Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Seeks Public Comments On Patent Law Treaty
Anonymous Coward writes: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark office is seeking public comments (pdf form) on the Draft Patent Law Treaty. They say the treaty is intended to "simplify the formal requirements associated with patent applications." Here's your chance to weigh in alongside Tim O'Reilly, Jeff Bezos, RMS, et. al." WIPO will be meeting from May 11 to June 2 of this year in Geneva, and all public comments are due by April 21. The pdf linked to above lists fax, snail-mail and e-mail addresses to which you can direct your comments on their efforts to streamline patent applications and patents, "and the subsequent changes to United States law and practice." Non-U.S. residents, remember your voice is important here, too!
A linux is a corruption of Line X. This is the term for the patented encrytion system that allows a certain type of computer to work. It is the successor to the 16 bit system line Y (Or linney), which was created by merging the UK Linezed and the US Lindzey systems. Because this was back in 1948, and no computer around could possibly handle such a system, it was granted a special 75 year patent. Since a popular controversial magazine uses a licenced version of this system, the Microsoft political Wing has taken steps to confuse the market with a computer program with the same name. They are hoping this will make Line X fal out of favour with people since it won't run under Windows. Unfortunately hackers have manged to get it to run without an OS.
I thought right away about the irony of a PDF document that contains information RMS has to read.
Probably he'll have his secretary print it out and read it to him, of course.
No, lawyers are the highly trained instruments of justice, and it's no suprise that the US, the most just country in the world, also has the most lawyers. Oh really? I don't happen to agree with your capital punishment. One innocent man being executed is one too many. Why kill someone then find out 10 years later that they are innocent. Why not lock em up for life, then at least you could release them later if a miscarriage of justice occurs. It's a bold statement to say your the most just country in the world. Until this world steps back and also realises that being highly paid and looking smart does not actually equate to having one shred of talent, we are fucked as a race. Never judge a book by its cover. Your sir are a snob.
OK, I don't know what particular nation you're from, but many nations, and most of those with a respectable legal system, provide a reason to involve oneself in the political processes of the country-- the concept that power flows from the will of a nation's citizens. That, after all, is what elections are about.
Thank you, that's what I was talking about. Our job as responsible citizens is to elect the people that we feel are correct for the job, no more, no less. If we don't trust the people in power then we're obviously morons, because we were the ones who elected them in the first place. To do otherwise is to say that you don't trust your own judgement, in which case you should probably stay out of the political process altogether.
PS-- WTF is the SCP forum?
RTFA
Where are you from? If it's the UK then you still have the death penalty on the books - you can still be hung for high treason and piracy. Just because they don't happen often doesn't make the punishment valid.
You call yourself an anarchist, and all you want to do is "make people more responsible for their actions" ? Wow, that's the lamest definition of anarchy I've ever heard. Kind of like a communist saying they want to share a bit more or a libertatian saying they want regulations on corporations softened a bit. I can see your views are well defined. Actually, with views like that you'd probably make a good politician - able to change your position on any subject at a moment's notice because you don't really believe in anything.
There is one reason alone that gives everyone the right to express their opinions on the law.
Because it involves them.
People just apply a little common sense to an issue that looks as if it will affect them in some way or another. If their statements don't hold water because of some other aspect of the overcomplicated legal system, you can't blame them. The biggest travesty of justice in today's world is that you have to PAY for it (or if you are wealthy enough, pay for injustice to the other party). Sure it's complicated, and that's a side effect of a society with more interests and advancing technology. But when you have to fork over more money than you could possibly earn in a year just to defend yourself against some frivolous litigation suit, something's wrong.
Leaving laws to the lawyers alone results in even more complication to keep the average Joe scared of the legal system. Hey, that keeps them in business right? Why develop a simple system that anyone can understand? It's not profitable!
In this society LAW DOES NOT EQUAL JUSTICE. To say that lawyers are patron saints of justice is just absurd. Most of them have one goal in their mind. $$$. Just look at the results of any class action lawsuit and see what cut the lawyers took. I hate to say it, but the first ranting response to your argument seems to hold some water, you must have some vested interest in this screwy system to believe that it cannot do without some needed changes.
For you linux goats who are to 31337 to use acrobat, i mean, it's just so *windows*.
- -----------------------D3P@rtMEN+ - -----------------------5UmMArY:
--------------------------------------
[FEDEr@l R3915+3r: M4RcH 9, 2000 (V0Lum3 65, nUmb3R 47)]
[NO+IcE5]
[P4gE 12515-12517]
fR0m +EH f3d3rAL r3G15TEr oNL1n3 V1A GpO 4cC3ss [w415.@cCes5.9Po.Gov]
[d0cId:Fr09mr00-46]
-----------------------------------------------
0PH c0mM3rcE
P4tEn+ And +R@DEM4rK OphphIC3
[dOcKE+ No. 000302057-0057-01]
r3Kwe$+ F0r C0mmen+$ on P4T3Nt l@w +re@+Y
49ency: P4+EnT @nD +R4dEm@RK OphfiCe, cOmM3rce.
4cT1on: N0TIce oF RekWE$t pHoR PU8lIc c0mM3nt$.
-----------------------------------------------
4 D1PlOM@T1c C0Nf3reNC3 f0R +h3 @D0PTion oph +He dr4PHT P4teNt
L@W trE4+y W1Ll 83 H3ld aT +3h W0Rld in+ElLECTU@L PrOp3R+y OrG4NIZ4+i0N
1N gEn3v4, 5witZERL4nD, fR0M m4Y 11 thRoUGH jUne 2, 2000. THE P4+3Nt
4ND +R4dem4rk OpHf1cE 15 53eKiNg cOmmeN+5 T0 0bT@1n Vi3WS oF +h3 PUBLIc
0n +Hi$ eFPh0RT +O 51Mpl1PHy tH3 pHorM4L rekw1ReM3n+$ 455oC1@t3d wI+h
p@TEn+ APpL1C@T10NS 4nd p4TEnT5 4ND +He C0N$3kwEN+ CH4n9e$ +O Un1t3D
5+4Te$ l@w 4nD pr4Ctice. c0Mm3n+$ may 83 0PHpHereD 0n AnY A5P3c+ 0PH th15
EFF0RT.
D@+E5: 4lL C0Mm3n+5 4RE duE by @pR1l 21, 2000.
@ddR35535: PerSon5 w15H1N9 to 0PHpHer wR1T+En coMm3NT5 5HOULd 4dDRes5
ThO5E comM3n+$ +o +3h comMI55I0neR OF p4+3NtS 4Nd tR@D3m4RK5, 80X 4,
p4+ENt 4nD tRAdeM4rK 0pHpHicE, w45HinGTon, Dc 20231, M4rk3D t0 tH3
@ttEn+I0n oF loi5 e. 8ol4nd. COmm3Nts m4Y @L50 83 SUbmit+3D By
PH@c5iMiLe +RAN5M15$1On t0 (703) 305-8885 0R 8y EL3c+R0niC m4Il THRouGH
tHe IN+3rn3+ T0 Lo1$.BoLAnd@u$P+O.90v. 4Ll c0MmEn+5 w1lL B3 m41N+4INed
pH0r pu8lIC in5PeC+10n IN ro0M 902 OF CrY5T@l P4Rk 11, @t 2121 CRy5+4l
DR1Ve, 4rliNg+0N, V1RGiNIA..for PhUrTHEr inf0rMa+10n ConTaC+: l0i5 E. bol@nd 8y +3lEPh0NE 4t (703)
305-9300, 8Y f@x 4t (703) 305-8885 0R by M@1l m@rK3d to hEr atT3n+10N
@nD 4ddR35s3D +o COMM1$5I0n3r 0f P4+3n+5 4Nd Tr4d3m@rk$, 80x 4,
W@5h1n9+0n, dc 20231.
5UpplEMeNTArY iNPh0Rm4Tion:
1. 8aCkGrOuNd
5inc3 1995, +eh Un1+3d 5T@t35 h4$ B33n invOlV3d 1N 4N 3PHPH0rt,
c@rriEd oU+ unD3R +He @u5P1Ce$ oF +He WORLd 1N+3Ll3c+U@L PR0P3RTY
Or94niz4+i0n, t0 reDuc3 tEh F0RM4l REKW1REment5 @s5OC14+eD w1+H PateNt
4pPL1c4+i0n$ 4ND P@t3N+5 In +3H dIpHpHer3N+ C0UNTR1E$ oPH Th3 worLd. Th15
3phph0RT h4$ iNv0LV3D F1V3 535sioN$ of +3H c0mMIT+E3 0ph 3xP3rt$ 0N the
pateN+ L@W TRE4tY 4nD thr3E s35$10N5 0f I+$ 5UCcE$5or, +h3 5t4nd1ng
coMmitt33 On THE L@W 0F PAtEN+s. +h3 OBJ3ct1Ve 0Ph +hE m33tIN9s h@5 833N
T0 d3V3lop a 8451C PR0P0$aL, COn$I$+1N9 oPH 4rtICLe5 4ND regul@T1oN$,
WhICh w1ll
[[p49e 12516]]
mIN1m1zE +3H F0rM4l rEKwir3m3NT5 4550C1ATED WITh P4t3Nt 4pplIc@Ti0NS
@nD P4+EntS. up0n 4d0Pti0n, +H3$3 @r+Icle5 @nd rulE$ wILL S1MpL1fY th3
Ph0rm4l OBL1g4t1on$ 4nD r3duC3 a55OC14+3d C05+S foR p4+eN+ 4PplIC4nt5
@Nd ownEr$ 0ph P4+3N+5 IN 08T4InIng 4nD prE$ErVing +h31r r1GhT$ In
iNv3NT1ON5 1n m4ny c0UNtrI35 Oph th3 w0Rld. THe DIpL0M4+Ic conph3rEnce +o
c0nCLud3 +h1S 3PHForT WiLl +@KE PL4C3 IN 9en3V@, $witz3RL4nD, pHrOM M4y
11 +Hr0u9H JUNE 2, 2000.
+He +3xt$ 0F +3h 8@$1c PRopo$4l, N0Te$ 0n TH3 8@$1c PrOpo$AL @nD
oTHER d0cUmEN+5 rEl4T1N9 t0 teh dIplOm4T1c C0nphER3nc3 4re 4va1l4Ble vi@
W1PO'5 wE8 51Te phOR t3h 5t4nDiNG CoMm1++3E 0N tHE l4W Of Pat3nt5 4t
Ht+P://Www.w1PO.1n+/scp.
