Information Patents in the US and Europe

Over_and_Done writes "First Monday has an article up discussing the differences in information process patents between the US and Europe. The author mentions that the United States reform is too focused on process reform, arguing that they should be instead focusing on what is and is not patentable (i.e. Business Method patents). He also states that Europe is choosing to instead follow a different track, and make the process a little more restrictive, resulting in a rift between the US and Europe. The article raises a lot of interesting facts that I was not aware of, including the incident where the US threatened to walk out of the WIPO meeting because the proposed treaty did not 'mandate patents for all fields of activity.' The author, although critical of the policies on both sides of the pond states that the rift is in some ways healthy, as it encourages an open debate and requires people to look at the patent issue from many different angles."

Comments

Sorry, no more comments on this

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a patent on writing comments on a news story for the purpose of discussion, and Slashdot doesn't have a license to use my technology.

Re:Sorry, no more comments on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, your patent conflicts with my patent on patenting, and you're not giving me a royalty!

Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[eenglish_ca]

What I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas, not patterns such as those making up the genome and so forth. Those belong to their owners therefore falling under the arena of copyrighting. IMHO.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Bendebecker]

"I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas"
Algroithms and scientific ideas should not be patentable. Patent law in the U.S. was orginally designed to 'stimulate invention and creativity.' The law was designed as a social contract, we will give you the exclusive rights to such and such an invention in exchange for you publically announcing not only that you have invented this but detailing how it works. The idea behind this is that you benefit somewhat from legal monoply while the public beenfits from having a new idea out there, one which it was assumed by the creaters of the law would be built upon and surpassed by better inventions by the time the patent ran out. The monolply that coems with a patent was only tolerated so that new ideas would be open to the public and creativity would flourish(not just by you but by the public since they could now view the patent.) However, we increasingly see people patenting things, not to stimulate craetivity and new ideas, but rather to supress craetivity and to prohibit people from building on inventions.
Now we come to algorithms and scientific ideas. Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented? Imagine if the theory of relativity had been patented? Imagine if Rutherford had patented his ideas on the atom, or if the theory of elctromagnetism had been patented? The patenting of such things do not stimulate invention or creativity. Rather it creates a monopoly that stagnates a field of science. Such monoplies were not nor ever will be justifiable under patent law. In addition, patent law bars the patenting of processes that can be potentially thought through by a human. This is why mathemtaical algorithms (or proofs) cannot be patented. The algorithms that have been patented have been only patented since they exist on machines and even this is highly debated (in fact, depending on what district of the federal government your case is heard in decides if they take a computer algorithm to be patentable or not.) Algroithms can be thought out by the human mind hence they should not be patentable. In addition, scientific ideas are laws of nature which by patent law are not patnetable. What if Netwon patented gravity and then decided to take a royality from everyone making use of the idea? Every physicist on Earth and every physics textbook would have had to pay him.
In the end, patent law (and copyright law for taht matter) were designmed to stimulate invention and creativity, not only by you but the public as well. the government never garuntees you will make money for an idea, they simply have decided that in some cases it is in the publics best interests to grant you limited control of an idea. Once such a protection is no longer in the publics best interests (teh governemnt considers the publics bets interests far more important tahn any indivisuals, the idea of government is utilitarian at heart), any such control of an idea is a violation of teh spirit of copyright and patent law.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[zurab]

What I believe should be patentable are Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

Great - corporations patent every new/old/used algorithm and idea in sight and use it as a part of their portfolio to scare off competitors. How is this helping innovation? If anything it is preventing anyone to actually act on the idea to innovate.

Patent system is flawed - on top of what has already been said about it such as patents are too broad, many things should not be patentable, etc. - it is flawed in that USPTO receives money for every patent granted; it is to USPTO's advantage to grant more and more patents to get more funding. It is so ridiculous, I don't know that anything I do isn't patented already. The argument that patent database is open is not helpful - there's so many of them, you can't be expected to go through it next time you want to do something obvious.

Can I raise my hand to pull over a cab without violating a patent? I don't know - I certainly can't swing on a swing.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[LongJohnStewartMill]

What if Netwon patented gravity and then decided to take a royality from everyone making use of the idea

Newton would be rich, especially if it was a US patent. Since ~30% of Americans are obese, he could just walk around and make money off of fat people. "I believe you're using something that belongs to me. Pay the royalty please. Thank you. Here, have a candy. My treat."

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Gerry Gleason]

Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented?

Exactly right. In fact the article quote Gates saying that if this type of patent were possible in the past, the industry would be at a standstill, but he doesn't continue this quote as Lessig does in this presentation where he (Gates) indicates his plan to do exactly that with our future. If you don't think he plans to use this to attempt to destroy Linux at some point, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[eenglish_ca]

I was rushed on the first post. Expanding on what I said, patents should only last several years before they are voided so that the person holding the patent has enough time to market it. In addition things should only be patentable if they are within reason.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[MegaHamsterX]

Betcha IBM could sink MS in a patent lawsuit contest, if Billy screwed with their big iron Linux, oh that's right Linux is Linux, Billy better pick on Sun and Oracle as he has in the past. Google seems like their best target right now, unless IBM buys them.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[isorox]

I certainly can't swing on a swing [uspto.gov].

Sorry, thats too ridiculous to be believeable - whats the catch?

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Groote Ka]

Although I am not in favour of this, it might have helped development in certain ways.

Gauss was generally known as a prick, keeping all his algorithm for himself. When someone came up to Gauss showing him a just developped algorithm, Gauss would just brag that he had developped the same over ten years ago. He just kept everything to himself.
This is just an example, similar cases are known for other famous mathematicians.

Imagine what would have happened when Maxwell wouldn't have had Gauss' theorems at his disposal, because Gauss had died without making his theorems public?

Adequate registry, with the possibility of a limited lifetime monopoly might have had motivated Gauss to publish early.

However, IMO this is not applicable in this era, unless we want to thwart technological progress.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Mac Degger]

I'll go one further; it is as impossible to effectively patent algorithms and scientific ideas as it is to not think of pink elephants.

Once you read a scientific paper, or see the documentation of an algorithm, it's imprinted on you; it colours any representation of the world and possible approach to computing you think of. To patent something as basic as that puts both fields at a standstill. The same goes for bussiness models.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

>Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented? Imagine if the theory of relativity had been patented?

That would actually be good, as these patents would have all expired by now and the problem would not exist.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Com2Kid]

Sorry, it is not a joke.

more information here

This was actually posted on /. about a year or so back.

The father filed the patent to teach his son about how the US patent system works, figuring something so ridiculous and obvious would never get patented.

Two years later, he got back the news, patent approved.

Oddly enough, it does not appear to have been overturned, or would I have to look someplace else to find that out?

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Bendebecker]

"or was it the result of some smart people doing a lot of hard thinking, making some mistakes, enduring frustration, having flashes of brilliance, and developing a technique which provides a great deal of value to a lot of people?"

Mathematical proofs fall under this description as does most of the methods for solving Linear Algebra problems. As I said, mathematical processes are not patentable and neither are processes which can be thought out by the human mind the prime example being mental math (and any computer algorithm since it was designed by a human who thought it out can obviously be thought out by a human.) In patent law there is a thing called 'sweat equity'. Basically it is an argument that since I did all this hard work for something I should make money off it. It was a rejected argument initially and has remained a rejected argument for nearly 100 years. I have no doubts Google's implementation of the algorithm is patentable, but teh algorithm, the process by which results are computed, should not be patentable.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[harriet nyborg]

your point is well taken, the solution fermat's theorm involved a great deal of sweat, but the proof is not a patentable result.

but google's search method is not a mathematical proof, it is not an element of nature, it is a method of locating, ranking, and presenting web sites. it is (i assume) novel and the fact that it works better than yahoo, alta vista, dogpile, or any of it's competitors is stong evidence that the solution is not obvious.

so it's an invention according to us law.

claimed as a method.

and if you add technical effect "the results displayed on a screen" you can even get the method patented in the software patent unfriendly EPO.

Re:Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Those seeking to patent the genomes did not invent them, not even in the broad sense of bioengineered species. They merely reverse-engineered an existing design to see how it's put together. The invention honors belong to the parents who mixed up the DNA, not those who mapped it out. That's why naturally occurring genomes should not be patentable: the applicant did not actually create the patented item!

Is there a theme here?

[Sky Lemon]

US threatened to walk out of the WIPO meeting because the proposed treaty did not 'mandate patents for all fields of activity.' Just like the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty since Bush "will not accept a plan that will harm our economy." Or, just like the U.S. is "upholding international law" by walking out on the U.N. when an absolute mandate for war was not immediately and unconditionally accepted.

Re:Is there a theme here?

[Anonymous Coward]

RIGHT THATS IT !
now give me my ball back im going home, you wait till i tell my dad

hmmph

Re:Is there a theme here?

[angle_slam]

While Bush may have formally pulled out of the treaty, he didn't really have a choice. Treaties require consent from the Senate. The Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify it.

Re:Is there a theme here?

[Anonymous Coward]

And thats why that instead of the New American Century the govt controlled media churns out every day itll turn instead into the smackdown of the US by the rest of the world.
Most of the world has just realised (invading Iraq was the wake up call) that the US has the motto 'Do what we tell you, not what we do'. Just wait and see the economic fucking up of the US as the rest of the world refusing to trade with it.

