Slashdot Mirror
Melbourne Man Patents ... The Wheel
ssergE writes: "This article in The Age (A Melbourne, Australia newspaper) tells the story of a patent lawyer who has just recieved an Innovation Patent for a 'circular transportation facilitation device,' aka: a wheel." Of course software should be patentable. Look at how closely the patents are looked over -- clear indication that the world is ready to patent extremely complicated pieces of code. *sigh*
It's a patent for the wheel. Check out this link for the patent or this article for more information.
Well, if they had accepted my submission of this earlier today (see below), where I pointed this out in my write-up, this wouldn't be such a problem. I just guess the /. editorial staff aren't that interested in accuracy in reporting. Or maybe I've just made my way onto the submissions killfile somehow. Who knows?
2001-07-02 01:59:21 Australian Lawyer Patents Wheel (articles,patents) (rejected)
> But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product?
*NO* algorithm should be able to be patented. Else you start down the slipperly slope "Well this one algo is slightly complicated, so it should be patented as well." Where do you draw the line for "complex" algorithms. A algo may complex to the layman, but not to someone versed in the field.
Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.
>
Is that the new MS Enhanced syntax?
Alan
Do you guys even bother to read the articles that you are referring to? THIS IS NOT A STANDARD PATENT!!!. It's a new system installed in Australia to register innovations. It is accompanied by no review process, and provides no monopoly rights to the registrants. In addition the article goes on to explain that this is actually a fraudulent filing, punishable under law because the filer falsely claimed he was the inventor.
You guys are the WORST journalists on the net. This stuff makes Matt Drudge look good, for crying out loud.
Why is a novel, original, groundbreaking algorithm any less deserving of a patent than a novel, original, groundbreaking device?
Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.
Now, argue all you want about how the patent system is broken and abused, but I have yet to be convinced that novel, original algorithms fill a magic niche that set them apart from novel, original machines.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I might believe that, if he had made any comments about what might help. But he didn't; he just spouted meaningless nonsense while trashing the original poster. I tend to give more credence to the people who engage their brains before starting into an argument, even if they may not be totally correct.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
These 'Innovation Patents' are just a rubber stamp yes, BUT, having been awarded one the holder can legally claim to own the 'patent' on such device. Ergo stupidity. A 'Patent Approved' label becomes meaningless.
/. news.
Just because you disagree with the inflection of the editor does not immediately invalidate the story as
Try being constructive next time.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
20 GOTO 10
I'd love to see this go to court. And isn't it weird how funny the word patent starts to sound after you've squeezed it into a sentence 10 times? Patent patent patent....
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The problem this guy has with the innovation-registration system is that they're called patents. Hence, this fellow can claim to have patented the wheel, whereas he really only registered it as an innovation. In short, the article's claim that he recieved a "patent" is accurate; the problem is that patents in Austrailia now come in two kinds, and the article (intentionally, if one wishes to read it that way) highlights the potential for confusion between the two.
excuse me why I go patent a pointy stick
--
Free Mac Mini
These patents are defensive mechanisms. They allow you to put information in the public domain quickly. This allows you to deny a competitor a patent.
How can I sign up to be a beta tester?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
> If no one else thought of it before, then why shouldn't the inventor get a short monopoly to take advantage of it.
I agree, granting people a time-limited-monopoly to create and use their implemtnation is an acceptable compromise. i.e. They get a chance to make money on it. But after X number of years the device should become public knowledge for the betterment of society. Or at least that was the orginal *intent* with copyright, since it is not a "natural right", but a government created one.
People will argue over exactly how long "short" X means, but I'm of the opinion that 5 to 10 years (MAX) for patents and copyright is long enough. (Unlike the current perversion of 75+ years for copyright.)
> In the physical world, there's lots of simple ideas that people come up with that are relatively trivial to implement but now one thought of before,
The physical world is no different then the software world. You have 2 parts: a) an idea, b) an implementation.
The main reason I am against software patents is because it effectively says "you need permission to think."
I should be able to use *any* algorithm that I come up with on my own, irregardless if someone else has already patentend. I don't need their permission to come up with (good) ideas, and they don't "own" my ideas.
