Slashdot Mirror

I agree. Last I heard, they only enforced IP rights when non-Chinese companies infringed (or appeared to infringe) upon a Chinese company's IP.

Anyone know if China's still doing that? (with references)

Where are your references that they actually did that?

On a side note, several years back I attended a speech by David Martin, who is founder/CEO of the company M-CAM, which is specialised in evaluating patent portfolios (such as determining how many claims overlap with other patents, likely validity etc). It was so interesting that I transcribed it. That page also contains the audio recording.

One of the things he mentioned is that China has a requirement that whenever the state purchases technology from a foreign interest, all "IP" for enabling technologies and know-how must be transferred as well. Many Western companies figured the Chinese wouldn't know/comprehend the exact patent rights they gave to the Chinese, so they only transferred rights to second-rate patents that weren't worth the paper they weren't printed on (crappy patents don't only exist in the software world). Once the Chinese caught up with this practice,

• Western companies suddenly started losing out on a lot of bids to large projects
• the Chinese started closely scrutinising the patents supposedly held by these foreign companies

It's easy to accuse the Chinese of "stealing" everything, but (just making up these numbers) what if 48% of what's supposedly stolen should actually have been transferred to them in the first place according to contractual obligations (nobody ever forced those companies to do business there if they didn't like the terms), 48% consists of bogus patents and the other 2% is simply the equivalent of the Nokia/Apple/Google/Microsoft/HTC/LG/... patent infringement lawsuits that you have in the US mobile industry (are all those companies "thieves", copycats etc)?

I also think the "Probably stolen?" subject of this thread shows incredible ignorance. China probably has more engineering majors graduating every year than any other country in the world. Do you honestly think that the Chinese for some reason are inherently more stupid than us Westerners and cannot come up with anything innovative? Especially "innovative according to patent office standards"?

As far as I can tell, they've simply learned the tricks of the trade. For decades, "intellectual property" allowed us to have the best of both worlds: cheap labor from China and nevertheless preventing them from making cheap knock-offs and importing those back into our territories (they could sell them over there, but nobody cared about that since nobody had any money so there was no real profit to be made anyway).

Now they are starting to beat us at our own idiotic game. And still some people think they have the moral high ground and yell "but they steal everything from us, this cannot be". Wake up.

Because more patents are not necessarily better.

Additionally, certain patent acquirement strategies significantly increasethe risk of being the target of patent lawsuits, because they paint a bullseye on your company's strategic development, enabling patent trolls to predict it, patent "alongside" your development and sue you based on that.

And then there's still this whole patent bubble that's still forming, fairly similar to how the whole credit crisis came to be. In time, the value of patents is going to come crashing down just as spectacularly, regardless of how many times you repeat the holy yet hollow mantra "but our intellectual property must be protected!"

http://www.m-cam.com/~watsonj/usptohistory.html
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/us c_sup_01_35.html

i could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Dateline the Mediterranean: the estates of Plato and Aristotle are claiming that Linux infringes on their patents for "logic", since logic is an intrinsic part of the operating system. There is no word on whether suits will be filed with the World Court.

I say this a lot -- the idea of the software patent is absurd, as much so as patenting genes. Patents in the United States were originally thought of as a means to allow Federal support of science. The idea was to stimulate creativity and industrial innovation and allow inventors to reap the benefits of their inventions. The patent process was meant to be strictly controlled and only the most original ideas and variants on common ideas were granted patents.

Software is generally a commodity, not an invention. If I come up with a novel way of parsing files, storing data, or even creating better processing throughput, perhaps that may be thought of as unique, but the fact is I'm using a programming language that others have access to as well as systems others have access to, and there's every possibility that someone else may have had the same idea.

It comes down the fact the ideas are not proprietary -- anyone can have them. What you choose to do with them is your business. Frankly, I like the Open Source approach, simply from the standpoint of it being a sharing-the-wealth system, that avoids a lot of reinventing-the-wheel that goes on in this world. It gives everyone the opportunity to advance systems and apply new ideas to technology. It is the complete antithesis of the patent model, as it presupposes that developments in software are to be shared, not hoarded.