+H3 UnIT3d St@+35 p@+3nt 4nD Tr@D3M@RK 0ff1C3 (U$p+0), l34din9 tHe
n39OT14+i0N5 PH0r +HE Un1+Ed 5+atE5, I5 iN+3r3$tEd 1n 45$e$5INg SUpport
FOr +hE EfPhOR+ @Nd IN ob+4INiN9 C0MpR3H3n5IV3 COmM3NT5 0N +hE
p4rticul4r5 0F Teh B451c PR0p0$4L. prIOr +0 +h3 pR3V1Ous M33tiNgs 0ph
THE 5+4nd1n9 C0mmi+t33 4ND 1+5 pr3D3C355oR, +3H cOmMi+T3e OF 3XPeR+5,
THE UsP+o INPh0RM4lLY $0LIciT3D 4Nd rEce1v3D cOMmenTs ON +EH TH3n-CUrr3Nt
dR@pH+5 oPH Th3 4R+1cL3$, RuL35 4nd No+E5. 4dDI+ION4lLY, 0n
Oc+o8er 22, 1997, 8epHore TEH PHiPh+H $3$510n 0f th3 c0Mm1TteE 0PH 3xp3Rt5,
+H3 u5Pto ph0rM4llY 50l1C1+Ed COmm3N+$ 0N THE 3PHPH0r+ viA 4 F3d3r@L
R3gI5T3R no+1Ce. 62 fR 54836. in L1Ght of tHE UPC0mInG CONclU5i0N OF
th1$ EphfoR+, Th3 U$pTo dE51r3$ t0 EN5urE +h4+ +H3 tex+ 0Ph +3H b@51C.Pr0p054l foR TH3 +re4TY 1S D1553MIn@teD a5 w1D3lY @$ pO$5i8L3 4Nd Th4T
TH3 oPp0RTuNi+Y tO PR0v1d3 cOmmeNt$ 1$ CORrespoNdiNgLy C0mPr3hEnS1vE.
Wr1++en ComMENt$ M4Y 83 OpHFEr3d oN @Ny @5P3ct 0f +h3 b451C
PROpO$aL, n0+E5 0r 3Xp3c+ED 1MpL3men+a+I0N 1n +He uNiTed 5tA+E$ 0R
EL$3WherE. c0MmEN+5 4RE AL50 sOL1c1T3D 0n +h3 eXp3C+3D B3NephiT5 t0
P4+EnT @ppLic4n+5 @nD pA+EnT335 tHr0U9h0ut +h3 W0rLd OPH tHe c0ncLU510n
4Nd 1mPl3mEn+aTi0n of +H1S TR3@+Y. c0mMENt$ 4re 4l$0 w3LcOm3 0N +HE
FOllOw1NG 5p3ciPh1C 15$ues:
--TH3 5Ub$t@N+iVE @nd ``FoRm oR con+3n+5'' Dis+incTIoN$ m@DE iN
ar+1cl35 2 4nd 6, r35p3ctIv3Ly, TH4T 53rve +o D3pHIN3 tH3 fr3EDom 0F
COntrAc+IN9 p4rTiE5 T0 iMP05E Rekw1r3meN+5 R3L4t1ng To p4tenT
4PPLiC@+1oNS 4nD P4T3N+$;
--THE pHiL1n9 d4+3 ProVi51On 1N ART1cl3 5 4nd Th3 eFF3CT 0f tH3 ``n0
l4t3R ThaN'' CL4u$3, 1nclUdED 1n Br4Ck3t5 in TH3 B@5iC PrOPo$4L, 0N THe
4bIl1TY OPh C0n+raC+1NG P@r+1e5 T0 8e M0R3 L183R4L 8OTh Ph0R 84S1C pHiL1NG
d4T3 i5SUE5 1n @r+icl3 5(1) 4Nd pH0r mi$5ing p@r+-TYP3 15$ues 1N 4Rt1cl3
5(6);
--TH3 RePHEr3Nce Phil1Ng PRov1510n 1n 4Rt1CL3 5(7);
--+h3 Ev1d3n+14ry Lim1+4T1oN imp053D UP0N COnTr4ct1ng P@r+1e5 iN
4RTIcLE 6(6);
--+H3 eXeMp+10N5 PHR0m +He a81LITy OPh @ ConTR@cTiNG P@R+y T0 m4nd4T3
RepRe$3N+4+Ion b3f0rE t3H 0FfiCe 0ph +H@+ C0N+r4Ct1ng P@rty IN 4rT1CLe
7(2) @nD RuLE 7(1), wiTh P4R+ICulaR rEFEr3nC3 T0 +eH Br4cK3+eD
pR0vIs10N$;
--+h3 APPL1c4t1on 0f 4RTICle 12 4Nd rEl4t3d R3GUL@t10N$ +0 pENDin9
aPpLiC4tI0N5 @nd +0 pa+EN+5 1n PhOrC3 On +3H D4t3 tHe +re4+y 8INd5 @
C0N+R@C+1n9 p4rty 3V3n WHere t3h f41luR3 +o cOMPLY WITH 4 T1M3 lIMI+
0cCURREd Pr1Or +o tH4T D4+e, @$ 53T f0R+H 1n t3H bR4Ck3tED l4ngU4g3 1n
ArTicle 21(1)(4); 4nd
--THE 3xC3P+1on5 @v41L4bl3 +o C0NtraC+in9 p@R+13$ fOR ar+1CL3 11--r3l13f
1N rE5P3c+ 0f +IM3 limi+5 4Nd 4rT1Cle 12--r3iN5+4+3m3N+ oF
r19hT$ PH0UnD In Rul3 12(5) 4ND ruL3 13(3), rE$p3ctIVElY.
2. 8RIEph 5umM@rY oF T3h dR4f+ +r3@tY
+H3 845IC PR0PO54l coN$i5+5 0F 4 DR@ph+ oPH +he p4TEnt L4W +Re4+y
(p+/dC/3) aNd @ dr@pht opH +hE r3GUL4+i0N5 uNd3r tHe P4tEn+ l4W +r3@TY
(p+/dc/4). BR4ckE+3d t3xT, OtH3R than PHor pAR49R@pH He@d1NG$, I$ N0+
PArT Of +eh 84$IC pRop054l; IT 15 inclUDEd 1N +h3 845ic PROpO54l fOR
conVenI3Nc3 @ND 45 4n ind1c4T1On 0Ph 15sU35 F0R WH1cH r3$0LU+i0n 1$
3XpECT3D 4T +He d1PLom4t1C conPh3r3NCE. 3xPL@N4tOrY NO+35 On +HE
PRov151On5 OF +he dr4ft TRe4+y 4nd r3GUL4+10N$ 4R3 cON+@ineD in.doCument p+/dc/5. wHIl3 +eh n0Te$ 4rE N0+ P4R+ OpH +He 84SIC PR0po54l,
thEy W1ll B3 PU8LI5H3d By WiP0 w1+H +3H T3X+ OPH +he +r3A+Y UPON
4dOp+1ON of TH3 tRE4tY. TH3 +EXt 0F THe 8451c PROP0s4L 1nclUD35 26
@rtIcL3s @nd 21 ruL3$. @ 8R13ph 5umM4rY oPh 5eleCTeD 4r+IcLe5 @ND
$1Gnif1c4Nt @5$0cI4+Ed ruL3$ folL0W5. +0 +hE 3xteNt Th4+ @ gIv3N
@R+iCl3 Is n0t 5Umm4R1ZEd, 1T 1S con$1Der3D T0 b3 5ElF-3xPl4n@+0rY.
iN50f4R 45 thIS ePhF0RT 1$ FOCu53D Up0N @nD L1M1+ed T0 f0RM4L m@t+3rs
4$50CI4teD WIth p@t3n+ 4ppLiC4t10n$ @nd P@+En+5, Th3 u5p+0 3Xp3ct5
+H@+, Up0N 1mPL3m3nT4t1oN, cH4NGe$ To 0uR P4+en+ L4W WOuld B3 mINIm4L.
H0wEV3R, +0 +H3 3X+3N+ +hE nE3d fOr 4ny 5ucH ch@n9E h4$ 8EeN 1DeNT1fI3D
F0R A GIvEN dr4f+ 4RtiCl3 Or rULe, 1+ 1$ NO+3d B3L0W. +H1$ DiScu$5I0n
i5 iN+eNdeD, Only, t0 h19hL19HT V@RiOUS 4RticLE5 4nD rUl3$; I+ i$ N0+
iN+3nDeD @5 a cOmPR3hen5iV3 +R34+Men+ 0pH +h3 DR4pHt T3X+5. +h3 dR4FT
tEXT5 5HoulD B3 COn5Ul+3d f0R 4 C0MpLET3 UND3r5T4nd1nG oPH T3H 3fF0Rt
+Ha+ i5 UnDer w4y.
@r+1CLe 1--4b8R3Vi4t3d ExPr35510n5--+hi$ @R+IclE PrOVID35
dEpHiN1T1on5 phOR +3rm5 us3D thRou9H0U+ +H3 tExt oph +H3 Dr@F+ 4rTiCl3$
@ND rULE$.
4r+1cl3 2--g3Ner@L pR1NCipLE$--P4R4gr@pH5 (1) @ND (2) Of THi5
4R+1clE 4Re INcLUd3d pH0r +EH @VoidAnc3 0Ph dOU8+. wITh rEG4RD tO
P4RaGr@ph (1), 1T 5H0ULD 83 n0ted th4+ +HE PHlEx1BIl1+y opH 4 Con+R4Cting
P4R+Y 1$ Limi+ed IN +h3 C0N+3xt opH @r+icl3 5, teH fILiN9 d4Te
Pr0VI5i0n. p4r@9R4Ph (2) i5 1mpoR+4N+ +o 3MpH@sIzE ThAt +h3 tR34tY 4nD
Re9UL@+i0N5 C@nn0+ BE C0N$+rUed tO l1mi+ +He Fr33Dom oph c0n+r4CTiNG
P4R+13$ c0nceRNINg $U85+@N+1v3 l4w reL4tiNG +o P4teNt$. +h15 LaTTeR
i$5ue AlSo @R15E5 1N Th3 COn+3xT of 4rT1Cl3 6 wHEr3 T3H ``PH0rM 0R
c0n+3n+$'' r3KWirEmEnt$ oF +h3 p4TEn+ cOOp3r@+10N TREatY @re, 3Xc3P+ @5
oTHeRWi$3 PR0vIdeD 1N +eH +R34+y 4ND Re9uL4+iOn$, inC0RPor4+ED @$ +H3
m4X1muM f0rM4l or non-5UbsTAN+iVe, ReKwIR3M3nT$ +0 wH1Ch 4 CONtRac+InG
P@r+y m4Y R3KwirE C0mPLi4ncE.
