Slashdot Mirror
Patent Warfare
H310iSe writes: "The California Recorder has an article covering another of the many ridiculous Web patents out there, this one held by TechSearch claims rights for a "'remote query communication system' patent, which covers a method for compressing and decompressing data transmitted from a server to an end user." Basically they're patenting Web servers. What's interesting is their selective enforcement, they are currently suing Greg Aharonian, one of their most vocal critics, for infringement on their patent. He's fighting it.
TechSearch has quite a history of aggressive patent enforcement ("extortion" claims Intel's spokesperson Chuck Mulloy), some major players like United Airlines have caved in; Intel, however, has not (surprised?)."
Some clones died that fast, but most of them suffered when Jobs came back into power and pulled the plug on licensing the ROMs altogether, effectively killing the clone market. I would suspect that if the clone market were continuing, PowerComputing would have some sweet clones based on the G4 but with more PC-ish support in terms of cards, ports, and the like.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The better solution is to invalid any software and business practice patents, or limit the terms of all patents to 5-10 years.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Weren't BBS users downloading ANSI control sequences over modem links with (standardised) hardware compression way before 1991?
November 1, 2000
Washington, United States of Blame - The ScrewYou Corporation has filed a suit against Jill Brady, a young girl from Florida, for infringing on their patent on lemonade stands.
"We will not stand any infringment on our patents, especially from little 12-year-old girls who don't have the finances to defend themselves in court" said ScrewYou's CEO, Anthony Sueyou.
ScrewYou has filed for damages of $50,000,000 in "lost revenue" due to little Jill's lemonade stand. "Everyone of her customer's could potentially be a ScrewYou customer. Since we have no idea how long she has been running this illegal stand we think this is only fair," said ScrewYou's lawyers after they got out of a case they settled against the Boy Scouts over the infringment of ScrewYou's fire patent.
My favorite patent of all time is for a cat "laser excercise" device ... basically you shine a lazer at the floor and the cat chases it .. but lord its patented. the patent holder obviously has a sense of humour. its as good an idea as anything I've seen patented recently ... anyone have a link to this?
Here it is.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Everybody is irritated at the idiocy of patent claims in the US, but the article touched on another issue as well, one that is likely to be the deciding factor in this particular patent claim. The article states, rather obviously, that Intel has deeper pockets with which to fight the action.
Money is an issue that distorts justice far more than the recent patent nonsense, and I bet that nobody sees any light at the end of that tunnel. The legal profession has very effectively perverted the course of justice in that regard, and the perversion is so endemic that we consider it quite normal and the status quo.
These two things are actually related. After all, the people that chase down patents are not productive contributors to society's building of a better world. They create nothing, but merely leech off the creativity of others. They are the fine upstanding members of the legal profession, for whom logic and commonsense can be freely disregarded when sophistry and technicalities are judged to yield a better paycheck.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
If A sues, and B only wants to spend $1000, but A wants to spend a million, A can go ahead and loan the money. B has to accept, but doesn't have to spend.
So you bury the body, spend $1 on your defense, the prosecution spends lots more and loans you the money, you don't spend it.
--
Infuriate left and right
.. for the US patent office to start actually READING applications for patents?
Clearly they do. No reasonable reading of a patent prosecution file could possibly be taken to suggest that examiners did not read the application.
Isn't it about time for critics of the patent system to try to present specific, direct evidence of their gripes, and to unsubstantiated demagoguery?
mean, it seems absurd that people can patent things like websevers, which are so common. Patents are designed to protect ORIGINAL ideas,
Both of these propositions are correct. So, if you have a gripe, let's take the specific patent, the specific claim, and the specific prior art, and then determine whether or not the patent is invalid.
If we do so, we can save Greg Aharonian a lot of money in legal fees.
There is a process called "reexamination," in which you present documentary prior art not previously considered, which raises a "substantial new question of patentability," and file a petition requesting rexamination.
If the request is granted, the patent will be completely reviewed in light of the new art. This has an upside and a downside, of course -- the applicant gets to rewrite his claims to narrow the patent to avoid the new art, which may result in a stronger (but valid) patent.
