronics patents to 13 years and software patents to 3 years.
They would make these determinations on the basis of the economy. If the purpose of IP restrictions is to promote invention, then they should measure the rate of invention and creativity in our society. Then they could determine what the ideal lengths of coverage should be. They will need to balance the incentives to the creators against the freedom of dissemination and usage of the technologies (which exists when terms are short).
By following a set of established rules, this Review Board would not be bullied around by the likes of Disney, as occurred in the recent Copyright Term Extension Act. When this act was passed, it appeared that only the potential profits of creators was considered. This should be weighed against the potential wealth of the public domain.
Re: Open & Free? (Score:2)
Well, we're still working on that with Open Source too. RedHat and VALinux may provide one solution. O'Reilly may provide another. Musicians sharing MP3's on the net may provide yet another. But I think there's got to be something fundamentally new in the economics to make it work. Maybe something like slashdot ratings - a recognition of the contribution by the "community" who benefits from it, with some monetary reward tied to it. Science probably ought to work that way too - science has been going with the direct government subsidy approach for a while and I think it's been corrosive.
Intellectual content has always been more limited than it seems was needed under capitalism, at least where it is treated as property to be owned. It has so much greater value when shared and unlike real property, intellectual property can be shared without any limits. Can we create a new economic system capable of achieving this? Maybe we already have?
Re: Open & Free? (off-topic now) (Score:2)
Then anybody who's a support donates 10% of profits or 1% of revenues (whichever's more) related to products that couldn't have been developed without Free&Open ides to the foundation and the foundation distributes it according to an established significance rating system. There has to be some objectivity in the system or else I agree it could be just a popularity contest. But if voluntary it's better than a government - another foundation like this could come along and do a better job.
It's not exactly a blueprint, but at a vague level I think this actually might be workable...
Arthur
Patents vs. openness (Score:2)
Punish patents abuse. (Score:2)
This kind of law (or test case) would protect the competitiveness of the marketplace just like anti-trust and anti-dumping laws.
Re:Eliminating software patents was never the answ (Score:2)
innovations. Later, say in 10 years, congress could then extend the length of patents for longer. This is because software is a new and
quickly emerging field, without 17-year business cycles.
The purpose of a patent is to encourage the inventor to disclose the details of his invention in exchange for a grant of exclusive use from the government. The alternative is to maintain the inventions as a trade secret; that is no disclosure. If you drastically shorten the effective period of a patent, few inventors will be interested in such a worthless bargain - they get nothing in exchange for their making their work public. In addition it will be very difficult to attract capital for commercial development of inventions that have only a three year exclusivity period.
I think that the result of your proposal will be a significant decrease in the rate of innovation in fields where the highest potential for growth exists - exactly the wrong economic result. People will not fund research in these fields, nor will they invest capital in whatever inventions do occur, and the tendency will be to try to keep the inventions as secret as possible.
As far as Microsoft goes, I really doubt that any of its OS monopoly is derived from a patent position. If you recal, Microsoft purchased MS-DOS from another company, and they did not have an exclusive license to sell it. There were at least two other unlimited licenses. MS-DOS is a copyrighted product, which is a completely different area of law from patents.
Re:Hardware patents are your friend & other though (Score:2)
Flaw: why are companies such as Merck Sharp and Dohme, Glaxo-Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham some of the world's largest, and yet still "MegaResearchPharmaCorp"s?
Patent rant (Score:2)
Re:Genetic Patents (Score:2)
I work in a genetics research lab and have had the pleasure of doing a little bit of work for Francis Collins [nih.gov], the current head of the NHGRI [nih.gov] and the Human Genome Project at the NIH.
I believe that the patenting of genes is extremely dangerous. However, we really don't need to wait for patent reform. All we need to do is support the HGP and make the info public before it can be patented.
Re:bah (Score:2)
Well, they shouldn't, but those that *Did* make the breakthrough should have been able to get patents if they wanted to.
every idea is a scientific discovery or a mathimatical equasion at some level, no matter what. Take the example of a steam engine. It can be reduced to a mathimatical equasion, or it could be said that it was a sciantific discovery that you could use steam to create mechanical engergy. The real question is simply where to draw the line, I belive that drawing the line inside the relm of computers is valid.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
American Protectionism at its best (Score:2)
abusive and unfair -- and just as it does, publish all American patent applications
within 18 months of filing -- even if a patent has not been issued and the technology
protected. That is guaranteed to make patent flooding and theft easier and will
eliminate the need to worry about industrial espionage. Early publication is
industrial espionage -- disclosing a company's new technologies to every thief and
brigand in the world." and then says "Don't admit that you are copying the Japanese Patent System, as H.R. 3460 co-author Rep. Pat Schroeder did, inadvertently, on the floor of the House of
Representatives last year. She said; "This bill [H.R. 3460] is about making our patent system uniform with both the one in Europe and the one in Japan..." which is not proof of anything. Nor does it explain why the Japanease system is bad, we have to take his word for it.
Also this guys does not seem to really understand that some patents are good and some like the way the software industry is using them today is really bad. He just makes a blanket protectionist case against the bill and gives no real proof or reasons why it is bad and that is when you can figure out what he is saying.
First Inventor Defense != Prior Art (Score:2)
Looks like the gist of it is to establish that if *you*, the little guy, invented and actually built it one year before the patent filing, or sold it ("used it commercially") anytime before the patent filing - then you can use that as your defense in a patent suit. It looks like it excludes companies - it's just for the garage tinkerer it seems - but the nastiest part is paragraph numbered (9) [page 23 of my copy].
That paragraph says that even successfully using this defense only acquits the one using it - it doesn't invalidate the patent. This looks real bad - a big monkey-wrench to invalidating bad patents.
I can just bet that was put in there so big companies can lean on little guys, let them off the hook by not challenging the First Inventor Defense, and still hold onto an invalid patent and use it to extort licensing fees from any company using that patented technology. Oh, yeah, and prevent the little guy who actually invented the thing first from selling it to any company (or any customers?).
I sure hope I'm wrong - is there a lawyer in the house who can make better sense of this &%#$%@! ?
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
The problem with this argument is that it assumes the creation of the technology in question. Once a technique such as wavelet compression (or RSA public-key encryption, something I am more familiar with) is created, it is most beneficial to the world as a whole that it be promulgated without restrictions. That is, without a patent.
The question is: which of these technologies would have been created without the promise of a patent, and which would not? Would the team of R, S, and A (I don't remember the names offhand) have bothered to make their public-key algorithm, and then to publish it so that the rest of us could check for weaknesses, if they didn't have the promise of profit by license royalties?