@r+1cl3 3--@pPl1C@+10ns @nD p4+ent5 T0 WH1Ch +eh +Re4TY 4PPl1e$--TH1$
@rTiCl3 def1N3$ +He sC0PE OF The +re4TY bY v1RTUe 0f tH3 +yP35 0PH
ApplIc4tION$ @Nd P4+3nT5 +H4+ AR3 3nc0mp4553d bY 1+5 +eRM5. 45
m3n+1on3d 480v3, Teh i5$U3 oPH +he 4pPLIC@+I0n 0F +HE +R3@Ty +0 3xI5+inG
@ppL1c@+1on$ 4Nd P4+3n+5, COveRed 1n @r+IcL3 21, 5H0ULd 4l5o 8e n0T3D,
35pEC14lly c0NcErn1NG +h3 8RaCkE+Ed pr0V15iON iN 4rt1cle 21(1)(8).
@R+icl3 4--n@+10n4L 53CuriTY--tH1$ 4r+icle PrE5eRV35 +3h RIGh+ Oph
coN+R4C+IN9 p@r+13$ T0 4ppLY m3@$UR3s D3EM3D N3C3$$4Ry pHor +He
pRE$eRV4ti0n 0ph N4t10n4L 53CUr1+Y. 4 51M1L@R PR0Vi$ion @pp34r5 1N Pc+
4R+ICL3 27(8).
4R+ICLE 5--f1l1NG da+e--+his @Rt1cL3 15 v1EW3D bY tHe Un1Ted 5T@T35
@5 One OPH Th3 MorE iMPOrT4Nt phE4tur35 oph +eH 84$1C pr0pO54L. 1T
M@nD4+E$ +H@T a CoN+rACT1Ng P4RTy mu5+ PR0vid3 4 FIl1N9 d@+3 Ph0r @N.@PPLIC4T1oN 4$ 0PH +Eh D@+3 0n WhiCH ItS oPHfic3 h4$ REc31Ved +h3
fOLlOwIN9 eleMeNt$:
(I) @n 1NDIc@+i0N +H4T 5uBmit+3d ELeMen+5 4RE inT3nDeD +o 83 AN
@pPL1c4+1on;
(1i) inDic@t10N$ 4Ll0W1N9 tHe Iden+1Ty 0pH +H3 @pPL1canT +o Be
e5+4bli$heD 0R 4ll0WIN9 +3H 4pPl1c4n+ +O 83 COnt@c+3D; @Nd
(11i) @ De5cRiPt1On.
+h15 f1L1ng D4t3 R3kwIr3M3NT 15 pH4irLy M1niM4l 4Nd w0Uld gre@TlY
51Mpl1Fy +3H conDI+Ion$ iMp053D upon +3H 9r@N+ Oph phiL1ng d4+35 t0
p4TEnt 4PPLIC4t1On5 ThR0UGH0U+ Teh woRld. N0Te TH@t +HIs 4rtICL3 w0uLD
M@nD4T3 +He aCC3pt@NCe, PH0R PH1l1NG d@tE PURP0$e5, 0F p@ten+
4Ppl1C@TiON5 iN 4nY L4ngu493, 5ubjeCt +0 teH pHuRN1sh1NG 0ph l4t3R
tR4N5l4tIon5. t3H u$P+0 h@5 5upp0r+3D +h1$ 4rTICL3, Wi+H +He kNOWledG3
thAT oUr cl41m r3kw1r3MenT, phOr F1lIng D4+E pUrP0$E5, 1N 53cti0n 111(4)
0pH +Itl3 35, uni+ED 5+@T3S
[[p@g3 12517]]
cod3, w0ULD h@v3 +o 8e D3Let3D. N0t3 +h4+ 5uch 4 R3kW1rEm3n+ 15 No+
iNClUded pH0R prov15ioN4L @pPliC4T10N5 fIl3D UND3R sECtIOn 111(8) oPH
+ITl3 35, UNiTED $t4+ES COD3. +3h UN1tEd 5t@T3$ HaS 4L$0 $upp0RTeD +h3
Re+3Nti0N of +HE 8r4ck3t3d pHR453 ``nO l4+eR +H4n'' thR0u9hOut +HI5
@rtiCl3 45 1+ WILL pR0V1de oFph1CE5 N3ED3d FlEXiB1l1ty oN PhilInG d@+3
4ND MI551N9 P@RT 1S5UE5.
4R+1clE 6--4ppL1c4+1ON--thI5 @r+icl3 I5 4N0+H3r OF th3 m0R3
1MpoR+@n+ FE4Tur3$ 0f +Hi$ ePHPH0rt. 1+ M@nD4t3S tH4t N0 CON+r4c+1n9
p@r+Y M4Y iMpO5E Any reKW1r3mEN+ r3lAT1Ng TO +3h f0Rm 0r C0N+3nT$ 0ph @N
4ppL1c4+i0N wh1Ch I5 diffER3nT Phr0m 0r 4dd1+ion4l +0 4ny ReKw1rEMent
@Pplic@BL3 UNder +h3 P4T3Nt C0oP3R@t1ON tR3@+Y (pcT) 1N Re5PEC+ OF
1N+3rN4T1on4L 4ppL1c@TI0N$ 0r TH053 rEkW1r3M3nt$ R3L@TInG t0 ph0rM 0R
c0n+3NT5, cOmpl14Nc3 With WH1Ch mAy 83 REkw1Red 0nCe n4t10N4L
pR0ceS5in9 ha$ be9Un. 1N 3$53nce, TH15 @RTIcL3 5T@+3$ +hat, 3Xc3p+ 45
0+hErwI5E PROv1dEd, 1ph 4n 4pPLic4nT 5UbM1T5 4N APPlIC4tIOn +0 A
N4TIOn4L 0FphIC3 +h4+ COmPLIe5 W1+h t3h R3kW1R3M3nt$ Oph tEH Pc+, +H@+
N4tI0n4l ofPhIC3 C4n 1mP0se n0 d1PhF3rEN+ OR @dd1TI0NAL fORm 0r c0N+en+5
RekW1rem3n+5 oN +h4+ N4T1ON4L 4ppl1C4+iON. 0Ph c0Ur53, A5 @R+1clE 2(1)
M4ke5 cL3aR, cONtr4C+In9 PAr+135 WOulD Be phR3E +0 1mpo$3 r3kWIREm3Nt5
+h4T @RE M0r3 ph4V0r@Bl3, FR0M an @PPL1C@NT'$ per5PEC+1vE, th4N +hiS
trea+y 0r THe pc+. Of n0+3, +He iNCorpoR4tiON 0Ph +3H ``FORm OR
CON+EN+5'' R3KwiREMEN+5 FRoM The pCT 1N+O Th15 @rT1clE wOULD m4nd@+3
+He @PPLIc4+1On 0ph +he Pct UN1+y 0PH InVeNtI0n sT4nD4rD PH0r @LL NAT1Onal
4pPl1C@+10n5. t3H u$P+O H@5 Tak3N exc3pt1on +0 +H1$ V1ew 1Ns0ph4R 45
UN1+y 0f 1NvEN+iOn i$ c0N5IDeR3D to be 4 5U8s+4ntIv3 m4++3r +h4+ IS.out5iDe The $cOpE oF +HIS 3FFORT. N3v3R+HeL355, @Rt1CLe 22(1) W0uld
PERm1T +h3 UniT3d 5tAt3$ TO t4ke A R3$eRv4ti0N 0n +h15 15$U3.
4Rt1Cle 7--RepR35Ent4+i0n--thi$ 4R+1clE 4DDR3s5E5 r3KW1rEM3NT$
reg@RD1N9 R3PrE$En+4+10n, M4nD4toRY r3pre$En+@T1On 4nd @ppOINtm3n+ of
R3pRe$En+aTIVe$. IMporT4NTLY, 4rT1Cl3 7(2) pr0vidE$ +h@t c0n+R4C+1Ng
P4r+I3$ m4y N0+ M4nd4+3 r3PrE53n+4Tion foR PH1linG D4t3 PUrPo535, PhoR
+HE P@yM3nT OPH m41nTEN4Nce f3E5 Or n0+1Fic@tI0n5 R3L@+1N9 tHeR3+0.
CEr+4In BrAcK3T3D pr0vI51On$ @r3 @L5o 1nCLuDEd +h@t W0Uld h@Ve the
3pHphECT, IPh 4d0pTED, OF eXpAnDINg thE 3XC3Pt1oN5 +o MaNd4tory
rEPRE$ENT@TION, 1ncLUD1n9: @ny PR0CEdur3 r3Ph3rr3D T0 IN thE phiL1nG d4+e
prOv15I0n (@RT1CLe 5), +eh P@ym3Nt of pHE3s, th3 F1l1nG Of +R4NslA+I0N5
4nD @NY OTH3r Pr0c3DuRE @5 PR35CrI8eD iN TH3 r39ul@T1On$. TEH uN1+3D
$+4+3$ h45 CoN$is+3NTly suPPor+3d mAx1mizIn9 THE 3xC3p+10n$ IN +hI$
ar+1Cl3 4nd RuLe 7(1).
4RT1cl3 8--C0mMun1C4T1on5; adDR35s35--+hI5 @RT1CL3 pR0v1d3$ +He
84$15 Up0N WhIch C0ntR4C+ING P4r+IES m@Y imPO$3 reKWir3M3N+$ R3L4t1N9
t0 Th3 phOrm, PhoRMaT ANd M34N$ OpH FiLin9 Of c0MmUN1C4tionS. NoT3 th@+
pAr@Gr4ph (1)(d) m4ND4t35 +h4+ coNTR@CTIng p4r+1E5 mU5t, 3V3N iPh +H3Y
3V3N+U4lLY 4ND 3xClusiv3ly 4D0Pt EL3c+RoNiC filIng, @cCept +He Ph1l1Ng
0F c0MmuNic4+10N5 on p4PEr f0r +EH PUrp05E OF C0MPLYiNg w1tH 4 t1m3
l1m1+. Thi$ 4r+1CL3 4Ls0 4dDrE5Se5 $19n4+ur3 I$5U35 In p@r49r4PH (4).
N0TE RUL3$ 8 tHr0u9H 11 For det41l$ rE94rD1n9 +H353 i$sU35.
