Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Nonsense

Posted by michael on from the emperor-has-no-clothes dept.

ziriyab writes: "This article from The Guardian, after a few paragraphs of corporation bashing, gives an interesting history of two countries (Switzerland and the Netherlands) who flourished without IP laws. The article, while not necessarily suggesting that the abandonment of patent protection is an essential precondition for development, seems to indicate that it can, in the right circumstances, be an effective tool."

19 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Small scale... by cliffy2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although such things can work in a small nation... one really wonders whether or not such findings can translate to the larger scale of the United States. Interesting, nevertheless.

    1. Re:Small scale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      small nation? scale?

      do you think something like in the netherlands, there are just living some happy freaks? big traders ever been, colonists, seafarers. highest population per area in europe. caused by that, best infrastructure in the world, I guess.

      Placed between london and switzerland, at the river rhine which comes through a "few" other cities. which is a quite small area, but this is the economic and overpopulated heart of the whole EU (and switzerland, of course).

      This "small nation" is in the middle of one of the largest scales on earth. And scales very well.

      And no, I'm not an orange one.

      but much of this bullshit in the world is just not needed. and the netherlands are very pracmatic in those cases, IMHO.

  2. The Patents Occur in the U.S. by isa-kuruption · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although a patent system does not exist in Finland or Sweden, all Finnish companies who sell their product do so internationally and will file patents with the U.S. Patent Office (e.g. Nokia). Since countries that want to trade with the U.S. must obey U.S. patent laws, a patent given in the U.S. is still good in Finland. This means that the Finnish government gives assistance to the U.S. if they believe there is a patent violation from someone in Finland.

  3. No easy answers... by Yoda2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is such a tough call because both sides have merit. If you invent something, you don't want someone in a 3rd world country (or anyone else for that matter) taking it from you and marketing it at cut-rate prices. On the other hand, if you're in a 3rd world country how can you ever expect to get your foot in the door when you're competing with big business?

    Sorry, no cool links an no easy answers on this one.

  4. A bit idealistic by ari{Dal} · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find this author's view to be a rather idealistic one. After all, the situations he's mentioning are two isolated cases, founded on the success stories of a few very specific companies.
    What about all the companies that have flourished because of patents? And all the other countries that seem to be doing quite well WITH the systems in place?
    I'm the first to admit that some patents are just plain silly (one-click, anyone?), and that the system needs a serious overhaul, especially in the US. But to totally do away with it?
    I don't think a few isolated examples from the last century makes a good case for doing away with patent laws.
    In one place he says:
    This tool has been denied to poor nations, partly as a result of energetic lobbying by the very companies which once made use of it. .
    While i'm all for helping developing nations (and I think cheap medical supplies, drugs, and genetically enhanced food crops should be available to anyone, patents be damned), I don't see patents as being the cause of all their troubles. I find it very unlikely that a lifting of patent laws on underprivileged countries would fix all their problems. It may alleviate some issues, but it won't fix much in the long run.
    He could better spend his time focusing on how to get these countries the cheap food and medical sources they need, rather than putting forth examples of 'patentless society'.

    --
    Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
    1. Re:A bit idealistic by jonricketson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the point is that with no need to worry about patents they could produce their own drugs, and they could produce their own crops. Various seed companies (Syngenta -was Novartis- and others) have patented the basic crops that these countries grow, or genetically modified versions of them, and forced them to grow them and pay for them because now these companies also own 90% of the seed distribution companies around the world. These countries have very few options.

      This author is not suggesting that the US, UK or Australia do away with its patent laws, but is suggesting instead that they not be forced on countries that would do better without them. Like South Africa, who recently had a three year battle in the courtroom to develop cheap AIDS drugs, so that they could medicate their population. Patents and free trade could very well be the cause of all their troubles.

  5. Copyrights by kb3edk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, it's shocking! "Intellectual property" violations have been going on for many years...

    1859: Ciba steals aniline dye process from the British

    Well, then not much has changed:
    1984: Compaq duplicates IBM BIOS and clones the PC

    And I'm sure you could come up with even more compelling examples since then. The whole concept and exploitation of "intellectual property" is just a rational concept that companies employ to increase profit. Can you imagine the bonuses that get passed around when a pharmaceutical company wins a big patent decision?

  6. Somewhere in the middle, please by Fiver-rah · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The point here is not that we should completely scrap patent laws. The point is that we should be wary about what we start labelling "intellectual property". There are two extremes. One has no protection whatsoever. So people lose a major incentive (profit) to produce new works. This is bad for society. But the other extreme is one in which everything is so tightly controlled that the great new works which are invented can't be disseminated to the people who need them (case in point: as mentioned in the article, the countries that really need it--African nations with 20-30% HIV positive rates can't use the AIDS drugs).