That I don't know the answer to. But I know that there are a lot of technologies that exist solely due to patent protection, and I also know that there are a lot of technologies that would exist with or without patent protection. The trick is categorizing technologies to these two types, and making the second type unpatentable.
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
Like most absolutes, that's not entirely true, but there is a degree of truth in it. Some creators might have less of an incentive, but the [Open Source|Free Software] community demonstrates that financial reward isn't the only source of incentive.
I am usually sceptical of this claim, because I think that if there is an incentive to use an invention, then there is an incentive for potential users to pay for its creation. At least there certainly is when the costs of creation are relatively low. Perhaps in cases where the up front costs of the invention are high and the potential users are widely dispersed (eg pharmaceuticals) then this argument might hold. (Actually I'm still not convinced. Many people would have applied it in this form to such things as operating systems just a few years ago). However, in most instances I don't think the argument holds very well at all.
Creative individuals will create, but, like developers being paid to develop open source, creative people can create more if they don't have to meet their basic needs by doing less creative things. Business owners will do what is necessary to make more money, and if that is to pay creative people to create, that's what they will do. What patents are intended to do is to tilt the profit balance further toward creating new things, rather than reproducing old things, which makes businesses more likely to hire more creative people. Has this balance gotten wildly out of whack? Sure. As communications have improved, the cycles of one person learning of another's invention and building upon it have gotten shorter and shorter, but patent law hasn't adjusted to that.
Along those lines, I can believe that the costs of pharmecutical research are greater than most others, but that's not because of any exception that research has from the speedup in general, but because of the artificial (and, IMNSHO, necessary) inflation in costs caused by government regulation. Call me cynical, but I suspect that the only way to get pharmacutical companies to perform adequate safety testing otherwise would be for them to be hit with multi-billion dollar lawsuits (and evn that isn't always sufficient).
By granting monopolies on ideas and inventions and what I can do with them, patent laws are placing restrictions on my freedom.
Like most laws.
Very strong arguments are needed to justify this.
In
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
"Patently" untrue (ahem...)
Businesses will still need technologies to sell and to enhance their own efficiency. Do you imagine that in the absence of patents they'd all just close up shop?
Did I say that? No. I said that funding would be diminished, and much of what would be developed would be protected as "trade secrets". Businesses only exist to do one thing - make a profit. If something is high risk, like most research, there needs to be a high potential for return. Otherwise, they'll accept the lower returns of the low risk avenue of producing known quantities. Take away the protection of patents, and the risk stays high while the return lessens, probably to unacceptably low levels. In that environment, most businesses will wait for someone with a higher tolerance for risk to gamble that they can develop something new and make enough of a profit off of it before everyone else duplicates it.
No, all that would happen is that instead of licensing other firms' technologies they'd either get them for free if they were out in the open (and I'm sure those able to do so would *not* be moaning about the loss of the patent system)...or else they'd happily re-invent what others have but are keeping secret.
I don't see any evidence for such a conclusion.
I've heard estimates that anywhere from 80% to 95% of software is developed internally by companies which do not publish software. How much of that is "out in the open"? Pitifully little. Why? Not because they have any desire to make a direct profit off of the software, but because there is no reason to release it, and perceived reason not to - perhaps their software gives them an advantage over their competitors, so keep it a "trade secret".
Under the current patent system, you are not allowed to reinvent and if the owner of the patent doesn't want to licence to you then you are stuffed. If we abandon the patents system then anyone is free to invent or re-invent whatever they want. Isn't that a more natural system for a free market economy?
Perhaps, but the free market economy has nothing to do with the purpose of the patent system.
The current patent system only preserves monopolies, it doesn't facilitate progress at all.
I think that that statement is overbroad, but I agree with the essence - the current patent system preserves monopolies, and does little to facilitate progress.
The only possible downside is the cost of reinvention. But in that case, who is the loser anyway? The company doing the reinventing only pays for its own R&D instead of stumping up royalties to the firm that could afford the most expensive lawyers. So the overall costs to such companies probably don't change much. But *even if* more money is being spent overall, then this money still isn't going into a black hole. It's being spent in the form of salaries to the scientists and engineers doing that R&D. IOW, the money is still circulating, but it's circulating through salaries to the extra R&D workers rather than through dividend payments to Acme Corp's stockholders. Do you have a problem with that?
No, if that would be what would happen. It isn't. Let's go back to the issue of internal software. Who is the loser in the current situation? Arguably, every business is, because in most cases they've paid programmers to reimplement something that someone else has implemented, possibly better. Unfortunately, there's a prisoner's dilemma here, because unless every company opens their internal software, those who don't have the benefits of their own labor plus everything those who have opened it have.
But lets suppose that every business did open their code. Would that lead to increased employment for programmers? Hardly. Instead of having a team of programmers to develop something to do X, and another to develop one to do Y, and..., they would have a team to modify application A to do exactly X, then to modify application B to do exactly Y, and..., or perhaps it would be a set of smaller teams to do all of them in parallel. Would these non-software companies suddenly develop more varied software to keep their old programmers employed? Nope, they'd be in the unemployment lines, just like...
In other words abandoning the patent system would result in no net effect upon the economy, but in the training and employment of more scientists and engineers, less idle rich parasite investors lounging around... and much less employment of Intellectual Property lawyers
No, there would be fewer scientists and engineers being employed, as most businesses would only be employing the bare minimum necessary to reproduce the advances made by the rare adventurous business. The idle rich would find something else to invest in, but you're right about one thing - there would probably be fewer IP lawyers - unless they all got work fighting "trade secret" suits.
You seem to have the idea that businesses exist to do research. If so, you're wrong. Businesses exist to make a profit. If research makes a profit, they'll do research. If copying what others have researched makes more of a profit, they'll copy what others have researched. Right now, the patent system makes patents too valuable for too long, thereby impeding progress, but by scrapping patents entirely, you would be impeding (or failing to encourage) progress by removing the corporate incentive to fund research. Sure, there will be some research done, which the company will do its best to keep secret - that doesn't facilitate progress. There will be some people who will do research for their own pleasure, or in educational settings, but it won't be anything close to what we have today, and it definitely won't be your nirvana of increased research. We need to find some middle ground, where patents are valid long enough to encourage businesses to fund research, but not so long as to choke off research which builds on other patents.
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
Can you give me an example of a patent which can be used in a product without disclosure as you mean it?
I'm looking at a Kensington MemoryLock, which has a patent associated with it for a "stud or lock bolting device". Both "what you can do" and "how you do it" are both disclosed by the device.
Contrast this with the one-click shopping patent, where "what you can do" is definitely disclosed, but "how you do it" is only partially disclosed, as you can certainly see any cookies deposited, but you can only make intelligent guesses as to exactly how they are used.
