Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Checking out my form of escapism.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.