Patent Nonsense

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."

Comments

Small scale...

[cliffy2000]

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.

Re:Small scale...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Small scale...

[optikSmoke]

I think, perhaps, that size is not necessarily the issue, as much as mentality. From what I can see, Americans are more rule-bound than many other nations. A quick example: in Canada (yes, I'm Canadian), our highway-level speed limit is 100km/h (a few miles faster than 60mph, to put it in perspective). However, its generally understood (in an unspoken type of way) that 120km/h is an acceptable speed. When you drive down to the States (or when Americans drive up here), they seem to drive very slowly. What am I getting at? The American psyche seems to be based around rules and boundaries. I personally don't know if this would work in the US, simply because the culture there isn't right for it. It seems that there is this idea that you must protect what you have, and if the current system doesn't work to do that, more rules must be created. Obviously, there is a point (which we are fast approaching, if not already at) where few but those able to pay for expensive lawyers will be able to benefit from such a rule-bound society.

Re:Small scale...

[Psmylie]

Good Lord, where you been driving in the US? I go 80 on the freeway, and I'm in the fricken' "slow" lane, getting passed by people going waaay faster.

Re:Small scale...

[HiThere]

It doesn't seem to me that there is much evidence that the patent system has been generally advantageous to the United States, unless you consider large corporations and expensive lawyers to be and advantage.

It also seems to me that there is considerable evidence that patents have been harmful to the citizens of the United States (on the average, rather than weighted by disposable income). And that they have been since the 1950's. (I first started hearing patent lawyers talk about how bad the patent system was in articles that I read from around 1952, though it's clearly gotten much worse since then.)

Stupid patents/patent laws and "everlasting" copyrights are two of the major blocks forces centrallizing economic control and blocking economic growth in this country.

I wouldn't claim that patents and copyrights are inherently bad. But I would claim that they are inherently dangerous. They are government approved monopolies, and those who have monopolies always try to extend them to cover more turf. As has happened with both the copyright laws and the patent laws. At this point I feel that we'd be better off without any such laws than with having the ones that we have. I also don't feel that this was true in 1950. In between ... I wasn't watching most of the time, but I'm rather sure that the transition was gradual.
.

What about manufacturing vs producing ideas?

[kingdon]

It is a good article. One issue which they didn't mention is the recent trend towards companies which just produce intellectual property, and don't actually make anything (for example, who license chip designs to manufacturers). This is mostly a recent trend (say, last 10-20 years). Not that I'm saying this is a good trend - I'd be hard pressed to say that the world is bettter of with Rambus than without it. Maybe it comes down to: is there a shortage of ideas? Or is there a shortage of people who actually put those ideas into production use and hone off the fine edges? For the most part, intellectual property protection addresses the former and not the latter.

Re:What about manufacturing vs producing ideas?

[Znork]

Small companies who do design dont _have_ to have the resources to bring the design into being. Most large companies dont even do that. That's why you _buy_ the manufacturing. Pretty much every chip design company outsources manufacturing; it just isnt worthwhile to have your own plants for most companies.

Intel did use pretty much every resource at their disposal. Fortunately, Intel does not have a monopoly marketshare, and they had no choice but to give people an option when some segments just about quit buying Intel and turned to AMD instead. Had they been even more hardline and not sold ordinary SDRAM systems, they would have priced themselves completely out of the desktop segments.

The Patents Occur in the U.S.

[isa-kuruption]

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.

Re:The Patents Occur in the U.S.

[greenrd]

Since countries that want to trade with the U.S. must obey U.S. patent laws

Rubbish. Britain doesn't have (many) software patents, and therefore almost all US software patents are null and void over here.

Re:The Patents Occur in the U.S.

[geekoid]

Not true anymore.
recent treaties state that signing countries will support patent and copyright laws of other countries that sign.

Re:The Patents Occur in the U.S.

[eddy]

Although a patent system does not exist in Finland or Sweden [...]

There is a patent system in Sweden, unless 'patent system' means something highly specific/technical of which I'm not aware. Patents in Sweden are handled by Patent och Registreringsverket.

Re:The Patents Occur in the U.S.

[Chuut-Riit]

Finland DOES have a patent system (I know because I lectured to a room full of Finnish patent agents in 1995, who were worried that because Finland was becoming part of the European Patent system (you file once in Europe and designate a bunch of European countries, and once the EP patent is issued, you file translations in each country where you want protection INCLUDING SWITZERLAND, THE NETHERLANDS AND SWEDEN).

I found it interesting that the two companies mentioned in the article (CIBA and Unilever) are not at all shy of obtaining and enforcing patent rights throughout the world (including in their home countries), although their existence is, in some measure, due to their ability to knock off the innovations of others with impunity.

I guess it helps to have a sense of irony when dealing with large corporations.

No easy answers...

[Yoda2]

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.

Re:No easy answers...

[JabberWokky]

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?

Sell it to yourself. Plenty of packaged food is seized at the borders of countries for failing or violating labeling laws. Does that mean that Chum-flavoured Crisps can't be sold in, say, America? Yes. Does that mean that the company can't sell a whole bunch of them in their own country and make quite a profit? No.

--
Evan

A bit idealistic

[ari{Dal}]

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'.

Re:A bit idealistic

[ryants]

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?

Well, sure... these companies were given government granted monopolies. I guess some companies can do well under Statism, but I'd rather live without governmnet granted mononpolies, thanks.

Re:A bit idealistic

[Wintersmute]

Please allow me to pile on to idealism attack. While I'll be the first to line up against IP laws that don't produce benefits for the public, the mere fact that two nations prospered without patent statutes doesn't mean nations without patent statutes do better.

Note, for example, that some of the progress came from "borrowing" ideas from nations that *did* have patent statutes.

What's more, the author's argument carries little weight unless he can prove the counterfactual - that these nations would not have done even better if they *had* employed IP laws.

I'm inclined to believe that the late 1800s and early 1900s were fruitful eras in these nations for reasons other than the state of the patent law.

Just adding my inflation-adjusted $.02.

Re:A bit idealistic

[jonricketson]

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.

Switzerland, bah

[tiltowait]

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock."
- Orson Welles (1915-1985)

Re:Switzerland, bah

[mblase]

Well, that and the most stable and widely-used banking system on the planet. Gotta give 'em credit for that.

Good quote, though. ;-)

Re:Switzerland, bah

[dgroskind]

Isn't this quote technically by Graham Greene...

