Slashdot Mirror
Speak Up On Software Patents And WIPO Rules
Jim Madison writes: "Today, the Department of Commerce's United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is soliciting public comment in a Federal Register notice on the databases it uses to find prior art relevant to its examination of software-implemented business method patents. We've discussed this topic ad naseum, so here's an opportunity to make sure that policy-makers understand our perspective. Maybe slashdot mgmt. could even forward the top rated comments to them directly!"
And an unnamed reader points out that tomorrow is the due date for comments on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, which "has some crazy suggestions such as reserving domains using pharmaceutical names and bolstering the claims of commercial entities against 'cybersquatters.'"
Are there any large repositories of Open Source work that are somewhat mature? I know the Free Software Foundation has a lot of code, as do some of the linux distribution sites. I would think that these at least should be consulted.
[Congress shall have the 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;
The current "life of the author (mind you, this now include corporations) plus 100+ years" for copyrights needs serious curtailing as this is not "limited" but for any human's life... eternity. And it's been extended AND EXTENDED RETROACTIVELY every time the first Mickey Mouse cartoons were about to expire copyright and become public domain.
My solution?
(1) Copyright is 20 years from the date of creation.
(2) Copyright must belong to a person, not a corp. and must not be sellable or in any way transferrable.
(3) Copyrights may be relinquished voluntarily.
(4) Death of the author == instant relinquishment.
So cars and increased industrialization are the changes they dealt so well with back in 1910, eh? Do you really want computer tech and global corporations to be in a hundred years in the state that the auto industry and its factories are in today?
"The issues haven't changed, the only thing that is different [..are the] mediums" -- The medium is the message. You can't change the medium so dramatically and expect all the same rules to apply.
"Closed committees and closed courts need to be eliminated" -- sure, I agree.
"Patents and copyright are GOOD things" -- I don't think so, and that conclusion does not follow even loosely from any of your arguments.
Oh great, another IP story!
I can't wait until that really funny guy posts... you know, the one who always says "I have patented air and as a result you owe me all royalties.
And then there's his friend, the one who laments the idiocy of the patent office and cites the Amazon 1-Click patent.
There is a well established method for determining what is a truly novel and worthwhile contribution: peer review. The academic journals and conferences do it, and the basic principle is that the best people to evaluate a particular submission are those who actively do work in that area. It operates under the assumption that it is the professional responsibility of people to be willing to review and comment on the work of others. The right to do this could be guaranteed under law just like jury duty is protected from employers retaliation.
:-) By having people who are truly skilled in the specific art evaluating the patent applications, it would be much less likely for truly obvious things to get blocked by trivial patents. The knowledge that the patent applications are going to be subjected to such strict scrutiny would probably be enough to discourage some of the most egregious attempts to patent obvious things. This would make the volume of applications much more manageable as well.
If we must have a patent system, then it seems necessary that the patent applications be peer reviewed by real practicioners and academics in their fields and not just by the underpaid patent clerks at the PTO. They're not all Albert Einstein!
Any additional costs imposed by this system could be recovered in the form of higher patent fees. At the current time, the US patent fees are a small fraction of the attorney fees that most of us have to pay to prepare the patent.
Douglas Adams didn't have live insurance?
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
First of all, not all of the dotcoms could be considered "boondoggles." Even the many that were don't really help your point. Where did those "boondoggles" get their money? That's right, from old VCs. Who's the bigger fool?
Second, he's got a point about the people making decisions not having a good understanding of the technology they are making decisions about. They DO often believe what the lobbyists tell them. The lobbyists DO often lie. That is a problem. That's why his suggestion makes some sense.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
There's a difference between software and source code. The code is speech. The program is math.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Well, they requested public comment on the DMCA also, more than once, and did it work? We are dealing with too strong lobbies. Anyhow, if you are American, you better shout. Loud. This is a battle fought in every country. It only happens to be your time of action this time.
The same protection would be a copyright, not a patent.
Please, Intellectual Property is a mythical beast: an amalgomation of extremely different kinds of rights granted by government.
I understand the confusion though. I heard in a recent speech that IP is a business now! Perhaps changing the laws governing each of them would not be such a bad idea. Now is as good a time as any to renegotiate the deal that we (the public) made with grantees of such "properties".
