Creating A Global Patent System

prostoalex writes "May issue of MIT Technology Review discussed the implications of a globalized patent system. For small inventors, it argues, the cost of globalizing the rights for their invention are just unbearable. For example, in Europe it costs about $7,000 per country to file a patent application. As an article bonus, some people might like to take a look at the list of the largest patent holders per industry in PDF format."

Comments

Yeah right

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

With the States current attitude towards international law & agreements, I can't see any form of global patent law being created, except if the U.S. forces the rest of the world to agree with it in some economic or political way.

Re:Yeah right

[tankdilla]

Whatever country doesn't agree to global patent law must have weapons of mass destruction and will face consequences.

Re:Yeah right

[Eric Ass Raymond]

With the States current attitude towards international law & agreements

Oh, you mean things like the Kyoto treaty and so called unilateral war with Iraq?

Why should we conform to a treaty that's supposed to address a phenomenon of which there is absolutely no scientific proof -- a treaty that would seriously undermine our economy. As far as Iraq goes, I bet you were happy that we intervened in Kosovo -- you do remember that that also took place without the approval of the UN?

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

a treaty that would seriously undermine our economy

In the Bushian America, GWB undermines your economy.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

International war crimes tribunals, international criminal court, GATT and free trade in general...

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking before writing, not writing before thinking - that's the correct order.

Thanks.

Re:Yeah right

[kisak]

except if the U.S. forces the rest of the world to agree with it in some economic or political way.

The US does not have the power to to force any such thing on the world. Yes, the US has the most deadly military but most conflict cannot be solved with killing of a third world dictator.

The only way to get such a international patent system would be through the UN and with diplomatic means. The Bush administration has shown itself to be less then adequate in diplomatic negotiation, thinking it can bribe (Turkey), threaten (France), lie (Powell security counsel), or play cool (N Korea) itself to get it the way it wants. All of the above tactics backfired and did not work.

I guess the world has to wait for an administration that can be trusted to keep what it promises and not pull out of international treaties according to if it suits them or not, before any more break throughs can come on international cooperation.

Re:Yeah right

[Eric Ass Raymond]

It's you who's not thinking.

I challenge you to refute the points I made.

Re:Yeah right

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Oh, you mean things like the Kyoto treaty and so called unilateral war with Iraq?
Amongst others. I was also thinking about the non-proliferation agreement on biological weapons, the international court of justice (with special emphasis on the fact that the U.S. now has a law condoning it to attack the Netherlands if a U.S. citizen is taken prisoner by the court), world trade agreements (steel imports taxes), the what's-it-called agreement with russia on reducing nuclear warheads, etc, etc.

Why should we conform to a treaty that's supposed to address a phenomenon of which there is absolutely no scientific proof?
Why would Bush ask a very respectable team of American scientists to advise him on the Greenhouse effect, only to ignore them when they confirm the existence of the global warming phenomenon?

As far as Iraq goes, I bet you were happy that we intervened in Kosovo -- you do remember that that also took place without the approval of the UN?
I wasn't actually thinking about Iraq, but yes, I do remember Kosovo, and unlike you, I remember that there was broad consensus in the international community on a intervention and it was done in a combined effort lead by NATO.

Dude, try watching something different than Fox News and CNN, it might give you a perspective on things not American.

Have a nice day!

Re:Yeah right

[Eric Ass Raymond]

international court of justice (with special emphasis on the fact that the U.S. now has a law condoning it to attack the Netherlands if a U.S. citizen is taken prisoner by the court)

I wonder why people insist that the US should join the international court of justice? A sovereign nation does what it wants and becomes a member of only those organizations it wants to. USA has no obligation to become a member of the international court of justice and as long as we're not a member state (for good reasons such as the lack of certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution), we have every right to treat it as a hostile act to imprison an American and parade him/her in that court of justice.

when they confirm the existence of the global warming phenomenon?