According to Ebert, Greene credited Wells with this speech.

Re:Switzerland, bah

[dgroskind]

...the most stable and widely-used banking system on the planet...

But the accounts in those banks are generally in U.S. dollars. It's not the banking system, but the currency that's important. Swiss law strictly limits use of its currency because it's economy is not large enough to support a large float.

I believe in all the world The U.S. has the only one national treasury bond that is rated as having zero risk.

Re:Switzerland, bah

[jafac]

The only reason it's the most widely used is because it allows for anonymous accounts. Which generally are used by mobsters, terrorists, tax dodgers, drug dealers, and anyone else seeking a way to enjoy the ill-gotten fruits of their labors.

Re:Switzerland, bah

[Lars T.]

Van Gogh died insane, bacause nobody wanted his art when he was alive. Rembrandt became famous and rich - and AFAIK had others working in his name (similar to Disney). And all Escher sites I checked give detailed Copyright information.

Re:Switzerland, bah

[Captain Large Face]

It's a good quote, but I can't believe it took 70 years for him to come up with it.

Copyright???

[sterno]

Did the word "copyright" appear once in that article? Because I swear it was talking about patent law but maybe I clicked the wrong link.

I'm not against IP laws, but...

[RealTime]

I think the existing laws are being abused by corporations who take advantage of back-logged and under-educated patent offices. I would support the exclusion of certain categories of intellectual property from the patent process. For example, I think the trend of patenting human genome sequences is a bad idea. I don't think you should be able to patent things that exist in nature, nor should you be able to patent mathematical or physical laws.

The patent process wasn't originally this dysfunctional. There was a time when it provided legitimate protection to inventors for a limited period of time. Now, I'm not so sure that the public is well-served by patent mechanisms (as was the original intent), given the short-lived nature of today's inventions.

Is the solution totally eliminating the patent system? I'm not sure. I would suggest that, in the time period discussed in the article, there was less up-front investment needed to produce a new invention or process. These days, in the drug industry, at least, the research costs are so high that I think some form of short-duration monopoly protection is required, just to insure that they can recoup their investment. We certainly wouldn't want research on things like cancer and AIDS drugs to slow just because of the risk of not recovering the research investment.

Re:I'm not against IP laws, but...

[pliny3]

The patent process wasn't originally this dysfunctional. There was a time when it provided legitimate protection to inventors for a limited period of time.

the patent process also provided the public with information about the invention in exchange for that protection.

patents also must provide sufficient information for someone "skilled in the art" to reproduce the work. this reduction to practice provides some justification for granting a limited monopoly on the product, even in the case of inventions that people in the field know are possible but have not successfully reduced to practice.

Software patents fail this argument when they fail to provide source (and may not pass it even if they do).

Copyrights

[kb3edk]

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?

Re:Copyrights

[jejones]

How about a compelling example from before then? Everyone remember Samuel Slater from their American history class? He came to the US, having learned about the English mechanized mills, to set one up of his own. The English were rather particular about intellectual property as well; he had to sneak out of the country in disguise.

Re:Copyrights

[Znork]

You are mistaken.

Not duplicating anything clears you from copyright violation.

But nothing, ever, saves you from patent violations. You can live under a rock on Mars and invent something without even knowing of the existence of intelligent species on earth, and if it's patented, you're _still_ violating the patent. A patent forbids anyone else from even having the idea.

The BIOS, needless to say, wasnt patented, and you couldnt patent software anyway in those days. Much to the annoyance of IBM, I suppose, but much to the benefit of the rest of humanity (and economy).

Re:This is just stupid...

[alan_d_post]

Eben Moglen is

*SIGH*

[flying_triguy]

As is the case in many of these debates, there are two extremes, and both are equally likely to have problems.

1. Eternal Patent and Copyright: This means that there is tremendous stability in development, very little "new directions" as a new direction would have to come from the company with the copyright or patent (or a company paying money to them). The downside is the cost of doing this if there is failure. Very high. --> Little change or innovation

2. No Patent or Copyright: Very dynamic creative possibilities because everything can be used to create new things. Everyone who has a different direction or idea can develop that, there are no barriers (cost) associated. Just time. This is also very chaotic... you can't have standards when everything is always changing. Stability of anything here... not good. As well, it ends up making things extra cmplicated as the only way to make money is to do it from services (installation, customization etc) so it is in the best interests of the creator to make it as difficult as possible to implement making sure that someone has to install it for you.

Seems to me that there is a happy medium. My personal preference is for the happy medium to be less restrictive than now, but that is for society to judge (which is why I have problems with where things are now, I don't believe society has decided, I think that society has abdicated that decision to corporate interests.

Re:*SIGH*

[Doomdark]

you can't have standards when everything is always changing. Stability of anything here... not good.

No. "Real" standards are not results of patents -- sometimes it seems it's exactly opposite. De facto standards ("Windows") may be a result of patents or copyrights, but the actual de jure standards are almost always result of a leading period of chaotic development. And usually this seems to be a good way to go. Premature creation of patents often leads to unusable bloated paper standards (ISO OSI model anyone? full X509?).

As well, it ends up making things extra cmplicated as the only way to make money is to do it from services

I don't think this is true either. Many big pharmaceutical companies make money manufacturing aspirin (or, rather, generic versions... name itself is trademarked? or was it?). So, patents are not a requirement for being able to sell a physical product -- you just need either a strong brand or best version of the product (cheapest, best, in some way better than competitors).

It may make it more difficult to make money with a completely new product, but right now it seems that there are 2 main lifecycles for innovative new products:

• Try to protect the idea and/or implementation as closely as possible. End up being proprietary thing no one wants (rambus, various wavelet packing algorithms, most new closed audio/video formats)
• Share and enjoy; product itself becomes a hit, but not necessarily version you produce (mp3 is a good example... there's no real "leader" that creates most mp3 appliances).

Re:*SIGH*

[abe ferlman]

As is the case in many of these debates, there are two extremes, and both are equally likely to have problems.


"1 + 1 is 2!"

"1 + 1 is 3! (this message paid for by 3com)"

Oh, the truth must be somewhere in between these two extremes. Hence 1 + 1 is approximately 2.5.

Somewhere in the middle, please

[Fiver-rah]

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.

Re:This is just stupid...

[Mr Windows]

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 :)

The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense

[ragmana]

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?

Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense

[Mr Windows]

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!

Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense

[jejones]

Sorry; so-called "positive rights" are not rights at all. We may think it's good to be generous to the needy, and even think less of someone who isn't--but that doesn't give anyone or any group the right to be generous with other peoples' money.

Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense

[ragmana]

If you want the drug companies to stop investing in new research, keep saying they don't deserve to profit from human misery.

This is addressed here. The pharm. companies would not lose a dime.

Then you will know you're responsible for all the third-world deaths.

Don't be an ass. The arguments I'll listen to, the jokes I'll just laugh at. Let's stick to the former.

By the way, if my message isn't clear, medicine is not a 'right'. 'Human rights' aren't even well standardized to begin with.

A fair philosphical point, but I would argue first that what is 'standard' has nothing to do with objective truth. I would also argue that survival is indeed a right, and if medicine = survival, then medicine = a right, or at least a right that trumps other rights (like additional profit). But, let us assume you are correct. Would you then be discussing the finer points of the right to survival to soemone trying to kill you? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're on very shaky philosophical ground. OK, so if pressed I guess I am saying you are wrong.

Also, if survival is not a right, how does intellectual property qualify? To deny rights undermines the very basis of your main point, of capitalism, and of any reason for people to NOT steal and profit from other's innovations. Neither of us want that.

For you to tell a company they "do not deserve" their profit because someone's poor, but it's ok if someone else is rich, is such a crock.

Why? They deserve their profit, clearly. Read the link above, I shouldn't be redundant in posts.

Do you freely give your time and possessions to the poor people in your city? Every month, week, day? Do you offer to pay for someone's lunch if they are hungrier than you? Do you even put a penny in the dish beside the cash-register at the gas station?

Yeah, although some of the examples do not pertain. If the hungry person can afford food themselves, then I'm not advocating they mooch, nor that you let them. If they can't afford food, yes. And, yes - week, month, day - because I can. Hopefully, if you can, you do too.

I just do the cash-register pennies because I'm a nice guy. I use them sometimes too.

But you expect companies to be forced to.

Yup, given the conditions described above and in the linked post.

Maybe we should just have higher taxes so we can all pay for medicine for the whole world.

See linked post.

Or force McDonald's to have to feed the third world, since they are one of those "highly profitable companies" you talk about.

I wouldn't wish McDonalds on anyone, Third or First World. But, if you like it and are hungry, I've listed nothing above that would give me reason to want to prevent you.

Arguments talk, rhetoric walks. Just for future reference.

Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense

[charon_on_acheron]

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.

Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense

[mpe]

By the way, if my message isn't clear, medicine is not a 'right'. 'Human rights' aren't even well standardized to begin with. For you to tell a company they "do not deserve" their profit because someone's poor, but it's ok if someone else is rich, is such a crock.

Making a profit isn't a "right" either. When corporate profits are placed before human lives there must be one twisted value system involved.
Patents are intended to create specific ends, if they are not currently doing it then it's time to reform them.

Re:The corporation bashing isn't COMPLETE nonsense

[sql*kitten]

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?

Why is always "evil corporations putting profits before lives in the third world"? It would be more accurate to criticize "evil governments for putting corruption and war before the lives of their own citizens".

You may criticize Big Pharma, but without them, there would be no drugs to buy, at all, at any price. You see, a "right" to medicine presupposes that the medicine exists. If it doesn't exist, your "right" doesn't amount to much. Stealing pharma IP works in one generation, but the next disease comes along, and you find Big Pharma is devoting its energies to Viagra and Prozac drugs, that are profitable and aren't likely to be appropriated by corrupt third world governments.

It's in everyone's best interest that patents on drugs to treat serious illnesses are protected - particularly the people who are or may suffer from those illnesses.

Re:Not impressed

[Baki]

Who? R&D should be done where it belongs: at universities and independant research institutions. These should be funded only by tax money, so they can remain independant (no contract research serving commercial interests of small groups, but objective research for the benefit of all).

Where does the tax money come from? By no longer recognizing patents, the price of many products (such as medicines) shall drop massively. The people save large amounts of money, which can be spent on taxes instead, to fund R&D. The companies are "freed" of doing fundamental R&D (they still need to develop an efficient production process of course, but without expensive R&D they can survive much lower product prices) and the outcome of all R&D is open and free to use for everyone.

Maybe this sounds like utopia, but it sure would be interesting to try; I am convinced it would work, but alas companies with vested interests are blocking this, and bribe politicians/governments to prevent a change.

This is the way science has developed in Europe during the renaissance and later, free exchange of information and knowledge. I cannot believe that blocking free exchange of knowledge in the end can be good for the advance of mankind.

The current state of affairs makes me really sad and depressed. It is a disgrace for our generation that information that can benefit many (such as how to produce cheap medicines that can save many lives) is hidden only because of a supposed need to protect the current economic system.

Slashdot Reply Button Patent (pending)

[snowpuppy]

I can't wait for my Slashdot Reply Button
"One-Click Patent" gets approved.

Then you will all have to pay me to reply to these messages.

Sweet...

Sean
--
perl -e 'print pack("H*","736e6f77646f6740626967666f6f742e636f6d0 a")'

Re:BS

[Mr Windows]

Switzerland is one of the richest countries in Europe. When you think of anonymous numbered bank accounts, which country springs to mind? Of course, the reality is more prosaic, but Swiss banks are among the most successful in the world.

If you read the article, you'll notice that the periods in question were over 90 years ago, so arguing about what's happening in the computing field is kind of irrelevant.

For that matter, where are any billion dollar tech startups, these days? How many of the companies you mentioned will still be going in 100 years time and be the same size as Nestle?

Two Types Of Invention?

[istartedi]

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!

Re:Two Types Of Invention?

[mpe]

Of course, the trouble is that a lot of companies in the Applied Research area of development are trying to use IP-rights to squelch Basic Research/Invention that threatens them.

Also some of them might also be leaching off someone elses research.

Gene Patents

[President Chimp Toe]

I found these points interesting:

Novartis was one of the companies which successfully lobbied for the European convention allowing companies to patent genes

New global trade rules have also allowed big corporations to patent crop varieties and, in effect, the genes of plants, animals and human beings.