Re:Is there a theme here?

[Anonymous Coward]

They hate us for our power, but they're jealous of our wealth.

Just wait and see the economic fucking up of the US as the rest of the world refusing to trade with it.

Talk about no concept of reality..

Re:Is there a theme here?

[HiThere]

He had a choice. He could always have waffled, and re-submitted it "with corrections to the translations". He still wouldn't have gotten it through, but he didn't need to be offensive.

(I don't think anyone expected him to get the treaty through, when he clearly didn't want to. But they also didn't expect him to be gratuitously offensive.)

Re:Is there a theme here?

[HiThere]

That's going to happen, though not through political directive. What's going to happen is that the dollar will be so devalued that we won't be able to afford anything made outside the country.

The political signal that this is starting will be when countries start refusing to accept loans where the payment is figured in dollars. If they are sensible, it's already started. Other countries are having economic troubles too, though, so they might be distracted. (It takes a bit of doing to revamp an international economic standard.)

Software patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Software patents lead to innovation only within the company that owns them.

Re:Software patents...

[curlyFry]

Umm, not even then... Here's an example:

A games company I know (NovaLogic) became tied to a software technology they patented many years ago (various voxel terrain rendering algorithms). At the time they were quite ahead of the competition graphically and the patent allowed them to rest on their laurels, assured that no other company could replicate their technology without infringing on their patent...

To their suprise and horror several years later the industry had moved on, leaving their software rendering based technology in the hardware rendered dust... Unfortunately, they had so much momentum built around the old system that they almost didn't survive the transition.

Even when they started the transition they didn't understand why their hardware accelerated scenes (that still had voxel backgrounds) rendered so much more slowly than the competitions. At least until they entirely removed the the old code...

Are those links safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to look at while at work?

Walking out of WIPO meeting?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with american diplomats and walking out of meetings? They're like little pre-school kids! Maybe next they'll try to invade Europe and standardize the patent system to match their own, then install CDMA cause it's "better and newer (NOT!)"

The American Way

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the U.S. threatening to walk out encourage open debate? Typical Bush-style diplomacy.

Re:The American Way

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the same reason over 55% believe Saddam was responible for 9/11

BECAUSE THE US IS FULL OF IDIOTS. So logically its run by them too.

Spookey dookey

[donnz]

Strangely, software development continues in the rest of the world without patent protection.

(sorry, couldn't help the shameless plug!)

Re:Spookey dookey

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, as if the rest of the world isn't wayyyy far behind in producing software useful enough to actually buy.

Re:Spookey dookey

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, as if the rest of the world isn't wayyyy far behind in producing software useful enough to actually buy.

Don't get too cocky or complacent. Your country used to think the same way about cars and electronics. Seems you kind of, ahem, fumbled those balls, didn't you?

The nexus between business and government

[caitsith01]

The patent hijinks in the US in recent years seems to highlight the strong nexus between government and business in America. Intellectual Property has been willingly converted from a protective 'shield' designed to foster innovation into a 'sword' to strike down competitors. The most obvious example is the various startup companies who have no actual products, just a patent, and who proceed to work their way up the food chain suing others for patent infringement or demanding royalties.

As a non-American, it seems logical to me that you should expect your government to make a conscious decision before a legal doctrine should undergo such a transformation. Instead, you have a situation where business has made the decision and then gradually weaselled it into law through undue influence of your executive (patent office) and parliamentary government.

Reforming your patent laws might help this particular problem, but if you want a long term solution to this kind of crap then some more fundamental separation of private and public interests is in order. Campaign finance, political donations, and restrictions on the activities of lobby groups might be a good start...

Re:The nexus between business and government

[The Ape With No Name]

As a non-American, it seems logical to me that you should expect your government to make a conscious decision before a legal doctrine should undergo such a transformation. Instead, you have a situation where business has made the decision and then gradually weaselled it into law through undue influence of your executive (patent office) and parliamentary government.

You sir, have just explained "the American Way" to us all!

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Planesdragon]

As a non-American, it seems logical to me that you should expect your government to make a conscious decision before a legal doctrine should undergo such a transformation.

Democracies don't make concious decisions. They're mobs that allow the shewd to get ahead at the expense of the simple, and can all too often lead to tyrannies of the majority.

The USA prides itself on being a demoracy. We may have been forced to put in safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, and there have been several times when the mob has risen up to cast down the shrewd, but by and large we're very, very democratic.

Nations that make concious deicsions aren't democratic--they're oligarchies or burracracies or dictatorships.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[caitsith01]

I must disagree.

Pure democracy, in which every decision is made by every individual en masse would perhaps fit your description. The congress and senate, however, serve to reduce the process to a more manageable size through representation. Bush's tax cuts or the GOP's policies aren't the result of some amorphous, mob-driven process, they're the result of active, conscious thinking that leads to a particular decision.

I'm afraid most 'democracies' are effectively oligarchic in nature and fundamentally weakened in terms of democratic priciples by the process of representation - the US more than most thanks to your huge population, low voter turnout and (not meaning to sounds offensive, but the amount of money changing hands is quite ridiculous) somewhat corrupt electoral system.

Furthermore, the unchecked, unelected strength of your executive is immense compared to most democracies - for instance, there is no requirement that Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz and co be elected representatives, whereas in most countries 'ministers' or 'secretaries' must also be members of parliament.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Fiish]

I blame the ability of corporations to "sponser" Government members. How on Earth did a practise like that get started? Surely others can see it as buying your way into the Government and nothing more. A massive key to doors of corruption and greed.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Planesdragon]

I'm afraid most 'democracies' are effectively oligarchic in nature and fundamentally weakened in terms of democratic priciples by the process of representation - the US more than most thanks to your huge population, low voter turnout and (not meaning to sounds offensive, but the amount of money changing hands is quite ridiculous) somewhat corrupt electoral system.

Well, yeah. Democracy invaribly leads to corruption. The entire federalist system was designed so that the corruption of any one segment would be balanced by the corruption of other segments--and if everyone got corrupted equally, well, that'd just be the will of the majority. ;)

Furthermore, the unchecked, unelected strength of your executive is immense compared to most democracies - for instance, there is no requirement that Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz and co be elected representatives, whereas in most countries 'ministers' or 'secretaries' must also be members of parliament.

In most countries, the executive is more comparable to the US Speaker of the House than the US President. IIRC, Blair gets his power because _his party_ in Parliment chose him from all the _other_ members of Parliment.

For the US, the President is a whole branch of government, equal to congress or the Supreme Court, that is elected by the whole to serve the whole. We tried mixing electoral positions within the executive branch originally (VP was originally the 2nd-runner for president) but we tossed that idea after realizing how entrenched political parties were.

Which, IMO, is the great flaw of most non-American democracies. The goverment isn't stable--it's just an oligarchy of various parties and platforms that conspire to work together, rather than the American way where various parites and platforms conspire to get public servants elected.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to shove your your personal lever into the crack of one word.. you go for it buddy, this is democracy at its finest.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Anonymous Coward]

Clueless fuck alert!!!

When reading the parent post look for the clues and all the tell tale signs the poster is ignorant on the operation of the US Govt.

Take a breath mint before talking out your ass, please!

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Mac Degger]

Nah...the US is a replic, which is slightly different from a democracy, pedanticaly speaking ;)

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Blue Stone]

"The patent hijinks in the US in recent years seems to highlight the strong nexus between government and business in America."

Nexus?

It's a fsking orgy.

And us?...

We're the fsking lubricant, man... the fsking lubricant.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[LazySlacker]

If you are going to be pedantic can you clear up this issue as it keeps getting mentioned on /. you see I'm not sure they are mutually exclusive. From the concise OED -

Republic:- A state in which supreme power is held by the people or its elected representatives or by elected or nominated president.

Demoncracy:-(A State having) government by all the people, direct or representative.

So USA is a republic and UK is a monarchy. Both are representative (not direct) democracies. Although you could argue a country that has a non-elected head of state cannot be a democracy.

The interesting question is when does a state become a democracy - voting age, gender, the amount of money/land have all been barriers to voting in the UK until relatively (1920's) recently.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[HiThere]

There was a conscious decision made in the executive branch. It was one of those subtle choices, that take awhile to show their importance, but which could be predicted ahead of time by those who bothered to think about it.

To whit: Instead of patent clerks being evaluated on how well they did their job, the terms were shifted to evaluating them on how many patents they granted. (No penalites for subsequent patent reversals by the courts.)

I think that this happened during Reagan's term in office, and the justification was "to improve efficiency", but I don't remember the original sources (probably a newspaper, but possibly Datamation).

Re:The nexus between business and government

[HiThere]

The start was when it became legal to give "campaign donations". Everything else is a smooth expansion from there...

But if you can't give and accept campaign donations, then only the very rich can run for office...

The FCC used to require stations to make time available equally to all candidates. Now they just have to be willing to sell time to all the candidates. (And I'm not sure just how well that requirement is enforced, but all they need to do is charge enough, and then make the campaign donations that they choose, so it might as well be.)

Through various techniques the cost of campaigning has been raised year by year at much faster than the rate of inflation. This keeps out the minority viewpoints. And required that the major parties find ways to raise funds. Do you still find it strange that some legislators are 0wn3d by the media companies? This isn't happenstance. And mergers among the media companies have only made the effects more pernicious.