...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
Why?
Copyright functions as a bribe to authors to publish creative works and have the potential to be able to license them to anyone you choose for compensation.
As far as science has been able to determine, bribes are spectacularly ineffective in inducing the dead to publish creative works.
You should help provide for your family with life insurance, with an actual estate, with pensions and saved funds that can go to them; you should not screw up the art world or deny the public who granted you the copyright in the first place their reward for their offer.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No, the payments of paychecks and the payments of copyrights are different.
When you work for a paycheck, you are contractually agreed to be paid at certain intervals for the work you've done.
The government makes no such guarantees about copyrights; you could spend your whole life making a piece of art and never get a dime for it. The government cannot compel there to be an audience for your work, or one that is willing to pay for it.
What copyright is, is the guarantee that if someone does pay for the work, they'll be paying you, and not someone else. (unless you've done something to legally involve another of course) Again that is - if anyone cares to pay.
But wait again! The government is specifically required to only make that guarantee on the condition that it promotes the arts and sciences. But your survivors were not artists (or if they were, they'd have their own copyrights) and helping them does nothing to cause you to do more work.
Copyright is not only intended NOT to help anyone but the artist, or at least someone who has bought it off the artist, but is too much of a crap shoot to have your family rely upon anyway. If you're worried about them, get life insurance, and save your money, and try not to die. It works better for everyone.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Why not have something similar to RFP postings on the net?
Somebody who believes that they deserve a patent should be able to approach the USPTO who will then post the patent application on the net for comment. This will be useful for exposing prior art issues.
Here's why: obviously (who doesn't know this?
This will have two effects:
Will this cause many things that are currently being patented to instead be kept as trade secrets? Certainly. But I would say that such things should be trade secrets or, more appropriately, shouldn't be patented -- if it's obvious/trivial enough that it doesn't deserve a patent, then why should the patent office and the public waste their time looking at it in the context of a patent application? If it's that obvious/trivial, then someone else can implement it easily enough.
As for those things that are deserving of a patent but which would instead be kept as trade secrets, I'd remind you that individuals/companies already have the option of keeping anything they invent a trade secret. The system I describe would simply move the line between "better to be kept trade secret" and "better to patent" towards the former. Right now, as I believe is obvious to most of us, the line is skewed very much towards "better to patent" and the end result is a multitude of frivolous patents.
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
While we're patenting things, beware if your want to sell something. I now hold the patent on exchanging money for goods or services. Using money, instead of bartering, is here by decreed as a unique and non-obvious way of doing business.
From now on all exchanges of money for goods/services owe me a 5% royalty. This includes filing taxes. Making said exchange via the internet is subject to a 10% royalty, because it is even less obvious than doing it in person.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
If you want to protect your family's financial interests in the event of your unexpected death, you should take out life insurance like everyone else, NOT look to the government to subsidize your family by granting them an unearned copyright monopoly at the public expense.
I would disagree with (4) for a different reason however. If copyrights expired upon an author's death, this would provide an incentive for rival publishers, and targets of copyright infringement lawsuits to murder successful authors.
Or, alternately, zero-click shopping. Here's how it works:
Each item on the screen has a "buy it now" icon next to it. By moving the mouse pointer over the icon, you automatically purchase the item.
The only drawback is that one must be very careful in moving the cursor around the screen.
remeber Walmart-sucks--this-is-not-walmarkt.com is confusingly simular to walmart.com
Grey (Chris Lusena)
Isn't that a little bit like "guilty until proven innocent?" If so, it's certainly -- metaphorically speaking -- a violation of the *spirit* of the Constitution, which was, if I am not mistaken, to *limit* the power of the government.
This little clause seems to go the other way, saying that the government (in the form of the Constitutionally established Patent office) *must* act, unless it can be shown that there is a reason for it *not* to.
At what point did the government move from *allowing* patents to *requiring* them?