With these two examples, we already know that you consider the one-click shopping patent disclosed, and shgouldn't be (easily) patentable. Would you find the locking device similarly (or more) disclosed, and likewise unpatentable? If not, why not? I have to say that, having seen the MemoryLock, that the concept seems obvious (run a case screw through a block, and seat a removable lock into opening), but was it really an obvious way of securing a screw when it was introduced? Was it really obvious that a cookie could be used to charge someone's credit card with one click, and noone else was crazy enough to gamble credit card charges on the security of their customers' cookie files? (I'm assuming that one-click shopping doesn't require you to log in each time, as I don't use Amazon. I have visions of someone's one-click cookie getting snarfed, and caseloads of $OBJECTIONABLE_TO_THEM books showing up on their doorstep.)
Nice to know... (Score:2)
Come on. Sure, virtually everyone wants some kind of patent reform with regard to software, but we aren't all a bunch of IP-haters. Some of us just want a reasonable system, where someone doesn't grab "2+2=", but where something really novel can get patented by the inventor.
Re:The oldest Patent Office in the world says... (Score:2)
It's not. The US has turned into a police-state in many ways. most european countries are more advanced in just about every area. What is worse in the hubris of the US, thinking they are the ultimate democratic country, and enforcing democracy in the world. But guess what.. democracy is not an ideal system by far, and can quickly turn into a tyranny of the/a majority. IMO the biggest problem is the endless lobbying and incredible power of corporations, who seem to have rights beyond that of real persons. Once a business gets large enough, it becomes almost impossible to punish.
I won't pretend to have the perfect solution, but something needs to be done.
//rdj
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
The worst news is hidden. Embedded in the middle of the official's talk was a phrase, "re-examination rights." Did that mean that any U.S. firm with patents will be subject to endlessly defending them against re-examination by the Japanese keiretsus?
Re-examination occurs when someone challenges a patent, usually when there is litigation.
Today, if one firm infringes on another firm's patent, it is running a high risk, potentially facing triple damages and legal fees if found guilty. And the cost to defend patents is more or less affordable, even for smaller firms. The Japanese have hated this system for years. Their patent system tends more to distribute technology than to restrict its use. The patent official admitted that my worst fears were valid when we spoke privately. Some Japanese officials were calling Tokyo on their cellular phones to report, "The U.S. has given us its patent system."
(Emphasis by me)
I find nothing wrong with more bias on distributing than restricting technology, especially when i see the patent system misused as a tool to block useful but common concepts from the competition. And it doesn't look like the whole patent system was overthrown, just it's now a little easier to attack some dumb and wrongly granted patent. But Trudel is making a nice conspiracy theory about this:
The sellout occurred in letters of agreement [alliance-dc.org] between Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown [trudelgroup.com] and Japanese Ambassador Takahazu Kuriyama, dated August 16, 1994.
In my opinion (but i'm not a patent attorney) the agreement makes perfect sense and is a step to establish similar procedures for patent law in the USA and Japan. The 'Ron Brown' link [trudelgroup.com] is really strange, apparently it tries to explain his death with brownian motion [aci.net].
Why SW patents defeat the patent system's purpose. (Score:2)
This is a the key point - though there are other issues related.
The purpose of the patent system is to encourage the advance of technology by trading a limited-time monopoly for a disclosure by the inventor of the guts of the invention. This gives the inventor time to get his invention into production, profit from it, and become established. Later it lets everybody else play - by which time the inventor is likely the established market leader.
Now that's appropriate for a hardware invention - both classic and modern electronic. Such devices require a fabrication facility and production design, which means a big up-front investment which must be amortized over a significant period, and exposure of the invention to many designers and laborers. Giving the inventor (or his partners or the patent-right purchaser) a limited-period monopoly lets him expose the design with the assurance that his work will be protected from competition for that period. This lets him employ enough people to begin high-volume production (with its economy of scale) and take out long-term loans (spreading the cost over many years production). Thus the unit costs are kept low and early volume production is encouraged - to the benefit of the consumer.
But production of proprietary software doesn't require such an investment. A new "killer ap" can be developed in secret by one person or a small number of people. When it's ready, the distribution media are utterly cheap and the unit costs are vanishingly small. A good app provides the user with significant value added. With vanishingly small unit cost and high unit value, profit margins are enormous. So investments can be made back very quickly, and a large pile of money accumulated before the software is cloned - after which the originator is established, a market leader, and a defacto standard, with no help from patents.
The software market was enormously profitable before software patents. (In fact it was enormously profitable even before copyright protection was extended to software.) There's plenty of incentive to volume-market a software product without patentability. And software life cycles are measured in single-digits of years, not decades.
On the other hand, a software patent locks up an invention (or a bogus claim of one) for a couple decades. If the idea is useful beyond the product (if any) that the patent holder choses to market, we all get to sit on our thumbs for a dozen life cycles before these other applications can be written. Bummer!
Thus, unlike hardware patents, software patents RETARD software innovation and REDUCE the availability of new products to the citizen consumer. This is exactly the reverse of what patents are supposed to do.
Software copyright, on the other hand, seems entirely appropriate. (Excluding distortions such as "look and feel", which seek to turn it into another form of patent by misinterpreting user interfaces as if they were movies or plays, or "copyright" of application interfaces and the like.)
Copyright protects the author of proprietary software against unscrupulous "pirates" who would just sell unauthorized copies of his work (at no development cost), without blocking others from designing a competing product using some of the same basic ideas and algorithms (but with development costs and lead time), and without blocking the use of the ideas and algorithms for other, innovative products.
Re:compensation != monopoly power (Score:2)
On a separate note, drug patents have their own unique problems. It is very common for drug companies to create a chemically patentable product when an herbal or natural alternative is already available. These products often have side effects the original natual remedy did not. The financial rewards of drug patents provide much of the motivation for the "drug war". Even the education of our doctors often has a base in the latest greatest patents rather than long term health of patients. Also, the herbal or natural alternative would often be cheaper for the patient than the patented chemical product. So for drug companies, patents are great. But for the patient trying to get well, they are often a really Bad Thing.
In short, patents are rewarding for a few, but bad for most.
Mirror of H.R.1907 (Score:2)
I remember reading about this back around 1994, 5, or 6. I thought the bill had been killed in Congress, but clearly I was wrong. From what I recall it is a very bad bill, but I haven't read it in over a year. If I can I will submit a review or an annotated version to TECHNOCRAT.NET [technocrat.net] or SlashDot. Of course, I have no idea if it will go through on either site.
Re:Ken's arrogance... (Score:2)
Then Ken (not Cliff, sorry again about that), shouldn't presume to speak for *All* Slashdotters.
