Slashdot Mirror
'Patently Ridiculous' - What's Wrong With The PTO
PhxBlue writes "The St. Petersburg (FL) Times wrote an editorial this morning lambasting a patent system which allows patents for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and swinging sideways. It has some background on how the patent system became as FUBARed as it is, citing rulings by the Supreme Court in 1980 and by the federal patent appeals court in 1998; but more importantly, it brings the faults with the US patent process to a more public eye."
Really?
You'll have that sometimes...
I want to patent the crustless-fluffenutter. And what would be wrong with that?
You'll have that sometimes...
Speaking of ridiculous patents let us not forget the esteemed Australian gentleman who patented the wheel!
To the APO's credit they did retract the patent...
-ghostis
Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
There are many indicators throughout history that have shown that patents and greedy people behind those patents have actually inhibited the progress of our society and culture.
Take for example Tesla. Without the many inventions he created, all patentless, we would be in dire straits indeed. He did not believe in making money from his inventions.
By patenting everything on the face of the earth, you increase cost, piracy/theft rates, and you effectively remove certain technologies from lower income households. Finally, it stagnates the future of that invention, because it cannot be used and matured without paying fee upon fee.
A Times Editorial
Patently ridiculous
When peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are getting their own patent, the system intended to protect creativity is in need of a major overhaul.
© St. Petersburg Times
published February 24, 2003
Patents were once granted only to useful inventions that promoted creativity in the marketplace and, as former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas explained, "serve a higher end -- the advancement of science." Now, they're given to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
To illustrate the shortcomings of the current patent system, the Los Angeles Times had to look no further than Patent No. 6,004,596. Two South Dakota men were granted that patent after coming up with an idea to make a one-piece, crustless PB&J sandwich. The sandwich, called Uncrustable, proved popular with school children, so J.M. Smucker Co. bought them out. Wielding its new patent, Smucker ordered a competitor to stop making its E.Z. Jammers sandwich. Smucker expects to win the case and expand its domination of the crustless peanut butter sandwich market.
A patent should be granted with great care, because it confers a monopoly to the patent holder and lasts 20 years. Until modern times, machines and industrial processes -- but not ideas -- were considered for patents. That limitation was weakened by a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that extended patent protection to genetically engineered bacteria. The federal patent appeals court opened the floodgates in 1998 when it allowed a financial company to patent its business method, which was little more than the way it used mathematical formulas.
At that point, "you're no longer patenting the corkscrew," explained Duke University law professor James Boyle. "You're patenting the idea of taking the cork out of the bottle so you can drink the wine."
Now, the rush of patent requests has overwhelmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Applications are longer and more complex, but overworked examiners are evaluated on how many patents they process, making it more difficult for them to do extensive research. That could be one reason -- along with a generous appellate court -- that 75 percent of patent applications are successful.
Rather than stimulating the economy, the flood of new patents often stifles competition and sparks litigation, especially in the technology industry. Some companies exist not to provide a product or service but to sue other companies for patent infringement.
As the PB&J sandwich case shows, there is a growing doubt that patents are given only to worthy endeavors. Just for fun, lawyer Peter Olson applied for a patent on the method his young son (and every child) uses to swing sideways rather than back and forth by pulling the chains to the side. His Patent No. 6,368,227 is pending.
James E. Rogan, director of the patent office, admits his employees are overburdened. He said his plan is "to use competitive outsourcing and state-of-the-art electronic technology to bring into the 21st century an agency that has been operating on an 18th-century paradigm for the past 200 years." Small fixes aren't likely to regain control of the process, however. A comprehensive review of patent policy is needed, keeping in mind that the goal is to spark economic vitality and advance science, not to help one company corner the market on PB&J sandwiches.
Only good explanation I can think of for this dead link getting 2 informative bumps.
by Jeff Bezos. That's what's wrong with it.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
Just patent the process of patenting things. Then you could sue the patent office out of all those millions they spend researching incoming patents!! You know they'd let it slide past if you worded it obtusely enough.