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
You are confusing the map and the territory. Software is *not* just "textual representation of numbers and mathematical formulas*, it is the *action* which *operates utilizing* the numbers and the mathematical formulas. By your definition, "thinking" is equivalent to "sucking your thumb" since they both use the action of the brain to accomplish a task. Clearly, to both you and me, "internal cogitation" is not equal to "external thumb wetting". Unless you externalize what you are thinking (via voice, say), it *appears* that the external action (hardware) accomplishes something and the internal action (software) does not. Thus, by your definition, thumb-sucking would be patentable and thinking would not be. But, as humans, we know that the output of thought is *just as important* as the wetting of thumbs, so your idea does not hold as much water as your thumb might. 8^D
Okay, I've just read what I wrote (mmm...reading...software...) and I guess it might be confusing if you can't make the telelogical distinction. Let me try another tack.
Think of software as being a machine built out of information. So is a novel. But software is a *special kind* of a machine, because it acts and has a telelogical (er, "tool-using") effect in the world that the novel does not. All the novels in the world piled up one on top of the other are just a pile of unliving paper and cannot cause as much action as a tiny software machine that can take the input of "2+2" and give you back the output of "4". Do you see the difference?
[This gets us around the 'software is patentable *because* it can be turned into hardware' argument. Unfortunately, this argument can also be used to justify the 'therefore DNA is patentable because it *does stuff*' argument. However, in my view, DNA is *specifically NOT patentable* because it is pre-existing in nature and hence represents Nature's prior art. The mere re-combination of pre-existing patterns does not, to my view, necessarily qualify as 'something new'. If that were so, someone would have already tried to patent "sex" -- and succeeded. But I digress...]
So, to conclude, software, to the unknowing, simply looks like a stream of letters and numbers -- hence the idea that, since it may be an *original* stream, that it is *at least* free speech. But software is *special* in that it also, situated in the proper hardware context, can *do* things (i.e. achieve a telelogical result independent of its creator). I hope that I have made myself clear; to wit, used the telelogical function of language by combining pre-existing patterns to cause a meaningful result in your brain independent of myself -- *without* therefore asserting that I have a right to patent "language". Yes?
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
(2) Copyright must belong to a person, not a corp. and must not be sellable or in any way transferrable
(4) Death of the author == instant relinquishment.
This follows logically from point 2, but it could have unexpected consquences. e.g. A corp might decide that if they can't own a copyright then making it public domain, through murder, is an alternative.
Period. Without passing upon the merits of your solution, they are irrelevant to the question at hand. Entirely.
The USPTO has no authority to change the term of the patents they issue. None. That is set forth in the Patent Act, and is not subject to interpretation by the USPTO.
Godwin's law, indeed. Remarks such as that --including the insistance that it is "legitimate" to suggest the USPTO compliance with the United States Patent Act somehow corresponds or can even be related to the Holocaust-- evidence the absence of seriousness with which some people treat the argument.
Such offensive comments, and mindless adherence to a conclusion regardless of the merits, only lead to further marginalization of the anti-patent movement. You should be ashamed of yourself.
. . . any response to a request for comments about databases addressing the subject matter for patentability would be taken seriously at all?
Look, the USPTO has absolutely no say at all as to the scope of patentable subject matter. None, nada bupkis. Zero.
The United States Patent Act provides in Sections 101, 102 and 103 the criteria for patentability, and the USPTO has no authority to deviate from that. Not one inch. Nor are they given authority to interpret the statutes independently of the United States Judiciary.
The only time they deviated from statutory requirements recently, regarding examination of means plus function language, the Commissioner had his a** handed to him in an unequivocal swat on the derriere.
So, give these guys a break. They don't decide whether or not to examine software patents -- their only rule they applied (it was a no software patent rule!) was held improper in the Supreme Court case of Diamond v. Diehr.
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have spoken, and theirs is the authoritative decision. The only way they can be overruled is by an act of Congress.
So leave these poor bureaucrats alone. Your remarks about the propriety of granting software patents will AND SHOULD fall on deaf ears there.
On the other hand, if you were inclined to do something usful or constructive, you could help them out by proposing decent databases from which to examine present applications, and thereby improving the quality of examination.
I'd be willing to bet that your opinion and mine differ greatly.
:-)
Not true. I agree with you 100%
A dingo ate my sig...
Professors and students from separate Universities would be less biased then having hordes of corporate drones come up with a solution. Sure you will find many people who are biased, but I would rather see a slew of business, ethics, and legal students and Professors resolve this problem than a slew of IBM, MickeySoft, Sun employees.
