Slashdot Mirror
Talk To a European Patent Examiner
While the US Patent and Trade Office sparks more discussion on Slashdot, the European Patent Office and the patent examiners who work there do much the same job as their US counterparts, although they work under a different set of laws and regulations. John Savage is a European patent examiner, and he has kindly consented to answer questions from Slashdot readers about the EU patent process. Usual rules apply: One question per post, we send 10 of the highest-moderated questions to John about 24 hours after this post appears, and run his answers verbatim when we get them back.
exactly what IS your opinion on such ridiculous patent claims as the BT claim on hyperlinks? What actions do you think should be taken when something as dumb as this comes around?
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
what is the one question you ask yourself just before you stamp "APPROVED" on the patent application?
MORTAR COMBAT!
What is being done to stop the abuses of the patent system we see in the US ? (I'm particularly thinking of the recent so-called "JPEG" fiasco).
Or perhaps you do not view them as unreasonable, but I myself see this kind of patenting of existing things plus litigating against large corporations as an ethically bankrupt "revenue stream".
graspee
Are European patent examiners graded on the same "points" system as their American counterparts? I believe the points system goes something like "Approval : 1 point, Early Approval : 2 points, Rejection : 0 points plus possible appeal".
Who grades your performance, and how?
Doubtless you are aware of the broad problems and miadventures of the USPTO. In your opinion, what are the USPTO doing wrong?
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
How often do you get applications for simple stuff that clearly has been done by others or are non-innovative, such as using images in an online business, or one-click shopping? If the rate is high, do you suspect that frivolous patents in the US are to blame? If the rate is low, do you attribute this to the overall examination of each application?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
With the recent scuffle over JPEG licensing, the issue has come up about patents that were not actively enforced until they became industry standards. If I create a new widget design, let it be copied until all homes on the continent have my widget, then decide to enforce my patent and take the 300,000 or so manufacturers to court, do I have a right to enforce my patent or does it get dismissed?
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
What resources do you use looking for prior art and how exhaustive is it? How does the prior art help you determine obviousness?
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
I have always thought that the solution to alot of the patent problems we are seeing lies in the details. Alot of Patents that get granted seem very open ended. "A process for doing X with Y", but they many times seem to lack detail and are very openended in how they can be viewed. It seems to me that the public would be better served
if Patents were granted on ver specific fine grained processes. "Specific Process for doing X with Y by using Z in combination with A, B, C, to achive K..." Would you agree? Why or why not?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Do you feel pressure from the US and other countries to approve software patents? I know many corporations will withhold business from countries that don't have "support" for this sort of thing, so is there a big national-level economic incentive in software patents?
How do the US and EU patent offices differ in the realm of ethics? Does the EU patent office even consider this when appoving patents?
One of the major shortcomings of the USPTO seems to be that there are far too many patent applications for the number of people processing them; thus patents on stupid things, obvious things, and even long time standard industry practice things slip through frequently.
Do you believe that your organization has enough employees to adequately review all patent applications? This includes all of the tasks that you're presumably charged with: examining the patent's relevance to its field, searching for prior art, etc. We don't hear much brou-ha-ha with regards to the European patent system, so presumably you folks are doing something right. I'm curious as to whether "a ton of staff" is the key.
One of the most worrying trends is the development of software patents which (unfortunately) especially the UK is pushing very hard for (yup, that's why the UK directive to 'consider Open Source alongsize proprietary solutions' is not as valuable as it seems). Do you see any alternatives to the present yes/no binary answer?
What qualifications do you require for granting a patent to someone?
I am a meat popsicle.
With more and more patents being applied for buisiness practices and non-tangible inventions, how is the requirement for working examples being affected.
Specifically, do you feel that patent requirements have had to be relaxed because of the nondemonstrable qualities of many patent applications recently?
The EU, Africa and Russia have all threatened to bypass U.S. drug company patents on drugs used to combat H.I.V. in order to reduce the costs of distribution to the people who need them.
Could you ever see the same measures taken in terms of technology to help bridge the digital divide?