If the patent cannot be amended to avoid the prior art, then the patent claims will all be cancelled.
If a patent is significant and a substantial burden, the Commissioner may autonomously decide to call a patent into reexamination. This is what happened in the Comptons and Energizer Bunny cases.
Alternatively, you can sue (in some cases), or be sued and then counterclaim for, a declaratory judgment of invalidity. You present the prior art and, if you prevail, the patent claims you challenged are killed on the spot -- the applicant gets no chance to "amend around."
Reexamination can be a fairly inexpensive process (just a filing fee and time for preparation of the proper papers), or if you decide you want to actively participate in the process -- answering applicant''s responses and the like, it can be moderately expensive (say mid-four figures to the low five figures). Except in clear cases, litigating validity can be awesomely expensive, often in six figures.
If this company succeeds in this latest venture, other companies are going to start The USPO needs to start carefully analyzing patent applications
They do carefully analyze patent applications. Why do you think they don't?
and needs to have either a public review or a panel-based review
Under the recent changes to the patent act, certain applications are published 18 months after application, and thus can be subject to review by the public prior to issuance. However, there is no provision for opposition apart from the very expensive interference process.
Once patent applications issue, however, there is a fairly low-cost process to challenge their validity, called reexamination. Recent changes to the act expanded the scope of third-party participation in reexaminations.
Regrettably, both of these recent steps are watered-down versions of far stronger proposals in the original patent reform legislation. My understanding is that the reform bill will likely be taken up again next term.
Ironically, many Slashdotters opposed these stronger proposals last year during a discussion of patent reform.
to determine whether a patent applicant is simply follwing an evolutionary path or actually a technological innovation.
Evolutionary paths can include patentable subject matter, so long as they entail new, useful and unobvious subject matter.
The process of:
1. Using neurochemical impulses to control human tissue
2. Controlling, via said impulses, certain tissue in the abdomen of a human
3. Having this tissue lower pressure inside the abdomen, facilitating human respiration
GET REAL! Take away the internet, and you're taking away our breath or our voice. Going to patent the motion of the solar system now?
----
Mike
While intel's attempts to stop clones are underhanded and harmful to the consumer I can't agree it is in the same ballpark.
For one thing intel's new archetecture is non-obvious and involved a great deal of intellectual effort. Selecting what instructions to include in a chip is a non-trivial task especially with something like EPIC. As we want companies to put in the effort to come up with these sort of things there is a valid argument that intel should gain some advantage over clones because of its research investment.
Now it may be true that the individual instructions patented by intel aren't particularly novel but these appear to be the way intel can protect its novel contributions to its instruction set.
Personally I think we need an entire new system to control patents/copyrights in `standards.' The problem in intels case is not that they get rewarded for their instruction set but that they get rewarded disproportionatly. Because of intels market share this instruction set will become a standard and intels patents will give them far more money than the novel ideas in the instruction set are in fact worth.
What is necessery is some system to seperate the component of value in the actual technological innovation from the component of value inherint in the standardization.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
"...a method for compressing and decompressing data transmitted from a server to an end user." If you assume the server to be the male and the "end user" to be the female and the data to be DNA code compressed and decompressed by the human body. It seems to me they hold a patent for life itself.
According to the article, here's what the suit alledges Aharonian's transgressions are:
"He shamelessly, and oftentimes profanely, attacks [the] United States government, specifically the Patent and Trademark Office, its examiners and various public officials and private citizens," the suit says. "He also purports to be an expert in patent law, though he has no specialized training in the field, has not graduated from any law school, is not admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office and is not authorized to practice law."
Say What? What the hell does attacking the bumblings of the USPTO and have anything to do with patent infringement?
I've met Mr. Aharonian before at a National Academy of Science conference on Intellectual Property, and had the opportunity to read his always entertaining email missives critiquing business method patents. He may be profane at times, but (in my opinion), he is one of the most articulate and analytical opponents of a fundamentally flawed patent system that continues to churn out limited, legally sanctioned monopolies on nebulous, specious and overly-broad business method "inventions" to the detriment of the public domain and true innovation.