Want Root?
The answer to that is relatively old, at least with respect to chemicals. Just because something would be interesting to study, does not make it patentable. I would expect the patent office to adhere to that answer until forcibly dislodged.
There have been many patents that have passed on these notions as it stands. My argument would be to keep that in place for those who have ideas, but those who possibly don't have the resources to test it, nor the current need to test it.
Why should big corporations solely be allowed to hold a patent if they have the resources to show proof of a concept, but say the little person @ home with an idea, be restricted because he cannot show `just cause' for his patent?
Patents, remember were designed to provide a framework to continually go forward in technology, not something you one creates for the sake of placing their arms around it and stating "Give me one million dollars for my idea or I'll sue."
Want Root?
The law requires that a patent be granted for an invention unless USPTO can establish, typically based on prior art references, that the invention is not new or that it is obvious when viewed in the context of what is already known in the technology. Additionally, the invention must have a concrete, tangible and useful result, and how to make and use the invention must be disclosed.
What if someone were to discover something they thought would be relative towards future improvements in technology, would they be denied a patent should they not be able to demonstrate its use?
Sorry to say but I see the office is doing one of a few things, 1) trying to avoid doing the proper jobs they're already paid to do 2) looking to pass blame should they be criticized for something in the future. Could be they just don't understand technology enough, and with all the crappy patent suits around their looking around for an answer which could be a bad reason, for reasons following.
Suppose programmers at IBM set out to comment on things which would typically affect the scale to IBM's interest. Wouldn't be fair now would it. Or if it were Microsoft or someone other company, contractor. Personally I think what they should do is have an educational institution of Professors, and students come up with a resolution to their problems, on both the technological side of things, as well as a legal aspect of it to avoid future scrutiny.
Leaving it up to the community in my eyes is a bad idea, since humans being humans will generally tend to have biased views whether they realize it or not.
Want Root?
The only property worthy of the name is tangible property. If you cannot put a fence around it or put chains on it or lock it up in some manner, it does not belong to you. Once it is released to the world, it belongs to nobody or to everybody. There are tens of millions of copies of Windows and MS Office being used freely around the world right now and there isn't a damn thing Microsoft can do about it. The Brazillian goverment in now using patented AIDS drugs to help AIDS victims without sending a cent to the patent holders. Information (ideas, music, software, formulas, inventions, writings, etc...) wants to be free and will be free. There is no stopping it.
IP owners must rely on powerful police states to force people to comply. Only big-brother type governments can enforce them. The only way to defeat IP laws is to copy it all, download it all and use it all for free! I especially recommend that all third world nations completely and immediately disregard all intellectual property laws that have kept them enslaved to the first world. We are one world sharing one planet. Let us share a little with our brothers and sisters. Let us stop being so damn selfish for just a little while.
You may ask, "what are artists, inventors and programmers going to do for a living?" My answer is that the system must be changed. What is everybody going to do when AI and advanced robotics replace everybody? We need a system based, not on labor, but on everybody being guaranteed an inheritance in the earth, a piece of the pie, an estate if you will. What we do with our piece is up to us. Such a system would ensure a totally free market, the way it was supposed to be. No more slavery, no more sucking up to those who exploit us. Real freedom!
Demand Liberty! Nothing less!
Not sure how you don't understand? ... Bingo.
Here's an easy analogy:
When was the last time an author's book was protected under Free Speech? That's right, they all are.
How about the last time an author's novel was patented
-Mith
--
I'm not so sure this is in earnest - I'm under the impression that the government stopped caring about patents a long time ago.
However, if they ARE going to be accepting public input on prior art, this is absolutely wonderful. Finally, a weapon against Stupid Patents©.
What possibilities for abuse are here, though? Could someone not forge prior art to debunk a legitimate patent? Especially with the digital, things get a little slippery there.
Nonono...you've got it wrong. You need to be suing the people who patent Stupid Patents© - I haven't patented anything that I know of.
Besides, I'm sure I can find prior art on your Stupid Patent©...not that it'll make any difference.
If they're doing this already then I'll be damned - I can't find anything on their website that lets me review patents about to be granted.