4rT1ClE 9--NO+IFic4+10n$--+H1$ ARt1Cl3 4LL0c4+35 8URDeN5 R3L4+In9
To +H3 5ufpHiCi3NCy 0f nO+1PH1C@+1On 4nd Th3 pr0vI5ioN oF C0NtaCT
1nPh0Rm4+10N 4M0NG coN+r4C+iN9 P@R+Ie5 @nD Pr05p3ctIV3 reCiPIEnt$ 0F
N0T1PHIc4+1On5.
@R+1cLE 10--V4lID1+y oPH pATeNt; R3V0c@tIoN--tHIs 4R+1Cl3, In
p@r49R@pH (1), m4nD4T3$ TH@t ONce 4 P@T3nt H4$ B33n 9r@n+3d, 1+ m@y nOt
8e r3v0Ked Or 1NV4l1D4+3d ON +H3 gR0UNd 0f nON-coMpLI4NCE wI+h cErt41n
pHoRM4l rEkwiR3mEn+$ enUNCi4TED 1n @r+icl3 6. 1n p4Ragr4Ph (2), tHe
0Bl194TiOn To Pr0v1De 4T lE@$T oN3 opP0R+uNI+y +0 M4kE O8$3RV4+ION$ 0N
InTEnDeD REv0c4+I0n oR Inv4L1D4+ioN i5 m@Nd4+Ed.
4r+icL3 11--r3lI3Ph 1n r3SpEc+ 0ph T1me l1MI+$--+Hi$ 4RTiCle, w1Th
rULe 12, REKWir35 th4T +h3 0fF1C3S 0Ph ALl c0NtR4cting p4R+IE$ MU5t
pRov1De e1+h3R 3X+3n51oN5 0pH T1ME L1m1+5 (51mIL4r +0 pr4C+1Ce5 in the
u$p+0 undEr 37 CPHR 1.136) OR C0nTInued PrOCe5$1N9 ($imiL4R t0 PR@C+1c35
Pr0viD3d F0R IN +HE CoN+3XT 0ph T3H EURoPE4n pa+3n+ C0nV3n+I0n) f0R tiM3
LIMIT$ ph1XEd BY +h3 0PhPH1Ce. +HIS @R+1Cle 4Nd ThE 455ocI4Ted RUL3 DO N0+
n3C35s@rIly aPPLY +0 +1M3 L1mit5 +H4+ 4RE not Ph1X3d By th3 0phFIC3, 1n
p@R+ICUl@R, +1mE lIm1T$ s3+ 8Y N@t1on@l L4w. +h3 Po$5I8LE 3xC3pTion5 +o
+H3 ReKw1r3MeNts 0f THi5 @r+1Cl3 tH@T 4R3 $e+ Phor+H In RUL3 12(5)
5h0ulD 83 N0+3D.
@Rt1ClE 12--rE-1N5T4+EMeN+ oPH r1gh+S 4Ph+3r 4 fInD1n9 0Ph du3 C@R3 0R.UnIN+3nt10nAlI+Y BY TeH 0fF1cE--+hI$ 4rticLe, wiTH rUl3 13, R3KW1r3$
+ha+ 4ll CON+R4Ct1nG p4RTIe5 mu$T pRovId3 f0r t3H Re-1N5t@T3meNT OPh
Ri9H+$ WheR3 4N @PPlICan+ or 0wN3R H4$ F4IL3d +o c0mPLY wi+h a +Ime
LImI+ 4ND +h4+ PHa1LuRe h@$ +He d1reCt COn53kw3nCe oPh c4u5ing @ Lo55 0f
Ri9hT5 wITh R35pect +o 4n 4PPLiC@t1On Or P4+ent. 1N +h3 UNIted 5+4+3S,
thE pR4ct1c3 +h@+ i5 3Mbr@c3d 8Y +hi5 4r+iCLe 1$ PhOUnd IN OuR r3V1V4l
pr0CedurE5 Und3R 37 cPHR 1.137. TH3 p0s51BlE ExcepT10n5 To +H3
R3kWiReM3N+$ Of +h15 @R+icl3 +h4+ are 5e+ FORTh 1n ruL3 13(3) 5hOUld B3
N0t3D.
@r+1CLe 13--CORR3C+ioN 0r @Dd1+1oN 0F priORi+y cl41M; re$+oR4ti0n
0Ph Pr10ritY rIGHt--P4R49R4ph (1) PROVId3$ pH0r +h3 CoRREcTi0n OR
@dd1+i0n of 4 Pr10r1+y CL4iM TO aN 3@RLieR 4pPl1C4+1oN WhEr3 A
5Ubs3kwEn+ aPpLIC@+i0n I5 T1meLY fiLED. p@Ra9r@Ph (2) PROvId35 FoR tHE
RE$T0r4t1ON of +eH pr1Or1tY r19Ht WH3RE @ 5U85ekw3n+ @PpLIC4t10n 15
Ph1lED 4ph+3r TeH ExpIrAt1On 0f ThE PRioR1ty per1Od. +eH UniTED 5T4+e$
Curr3ntLY pERmI+5 corr3C+1on @nd lAT3 Cl41MING 0Ph PrI0R1+y 4nD $UPPOrt$
+h3 CoNc3p+ OPh @CCEp+inG TEH D3l4YED fil1NG OF 4 $UB5EkwEN+
4PpLic4+ion. +3h 4Cc3p+4ncE 0F del4yed phIL1Ng OF @ $ub5EKwEN+
AppL1C4+ioN W0uLD R3KwIR3 4n 4mENdM3N+ +0 5ECt1On 119 0ph t1+l3 35,
unit3d 5+4T3$ cod3.
4r+1cLe 14--rE9UL4TIoN$--th1s 4r+1cle pR0V1D35 4 b4515 PH0r 4Ll
mA+tEr5 whICH tEH Tre@+y EXPre5sly PR0V1dE$ 45 Be1NG ``pr35crI8eD in
th3 RE9Ul4T10N5,'' phOR dE+@IL5 U$3PHuL iN +3h 1mpLEm3NT4+IOn 0F +He
+RE4+y And PhOR 4DmINi5tR4+iVe r3Kw1R3M3nT5, m4T+er5 Or PRoc3dUr35. +he
4R+ICLE @L$0 pROv1D3$ @ b@$I$ Ph0R TeH rUl35 REL@+1n9 to R3coRD4+iOn oF
ch@nge In NAM3 0R 4ddr355, rEc0Rd@+1oN 0Ph CH4NGE 1n ApPLiCaNT oR 0Wn3R,
ReCoRD4T10N of @ l1C3N51n9 4Gr33MEnt 0r sECUriTy InTEre5+ @nD
Corr3C+I0N 0f @ Mi$+@kE. tH3RE 4Re No LONg3R @rt1cle pr0v1510N$ pH0R
+h35e m@++3R$ 4$ T3H lEV3L oF D3t41l coNT4iN3d 1N thE PH0RMEr ARTICL35
w@$ c0N51deRed m0RE 4pPRopR14+3 ph0r +EH RulE$. +hi5 4Rt1Cle @l$0
PRov1d3$ @ B@5Is Ph0r C3r+4in 4dMIN15TR4+iv3 m4T+ER$ reL4+1nG tO thE
@m3NdMEnT 0F th3 Rul3$, ReKW1REm3n+ Of UN@N1Mi+y 4ND rE50lu+1On of
CONfL1C+5 8eTWE3N +H3 TR3@+y 4nD tH3 R39Ul@+I0N5.
@Rt1ClE5 15 +Hr0U9h 26, 4nd 4550Ci@+Ed rUL3s--+HE$e @R+IcL35 @rE
CoN51DER3d ThE 4DMin1$Tr@+1VE AND fin4l PR0vi5I0nS 0ph t3h TrE4ty and
4Re, pH0r +h3 m0$+ p@R+, s3lf-eXpL@N4TorY. M4NY oPh tEh prOvI$10N$ 4R3
MODeL3D 4pH+eR TH05E 3MPLoYEd 1N Other R3CeN+lY 4DoP+eD Tr34T13$ 5UCH @$
tH3 GeNEv@ @cT 0Ph +H3 H@9Ue 4GrEeM3N+, tHE +r@deMaRK LaW +R34tY, +h3
WiP0 coPYr19h+ +rE4+Y 4nD +EH w1Po P3rFoRM@nCE5 AND ph0nOgRAm$ +Re4tY.
@rT1Cl3 21 5hOulD Be n0+3D, 1NcluDIN9 T3h 8rACk3+eD PR0vISi0N In
p@r49R4Ph (1)(8), @5 iT relAtE5 +O tH3 4Ppl1c4T10N 0pH THE tR34ty +0
Exi$tIN9 4pPLic4T1on$ and P4+3nt5. rUlE 21 sh0ulD 8E N0+ed 4$ 1+
rEl4+35 +0 +eH r3KWir3MenT 0f Un4n1m1ty F0R 4m3Nd1N9 CErT4In ruL35.uNd3r @rT1clE 14(3).
d4+eD: FE8ru@RY 25, 2000.
Q. TOdd d1CK1N$0N,
@s5I$t4nt 53CRe+@Ry Of ComMeRc3 4ND comMi5510n3R 0Ph P4+en+5 4nD
tR4Dem4rK5.
[Phr d0C. 00-5767 phIl3D 3-8-00; 8:45 4m]
8ILLINg cOd3 3510-16-p
alternatively you could just fuck off. that is not a troll. its just someone being dumb.
"In engineering professions and medical professions, the complexity is *required* to do the job. In the legal system, right now the complexity is still in the job, but I'm asking why it has to be there."
/.ers for "improving" the patent system are *not* logical, by any definition of the term. It appears, for example, that some would reject a patent because, to them, it is not "elegant." How in the world is a patent examiner supposed to apply that as a standard for granting or denying a patent?
Because it is required to do the job.
Remember, you are talking about a system applicable to over a quarter billion people in the United States. That there is complexity required in a civil legal system applicable to such large numbers of people is, I think, quite understandable. Perhaps the amount of complexity necessary is more than that required of a compiler or a computer operating system, or even the amount of complexity involved in a root canal.
"Does always following logic exactly in the legal profession always lead to the correct answer?"
Does it always do so in the engineering profession? (Even Spock had to defer to Captain Kirk sometimes.)
I think the trouble is that you are assuming that the law is a particular *type* of logical system. In the first place, unlike engineering "proofs," legal results are often (perhaps usually) dependent upon facts that are disputed, and upon which reasonable people could disagree. So the results sometimes depend upon who presents a more believable set of evidence.
