Slashdot Mirror
FTC Investigates Submarine Patents
Schnake writes: "An article on USAToday talks about how the FTC is investigating Sun Microsystems, Unocal, and Rambus to determine whether they illegally kept patents secret while helping set industry standards! And a quote from the ZDNet article: "It noted that all three companies had filed patent infringement lawsuits against firms they say owed them royalties. But the litigation backfired when those firms countersued, charging them with concealing their patents, and complained to the FTC.""
...piss off *everyone* (excpet corporate america)
Japan espically... about a year ago, Japanese television had an hour long program about how some patents for robotic assembly and inspection had been granted over 20 years after the patent had been accepted. If I recall correctly, there were some very devistating consequences for Japanese industral conplex.
If Japan had a military, it was the kind of issue that might start a ware.
The point that seemed to fall on deaf Japanese ears was that the paten office is inherently a political tool of the unitied states government and corporate america. This particular patent had been "submarined" for the direct purpose of secrewing the patent filer out of roalties.
So, just remember, patents don't protect the inventer. Patents exist to the benefit of corporate america and the us government... and in a country where the patent generators a systematically screwed as a routine, generic part of the culture, it seems a little disingenuious and completely unnecessary to submarine a patent.
The whole point of the patent system is openness. You only get a patent monopoly in exchange for full disclosure. So it should be easy (in principle) to find out what patents cover something you are working on. But in practice the sheer volume of patents out there is too large.
I think that a legally binding 'patent challenge' might be the answer. You should be able to send a letter to Rambus or whoever saying 'I am developing the following... please disclose whether you have any patents or patent applications which cover this area'. The company receiving the letter then has to disclose what they have patented. If they lie or keep quiet, they lose the right to sue you later on. Obviously you couldn't do this for internal R&D, but for standards bodies (where the process is open anyway) this could be a useful tool to reduce threats from submarine patents. The only question is whether it places an unreasonable burden on the patentholding company.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
That's fairly difficult as by steering things in certain directions you run the risk of revealing your ideas before they have been patented, thus increasing the prior art out there and reducing patentability.
;)
Patents were designed to do two things. One was to foster innovation by FORCING disclosure of invention (or runing the risk of having secrets stolen) and thus adding to the sum of knowledge. The other was to protect the inventor so they could profit from their invention. This is why patenting is relatively cheap (here in europe the initial patent fees are substantially below the cost to the office of dealing with them) but the recurrent annual maintainence fees increase almost exponentially towars the last few years the patent can be valid - to dissuade the patentee from holding the patent too long, especially if it turns out to be a pointless patent they aren't making money out of.
Hohum
Troc
PS Yes I am apatent examiner
PPS Here in europe you can't patent software or business methods.....
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
How is it possible to keep a patent "secret?" Aren't all patents part of the public record?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
On a side note, monopolies are legel, abused monopolies are not. Patents grant legal monopolies, abuse of patent should be prosecutable (think of
Brazil against pharmaceutical laboratories, selling remedies 10 times their costs. If it's not an abuse of monopoly, what is?).
Sure, 10 times the cost of making that one little pill, but it costs a lot to develop the drug and then you have the interest on those costs piling up for years before any revenue comes in, and you have the other failed drugs that they try to make but that never work or kill people or whatever happens.
BUT...I do agree with you, and personally I would do something like this: Make licensing fees proportional to the average incomes of the nation the drugs are being licensed to. That way, rich nations pay a boatload, and poor nations pay very little, and it is based on their "average" ability to pay. and if the costs aren't being covered, then raise the prices on everyone so that the rich nations have to pay much more proportionally.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!