Sometimes it's hard to tell what was planned, and what happened accidentally. Sometimes the accidental events are better or worse than any of the plans, and if the plans fight against the probable lines of action, they will probably go awry. But this looks like an organic rather than a planned development. Or possibly both.

Unfortunately, that doesn't indicate how to get from here to were we want to be.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Zoop]

European governments are notorious for subverting international law for the benefit of business. In fact, in Europe, governments own whole swaths of industry that are private in the US. German firms seeing rough times? Hey, sell chemical weapons to Libya. French weapons firms on the skids? Break the military embargo to Iraq. Need oil from Arabia? Bribe any dictator there who will sell it to you. (Europe gets the majority of its oil from the Gulf, whereas the US gets 16% from there.)

I agree with your point that a firm separation between government and business is needed, but the idea that the US is somehow worse than the rest of the world displays some weird blind spots.

The solution is not technical issues of campaign finance reform, but to limit the power of government to affect business outcomes. As long as government is the key to success or failure, businesses with money will find a way to subvert the system. Taking the power of government to favor one at the expense of the other is the only solution, and this applies even more to Europe.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Mac Degger]

The definition of a true democracy is a state where everyone has the right to directly vote for all of those who get to attain a position of public power.

A republic does this (ie approaches that ideal) by limiting who can vote and by having certain positions be indirectly voted for.

Also please note that the historical democracy (that of the greeks) severely limited who could vote by denying women, mentally incompetents, slaves, people with too little money, invalids, criminals, and anyone the voting public (those few that there were allowed to) didn't like the right to vote.

Therefore, pedanticaly speaking, one can only speak about the degree of democracy a state has attained; saying it is or isn't a democracy is just pure bollocks (always note that when a political figure says they are going to institute a democracy!).

Obviously, a true democracy is not something one should want (personally I'd like something akin to an IQ test, or at least a test of involvement/knowledge of politics, to be a mandatory part of being allowed to vote).
But to really judge fairness of rule, one should also look at to which degree the voring public has control of who gets to hold the true power.

BTW: If you're really interested in this kind of thing, don't bother with contemporary writers: read the ancient greeks (Plato's Republic is a good one to start with, for all kinds of reasons).

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Planesdragon]

Obviously, a true democracy is not something one should want (personally I'd like something akin to an IQ test, or at least a test of involvement/knowledge of politics, to be a mandatory part of being allowed to vote).

True Democracy, like True Socalism, is something that appears in the most vital aspect of society--the household unit.

My wife and I make all decisions together, bring all of our money into the same account, and spend it according to our needs.

Just a thought.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Mac Degger]

Ah, now that could very well be true of your household. I don't doubt your word on it.

But a) it doesn't apply to every household: there are many where one of the two makes most of the decisions and b) it doesn't scale up very well; the more people you have, the more dumb people you have who would make dumb decisions. If a population is large enoughy, a simple bell-curve will show that people with less insight will overrule the people who would make the right decision. This also happens when you do the same plot with household instead of people. And that is because to say 'all people are equal' is to lie to yourself about the nature of people.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Fiish]

In Australia you can get a small loan from the Government when running for any position and this normally pays well enough. During national elections the major parties use federal funds.

Companies with business relations between themselves & the Government can make donations to certain members, however it's very rare except for Senator Luddite and his plasma TVs. But he's just an idiot.

Re:The nexus between business and government

[Planesdragon]

But a) it doesn't apply to every household: there are many where one of the two makes most of the decisions and b) it doesn't scale up very well; the more people you have, the more dumb people you have who would make dumb decisions. If a population is large enoughy, a simple bell-curve will show that people with less insight will overrule the people who would make the right decision. This also happens when you do the same plot with household instead of people. And that is because to say 'all people are equal' is to lie to yourself about the nature of people.

Exactly. And everyone who's ever tried a democracy has known this.

IMO, it really should be "all people are equal before the law."

Re:I don't know

[caitsith01]

Ah, the attitude that has endeared you so to the feeble, poverty stricken, technologically inferior masses of the world...

Somehow things went ok during the industrial revolution without the ridiculous patent laws you have today.

Sorry lost you

[quantaman]

Slashdot and other news sites present high quality peer-reviewed commentary by involving large numbers of members of the web community in recommending and rating items.

I was with them until this point.

Re:Sorry lost you

[Fnkmaster]

No, it's just like peer review, because of course Slashdot moderators are authorities in a subject area relevant to the posts they moder.... oh wait, never mind.

Re:I hate America

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Thank you for your feedback. While America tries to accomodate most people, we occasionally find a person who is not a right match for America. We regret that things did not work out, and wish you luck in your future endeavors. If you are not satisfied with America, you are encouraged to stop using our products, services, technologies, or visiting our locally hosted websites.

Thanks again,
America

Get it right

[darco]

The US did not pull out of the Kyoto Treaty because it would hurt out economy. The US pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty because it was so lax on "developing nations", including China. Why should the US have to adhere to such a Treaty when the world's largest polluter doesn't?

It wasn't a fair Treaty, and it was wise to get out of it.

Re:Get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is the worlds largest polluter.
China only has the largest population.

And the US rejected the Kyoto treaty because it couldnt buy the carbon emission allowances from third world countries (which dont need them) so it could continue at the same level of polluting.

Re:Get it right

[The Ape With No Name]

The US pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty because it was so lax on "developing nations", including China.

This is what is called an "excuse." The real reason is that it would have forced the US to face the unsustainability of it's current environmental regime with regard to carbon emissions and the impact switching to a better model would have on the economy. Given that the US is in a shitload of trouble now that Bush has let the budget deficit skyrocket (while handing a fat tax break to the wealthiest of Americans), it looks like a smart move. But eventually, this is going to have to be faced, as well as, the incredibly unsustainable foreign trade imbalance will be too. The EU could embargo us and put the lights out, given the current levels of productivity there and our insatiable need to consume.

BTW, China is not the world's largest polluter. Not even in terms of per capita. The US is.

Re:Get it right

[HBI]

It's rather futile to expect the US to change its ways voluntarily.

If you study your link, you'll note that the largest differentials between US consumption and other nations are in two areas: automotive travel and home heating. Hell, if you got those in line, the US bar would start looking rather average.

I can think of a few reasons why this would be. First, Americans keep their houses hot. Not me personally - I like it at 60-65F - or even less- that's because i'm diabetic and always feeling hot anyway. I keep it above 60 for the benefit of others, else no one would stay in my house. But most people in the US keep it at 70 or 72. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to like it around 60. Big energy savings there, for sure.

Automobiles are woven into American culture - you could blame Eisenhower if you wanted, he was the one that blessed (or cursed) us with the Interstate highway system. While this is a fine system of roads, best in the world for such a large country (I personally like the Autobahns better - you can drive faster), it has created a culture of people who believe in their hearts it is their God-given right to drive from point A to point B, no matter how far removed. Whereas, in Europe, I note that the cars are smaller, and less prevalent. Trains and other mass transport are used far more.

Something that has been tried and failed before in the US is stuffing environmental regulation down the people's throats to the detriment of their day to day life. You wouldn't believe the bitching about low-flow toilets - i've heard dozens of people talk about keeping their old toilets so they don't have to use the shitty (no pun intended) new ones that don't flush properly.

Even the R-12 CFC reduction was done in such a way that there was no consumer impact. Sure, appliance repairmen and air conditioning/refrigeration manufacturers went through hell, but the general public never saw that. And for good reason.

What passes for an environmentalist in the US by and large is a soccer mom driving an SUV with a home room temperature that makes a decent greenhouse for her plants. Tell her she has to turn her thermostat down, can't build the summer house on the well-forested mountainside, and has to take the train, and watch how fast all pretense to environmentalism fades.

Kyoto was nixed because it would have impacted people's lives negatively and would have sealed the fate of any politician tied to them. Maybe Clinton would have been slick enough to stop himself from being taken down by it, but I can't think of anyone else who could have endured the backlash.

Say what you will about US politicians, they like getting re-elected. Moreover, I don't see the landscape changing appreciably in the short term.

Re:Get it right

[Scarblac]

I can think of a few reasons why this would be. First, Americans keep their houses hot. Not me personally - I like it at 60-65F - or even less- that's because i'm diabetic and always feeling hot anyway. I keep it above 60 for the benefit of others, else no one would stay in my house. But most people in the US keep it at 70 or 72. Europeans, on the other hand, seem to like it around 60. Big energy savings there, for sure.

Actually I like it around 17. The secret is very simple - stubborn Americans just have to change to the metric system and the numbers come way down ;-)

Re:Get it right

[LittleBigLui]

this would also make your president's iq suddenly break through the room-temperature barrier. :)

Re:Get it right

[6hill]

On the other hand, Converting American shoe sizes to their Continental European equivalents would make the number on the president's IQ test results smaller than the one on the sole of his shoe.

Re:Get it right

[GuidoJ]

Europeans don't liek to change there ways either. For instance the Dutch government invested loads of money in special lanes on highways for car pooling to decrease traffic jams and pollution at the same time. The lanes were monitored with cameras and it was separated from the normal lanes by walls.