Sometimes the law is in dispute. In this case, logic should dictate a result, based upon the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress, and prior interpretations of these laws by courts. But these laws still have to be applied to a given set of facts, and the applicability of the law to the fact is yet another point at which reasonable people may disagree.
It is the fact that reasonable people may disagree about so many things that tends to make the law as complex as it is. Moreover, another part of the complexity may reside in the fact that legal arguments have to be constructive, and thus, an element of creativity is involved. This fact has an analogy in engineering - for example, it usually takes a lot less complexity to explain what a single line of computer code means than it does to construct a whole operating system from scratch.
But even if the law could be completely deduced by logic, what logical system would you use? What postulates would you assume? What definitions would you apply? You are aware, of course, that reasonable people may differ on the answers to these questions, as well. The "correct answers" in the law do not arise purely from the application of logic any more than you can decide whether Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry is "correct" based on pure logic.
What I *can* say is that many of the suggestions presented by
Others would reject a patent because the invention is so obvious that they (or a committee) could have come up with it. Great. So the patent examiner is supposed to reject a patent based on the blatent assertion of someone or a group of people yelling "it's obvious to me!"?
Some have suggested publishing the problem the invention solves to see whether anyone comes up with the supposedly inventive solution. Great. But what about the case when the inventiveness comes from recognizing a problem that everyone else has overlooked?
In fact, the current system is far more logical than any of these. (The following may be oversimplifications, but they will serve for the present.) Among other things, an invention is not patentable if the exact same invention was disclosed by someone else. Also, an invention is not patentable if each element of the invention has been previously disclosed, and there is a teaching or suggestion in the prior art that the elements be combined as in the invention.
I think the obviousness part is about as logical as it gets. It requires objective proof, other than someone's blatent assertion, that an invention is obvious, and it is a system particularly suited for proving or disproving obviousness. There's still some room for disagreement, perhaps, but it is a better system than anything anyone here has suggested as a replacement so far.
LOL... I timed that one..... 23 seconds before getting a -1....
- Cosmos 7
What? Over a relatively uninteresting topic submitted by an AC? I think not....
Now you've ruined my streak..... =P
- Cosmos 7
Why don't we tell Mr.Cosmos what we think of him...
YOU ARE A VINDICTIVE LITTLE WHORE
YOU ARE A BITCH, AND YOUR MOTHER SWALLOWS...
"It is my personal opinion that while logical reasoning in court is meant to make things as fair as possible, it has instead, due to the complexity of law, become a briar patch in which the most skilled lawyer can convice a judge of the veracity and logic of their arguement." [sic]
/.ers in particular) seem to think (rather loudly, in fact) that anyone who doesn't understand them is an idiot. Yet, most dentists that I know are not dumb.
Possibly that's true. But have you looked at your own profession/avocation? Complexity? Briar patch?
C++ is too complex for any ordinary person to understand.
Linux is too complex. So are most non-trival operating systems.
The X windowing system is too complex for an ordinary person to adminster.
TeX is too complex.
Emacs is too complex.
HTML is too complex.
None of the above can be understood or comprehended sufficiently for, say, an ordinary dentist to understand. I could go on and on. Yet computer people (and
Just because you devote your lives to understanding these things doesn't mean that everyone else has to. As incomprehensible as it may seem to some of you, other people have devoted their lives to understanding and becoming very good at doing other things.
For example, what would you think if the ADA's web site (I presume they have one, but I don't know for sure) ran criticisms of computer professionals for being so stupid that they can't perform a simple root canal? Or that their computer languages were so complex that no ordinary dentist could write one that a computer could compile into a working program?
And I'll bet you would rather pay a dentist good money to take care of your teeth than put them in the care of a computer professional.
Try grokking that for a while.
You, your mother and your post suck ass!!
So you are:
a. A lawyer
b. A Lawyer wannabe
c. Fucking or being fucked by a lawyer
d. A cocksucker
It isn't just the granting of patents either. If you patent a "good" idea in an area where there are BIG players (chipzilla, I've Been Moved or whoever), they are going to go ahead and use your idea and dare you to sue them. So, if you can't get the idea into practice and making LOTS of money within a year or so, don't even bother. It's not worth it, the odds are you will lose money, whether you are in the right or not.
And the last point I have are these idiots in marketing. Just because something is patented says absolutely nothing as to whether it is a good idea or not. Just that in the opinion of the patent examiners, it is unique. It could be absolute crap! It could be dangerous!
All facets of the patent system suck!
You might want to check your facts bub:
..."problem is that some arbitrary duration of patent was conjured
up some 200 or so years ago, and nothing has changed."
Not so fast, Last I checked, patent lifetimes has been increased 4 times in the US.
yu suzuki is coming. repent and cease use of te devil's letter at once.
Trollin' for Yu Suzuki
-=United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation=-
Trollin' for Yu Suzuki
-=United Coalition of Trolls for te Abolition of Moderation=-
Attention-getting device
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
Louie louie
It is my personal opinion that while logical reasoning in court is meant to make things as fair as possible, it has instead, due to the complexity of law, become a briar patch in which the most skilled lawyer can convice a judge of the veracity and logic of their arguement.
Errm, please. Just because the law is complex doesn't make it wrong - it needs the additional complexity to enable it to handle the multitude of situations one finds in modern life. And lawyers dedicate their lives to the calling of justice and the law - how does it make them bad if they are fully aware of the law and how it works? It's their job to see that justice is done in the name of their clients, and if they did not use the full extent of applicable laws then they would be failing both justice and their clients.
Anyway, my feeling is that most people reading Slashdot are fairly bright. And we have not only a right, but an obligation to involve ourselves in the legal and political process. (I am not involved in the film industry, and may not even be considered a film buff, but I sure as hell have opinions on all aspects of a film's creation -- same concept, just the legal system is more important.)
Maybe so, but I haven't seen too much evidence of it lately. And just being "bright" doesn't mean your opinions are automatically valid, and you certainly don't have any "right" to involve yourselves in the legal and political processes of our country - that's what politicians are for. Leave them to do the job they are paid for. Doing otherwise makes you an anarchist who wants to tear down the fabric of our society.
WORD OF THE DAY: Hat-trick
Goats are fun.
LSU in 4.
Hey, did you see that one movie? About that one guy? Well, I saw that one movie about that one guy.
Tomorrow I'll visit the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
I have a big booger in my nose.
Ch-ching!
Nobody beats Midas. Nobody.
The cow spit it out the seeds.
Bye now.
Who wants to play hide the cigar...
BTW I am still waiting for you pigfuckers to return my pants
This sig will bend over for a dollar!
C.
I sometimes write stuff
You claim that if patent law is removed, companies will just keep their algorithms and technologies secret, with just as much (or more) harm to society and innovation. While it is certainly true that companies will try hard to do exactly that, it is far from clear to me that *any* combination of other technologies could stifle innovation the way that a patent could, even if it were reduced to a 1-year term.
.4 nickels,
As an example, remember Microsoft's "patented" ClearType technology for LCD displays? This technique turned out to already have been covered by expired Apple patents that were over 20 years old, but even had it not been...
It took about a week for someone to read Microsoft's advertising blurb and figure out what they were doing, and present evidence that it was based on 20-year old technology. Now, having read the advertising blurb myself, it was far from obvious what they were talking about. If someone could figure it out from just the blurb in a week, imagine how quickly it would have been figured out from an actual released product! And since you could figure it out just by looking at an LCD screen in low resolution and seeing how letters were being represented, you wouldn't be subject to any kind of copyright license to prevent you implementing your own version.
If something is worth doing, people will quickly figure out how it is done and produce a separate implementation. If nobody can figure it out... then it must be a *really* good innovation, and I'd suggest that a company that does that *deserves* to be able to keep a monopoly on it; it's so rare that I can't think of a *single* technology that couldn't be figured out by smart Open Source developers or a smart competitor.
This is why software patents should be abolished; because disclosure gains you essentially nothing. A smart person looking at _what_ has been done can almost always figure out _how_, or alternatively a better way to do the same thing.
Just my
Stuart.
You are right. We don't have a right. We have a responsibility to be involved. By not shouldering this duty you risk forfeiting your rights and the opprotunities of letting your concerns be heard.
That you are so completely ignorant of civic responsibility and the basic principles upon which this country was founded upon honestly makes me despair. You seem to think that the only people we vote into office are those with poli sci or jurisprudence degrees. Hell, we have had an actor in the White House and the people have elected a professional wrestler as governor. And look at some of the bad law passed by those who have prepared themselves to be professional politicians.
Not being involved makes you worse than an anarchist. I have more respect for a sheep or a lemming than for a human being who consciously lives the position you advocate.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Intel refuses to license some of their patents. This creates problems for AMD when they try to compete with Intel. Because AMD can't manufacture CPUs that use the patented Slot 1 architecture, AMD needs to spend R&D money to come up with their own Slot A architecture, which is incompatible with Slot 1. What does this mean to consumers? We end up with no competition on the dominant motherboard architecture, placing us at the mercy of Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers who don't want to offend Intel by making AMD Slot A compatible motherboards. The average consumer is confused by Slot 1 and Slot A. He doesn't know what he/she needs. What does Intel have to do? Just run a commercial saying, "Isn't it all very confusing? Just stick to buying Intel hardware.", and consumers will give up on the confusing AMD hardware.
Consumers are stupid. Intel is merciless and smart. How many times has AMD almost gone out of business? How many more times will AMD be able to avoid chapter 11?
No, this has nothing to do with software patents. This is a general computer industry patent issue. We *need* to protect the consumer and maintain competition in the marketplace. Laissez-faire economics has, to my mind, been shown not to benefit the consumers or corporations (except Intel and Microsoft!) in the computer industry.
Hell with software patents. I couldn't care less about some dork registering a patent for adding two numbers and storing the result in a third. It won't hold up in court. But when Intel keeps back progress and competition, I get pissed off.
Now that everyone in the CPU market but AMD, Intel, Alpha Processor Inc, and Sun have become itty, bitty players or disappeared, we need to be extra careful how we proceed from here on in.
Without AMD, Cyrix, Motorola, TI, Zilog, IBM, DEC, Commodore, and many other companies, Andy Grove probably would have taken over the galaxy by now.
Dosent 5. Nobody, including the owner of the patent should be allowed to sell their own product for less than the combined value of the patents it uses mean that open source becomes unworkable?