I haven't seen the text of the lawsuit. But if the aforementioned article is accurate, it seems that Mr. Aharonian is being targeted by a slap suit (remember the McLibel trial in Britain?). Slap suits are typically frivolous attempts to silence critics of corporate interests by dragging them through an expensive, time-consuming and tortuous labyrinth.
FYI, Here is a recent Wired Magazine article about Aharonian and business method patents.
Aharonian's website is www.bustpatents.com. You can subscribe to his newsletter -- the Internet Patent News Service from this site.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
I'm not suprised... they said pretty much the same thing about Rambus not too long ago. "Seeking to collect a toll from other companies," rather than developing their own technology was the phrase used. So they say the same thing to another company with a dumb patent that interferes with them somehow. It may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but I think we need all the corporate assistance we can get to fight these things, particularly ones which the owners admit could probably cover every web server that exists.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
3.) IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE NON-TRANSFERRABLE!!! License them, sure. an inventor may not always have enough capital to market his invention. But ownership of a patent should always stay with the inventor, likewise a copyright.
Who would this benefit? Surely not the inventor. What makes IP assets valuable is that they are PROPERTY. One of the essential elements of property are that they are transferrable -- can be used as currency in an economic transaction.
The more limitations you put on the transferability of an asset, the less valuable they are. Whether you are talking about country club memberships, tickets to a ballgame or otherwise, the value of an asset is limited when you cannot exchange ALL of the rights you have. (What is more, it is the nature of a capital asset that it flows like a force of nature; legal limitaitions on transferrability simply invite ways to circumvent those limitations, whether by scalping, side-agreements or contracts or otherwise; all that happens is that it becomes more expensive and risky to effectively transfer the assets -- which makes it less valuable, of course).
It is very, very common that an inventor, author or otherwise is not the same person or entitty that has the assets necessary to practice an invention or publish or otherwise exploit a literary work. If you limit the ability of the parties to transfer assets, you simply invite the capital to flow elsewhere -- to safer, more secure investments.
Reread the patent. It does not cover laser pens, just the method of using it as a form of exercise.
This is simply another in a long history of deeds issued by the USPTO for reasons of sheer amusement. This class of "wacky patents" is so silly and amusing that it even has its own web site.
If you read the claims and prosecution, you will understand clearly that the patent issued because it was clearly harmless and would have been difficult and expensive to reject.
They should, should they? Let us see if Greg does challenge under Rule 11 (for filing meritless claims), and if so, whether he would prevail.
Time will tell.
Reexaminations are processed with substantial speed in the USPTO. The result of that will be known soon. It is quite possible that the patent claims will all be cancelled, that the patent claims will all survive, or that some claims will be cancelled and/or some claims amended. If some part of the patent survives, the resulting claims will be STRONGER (in the sense of defensible against invalidity, not in the sense of broader in scope) than the original.
Don't take broad descriptions of a patent to indicate either the scope of its claims, or the likelihood of its validity. Read, at least, the patent disclosure and claims. In this case, it is unclear whether the patent reaches as broadly, or would be clearly invalid in view of the prior art on or prior to 1990, as Greg was quoted to suggest. Time will tell.
But it should be understood that Greg has made a practice of self-promotion and promotion of his search services by publicly attacking the scope or validity of various patents. In some cases, he had manifest a clear lack of understanding of applicable patent law, and in others a failure to have read even the most basic information relating to a particular patent he was excoriating.
While it is certainly his First Amendment right to state opinions on various issues, he has often arguably stepped over the line of reason, perhaps even so far as to defamation of title.
But this case isn't about free speech. Greg was not attacked for having claimed a patent was invalid -- he is attacked for having infringed a patent. He is being invited to put his money where his mouth is, literally and figuratively, to prove a patent is invalid which he has claimed, directly or indirectly, was invalid. Again, time will tell.
Frankly, I am unfond of those heavy-handed tactics, both when they are applied by property-holders or their critics. Neither litigant has a stellar history for being truth-seeking and desirious of finding the truth wherever it may lie. At least, in this case, we'll see the results of these issues determined on the merits by a third party. Greg, hardly defenseless, is a self-acclaimed expert patent-buster, and so he is better equipped than most to find the best prior art.
Again, time will tell. Hopefully, the truth will prevail.