The problem is not that there is a lack of understanding about technology or the internet, but rather a lack of a system that is effective in consulting experts in whatever field is necessary. If you bring in experts for internet-related matters, you leave out experts in chemistry, physics, engineers, the medical field, biology, etc. As science advances, we need to have a system in place that embraces these new developments as they come out, not after they have wreaked complete havoc on our processes with their archaic way of dealing with the relics of the past.
Oh, I'm sorry. Did I hit are a nerve? Are you one of those script kiddies? It is descrimination, and that's a good thing.
If you don't think it is, why don't you try posting something a little more convincing than all caps and a demonstration of how the majority of your vocabulary contains four letters.
Got Rhinos?
This from the only guy whose web site is more outdated than Linus's
Got Rhinos?
What exactly is "our" perspective? I'd be willing to bet that your opinion and mine differ greatly.
has some crazy suggestions such as reserving domains using pharmaceutical names and bolstering the claims of commercial entities against 'cybersquatters.Am I the only person who doesn't like the idea of some script kiddie going in and reserving every trademarked name as soon as the new TLDs arrive? "First come, first served" is a terrible way to run anything, because some punk kid gets everything in the first fifteen minutes and then ransoms them. Yeah, it's real funny when it's Microsoft or Verizon, but what if it was VA Linux?
Got Rhinos?
I demand that you stop using the word "proactive".
Got Rhinos?
The consensus on Slashdot is that patents are evil tools of corporate greed
The only consensus I've ever seen on slashdot is that we can't agree on anything. Try it at home: get 10,000 people in a room and try to find something they all agree on.
You know how dumb the average guy is? Well, by definition, half of them are even dumber than THAT.
You know how dumb the average guy is? Well, by definition, half of them are even dumber than THAT.
-- J.R. "Bob" D
Do we have a open source project registry the USPTO can use when doing scans for prior art for software and business patents? Such a registry should list (a) the goals of the project, (b) relevant dates, (c) related technologies, (d) techniques used, and (e) business processes which the software automates. If the registry contained an extensive cross-references to other projects, and yes, other patents (by number) it would be even more valueable to the PTO.
In short, if we want to do our part to stop stupid patents... we should be helping the PTO along... no? Otherwise we should just keep quiet and deal with the results.
---
Personally, I prefer the term 'synergy'
"The real comment I think everybody has is: Software should not be patentable. "
/. We do have our own opinions.
The real comment I think everybody has is:
different than your real comment.
Lets not make big heterogenous lumps of everybody just because they read
It's clear that any government office in the US is managed by older men and women, most of which probably don't know much more than how to turn a computer on and get email. These are the people making decisions that affect us technologically savvy people and our jobs. Lobbyists tell them what they want to know, and as we've seen with RIAA and other large groups, they get their way even if they're not telling the truth.
What the government needs, including USPTO, is people that specifically deal with technology - people that understand this stuff like many of the fine people that use Slashdot everyday. We can't know everything about all the patents for technology, but we might have better insight as where to start.
I've only used the USPTO databases (rather, the public accessible databases) a few times - just for curiosity's sake - but I know that the information dealing with technology can be gotten. You just have to know what you're looking for. Joe Smith who uses AOL might not understand the technology behind the patent pending technology, so he's not going to know where to start. Now, CowboyNeal sees the technology and investigates it further (or perhaps already knows about it because of the fast-paced Slashdot News service) and know exactly (or close to) where to start looking.
This isn't a be-all, end-all solution, but it's something the government definitely needs to think about as a whole. We need people that understand technology making policy on technology lest we patent and put a stop to everything technological so that no one can innovate ideas based on current innovations or use technology to better this world (like multilingual DNS).
I just ran across this story, which pretty much lays out the debate in the biotech area.
Having a combined 10 patents and patents pending, I think I have some perspective on this.
The best change to the prior-art system would be to open up potential patents for examination by the public before they are granted, and give some limited public comment time for identification of prior art in the public domain. (Please note, prior art not in the public domain is a whole different kettle of fish, I won't go into here.)
That said, such a change in the system would certainly exceed the authority of the USPO to do on its own. It would have to be done as an act of Congress.