They may have confirmed the existence of global warming, but there is absolutely no hard evidence that it is caused by geologically and climatologically insignifant human action.

broad consensus in the international community

Hot air. The fact remains that the action was taken without the blessings of the UN Security Council and explicitly against the wishes of one of its permanent members (Russia) - just like the war in Iraq.

"Broad international consensus" is just like "public opinion": largely irrelevant (and for a good reason). It may affect the decision makers who have political careers to look after, but it cannot in any way be used to justify decisions or actions that go against the procedures of UN. If the public opinion is allowed to justify going against the will of UN, then UN itself has become irrelevant.

In other words: you either accept UN as the authority in which case both Kosovo and Iraq were unjustified wars, or you accept that "public opinion" may override the authority of UN and that this makes UN irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways.

Dude, try watching something different than Fox News and CNN

I'm an ex-pat and don't see FOX here in Belgium. I watch CNN, BBC, EuroNews on cable as well as the local news broadcasts. You really should not throw the stereotypes around so lightly - it makes you sound so... euro-trashy.

Re:Yeah right

[onion2k]

Tell that to the major phamaceutical companies. US companies produce AIDs and cancer drugs at 30$ a day to the patient, and then Indian companies such as Cipla under cut them by making the same drugs for less than 1$ per day. Indian patent law states that drug patents only cover the production method, not the actual drug, so long as the Indian company figures out a new way of making it then its ok.

But...

If countries buy these generic drugs rather than the US equivalent they get threatened with trade sanctions. Its happened in Thailand, South Korea, Brazil, and many others. I doubt its a coincidence that Rumsfeld used to head up.. ooo.. a pharmaceutical company! There was a global treaty for cheap drugs put around by the WHO a little while ago. Every single country wanted to sign up... expect the USA, who veto'd it.

America has too much power.

Re:Yeah right

[kisak]

A sovereign nation does what it wants ...

You mean like Iraq?

USA has no obligation to become a member of the international court of justice ... for good reasons such as the lack of certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution

And what happened to those rights guaranteed , when dealing with the people in Guantanamo bay?

... global warming ... there is absolutely no hard evidence that it is caused by geologically and climatologically insignifant human action

I guess that translate into, scientist should say what is politically correct, not what their data shows them. The bush administration has thaught you well.

... explicitly against the wishes of one of its permanent members (Russia) - just like the war in Iraq.

It is hard to compare the case of lack of majority in the UN assembly, lack of majority in the security counsel and three permanent members out of five against the war in Iraq, hell, even a lack of majority in England and Spain the only real supporting countries, with the one single veto vote the war against Kosovo.

... "public opinion": largely irrelevant (and for a good reason)

That's democracy I guess, US style.

What can I say, you have it both ways I guess.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

The US doesn't have the foreign support to pull this off. Governments can see that agreements with America do not neccessary benifeit them.

No one wanted to dance with a 500lb gorilla. Issues such as steel tarrifs highlight the risks other countries take in signing these sorts of agreeements. It's differcult for the smaller states to enforce their rights if the biggest player decides to change the rules.

Just my $0.02NZ worth.

Re:Yeah right

[Eric Ass Raymond]

You mean like Iraq?

Sure. Iraq exercised its sovereignity to full extent in the form of dictatorial regime, weapons of mass destruction and support of international terrorism.

With the sovereignity comes also accountability. That's precisely what happened last month: they were finally (no thanks to UN) made accountable for their actions.

scientist should say what is politically correct, not what their data shows them. The bush administration has thaught you well

There is no hard data showing that global warming is caused by the man and not by the increase in sun activity (which correlates with the warming) or natural Earth cycles (which is also corroborated by some models). Sure environmental science is politicised but you are really naive if you believe that certain global warming skeptics are the only ones that have biased interpreatations. Science is a social system just like a society. Pure hard data is just that - data. It doesn't tell you anything before you interpret it and after you've done that, you've imposed your own subjectivity on it.