Adam
Re:bah (Score:2)
Now, if you get a patent, then you're set. No one can copy and sell your encryption method without your consent. However, if you can't, and you attempt to sell it to a large corporation, maybe they buy into it at the beginning, but then they could easily steal your idea, saying it was theirs in the first place, and you have no way to prove it. Besides, it doesn't matter, since there are no patents to protect it. Then big corporation makes tons of money off of *your* work, and you end up with nothing.
Patents are necessary, whether you like them or not. We need them to protect the ones who created the things in the first place. People like you and me. Sure, then can go wrong, but generally they're a good thing. Sure, we all want everything to be open source and free, but we have to feed ourselves. Cola, beer, pizza, chips, etc. isn't exactly free, and I for one wouldn't want to be a poor OS developer working at McDonalds to pay for my food. So think it from other points of view when you think of patents.
Re:Better idea (Score:2)
Personally, I'm afraid a huge letter campaign wouldn't have much effect at all. The USPTO throws away the letters; They're far more worried about the opinions of the judges and lawmakers that can regulate them and or cut their budget. Letters written to to the federal judges that decide patent cases wouldn't have any effect either; They've got jobs for life, the public can go screw themselves. Writing to Congress, especially to the more powerful, established members, fails because they're too terribly interested in SIG money and the latest public opinion polls. Both changing public opinion through the media outlets and 'paying' Congresspeople to like our proposals cost far more money than the
Or, mabye it isn't. The WTO protesters made headlines even before the Anarchists showed; Many of us paid attention and now know why the WTO is 'evil'. How many of us have seen the latest Greenpeace 'chain yourslf to a tree' effort in the news? Do you think Greenpeace would even be a blip on our radar without thirty-odd years of it? I doubt it.
What we need to do is something so out-of-the-ordinary that the popular media picks it up and disseminates it, pre-chewed and dumbified, to the Joe and Sally Apathy's of the US. When public opinion shifts, so does Congress.
Send 'em bricks, and lots of them.
Any one interested please send mail to either the address listed above! Any organization of effort is better none, be it bricks, letters, or code.
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
--
John D. Trudel - Certified Management Consultant - (Score:2)
Has anyone thought to contact Trudel on the phone to get his opinion. I can't right now since I'm at work. But there is a number on his web site. I'm just curious who will answer the phone: a receptionist, John Trudel, or a cheap analog answering machine.
The Trudel Group
33470 Chinook PL
Scappoose, OR 97056
503-638-8644
I also have a question for the guy that sumbitted this to Ask Slashdot. What is your relationship to John Trudel? Have you heard of him before? If not, what led you to his web site?
numb
Re:U.S. should join the 20th century (Score:2)
"rant" is right (Score:2)
--Kevin
overreacting (Score:2)
Why didn't the patent system save US corporations from Japan in the 70's and 80s? As I recall TV's, VCR's and other similar technology were developed mainly in the US, but Japan got a hold of the technology and created a better consumer product, and blew away US corporations in the consumer electronics market. There is a lot more to the issue than patents. One piece of legislation, destroying our entire economy? He gets the instat label of crackpot with that line.
From Joe Average's point of view nothing is really happening here. This isn't going to stop patent abuses. Patents still benefit individuals, for good or bad. Usually bad as far as the current system is set up. They're not changing the application or approval process (as far as I can tell...I couldn't get much of any real information out of his site, other than a lot of ranting). If there is anything of true substance to this bill, he hasn't told me what it is.
Horrible web page design as well.
the little guy needs lawyers to GET a patent (Score:2)
So unfortunately, while patents are SUPPOSED to protect the little guy, in practice, the little guy is lucky to have the resources to even file for one (let alone get it approved).
This is a serious problem with the current system and bears examination. The status quo simply encourages more abuse by corporations.
Best regards,
SEAL
Re:bah (Score:2)
[Look at wavelet or fractal image compression. I would hardly call those "obvious."] ... Yes it is not obvious. But it was discovered. You can not grant patents for SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
Er, that's exactly what patents are. You could use exactly the same argument for the Cotton Gin. It was "discovered" by Eli Whitney, and thus can't be patented because it's "scientific discovery".
An even better one is the guy who "discovered" Velcro by noticing a certain plant stuck to his clothes.
---
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:2)
> mathematics before they filed for a
> patent (perhaps even before they thought of
> filing for a patent). [There was a huge furor
> when the spooks tried to suppress the RSA
> algorithm, but it had already spread too wide
> before they woke up to it
This could have been a shrewd move on their part
too. AFAIK the NSA has the ability to Mark any
patent they wish Classified. This would mean that
the patent would be issued, but would be useless
to the owners, since it would be classified. No
publishing or licencing. Talk about a raw deal.
The NSA, I hear, often does this with encryption
technology. Now...look at it this way, you have a
full year AFTER publishing to file for a patent.
So...if you publish first, then file, the NSA
can't very well gain anything by classifing the
patent.
Very well played if you ask me.(even if I despise
the entire concept of patents and espcially
cryptography and other math patents...I still
apreciate the manuvering -whether it was
intantional or not)
> You might also want to check out some of Bruce
> Schneier's work to see if he's patented his
> encryption algorithms.
His work is excellent. I am reading Applied
Cryptography now...excellent book.
> A quick check of counterpane.com turns up this
> page on Blowfish, indicating that it is now part
> of OpenBSD
Its an algorythm...it is part of OpenBSD's
OpenSSH. It is AFAIK not an integral part of the
OS. (unless they have encrypted filesystems)
>(and almost certainly not patented).
AFAIK (according to the book) its is not.
> Even if RSA did patent theirs, it doesn't mean
> that they set the standard.
Well as far as public key systems go, they did
set the standard. RSA has to be the most widely
used Public Key system I can think of.
FWIW, Blowfish is a block cipher not a public
key system
Tho there are unpatented public key systems...
um El Gamel I think???
-Steve
Who wants progress? (Score:2)
Progress occurs spontaneously in the minds of individuals. This may happen in universities or research centres, but more often than not it is just a lateral thinking person who sees a good way to solve a problem. Businesses solve problems like this all the time, and I think it is no coincidence that some of the greatest progress we have seen in the twentieth century are due to fiercely competitive markets in various commodity technologies.
Patent monopolies are the antithesis of progress - they remove most incentives for further innovation and create unnaceptable barriers of entry to innovative competitors. They create a hugely costly system of IP law which is a pretty impassable obstacle for small players in any case. Additionally, the beaurocracy and royalties imposed on companies needing to use a patented idea inevitably means that the invention is never used as much as it should have been.
You see, all inventions will be discovered ultimately. Real science will be done by people who are eternally curious and love their subject. Practical innovations will arise naturally as people need them. Business ideas will be created by businessmen, that is their job after all.