Within the limited scope of just database management issues, I think the USPO could reasonably argue that Web Search Engines are extremely useful in finding prior art, and that at the very least, these should be consulted prior to issuing any patent.
There are actually a host of other data gathering mechanisms that aren't http based that the USPO could also use as data sources for prior art. I think these could be adopted within the normal bounds of federal administrative guidelines.
I havent read the RFC, and am not addressing the merits of this, but I was an examiner in the PTO starting in 1973. As indicated, software patent applications had been routinely rejected as not patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 for years. One applicant, Benson, appealed the PTO's Board of Appeals Affirmance of the Examiner's rejection to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (who's jurisdiction was assumed by the then newly created Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit around 1981). It was the CCPA, and successor CAFC that has been the driving force to change this position of the PTO, and they reversed the PTO's rejection. Now, the PTO convinced the Justice department to Appeal the CCPA reversal, a relatively rare occurance. The Supremes took the case, and reversed the CCPA, thus upholding the PTO's rejection.
The CCPA was not to be defeated; they looked at US vs. Benson as narrowly as possible, and , when several successive cases arose, they reversed the office almost every time this issue came up. There was no way that the PTO would be allowed to take every case up to the Supremes, and a much slimmer chance that the Supremes wanted to revisit Benson, so, case by case, Benson was whittled away. When the governing authority says you lose, you lose. So, the PTO just bent over and took it.
The only way to change this is by changing the law, i. e. Congress. Got cash? A lotta cash?
Of course, given that the current state of US patent law favors software patents as patentable subject matter the software still must comply with the anticipation issues under 35 USC 102 and obviousness under 35 USC 103, and my comment does not address this.
Most hardware shouldn't be patentable either.
It's the "obvious" principle that gets me. Take a class of grad students in the appropriate field, describe to them the problem, and let them work on it a day. They'll come back with one main solution, two or three lesser ones, and a couple off the wall. The one main solution and two or three lesser solutions qualify as "obvious" and shouldn't be patentable. We've all seen cases where such solutions were patented anyhow.
There was some discussion about the patentability of software - at the time (1995?) software patents weren't easy to come by. (At least that's what it seemed like - I was the only non-lawyer there, and I'm still a programmer.)
The argument posited by a young attorney there basically was as follows:
Software is basically programmable hardware - i.e., anything that is stored as software could have also been burned directly into the circuitry of a computer. Circuitry and computer hardware -is- patentable; hence, any person that wanted to patent software could in principle place it into the circuitry in the hardware. The fact that a program is stored on magnetic disks is simply a convenience for updating the software.
So his argument basically came down to the notion that if you could patent hardware that did the same thing as software, patenting software makes sense for everyone.
Interestingly, noone at the conference had any questions after his presentation. I don't think anyone had even considered the ramifications of what he was talking about - or even cared back then.
I'd be interested in counterarguments to this line of reasoning . . .
Ok..so here we have one of the big problems: who gets to define what the above bolded phrase means?
They are looking for prior art sources for business method patents with the above stipulations; however, things that those of us here on
This is pretty much along the same lines. I'm not sure how a PM can make a determination about the usefulness of a "one-click"-like "invention" (BTW, I've come up with a one-fart online shopping system where controlled percussive explosions from the rectum are used to activate an onscreen goods transaction service....where's my patent? This is perfect for shoppers who just can't let all that bathroom time go to waste). It's hard enough for the marketplace to do make those evaluations with the speed of change these days. What about all the crap the failed plopcoms may have patented that turned out to be unviable? Does that mean that the patent office was in error in granting patents for those "inventions"? And we've all seen how "clear" some of these companies make the section in the applications about "how to make and use the invention" which pretty much gives them a King Kong-sized (sorry about all the monkey references) umbrella under which to sue others for infringement.
Wouldn't some sort of distributed peer review process be a much more sane way for "software-implemented business method patents" to be scrutinized, rather than a database entry and a PM with a typewriter?
Luckily, the inevitable Technology Assessment Committee(tm) (read: lobbyist super-party-disco-fun-time(also tm)) that the politicians will put together to decide on these issues will straighten eveything out for us.
You know, if you're going to simply cut and paste your previous rants, you might at least use some cute fake html tags.