    There's no point in creating a multitude of useful and interesting things if nobody ever gets to use them. Somwhere between these two extremes is something that approaches sanity. Unfortunately, we seem to be cheerfully careening down the path towards over-control.

    --
    Read Bujold. Free (as in
  7. Re:This is just stupid... by Mr+Windows · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No, the article is about patents, which are very different from copyright.

    Patents require disclosure of an invention (in full detail), have to be applied for, and are time-limited (they last for 17 years after being granted, IIRC). Copyright applies to the expression of ideas (actually, to any tangible expression of anything; writing, sheet music, musical performances, etc.), are automatic and last until 70 years (YMMV) after the author's death (different rules apply to companies, of course).

    Most software doesn't have patents applicable to it (about the only examples I can think of are MP3s (Fraunhofer own the compression algorithm) and GIFs (Compuserve, now Unisys, I think, own the compression algorithm), but all software is subject to copyright, unless explicitly made public domain (very different from open source, but you knew that). So doing away with (eg) software patents would have next to no effect on the software industry. Some would say that doing away with copyright would have similar impact, but that's more contentious :)

  8. The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense by ragmana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't skip those first few paragraphs. While there is a bit of a bias, the article talks about the sale of cheap medicines to third world countries. It's true that large, highly profitable companies are outpricing these nations on things they need.

    When will some people recognize that some rights - like food and medicine, i.e., basic health and survival - trump capitalism, intellectual property, and other protections which are fine to call "rights" in prosperous nations but do not deserve that designation in the Third World?

    1. Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense by Mr+Windows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny how selling cheap "generic" versions of AIDS treatments to African nations was regarded as a Bad Thing, but that buying cheap generic versions of anthrax treatments is a Good Thing. Whoops! There goes that drawbridge again!

    2. Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You obviously have thought about this topic before. I figured you original post was just a knee-jerk reaction to corporate greed. But your statements are clear, reasoned, and most of all, consistent. (Are we still on Slashdot here?)

      That being said, I disagree with much of your arguments, and feel others are not relevent.

      First, saying that drug companies won't lose a dime means nothing to drug companies, or almost any other company. They expect a profit for their product and effort. They expect more profit for more product and more effort. This is to cover their earnings statements for stock prices, and to make it worthwhile from the "can we get sued for anything" standpoint. These two concerns alone will keep companies from voluntarily giving drugs/medicines without proper profit.

      So my solution to this predicament isn't to force them to give away their product for low prices. It is to revamp the stock market and litigation process. Then when these two stumbling blocks are gone, strongly encourage companies to be more giving of cheap drugs.

      Second, you are right, that was a bad joke. But if the end-result of your plan is more deaths in the third world, would you accept the blame? You don't think that would happen, but what if it did? All too often, people with your viewpoint never even think about this. But it is a possibility, it should be mentioned, debated, and talked about.

      Third point, No, medicine is not a right. Why do you think it is everyone's right to have an artificial chemical made halfway around the world? Was it their right before the drug was invented? Of course not. But just because the drug _is_ invented, people have an inate right to it? I don't follow the reasoning. (Notice, I do agree that you have reasoned this out, as I mentioned above. But I just can't see the link you do.)

      And as far as "medicine=survival", I don't accept that as a reason for anything else you suggest. Have you seen the trailers for that new movie "John Q", about a boy who needs a heart transplant, but the family can't afford it? Are you willing to pay for every heart transplant in the world? Because "heart=survival" is certainly more definite that "medicine=survival". But if you want every medical need to be given to everyone who can't afford it, who will pay for it? You are talking about a social health system, which won't work for long. Just ask the French who had the privilege of having a Doctor's Strike a couple months ago. Check this link.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/euro pe/news id_1777000/1777952.stm
      The US may not have everything right, but at least I can count on doctors to be at their office, waiting to take my money.

      Now for the kicker. I personally don't believe there are 'inalienable human rights'. For anyone. You have the right to that which you would fight for if pressed. I have the right to own land, because I will fight to defend it. I have the right to my my books and toys for the same reason. The government doesn't have the power to give me this right, only I do. I don't have the right to live, (which some people have told me very clearly) nor the right to liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness. That is just so much paternal mumbo-jumbo from a group that was trying to throw off tyranny. The Bill of Rights enshrines certain ideals that are termed "rights", but the government tramples those rights all the time. The concept of human rights is used by anyone who has an agenda they need to force on someone else. The universal cry is "But it's my/his/her/their right."