So why are we still enslaved by this idea of patents? I'll admit that some inventions may occur slightly sooner because of financial incentives, and biotech may fall into this category. But even then, the benefits of these inventions are less than they would otherwise have been because the high price of patented products limits their usage.
Furthermore, it is not clear that mankind is fully ready to handle the implications of some discoveries. Patents tend to encourage an unquestioning headlong rush into ideas such as GM food, designer babies, cloning humans and growing body parts. Not that these are necessarily bad, but I for one can see the advantage of actually slowing down progress until some of the ethical issues are properly sorted out. Without patents, we wouldn't have the problem of a self-interested lobby pushing these ideas before mankind is mature enough to handle them.
Aside from the fact that I am morally offened at the thought that anyone could "own" an abstract idea, I think it is clear that patents of all kinds impose a huge burden on society. Without patents, products would be cheaper, the economy would be far more competitive and progress would *still* happen as companies fight to keep a step ahead. Any country that dumped patents right now would start to see the benefits of a *real* free market.
2-day flat envelop is $2.30 (Score:2)
Re:Hardware patents are your friend & other though (Score:2)
How many Years? I recall a lot more than 10-20. Also, here is the deal with that. He is much older, spent years worth of lawyers fee's and in the end he still got a fraction of what the patent really was worth.
The point is that you really cannot challenge The system, if you cannot afford too.
Recently, an aquaintance of mine, *who will go nameless for use as an example* has a patent on a product he makes. A larger company currently is producing the EXACT same thing.
He calls them, complains, they tell him to sue him and by the time he gets any money outta it, the product will be useless by then anyways.
The company flat out told him to sue, even though they KNEW they were in violation.
Patent's don't protect the small, they are only used so you can sell your invention to a larger company and at least make some money (less than what they would pay the lawyers).
Patent law is obviously in disrepair. Consider the Cold Fusion hoax. Without knowing the cold fusion was false, several friends initiated a "Patent" on the cold fusion. You know what? I bet they would have gotten it, but they dropped it when they found out it was crap.
Welcome to big business.
Re:Genetic patents should be equiv. to software (Score:2)
There's a difference there, with software someone had to go to the trouble of thinking it up and writing the code, Genetic code is a natural occurance, these companies are just going to the trouble of finding it. An analogy would be an astronomer finding a new comet and then putting a patent on it. If a company comes up with a specific use of a particualr gene then maybe a patente might be justified, but only for that specific use, not a general one such as "use in treatment of cancer" more like "use in treatment of *foo* cancer by *bar* process".
The case against sotftware patents (Score:2)
Hmm - I read the rant and rave - but to someone who's not an American citizen, and not living in America, it's just another amusing example of people (and we have them here too - so I'm not US bashing) who don't understand that the future is a GLOBAL interest and the time for countries has passed - the internet is finally allowing us a global society, and in my mind at least, that is a good thing!
However as to patents themselves. I agree in principle - John Smith comes up with a great design for a new type of shelving - he investigates, tries to set up his own production - talks to a few plastic companies - no one is interested. Two weeks later one of those companies is producing a radical new design of shelving - I think we can agree that we want some protection for the small inventor..
However, we can see immediately two major exceptions -
1) SoftwareThere are two problems with software, and to a lesser extent, hardware, that should rule them out of patent-ability completely -
a) the first thing is the pace of development - there are thousands of people all over the world working on every particular thing. When it comes down to it, 99.99999% of ideas aren't "original" - they are a case of putting facts together - someone says something, someone hears it, and manages to connect it with another fact - and an idea is born. That is why, if you look through history, so many amazing ideas (like calculus) were invented simultaneously by unrelated groups - its not that people have some marvelous genius to produce the idea, its just that the idea was "ready" - ie all the bits leading to the idea were out there, it just took someone to put them together - In the software industry, the technology is moving so fast, and the information is moving so smoothly that I refuse to believe that anyone can come up with an idea and get it to market before tens, even hundreds of other people have also independently come up with exactly the same idea - so do they really deserve anything for "getting there first?" - or even worse, for thinking of patenting it, whereas the majority of people actually do something wonderful, and post their idea on a newsgroup or in IRC or something.
b) the second problem with a software patent is that there are NO barriers to entry (whatever you may believe about Microsoft) - when it comes down to it, if you think of an idea - you are free to implement it with no cost (other than time) to yourself whatsoever - this is very different from the traditional small inventor picture, where they have to approach others to build their product, or invest an absurd amount of money into making a factory or business themselves. I am a developer who earns his livelihood from shareware, so I have a right to say this - I have even written (with a friend) a complete operating system - and believe that there literally aren't ANY barriers to entry - people use Microsoft/Adobe products and others because they are currently the best - not because they are made to - I used to run linux on my server, but changed to Win 2000 because it has a truly transparent proxy - if linux comes out with something better, or BEOS - I will change - and even though a large percentage of the industry aren't like that - ie they won't change products, even operating systems, at a days notice - the people who are driving the industry - ie us - the developers, the hackers, the techies (the little guys in the corner who everyone in the office asks for advice on their purchasing agreements) make all difference to the direction of the industry.
and think about it - when people start developing things themselves - they try to develop the idea as fast as possible because they know someone else is going to come up with it! Doesn't that mean that it shouldn't really be patented?! - ie it wasn't much of an achievement if they are fully aware that many other people are gunna have the same idea!
2) the human genomeI think we can all agree that there is no way that the human genome should be patent-able (and this argument also applies in the computer industry) - the reason? no one is INVENTING anything - they are just discovering something intrinsic - even that discovery would possibly have value - but with the genome, it's not a question of discovering something that others wouldn't discover for a while, its only a question of discovering something FIRST. There is a block of information out there owned by the universe - there are separate groups of people racing to learn about it - it's an absurd notion to believe that someone who gets there a day, month or year before someone else has any more rights to use the results than the others??!!!
It's like saying that if I read a self-help book on carpentry, before anyone else, then I can charge anyone for use of the information - because that is exactly what is happening - the genome is a book, written by god, or the universe, or the inherent structure of the system - and I don't thin any brownie points should accrue for being the first to read any part of it! Sure, patent the TECHNIQUES that allowed you to get there first, but patenting the code itself is just ridiclous
U.S. should join the 20th century (Score:3)
The only thing I can think of is that this would reduce the effective confidentiality period of an application from 30 months to 18. You see, when you file for a patent in one country, you have a one year grace period to file in the rest of the world, but still get the same effective filing date (known as the "priority date") as on that first application.