As it turned out, hardly anyone actually wanted to share his/her car. The car pool lanes remained almost empty and the traffic jams on the normal lanes were worse than ever. Another amount of money had to be spent to convert the car pool lanes into normal lanes.

On the other hand, I think in Europe there are more restrictions on how much pollutive gases a car may produce. Same with diesel oil, home heating installations, toilets, etc. Of course, in the end, as a consumer, you are paying for all these improvements. But even that does not change your behavior towards the environment.

Re:Get it right

[Mac Degger]

That's what I thought second terms were for; the first was to get re-elected so they could actually do stuff in the second :/

Appart from that, fuelefficiency and insulation should go a long way to bring consumption down, as would better use of solar and wind power. Too bad that all those plans formed during the first oilcrisis in the 70's were nixed :(
That might even have prevented the whole course of actions that led to 9/11.

Re:Get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

while handing a fat tax break to the wealthiest of Americans

Let me add to your ignorant one sided statement- America handed a tax cut to ALL AMERICANS which just happenned to include those in the wealthiest tax brackets.

People like you always want fairness when it comes to redistributing wealth to the lower brackets, but you completely ignore fairness when it when it includes giving tax cuts to EVERYONE.

Re:Get it right

[The Ape With No Name]

When it is fairness to the poor it is "Class Warfare." When it is fairness to the rich, it is "an economic plan."

The latest budget, which you wouldn't know about because the propaganda box talks nothing about it because of the diversionary war, was whacked in half. Left in place though: all of the breaks for the richest 1-2 percent of Americans. And they cut 28 billion from veteran's programs to keep the dividend tax reduction. People impacted by the dividend tax reduction make over 150000 a year. People who receive veteran's benefits (mainly because the weathly don't serve) 24000 a year.

Re:Get it right

[Cyberdyne]

People impacted by the dividend tax reduction make over 150000 a year.

Or have pensions. Those who save money for their retirement do so by (indirectly) buying shares (and related assets, such as bonds) with that money. When they come to retire, those shares then provide their income in retirement.

Yours is a very common misconception, that somehow "shareholders" are a separate species. They aren't. Have a 401(k)? You're one of them. A non-government pension? Same. Even the money in a deposit account in a bank is invested in companies, via credit facilities. Basically, if you have money in any form other than cash under the bed, you are one of those corporate investors who will benefit!

Re:Get it right

[HiThere]

I've seen plans for a house that was built in New England that supposedly required cooling during the winter, because the normal activities of the occupants caused it to overheat. But it was well enough insulated that it didn't take much more cooling in the summer. It was slightly more expensive than a normal house, but not excessively so, and the heating/cooling bill reduction would probably pay for that within a couple of years. But you couldn't add this to a normal house, it needed to be designed in. It was a single family dwelling unit, and it would probably be a bit difficult to redesign later without destroying much of the efficiency (but I'm not an architect or a thermal engineer).

This house was designed in the 1970s. I'm sure something better could be designed now. But nobody builds them. (Well, to be fair you can't open the windows, as they are all triple paned glass. And there are a few other features that are less than ideally attractive.) I think this one may even have had solar hot water, but that may have been for the heat-sink. I know it made extensive use of vertical pipes with fans in them to regulate the distribution of heat... but that may not have been necessary. And there was a heat sink in the basement that acted as a thermal ballast. So keeping the house warm doesn't have to be energetically expensive, with proper design. (Have you noticed how well good thermos bottles and ice chests work these days.)

Cars are more of a problem, but the Toyota Station Wagon we drive did better than 32 miles per gallon when it was new. But that was around 1990. We haven't been able to find something as good on the market since we started looking about 3 years ago. The Prius might be good, but it isn't a 4-door station wagon. (We want a car that can haul a harpsichord.) Perhaps the VW Jetta would work, we should check it out. (I didn't hear about that until last year, so you can tell we haven't been searching too vigorously.)

But fuel cell cars and hybrids allow the fuel usage of cars to be made manageable. If the government feels it desireable.

There would be a lot of conversion costs, but the cost of the converted economy would be lower than the current cost. And nearly as flexible. A president who wanted to head that direction could have. If he were a leader, people would have followed (it's not an automatically inspiring future, but it's nice, it looks comfortable, and it sounds idealisticly green [it isn't, but it's pretty good]). But he wanted to head in a different direction.

Re:Get it right

[The Ape With No Name]

You do not receive dividends on 401(k) investments (which are tax free, no?) as you do not directly own the stocks, therefore you do not pay the tax on dividend income because you do not receive dividends. Corporate investors (in the telescoped version of the American investing world you present) do not see tax savings under Bush's non-economic plan as those are nothing but bottom-line gravy for the corporations controlling the money. Of course, if you directly owned the stock in those corporations, then you could get a dividend from that gravy but then you would pay the tax.

One the greatest problems with arguing about this is that most people don't realize that it is not as simple as it looks. In this case, the Republicans conflate dividends on stocks with mom-and-pop investing in a 401(k). The two are mutually exclusive.

Re:Get it right

[Yet Another Smith]

IF the Jetta is big enough, go for the TDI. Its a turbo-diesel, which does have higher sulfur emissions in PPM, but since it gets more than 40 MPG, number of millions lower, so the number of parts is not as big a deal.

Its pretty suprising the gas mileage that the CRV & RAV-4 get, too. If you get the 2wd versions, they get high-20s, IIRC.

I've always wanted to start a business designing active-management for passive-solar type housing. Lots of sensors optimizing fan usage in crawl spaces, automatically extending shades over the windows to minimize solar heating in the summer, maximize insulation in the winter, and control passive heating/cooling much better in the spring/fall. It always pissed me off that the cars in the garage were dumping heat into the house in summer, and there wasn't a good way to vent it in my old house.

Re:Get it right

[ivan256]

Something that has been tried and failed before in the US is stuffing environmental regulation down the people's throats to the detriment of their day to day life. You wouldn't believe the bitching about low-flow toilets - i've heard dozens of people talk about keeping their old toilets so they don't have to use the shitty (no pun intended) new ones that don't flush properly.

You're using that as an example without giving all the information. It isn't necissarily the problem that people don't like having regulations shoved down their throats in this case, but that they don't like having poorly thought out and inflexible regulations stuffed down their throats. Sure, low-flow toilets sound like a good idea, especially if you live in an area where water conservation is important (yes there are areas where it isn't as important), but you can't just tell people to use them without thinking through the details. Speciffically that flushing with less water doesn't push solid waste as far along pipes as the older, higher water usage toilets do. Most houses and septic systems weren't designed with low flow toilets in mind, so in the most benign case, you may have stuff left in your toilet after a flush, and in the worst case your basement could fill up with shit just because you did some work in your bathroom and the law said that you had to change your toilet to one that doesn't move stuff all the way out to the tank. I don't know if you've ever shoveled shit out of your basement, but I have and believe me, it's a good reason to bitch about a poorly thought out regulation.

Re:Gender

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a teenage boy because he says "AIM sucks my balls!"

It aint nuttin new

[Anonymous Coward]

This abuse of patent law is nothing new. I forget his name, but in the early days of automobiles, someone actually put a patent on the car. He forced everyone to pay royalties until a determined Henry Ford fought him in court and won. Oh yeah, just giving everyone notice, I am putting a patent on the process of breathing. You will all now have to pay me a royalty or stop breathing altogetherl

You, sir, are an asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

How insightful. In related news, my shit stinks.

Re:You, sir, are an asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive just patented smelly shit. You owe me a million dollars.

Re:You, sir, are an asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you can get it out my ass :)

Re:You, sir, are an asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive just patented asses too. $2 million and counting mofo. See you at Judge Judy.

Re:You, sir, are an asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

well, i just patented written and spoken language, so, i better not see any more posts written till i get some royalties, oh yeah, i also patented misspelling, since that happens alot on posts and emails

Re:You, sir, are an asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, what is an asshat? is it patented yet? If not, i think i will patent that too

Re:You, sir, are an asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

Father?

Re:I hate America

[eighthevachild]

when will you people LEARN?! Don't feed the trolls!!!!!!!!!!

At some point...

[caitsith01]

You guys need to stop being cynical and start fixing this problem.

Jefferson and co. weren't perfect themselves, but I think they would be quite upset if they could see the current arrangement in action.

Obligatory Haikus

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Info patents in The U.S. and Europe can Not patent haikus

Re:Obligatory Haikus

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Ummm let's try that properly formatted this time.

Info patents in
The U.S. and Europe can
Not patent haikus

Re:Obligatory Haikus

[wagemonkey]

No seasonal reference, please try again :-)

Re:Obligatory Haikus

[HiThere]

It's clearly in the mood of winter.

Theory of Relativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite clearly no one in the USPTO is working on their own version of the Theory of Relativity as did Albert Einstein when he worked in a patent office.

More likely they are trying to get through the work day while doing relativly little real work so they can go down brewskis in a sports bar after "working" all day.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

So she refused to cybar with you? And you dont have the guts to get back at her yourself you have to ask others to do it for you?

Your dick must be miniscule.

Wrong, None of this should be Pantentable

[Gerry Gleason]

If you had read the article, you would know that there is mounting economic evidence that this uncontrolled growth in what can be patented can be very damaging to economies. In particular software patents don't work well at all, and just create a lot of confusion for companies trying to make products. It won't be a surprise to /.ers that patents, particularly software and business method patents, are often used by unproductive companies that don't even have products on the market to hold-up productive companies for cash. Further, they give a big advantage to large organizations to keep out upstart competitors.