In this lawsuit, we have an apparently overreaching litigant attempting to beat up on an apparently overreaching patent critic. Wouldn't it be interesting if the verdict of this case were (as tends to happen these days), that the patent was construed to be narrower in scope than the parties contend, and thus, that the patent is valid (thus Greg is wrong), but not infringed (thus the patent owner is wrong)?
Back to the drawing board.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The problem with the USPTO is that it doesn't understand the effect of patents. I've heard over and over again how patents "create wealth."
Patents don't create wealth. They concentrate power. Very different.
Back in 1982-1984 I had done this in two different applications.
Fight Spammers!
Anyone else notice that http://www.techsearch-llc.com/ was put together by a moron?
No Title for any of the pages, and the "Contact Us" link goes straight to an AOL account?
The link on http://www.techsearch-llc.com/about.htm SAYS info@techsearch.com but when you mouseover, you find out it's a link to mailto:brownao@aol.com
They claim patents on major portions of computer technology, yet don't have the skill to set up an MX entry in a DNS...
Anyone else here really not like lawyers today???
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
The most likely case is that you would be ignored by the government. I have reported far worse crimes and been utterly ignored. The basic rule is money and publicity buys enforcement. The FBI might take your complaint - but I doubt that it would be prosecuted. Good luck on the experiment - I would like to know how it turns out.
From http://www.techsearch-llc.com/about.htm& lt;/a>
Phone: (847) 509-0795
Fax: (847) 509-1330
Directions from Chicago
Directions from O'Hare Airport
Street Address:
500 Skokie Boulevard
Suite 585
Northbrook, IL 60062
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
To whom it may concern,
After seeing a story about your firm on the web site www.slashdot.org, a friend and I started a discussion about your site's design, and I was wondering if you could settle the issue for us.
I say someone's nephew slapped it together with FrontPage, and he says one of the lawyers did it using whatever "Web Site Creation Tools" your Virtual Hosting service offers for newbies.
Which is it?
PS, Please don't sue me for criticising your web site. I was just noticing how ironic it is a firm that claims to own the patent on emulating one processor with another (Will you be suing Transmeta next?) and pretty much claims the patent on any kind of graphics on the Internet can't pull together the skill to design a decent web site.
When will you file your lawsuites against Macromedia, Real, Microsoft and the guy who invented GIF? They violate your patents too.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
XML causes global warming.
Maybe it's just me, and maybe it's just a mis-read from that small excerpt from the whole patent, but this really does seem absurd. This makes it sound like the patent covers any kind of server-side data processing that sends output to the user -- Say I log on to a server, run some statistical software on a big data set that I otherwise could not do on my own end (or "EUS" .. sheesh), and ask the server to display a table of the output, say correlation coefficients.
Haven't I done everything that appears to be patented? Unless you demand that the data be compressed or something -- in which case it sure seems like the wording is vague, as it appears to use data compression/decompression as an example, not a material part of the process.
What a mess.
-schussat
The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
I also note that the patent was issued to a couple of guys in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Isn't that where Bell Labs is/was?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Neither party can spend more than the other.
If A wants to sue B, and B only wants to spend $1000, then A can't spend more than $1000.
A can offer to loan B money for the defense. In this case, if A wins, B owes that money in addition. If A loses, A loses the money too. But B has to agree, and of course if B has no money to pay it back, tough luck A!
Works both ways, in all cases, including the criminal cases.
There would probably have to be some minimum, at least the minimum to file suit (filing fees, etc). And it would be hard to enforce to the dime. But it would curb the blatant excesses where A has 5 lieyers in court and B has one.
--
Infuriate left and right
It's like Amazon's ridiculous patent on the "single-click shopping" idea...as if that's unique or even a paradigmatic concept. Is Netscape going to try and patent the Back button?
No, but I hear that AOL is patenting having a browser start page
Apply for something more along the lines of
"A device which circumvents the dampening of the upper layers of the epidermis and garments during periods of precipitation."
It's all in the wording.
J
An intel spokesman calling this patent `extortion' after their little go around or trying to patent the instruction set on their new chip. hmmmmmm.....