Now, the priority date applies for the purposes of patent protection, as well as first-to-file claims in other countries, but it is the actual filing date which determines the date of publication. So, a common tactic is to file in the U.S., wait a year, then file in the rest of the world. This way, you get all the benefits of the U.S. filing date around the world, but the application is not published until 30 months after the U.S. filing date. This would prevent this tactic and require all applications to be published 18 months after the true filing date.
So you can see why corporations might not like this--things they want to keep secret are now revealed a year earlier than they would be otherwise--but it is important to note this is not an issue only to U.S. inventors/corporations. Foreign inventors can and do use this tactic just as well as U.S. inventors, as there is no rule that your first application must be filed in your home country.
Good retort (Score:3)
My belief is that it takes less resources to secure an equivalent revelation in software systems than in, say, tractor parts. Therefore, the reward (in government supported monopoly over a number of years) should be lower. Exactly how many years should be determined by the how many years the industry can tolerate being without key technologies.
But there is another problem lurking behind the current patent system. Besides the fact that these patent "clerks" get payed nothing and hit with sh*t from lawyers making their annual salary in a week. Besides the fact that Congress has made "business processes" patentable, in violation of the spirit of patent law. Besides the fact that Intelectual property is itself a dubious notion (remember when your ten year-old friends used to say when an idea worked "I thought of it first!").
The real problems stem from truth, logic, and lack thereof in the system of obtaining, enforcing, and repealing patents. Each of these are insanely expensive, abusable, and all too human processes. I mean, there is better logic in playgrounds and Nurseries than in the lawyer's technical arguments over why X should pay Y several billion dollars of hard-earned money.
Submarine patents are obvious abuses, and should not be valid. Ever played boggle? Two people look for words in any direction on a small letter board, and hide their sheets. The most, best words win, and the rule is if two people come up with the same word from the board neither player gets the points. Patents should work like that. If two people independantly come up with an idea, obviously it wasn't patentable to begin with.
-Ben
Re:Summary of HR1907 (Score:3)
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.
I think it was the other way around in the past, ie. the term began when your patent is granted. I remembered reading in Applied Cryptography about the patent stunts pulled out by the NSA and the PTO: the NSA always applies patents for each and every one of their cryptographic inventions, but the USPTO never grants them immediately (so that it need not be disclosed to the public). Then, when somebody outside came up with the same idea and applied for a patent (maybe a good 10 years later), the USPTO reveals the NSA patent, cite it as prior art, grants the NSA patent, and the 17 year clock starts ticking. Real smart, isn't it?
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:3)
I'm afraid I don't get you here. Every patent has to be disclosed (aside from some patents with "National Security" implications), when the patent is granted.
Most of the benefits of many inventions is not in the sales, but in the use. (See open-source software.) Techniques such as wavelet compression are far more useful if they are not patented, because the requirement to negotiate use rights is a barrier to their use, and their value is increased by ubiquity; the promise of "progress in the useful arts" is taken back by the barriers to entry.
And it always has been. The purpose of the patent system is not to "promote use of the useful arts", but, as you pointed out, to "promote progress of the useful arts". While the current system, especially the length of the patents and the inability of the PTO to recognize obviousness and intependently research prior art, impedes progress, so would eliminating software patents, as two things would happen. First, commercial funding for software research would be reduced, as the potential of making back the investment would be greatly diminished. Second, what research there was would largely result in work which would remain trade secrets, which impede progress as much as overbroad, overlong patents do.
I think the best solution is to greatly reduce the patent period for software patents to 3 years after award or 5 years after application, and to increase funding for the PTO to adequately research patents. Perhaps the funding could come from a sliding scale for patent application fees based on the applicant's annual revenues, with an additional fee for patents transferred within 1 year of issue (the additional fee being the difference between what the fee would be for the company gaining the patent, minus the amount paid to the original recipient of the patent.
President Signed the Bill Months Ago (Score:3)
The only problems with the provisions are that they didn't go far enough. Patent "reform" is far closer to the position of most Slashdot readers than the strong-IP, "patentee must always win, and anything that weaken's a patentee's rights is bad for America" views espoused by the bill's critics.
The key provisions provided for early publication (which gives companies and programmers a timely heads up of claims for software patents when international patent protection is sought), limited prior user rights for programmers and their employers who had used programs written and in use prior to the issue date of a method of doing business or process patent and a number of administrative changes.
Most significantly, it started to provide greater access to third parties who bring prior art to the patent office to seek reexamination of an issued patent. Reexamination is substantially less expensive, and sometimes far less risky, than litigating the validity of the patent in court. I recently posted in Slashdot concerning the virtues of liberalized reexamination for software inventions. [slashdot.org]
The subject of this news story represents a faction of so-called "independent inventors" who take a radical, pro-patent stance, arguing that virtually anything that weakens a patent owner's rights compromises the rights of all citizens. I have found advocates from this camp to adopt a "take-all-prisoners" stance, relying on ad hominem attacks and jingoism in lieu of debates on the merits.
While it is true that much of the movement for patent reform is associated with "harmonization" of U.S. patent law with most foreign nations to simpify the process of filing world-wide applications, I will note that even that does not equate to ceding rights of American inventors to foreign entities. Moreover, I will observe that Slashdot critics of software patents have frequently cited to patent policy in Japan and the E.C. as more enlightened than that in the U.S.
Re:Better idea (Score:3)
Re:How to define "Obviousness" (Score:3)
Slashdot readers are (relitivly speaking) experts in software, networking, databases, hardware and e-business. Therefore, we are qualified to make the 'obvious' determination. It's not our fault the USPTO isn't.
Re:Better idea (Score:3)
Perhaps we should Airborne Express them a brick along with a letter that reads 'Judging from your decisions lately, everyone at the USPTO must be as dumb as a brick. Here's some company!/Now you're twice as smart' Our cost would soar to around $25, but they'd have to tolerate almost forty tons of insulting real-world spam. It's sure to make the news as one of the most inventive protests of all time.
Re:I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:3)
You might also want to check out some of Bruce Schneier's work to see if he's patented his encryption algorithms. A quick check of counterpane.com turns up this page [counterpane.com] on Blowfish, indicating that it is now part of OpenBSD (and almost certainly not patented). Even if RSA did patent theirs, it doesn't mean that they set the standard.
--
Better idea (Score:3)
--- Dirtside | "Spirituality" is the irrational belief in the supernatural
but, inventors do make some money... (Score:3)
The flaw in your argument as stated: you are assuming that without a patent, inventors of things will get no compensation. But, many software companies make money from much unpatented software. Visicalc, Lotus 1-2-3, Microsoft BASIC and DOS, Oracle, etc., these things were not patented, and their inventors got plenty of compensation.