Even without going into ethical debates, gene patenting is notoriously dubious. The standards that these companies apply to patenting genes is very poor at best. My patent law is not up to scratch, so i would be happy if someone could point me in the right direction on this. However, my genetic knowledge is rather good ;-)

Essentially, companies (such as novartis) cast a very wide net when patenting genes. Alot of the time, they dont actually do anything particularly pro-active when attempting to discover them. They essentially take a pool of all genes expressed in a certain tissue ("mRNA") and randomly sequence these genes. And then slap a patent on them. This is quite clearly discovery. Furthermore, it is cheap, non-directional, quick and easy.

Originally, companies like novartis argued that cloning genes would take a strategy of e.g. specifically identifying genes causing a disease. This takes alot more effort and money, and is more likely to have medical significance. Therefore it is easier to argue that patenting is to some degree fair.

However, the first strategy is quite clearly against patenting law (even the stretched definition for gene patenting). For example, I often see "patents" for DNA sequences of the gene MYB (which I know quite well ;-), despite the fact that it was originally identified in 1986. If this isnt prior art, I do not know what is.

This is a result of the essentially random, "wide-net" strategy the companies are utilising. Even worse, it is trivial to check (using a homology search) whether there is "prior art" on a gene or not. But the companies do not do this.

BUT I COULD. And may well do. I have been thinking about comparing the database of patented DNA sequences against those in the public domain (It will take some time to set up, which i dont have right now, and significant computer resources, which i dont have right now - help anyone? reply to this as above email wrong ;-) . It will show huge proportion of "patented" sequences have prior art.

But who would I go to with these results? Could the companies be held responsible? If, so what would be the result?

Re:Gene Patents

[the gnat]

Aside from prior art, I think there's an even more compelling argument against gene patents- they aren't "non-obvious". Anyone with sufficient training and funding can perform the protocols the biotechs use to find genes for patenting. There's absolutely no innovation involved. Patenting a method for gene finding might be slightly more viable- except that these probably wouldn't be "inventions", they'd be more like a cookbook for an intro bio lab.

The real problem here is that, as often, the legal system can't keep up with technology. Gene finding might have been difficult 10 or 20 years ago, but it sure isn't today, at least not to reach the PTO's moroning standards. What makes more sense is allowing these companies to copyright their databases and sell access- Celera's original business plan*, and actually a good one. They could even charge royalties on products developed using their database. Unfortunately, that doesn't have as much long-term potential- a few years later, some university will come out with a better (free) sequence as technology catches up. So by patenting genes, biotechs ensure that they'll be able to buttfuck any researcher who actually finds a use for the genes, even if independent discovery of said genes would have been both trivial and obvious.

*They were going to patent some too. But they're not even remotely "evil" compared to Incyte or Human Genome Sciences. Craig Venter is warm and cuddly compared to some execs out there, and he has genuinely contributed immensely to public research.

Re:Gene Patents

[FallLine]

IANAL && IANAG*, that said, I am familiar with the medical devices (and the medtech industry by much association) and other technology industries. Your understanding of the business, legal, and regulatory realities is what causes most of your trouble here.

Firstly, it's common practice in patent law to cast as wide a net as possible (without getting it thrown out entirely) because if you don't someone can come up with a slight modification, but to have it and its application to be essentially the same, and get away with it.

Secondly, the effective strength of a patent is NEVER is strong as it would appear to be to a layman; it's a mere fraction of it. The vast majority of a patent's strength is decided in a court of law and rarely, if ever, comes anything close to what you may think it sounds like.

Thirdly, while these particular genes may be obvious (not my expertise), identifying the significance of them, and getting past the very significant regulatory (e.g., FDA) hurdles, plus the huge marketing cost (which is VERY essential to society, as much as some geeks may deny it. Drugs generally don't sell themselves) is both very expensive, very risky, and takes a long time to ever reach the market (a major issue to anyone familiar with finance).

Fourthy, the medical technology industry is almost too costly to engage in as is, completely ignoring any fault of the companies', because of the factors that I've mentioned above. Reducing the strength and duration of these patents can easily make it financially unviable proposition, because no one in their right mind is going to take the level of risk required if a competitor can get a mostly free ride on their coattails and reduce their profitability.

Fifthly, although it may be arguable that the prior identification of them would constitute prior art as it was concieved of initially, that definition is simply untenable to the development of them in today's society. The point of that phrase was to encourage the taking of risk towards worthwhile pursuits. If it wasn't non-obvious back then, then it wasn't probably didn't require much risk. That's quite different today with these kinds of pursuits as the barriers to entry here are huge. The gene itself may be obvious, but making it into something worthwile is non-obvious AND requires a lot of risk taking.

Re:Gene Patents

[the eric conspiracy]

I think there's an even more compelling argument against gene patents- they aren't "non-obvious". Anyone with sufficient training and funding can perform the protocols the biotechs use to find genes for patenting. There's absolutely no innovation involved.

Most /. readers have no concept what a gene patent is. A gene patent is NOT merely a patent on the genetic code; in fact such a patent is specifically barred under law - rather it is a patent on the USE of the structure of the gene in some application. The USPTO has a discussion of this very important issue that /. readers would do well to understand so they don't look totally unwashed when writing about this topic.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3607.ht ml
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc .cgi ?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-322-filed

Re:Gene Patents

[FallLine]

I have, do, and will fail to believe any executive that claims their company is facing great financial hardship, or that they are barely able to make money while he/she is paid millions.

That's because you don't understand some basic financial concepts. As an example, you might make these same claims about a lottery winner. Yet if you do some basic math, you'll see that although one person does indeed win millions, for every one dollar that that person wins, the loosers collectively pay well in excess of a dollar, say, 2 dollars for every dollar that is paid out. In other words, the lottery is a loosing "investment" on the aggregate, by definition. This is why people say the lottery is a tax on the stupid/poor/people that are bad at math. So in this case, just about any reasonable person that can perform basic math understands that this is not desirable.

Now let's go a step further, let's say if, out of a million 1 dollar tickets sold, the lottery actually pays out say 1,000,500 dollars to the winner. In this case we may have a winner on the aggregate, but it's still not viable financially. The reason for this is that the aggregate payout, although positive, is not commensurate with the risk taken. Your effective interest rate on that investment would be just .05%, which sucks. You could invest in much less risky, and even "riskless", investments, e.g., treasury bills, and make a higher interest rate. Although you might shrug it off and gamble for fun if it's a mere 1 dollar commitment, what about a significant sum like, say, your life's savings? Only a moron would invest in that too.