      I like Heinlein's take on it in the novel "Starship Troopers". If you are floating in the middle of the ocean, slowly sinking under the waves, where is your 'right' to live? Will the waves not drown you, because you have a right to life? Of course the waves don't care about your concept of a 'right to life'.

      Furthermore, the only right I recognize is the right to a chance. You have a chance to live. If medicine is needed to live, and you can't get it, you won't live. But you had the chance. You did live for a while. I feel this applies not only to humans, but to everything else. Every animal and plant has the right to a chance to do something. If someone or something eats them first, tough luck. If they get trampled by a herd of buffalo, so be it. That's the chance you take.

      The same applies to business and other pursuits. You have the right to a chance to be the president, an olymian, business-owner, etc. If you don't make it, well, you still had a chance. Even if someone takes an active interest in keeping you from succeeding, you had a chance. If someone kills me on my way home today, I still had a chance of living tomorrow. Just my dumb luck to get killed before then.

      Now as for companies helping the poor third-world people with free or low-cost drugs, if they don't want to, you can't make them. Because they will fight for their "right" to run a business how they see proper. And they have the law on their side. And yes, they have many politicians in their pocket as well. But until you can change the laws, and require them to give the stuff away, they won't. And if you can change the laws like that, you better make them immune from lawsuits, or they still won't do it.

      My final point is one I have stated before, but noone ever agrees with me. For all the actions which companies do, that you disagree with, do you evaluate your patronage of that company? Do you buy one brand of product because its maker is more concerned with helping others? Do you refuse to buy paper from a company because they are cutting down the rain forest, and buy from another company that isn't? Or do you just buy whatever brand you want, or what's on sale, with no deeper consideration than convenience and price?

      Oh, and I also toss a penny in the cup now and then. Cheers.

  9. Two Types Of Invention? by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps there are two types of invention: Those that will occur without protection, and those that won't occur without it.

    Obviously, not having protection won't hinder all invention, as the "inventive spirit" is something that most of us believe exists.

    Also, while there may have been invention during that time, there was probably also more trade secrecy, something the article doesn't explore at all.

    If the patent process slows business, it may actually be because it requires disclosure. Companies go for the "sure thing" by patenting, but give up the possibility of perpetuating their monopoly through secrecy which can be *very* effective. Thinking Coca-Cola? Chump change. Consider Ziljan (the cymbal people) IIRC, they kept the process a family secret for something like 400 years or more. If all the Ziljans get hit by a bus, nobody will ever be able to make those exact cymbals again. So, what was that about patents being bad for society?

    Of course this is all just speculation and stuff. Nobody has the time to do an unbiansed, rigorous, statisticly valid study and present it in such a way so that laymen could understand it. That would be... a lot of work!

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  10. Everybody Knows by alexander.morgan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I must have missed the corporation bashing part of the article, but everybody knows that patents are mostly bad for innovation. And too much innovation and progress however, is bad for big established businesses. It is costly and disruptive to the business. Why innovate, if the law guarantees excellent returns on past inventions until the current management retires? But that is not a good way to keep the status quo, so a little FUD is needed.

    Lawmakers must choose between public good and corporate good, and since corporations pay for their reelections, they help their donors. The catch is that a bad economy is bad for getting reelected, and fallout from recent court decisions and the frenzy to uphold software and business method patents will be felt soon.

    Basically, the patent frenzy will be felt first by people seeking venture capital. Investing in a startup is already a risky proposition. But with patents it is much worse, since you have no reasonable way of knowing which patents your programmers are violating. Which means you have to cash out through an IPO before the lawyers come after your baby. And once a few promising startups get tripped up, you will see venture capital dry up.

    And where would the Internet be today without venture funding? Without small startups creating a whole new economic sector? Does anybody really think the telcos would have invented any of this stuff? Not likely.

    Without small companies and individuals taking risks, patents mean stagnation or slow economic growth at best. That is why when you get rid of patents, you spur economic growth. Pretty logical, until you get to the FUD part used to scare everybody.

    Just for kicks, take any drug company and look at their numbers. Most (if not all) spend a lot more on marketing and operating expenses than R&D. Obviously they don't mind doing that without patent protection.

    1. Re:Everybody Knows by alexander.morgan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article cited in this story bears out all to well the issue of the necessity of patents in a modern industrial society - both Switzerland and the Netherlands adopted patent systems 100 years ago. Countries in today's world that do not support a patent system are countries with no significant technological infrastructure.