Thanks!
tcd004
Read the EXTREME Worst-Case Scenario Guidebook
With the millions of technical papers, conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, textbooks, previous patents, and other publications, how does the patent office verify that technical content is acutally patentable (novel and non-obvious) and owned by the submitter? Further, is there a way that the technical communities could assist in preventing these troublesome patents?
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
It's too bad we can'r interview a US patent official. My first question then would be "Does it hurt to have your head that far up your ass?".
I am a research student from the UK. I am currently researching a relatively new area in computing. My research is novel and my own work. A company with an "aggressive patent program" (Quote from their website) have placed several broad patents across my research area.
They basicly can stop me from using my research and take all my work from my posession.
My University does not stand up to any accusations. They do not have lawyers and any research is not worth a lawsuit even if I have strong evidence that my work was independant from their and only based on prior art.
My question is "Is there any way I can question their patents several years after they were accepted without involving large sums of money or my university?"
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
Do you ever get put under pressure (e.g. lobbying, words with MP's etc) by big business to grant a patent, or are you just left to get on with it without any pressure being put on you?
Now tell us about the scariest, most unbelievable patent application you've ever seen.
[o]_O
The US system is based on the power of courts to arbitrate on ownership and validity after the fact. What would you describe as the basic theory behind the EU approach.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
What is the process in the patent office from the point when an application is received to when a decision is made? How much of the decision is up to the patent reviewer, and is there much group discussion before patents are granted?
A major problem in the USA is that the patent office is funded from patent submission fees. This gives them a financial incentive to accept as many patents as they can, and this pressure filters down to the patent examiners.
As the well-known principle goes, if the regulations say X, and the financial incentive is for Y, then people get creative about how to derive Y from X. (And lawyers specialize in exactly this form of creativity.)
So my question is how are the European patent offices funded, and what safeguards are in place to keep them from only representing the desires of (would-be) patent holders?
I've often needed to search patents to see if my software is infringing. One of the most difficult task I found was to understand what was described in the patent. It's hard even for patents that apply to my field (speech processing), so I'd like to understand how you (and other patent examiners) handle incomprehensible patents applying to fields that's not necessarly yours. Do you think that's the reason why so many dumb/obvious patents get through?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
How would your answers differ if you were writing anonymously?
"Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design
Is there any way to stop the onslaught of software patents? Or prehaps even reverse the damage that has been done by them?
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
It seems to me that patents that are issued in the area of computer science are often of similar doubtful validity.
I thought that the purpose of a patent was to encourage innovation and technological advance, whereas what is happening now is quite the reverse.
Would rate of progress in genetics and computing slow if patents were abolished in these fields, copyright provides sufficient protection for the few years until the technology is overtaken by something newer and better.
When an application comes in, what is the mindset of the patent reviewer? Is that person skeptical and therefore attempts to prove it to be a valid patent, or is the goal to assume it's a legit claim and then disprove a patent? It's kind of an innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent thing.
What can we, as the Slashdot community, open source community or just as people interested in fair patents, do within the framework of the European patent system to ensure that patents are allocated fairly and do not ride rough-shod over existing methods and devices?
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
Assuming that removing this status would roughly double the offices wage cost (which is obviously a major part of the budget), which would entail the costs of applying for a patent rising by a significant amount, what do you think the effects would be?
Less applications, those that apply can afford it anyway, what? Are the EU tax-payers supporting big business or the small inventor in this way? Not a troll, just hoping for a discussive answer!
What level and what type of education do you and your fellow examiners have? Do you routinely divide up work according areas of expertise or knowledge? Do you feel it helps in your decision making process to weed out frivolous applications and approve genuine patents? Do you and your co-workers find time to stay up-to-date on issues surrounding your office's public view such that it helps guide you toward positive ends?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I guess you wouldn't support compensating those who do knock down bad patents out of the Patent Office Employees Pension Fund? :)
If a product is in everyday use, then the product cannot be patented. Patents are only available for novel and non-obvious ideas. The greater problems are 1) The enourmous amount of time it takes to get a patent through the PTO (several years) and 2) people enforcing old patents against products that have become common usage.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Most Americans probably won't understand what this is about, but it's worth asking anyway..