Now with this situation of the drug companies, you're basically just saying that they're profiting. Well OK, that's fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean that people will invest in and of itself. Many of the large drug companies are presently able to make enough profits, relative to their level of risk, to continue attracting investment, but most of the small and medium sized companies don't (because they must essentially put all their eggs in one basket because the costs are too high for them to do any sort of meaningful diversification). The large drug companies happen to be profiting enough on the aggregate to justify continuing investment, but it's close. You can't start eating away at their profits and expect them to continue to exist. The management team's compensation packages may speak for profits, but it's a pittance in comparison to the profits that they earn, and indeed need to earn, and those salaries are essentially a necessary condition for continuing to profit. Like it or not, they're paying what the market demands.

Everybody Knows

[alexander.morgan]

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.

Re:Everybody Knows

[the eric conspiracy]

I must have missed the corporation bashing part of the article, but everybody knows that patents are mostly bad for innovation.

I think that everybody does NOT know this at all. The fact of the matter is that the almost all industrial R&D, from the time of Edison has depended on the use of patents to provide the commercial incentives for justification of investment into the development of new technologies. Without patents we would have never had the development of large industrial research organizations at companies like DuPont, Intel, Merkh etc. etc.

These organizations have supplied tremendous advances to society - synthetic polymers and fabrics, the CPU, streptomycin, to name a few. All developed with the incentive and goal of obtaining a commercially exploitable patent as the business incentive for funding the R&D.

The idea that patents hinder innovation cannot be justified by any evidence drawn from the history of technological process. It is no accident that Great Britain, the country that first adopted a patent system was also the first country to experience the fruits in it's 18th century industrail revolution.

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.

Re:Everybody Knows

[alexander.morgan]

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.

Re:Everybody Knows

[sql*kitten]

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.

That's nonsense. You clearly don't know that patents require you to publish details of your process - and they don't forbid anyone from using that information, they merely permit you to charge (license) people for making use of the information that you might have invested considerable time and money to discover/develop.

The alternative to patents is secrecy, because that's the only way that an investment can be recovered. This would preclude from the market any product whose workings could be derived from inspection. It's hard to think of anything more anti-innovation where the only way to justify the cost of the development of a new product was to ensure that no-one ever saw it.

Re:BS

[k98sven]

Either you are:
1) Trolling

2) Blatantly misinformed
Adressing the second case:

I doubt this poster knows much about the world at all. (The use of the Bushesque term 'Netherlandian' says it all)

Switzerland is a major player (with respect to it's size, of course) in pharmaceuticals, banking, and engineering.

I'll give you an international high-tech firm that is from Switzerland: ABB - a major (second largest?) firm in robotics, power plants, power transmission etc.

Tech start ups? Well a lot of people (especially on ./) seem to care about Kazaa.

Random Euro-URLs

[guerby]

The prime source of information about software patents in Europe is the patents mailing list on the AFUL web site (french free unix user group).

Some information is also available on the APRIL web site (french association for research in free software).

In particular, to date, all the big (poll-wise) candidates to the french presidential election have expressed their opposition to software patents, see in french Haro sur les brevets and Tous les candidats dans l'opposition.

And of course the EuroLinux web site and FFII web site (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure ) have links to a lot of ressources and interesting readings.

We, european citizens, are seeking ways to get other european countries take position against the current proposed european law that opens the gates of unrestricted software and ideas patenting.If you're willing to help the cause, please contact your local free software association and try to get some activism in place together with the established assiociations like the FSF Europe. If you are French or German you can even make a tax-deducible donation, it may help the cause too.

--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Re:Careful...

[Mr Windows]

You can't be suggesting that it's the rich who make the laws, and the poor that have to obey them?

\end{sarcasm}

Re:Careful...

[Stonehand]

Kills the motivation for innovation? Not really -- after all, it won't stop somebody else from making your idea obsolete if they come up with something better, which means that simply resting on your laurels is a Bad Idea; and if there aren't patents at all, it might be a lot cheaper to simply sit back, wait for others to spend millions or billions on research, and then to reverse-engineer what they've done and mass-produce it.

Happy medium

[geekoid]

Patents only good for 7 years, no extension. ---note period. ;)

Re:Happy medium

[edremy]

Patents only good for 7 years, no extension.

Doesn't work for the drug companies or any other company with significant regulation that delays introduction of the patented thing.

7 years is roughly what it takes for a drug to wind its way through the testing process, and it can be well over 10. It doesn't start making money for a few years after that. (Assuming it ever does: few drugs ever make back their development costs.)

It's a different situation

[IKEA-Boy]

I live in The Netherlands myself and while I generally disagree with the whole patent process
(especially in the US) I must point out that The Netherlands and Switzerland have a very different
economy than the US. Their economies are based primarily on trade and services (banking,
insurance, transport).
So it's not that big of a surprise to see how the patent laws developed differently from the US in
these countries.

There is not a one size fits all solution

[DeadPrez]

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.

Re:There is not a one size fits all solution

[DeadPrez]

I disagree.

Most IP heavy companies, such as drug companies patent ideas far too early in their development. Anyway, companies ought to either keep trade secrets, secret or stop applying for patents on concepts 20 years early in development.

I'd would add one thing specific to the drug industry. I know they have FDA approval to go through (but only in the US remember, they can be selling drugs in Mexico much earlier so don't say they are floundering while waiting for FDA). While a drug waits FDA approval, for the *first* time that period doesn't count against the patent. If it fails FDA, time starts again and can't be stopped.

Drug companies, especially, have a social obligation to help people. If they are twiddling their thumbs and dragging their feet its time to open competition to other companies, and individuals who want to help people and make money as well.

Re:There is not a one size fits all solution

[maroberts]

I know they have FDA approval to go through (but only in the US remember, they can be selling drugs in Mexico much earlier so don't say they are floundering while waiting for FDA)

Most income from such drugs comes from nations rich enough to be early adopters e.g Western nations.

As far as patenting early on is concerned, often there is a neck and neck race between drug companies to get to the patent stage. Trade secrets are not a very secure method of protection - resentful ex-employees soon can be persuaded to release them to the world.

Re:There is not a one size fits all solution

[DeadPrez]

Trade secrets are not a very secure method of protection - resentful ex-employees soon can be persuaded to release them to the world.

Dare I say, so what? Government's should not be wiping the ass of corporations. There are tradesecret laws for a reason.