I am firm believer it karma, it is the galactic equalizer. If we wait and sit by the river for a while my guess is we will see the corpse of intel floating by.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Everyone is complaining. No?
Ultimately, their "we used a default template" website resides on Verio, probably on a leased server. best.com either owns or leases the server on Verio and resells bandwidth to subscribers. I'd look up more but I'm too tired to bother with a reverse DNS lookup. Besides, I work in the morning.
Here's the evidence:
URL: http://www.techsearch-llc.com
IP: 209.24.191.243
WHOIS entry:
Registrant:
TechSearch LLC (TECHSEARCH-LLC-DOM)
500 Skokie Blvd
Northbrook, IL 90062
US
Domain Name: TECHSEARCH-LLC.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Webmaster, Robert (RS12741) webmaster@TECHSEARCH-LLC.COM
TechSearch LLC
500 Skokie Blvd
Northbrook, IL 60062
+1 847 509 0774
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Hostmaster, Best Internet (BIH2) hostmaster@BEST.COM
Best Internet Communications, Inc.
345 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
+1 650 964 2378 www.best.com
Record last updated on 27-Jul-2000.
Record expires on 19-May-2001.
Record created on 19-May-1998.
Database last updated on 31-Oct-2000 06:27:59 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.BEST.COM 209.24.149.41
NS2.BEST.COM 209.157.102.11
NS3.BEST.COM 209.24.149.42
WHOIS entry for their web hosting firm:
Domain Name.......... best.com
Creation Date........ 2000-03-23
Registration Date.... 2000-03-23
Expiry Date.......... 2001-08-29
Organisation Name.... Verio, Inc.
Organisation Address. 8005 South Chester Street
Organisation Address. Suite 200
Organisation Address. Englewood
Organisation Address. 80112
Organisation Address. CO
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES
Admin Name........... Verio Hostmaster
Admin Address........ 8005 S. Chester Street
Admin Address........ Suite 200
Admin Address........ Englewood
Admin Address........ 80112
Admin Address........ CO
Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
Admin Email.......... hostmaster@verio.net
Admin Phone.......... 214 290 8620
Admin Fax............ 214 745 1877
Tech Name............ Verio Hostmaster
Tech Address......... 8005 S. Chester Street
Tech Address......... Suite 200
Tech Address......... Englewood
Tech Address......... 80112
Tech Address......... CO
Tech Address......... UNITED STATES
Tech Email........... hostmaster@verio.net
Tech Phone........... 214 290 8620
Tech Fax............. 214 745 1877
Name Server.......... NS1.BEST.COM
Name Server.......... NS2.BEST.COM
Name Server.......... NS3.BEST.COM
The previous information has been obtained either directly from the
registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
- Hire an IP lawyer
- Read the patent.
- Find the part that you find objectionable
- Violate the claim that you thing is invalid
- Sit back and wait
- Pay the lawyer from the first step a few million dollars.
- File suit.
Congradulations you just used the legal system to reject an accepted patent.This is the important part. You need to wait for them to find you (you can tell them if you like) and tell you that you are violating their patent you dont do anything untill they send you as cease and disist letter. If they never do, who cares? If you realy want a fight, then repeat step 4 for more claims or keep waiting. Once the do send you the letter proceed to step 6.
Ask the judge for a summery judgement ruling the patent invalid.
I have a friend who is an IP lawyer. She says that if something is not worth a million dollars it's not worth patenting because that is the minimum cost to litigate a patent infringement case.
Watch Gattaca. It's a very rosy view of the future, but Hollywood had to inject SOME home or no one woud ever watch it.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
It is possible to do defeat a large company in court. A lone inventor who created the intermittent windshield wiper and patented it was successful in getting judgments against a number of automobile companies: but he did all of the legal work himself. He is the only person I have ever heard of who was successful in doing something like that. By the way, his case was pretty good; the auto companies lifted his circuit design - down to the specific transistors used - straight from his patent and built it into their production models.
This took him many years to win, and the judges ruled against him every chance they got. Judges don't like the idea of an individual suing without a lawyer: as an article of legal extortion they think that their legal brethren deserve a cut of everything.
Short answer to your question: possible, but not probable.