It is hard to compare the case

That's right - and you should not even attempt to make such a comparision. Either you accept the authority of UN and play by its rules (and bow to the resistance of Russia/France) or you accept that UN is dead because you could ignore its procedures already in Kosovo.

That's democracy I guess, US style.

That's right. Just bash US and don't even bother actually arguing your case. A sure way to get modded up.

Re:Yeah right

[ratamacue]

Exactly. At the root of the issue, patent law is arbitrary. It's a complex, largely ambiguous system of law created and implemented entirely by government -- not a simple, "natural" law that would be inherently understood by human society and would be respected (or even conceived) with or without government.

What does this mean? In short, there is no possible way that every country -- let alone every human being in the world -- could agree to this concept of "intellectual property". Therefore, the implementation of intellectual property requires a major initiation of force, the very thing it proposes to protect us against. Not only is the concept of IP itself questionable (many, like myself, would oppose it outright), but the implementation could take any one of literally millions of different forms. Who's right and who's wrong? There is no answer, there will never be an answer, and there never could be an answer.

Like any law or set of laws that can't be agreed upon nearly unanimously, somebody will be screwed over in a big way. This is exactly why I advocate limited government -- beyond the core function of government (which is to protect the people against the initiation of force), every law is arbitrary to some degree, and necessarily screws over somebody at the expense of somebody else. IP does exactly that.

Re:Yeah right

[kisak]

That's right. Just bash US and don't even bother actually arguing your case. A sure way to get modded up.

You are a bit on the defensive I see, luckily you don't speak or argue for the US as a whole (even though sadly bush does at the moment).

Sure. Iraq exercised its sovereignity to full extent in the form of dictatorial regime, weapons of mass destruction and support of international terrorism.

Since you are into arguing your case, could you show any proof of Saddam having WMD (i.e., enough of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to make a real threat) in the months before the war? We all know that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran (with Rumsfelds blessing) and against the kurds, but that does not constitute any proof except that Saddam is a true bastard (and Rumsfeld also I guess).

While you are at it, can you also show any proof that Saddam was involved in international terrorism as you call it. There has been no proof that Saddam worked with Al-Quaida (Saddam and Osama were enemies) or that Saddam or his gang had anything to do with 9-11. But I guess you were talking about some other proof?

Re:Yeah right

[Eric Ass Raymond]

could you show any proof of Saddam having WMD (i.e., enough of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to make a real threat) in the months before the war?

Since when did the "to make a real threat" become one of the requirements? Anyway, Iraq was obliged to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction. What the people seem to fail to understand is that inspectors' job was NOT to go out and try to find if WMDs had been destroyed. According to the UN resolution, Iraq was supposed to provide them all the necessary evidence that this had indeed taken place. Iraq failed to do this.

If you read Hans Blix's report, you'll find that Iraq failed to give any reasonable explanation for what happened, for instance, to the tens of thousands of tons of Anthrax. Was this arsenal destroyed? Perhaps, but the burden of proof was on Iraq not on UN. Any evidence never surfaced although, just like in any oppressive regime, people kept compulsively records on who did what, when and why just to cover their asses if the shit hit the fan. Thus, military action was imminently justified.

The fact that US and other western nations once provided Iraq with the means to produce WMDs is a moot point. We're talking what's happening today, not what happened decades ago. 20/20 hindsight was not going to change the threat the Iraq posed today.

Iraq's role in international terrorism is well known and the first hard proof was found last week.

Re:Yeah right

[kisak]

That's right - and you should not even attempt to make such a comparision. Either you accept the authority of UN and play by its rules (and bow to the resistance of Russia/France) or you accept that UN is dead because you could ignore its procedures already in Kosovo.

Things are not so black and white. The veto power in the security counsel is a thing put into place by the allies after WWII and needed because of the cold-war. I agree that UN is not perfect, but that does not mean it has not been the greatest success story after WWII (more than NATO I would say, even though one can argue who has most credit for the relative peace we have seen in the last 58 years.) I agree that UN can need some reforms, I would argue that Russia, France, China, England and US should lose their veto powers in the security counsel. But there is still a need for a strong security counsel to deal with the tougher issues in the world, especially related to international conflicts like war or problems like WMD. A simple majority in the security counsel cannot be good enough for all kinds of issues, so one have to make procedures that safeguards the prosess.