And so what if you get beat to a patent? You lose. Last I checked R&D is never a "sure thing." Is there some reason it should be? No. Why? Capitalism & free market. Anyway, if you get beat and can't license the patent, time to rethink your strategy. No one likes losing but this ain't communism for a reason.

Remember this is assuming the patent system has been overhauled so "frivilous" patents aren't being approved. The company that beat you to it, deserves the patent!

PS: Don't believe the hype about there only being money in "western" nations. There are millions if not billions being spent on drugs outside western nations.

Re:Swiss collaborated w/ Hitler. Dutch gave up.

[sn0wcrsh]

Your ignorance is both appalling and apparent.

Please go read any history book about the Dutch resistance in WWII. Holland may be a small country, but it is factually baseless to claim they "sign[ed] on for the third reich".

There is a reason why the Dutch study english and not German in their schools. (Even before WWII).

A comment like this can only be posted by an "anonymous idiot"..

But Einstein was a swiss patent clerk

[Tax Boy]

Switzerland has no IP laws? But what about the smartest patent clerk ever?

poor guy would be unemployed today.

Re:But Einstein was a swiss patent clerk

[k98sven]

Interesting point..
According to the article, Switzerland didn't have patent laws until 1907.
According to A.E.s biography he worked at the patent office from 1902 to 1909..
Any swiss IP historians around who can elucidate?

Re:But Einstein was a swiss patent clerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it just explains why he had enough spare time at work to figure out relativity?

Re:But Einstein was a swiss patent clerk

[doru]

According to its website, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property was founded in 1888.

They don't give much historical information, apparently. But I'm not very good at German...

Medicine

[Cato the Elder]

Just because providing medicine to poor countries that need it is the right thing to do doesn't mean stealing from the companies who developed the medicine is the right way to do it. If people are stealing bread because their families are starving (a la Jean Valjean) the correct thing to do is not to legalize burglary but to provide food to the poor at the public expense. The companies whose years of R&D and millions of dollars created a safe and effective medicine need compensation for this, or they won't produce drugs for diseases that effect mainly the Third World. If this cannot be provided from the poor nations themselves, the purchase should be subsized by richer nations.

Re:Medicine

[Stonehand]

...including not just public funding, but also private philanthropists. If memory serves, one of the main focuses of the Gates Foundation happens to be immunizations in the Third World. I don't know whether it's negotiated any terms with drug companies regarding drugs that would otherwise be economically non-viable, however.

Re:Medicine

[Stonehand]

Here's the problem, 'tho -- what if the only market for a product cannot afford it? For instance, there aren't that many wealthy nations that have had large outbreaks of sleeping sickness. The medicine for that, therefore, tends to be very rarely produced, if ever, because those who need it can't pay for it on their own and those who can pay for it, generally don't need it.

In that case, the "charge the wealthier more" model doesn't apply, and you're basically stuck at...

a) Exemption from IP law. ISTR that there are actually some treaty provisions in which protections for pharmaceuticals can be waived under very limited circumstances, but I could be merely imagining things...

b) Public funding, which, yes, might drive up the price a bit, unless price controls are imposed.

c) Private funding, which might have the same effect.

d) Local companies ignoring IP law and reverse-engineering the drugs anyway. This happens to some degree already -- the pharmaceutical companies know that being too zealous enforcers might count for bad press.

e) Locals get screwed. This also happens a great deal today.

Re:Medicine

[richieb]

The companies whose years of R&D and millions of dollars created a safe and effective medicine need compensation for this, or they won't produce drugs for diseases that effect mainly the Third World.

Actually a lot of their research depends on basic science done in publicly funded institutions. For example, the HIV virus was isolated by scientist at the NIH and equivalent organization in France(I know there is some controversies there).

If you actually look at the budgets of the large drug companies, they spend more on marketing than research. For example see this article.

Re:Medicine

[Cato the Elder]

Ideas are not, have not, never will be "property".

Nor are "ideas" patentable. Nowhere in my post did I claim ideas were property. I did use the verb "steal" because it describes a diversion of money from one corporation to another by illegal means.

Over 80% of *all* big-Pharm R&D (top 7 pharmaceutical companies in the US) is funded by the gov't.

Could I get a source on this? I'm curious. I find the point irrelevant, however. The subsidizing governments are not the ones making the decisions.

multinational corporations, many of whom don't pay taxes (or pay very little)

Hmmm. So why does Pfizer's report "provisions for taxes on income" at a rate of 35%? Do I misunderstand the fiscal meaning of this term?

I would also like to address your discussion of rights. I agree that a way should be found to make basic medical care available to everyone. I simply do not feel that the best way to do this is to entirely dismantle this system of patent monopolies.

Another interesting topic is why the same antibiotics sold to humans cost such-and-such/pill, while they are sold at 1-10% of the price when sold to animals

Products for animals are less regulated. Testing and modeling drug interactions is much less expensive. Many animal medications are sold direct in bulk to farmers. The cost of animal care isn't inflated by comprehensive insurance or by as extensive malpractice suits. Many of these factors apply to all aspects of animal medicine. If you look at the prices to do a CBC (complete blood count) for a human vs a dog, you will probably be tempted to send your little red topped tube off with the vet and just look up the reference ranges for humans in a textbook.

Re:Not impressed

[Spamuel]

I agree, it does sound like utopia, and it would be interesting to try. But what happens when the experiment blows up in your face?

Patent vs. copyright

[jfengel]

Many people confuse patent and copyright, and in the case of intellectual property they do begin to blur.

The patent was originally intended to protect processes, usually mechanical ones, where the idea was a fairly insightful one. At least in principle you could keep your idea to yourself and still make a profit at it by building the thing yourself. That's not always practical, so patents were created to give you a legally enforceable way to limit the distribution of your idea to just the people you sell it to. The "price" of that is that it's time-limited, which is just as well because eventually somebody is going to figure it out anyway.

A copyright covers something more clearly defined, a particular sequence of letters, recording, or an image. Determining identity is relatively simple; just check the sequence of letters/notes/pixels. By contrast, an idea is kind of hazy.

But unlike a process, you _must_ reveal all of the details for your invention (i.e. your book, song, or image) to have any market value. You can't market half a book, or just the ones of a piece of software. But you can sell a ballpoint pen, say, without telling anybody what's in the ink, and it's not easy to figure out.

The cost of stealing a copyright is relatively low; just copy the book. The cost of stealing a patent, as originally conceived, is much higher: you have to manufacture something.