With new states set to join the EU, and perhaps even more joining in the future, how will the patent office deal with this?
For example, a company in Romania could have a national patent on, say, a form of compression. A company in the EU may also hold a similar patent.
When Romania joins the EU what happens to harmonize the patent law across the EU? Does the EU patent immediately get preferential treatment? Or does the older patent of the two get the final EU patent?
If this is the case, could a company in a country currently outside the EU get broad patents for a whole bunch of areas, and then claim licencing fees when they join the EU and have their patents validated?
Also, what happens to patents currently held in multiple countries already in the EU? Does the EU take precedence, or do the countries have to fight it out? For example, people in Sweden and the UK might both have patents on the same thing!
mogorific carpentry experiments
What sort of technical qualifications are required for someone to be given the authority to judge whether something as techincal as, say, a software patent, is acceptable? Do you need a bachelor of science degree? A masters? In what fields of study? Is experience in the software field required?
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
Does Britain have a legal Patent industry like that which exists in the US? I am refering to need in the US for the hiring of a lawyer (one or more) if one wishes to accomplish a Patent Search and Patent Registration. Do you have ideas for the simplification of the European and US Patent Office Procedures and/or requirement?
Thank you. MadDad32.
Are patent examiners' voices heard in the debate about patents in Europe ? What is their feeling about patents on algorithms, software or file formats ?
Could you tell us if you, as a patent examiner feel lobbies pressure ? And if yes, how ?
Do you see any chance of the rest of the world succeding in forcing USA to behave? For example, could we threaten to exclude USA from the international patent treaties, and stop enforcing US patents anywhere else?
In Murphy We Turst
What are the limitations you use in relation to overly vague or broad patents?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Do you think your office would have approved this patent (approved April 9, 2002)?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Being a patent officer obviously requires knowledge in various areas. Is the patent office devided into various sections (mechanical, computers, agricultural, etc...)?
And what about enhancing your knowledge? How do you tackle new technologies that are coming out. What tools are given to you in order for you to do your job? (training, seminars, courses, books, etc...)
It's better to burn out than to fade away
What made you want to become a patent examiner?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Basically my question is this: Do you, as an employee of a patent office, feel that the work you do is done in an efficient, straightforward, and intelligently designed manner, and/or what are the parts of the procedure you would like to see change?
hmmmm?
That is, there are several factors which would deter a lone inventor or small company from trying to enter an innovative field. These include:
- The time and expense of a thorough patent search
- The time and expense of preparing a patent (especially if a lawyer is hired to do the job properly)
- A large company somewhere is bound to have a patent at least tangentially related to the product in question, which could be used as a tactical weapon against the smaller company. Even if the product is found not to violate the patent, the cost of defending such cases can sink a small company.
Do the benefits of the patent system outweigh the above disadvantages?Do I now have to bribe patent officers in euros, or are good old-fashioned pounds still acceptable?
(I'm not sure I agree that the current state of the US system has any close connection with the system's basic underlying philosophy, btw.)
At a conference I attended end of last year, the EPO's director admitted that software patents had been accorded to companies, without a legal basis from the EU.
What is the legal status of these patents? Do they have any value, or could any court throw them out? Does it even have to go to court? And how does the EPO justify such (IMHO, illegal, but IANAL) practice?
It is my impression that the EPO allows members of the public to follow the prosecution of a patent application and submit information to the examiner to consider in examining the patent. Do you think that the relative openness of the European system affects most applications, and if so, to what degree?
No, it doesn't.
I want countries to COMPETE, not homogenize, just as the states in the US are able to "compete" for citizens/business via better taxes, law, etc.
I'm glad some nations are smart enough not to grant monopolies on software, business methods, and genetic info. It's a mistaken idea that overly strong IP protection -- especially in rapidly evolving markets -- translates into a stronger economy. e.g. just the opposite would be true if the net was burdened with patents to begin with.
--
Power to the Peaceful
Do you see any value in a ranking or grading system for patents themselves?
Clearly, some patents are more ingenious than others. If there was a "strength" ranking system, then it may make it easier for smaller companies to defend against weak or silly patents.
Table-ized A.I.