If you can open source off the patent then individual companies could pass the opened source of competitors patents around leaving the user to compile their competitors products.the result of this would in effect be that as long as you gave away other peoples products, you could charge for your own. This plan has far to many holes for legal vultures to stick hteir claws into.
Why is this good? Because, for a truly non-obvious patent, a company would be willing to sit on it for a year or two to get a 10 - 20 year patent, safe in the knowledge that it won't be rediscovered. RSA is a good example of a software patent where the inventors would have little reason to fear independent discovery. I have no problem with something of this caliber being granted a 10 or 20 year patent.
On the other hand, a company which comes up with something like one-click ordering would sit on it for just a month or so, getting a one or two year patent. That minimizes the damage the company can do with "obvious" patents.
The beauty of the scheme is that it is self-adjusting. In mature, static fields, where each new invention requires real innovation, patents would be granted for a long period of time. In dynamic, chaotic fields, where inventions are a dime a dozen, patents would be granted for a short period of time. Either way, the patent time would be in sync with the "technology generation time" of the field in question, automatically.
Not that I believe for a second that there's any chance of the patent law being changed this way
"The PTO is not yet equipped to handle general email correspondence. General inquires should be made by hand-cranked telephone on in longhand on parchment to one of the addresses specified in the PTO directory. This directory may be found on stone tablets buried somewhere in the sands of the Egyptian desert.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Is this request for comments by the patent office just puffs of smoke from the chimney? Can we get to vote for the new pope that runs the patent office just like we can with the more insignificant post of president of the united states? It would make sense to, since all the real decisions are handled by another, more formally compliant branch, of the government: the judicial system. Nip it at the bud and make them publically responsible too, so we don't waste our monies on fighting stupidity in the wrong arena.
And while I'm off-topic, I might as well add something on-topic in spite of myself. There's no way that there will ever be any international two-way streets. These, if they were to exist, correspond too fighteningly to the international-but-we-get-to-choose-which-one corporate juris that international corporations get away with too much. I'm sorry, but it smells of Denmark.
The scary part is that the professional wrestler is better than most of the other professional polititions :)
It's late and I'm tired, but I need to vent.
/.ing
If I were in court, of course I'd want a million dollar lawyer. But that does not make me *right*, it makes me rich. That is not a good way for a legal system to work.
Somehow, a long time ago, people decided that the law should make sense, it should be logical. As there are more and more laws, built upon previous laws and precedent, we have created a logical nightmare. Maybe the best thing would be to not worry about the logic of the law and look back at the logic of the situation.
It is my personal opinion that while logical reasoning in court is meant to make things as fair as possible, it has instead, due to the complexity of law, become a briar patch in which the most skilled lawyer can convice a judge of the veracity and logic of their arguement.
Maybe when a law is not doing what it was intended to do, the offending party should be penalized even though they didn't break the letter of the law. I don't know, it's late, I'm tired, I'm just trying to see what others think.
Anyway, my feeling is that most people reading Slashdot are fairly bright. And we have not only a right, but an obligation to involve ourselves in the legal and political process. (I am not involved in the film industry, and may not even be considered a film buff, but I sure as hell have opinions on all aspects of a film's creation -- same concept, just the legal system is more important.)
And the legal system is not as hard to understand as most people would imagine. When I got a ticket for something that a police officer didn't even see and in fact I hadn't done, I went to a lawyer. He said that I could either retain him for 500 dollars or I could look up similar cases (which he found in a database) and fight the case on my own. I won. IANAL, but I've won in court. And anyone who hacks kernels or has a PhD in astrophysics, should have no trouble learning or even intuiting some of the fundamentals of the legal system. (I know, the devil is in the details, but the idea is sane.)
Anyway, this post is quickly losing focus.
So good night and happy
- He wants short-life patents (3 to 5 years), with a month public review period before: one month would have been sufficient to discover hundreds of web sites on the net who "invented" his "one-click" technology before him...
- ...and how long will it take for a court judgement concerning a patent claim ? 2 years ? for a patent valid 3 years, hmm ?
Bezos' ideas, if applied, would make life easier to those who are against software patents... Great, thanks JeffMaybe so, but I haven't seen too much evidence of it lately. And just being "bright" doesn't mean your opinions are automatically valid, and you certainly don't have any "right" to involve yourselves in the legal and political processes of our country - that's what politicians are for. Leave them to do the job they are paid for. Doing otherwise makes you an anarchist who wants to tear down the fabric of our society.
OK, I don't know what particular nation you're from, but many nations, and most of those with a respectable legal system, provide a reason to involve oneself in the political processes of the country-- the concept that power flows from the will of a nation's citizens. That, after all, is what elections are about. Wanting to be involved in the political processes of one's own country is NOT equivalent to being an anarchist, to wit:
anarchist \An"arch*ist\, n. [Cf. F. anarchiste.] An anarch; one who advocates anarchy of aims at the overthrow of civil government.
If a citizen wants to participate in the political processses of his or her nation without wanting to overthrow the civil government, then he or she is not an anarchist.
Leaving the business of politics solely to the politicians leads to the kind of cronyism and special-interest-slanted laws that can be exemplified by the US Software Patent mess.
PS-- WTF is the SCP forum?
The primary purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to disclose their invention. Software authors have often resorted to schemes such as encryption, restrictive license agreements and similar strategies to prevent their competitors from being able to copy the technologies they develop. KEEPING TECHNOLOGY SECRETS IF [sic] FUNDAMENTALLY BAD FOR PROGRESS.
Report Card:
Understanding of the subject: B
Understanding real-world implications: F
Although it is possible to argue the first point (and to argue that the purpose of patents is to protect innnovators), I basically agree with you on the purpose of patents. However, software patents do not lead to disclosure of "technology secrets." Let's take a look at a few examples:
The Amazon.com one-click patent
The Amazon.com affiliate program patent
The Priceline business-method patent
Read these patents. Are any innovations disclosed? I've read all three, and I didn't see any disclosure of any technology secrets. What I saw were very broad descriptions of things that already existed in the physical world, or broad descriptions of things so obvious that calling them innovations demeans the term innovation.
Alright class, repeat after me: If something exists in the physical world, and you describe it occurring over the Internet, it does not mean that it is innovation, and almost certainly does not mean that it needs the protection of a patent.
Seems to me it'd be better and faster to use an Expert System for technology patents. Although I've always objected to calling them part of Artificial Intelligence (since the're just a bunch of embedded if..then..else..clauses), humans can't possibly do as well as a machine in researching the mountains of patent descriptions that exist. Patent law DEFINITELY needs an overhaul and vast liberalization as a whole, but I feel there are still some legitimate uses of patenting. I can't quite place the line in terms of what "technologies" really should be patentable when it comes to software....but vaguelly perhaps a person could say, "the sole use of a complex algorythm not previously used by anyone else." Even this could be abused.. Copyrights on software are ok...I guess patents really don't make any sense at all. --Matthew
(lionel hutz - the simpsons)
skiy. www.Smokedot.org Drug Info, Rights, Laws, and Discussion
Australia has recently had some bad press over stupid legislation, but does it allow software patents? If so, have any been filed? (I'm sorry if I sound ignorant here, but I don't know where to look for such things.)
Abolish software patents.
" In a fast moving industry like the computer industry, a patent is obsolete after a few years, let alone 7 or 17." We've been here before. Back in the early days of industrial organic chemistry, the growth of synthetic dye production in the 1860-1890, there was both rapid introduction of new products and trival modifications of existing products. Fortunes were made and lost, industrial giants came into being, scams were run. And a process could be obsolete in a handful of years. An important difference was the tendency of industries to ignore patents issued in different countries. There was some parallel development in the industry, so long as the infringing company avoided marketing in the regions where the competitor held the patent(s). Note that in the early days of the US patent system there were few large organizations, patents tended to come from and be used by individuals.Things have changed, R&D often (but not always) is expensive, and a large capital base is needed to product a truely new technology. The idea of tying time-to-grant with time-to-run on patents is interesting. You get the flash on something that's "obvious" before anyone else, patent it quickly with the patent in effect for a short period of time. Perhaps you make money, most likely no one bothers fightinh it because the patent expires in a year or so. Much software would land here. Alternatively, you spend years refining a process/device, let the PTO work it over for several years, and get a longer duration patent allowing you to get the process/device into production and recoupe your development costs.
Subject: Proposed Patent Law Treaty changes are bad for the public
This is a response to:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/
[Federal Register: March 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 47)] [Notices]
[Page 12515-12517] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr00-46];
http://www.wipo.int/scp
The current patent rules already are bad for the general public, and
your "Basic Proposal" would make the situation worse. To summarize:
"Innovate, don't Litigate!"
The proposal is focussed on helping those who want to claim
patent monopoly rights:
The objective of the meetings has been to develop a Basic Proposal,
consisting of articles and regulations, which will minimize the
formal requirements associated with patent applications and
patents. Upon adoption, these articles and rules will simplify the
formal obligations and reduce associated costs for patent applicants
and owners of patents in obtaining and preserving their rights in
inventions in many countries of the world.
Why do we grant patent monopolies in the first place? The US
Constitution, in Article I, section 8, gives the congress power:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Rights are only to be offered to inventors in order to "promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts".
But the current patent rules, especially as applied to the field of
computer software, are hindering rather than promoting progress.
Your proposal to minimize formal requirements and reduce costs for
patent applications benefits those who claim to have invented things,
but the net result is an increased set of requirements and costs for
those actually making progress in science and useful arts. In the
current marketplace the innovative programmer is driven to invent
things in order to be "first to market" and they require no patent
protection as incentive. Instead, they must guard against the fear
that others with money to spend on patent lawyers will prevent them
from using obvious ideas or charge them fees in ways that limit the
possible distribution methods for their work.
I endorse the proposals at
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
which I incorporate by reference into this response.
There is wide support (see editorials in Forbes, Barrons and The
Economist, among others) for the notion that software patents are
impeding many aspects of technology today. Many high-tech firms
support this notion, but are forced to divert precious recources into
the filing of "defensive patents".
I'm particularly alarmed at the notion that people from other
countries would be able to claim a "filing date" in our country
after submitting a minimal set of material in "any language":
[A country] must provide a filing date for an application as of the
date on which its Office has received the following elements:
(i) An indication that submitted elements are intended to be an
application;
(ii) Indications allowing the identity of the applicant to be
established or allowing the applicant to be contacted; and
(iii) A description.