So they invent copyrights. Unlike a process, which can be changed and added to, a book or song more clearly belongs to its owner, so the terms are much longer. Taking a book and adding a chapter to it, or "improving" a few words and selling it, and then profiting from the sale and keeping 100% of the proceeds, would certainly seem like stealing no matter how long it was available.

Unfortunately, software works more like a process to be patented, but it's as easily stealable as a document, and you have to reveal it to make it valuable. It fits into neither category cleanly, so whenever one topic is broached on Slashdot, the other will come up.

In the end it will turn out to be its own category, I suspect, with a whole new set of compromises. The existing patent and copyright laws are already difficult to interpret; for example, how much do you have to change a manufacturing process before you can claim it's a whole new one? In software, the cost of taking somebody's idea and re-implementing it is relatively low most of the time.

What a bunch of Bull

[Cato the Elder]

The arguments presented vis a vis patents don't make any sense. First, he makes a big deal about how not respecting other countries patents encouraged economic growth in Switzerland. However, this isn't really a debated point. Stealing gets you more money. So does exploiting child labor. That doesn't mean either should be allowed.

He also claims that despite patents, Switzerland produced many important innovations in food production. However, I don't see any evidence, either in the article or from looking up various descriptions of the inventions, that these innovations were made public. Patent protection is granted only in exchange for publishing the details of your invention so that others can build on and be inspired by it (this is why patents are not supposed to be granted for obvious extensions of the art). Something like a chocolate receipe can be kept a trade secret for far longer than 20 years, in the end producing less public good than a patented invention.

Re:What a bunch of Bull

[God! Awful]

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

Re:What a bunch of Bull

[Znork]

All nations have prospered without patent law. Go back to the last century. Inventions were still happening.

Go back just a decade in computing, to before you could patent computer programs. How much invention happened then? Most of the important new concepts in computing were developed without patents.

What if IBM had been able to patent the BIOS of the PC? The evolution of the PC industry would have been slowed down immensely.

The prisoners dilemma doesnt match up against IP problemspace. If everyone defects, they still will not be worse off, in fact it might map the other way around.

This isnt really news tho, look up the criticism of patents on the eurolinux alliance website; a lot of research that has come to the conclusion that patents hamper innovation is available.

Re:What a bunch of Bull

[Znork]

Yes, ehm, of course I mean the 1800-hundreds.

For computing, almost all major evolutions have happened without patents. The word processor, spreadsheet, GUI's, the web, pretty much everything has been developed without patents. Copyright has been enough for several decades, with no apparent harm to invention. I cant think of a single software idea where the ability to patent would have been a driving factor in its development.

Do you think that 1-click shopping would not have been invented had there been no patents for software? GIF's? GIF was developed without knowledge of the unisys compression patent (not to mention the compression algorithms were patented not only by unisys, but two other companies hold conflicting patents as well, IIRC). Since then, better formats have been developed, while having to steer clear of patents, so again things get invented despite, rather than because of, patents. Software gets developed all the time where the creators run afoul of patents post-fact, which means the idea of patents promoting invention isnt correct, at least in the software field. And patents are meant for promoting inventions, not to be ways to leech cash of other developers or to leverage them as control instruments in the industry.

IBM would hardly have licensed a patent for the BIOS. With the stance they had when all they had was copyright, why would they be different with a patent backing them?

The problem with applying the prisoners dilemma to the IP problemspace is that the prisoners dilemma requires that you be able to map some form of values onto the options. If you automatically get a negative result by implementing patents, you dont get the effect specifically because others defect.

Wrong "Two Types Of Invention"

[GlenRaphael]

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

Those cases do not exhaust the possibility set; one case you left out is "those that won't occur with protection." which is the chief benefit of reforming or removing the current laws. Leaving out forms of invention that are to some degree indifferent to the legal regime, I would claim the two most interesting categories of invention for purposes of our current discussion are:

(a) those that won't occur without at least the current level of protection, and
(b) those that won't occur with it.

Making protection "too strong" will produce more innovation of type (a) and less of (b); making protection "too weak" will produce more of type (b) and less of (a).

Re:Wrong "Two Types Of Invention"

[istartedi]

My initial reaction to this was to dismiss it as more AIP rhetoric, but I think you have a point.

I now think the 3 classes should be:

1. Those that are more likely to occur when protection exists (a new type of motor that requires a $500,000,000 investment to perfect).

2. Those that are less likely to occur due to the presence of protection (a software project that can't afford to defend itself from frivolous lawsuits because, oh say... XOR mouse cursors are patented).

3. Those that will occur no matter what (some guy mixes cough syrup into a drink, sets it on fire, and discovers that it tastes good).

A simple "how strong should IP protection be" is really too simple a question when we view things in this light. Perhaps the questions should be 1. Which classes of inventions fall into which category. 2. How much protection should that class enjoy to omptimize output.

Notice I said *optimize* output. It is entirely possible for a society to determine that some types of IP should be minimized as opposed to maximized (e.g., child porn, or for a less extreme example... they might want to encourage TV networks to produce more serious programming and less mental pablum). But then when you start to talk about discouraging some forms of IP, you get into free speech issues...

Difficult questions indeed...

Re:Wrong "Two Types Of Invention"

[mpe]

Those that are more likely to occur when protection exists (a new type of motor that requires a $500,000,000 investment to perfect).

The other necessary criteria is that the object should be quite cheap to manufacture once it has been perfected. Drugs, at least in theory, fall into this catagory. (But only so long as the drug company is actually developing from scratch...)

Re:Careful...

[davecb]

"The law, in its August Majesty, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges."

Re:Not impressed

[the eric conspiracy]

This is the way science has developed in Europe during the renaissance and later, free exchange of information and knowledge.

The industrial revolution, however, did not occur until after England adopted a patent system.

Re:Nice reading

[squiggleslash]

Well, there you go. They can't really be neutral then. True neutrality would mean not wanting to come down on either side when it comes to whether the country should remain neutral or not.

I'd also talk about apathy here, but I can't be bothered.

Re:Not impressed

[HalfFlat]

As the comment above languishing above at -1 says, it did work great for the Russians.

In spite of a terrible economy and poor infrastructure, Russian technology was on par with or (in some areas) exceeded that of the United States. The USSR produced some of the finest mathematicians, engineers and scientists the world has seen.