As I understand it, with the current system patent examiners have the task to find out whether or not a patent application is truly new/innovative/...
This implies that if you take the path of least resistance (underfunded patent examiners/time constraints/whatever/...) by default, the patent will pass, and a monopoly on the device (albeit temporary) is given out. Effort has to be made to stop a patent application.
Isn't this placing the "burden of proof" at the wrong side? Shouldn't it be so, that by default the patent should NOT be given out?
I've heard (don't know if this is correct) that with the USPTO the patent examiners get rewarded for every patent granted. Shouldn't the patent examiners get a reward for every patent application blocked?
The infamous U. S. patent 6,368,227 granted a patent to the method of swinging sideways on a playground swing, in the manner practiced by children for decades.
Could this patent have been granted in Europe, and, if not, what would have prevented it?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
In the US (probably in the EU, also), you aren't allowed to defend yourself at a patent trial because it's assumed that you can't understand the patent.
On the other hand, the only reason patents exist is to convince inventors to put their research out there for everyone to see and build upon (after a certain time period).
So, if these inventors are supposed to look at a patent and it's supposed to be "reduced to practice" then they're supposed to be able to implement it, right? Which means that they have to understand the patent right? If they're expected to EXTEND the patent, then they have to understand the current patent right?
But they can't understand a patent since they're not patent lawyers...
It makes no sense to me. If people are assumed to be unable to understand a patent unless they're patent lawyers, and if the only reason patents exist is to let engineers avoid reinventing the wheel by reading and understanding the patents, then aren't they worthless?
Or if not, could you explain the legal contortions that give two totally separate meanings to "understanding" a patent?
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Please allow me to clarify what I think Graspee_Leemoor was trying to get at:
What is being done in Europe to stop [] abuses of the patent system similar to those we see in the US ? (I'm particularly thinking of the recent so-called "JPEG" fiasco).
Or perhaps you do not view them as unreasonable, but I myself see this kind of patenting of existing [] inventions or allowing patented technology into an international standard but then drastically changing the licensing terms[1] as an ethically bankrupt "revenue stream".
[1] added by yerricde to correspond more closely with the JPEG facts
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's been said that patent officers should be experts with regards to the field they are judging (for example, only software engineers should be allowed to grant software patents). With the large number of bad patents being granted here in the US it seems quite attractive. What are your opinions on the matter?
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
As it is now, there is virtually NO incentive for patent examiners to do their job correctly.
There are NO penalties for a lazy patent examiner who ignores tons of well known prior art and just signs off automatically on every ridiculous piece of crap that lands on his desk.
Here's how it can be fixed:
1) patent examiners get paid some very low base rate for examining a patent
2) patent examiners get a bonus for every prior art they can find which invalidates the patent
3) patents which are invalidated via prior art in court result in the responsible patent examiner's payment for that patent being revoked
4) examiners who have a history of patents being invalidated are suspended or fired.
Essentially, the patent examination process would then provide REAL incentive for examiners to do exhaustive research to invalidate patents -- as it should be.
Right now there is NO incentive for patent examiners to do a proper prior art search. And this leads to extensive abuse of the system from bogus and invalid patents. The most incredible crap gets signed off these days, and it's obvious the examination process needs a total overhaul.
What is the impact of patents going to do to markets that issue them, which are small such as the combinded US and European Markets, and those that do not?
How can American and European startup companies possibly compete against foriegn markets if they must pay patents on ridiculously long patent lifetimes vs foreign companies who do not have such startup costs?
How can American companies hope to do any sort of research if they have huge legal battles ahead of them in patent research, into Biotech or Software for example, if foreign companies of other nations do not have these problems in thier own domestic markets?
Do you feel patents lead to monolithic, and very unhealthy non-diversivied, economics in the high tech industry of countries that issue patents? If so why and if not why not?
Do you think a high tech industry heavily patented is more healthy than one that is not?
I tend to feel patents should have a maximum lifetime of 2 years for the following reasons:
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
sorry that turned out to be kind of a rant. to turn it into a question -- do you think the proposed changes would work? how would you change it, given the current brokenness of the patent examination system?