This filing date requirement is fairly minimal and would greatly
simplify the conditions imposed upon the grant of filing dates to
patent applications throughout the world. Note that this article
would mandate the acceptance, for filing date purposes, of patent
applications in any language, subject to the furnishing of later
translations. The USPTO has supported this article, with the
knowledge that our claim requirement, for filing date purposes, in
section 111(a) of title 35, United States [[Page 12517]] Code, would
have to be deleted.
We need to raise, not lower, the cost of patent applications so that
we can have more competent patent examiners.
We need to exclude software from the domain of patents. Inventors
should use copyright and trade secret protections instead.
Since the rate of progress is faster, the term of patents should be
lowered substantially.
We need to make patents public upon initial application so that
experts can comment on their innovativeness before they are granted.
Please fight any proposals that would disadvantage the general public
by stifling rather than encouraging innovation. We must grant patents
for the benefit of the general population, not to provide lopsided
benefits to those who want to use the system to prevent others
from delivering innovations to the public.
Thank you.
--Neal
--Neal
Go IETF!
and you certainly don't have any "right" to involve yourselves in the legal and political processes of our country
I know I have a right to involve myself in the polital processes of my country. I could even become an MP if I could persuade enough people to vote for me. Although I am actually an anarchist except that I don't want to tear down the fabric of society. Just make people more responsible for their own actions
No, I don't call myself an anarchist. It was a response to the person who claimed that if you thought you had the right to involve youselves in politics then you were an anarchist who wanted to tear down society. By that definition my views are extremist anarchist. Although if you notice, a lot of people ARE labelled Communist because they claim they want to share more. (Damn those goldarn Linux commies)
1. Companies could use patents to stop OSS from working.
True. But why should we be allowed to take somebody's origional idea and give it away after they spent so long working on it. Nothing wrong with giving ideas away, but nobody should be forced
2. If something is good, a lot of effort ist wasted to find something to work around a patent.
If something is good then the inventor deserves to be rewarded for coming up with the idea.
3. Progress can be halted or stopped for a very long time.
I agree here. Technology is moving a lot faster now. Patents cause awkward 20 year gaps in advancement if the licensing is too strict
4. Third world is stopped from closing the gap in working knowledge.
I'm not sure about this one. I don't quite know how much effect the patents have on the Third World, or whether developing countries ever have strong IP protection laws
5. If everything belongs to someone, nothing belongs to the public, in spite of the fact that most ideas are not made on isolated islands. We all get our ideas from the society we live in - do we really have the right to prevent the public from using this ideas?
Sometimes, yes. But a patent needs more than just an idea. Some inventions have clearly had a lot of work put into them.
6. Patents are expensive. If you really have a good idea, chances are that you can't use them. Patents are for big companies only.
Its not too expensive for a single succesful person with the intelligence to produce a patent. ($2000 or so). The expensive part is defending it. Large companies can find a nitpicking difference between the two inventions and pay a lot of money to an expensive legal team.
The patent system needs to be cleaned up, and made more useful to the independent inventors, but it is still useful. If there wasn't this protection then it would be a lot easier for large companies to rip off other people's ideas.
From this week's Byte, an article by Jason and Ted Coombs:
http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20000301S0001
A relevant excerpt from the article:
"The {statutory patent} does not afford any legal protection to the patentee, but does convey legal protection to the general public by registering the invention and thereby formally declaring it to be prior art for the purpose of future patent filings. This class of patent is most commonly used to register inventions made by the U.S. Government and it is known as Statutory Invention Registration, or SIR.
"Anyone can apply to receive SIR patent status for a novel invention, and there is only a small one-time fee for this type of patent compared
to the larger and periodic fees required to receive and maintain a regular patent. However, statutory patents are only used when the patentee wants to guarantee that no third party will ever be able to claim patent protection for an invention. This makes SIR a very interesting, if currently overlooked, option for protecting open source inventions. (See The Business Of Open Source [Jan 17th, 2000]
{http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20000111S0001}) When searching at the U.S. Patent Office website, you can find SIR patents designated with the
prefix of "H". Section 157 of USC Title 35 defines SIR."
I don't know what they mean by a "reasonable one-time fee", but if anyone's serious about getting the patent system to work for the small types, this should probably be looked at. Check out these guys' full articles and take this on board perhaps?
-- Free Luna!
You're right. The little nik-nak I invented because of my unique perspective shouldn't get a patent. It should be stolen by others without credit to its creator and without even a thanks. My moment of glory and high point of my life will just be a crime scene forgotten by all. I'll just be happy that I was just able to contribute something to the uncaring world. One hell of an incentive for all of the future inventors, right? All you little non-US-residents who want to fight the evil patent system just stay put in your little country and wait for the next little oppresive regime to wipe you off the face of the earth! I'll sit here grateful that my ancestors were willing to risk it all for just a small chance that their children might have the freedom to invent something that might make them free enough to live where they want and think what they choose to think. And you're wrong! If everything belonged to someone, then the public would have their own product to sell.
Basically what I see is that the original patent holder is being given various time exemptions on the filing process, and also is given a response period, yada, yada, yada.
/. discussions was article 9(2) on page 29. I don't think that adding an extra step of somewhat indeterminate length before revoking silly patents is really a wise idea...sure the patent holder has to have a chance to defend themselves. But if it is a court, guess who has already just stated their case..?
The only thing that lept out at me as relating to
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
In other areas, the cost of a patent is a small fragment of the whole developement/research cost, and thus, most of the innovators are able to patent their innovations. In the computing area, research is fairly cheap - you need a good brain and an ordinary PC for most of it. Thus, the main cost for an invention is the patent itself, thus patents are empowering only the allready powerfull, and thus not beneficial to the public (Neither the innovators nor the consumers).
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
There were two items that I forgot to include, which another posters post reminded me of - one the licensing of a patent must be compulsory. Thus one cannot hoard the patent and keep it from circulation just because it reduces the profits gained from another product. The second item- the total combined payment in IP fees cannot exceed 15% of the total product retail cost. This is so multiple IP technologies can be included in a single product, without skyrocketing the price of the product due to IP entanglements...
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@yahoo.com
(This was also posted in the HUGEP storie...)
IT seems appropriate that I put form my proposal at this time, that is similar in spirit.
Each technological group of patents would have its own maximum expiration time. This expiration time would be based on the dynamicity of the technology- which would be determined by the number of patents issued in the group the previous three years.
Further, I would change the patent process such that each patent is automatically granted, with the caveat that a five grand bond must be placed with the patent. Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand. This money would in turn go to five reviewers, chosen at random from a pool of experts in the technology. Each expert would rate the patent on a scale of 1-10 on its innovativeness. 1 being blantantly obvious, 5 somewhat innovative and a 10 extraordinarily innovative. The patent life would then be based on the average ratings of the experts. If the average rating is less than 5 then the patent is immediately invalidated, and the patenter loses their bond. If it scores 5 or greater, the challenger forfiets his challenge money. The time length of the patent would then be based on the average score. The default would be the maximum time length for that category. The rest would be the average score as a percent of the maximum score multiplied by the category.
Please tell me what you think,
LetterRip
fstmm@yahoo.com
Forcing companies to license their patents is a great idea, but it has one big flaw - how do you know what a fair price for the license is? If you dictate it governmentally, it could horribly off-mark, resulting either in much higher consumer costs, or a bankrupt company.
I've been considering the idea of instituting a patent tax. Registering a patent under this idea doesn't prevent anyone from using that technology. However, every product sold that falls under a patent will have an additional "patent tax", the proceeds of which go directly to the patent holder.
This would allow the market forces to determine the value of the product, as well as the value of the patent.
Also, the tax percentage could vary for different patents. It could be determined, within reason, by the patent holder. Consider: If Amazon patented 1-click under this system, no one would use it, because using the 1-click would mean their book would cost more. Thus we instantly see that the 1-click ordering is really of little value to the consumer (who votes most honestly and realistically with his pocketbook), and Amazon would probably have chosen not to patent such a thing under a patent tax system.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
While this certainly is positive in that people, not only corporations, will easily be able to obtain patents, it will mean more patents. With such silly patents flying about in the software industry (Amazon, et cetera) this could be quite bad.
On another pessimistic note, I was under the impression that most of the inventions these days came from the working class at large corporations who never get to see a nickel from their work.
If the patent office is looking to streamline the patent application process, here's an idea for them: a "one-click" submissions form. It could use cookies, and be really convenient...
It would be nice if there was some kind of `standard' letter that could be copy/paste/emailed to the patent office. A lot of people stating the same always attracts attention and it will show that there is some consensus in this community.
As someone who's worked for Congress, I can tell you that a form letter is exactly what you do not want to send. When I was sorting mail to the various staffers, there was a special bin for postcards. Letters would get someone to read your letter and tell me to send you a form response back. Postcards got you a postcard saying "Thanks for sending us that postcard,"; at the end of the day I'd count up the postcards for and against the vote.
A week or two after I started working there, I started seeing letters that all had the same text: they were instances where someone had taken a lobby group's sample text and copied it verbatim. These letters were not sent on to a human to read; they were sorted as postcards. That's far less influence on the mind of the decisionmaker.
Even though form letters would allow us to mount a massive campaign, it's my experience that you can get better results with a smaller number of impassioned individuals writing personal messages.
Alik
Patents are evil for lots of reasons.
I get the impression you've been reading /. too much lately :) Patents aren't evil, they're just a legal idea for protecting innovation. Well, at least they're supposed to be and probably were at one time. It's just they are being forced to apply in new domains which were never conceived of back when they were invented. There were, and are, good reasons for a patent system, it's just the current implementation that's flawed and being abused by companies who care solely about huge profits.
These are only some of the reasons why we have to fight this evil. It has an impact on our lives.So even if you are a non-US-resident like me, join the fight!
You make it sound like a civil war. That sort of reaction just makes /. look bad, we need reasoned responses not knee-jerk flag-waving. Patents shouldn't be abolished, but they definitely need to be reformed from their current state. And this forum is a chance to have your ideas given a wider audience. So if you don't have anything constructive to say, then keep your thoughts to /.
Here is a letter that I wrote to the UK patent office about software patents. You should not cut and paste it - for a start, it is far too long - but you might like to mention the more important ideas.
The letter talks about software patents in general, it doesn't say anything about WIPO, so you might have to add that. Here it is, (but again, don't just cut and paste, write in your own words):
To: xxxxSubject: Software patents
From: Ed Avis
Dear Sir,
I am concerned at moves to allow patents on computer programs and algorithms in Europe. I think that this would be misguided, hamper innovation, and disadvantage British consumers and businesses. The patent system is not appropriate for software.