To sharpen your argument, I think you mean to say that you feel
Not that I agree with you, but if I'm to argue against the idea I'd at least like it to make sense first ;)
Re:Some more information (Score:3)
Now, whether or not Celera's claims are true, this opens up a whole can of worms:
If discoveries yield patents (either directly or by patenting the means of discovery or means of use), is publicly-funded research competing with potential commercial enterprise? Or are commercial enterprises using public research to gain exclusive advantage? (Note that researchers/universities can obtain patents for the fruits of publicly-funded work.)
Is market incentive or public policy the best way to determine how research is funded? Both have their faults, and both can be biased.
Are patents that claim rights to future/unproven technologies (e.g. cancer cure based on a discovered gene) invalid on the basis of being obvious? (After all, the applicant came up with the idea without even having the expertise or providing the details to make it work). Is the PTO also failing to enforce the necessary level of detail in such patents?
If Celera could really use the discovered genes to cure cancer, doesn't that provide a likely monetary reward, regardless of exclusivity?
Do Celera's tactics demonstrate that patents are only useful as a weapon to keep others away from an innovation? Or are patents the best protection for a small player versus the government or a large player?
Some more information (Score:3)
Celera Genomics have been running a massively expensive mapping of the human genome, and in doing so have been in competition with another state-run mapping.
A little over a month ago, they applied for patent rights on 6500 sections of DNA which they had discovered, which was a very controversial application for the reasons pointed out by other responses. It also should be mentioned that Celera plan to release gene sequences which they discover only to paying subscribers.
Tellingly, one Israeli newspaper has described Celera as 'The New Microsoft'.
Genetic patents should be equiv. to software (Score:4)
Lots of people have been clammoring for the complete abolishment of all software patents, which I don't fully agree with. I think that this system needs a lot of work, and the number of software patents issued needs to be limited (at least) to truly unique, novel algorithms, not silly UI "innovations." Someone mentioned wavelets as an example of what I would consider patentable.
Genetic code should share these limitations, with the additional protection against genetic code found in nature. Of course then what happens when somebody develops a cool checksum/redundancy technique to resist mutation, they receive a patent, and then later on someone else discovers that technique being used elsewhere in nature? Is the patent revoked? Limited? Have there already been discussions or precedents relating to this?
Devilish details... First look at HR1907 == bad (Score:4)
My general impression (which hasn't changed (I'm on page 45 of 116) much since I started reading is that this is a bill by lawyers for lawyers.
The first section (17 pages) deals with "invention promoters", and on the surface, looks good because it creates a disclosure requirement and makes it easier for an inventor to end a contract with a promoter. But (rereading now) I didn't see a whole lot of legal teeth other than the right to sue (which we already had) for damages, and if the promoter was guilty of fraud, it was only a misdemeanor offense. Secondarily, if I'm reading correctly, the inventor only has five days to rescind the contract -- which is not long enough to find out whether or not the promoter can even provide value added service to the inventor.
Pg 19 -- has a definition sentence that is one paragraph long, and I'm still not sure I understand the legal ramifications of it. Pg. 20: requires that a process be reduced to "practice" at least a year prior to the filing of a patent in order to be a defense. Seems dangerous. What if I have developed a process in my business, but haven't documented it to a practice -- and some bozo tries to patent that same process and I don't get word of it. Did I just lose my "prior art" defense against infringement? Sure looks like it.
Pg. 20, bottom: correct me if I'm wrong, but current patent law allows infringement defense based on "substantial improvements" to an item, even if the new item was derived from an earlier patented item. My reading of the text is that this clause is ambiguous and could remove that protection. Pg: 21==>Burden of proof: So far my worst finding... It puts the burden of proof for infringment on the "alleged" infringer. 'xcuse me. I thought under US law a person was innocent until proven guilty. Pg:23==>A successful infringement defense does not necessarily invalidate the patent. Oh yeah? Isn't a successful defense somewhat a proof of "prior art".
Well, enough of that. I'll keep reading, but on first look this is bad.
Mr. Trudel (Score:4)
For example, he credited the authors of the Constitution with developing the first useful patent system, and that this system was responsible for the genesis of rapid technical progress and technology world leadership in the US.
Well, there are some very severe problems with this account. One is that the first effective patent system was devised in England, not the US. A second is that up until at least 1850 or so the US was hardly a world technological power.
Another problem I have with Mr. Trudell is his rant about the US patent system becoming like the Japanese system. In one respect I agree with him - the Japanese system is terrible. It is in fact a corrupt arm of the Keiretsu that use it to maintain their grip on the Japanese economy. HOWEVER, most of the changes that are working their way through the US patent system are actually inspired by standardization that occurred in Europe with the WPO and EPO. These changes, from my point of view are generally beneficial, and solve a number of problems with the US system.
Many people feel that the problems with the Japanese patent system are very detrimental to their development of new technologies. One thing is certain; basic research in Japan is a mess.
If you compare the three systems, you will find that the historical tendency has been in Japan to grant a patent for very small inventions - things I have seen patented there would not make it through the US Patent Office. There are other problems as well; for example the company filing a patent has control of the examining process, and can delay examination for many years.
On the other hand, European patents are generally tougher to get, and require demonstration of a larger step in innovation - something I would like to see in the US process.
I have not read HR 1907 in detail, but if it is directed towards making the US system more compatable with the WPO (and the WPO does publish 18 months after filing) I am all in favor of it.
IMHO (Score:4)
In fact, my humble opinion is that the whole judicial system in America is broken. Perhaps it is also broken elsewhere in the world and never worked at all. But when a judge can take the word a man who makes about $20,000 a year and has to deal with perhaps thousands of patent cases... and hold that over billion dollar industries...
My point is this. In our increasingly litigious society, people are flocking to building whatever fodder for lawsuits and protection from lawsuits they can find. The real heart of the problem is the breakdown of logic, facts, and truth in the judicial system in favor of patents, stories, allegations, and the threat of a lawsuit!
-Ben
Eliminating software patents was never the answer (Score:4)
Since software has just recently become patentable, it should have a short-lived patent system, say a 3 year patent on all software innovations. Later, say in 10 years, congress could then extend the length of patents for longer. This is because software is a new and quickly emerging field, without 17-year business cycles.
Also, any new field (such as bio-technology and quantum computing) should have these same short patent lifetimes, followed by extensions as the market is ready for it. The times could be universally agreed upon by the (patent and non-patent holding) people in the industry.
This is my most reasonable thought on the subject, and it would have, if instigated earlier, quite nicely have kept microsoft from being able to hold its government-enforced software monopoly for its 20 year stranglehold. The old dos technology would have been quickly giving to third parties who would have helped the entire market, like the IBM-compatable computers.