But, nitpicking aside, you're "Intelectual Property is bunk" position still fails to address the obvious question of what will motivate organisations such as drug companies to develop new treatments if they cannot recover costs, let alone make a profit.
And as someone said before "Since you can't put a fence around your bank balance, does that mean that I can have it?"
Man I hope I didn't just waste my time feeding a troll...
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
So if you were to die today would you expect your family to recieve you last paycheck? The work was done therefore there should be some replayment.
I do agree that the lenght of time on a copyright need not be so long. I think that 10 - 20 years is more than ample.
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
Well I'm going to assume that you know more about copyright than I do. And yes I understand that copyright doesn't guarantee the payment. However, if people are still willing to pay for the work then I would think that the artist or his family should benift from it.
Example. My brother has recently published a book. He has no intention of supporting his family with this writing. But on the other hand if he was to die tomorow I would hope that the profits made by the sale of his book and the use of his work would be reimbursed. Yes the copy right should expire. No I don't know how long that should be. Personaly I think that is something that is hard to decide. I for one am not willing to say that people should no longer have to pay for your years of work after X number of years. But thats just me.
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
I would have to disagree with this part. If I publish a book and then die the next day, my family should benifit from the work I did...
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
"Maybe slashdot mgmt. could even forward the top rated comments to them directly!"
:)
Submit all the +5 Funny comments, I can see it now. I'm sure that's likely to spawn a senate oversight committee. How come I can't rate the stories too? Just the comments...
---
Hammer of Truth
Okay, I'm generally pretty cynical, but there was a UK request for comments six or so months ago. I spent a few minutes filling out thier questionaire and, eventually, their patent office issued their official recomendation and my name was on the list of contributers. Pretty cool.
Of course, there are differences.
I guess if I get around to commenting on this I'd push for a database that allowed the very least amound of flexibility in how a business method patent could be interpreted. In other words, don't let companies fish for related applications for thier (IMHO) bogus business applications.
Second, make sure that the database links to whatever databases already exist in the patent office so that any application that comes through that is basically a copy of some "real world" patent but has the words "computer, internet, wireless, or web" attached to it is immediatly tossed out the window.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
For heavens sake slashdot make up your mind! I cant count the number of times that it has been repeated again and again that code is artistic expression. Slashdot insists that it is Free Speech and should not be restricted (ie DECSS). Now that it is convenient for Code to be "fancy math" with just the whim of a moderator or to Code turns into "fancy math". So which is it slashdot: Math or Free Speech?
"The code is speech. The program is math."
I would think it is just the opposite.
The code is just algorithms (math) but the program is the art (speech). Take DECSS, the code is just an algorithm but the program is making a statemnet hence it is speach.
Finally, a weapon against Stupid Patents©.
I own the patent on Stupid Patents©. You should be hearing from my lawyer by morning...
-----
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Since all software is basically textual representation of numbers and mathmatical formulas, wouldn't software patents be equivalent of patenting Math so that nobody could use formulas without paying royalties?
Just thinking outloud again.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Add a Update to this posting and invite the following:
Users can submit a comment, as AC or under there normal account, with a Subject of "petition"
Then each user adds there comments they wish to be included.
Each user signs his/her name && address (city/province/country would suffice). Possibly including some credentials (education/experience/knowledge/position-at-work)
Then our faithful editors will do a "select body from comments where topic = '%this_story%" and subject = 'petition'" (or somesuch). Our Editor friends can then print out these comments, collectively write a thesis outlining the major points against the USPTO land grab, a description of Slashdot (its purpose/history/reputation/etc). Append our 'petition' comments and fire it off to the USPTO..
I know were not supposed to take this site too seriously, but all 'preaching to the choir' that goes on here I believe is not very productive. This could be an opportunity for Slashdot's forums to actually try and amount to something - other than our amusement. Not everyone will take the time to write a major article and mail it to the USPTO - we know that... but based on the responses that this article will likely illicit, maybe we can get the Slashdot editors to agree to do something constructive on our behalf...
I will reply to this message below as an example to be included.
Now we'll finally get to find out what the Slashdot community think about these issues! I swear, I've been around here for over a couple of years and nobody seems willing to put forward an opinion on either. About time, editors!