When private companies fund and own research, it benefits directly only a small group of people. When research is publicly funded, it not only benefits the public at large directly, it also indirectly raises the power and efficiency of further research, as all the researches can draw upon this public body of knowledge. The efficiency gain scales super-linearly.

To: MrTroller

[AftanGustur]

I don't think a few isolated examples from the last century makes a good case for doing away with patent laws.

The article suggests no such thing. In fact it even says: "These examples do not necessarily suggest that the abandonment of patent protection is an essential precondition for development. But they do indicate that it can, in the right circumstances, be an effective tool."

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

Again, no one is suggesting that "all their troubles" are caused by patent-blockages. Did you read the article ??

I find it very unlikely that a lifting of patent laws on underprivileged countries would fix all their problems.

Again, who is suggesting that it would fix all their problems ??

It may alleviate some issues, but it won't fix much in the long run.

And why ?? Do you know what % of adults have AIDS in Africa ?? Up to 30% in soma areas !!! Do you know what percentage can affort drug treatment ?? Close to 0%. And you say it won't fix much ???

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'.

If the 'developing' countries are to be able to 'develop' then giving their money away won't help. Although Africa can't affort to buy bug/desease resistant seeds (and once a year, because they won't create fertile seeds) or aids drugs, it can well affort to produce it itself. But "affort" is not enough if you are denied the ability by some company that puts profits before anything else.

You are taking an extreme view on the issue without even having read the article in question.

That makes you a troll mister !

Re:Careful...

[Znork]

Oh, sure. Instead they'll drive you out of buisness before you get started by suing you up your ears for violating _their_ patents (which may be close, or the _SAME_ as yours (the GIF compression algorithms are patented by at least 3 companies IIRC, altho only Unisys has been bitching about it)). On, and then they'll throw a bunch of lawyers on getting your patents overturned. Good luck surviving that.

What patents do today has nothing to do with protecting the 'little guy'. The 'big guy' will win either way, but the patent system also protects the 'big guy' from getting undercut or outinvented by the 'little guy' by giving them a perfect legal leverage for killing the 'little guy'.

Leonardo

[KjetilK]

Well, if you know Da Vinci, well, we probably only saw a tiny fraction of his genious. He always complained how rulers only wanted him to make bigger and better war machines, to Leonardo a utterly boring and much to easy task, they wanted him to make pretty paintings, also not something for his great genious, though he performed very well at it.

Leonardo wanted to learn how nature worked, and he wanted to learn how to fly. It was a great loss for humanity that Leonardo was unable to dedicate all his time to that.

Article on Innovation Related Privileges

[pamri]

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.

Its not stealing if generics arn't illegal

[DABANSHEE]

In those countries

Re:ok, good point

[demus]

OS/2's demise was caused more by bad handling then MS did. It didn't compete with MS on the home or small business desktop, because each iteration demanded the newest hardware available, thus the average user never heard of it, thus "everybody" knew how to use some version of Windows, making it much easier to roll out to a work-force relatively cheaply (both in hardware and training).

If MS had to open the windows source, and keep it open for subsequent releases, a compatible alternative, priced reasonably could very well get a goodly chunk of the pie. That's what happened with the PC.

"Standard" in this case means "runs the programs deemed neccessary", not that there is a start button in the lower left corner.

At least, the playing field should be level

[driehuis]

I'm not a big fan of the patent system and particularly its gradual expansion into the realm of software engineering, but my biggest concern is that the playing field isn't level.

If someone files a patent that in my mind is obvious, I'd have to challenge it in court, and even if I were to win, it would cost me significant money.

I wouldn't mind the European Patent directives as much if I could file a complaint for a reasonable fee, say EUR 100, refundable if the patent is revoked as a result of the re-examination. That would pretty much level the playing field.

I have written a piece of software that I can't publish because of a frivolous patent. On my reading of the patent, it doesn't apply to my case, but the patent owner will offer no guidance as to the applicability (but for US$25000 they'll allow my in-house usage of the patent, and they don't care if the patent applies in the first place). So, I'm stuck with two options: getting a patent lawyer to look at the case to find out if it applies (that would set me back at least EUR 1500), or not doing it. I opted for the latter.

While I'm at it, bumping the price offenders pay for new patent applications would be cool too. If they employ their own patent lawyers their incremental costs for filing frivolous patents are pretty low, and if those lawyers get bonuses per patent passed the temptation to skimp on their homework becomes pretty big.

Re:Not impressed

[Baki]

No, not government controlled and directed research, but (free) academic research, as used to exist until the 1980s, and as partly still exists.

More and more however, the universities get budget cuts and are forced to revert to contract research and to serving commercial interests instead of scientific interests.

Noone would forbid corporations to do research or development. And they can use others research for free and develop interesting products; because of less investiments necessary, those products can be cheaper.

For thousands of years, human civilisation has built upon knowledge of others, thus advancing general knowledge, science and culture. How come that in this time people call that "stealing of ideas" or "freeriding"? IMO this is a horrible perversion to look at things. It is a scandal, destructive, inefficient and disgraceful.

What incentive did michelangelo have to create, or Newton, or Pascal, Einstein? Do you really need patents for that?

Edison by the way, stole ideas from someone else, then patented them and got rich through that.

Human nature

[Alex Belits]

A lot of people expressed or defended the capitalist ideology (and a bunch of other ideologies and their varieties as well) or various legal systems by claiming that their favorite idea is based on "human nature". I have big news for people who bring "no incentive for innovation" argument:

IT'S BASIC HUMAN NATURE TO INVENT AND IMPROVE THINGS. In fact, this is one of two things humans are good at, another being exploration/research.

Someone will invent things anyway. If society will be better if such inventions will be rewarded, the discussion should be about how to reward them, not how to turn ideas into a currency, something what they never were supposed to be, and can't be because of -- you guessed -- human nature. So far the ability to sell a patent to a large company does not work at all -- most of people that innovate are employees of those companies already, and a fee that employees get for a patent that they surrender to the employer is beyond insulting -- therefore nothing really works as a reward to those people. Giving the companies incentive to go on a patent-squatting run may create few stable and rich companies, but society at large does not benefit from companies being stable and rich -- it benefits from companies being effective at producing things that people need. If companies are inefficient, and have to disappear, they have to -- no company has a right to survive in the first place, only people's lives are supposed to be protected. So again, it comes back to one of the most disturbing problems in the recent history -- "lives" and welfare of companies are now better protected than lives and welfare of people. Congratulations, non-human entities are running human societies.