-Ben
(p.s. check out http://www.overlawyered.com)
bah (Score:4)
As for hardware patents, well that's the very purpose of patents. I mean, if we had no software patents, or hardware patents, then what the hell would we be able to patent?
I agree that the patent process needs to be reformed, but as far as I can tell those wanting its complete removal from the software feild is mostly from people to stupid to come up with there own cool stuff.
Sorry for my spelling errors, I'm away from a spellchecker
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Hardware patents are your friend & other thoughts (Score:4)
Some of the idiotic software patents are giving patents overall a bad name. The point of patents is protect the little guy, not the mega corporation that everyone seems to think.
Let's say Joe invents the Great Widget in his garage. He begins to start trying to manufacture it (with micro money), but Big Corp sees it, ramps up production and marketing, and takes it over. However, if he gets a patent, he is protected.
Now, the cynical person might be tempted to say, "oh yeah, sure, like Joe can compete with the Big Corp's lawyers." Well, it happens every day, folks. If Joe has a clear patent, and it's a clear violation, Joe makes a lot of money licensing the patent. This means he can get attorneys on contingency.
Now, as for software patents, my thought is that since software engineering is such a new science, the "wheels" so to speak are still being invented. I say we should set an arbitrary date, say 2029, where we say "OK! All the obvious software algorithms have been invented. After that point, clearly it was not obvious and someone deserves to own it." Note that after that date any undiscovered algorithm is going to be extremely complicated (like the recipe for intelligence or something).
Some might argue that software is a mathematical formula, and thus shouldn't be patented. I reject that argument. A hardware machine is a pattern of matter that is organizied in a novel way to do useful work. A software machine is a pattern of electrons that is organized in a novel way to do useful work. What's the difference? Both are patterns; one happens to organize atoms, the other organizes electrons.
---
Interesting Reading (Score:4)
1) The only sign of patent reform is sec. 705 Which pretty much says the the Patent and Trademark Commisioner has to come up with a study 6 months from passage about why American Biotech interests need to be able to file patents. (Bad thing)
2) Sec 311, "Any person, at any time" we request reexamination. Provide you pay 1) pay the fee, 2) disclose the real parties interested. (Generally a good thing) The director makes a ruling if a new quesiton has been raised. This decision is final. If it is reject they "may" refund the fee.
3) This is the part the Irks me. In sec. 709, National Security and sec. 304, technical clarification there are many claus to how a patent could be kept confidential. This can be at the request of the applicant or under the terms described in sec. 181. Sec. 181 is not published in the text of the bill. (Generally BAD)
4) No where is there any technical reform. Beyond a better appeals process this really is counter productive.
Genetic Patents (Score:4)
Summary of HR1907 (Score:5)
Title I - Inventors' Rights
Basically protects inventors from those shady late-night TV commercials promoting "invention" services, where you sign your inventions over to them for the purposes of "evaluating" and "promoting" it, and they keep the patents, royalties, etc.
This is a good thing.
Title II - First Inventor Defense
Protects an inventor from patent infringement charges if the original inventor brought the subject matter to practical use at least a year before the filing of the other guy's patent and used the patent commercially at some point prior to the filing.
It seems to me like this kinda matches my own interpretation of what "prior art" was, but maybe not. Maybe this just makes it more explicit.
Title III - Patent Term Guarantee
Very basically, if the patent office is butt-slow in getting your patent approved, your patent term is adjusted accordingly.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.
Title IV - United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad
Presumably this is where all of the fuss occurs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read for me, and makes extensive references to the various patent treaties.
My understanding is this: Patents are generally published/made available to foreign countries after 18 months. You can request that it be made available earlier, or, if you're not filing patents in a different country, you can request that it not be published at all. If you do file patents in other countries, presumably treaties require these patent applications to be shared between member countries after 18 months.
I think this is what some people are angry about. I don't know the rationale behind the sharing of applications, so maybe somebody else can step up and elaborate for us? I guess by publishing these patent applications, anyone in another country where the patent holder isn't planning on applying for a patent could then in turn patent it himself. Anybody in a country where the US patent wouldn't be legal could use the information in the patent for his own good. I may be totally off-base here, but that's how I read it. Corrections are welcome.
Title V - Patent Litigation Reduction Act (I like it already)
Anybody can write the patent office with a request for re-examination, citing examples of prior art. Their letter will become an official part of the patent, and the patent office must make a determination (whether or not to re-examine) within 3 months. The requester gets copies of the progress.
Title VI - Patent and Trademark Office
This takes up about half of the actual bill. Since I'm not totally familiar with the current structure of the PTO, this could either be a lot of re-wording, or (more likely) a complete restructuring of the office itself. Note that this seems to only apply to the PTO office/organization. It doesn't have anything to do with the types of patents issued, but how they do their day-to-day business, how they evaluate their staff, and pick their work force.
But most importantly, the bill includes wording to bring the PTO out of the dark ages. They're given permission to make use of whatever equipment and technology they need (like broadband) and lets them hire their examiners more competitively.
Re:"rant" is right (Score:5)
I can't make heads or tails about what this guy is complaining about. Probably black helicopters are involved, somehow...
Section 303 [loc.gov], requesting an investigation of business model patents, is probably of the most interest to
Unfortunately, you are wrong. (Score:5)
-CITE-
35 USC Sec. 101 01/26/98
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 35 - PATENTS
PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS
CHAPTER 10 - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 101. Inventions patentable
-STATUTE-
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
-SOURCE-
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 797.)
Go here [house.gov] to find more. I searched for 'discover' in title 35.
I do not believe that discoveries should be patentable, but the current law allows it. Also recall that the US governemnt's web pages are not always up to date, i.e. H.R. 1907 may have changed this in some way.
I dispute that patents are usually beneficial. (Score:5)
There are a number of problems with the patent system today. To list a few:
- Some patents are granted for inventions that cannot be used without being disclosed (look-and-feel patents, anyone?). Amazon's one-button patent falls into this category. Since the progress in the useful arts is brought about by disclosure, schemes such as the above which cannot be used without being disclosed should be held to a very high level of scrutiny before any patent is granted. This is certainly not true today.
- Most of the benefits of many inventions is not in the sales, but in the use. (See open-source software.) Techniques such as wavelet compression are far more useful if they are not patented, because the requirement to negotiate use rights is a barrier to their use, and their value is increased by ubiquity; the promise of "progress in the useful arts" is taken back by the barriers to entry.
- The USPTO considers "prior art" to be that which has been previously granted a patent, and precious little else. 'nuff said.
I've got my name on three, count 'em, three software patents. I'd like to see every last one of them invalidated, because I think that everyone should be able to build better stuff without having to jump through hoops to do it or worry about stepping on a legal land mine when they are trying to do engineering.--