This whole linux patent business is not over by a longshot, especially since Microsoft has not enterred the fray.

Scenario one: I'm writing software. I come up with a brilliant idea and put it in my software. When I release it, someone pops up with a patent and says I have to pay royalties.

Scenario two: I'm writing software. I come up with a brilliant idea and put it in my software. When I release it, someone else steals my idea for their own software and releases a competing product.

Both of these scenarios are clearly wrong, but no patent plan thus far has dealt with any way to prevent both cases. Overuse of software patents creates the first scenario, while lack of software patents creates the second.

Your "brilliant thinkers" rant is quite amusing.

Concerning your simple solution to all the problems with (software) patents: people have been saying for decades already that all problems with the patent system can be solved by just doing this or that (better application of novelty/non-obviousness requirements, more funding of patent offices, better training of patent examiners, patent pools, ...).

The fact is however that today, things are as bad as ever. And that's not just my opinion, but that of Dr David Martin, CEO of M-CAM, a company specialised in establishing the value of patents and technology transfers.

Until that whole mess is sorted out, the patent system is costing the software economy millions and millions of dollars in patent application fees, costs of setting up licensing deals, fighting lawsuits (have a look at the last slide) etc.

So I suggest you with your brilliant mind first work out the economic model and studies that shows that with your adjustments the patent system is in fact overall beneficial (as opposed to the current situation), then get it turned into a law in the US, that we see whether it in fact works in practice and that only then we start with the legalisation of software patents in Europe under the same regime.

Until then, I prefer not to have that whole administrative and juridical burden imposed on the European software market. And I don't see why people shouldn't argue for removing the burden in the US as well.

People have a lot of theories for why bad patents are granted. In reality, it's a bunch of different problems combined. I've dealt with a few trademarks and I've been involved in some patent review talks. Here's my IANAL take on some of what's involved:

• The examining attorneys don't get it. They don't have sufficient people with sufficiently deep knowledge in any particular field, so what's obvious to the practitioner isn't necessarily obvious to the examining attorney.
• They don't know how to search for prior art. If you don't know that "a digital identifier associated with an individual user of digital (web-based resources) intended to act as an identifying mechanism" is commonly called a cookie, you might grant a patent related to that because you didn't know how to search for similar stuff.
• In some cases, examining attorneys are paid by the office action, or how many letters they send back and forth contesting a mark or patent. In some cases, this provides opportunities for applicants to add much more supporting information to the application, and get a feeling for the thinking of the USPTO and what they need to say in order to get around the USPTO's mental biases
• Lawyers have the time and money to browbeat and appeal USPTO decisions. USPTO doesn't have the time and the money to fight every one to the bitter end. The reality is that the only way to make some attorneys go away is to grant it.

There's a company out there called M-CAM that does IP valuation - in other words they can tell you if what you have is a bogus patent worth nothing that shouldn't have been granted, or if you've got something that is fundamentally innovative. I saw a presentation a while back from the guy who runs the company, and they really get it. (The presentation started off by likening bogus patents to counterfeit money, particularly since companies use these patents to inflate perceptions of their valuation when sold)

what happens if somebody sues a Chinese company. Can't China just claim that they will not honor any software patents on any software or on Linux specifically? It's not like they have a history of respecting other countries IP rights.

Listen to this speech (mp4 audio, 3.9 MiB) given by David Martin from M-CAM at the FFII conference on software patents from last week. His company is specialised in assessing the value of patent portfolios and technology transfers. Here's part of a transcript of his speech:

For the last five years, the United states has had a very active policy of actually the alleging the Chinese steal things. They steal things, they're bad people because they steal things. That's a very funny position, and it's couched in the "you don't respect intellectual property".