Algorithms are essentially ideas, and ideas are neither patentable nor do they qualify for copyright. A particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted, and its use in a process can be patentable, but ideas are not, at least in principle. The idea that you can patent a naturally occuring pattern (i.e. a gene or genes) is ridiculous. It might be ok to give a patent on say a genetic test for a particular condition, but it seems to me that there isn't much invention beyond the basic science (idea) that links the gene and the condition.

The truth is (as explained in this very good paper) that the patent authorities in both the US and Europe have bent over backwards to extend the scope of patents. The paper lays out how patent professionals keep pushing this, sometimes in spite of any attempt of anyone outside their circle to attempt to set policy, even lawmakers. Check this out for an indication of just how out of control the EPO is. They make money from handing out these patents whether it is good for the rest of us or not, and there is little effective control on any of it.

your thought for today: wake up!

[10am-bedtime]

the society that chooses to elevate thought to the level of ownership (and thus crime) will grow afraid to think. the proper place for thought is not collected in little jars, sedimented w/ the salt and mud of bygone praries now wasting and dessicated; instead, it's best to let the thought flow, harvested by a waterwheel or even a great dam, but in the end essentially unhindered, to the sea, so that in time the rains may come again.

what to hold, what to let go,
what to kill, what to let grow?
and what, i ask, would thou say,
to the god 'ere festooned and bid to relay?

o wondrous deceit, o ravenous conceit,
how i can i tell the chaff from the wheat?
my sacrifice tins filled, with thoughts most applauded,
but yet the fields suffer the drought most defrauded.
now my kids starve, my sweat they cannot eat.
now their eyes close, my debt they cannot meet.
never to question Your kind benevolence,
sweet whispered assurance of continual innocence.
nonetheless, i beg you, please take me now.
i can bear no longer the fencing of "how".

is that really what you want to achieve?
a toiling towards abject misery without a reprieve?
carry on, then, carry on, and do your just part.
carry on, then, carry on, you've made a good start.

(this poem is hereby placed in the public domain by its Author.)

No patent on spelling and grammar check

[Anonymous Coward]

You can safely do both with little chance of a patent lawsuit...

How about an angle of "no patents"

[argoff]

People are putting too much faith in the patent system, and even worse is that they're assuming that patents are good for commerce, business, and free markets. IMHO, this is a bad road to go down, the problems of patents are well documented, and things will only get worse as society gets more advanced.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant believe this gets modded up.
Can you imagine the chaos that would occur without patents?
You might think it would help the small inventor or business but in the long run only the big corporations would benefit from no patents. Only they would have the resources to clone a new idea/product and twist it so only they can sell it. Pushing out the original inventor who spent all the time and money in the first place.
Such a system would only creat a hoarde of monopolies. OCP anyone?

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[Bagheera]

Patents are, unfortunatly, not a cut and dried issue. As many have noted, there are companies who make a business model of "Get patent: Sue competitors: Profit" which is plainly an abuse of the intent. (Much as the current fiasco of copyright law is painfully UNLIKE the original intent, but I digress.)

The original intent was to give an inventor time to get some return on their investment in an invention to help promote development. After some set period of time the patent would expire and others could benefit from the invention and manufacture it. Note: invention. They were implying some form of device. Not business model or one-click-shopping.

Now, the patent system still has some benefits. The biotech industry is a good example, where the development costs are staggering and the times to market are long and arduous. It can take years to get a new drug approved, and by then the patent may nearly have expired.

I'm glad the EU countries have a differnt take on it. Unfortunately, the US government is becoming notorious for not caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The "best method" is probably somewhere in the middle, but we'll never see it in the US as long as the business that bought the government still get their way.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[argoff]

I cant believe this gets modded up.

Can you imagine the chaos that would occur without patents?
You might think it would help the small inventor or business but in the long run only the big corporations would benefit from no patents. Only they would have the resources to clone a new idea/product and twist it so only they can sell it. Pushing out the original inventor who spent all the time and money in the first place.
Such a system would only creat a hoarde of monopolies. OCP anyone?

Excuse me, but big corporations are the main ones who benefit from patents now. The small inventor who builds a better mouse trap and makes it big while holding back the big guys is a myth! Not only is a small inventor less likely to pony up the 10K or so it takes to secure a patent, but if you really want "big companies" not to have a hoard of monopolies - then not granting patents would be a good start. Then no matter what "twist" they come up with, you and smaller companies are free to copy it.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[argoff]

The original intent was to give an inventor time to get some return on their investment in an invention to help promote development. After some set period of time the patent would expire and others could benefit from the invention and manufacture it. Note: invention. They were implying some form of device. Not business model or one-click-shopping.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The simple fact is, that if you give the little guy the power to lock out the big guys, then you also can not aviod giving the big guys the power to further squish down the little guys. Now that this has happened, people suddenly act supprised and indignent.

Now, the patent system still has some benefits. The biotech industry is a good example, where the development costs are staggering and the times to market are long and arduous. It can take years to get a new drug approved, and by then the patent may nearly have expired.

The biotech industry is the worst example as demonstrated by it's close cousin the pharmacutical industry - who litterally went to the papers and said that they had no incentive to develop a cure for AIDS unless they could effectively have the power to lock out millions of Africans dying from AIDS. IMHO, quite a price to maintain an artificial government granted monopoly. Even worse, is how the patent system has made it nearly impossible for research firms to cooperate and collaberate on finding a cure.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[Bagheera]

The biotech industry is the worst example as demonstrated by it's close cousin the pharmacutical industry - who litterally went to the papers and said that they had no incentive to develop a cure for AIDS unless they could effectively have the power to lock out millions of Africans dying from AIDS. IMHO, quite a price to maintain an artificial government granted monopoly. Even worse, is how the patent system has made it nearly impossible for research firms to cooperate and collaberate on finding a cure.

Never said it was easy. The problem is there is no incentive for the companies to do the raw research to develop the anti-(insert disease here) drug if they'll never get a return on the investment. There's a lot of tangled interests, including the lawyers who like to sue drug companies for drugs they've already put through testing, and the FDA who wants to protect the public.

They don't want the power to lock out millions of Africans. They want to get some sort of return on the multi-Billion dollar investment they'd have wrapped up in a cure.

The patent system is broken, obviously. But it still has a purpose.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[argoff]

Never said it was easy. The problem is there is no incentive for the companies to do the raw research to develop the anti-(insert disease here) drug if they'll never get a return on the investment...

And perhaps Ford has no incentive to invest billions of dollars in safety research unless the govt can grant them a monopoly on making cars. - NO, I don't buy it. Sorry, but the world is full of lunatics and governments who have no incentive to do big public goods unless they have the power to impose their crazy schemes on society to ensure it's worth it. Fine, if they believe in it that strongly than form a co-op and make it work for themselves within. If I have AIDS, I assure you, the thought that someone else could copy my cure would not de-motivate me from funding it.

The problem isn't a system that needs a few tiny adjustments here and there, the problem is a fundamental failure to understand the nature of patents, monopoly, innovation, and freedom. The patent system is broken because patents are broken - it is the most obvious and rational explanation.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[lovebyte]

You are rigth. The biotech industry is the worst example where many companies just want to patent something and get paid royalties.
BUT the pharmaceutical industry would simply not exist without patents. There would be not incentive whatsoever to spend 500 million dollars on a new drug if the following day someone can copy it and sell it for a tenth of the price.
Even worse, is how the patent system has made it nearly impossible for research firms to cooperate and collaberate on finding a cure.
What does that mean? I have done research for pharmas and patents sometimes get in the way, but you can just buy a license!

The bottom line is that pharmas are businesses and they are not going to do something for free. The AIDS debacle was a good example. What pharmas said was "we are not a charity". If African governments want to take care of their people (which would be a first! Don't get me started on how the south african gvt denied the link between HIV positive people and AIDS for years and suddendly said "we want drugs for free".), then they should negociate with pharmas, WHO and rich countries to get these AIDS drugs for cheap. But that will not solve the AIDS problem in Africa since you cannot just give these drugs and forget about the whole thing.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[Mac Degger]

Now that's a good point: if at all, patents should only be granted to a party which is involved in the actual application (ie making a usefull product) of that patent.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[Bagheera]

And perhaps Ford has no incentive to invest billions of dollars in safety research unless the govt can grant them a monopoly on making cars. - NO, I don't buy it. Sorry, but the world is full of lunatics and governments who have no incentive to do big public goods unless they have the power to impose their crazy schemes on society to ensure it's worth it. Fine, if they believe in it that strongly than form a co-op and make it work for themselves within. If I have AIDS, I assure you, the thought that someone else could copy my cure would not de-motivate me from funding it.

You're losing me here. There was actually very little research into vehicle safety until the government started mandating vehicles become safer. Ford's incentive to do research above and beyond that is to get a competitive advantage with people who believe safe cars are important. That's why Volvo was ahead of the safety curve. And Ford, like other auto manufacturers DOES patent safety devices and then licenses the patents to others so they can share the technology.