Most patent (applications) I know are written in an obscure variation of english, probably only known by lawyers. In particular, it seems that any applications are obscured by the lawyers to point where the experts in the area can hardly understand what's going on [or anyway, it's made unnecessarily hard to understand]. I'm wondering what is the reason for this, and what you think should be done to prevent it?
-- Esa Pulkkinen
I think I can partially answer this one. The important fact to note is that the European Patent Convention (the document constituting the EPO) isn't part of the body of treaty law comprising the EU. This creates some interesting problems, especially when the EU passes patent directives that could require member states to try and alter their obligations under the EPC (while all EU members are parties to the EPC, not all EPC parties are member states of the EU).
The basic upshot of this is that there is no single European patent that can be overseen and enforced by a transnational judicial system (i.e. the European Court of Justice). Instead, the grant of a patent from the EPO is recognized and enforced by the domestic courts of each party to the EPC. Effectively, you get a "bundle" of national patents in countries with quite similar patents law (as the EPC requires).
So, a general answer to your question would be: while there are many similarities in the way the EPC countries treat patents, there will be differences according to the system of law employed domestically by each country. So while the UK would have a similar approach to the US, the civil law countries on the European continent will have minor, but not insignificant, differences. Since I'm no expert on civil law, I can't give you any more information than that.
if a patent is allowed, you get 2 credits. you also get 1 or .5 credits for doing a PCT(patent cooperation treaty) application.
Thanks for explaining the details of the U.S. points system.
wow dude, you ovbiously have NO CLUE how the patent office works.
you make it sound as though the patent office allows EVERY case it recieves. this is in fact VERY incorrect. in excess of 90% of applications are rejected the first time. The average application takes several years after it is filled before it gets a first examination by an examiner. Afterwards it takes months-years before it becomes abandonded or allowed.
If an examiner allows the vast majority of cases on their docket on the first action, their boss would wonder what is going on. the patent ofice makes money in the US via fees, the more time you have to ammend and add new claims, the more revenue the office recieves.
btw im a US examiner.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
I tend to feel patents should have a maximum lifetime of 2 years for the following reasons:
1) 2 years is long enough for almost any technology, and allows other companies a lower barrier to market for what most patents come to be: industry standards or acceptable practices.
Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
2) It prevents a market place or any one company from manipulating the legal system for extensive periods of time to squash competition. Not only because of fear that a product might be superior, but to keep prices high and competition low.
A patent is a limited MONOPOLY granted to a inventor in exchange for the inventor disclosing how theinvention works to the public. without such a system, there will be little public disclosure of new invention except through peer reiew publications. what does that mean? Well, through a published patent, the public learns about new inventions and can use that base invention to make improvements and in turn file a new patent. With out a patent there is no incentive to make such information public and everything in industry would likely be a trade secret. Technology would likely develop at a slower rate since it would be more difficult for peple to learn how things work except through reverse engineering, which in some cases may take an inordinate amount of time.
3) Both 1 and 2 breed an industry, that economically in any country that has patents, that is unhealthy to said countries economic well being, and effectively causes problems in a world emerging marketplace for that company who wishes to compete world wide.
I would tend to disagree. Without patent protection, someone can easily copy your invention and manufacture it outside the country and possbily reimport it or use it to develop their own products and out sell you.
if a forgien company wants patent protection for a product they wish to sell in the US, they have to file a patent, likewise in their own country.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Especially when the patient has to take the drug on a DAILY basis, in this case?
I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years.
It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Very very BAD example my friend.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it. You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it.
In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels.
I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels.
I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON.
That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business.
This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain.
Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
-hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
Oh plu-eaze....
You are going to tell me, that for example, Lipitor, a drug that controls enzyme blood levels for cholesterol for people that have high LDL levels in thier blood, would not be financially recovered in research and development if world wide a monopoly on the drug sale for 2 years, couldn't recoupe the cost? Furthermore because the market is a world wide monopoly as you suggest, the drug company in question sets the price anyway based on recovering expenses during that two years?