(Here endeth the sarcasm...)
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
If the USPTO improved their research capability with regard to prior art, what would all those IP lawyers do with all the free time they'll suddenly have? Once all this input is hathered by the USPTO, and they make recommendations to improve their system, they'll draft a budget with a line item for making the recommended improvements. Mark My words, Lobyists for the IP Lawyers will be out in force trying to get the budget cut, vecause after all, if they could do adequite research into Prior Art, The current torrent of IP lawsuits will be reduced to a trickle. What ever would the lawyers to with themselves?
Here's hopeing they jump out of a top floor window.
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Nice to see the USPTO making an effort to improve things. I for one will be submitting my comments ASAP. Here's hoping they will a) listen and b) take proactive steps to improve a process we all know is broken.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Yah, unfortunately you're sooo right...
Long live America (I mean it, not just sarcastically)
"Piter, too, is dead."
What kind of revenue stream would you generate for yourself from yourself as a result of being awarded this patent?
Meanwhile, the world turns foolishly on and ants tickle his butt.
Cybersquatters is quite a broad brush to paint those that register web domains. They need to work on what exactly a squatter is and not any joe schmoe that regs something like aimster and gets in trouble because the word AIM is in there.
By the way, you'd expect to see a WIPO troll post by now. I guess those trollers got some sense knocked into them.
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
Either some tech-savvy people should be assigned to these review these patent applications, or we should have a Geek Jury Duty that randomly chooses professional techies to do reviews for either prior art or just plain idiocy (i.e. one click patent), and force them to swear to secrecy lest they lost all bandwidth for life.
That said, I think I would rather see students and professors rather than corporations fill this sort of role. I tend towards their bias more.
Brandon
Ah but if you think software should be patentable you are posting to the wrong website. Software patents are real unpopular here.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
World Intellectual Property Association? Are you sure this isn't just Microsoft Astroturf?
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
If a person has to show how the device works/is constructed/is made in order to get a patent, then why don't they have to publish source code? I'm sure this isn't true, but I'm not sure why...
I'm a concientious
How can you be sure that the right members of the public are going to be looking at the proposed patent during that critical week? Most people have better things to do than work as patent examiners for no pay, and the people who don't may not have the knowledge to recognize either obviousness to one skilled in the art or prior art when they see it.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
It looks like Amazon already patented using databases to hold examples of prior art, and Rambus has, actually, already patented the U.S. Patent Office.
I envision many IP lawsuits for this story as a result.
In my opinion this is a disaster for the patent system. The idea of patents is that the government grants a 20 year monopoly in return for a full disclosure of the invention. So why would the government do this when they seem so opposed to monopolies? The benefits of full disclosure outweigh the 20 year cost: advancing research, allowing others to compete after the 20 year period, encouraging investment in expensive R&D for eg medicines. Without these benefits, the inventor would pursue the invention (if at all) as a trade secret, which has some legal protection but does not advance society in any way. Coca-Cola, for instance, has been protected for over 100 years by going down the trade-secret route.
So what's the problem with publishing applications before they are granted? Simply that if the application is not granted, there is then no possibility of protection as a trade secret - it's public knowledge. So what then? Simply put, inventors won't try to patent inventions, but will keep them as trade secrets. Imagine what the world would be like today if some of the life-changing inventions of our times were mystery black boxes, with no possibility for development apart from by the inventor. If the transistor was a trade secret, we'd all be using AT&T 1MHz computers today. Is that something we really want? The patent system isn't really there for 1 click-ordering, it's about the cure for cancer and HIV, quantum computing, and transport systems that defy our current understading of physics. Can't we live with Amazon's stupidity for those?
Think about what you've proposed. I think this is what will happen:
I don't think that's what I want to see.
Software is nothing more than fancy math, really. And the USPTO established long ago that math could not be patented. The first "software" patent was issued on a chemical manufacturing process that included a software program on a computer to control the process.
Unfortunately, the validity of software patents was never successfully challenged, and here we sit with morons like Amazon patenting one-click shopping. And the USPTO thinks that if we can somehow find a better database to prove that someone else had one-click first, they'll somehow improve?
Here's a database suggestion for them: Google.