First, I don't think that the question of whether a computer program is an 'invention' is relevant. Just because patents are useful for some kinds of invention doesn't mean that we should blindly apply the same policy to software. Speaking as a software developer myself, I would say that a program is more like a literary work, but either way, we should consider a patent system on its merits, and not by just carrying over a system from some other area.
We should consider whether software patents would promote innovation, whether they would encourage disclosure of new techniques, and whether they would benefit the writers or users of software. In doing this we have an excellent example to consider, the software patent system in the US.
Software patents in America have been a disaster. Software developers constantly face the threat of lawsuits from companies which hold hundreds, thousands of patents on ideas which any software engineer - or in some cases, even any layman - would consider trivial or obvious. The only way to defend against this is to get your own collection of patents, preferably worded as vaguely as possible so that it will be impossible to write a program without infringing. Then you can countersue if anyone claims you are infringing on their patent, and probably reach a cross-licensing arrangement.
The people who lose out are the small to medium size software developers, who cannot afford a large enough legal department and a big enough patent portfolio for defence. Some companies (such as Oracle, the leading database company) have openly admitted that the only reason they apply for patents is to defend themselves against spurious lawsuits from other patent holders. Small developers are the ones who lose out, and it is small developers who make most of the breakthrough innovations in software. In any case, the hard work is covered by copyright (see below) and patents are obtained only as a legal weapon. So patents do not help innovation.
Do patents encourage disclosure? This is not true either. Disclosing the human-readable source code to a program opens up a developer to patent infringement lawsuits, which are less likely if the program's workings are kept secret. The fact that patents once granted are made public is not very significant here, since any important and non-trivial algorithm would need to be made public in any case, in order to become an accepted standard.
Do patents on software benefit the consumer? No. There is a grave threat to competitiveness in many markets from patented business models, which are quite easy to achieve if you are allowed to get patents on particular software ideas. For example, a patent was recently granted in Norway which, according to its owner, covers all e-commerce in Europe. In America, the bookseller Barnes & Noble was sued by rival Amazon.com over placing a link to 'buy now' on its web pages. If Europe starts granting patents on computer programs, it will be possible to get a monopoly on a particular business model simply by patenting the idea of a software program that implements that model. In the software market, consumers also lose out. Patents make it easy to stamp out competing or compatible products, by adding some trivial 'wrinkle' to data formats used and then patenting it. The software market is naturally very prone to creating monopolies; it doesn't need any extra help from the patent system.
Developers are expected to check every line of their code against thousands of existing patents. Consider that the USPTO has allowed the same algorithm (LZW compression) to be patented twice, by Unisys and by IBM. If even the patent office cannot check an application against previous patents, what hope is there for the developer checking a 500,000 line program?
I don't think that software patents in America have benefited anybody except a handful of very large corporations and patent lawyers.
Some people have advocated introducing software patents in Europe, claiming that it will help small European software firms compete against large American ones. I think I have explained why quite the opposite is true; the best help we can give to software firms is an open and competitive marketplace. Others claim that software patents will help in the fight against piracy, which is a complete non sequitur. Software piracy is a copyright violation and has nothing to do with patents. Neither should we harmonize our laws with America just for the sake of it; it's unfortunate that the US system is so harmful, but at least we are free of it here. (In any case, patents on software happened by accident; Congress didn't pass any law, but rather judges ruled that software was an invention and hence should be patentable. They did not, however, rule that since it was an invention it should not be copyrightable.)
On a different level, software is unlike physical inventions. Innovation in software development is not a big event but an everyday occurrence; every program a developer writes will contain some new technique or a new way of combining existing techniques. Software development is fundamentally about combining a large number of existing ideas in new ways, and this work is covered by copyright. Copyright works well for software; it covers the hard part of development, which is actually writing the code, testing, and documentating. Patents serve only to hamper other programs which have been developed independently.
Don't take my word for it that patents are a danger, hear what Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web has to say:
If you wish, I can refer you to dozens of other sources who agree with what I am saying. It is difficult to find anybody in favour of software patents, except for statements from large companies such as IBM.
Sorry that this is a long letter, but this is a subject of great importance, not just for the software industry, but for the whole world in the information age. In summary:I hope that the Patent Office will argue against granting patents on software in Europe, whether by changing article 52.2 or by any other method.
Yikes, that was long. But you get the idea. Read more at freepatents.org or the archive of this message on the mailing list.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The site linked to doesn't seem to have any documents talking about actual patent laws - it's mostly stuff that seems to be about agreeing on the beurocratic powers that national patent offices have, and standardising the minutiae of their proceedures. Important things, in this Globalised World(TM) we live in, but nothing much to do with the stuff we're so interested in/worried about here at /. . . .
;-)
I have a feeling (and IANAP[olitical]L[obbyist], so take this with a grain or two of salt) that the best approach to making changes to the areas of patent law that we're concerned about is simply to lobby our respective governments - trying to get anything done at an international treaty level is largely pointless, because the power brokers at that level are all governments, and individuals don't get a look-in . . . Unfortunately, this kind of thing isn't done IETF style, it's done UN style. So read these documents and comment as much on them as you want, but talk to your local politician/scumbag/bagman if you want something to change.
Actually, now that I think about it, having a go at something IETF-like for things like patent law might be a reasonable idea - get a bunch of volunteers together to think this thing through, discuss possible solutions, and come up with some draft laws that countries can use as a model . . . I can see that approach coming up with something much more workable and practical than the current approach (which seems to be something along the lines of `buy as many politicians as you can'). Unfortunately, governments would just ignore it . . . But hey, it might be fun to try!
himi
Hey, maybe we should patent Open Source Politics . . .
--
My very own DeCSS mirror.
The fundamental problem with patents, underlying all of these solutions, is /duration/. The above solutions fix /symptoms/. The /real/ problem is that some arbitrary duration of patent was conjured up some 200 or so years ago, and nothing has changed. Patent duration /must/ be inversely proportional to the speed of the industry they are in. In a fast moving industry like the computer industry, a patent is obsolete after a few years, let alone 7 or 17. It makes no sense to stifle all those wasted years worth of potential innovation. All that time that the current patent system allows the patent holder to sit on their patent, a lot of innovation could occur in a fast moving industry. I believe once the patent duration is tied, using common sense, to the market it is in that the symptoms will go away. We won't really need compulsory relicensing, because in a few years their competitors can have it anyway. I agree with points 2 and 3. Not sure about 4 and 5.
/not/ be based on a business model at all. The patent office's customers aren't the few companies that pay megabucks for patents, but to the few hundred million citizens. They should take the citizens' interests into hand when they examine patents.
In general the patent office should
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It would be nice if there was some kind of `standard' letter that could be copy/paste/emailed to the patent office. A lot of people stating the same always attracts attention and it will show that there is some consensus in this community.
Do not forget that you are not the only one who can let your voice being heard. The Big Companies(TM) have this opportunity too, and while some of them might be Very Evil(TM), they are often very good at stating clearly (and politely!) what they want.
So please don't shout at them, don't threaten them, but be constructive.
Patents are evil for lots of reasons. Here are a few of them that spring into mind:
1. Companies could use patents to stop OSS from working.
2. If something is good, a lot of effort ist wasted to find something to work around a patent.
3. Progress can be halted or stopped for a very long time.
4. Third world is stopped from closing the gap in working knowledge.
5. If everything belongs to someone, nothing belongs to the public, in spite of the fact that most ideas are not made on isolated islands. We all get our ideas from the society we live in - do we really have the right to prevent the public from using this ideas?
6. Patents are expensive. If you really have a good idea, chances are that you can't use them. Patents are for big companies only.
These are only some of the reasons why we have to fight this evil. It has an impact on our lives. So even if you are a non-US-resident like me, join the fight!
You found a sword: +4 damage, +5 moderator points
I haven't had a chance to examine what's on the website (many documents). If this is to try and make it easier to apply for patents throughout the world then there is a lot of work to do in terms of standardising what can and cannot be patented (The US seems to have much broader rules than say Europe/UK).
If it is however concerned with just generally streamlining the process then considering the problem with all the apparently spurious software patents do we really need the process simplified.
What we need is the system bolstered with examiners who have resources to identify obvious and non-original concepts in fields such as the internet and computer programming.
Particularly as the examiners do not have sufficient experience or knowledge in these areas we need some way of making peer review available to them. Potentially there should be a probationary period or provisional publication where a patent can be challenged/questioned not in court but by reference back to the patent office.
Also the requirement for prior art searches/disclosures should be tightened up potentially with fines and summary dismissals of patents for deliberate non-disclosure. Otherwise the system can encourage and reward such behaviour.
Patents were developed to allow inventors and those spending money on research to have a chance to recoup those costs and realise a resonable return by granting a limited monopoly on their ideas. While ensuring that those ideas were published and available to others and not hidden/lost as trade secrets etc.
These days however a lot of the software/internet patents are not on ideas that have taken any great investment to develop. Rather they are for taking standard programming practices, methods, and techniques and applying them to new environments such as the internet. This to my mind makes them obvious to a practitioner in the field. If not does this mean that the first person to write a bubblesort on the latest compiler/hardware can patent it?
Patents seem to have become in certain areas more a cynical commercial weapon than a way of encouraging and rewarding research and its publication.
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
This site lists the web pages of 19 patent agencies.
In particular, here is the Australian site (because I'm Australian), and here is the Eurpoean Union patent office (because it covers patents in all member states)
As I see it, the main problems with the current patent system are twofold:
A: They are often granted for ideas that do not involve a sufficiently inventive step.
B: They are often used to stifle innovation by refusing to license them to others in a fair way.
I am not sure how one would go about dealing with A, but I have been thinking about B, and can see several alternatives that would fix the problem quite easily.
In order to provoke debate, I propose the following ammentment to patent law:
- Licensing of patents to third parties should be compulsary.
- This licensing should be done through an easy, standard mechanism, allowing the third party to license several patents at once through the patent office.
- The licensing cost should be registered, and not allowed to increase above the rate of inflation.
- Licensing should be "per product installation".
- Nobody, including the owner of the patent should be allowed to sell their own product for less than the combined value of the patents it uses, thus preventing inflated license costs.
I have an elaboration of this here.This compremise would still allow open source software to use patents. Licenses would only be paid when someone new wanted to install the software, and not when source was passed around.
I don't think it would be practical, or desirable to abolish software patents all together as that would remove a lot of the motivation for companies to invest in research.
Any comments?