So what you have is, you know Chinese don't respect intellectual property, therefore they steal things, therefore because MPAA and RIAA say that they steal things, we have to all tell the masses "yes, in fact, they steal things".

There's a funny reality unfolding. The funny reality is that the Chinese are actually saying "I wonder if you can pull the pin out of the grenade and throw it back". And by that I mean this: what if the patents that are being asserted to be stolen or copied or infringed aren't actually worth the paper they're being printed on and what if the Chinese using their sovereign rights actually challenge those patents.

What would happen then? Well let's play that tape for a little bit more because I think at last calculation 43% of the US currency is actually owned by the Chinese, because we are very fond of debt. We're extremely fond of debt, so much so that we've sold our currency to the Chinese and they currently own our debt.

Now add to that the fact that they also have a lot of people and a lot of resources to call into question the due process of all bad patents. Guess what happens. Who wins? I'm gonna submit to you that everybody loses.

Listen to the rest of his speech for more. I guarantee you it'll be worth your while. For the record, he concludes his speech with

"If we don't actually confront the integrity problem, which says that we are stimulated to issue garbage (...), we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

Nice to hear that from someone in the field, isn't it?

Poland just recently decided against supporting software patents in the EU. Does that mean they will not respect other countries' patents on software or just that they will not go along with Europe issuing them?

Unlike in the US, the introduction (or not) of software patents in Europe is being handled via a legislative process (as opposed to purely via case law). For an overview of the legislative process, have a look here. The bottom line is that it's currently the turn of the European Council of Ministers, which has to reach a qualified majority for one text or another. The current text is hardcore pro-unlimited patentability.

Now Poland has confirmed they do not support that text (they weren't even formally asked after a break in a meeting in May where some fake compromise amendments were introduced, and where a political agreement was reached). Together with a change of voting weights that went into effect on 1st November (because of the expansion of the EU), this means there is no longer a qualified majority for the current text.

So it has nothing to do with not respecting other countries' patents. Besides, a patent is always only valid in the country it has been granted in, that's how pat

what happens if somebody sues a Chinese company. Can't China just claim that they will not honor any software patents on any software or on Linux specifically? It's not like they have a history of respecting other countries IP rights.

Listen to this speech (mp4 audio, 3.9 MiB) given by David Martin from M-CAM at the FFII conference on software patents from last week. His company is specialised in assessing the value of patent portfolios and technology transfers. Here's part of a transcript of his speech:

For the last five years, the United states has had a very active policy of actually the alleging the Chinese steal things. They steal things, they're bad people because they steal things. That's a very funny position, and it's couched in the "you don't respect intellectual property".

So what you have is, you know Chinese don't respect intellectual property, therefore they steal things, therefore because MPAA and RIAA say that they steal things, we have to all tell the masses "yes, in fact, they steal things".

There's a funny reality unfolding. The funny reality is that the Chinese are actually saying "I wonder if you can pull the pin out of the grenade and throw it back". And by that I mean this: what if the patents that are being asserted to be stolen or copied or infringed aren't actually worth the paper they're being printed on and what if the Chinese using their sovereign rights actually challenge those patents.

What would happen then? Well let's play that tape for a little bit more because I think at last calculation 43% of the US currency is actually owned by the Chinese, because we are very fond of debt. We're extremely fond of debt, so much so that we've sold our currency to the Chinese and they currently own our debt.

Now add to that the fact that they also have a lot of people and a lot of resources to call into question the due process of all bad patents. Guess what happens. Who wins? I'm gonna submit to you that everybody loses.

Listen to the rest of his speech for more. I guarantee you it'll be worth your while. For the record, he concludes his speech with

"If we don't actually confront the integrity problem, which says that we are stimulated to issue garbage (...), we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

Nice to hear that from someone in the field, isn't it?

Poland just recently decided against supporting software patents in the EU. Does that mean they will not respect other countries' patents on software or just that they will not go along with Europe issuing them?