I don't have a problem with people trying to make money off their formulas (i.e. drug research find different chemical formulas) But stopping someone else because they came to the same conclusion as you, is draconian.
Cheers
Most know already the Patent system needs an overhaul, and they recently sought comments on how it should go about the changes [1 2 3] Instead of everyone being so critical of the PTO, maybe some could all get together here, start a thread on it for a day or two, then forward the highest rated submissions to them, instead of just complaining about the same things over and over.
Why doesn't Hemos, Taco, or someone else start something similar to when they ask for questions for some interview. Who wouldn't like to have their name associated with changes to the patenting system. Sure you could bitch and moan about how messed up it is, yet when they asked the public, whose only input is negativity, it's not going to get better any time soon.
My two cents/sense on it all.
Want Root?
This was not a standard patent. It is an Innovation Patent which isn't reviewed by the patent office, and doesn't grant monopoly powers over the invention. It's not entirely clear to me what good it does the holder.
Woogie
> Please explain which things in nature or human design are not the expression of, or at least expressable in, mathematical formulas.
:)
Art. Ok, so maybe ALL art can be expressed as a formula. I'm suprised somone hasn't started patenting their art yet.
> To exempt anything from a patent because it essentially involves an algorithm may be to exempt all things from patents.
An ideal goal that I support, but I don't think that's feasible at this time. The *root* of the question is, how do we make a "fair" compromise.
One of the main problems I have with the whole idea of "intellectal property" is that it effectively says you need permission to think.
e.g. I thought of this (idea) first. You can't use this idea, even if you come up with it yourself, and it doesn't matter if you never have seen my idea.
Ownership over meta-physical objects is absurd. You didn't create them, you can't destory them, so what gives you the "right" to own them?
Does that mean I believe people are free to trade digital copies of books, music, etc? No, because the artist doesn't (usually) want his stuff freely traded away.
Cheers
The guy who patented the wheel wasn't really trying to make a point that patents were too easy to get, his point was that these "Innovation Patents" should be renamed so as not to be confused with *real* patents, where prior art, etc are actually researched. These "Innovation Patents" are just rubberstamped, basically like a way to notarize them for timing purposes (should someone want to prove prior art, or that they registered the idea first in the future).
Once again Slashdot editors show their ignorance of what they are even posting.
I've just been granted the patent on Fusion, so anyone making use of any molecule beyond Hydrogen will be paying royalties, shall we form a LLC and live like kings on the backs of everyone else ??
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
And yes, I read the article. Yes, I'm an American. Regardless, the humor of the situation wasn't lost on me.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
> Who's with me: Let's patent the patent. Then we
> can eliminate the influx of needless patents by
> denying the use of patents....
You silly, silly fool. Do you think you would deny the use of patents, had you such a patent? No, you would let them be used in exchange for a 1% cut on the gross proceeds of any device sold with a patent.
In fact, you would become much more lax than the government in issuing patents, giving them out the way Willy gave out pardons. "Patent the wheel?" you'd say. "Sounds good to me."
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Don't be so bloody naive.
The American Patent Office is doing exactly what the government of the United States wants it to do. Assign rights to any and every idea to American companies to enable them to attempt to control any and all lucrative technologies.
Essentially the Patent Office is all about IP. It is actively engaged in the practice of encouraging intellectual piracy by US corporations. The sheer breadth of the obvious solutions granted patent status is impossible to comprehend unless you're prepared to drown yourself in the paperwork.
Most people are aware that the demise of the cold war has seen US government intelligence agencies focus their energies upon corporate espionage. This is designed to give US companies an advantage over foreign rivals by engaging in activies that are illegal domestically but are apparently okay when your competition is foreign.
Is it too much of a conceptual leap to understand that the US Patent Office is a piece of legal legerdemain designed to accomplish exactly the same goals?
Patents are being granted to US companies at rates that defy justification. IBM alone files thousands of patents a year. Yet the US Patent Office continues to grant patents willy-nilly to so-called 'inventions' that are clearly obvious or predated by previous work.
This isn't simple incompetence, it's deliberate culpability. Rather than a program of stupidity, beauracratic inefficiency or simple mis-understanding, it's an extremely active policy of Intellectual Piracy.