Perhaps you can do it for 2 years AFTER the FDA approves the treatment. By that time under your proposal, the patent would have expired. Besides, you are asuming that the drug would be patented/approved worldwide at the same time, a US patent is not enforced in another country, the inventor/asignee has to have a patent in another country as well. In the US, you can't get a patent on something which was made public or on sale in the US or another country at least one year prior to the date of filing.I am sorry, but that was a real BAD assumption, basis for your argument, for biotech products in general in the pharmacological industry. Drug costs can be recovered in monopoly markets, costing BILLIONS of dollars for research and development in a VERY short period of time for example if they are sold world wide, in MONTHS, let alone years. It also takes COPYCAT drug companies a few years to get to market with generics EVEN AFTER the Patent expires, and THEY TOO must go through FDA approval processes for distribution that makes the process longer than just a question of copying the mechanical aspects of production of the copycat drug.
Yes as you said, it takes everyone years to get to market because you have to go to the FDA, even generic manufacturers. In the US, a patent is good for 20 years from DATE OF FILING. It takes several years(currently as many as 4+) for a patent to be approved via the US patent office. Now, add in another 2-4 years for the FDA and you are down from 20 years patent protection to 12-14 years. It may only take a few months development, but not every drug can be patented, heck not every drug developed by companies can even go to market (the sucess rate is certainly less than 100%). I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but on the patent side, you have to believe the inventors specification and research when it comes to the effectiveness of the drug (if they are coming up with a new treatment that has never been done before, there is nothing to counter it).Very very BAD example my friend. ..Two years is not really long enough time by any means. What if you are a small inventor. You may need months or years to find someone to purchase your patent or someone to license too. is 2 years enough time? What about if you developed a new drug and it takes the FDA 2-7 years to approve your drug for sale, by that time, the patent has expired and you can't recoupe the research expenses.
This is drivel. If your idea is worth a hill of beans you do what ever other person does, you build a demo product from investors, prove it works, and THEN patent it. ,/p>
YOU CAN NOT DO THIS. DOING SO PREVENTS YOU FROM GETTING A PATENT. (I am a patent examiner, that is a violation of 35USC 102 (a): the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.) You have then relinquished your right to a patent because you have disclosed it to others. Don't beleive me? Well, there have been more than a few cases of this. You can't disclose the invention until after you submit the application to the patent office, unless you work for a company, because most likely you assigned all IP that you create to that company. This does absolutely nothing for an independant inventor. Hence 2 years is still not enough. Now, you can file then go out and try to sell your invention while the patent is waiting to be examined.
You can't patent anything just from a sheet of paper and an IDEA you have to have a working model to begin with. I am sorry but your contention that no one would buy your invention before the patent expires is putting the horse before the cart.
I tend to disagree, again as I said, I am a patent examiner, and used to work in sales engineering at one point. It easily takes months or years to sell anything to someone which is not a commodity (i.e. some proprietary system).It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
Yes, it does. I have the real world experience to prove it.Your example is contrived, heavily, like an astroturfed AD claiming everyone is using your product when nobody has even heard of it. In fact, if you do the research in the Biotech industry you will find it doesn't take long for drug research to be recovered and profits to be achieved. This is more a function of the patient having to consume the drug, usually fairly frequently for example on a daily basis, and the size of the market. Which, is quite huge if we are talking world wide with possibly hundreds of MILLIONS of people suffering from a common disease such as high cholesterol levels. I also do NOT believe, since you glossed over a lot of what I said for example in my argument, that longer than 2 years, companies tend to get cash stock piles that are SO HUGE, they use them to legally suppress NEW RESEARCH that disproves a drugs effectiveness. For example, in the liptor case, inflamation, NOT HIGH LDL cholesterol levels, is emerging to be the root cause of heart attacks and heart disease, NOT high cholesterol levels. I have NO DOUBT, that current Phizor attorneys at THIS VERY MOMENT are looking at suing, or putting out of business ANYONE that touches thier Lipitor drug markets until Phizor, and ONLY Phizor has a solution to this inflamation problem, REGARDLESS of the market opportunities for anyone who decides they want to do research or sell into that market share Phizor already owns from the sale of Lipitor.