One - I'll be able to make a HUGE wad (sorry) of cash off this one, and
Two - I'm pretty damn sure nobody will be whacked enough (sorry again) to come forward with any "prior art" (jeez, sorry sorry sorry)
The only problem is it's not really an "invention" per se. But I'm gonna get a Microsoft leftover lawyer, so reality won't matter much. I'm gonna be richer than Bill Gates, the last guy to successfully charge the world for getting f*&%$ked.
But seriously - the more stupid patents, the more ridiculous the system becomes, and the quicker someone with power and a brain (a rare combo, to be sure) wakes up and throws the whole system in the trash.
take the space out of the link and it works fine.
The ______ Agenda
The US patent system as it stands today is a system by which innovations are registered by the government with little or no background check. These innovation registrations are then challenged in court by those with competing interests. The problem with this system is that during the registration process it is assumed that the courts will check the validity of the patent, and during the court process it is assumed the patent office checked its validity. It takes a large deal of financial backing to challenge a patent in court, and a relatively small amount of money to obtain a patent. Thus, it is financially advantageous to file BS patents, and equally advantageous to settle with those companies who wield them.
I'm glad to see another site reporting on the issue, but I fail to see how this has changed since 1989.
The ______ Agenda
The US Patent Office has a page on "What can be Patented"
Some interesting excerpts for those to lazy to click through:
"...any person who 'invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,' subject to the conditions and requirements of the law."
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful."
"... patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc..."
Who's the lucky animal that holds the patents on Ninnle Linux?
I see the patent system being to ideas much the same as I see the domain name registrar being a party to one set of people who tie up the works so nobody else can do anything until they get paid. An anology is having the kids race to the playground during recess, only to claim the various objects of play and charge a fee for their use. Although this paradigm doesn't really work in school, it works very profitably in the corporate world.
Say, I had a design for a solar powered air conditioner using an Absorption Process using Lithium Bromide as a refrigerant. Now, by dropping the pressure, I can get LiBr to boil at 90 deg. F , separate the water from the brine, cool both using the swimming pool water as a heat sink, then recombine both streams in the house so as to put the condenser at around 40 deg F. This will allow me to cool the house to about 70 deg F on a hot day. Now, if I actually released this design, do you think I will have problems?
Of course I will.
I think there is even a way I can do it with Ammonium Nitrate with a little less efficiency. The neat thing about Ammonium Nitrate is that it is also useful as fertilizer, so that if there is any reason to ever have to purge the refrigerant, the grass would love it.
Ever seen those cold packs that consist of two pouches of liquid which get very cold when you mix them... and are typically used in first aid kits for injured athletes? Probably Ammonium Nitrate. If you have access to a fertilizer store, buy some and try it. Put some ammonium nitrate in a bucket, add water. See how cold it gets. Now imagine if you were pulling a vacuum on it and imagine what it would be like if you could boil it back apart at about 90 deg F or so, and endlessly recombine it in your house. You get the idea.
Don,t worry about the stuff after you've done your experiment... its great fertilizer. Your lawn will love you. Just don't put too much in one place.
But am I free to actually pursue this curiosity as a commmercial endeavor to share with the world?
I would quickly lose all my capital in litigation. I can not afford that.
So my research is just for me, not for the world.
We are not in a position yet to where such research, conducted by individuals, is of such importance as to threaten corporate holdings, where such distribution of technology outside their control, could economically harm them.
They have the money it takes to control Law, and that, quite simply, is the bottom line.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Until modern times, machines and industrial processes -- but not ideas -- were considered for patents. That limitation was weakened by a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that extended patent protection to genetically engineered bacteria. The federal patent appeals court opened the floodgates in 1998 when it allowed a financial company to patent its business method, which was little more than the way it used mathematical formulas.
Patent law might say one thing, but apparently the courts have ruled something different. The proper course of action here would be to challenge that 1998 ruling based on patent law, get it overturned, and then proceed to challenge every patent granted since then on an idea, and not any acutal machine or process.
Nicky Tesla didn't patent his inventions? What alternate history are you from? http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/patents.htm
nothin to see here folks, just testing somthing out.
Cue The Sun...
Patent that. It's called "not being a prick".
Very popular slashdot journal for adul