I cannot see your problem with Kosovo. Everyone understood that Russia could not be seen as supporting a war against its historical allies. Even though this was clear, the moral support from a majority of the security counsel was important for NATO when going into the war. And all the diplomatic work before the war made the public in Europe and the US accept that everything had been done to try to stop Milosvitch peacefully. Even though it was clear that Milosovitch had to be stopped in his genocite on the Balkans, the majority of Republicans in congress was against the war in Kosovo. I guess they are only for protecting a population against their dictator when there is also oil involved (the democrats are not much better when it comes to the issue of Iraq).

Re:Yeah right

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

I wonder why people insist that the US should join the international court of justice?
I don't care if they do or don't. I just don't want to them to hinder other countries that do think an international court of justice is a good idea. And honestly, don't you think it's a tad agressive to accept a law condoning an invasion in a allied country? I mean, where did 'we can work it out together' go?

They may have confirmed the existence of global warming, but there is absolutely no hard evidence that it is caused by geologically and climatologically insignifant human action
Science knows no thing as 'hard evidence', only unrefuted theories. And as for now, the theory that global warming is caused by human activity has a stronger case than the reverse. Science works with consensus, and most scientists are convinced the current global warming is being caused for the most part by human activity.

"Broad international consensus" is just like "public opinion": largely irrelevant (and for a good reason).
I beg to differ. Broad international consensus was in this case consensus among decision makers, not the public. As (like you have just pointed out) decision makers are in this case heads of sovereign nations, they can decide to circumvent the UN, and with good reason in the Kosovo case, but not so in the Iraq case.
The original motivation to attack in Kosovo before the UN gave its blessing was the large stream of refugees and the fact that a fait accompli would be created with the ethnical cleansing of the region. You will most likely disagree with me, but I did not see any such time pressure in Iraq to circumvent the UN, which is also proven by the fact that Bush et al did try to get UN permission.
And you, as an ex-pat, must be able to affirm that the Iraq intervention was much less accepted as necessary outside the US than was the Kosovo intervention.

I've been to the states on several occasions, my parents have been ex-pats in the States in the sixties, the eighties and the nineties, so I think I know my stereotypes =) You know as well as I do that the average american has very little to no knowlegde of what goes on outside the states.

This is euro trash signing off.

Re:Yeah right

[silas_moeckel]

Finaly somebody that still remembers the concept of soverign nation. Countries do as they please hopefully to the benifit of there citizens. Larger countries strong arm and control less powerfull nations because they can and because it may be in the best interest of there citizens. That internation court is a bit of a joke it's least common denominator rights at best.

Now the UN lets face it it was designed to keep the smaller countries in line while not affecting the powers that be why do you think there are those perminent members on the secuirty council with veto power. The UN serves to keep smaller countries in check and has no real affect on the larger ones. Look at us with the POW from afganistan techincal we commited war crimes by allowing them to be put on TV housing them in a prision facility etc etc etc. But it all comes back the the unstated law that war crimes are only for the faction that looses.

Re:Yeah right

[CyrusSukhia]

Good post up until that last comment...you made it sound as if Fox and CNN are the only American perspectives

Re:Yeah right

[paja]

> Why should we conform to a treaty that's supposed to address a phenomenon of which there is absolutely no scientific proof

1. You do not need to conform to any treaty or agreement, because You have enough military power to overcome consequences.