Indeed, there exists a US company (at least one) whose entire purpose is to conduct patent searches in foreign domains for new ideas with the intent of subsequently patenting these ideas in the US before the real inventor does so.
Then the US pressures foreign governements into looking kindly upon any patents which have already been 'legitimised' by the US patent office. Those governments with a shred of common sense laugh themselves silly and tell Uncle Sam to fuck off.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Intellectual Piracy. Have a nice day.
As an alternative, how about patenting the voice box? That certainly seems to be in abundance.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If other companies got ahold of this algorithm, it would level the playing field and we would no longer be the industry leader.
First, I think you're mis-using the phrase, "level the playing field". To oppose a level playing field is to oppose the idea that your competitors deserve a fair shot at success. Second, if your algorithm is that innovative, you'd probably be better off keeping it a trade secret, where others can only guess what it may be, rather than patent it, where you have to make it public knowledge (allowing similar implementations).
Patenting this is not stifling innovation, it's fostering innovation.
How surprising to hear such omething like that from someone named Win-Developer. :-)
Try getting out there in the real world and being in this situation...you'll change your tune.
Sorry, no. I am in the "real world", and I've found that I don't discard my ethics when they become inconvenient.
Even if that post was economical with the truth - which I'm not saying it was - which of these two is more plausible?
- That the patent system has been deliberately corrupted to allow big corporations - who pay massive campaign contributions - the right to patent the obvious, and small variations on prior art, in order to create legal monopolies (that's precisely what patents are).
- That this is all a big mistake, and once politicians realise it they will say "Oh, sorry for the oversight, I didn't realise the patent office was behaving contrary to the Constitution", and fix it.
Come on.If the latter, what is the "adequate explanation" relating to stupidity? I haven't seen one that I consider "adequate".
Female Prison Rape in NY
on the proccess by with two oxygen molecules are bound and made breathable, I'd be happy to license to you so WE can collect on breathing though
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Why feel sorry for that company?!
Companies don't have a RIGHT to be PROFITABLE.
As for the real world, we know society isn't perfect, but we shouldn't be keeping the status quo in place simply because "that is the way things are". We should be trying to change them. Your argument leads to a vicious circle: policies have goals which mirror the current situation, hence things never change, hence goals never change, etc.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Now that they have "The Wheel", it's likely they'll be using chariots. I hope you have pikemen already!
I know it's not what you're talking about, but it sounds like that time travelling episode of "The Tick."
They couldn't find the cavelady, who invented the wheel, to send her back to her own time. The next day's headline was: "Cavewoman Sues for Back-Royalites on the Wheel."
Don't reinvent the wheel, just pay the licence fee..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I can't understand those last few lines in the post. Then again, I'm not very good at English..
I didn't know Og the Caveman lived in oz.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'll refine that:
In other words, we should reward go-getters for going and getting, not for employing the best paralegal teams and spoiling the other guy's efforts.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
So, Dr. Thom appears to be annoyed that someone made a bit of a mockery of the flawed system. What do you think has been going on in the U.S. ever since software algorithms and business processes could be ``patented''? Better develop a thicker skin, Dr. Thom. People are going to be laughing at your process.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Um...right. Only a naive person would actually try to make a difference, rather than sit around and complain to slashdot.
Gee, I'm sure glad we have you cynics around to kick some sense into us. No reason to get up out of the chair and put forth some effort when the most effective means of protest is to whine to oneself. After all, trolling gets you karma points.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I just want to find the guy who patented leather.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
And this differs substantially from the current system?
How?
Since Australian Government has been rather clueless of late (sorry lads!), as far as Technology stuff goes, it seems to be par for the course.
But I am glad to see that:
"[...] he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other fundamental advances in civilisation"
this reminds me of that classic article from the Onion:
Secret of Fire Falls into Russian Hands
Now we got to worry about the Aussies as well.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Years and years age I read a SF short story about a guy who sucessfully patented the wheel, and thereby became rich, frightened all te big companies etc... I know that this story came from a bundle I think from the sixties, but I cannot remember who wrote it (Asimov, Clarke ???)