They are entitled to do so, a patent is a monopoly. Without it, what incentive do they have to create the product?This is a common problem with patents that last longer than 2 years. You can also see this in the unhealthy diversification of the software market, for example here in the US. Companies like Microsoft use thier HUGE accumulated cash stockpiles from YEARS of Monopoly market control to SQUASH, or legally DESTROY any small inventor, company or that has a particular idea.
I don't remember microsoft patenting MSDOS or patenting Windows. You can't patent an operating system via a single patent, you need dozens-hundreds to do so. Monopolies aren't inherently wrong (although lack of competition isn't good for the consumer). Microsoft used the money the recieved from being the only player in the business market, a position they gained because IBM did not seem to consider the OS market to be important. Did, you know that back in the early days of digital electronics, no one bothered patenting electronics because things changed so rapidly? The result was that everyone copied everyone else. Now was there innovation derived from that copying, most certainly yes and the world of electronics advanced, but early inventors were clearly shortchanged from their rights and ability to profit.Most investors won't even TOUCH YOU if your idea has ANY IMPACT on Microsoft's percieved market place AND FOR GOOD REASON. That shouldn't be the case, and I would argue just the opposite. Patent systems that provide market monopolies to companies longer than specified 2 years create stagnant market places, very little innovation and locks out new ideas or small inventors. Investors won't take the chance on an idea that could exhaust a startup's funds, just in legal expenses, if a company that controls a market monopoly can sue them out of business. This has happened so many times in the past years with Microsoft and smaller companies it has bullied, I can't begin to explain. Don't forget too, that the American consumer never ever gets to see any of these new ideas either because Microsoft would not permit the company to sell them on the open market place as well.
Well, all the inventor has to do is get a patent. Microsoft then has to fight it in the courts like everyone else. They can use their accumulated wealth to squash it from a marketing perspective or investment prospective, but they can't buy the examiner (you can't accept large sums of money/gifts from a company, its called bribing a federal offical). You can not get a software patent in the US. However, if you read the "software patents" claims, they usually read something like: A computer readable medium on which...... That is a slight distinction. Software patents really aren't that usefull (and you can't get a patent on algorithims), because the marketplace changes so quickly (as I stated above with early digital electronics). Buisness methods on the otherhand are another story. Actually my friend I am an expert on this. Want to know why? I deal with it every day. I am a patent examiner, I use google for prior art. You can't just use what the applicant provides you for prior art because it is compromised (the search firms have a financial interest in finding the prior art). The problem is this, if I'm working on a patent which was filed in 1999, and today is 2002, i cant use something which was published on google in 2000. People dont seem to realize it that the examiner does their search for the state of that art at the time that the invention was filed! You can't use hindsight reasoning for ovbiousness as well. Has microsoft done some "evil" things, sure, but so did the train barons of the 19th century. What you are arguing seems to be that for biotech and software, patents should be treated differently. You might not be aware of this, but the bigest application filers are in the ELECTRONICS/TELECOMMUNICATIONS industry. Likewise, for someone who patents machinery, do you believe that they should be entitiled to a 2 year patent? The mechanical device industry does opperate differently and it may take longer than the 2 years you suggest for all industries to recover the costs of development. Perhaps a better arguement is that software patents should last 2 years, but as an examiner, i see more than just software type patents, as such, I can't see how the vast majority of companies/inventors can recover their profits in only 2 years on physical devices. The software patents/biotech patents are not the only ones issued worldwide.Bring back the old version of slashdot.
The problem is that some one invented the wheel and years later they patented some aspects of the wheel even though it was obveousley intended that way. The roundness of it, the fact that you need a pole in the middle etc.
I dont have a large company behind me. They are quite happy to let me do research in the area but when it comes to place a patent or make a product they can claim its theirs. They will probably wait until they can squease the most out of me before killing me off.
I try to publish as often as possible but they don't have to defend their patent to keep its validity.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
Techniucally a US patent on software shouldn't be inforceable in Europe because they don't allow those kinde of patents.
Thats where the WIPO come in, they make you life unbareable if you don't adopt someone elses (Normally the US?) patent.
So is the question, what do you think about the enforcement of US patents in Europe where a patent wouldn't have been granted in Europe.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.