Your statement about Kyoto treaty is exactly the same as the one issued by communist China after they were asked to lower production of devices using CFC back in the early 90's. What a pitty, that there is not a mechanism to send You an invoice for 30% of expenses on reconstruction of ecosystems all over the world - see 1. (as far as U. S. produces over 1/3 of substances covered by Kyoto treaty)

As for the Kosovo, this was at least covered by the NATO agreement, without any strong oposition. The situation in Iraq is different - Craig Roberts Stapleton, U. S. Ambassador to Czech Republic, clearly stated, that american taxpayers paid the war bill in Iraq, so the infrastructure is going to be rebuilt by the U. S. companies. This is the most clear statement of war driven by economy. BTW all previous contracts with Russia regarding oil industry in Iraq were already canceled.

Re:Yeah right

[ThaReetLad]

With the sovereignity comes also accountability

so just who is the USA accountable to, and who gave you jurisdiction over another sovereign state?

Re:Yeah right

[kisak]

If you read Hans Blix's report, you'll find that Iraq failed to give any reasonable explanation for what happened, for instance, to the tens of thousands of tons of Anthrax.

Hans Blix asked for more time to do his weapons inspections, but was denied. Blix later expressed concern why the bush adminstration was making an effort to undermind their work and even use clearly false "evidence" to prove that Iraq had WMD.

Iraq's role in international terrorism is well known and the first hard proof [bbc.co.uk] was found last week.

This "hard proof" by the Telegraph was discredited already the next day by the british intelligence community. See for instant the Times (a respected, conservative british newspaper) about it. It is funny how fast the press is to find "proof" of WMD or links with Al-Quaida, but forget to tell everyone when they are discredited. (You have to pay to read the article but it start:

Saddam link to al-Qaeda in doubt
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
BRITISH Intelligence officials have expressed doubt that Saddam Hussein established any working relationship with al-Qaeda despite the discovery of documents showing that an "envoy" for Osama bin Laden visited Baghdad in 1998.

The documents were found by The Sunday Telegraph at the bombed-out Baghdad headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's Intelligence service, and were hailed yesterday as positive proof of an Iraqi link to al-Qaeda. They mentioned the arrival of a confidant of bin Laden who had travelled to Baghdad from Khartoum in March 1998. Bin Laden was based in Sudan until 1996.

Officials told The Times that there had been intelligence indicators about that time of a possible visit to Baghdad by someone purporting to represent al-Qaeda. There had been no evidence of any follow-up meetings to suggest that Baghdad had forged a long-term partnership with al-Qaeda.

Re:Yeah right

[Zirnike]

Would that be bad? Like the article says, the US is the only country with first to invent. That is, as far as anyone interested in inventing anything, and as far as anyone interested in innovation AT ALL is concerned, at the very top of the non-negotiable list.

No way in hell we need to give more power to megacorps.

Making someone essentially give up their rights to a patent because they aren't good at paperwork is just plain dumb.

As far as business method patents, etc. are concerned... they should be eliminated. But that's a secondary concern.

Re:Yeah right

[Arethan]

Correction:
American corporations have too much power.

The problem with the US is not that they have too much power, it is that the government is corrupted by private interests. Like you stated, Rumsfeld used to head a pharmaceutical company, and probably still recieves kickbacks. Thus his views are bias. If you remove the corporate interests from the equation, the US really aren't that bad. But yes, in its current form, the US is a pain in the ass.

And surprise surprise, I'm an American. And yes, I actually believe that our government is overrun by politicians that are too easily swayed by pocket stuffers, and are more interested in getting re-elected than doing the right thing. Unfortunately, short of a complete revolt, there isn't much that we the people can really do about it. It is almost impossible to elect anyone who isn't already corrupt or will become correupted, and those few elected officials that are not corrupt are powerless to change the current system, as they are severely outnumbered by their "peers".

Personally, if shit gets too wierd over here, I'll just move. I like some of the laws and freedoms I have over here and I'm used to the language, but realistically I'm still relatively young, and could adapt to a new country with a fair amount of success. But, I hope it doesn't come to that.

Re:Yeah right

[BZ]

> And honestly, don't you think it's a tad
> agressive to accept a law condoning an invasion
> in a allied country?