Oh, just an amusing story along with it... i saw it in a forbes magazine just laying around the house, thought /.'ers should see it. Went to forbes.com, found the online version, submitted it for posting. Doesn't seem to have made it to the front page, but hey, the link's still useful.
~the Koosh man
This is not really very interesting news. We all knew that companies would commercialize the internet. And we complained. Then we knew that companies would take over the internet and restrict our rights. And we complained. But what gets me is that people don't seem to mind seeing the internet restricted more and more. They don't mind regulations. It's true. If it wasn't, people would really start doing more. They would stop talking and they would start acting.
Now, for those folks that are going to refute these claims, I have to laugh. You can talk about Open Source and the EFF all day. You can talk about how your vote counts and how you are trying to make a difference. You actions, while brave, are futile. You simply are not doing enough to combat the corporations. They feed your family and put you in a big house with a big car. You, and a huge army, would need to fight these changes to the internet. You would also need to give up on the things that comfort you. Golden handcuffs.
Cable companies will control your access to the internet. They will govern you bandwidth. They will get richer and you will be limited to seeing what they want you to see. They will think nothing of cutting you off for saying things against them. They will get warrants through the FBI and take your computers too.
Governments will regulate your transactions and they will demand to know what you are doing. They will work with Amazon and Yahoo! to kick your ass.
Medical companies will compile a huge database full of data about your genetic profile. Your medical history will be referenced to your bank account and you will denied insurance and care. You are in an at-risk group and your race will be used against you.
Oh sure, call me crazy. Tell me that I am full of shit. That's fine. My point is still hanging out there: Despite the alarms going off right now, people are rolling over and allowing corporations to control them. You rely on them for your paycheck. They babysit you. They watch you and play with you like a sad little toy.
Let's take a real example. Every day more and more web pages are created and new domains are being bought. These pages are not personal nor are they for small organizations. Instead, they are pages owned by huge corporations. Or the media. When you look for news, do you go to Jo Bob's web site? Do you trust Jo Bob? I doubt it. You will seek out the "truth" at MSNBC, CNN, ZDNet, and Yahoo.
End of Line.
So... Uh.. Sounds like they could include compressed cookies in that claim, too. How fucking rediculous. Somehow I think there are a few too many examples of 'prior art' in any claim they make that would prevent them from keeping their patent.
---
seumas.com
If this company succeeds in this latest venture, other companies are going to start buying up patents that offer even a glimmer of a payout in the millions of dollars and start flooding the court systems with infringement cases. The USPO needs to start carefully analyzing patent applications and needs to have either a public review or a panel-based review to determine whether a patent applicant is simply follwing an evolutionary path or actually a technological innovation.
The only people that are going to win in this deal are the attorneys.
-- The actual development of a "true" patent is up to big corporations or the extremely lucky.
Patents are a Bad Thing.
Ok, maybe that's an overly broad statement. The patent system was designed to encourage and reward innovation. Today it is abused to the point that not only does it discourage innovation through the fear that one may be infringing on a patent, it harms the general public by allowing government-sanctioned monopolies to be formed. Unlike copyrights (another artifact i'll get to in a minute), if you independently develop a product and someone else has already taken out a patent on it, all the work you have put into your creation is for naught, even if you have never heard of the patent, and even if the patent-owner has never actually created the invention patented.
If i had my druthers, I would see a lot of reform in our IP system, notably:
1.) Literary copyright limited to 20 years. Contrary to popular belief, the IP system was not given constitutional protection so that an author could be assured a lifetime income. It was created to ENCOURAGE AND REWARD ARTISTIC AND TECHNICAL INNOVATION!!! Obviously you have to reward innovation, or there is no incentive to create anything. However, by ensuring that the "limited times" specified in the constitution really are limited, we would encourage authors, playrights, etc. to continue innovating, rather than rest on their laurels. If they only have one good book in them, then they should really pursue other career alternatives.
2.) Software copyrights limited to 3 years. Come on. Do i really need to explain this one here?
3.) IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE NON-TRANSFERRABLE!!! License them, sure. an inventor may not always have enough capital to market his invention. But ownership of a patent should always stay with the inventor, likewise a copyright.