Unlike in the US, the introduction (or not) of software patents in Europe is being handled via a legislative process (as opposed to purely via case law). For an overview of the legislative process, have a look here. The bottom line is that it's currently the turn of the European Council of Ministers, which has to reach a qualified majority for one text or another. The current text is hardcore pro-unlimited patentability.

Now Poland has confirmed they do not support that text (they weren't even formally asked after a break in a meeting in May where some fake compromise amendments were introduced, and where a political agreement was reached). Together with a change of voting weights that went into effect on 1st November (because of the expansion of the EU), this means there is no longer a qualified majority for the current text.

So it has nothing to do with not respecting other countries' patents. Besides, a patent is always only valid in the country it has been granted in, that's how pat

Maybe... but how would it burst?

Maybe... but how would it burst?

That person is specialised in figuring out the real value of patents (that's what his company does), and the picture he paints is not a pretty one. Not by a long shot. And it's confirmed by the talk given by Ian Lewis given afterwards (sorry, don't have an extract from that, you'll have to download the full Tuesday panel 3 discussion for that). He's from one of the largest UK insurance companies. He told the audience that every single insurer that offers "IP-insurance" is turning in a loss on those insurances, despite the exorbitant rates they charge.

There is something very rotten in patent land. And as far as the current European situation is concerned: extending the scope of patentability is not the solution.

That person is specialised in figuring out the real value of patents (that's what his company does), and the picture he paints is not a pretty one. Not by a long shot. And it's confirmed by the talk given by Ian Lewis given afterwards (sorry, don't have an extract from that, you'll have to download the full Tuesday panel 3 discussion for that). He's from one of the largest UK insurance companies. He told the audience that every single insurer that offers "IP-insurance" is turning in a loss on those insurances, despite the exorbitant rates they charge.

There is something very rotten in patent land. And as far as the current European situation is concerned: extending the scope of patentability is not the solution.

Listen especially from 2m40 on, to learn why this whole "IP exportation" stuff is already backfiring tremendously today.

http://www.m-cam.com/patentlyobvious/20010223_ramb us.pdf

An interesting thing is that this report was issued back on February 23rd. Rather interesting reading it now, in light of what has happened recently.

M-CAM also has other reports that they have posted (for free) on high profile patent cases. There's a list at:

http://www.m-cam.com/patentlyobvious/contents.html

Companies discussed include: IBM, Qualcomm, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Priceline.com, and British Telecom.

Some of these reports are favorable for the companies/patents involved. However, a lot of them question the validity of specific patents, and suggest potental prior art problems which could be used to challenge the patents involved.

http://www.m-cam.com/patentlyobvious/20010223_ramb us.pdf

An interesting thing is that this report was issued back on February 23rd. Rather interesting reading it now, in light of what has happened recently.

M-CAM also has other reports that they have posted (for free) on high profile patent cases. There's a list at:

http://www.m-cam.com/patentlyobvious/contents.html

Companies discussed include: IBM, Qualcomm, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Priceline.com, and British Telecom.

Some of these reports are favorable for the companies/patents involved. However, a lot of them question the validity of specific patents, and suggest potental prior art problems which could be used to challenge the patents involved.

On March 2, 2001 a company called MCAM issues an analysis on the Amazon 1-click patent. The report makes available several instances of prior art -- exactly the stuff Bounty Quest is looking for.

A week later, Bounty Quest makes its announcement. There is prior art, but nobody submitted it. (Right) ;-)

On March 14, 2001 Internetnews.com reports on this whole fiasco and draws into question some of the motives behind Bounty Quest.

On March 2, 2001 a company called MCAM issues an analysis on the Amazon 1-click patent. The report makes available several instances of prior art -- exactly the stuff Bounty Quest is looking for.

A week later, Bounty Quest makes its announcement. There is prior art, but nobody submitted it. (Right) ;-)

On March 14, 2001 Internetnews.com reports on this whole fiasco and draws into question some of the motives behind Bounty Quest.

Coincidence?

Coincidence?