No. The #1 job of the government of the United States is to represent its citizens to the world at large and to provide for collective benefits to those citizens. This is why governments get established.

In particular, the government of the United States should strive to the utmost to protect those of its citizens who may be visiting other countries. This is one historical reasons why consulates are considered the territory of the country being represented -- it gives nationals of that country a safe place in a foreign land.

In this particular case, the U.S. government is protecting its citizens from seizure and imprisonment by others. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The only question is how said protection is to be effected. I suppose we could threaten trade sanctions instead, but then if someone _did_ get imprisoned by this court we'd have to actually implement those sanctions. Which would be a great burden. The threat of war is much more effective in this case, since there is a _much_ lower probability that it will actually have to be acted on (people are a lot more wary of being invaded than they are of threatened trade sanctions).

Other than those two options (trade sanctions and warfare), the U.S. has no real way to influence another sovereign nation (all of diplomacy centers on two things: "Do we keep trading, and how?" and "Do we have a war over this?").

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no offense, but would you mind rewriting your post, in ENGLISH this time?

Re:Yeah right

[sacrilicious]

I agree that intellectual property is not uniformly conceived of by all, and so I agree with what I believe is the spirit of what you are saying. A few details:

In short, there is no possible way that every country -- let alone every human being in the world -- could [uncoercedly] agree to this concept of "intellectual property".

The agreement of every human is not necessary. The agreement of the countries (their governments) would be sufficient, if achievable.

Therefore, the implementation of intellectual property requires a major initiation of force, the very thing it proposes to protect us against.

Intellectual property concepts do not propose to protect us from the use of force; that is addressed by (depending on context) combinations of national sovereignty and laws against assault and battery. Intellectual property is a contract designed to spur the creation of art and information by granting limited monopolies to creators.

And, force is not the only form of coercion that could suffice to get countries on board.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason India has these patent laws for pharmachuticles is rather intelligent. The US companies don't want to sell their product for 30 times less on the Indian market, but most people in India will not be able to afford the 1000+ rupees a day for the medicine; not when a decent meal is Rs.5 or less. The biggest problem I noted in India is that you can obtain any medication relatively easily without a prescription. Either by fakeing a prescription or by bribing someone. Antibiotics aren't allways controlled (I don't know if they are technically, but they certainly aren't practically). This leads to self medication, and people pulling out the heavy artillery; Vancomycin, when it is not needed. The system they have with patents is great, but they need some serious work on the controls over distribution.

--Sorry for the wandering

Re:Yeah right

[ratamacue]

The agreement of the countries (their governments) would be sufficient, if achievable.

I disagree completely. The people are not the government, and the government is not the people. The people are unique individuals who do not hold the power to initiate force; the government is a collection of individuals who do hold the power to initiate force.

Do you endorse 100% of what your government does? 75%? 50%? If it's any less than 100%, then you, like every individual, are being screwed over for the benefit of special interests. You are not the government -- you do not make any decisions regarding the initiation of force. Having a part in the voting process does not, in any possible way, represent a decision regarding the initiation of force.

Intellectual property is a contract designed to spur the creation of art and information by granting limited monopolies to creators.

Force does not have to be physical. Theft is force, even though the victim may not be present at the scene of the crime. Fraud is an example of force. Force is measured in loss of property rights (the most important of which is ownership of your own body), not necessarily physical assult. Accordingly, the [false] rationale for IP law is to protect IP holders against force -- to protect them against the loss of property. Of course, the variable here is the definition of "property", and personally I don't buy into the concept of ideas as "property".

Hmmm...

[skermit]

I've read a couple articles on patents and where they're going in the past two weeks. One takes a look at all the patents given in the US that don't and can NEVER be produced because they are physically impossible. The second article dealt with how the US government is INCREASING costs for patent filings because there's too much of a backlog as is, and they need more of an incentive to process current patents and to, wait for it..., DISCOURAGE new patents. *sigh*

$7000 per European country..

[wfberg]

Yes, the European Patent Office does not exist. Go away now!