Airbag technology was patented, but the patents have long since expired. I'm not following the Lunatics thread here. Basic economics says it's not worth developing a product of ANY form if there's no payout in the end. Altruism is nice, but it really doesn't pay the bills. I'm NOT defending greed here, but I AM pointing out that someone has to pay for the R&D, and if there's no profit from the R&D, no one will spend the money.

The problem isn't a system that needs a few tiny adjustments here and there, the problem is a fundamental failure to understand the nature of patents, monopoly, innovation, and freedom. The patent system is broken because patents are broken - it is the most obvious and rational explanation.

You're oversimplifying the issue. It's neither obvious or rational that "The patent system is broken because patents are broken." The implementation of the patent concept may be broken, but the concept is still valid. While there are reasons to change things, the fact remains that there needs to be some form of incentive to innovate. "Because it's cool!" is certainly valid for a hobbiest or garage inventor, but no one is going to spend hundreds of millions on inventions unless they're either independantly wealthy to a stupidly large degree, or they think there's a reasonable chance of recovering their investment.

Re:How about an angle of "no patents"

[argoff]

You're losing me here. There was actually very little research into vehicle safety until the government started mandating vehicles become safer. Ford's incentive to do researc...

Arrgh, Ford had nothing to do with it - just because someone claims a great incentive does not automatically give them the right to impose their will on every other part of society. This kind of attitude always leads to disaster.

Basic economics says it's not worth developing a product of ANY form if there's no payout in the end. ....

Thank you, and that's why if a company can implement an idea that will make their assembly lines 10% more efficient, then they will do it with ot without a patent - and so will all their competitors. And that's why if a company can sell a new widget, they will make it even if they don't have a patent on it. And that's why people have a natural motive to do R&D even if they don't have a phoney monopoly, because making things better has it's own worth and market selling value.

... "Because it's cool!" is certainly valid for a hobbiest or garage inventor, but no one is going to spend hundreds of millions on inventions unless they're either independantly wealthy to a stupidly large degree, or they think there's a reasonable chance of recovering their investment.

IBM did not spend a billion dollars on Linux software development as charity to the Linux community, or because it was cool. They did it because it had real value on services, implementation, and sales. Funny thing is, they didn't have a patent on Linux or own a copyright on the code? Hmmmm.

Nooooooooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dick must be small for posting as an Anonymous Coward!

Re:Meow

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive just patented cats, livers, chickens and cat food mixing devices.
Im suing you for $50 million.

New patent administration method

[Anonymous Coward]

I think removing the creator's ability to dictate use in general could solve a lot of the current problems with "intellectual property". The radio industry, oddly, is a good example in that any station can play any music without having to negotiate separately with each distributor. Instead, they pay a central collection organization based on how many times they play each song.

I believe this would be a good model for patents etc, because it would remove not only the uncertainty relating to lawsuits but also it would allow useful technologies to become widely spread. Also, holders of IP would benefit in direct proportion to the usefulness of their inventions. Not to mention, that business would save the expense of an IP legal department.

We might even see less of these trivial patents that have been granted lately. I think that might be asking too much though.

Re:New patent administration method

[hesiod]

> Instead, they pay a central collection organization based on how many times they play each song.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that organization the RIAA? Who most /.ers hate because of the corruption and obsolescence?

You must be French

[Anonymous Coward]

You HAVE to be French. Why else would you have modded that -1, Troll?

Because you are upset that France is becoming unimportant in the world today. When 1/50th of the USA is better than you, you freak out.

California has...
A larger GDP.
A larger military.
A larger film industry.
Produces higher scoring wine on average.
Wins more Gold Medals in the Olympics.
Both Winter AND Summer games.
Better poets.
Better programmers, engineers, developers.
90% of the world's porn (bigger better boobs and dicks)

Shit, what has France got that's larger in numbers? Smelly men who don't shower and think deodorant is for women? Yeah, that's about it.

Hehehe, I'd hate to be a frenchie these days!!

Re:You must be French

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, what has France got that's larger in numbers? Electricity. Narf!

Re:You must be French

[Anonymous Coward]

Class.

Re:You must be French

[Anonymous Coward]

Class.

Ha ha, no. I think the word your looking for is arrogance.

What's that French word? Cheauvanism? Maybe too much of that too!

Re:You must be French

[Jeremy Erwin]

Trolling right along
Both Winter AND Summer games.

Summer: Paris, 1900. Paris, 1924.
Winter: Chamonix, 1924. Grenoble, 1968. Albertville 1992

Re:I hate America

[RodgerDodger]

Why write to yourself?

the theme vs the end game

[argoff]

I think you're misunderstanding something here. The end game is not equality between nations, or even the environemnt, it is freedom and liberty.

The problem with patents is that too many people assume that patents are just like other property rights. Normally, property rights protect freedom and free markets. Patents do not. Unlike other properties they are an artificial construct of government without any foundation in the real world, or without any foundation such as finite physical utility.

This property ignorance is pushed only by a very narrow group of people, but since there are few large industrial forces that have motive to oppose them, and since they are so entrenched in US culture, it is really hard to get rid of them.

Like a leech they just keep growing bigger and bigger until the host can't bear it anymore. In some countries like Barzil and Africa, it took millions of people dying of AIDS and drugs that they could not manufacture or controll to get them to wake up - in the USA I shudder to think what it will take, but it will half to happen soooner or later.

Re:the theme vs the end game

[HiThere]

Patents protect property rights reasonably...after 17+ years.

The only saving grace of patents under the US system is that they expire. That's it.

That statement is actually a bit overdone. There are reasonable arguments for patents in areas requiring a large amount of up front investment of capital. I'm not certain that they are valid, but in such cases they become much more plausible. In those cases the main argument against patents is the incredibly bad way in which they are implemented, and the fact that clerks are evaluated on the basis of the number of patents issued, and on the cost to defend against a frivolous suit based on an obviously invalid patent and on the validity of a patent being judged by clerks with no technical expertise in the field that they are evaluating and on....

Read it again, This isn't good for business

[Gerry Gleason]

One of the main (and most disturbing) points being made in the paper is that most of this shift has been within the patent issuing bodies with just a little help (in the US) from the courts. These bodies are largely immune to economic arguments and legislative policy setting, and business doesn't really set the agenda either. Businesses are somewhat separated from the process by patent experts (in-house or through trade and industry associations), and the process continues blindly without any real input from the outside.

Businesses can take back control of this if it is important enough to them, because they ultimately control the purse strings on the experts, but a critical mass of business leaders has to understand the economic arguments and get behind changing things.

whoops

[Griim]

I read that as "Information Pants in the US and Europe"

Pants! What is the fastest land-based animal?

Argh, maybe I should go back to coffee...

France has more what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, what has France got that's larger in numbers? Electricity.

Nope, I'm afraid your wrong again, Frenchie.

The USA produces 754.9 Billion KWhs
France only makes 395.0 Billion KWhs

And if your bad at math: 754.9 > 395.0 means you are inferior.

I'd say your wrong. Wrong again. But you still do take the gold medal with numbers of stinky men who reside in your lower-power-producing country.

Ha ha! Now you feel dumb once more!!

Re:France has more what?

[meringuoid]

Shit, what has France got that's larger in numbers?

Electricity.

Nope, I'm afraid your wrong again, Frenchie. The USA produces 754.9 Billion KWhs. France only makes 395.0 Billion KWhs.

But the previous poster was talking specifically about California, not the USA as a whole. In 2000, California consumed 264,000GWh, while only generating 226,000GWh, forcing them to become a net importer. And as you say, France produces 395,000GWh. In fact, France is an electricity exporter. If the French wanted to, they could brownout half of southern England simply by pulling the plug.

business and government is the nexus

[argoff]

Reforming your patent laws might help this particular problem, but if you want a long term solution to this kind of crap then some more fundamental separation of private and public interests is in order. Campaign finance, political donations, and restrictions on the activities of lobby groups might be a good start...

This will do nothing, because it treats the symptom and not the cause. If you want to keep business out of government - then first keep government out of peoples business. Then they will have little motive or reason to interfere.

Granting artifical monopoiles in the name of promoting small inventors is just asking for abuse. It almost guarentees that the same tools will be used by big business to lock out everyone else. Now all of a sudden people are asking how could things go so wrong? The only thing worse than big business abusing government granted monopolies is government micro-regulating industries and business to prevent patent "abuses". No Thanks. The problem isn't business, it the belief in patents all together.

Side issue...

[argoff]

I'm glad the EU countries have a differnt take on it. Unfortunately, the US government is becoming notorious for not caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The "best method" is probably somewhere in the middle, but we'll never see it in the US as long as the business that bought the government still get their way.

Did it ever occur to you that this "best method" attitude is why the EU is becomming so irrelavent? Right or wrong, we should at least have the balls to consider things taken to their logical conclusion. Patents are cut and dry, they are useless and simply need to go.

/.ers oppose software patents!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the majority of the /. crowd (including myself) opposes most modern US patent activity in general and software patents in particular. For me, this is strong evidence that the system is horribly broken.

We, the /.ers, are the ones the patent system is supposed to protect. Innovators, with wildly creative ideas and the will to implement them. Small players, who cannot afford the tactics of large corporations for profiting from their innovations. Contributors to the greater technical and social good.

If we are against software patents, what can possibly be the argument for them? This is a system corrupted by the few and unethical at the expense of the american inventor. Shame on those who promote it.