      Interesting spin and partially true. But most of those [presumably third world] countries were the victims of the great colonial powers of the time, with a lot of taking and no giving--unless you count misery. There are a lot of reasons why those countries are not doing well. Lack of education, continuing armed conflict, disease, anarchy, you name it. Patents don't make the list. Patents in those countries mostly cause more misery in the form of desperately needed drugs unavailable due to the high cost of patented drugs.

      I am by no means against IP protection--in the form of copyright. But patents, especially the recently extended life of patents, are a disincentive to innovators.

      I think patents can be likened to a mine field. If you can afford hundreds of mine sweepers (lawyers), then burying more patent mines may seem like a good idea. But keep in mind that even the patent office regularly issues patents for things that are already patented (for an example look up the history of the GIF patent).

      Patents are also a good idea if you are a giant corporation with thousands of patents. Then you can sit down with other giant corporations and negotiate a truce. Which of course keeps the new players (those little companies that come up with billion dollar ideas that drive the economy, think Amazon, eBay, ...) out of the game.

      And of course, the software industry is proof that patents are not needed to create enormous wealth and incentives. Think Bill Gates. Virtually all of the important software inventions were made without patent protection. I have never seen anybody complain about Microsoft not making enough money. All that was accomplished without patent protection. And even without patents they ended up being a monopoly. So what makes you think that any large corporation would not have gotten just as big, or bigger, without patents.

      Patents (software patents in particular) mean that you have no idea if your work will pay off, because somebody may own the ideas you thought up, even if those ideas seem obvious (a reason why the patent office should deny the patent application, but rarely does). And sooner or later, independent developers with great ideas will just die out.

  11. Re:Not impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So instead of private companies funding research, government beaurocrats should fund research?

    Worked great for the Russians, didn't it?

  12. There is not a one size fits all solution by DeadPrez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would love there to be one, of course.

    Personally, I think there should be no software patents what-so-ever. Innovation occurs fine without them. Competition is only stifled with them. Finally, software is one of the fastest changing markets and traditionally patent law seems horribly ineffective when applied.

    Once you get out of the software patent arena it gets a lot more gray. The general trend is to expand patent laws and extend expiration of patents. It is also fairly easy, to keep a patent open and gain all the benefits of having the patent without having that time count against you. I think these two trends need to be reversed. Patents should not last longer than a decade and should count from the day of the first filing. If you can not exploit your invention in this period of time, the public should not be punished any longer.

  13. Re:What a bunch of Bull by God!+Awful · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was just about to post and say the same thing. Somebody mod the parent up. Let me extend this point by saying two things:

    1. Take a look at game theory, such as the iterated prisoner's dilemma. In many games, if everyone cooperates then everyone will do well. If a few people defect, they will do even better. However, if the majority of people defect then everyone will suffer. Thus, the fact that two nations prospered without patent law does not imply that the system could be extended to the whole world.

    2. The fact that the author could name a few inventions that were developed during the patent-free period (even if they were more like trade secrets) doesn't prove anything. Anecdotal evidence only proves that something is possible or true in principle. You need to have quantitative evidence to prove that things are true in general. E.g. the fact that Red Hat has had at least one profitable quarter shows that you *can* make money selling free software, but it doesn't prove that they have a solid business case.

    -a

    --
    How to rationalize theft.
  14. Article on Innovation Related Privileges by pamri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This Economic Times article, (which was rejected by the editor's) very beautifully articulates that Intellectual Property is not a right but a privilege. Qoute: "Few people outside Cuba and North Korea would be opposed to the concept of patents, trademarks and copyrights. However, given that the cost of these to the public, worldwide, is in tens of billions of dollars, it is desirable that the debate on the subject be carried out in rational terms. It is therefore advisable that a non-emotive term be used to describe these concepts. IPRs have a closer relationship with innovation, novelty and distinctiveness. Normally, every IPR would involve innovation or novelty, though not everything which is innovative may be entitled to an IPR. As discussed above, IPRs are, at best, negative rights. An IPR-holder has an exclusive right to do something to the exclusion of all others. In essence, therefore, an IPR is not a right, but a privilege. When the holders of such exclusive rights sue to maintain the exclusion against third parties, they can hardly be said to be defending their rights, they are actually enforcing their privileges. In terms of their legal incidents, IPRs are no different from such privileges, albeit with a far better policy justification to support them." So, to summarise, by using term's such as right, Corp's & lawyer's are essentially exaggerating their claim.