USian intl arrogance could work _for_ us here...

[pedro]

Now that Bush and his henchmen have essentially told the rest of the world to f*ck off with regard to military and diplomatice endeavors, and chosen to invade Iraq unilaterally, perhaps the larger planetary community can return the favor in a manner that will make their displeasure truly felt?
IE: by telling US big bidness and the USPTO to go bite the big one!

Re:I hate America

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear United States,

Thank you for your memo. While the civilised world tries to accommodate most people, we occasionally find a country that is not up to our high standards. The USA is such a country. We regret that things did not work out, and wish your people luck in finding alternative accommodation. If you, at some point in the future, wish to rejoin the civilised world, you are encouraged to: stop polluting the environment; declaring war on other non civilised world countries for fictional reasons; suppressing the freedom of your people; believing that money is the goal; patenting obvious ideas; shooting yourselves; and generally acting like the French (who we have our eyes on anyway, but they at least make good food).

Please remove your products, services and technologies since we have our own which are actually much better than your attempts and will likely flourish without your questionable practices.

Thanks again,
The Civilised World

PS We were trying to think who of your peoples we might give asylum to; but to be honest, we couldn't think of one living person.

Not fully correct on the EPO

[Groote Ka]

The press release is in my opinion not fully correct on the EPO.

Yes, the EPO is not bound by the EU.
However, the EU can nevertheless issue directives (guidelines to amend national law) and regulations (binding law) relating to patents. This can be extended towards the EPO, by letting EU member states have it put in the EPC (European Patent Convention). For example, this happened with the biotech directive.

Besides that, it is still possible to invalidate patents in front of a national court and in the future in front of a European court. With this, bear in mind that litigation costs in Mainland Europe are about 1% of costs in US (For UK, take 10%).

With respect to the remark in the posting:
The truth is (as explained in this very good paper) that the patent authorities in both the US and Europe have bent over backwards to extend the scope of patents.

That is not fully true for the EPO. The software patent policy goes quite far, but the EPO has mentioned several times that it will not do anything with busines method patent applications; they will not even be searched, say bye bye to your search fee. And this is not likely to change in the near future.

The paper lays out how patent professionals keep pushing this,

That's what I get paid for. The examiner gets paid for not allowing patents that do not meet the requirments of the EPC.

IANAL (still 9 months to go)

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Gerry Gleason]

The press release is completely consistent with what the paper says about the EPO and their resistance to any outside influence. I can't point to the exact statements in the paper, but it is clear about both the EPO and the USPTO being incredibly resistant to even proper policy making authority. They seem to think they are the masters of this turf, and that nobody can tell them what to do. The press release is quite chilling about the way even the patent examiners themselves can be told to just shut up and keep approving patents whether or not you have the proper resources to critically evaluate them.

That's what I get paid for. The examiner gets paid for not allowing patents that do not meet the requirments of the EPC.

IANAL (still 9 months to go)

You're being criptic about exactly what work you do and are preparing for. I hope you take the initiative to actually learn about the broader implications of patent policy, and don't become as self-serving as the rest of this system already is. If you are working on the industry side of this, then you need to make the effort to understand all of the commercial implications of widening the scope of patents and resist the urge to help clients in monopolistic power grabs. If you work on the government side, you must strive to apply the proper regulatory principles, and not simple work to expand the teritory under control of your agency.

If you haven't already, read this entire paper (the firstmonday one, not just the link I supplied) and let the critical points sink in.

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Groote Ka]

They seem to think they are the masters of this turf, and that nobody can tell them what to do.

You may be right on this. At the latest diplomatic conference, a lot of Articles of the EPC have been amended as referring to Rules. The Articles can only be amended by the diplomatic conference and have to be ratified by national governments. The Rules, however, can be amended by the administrative counsel, without consent of the Contracting States.

Then again, there may be more backdoor diplomacy than you can imagine. Open source has won quite some lobby battles in Europe.

The press release is quite chilling about the way even the patent examiners themselves can be told to just shut up and keep approving patents whether or not you have the proper resources to critically evaluate them.

As it is not an EPO press release, I question it. This does not mean I think it is untrue.
What examiners also have to take into account, it that European Patents can be opposed in an inter partes procedure. Unlike with the USPTO, a party can challenge the validity of a granted European patent, provide evidence and be a party in an invalidation procedure before the EPO. At merely a fraction of the cost of a litigation before a US court.

You're being criptic about exactly what work you do and are preparing for.

I have finished the educational part of my course for national patent attorney and I if everything goes well, I can be sworn in at about 9 months from now. Besides that, I am studying for the European Qualifying Exam. When I pass the Exam, I am a European Patent Attorney.

If you haven't already, read this entire paper (the firstmonday one, not just the link I supplied) and let the critical points sink in.

The article emphasises the effects for SME's. Correct, since the represent a very large part (majority) of the economy. According to the article, they suffer from the current system. But you may be surprised on how many SME's can make things very annoying for large companies and collect quite some amounts of money. You may read the other aricle here on /. on how Sony got sued.

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Gerry Gleason]

The article emphasises the effects for SME's. Correct, since the represent a very large part (majority) of the economy. According to the article, they suffer from the current system. But you may be surprised on how many SME's can make things very annoying for large companies and collect quite some amounts of money. You may read the other aricle here on /. on how Sony got sued.

Sometimes I hate TLAs. SME is Small/Medium Enterprises? I think it was this paper that kept using IDC, or something like that and I think it referred to the industrial controls market, but I couldn't be sure or easily find it defined.

Yes, sometimes the little guy wins, but more often he doesn't even start because of the risks. Not to pick on you for your chosen profession, but it is important the patent law doesn't get blindly expanded even when it damages the overall economy and potential for growth. It is possible that it might work better the just chuck the whole system in favor of one where most technology is developed collaboratively with funding provided in a different way. Yes, inventors need to be paid, but the way they are paid should not limit follow on innovation.

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Groote Ka]

SME is Small/Medium Enterprises?

yes

Yes, sometimes the little guy wins, but more often he doesn't even start because of the risks.

This depends on the costs of litigation. With US litigation cost and procedure (discovery), you can prevent a non-funded individual from winning a case by dragging it for a good year.

In mainland Europe, you can get your case at EUR 50.000 all expenses paid. UK is more expensive, but still about 10% of costs in the US.

Yes, inventors need to be paid, but the way they are paid should not limit follow on innovation.

I agree. That's why I am so happy that there is a research exception in the patent law of my country (research is not infringing), as well as probably a lot of other European countries. For US, I do not know.

The differences between US of A and Europe go a lot further than merely the quarrel about Iraq.

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Gerry Gleason]

This depends on the costs of litigation.

Partly, but often more important is the uncertainty about whether there are patents out there that you may infringe on. Even if you try to do a proper search, it might be a patent that is in the process and not yet public. This is part of why software patents are so bad. Because it isn't alway a cut and dried issue as to what situations the patent might apply, knowledge of existing patents can actually work against you when you attempt to argue that your use does not infringe. Also, since the patent might not stick, companies are less willing to disclose the technology even if they hold a patent. This is clearly backwards since one of the declared justifications for patents is to disseminate the technology.

That's why I am so happy that there is a research exception in the patent law of my country (research is not infringing)

The US patent law also has such an exception, but a recent /. story pointed to a case where this has been seriously eroded. If you didn't read it, the upshot is that the court decided that University research is (can be?) considered outside that provision. If I can read between the lines, this is at least in part due to the commercialization of a lot of University research. Some University administrations are making patents as important (or moreso) as papers and citations for advancement and tenure. It's all a very bad trend and needs to be reversed.

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Groote Ka]

Even if you try to do a proper search, it might be a patent that is in the process and not yet public. This is part of why software patents are so bad.

As soon as a European patent (application) is being asserted to you and you can prove it, the file is open for inspection to you.

With respect to the University stuff:
Funding of universities (at least in NL) is getting less and less, so they need another type of funding. Most of the times, this funding comes from all kinds of companies. This may not be as bad as it seems; I think it is very important that as a master/PhD student you get familiar with corporate research and business.
On the other hand, fundamental research should still be possible on universities as well. However, this is getting more and more difficult. I think that is a bad trend indeed.

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Gerry Gleason]

I think it is very important that as a master/PhD student you get familiar with corporate research and business.

I'm not sure why you think I'm a student. Actually, I'm a software engineer with a background in both development and system administration (20+ years). Right now, I'm thinking about trying to get a PhD, in part because I very dissatisfied with what is available in the corporate America. Without getting into all the details around this decision, the bottom line is that I claim that the current system, both commercial and academic are not structured well to promote the kind of innovation that our future requires.

Re:Not fully correct on the EPO

[Groote Ka]

I'm not sure why you think I'm a student.

I didn't think that. You might have read more in my posting than I actually meant.

in part because I very dissatisfied with what is available in the corporate America.

Well, I can't judge corporate America and the way research & education are funded, since I do not know too much about it.

Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[harriet nyborg]

there is a difference between algorithms and scientinfic ideas.

the theory of relativity, ruthford's model of the atom, and maxwells laws - while all expressed as slgorithms - are not discoveries of nature and not patentable subject matter. not then, not now.

google's search engine - also expressable as a mathematical algorithm - IS patentable because it is an invention, not a discovery in nature.

the fundamental question is whether or not people have a right to own their ideas - not whether or not algorithms should be patentable. indeed, algorithms since they are so easily copied, are in great need ot patent protection.

that the US constitutional mandate that patents and copyrights should "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences" is an unmodern way of viewing intellectual property.

fortunately, the US Constitution is infinitely malleable to commercial (and political) interests. it is hard to imagine that a business method patent would be seen as promoting the "progress of science and the useful arts" in any way, shape, or form which would have been recognizeable to a slave owner like Thomas Jefferson, yet this did not hinder the US Congress from embracing this as an entirely new area for patenting."

ironically, in Europe, where copyright is seen as a natural right, and patents as industrial rights, there is intense debate over whether or not to allow business method patents for fear that they will not promote the progress of science.

i believe people have a natural right to own their inventions regardless of the impact on the public. like free speech, it may be inconvient in certain instances, but on the whole society is better of with it, than without it.

I know

[Anonymous Coward]

he he he and in terms of average IQ it has gotten you a huge bunch of loosers like you who get a kick out of being american and boasting about it. Personal ego too small maybe, or even something else? Poor guy. "Look at OUR gdp OUR economy OUR whatever... I'm the greatest!" If it helps...

The Stacker Case

[Carewolf]

It's a great and lengthy article, but am I the only one who feels that they misrepresent the Microsoft vs Stac case?

They first state it as a victory for patents, but didnt Stacker go bancrupt during the case, because of the violation by Microsoft?
And Microsoft didnt break the negotiations and develop their own product infringing on a patent. They broke the negotiations and released code stolen from Stacker as their own.

With this "poster" case punctured, can anyone come up with a case where a patent has protected a small company against a much larger?

Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Algorithms by themselves are not patentable. Never were.

An algorithm incorporated within a "useful thing" is patentable as part of the "useful thing".

Google's search algorithms are not patentable.

Their internet search engine contraption which incorporates the algorithm is useful.

The algorithm is a discovery (not patentable). The incorporation of the algorithm into that which provides utility is patentable.

Re:USian intl arrogance could work _for_ us here..

[RalfGerlich]

Humm...I don't get why people seem to think about "U.S. and the rest of the world" that often...it's not one big country (the U.S.) against another big country ("the rest of the world"), it's one country against many others.

First of all we have seen, that many countries - not only in the Arab world - are economically dependent of the U.S. and others are not. In fact that's probably what made the echoes to the USUK-Alliance so inconsistent.

Telling the U.S. to stick their patents where the sun don't shine would for many countries result in breaking treaties with the U.S - and not only with the U.S., as these treaties are multilateral. While the U.S. obviously doesn't care about international treaties - at least with Dubya as President - the U.S. can make _other_ countries care using economic measures. Though the damage the U.S. can do to countries differs, probably a large number of countries won't be game offending the U.S. by ignoring U.S.-patents.

I'm not a U.S. citizen and I'm rather pissed off by the rambo-like manners the U.S. shows in many international issues, yet when taking it realistically, the view "U.S. vs. the rest of the world" is just nonsense.

Anti-Patent action

[Elektroschock]

There is a strong Anti-Patent movement in Europe. The German based organsation FFII is a very important player in the defence against lawyer interest groups. The EU wanted to introduce software patents back in 1999, the battle is still not over. Eurolinux alliance started an petition against Software patents with more than 140 000 signatures. Of course everybody shall try to talk to EU parliamentarians, esp. Arlene McCarthy(UK labour), Würmling (EVP) ecc. They have Email. European parliament: http://www.europarl.eu.int/ You should also protest against patent policy of EPO at EU Ombudsman

Patent misconceptions

[hotspur_fan]

I would like to point out that most companies are not patenting everything possible so they can control the world. My company, a large well-known systems company has about 3000 patents (not IBM, who has 30,000). We have never actively sued someone for patent infrigment. Once we went after someone who sued us for another reason and we counter-sued with patents in hand. But 99% of the time we wait for a start-up or even a large company to come after us and then attend the meeting with 10-15 of our patents in hand.

Algorithms and Scientific Ideas

[harriet nyborg]

google's search method a discovery? really? it was always there waiting for someone to get hit on the head by an apple and notice it?

or was it the result of some smart people doing a lot of hard thinking, making some mistakes, enduring frustration, having flashes of brilliance, and developing a technique which provides a great deal of value to a lot of people?

a reasonable assumption would be that google's patent is a result of the latter.

in other words, this was an invention, not a discovery.

the method by which the search is performed (i.e., the algorithm) is definitely patentable.

claims may be method or apparatus. an algorithm is claimed as method.

when the method is used "in a contraption" the INFRINGEMENT occurs which i think is the source of your confusion about "algorithms" being unpatentable.

Link to actual discussion

[The Smith]

The official report of the discussion is here. The part in question starts on page 27.

Re:I hate America

[EdMcMan]

By the way, civilised is spelled wrong. ;\

EU is becomming (sic) so irrelavent?

[nickos]

Perhaps someone should tell Bush and the other neo-conservative crazies. It seems that the EU and the Euro may be more relevant than many people realise at the moment.

cheese with that whine?

[SubtleNuance]

incident where the US threatened to walk out of the WIPO meeting

That is the bottom line for current american diplomatic efforts... not getting your way? drop out like a baby.

this is ABSOLUTELY on-topic and relevant... how can the world "negotiate" with a nation that acts like this????

Re:cheese with that whine?

[Prohest]

Just realised I once again disagree with the
official US policy....

So I must be a terrorist....

Sorry !

Re:I hate America

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Fred (thought you were anonymous, eh)

I know that most of our technologies, laws, art and entertainment were inspired by foreign countries. Nevertheless, they're ours now.

So don't use the Web (invented by a Brit), read (we stole that from the Mediteraneans), use mathematics (embarrassingly, there are parts where the French and Russians are clearly superior) because they are now covered by our copyrights and patents (Brit-inspired).

Have a nice day
The corporations that own America

IBM, MS and Patents

[Gerry Gleason]

I don't think it is clear yet whether IBM is really going to use its patent inventory for or against Open/Free Source. I would expect them to wield them effectively against MS the same way we all hope they will smack down SCO and their ridiculous patent mining efforts, but neither will it surprise me if their IP departments turn against Linux and/or other OS projects when it suits them.

They are clearly an interesting case as they were against software and business method patents originally, but they have also gathered a large mass of such patents since then (well, I'm not sure if they have gathered business method patents as yet, and they may have apposed this more than the software patents). For them, Linux is probably just a cheap way to get software for their services and hardware, with the side benefit of possibly damagine MS.

Re:Case punctured

[HiThere]

Right. They went broke, not bankrupt.

Stacker originally refused to sell out to MS, but MS ruined the company. They had to pay restitution, but the company was dead, and the restitution didn't allow them to be revived.

Millions sounds like a lot. And it is for a person. It's twice the cost of a decent house in Silicon Valley (last year). But it isn't a lot for a company. 20 years ago a million was half the cost of a decent building. IF you already owned the land.

What Happens To Patents?

[Samarkind]

I don't think frivolous patents are the whole problem. I think an unspoken problem is that nobody has a good method of determining if something is patented at all, not even the patent offices. A big boost for patent use would be a way to quickly determine if something was patented, and if so, who by. Requesting a patent search does not guarantee that a patent does not exist for what you're looking for. It only tells you that it probably does not. Not very comforting given the high litigation rate for violated patents. It's hard to base a company on something so shaky as a patent that can't be guaranteed is valid.

What's more, once a patent has expired what happens to it? Arguably it is supposed to have been replaced with a new and better patent making the old one obsolete. If these expired patented inventions fall into the public domain, where are they listed? Where can I obtain a list of expired patents and the inventions they corrsepond to? If such a list has been compiled (or can be), would it be relevent? If patents are to provide a benefit to society (why else would we grant them?) but don't expire until they are completely worthless, what's the point?

Re:What Happens To Patents?

[McFly777]

Where is the list of expired patents?

Simple... In the same place as the list of current patents. You just have to look back a few years, 17 or 20 to be specific.

Remember patents have a limited lifetime. (in contrast to copyright which effectivly now lasts forever [sic])

The one exception where just looking back 20 years won't get you all of the expired patents is that a patent can expire early if the maintainence fees aren't paid. (I don't recall exactly how often but it is something like every 5 or 7 years).

Greenspan recognizes the problem

[gnurb]

Saw this on google news today. An article from the BBC where Greenspan says he recognizes the shift "towards intangibles and ideas and away from concrete products."

The first step to a solution is for someone in power to at least realize that something is changing. Good job Alan!

Patents not the problem

[phorm]

The thing is, patents are a good thing, it's abuse of the system - and its original intent - that is the problem.
Those in power should realize how much of a problem this is, and do something to reform the poor patent system. If the US can't do it, then maybe another country can to set a good example. It's not the idea that's broken: it's the system, and perhaps those using it.
Like anything of good intent, sometimes people need a stern punishment for abusing the process (people in this case being large corporations). No consequences with large gains almost always breeds abuse when money and large (or even small) organizations are involved.

Last Post!

[alpg]

I've seen people with new children before, they go from ultra happy to
looking like something out of a zombie film in about a week.
-- Alan Cox about Linus after his 2nd daughter

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...