Re:$7000 per European country..

[robbyjo]

No it's not $7000 per country.. It's $7000 more per country. When you calculate (app fee is $78K + $200K legal fee), the average is about $12K. So, it implies that his total patent cost in the US is about $5K.

Re:$7000 per European country..

[tomgarcher]

Whilst there is a European patent office companies often put a patent application in with each of the individual patent offices. They do this because if you put it in with the euro patent office and it is rejected - then it will be rejected all over Europe, however if you put it in to the UK office and it gets rejected you still have a chance in Germany or France.

Re:$7000 per European country..

[kogs]

OK here are some real numbers for a US-originating European patent application with 20 pages of text and 20 claims (somewhat on the low side when compared with US practice but multiple dependencies are positively encouraged in Europe not penalised as in the USPTO)

Filing: $2200
Examination: $1800
Designation fees* (all states): $800
Dealing with objections by Examiner: $4000
Maintenance fees (say): $2000
Grant and validation:

• United Kingdom: $300
• Austria: $1700
• Belgium: $900
• Cyprus: $1700
• Denmark: $3600
• Finland: $3300
• France: $2300
• Germany: $2500
• Greece: $2250
• Ireland: $700
• Italy: $2100
• Latvia: $1600
• Lithuania: $2100
• Luxembourg: $700
• Monaco: $750
• Netherlands: $2300
• Portugal: $2700
• Romania: $1500
• Slovenia: $2000
• Spain: $2000
• Sweden: $3800
• Switzerland: $1000
• Turkey: $1900

Sub-Total: $43,700
Official Grant + Printing Fees: $1500
Grand Total: $56,000 (plus US patent attorney's time and mark up.

Most of the validation costs are for translations and some countries appear low because they share a language with another country, e.g. French is used in France, Switzerland and Belgium

If you are not a pharmaceutical company, you would probably be looking for patents in the UK, France, Germany and perhaps Scandinavian countries, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Assuming the UK, France and Germany would give a cost per country of about $5200 per country.

* seven buys all states

This could be bad and good

[sickboy_macosX]

I think this could be a good and bad thing, What if they had a 7,000.00 fee for people to file their global trademark or patent, or whatever copyrighted material. It could be good for some products but bad for others. Because then you would have cyber squatters who decided to "register" their trademarks in bulk.. and then the people say linux.xxx, would be come a porn site...and what would happen to people who had already had copyrighted material? would that material then become void?? eh just a thought..

Re:This could be bad and good

[offpath3]

Patent. Not trademark. Not copyright. Not domain name. P-A-T-E-N-T. Big difference.

Re:This could be bad and good

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent Copyright

http://swpat.ffii.org

there is a difference. We are now fighting swpats in the EU. 8th of may is d-day. Lawyers or IT professionals, who will rule?

No thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks!

Some countries still have a respectible Patent System in place. Why would they want to be polluted with some (many) of the ridiculous Patents granted in the USA.

Re:No thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - the entire article blathers on about how the rest of the world has an utterly stupid system and how the US system is good but costly. (Not that I'm saying the UK system is much better, mind)

Er, no.

Only global patents make sense

[Eric Ass Raymond]

What is the point of patenting something if the patent is not global?

Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Mr Europe]

Do remember that NONE the patents so far have been really GLOBAL !

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Eric Ass Raymond]

How long have we had patent databases on the net? Now it's much easier to look for good ideas in a foreign patent database and steal those which are not patented in your own country.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but they won't be able to sell in the market where you have your patent. That's what you're protecting, not the ability to manufacture, but the right to sell.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. So few American companies even bother to deal with foreign countries it's a joke - it wouldn't make a difference. Even those which do are often handicapped by the financial industry or Govt regulations - seriously, it's a major PITA trying to deal with the US sometimes.

Sure, a business or person in a foreign country could file a local patent, but in reality it wouldn't affect the US "domestic" market because they couldn't sell there without getting into legal problems over the US patent.

Anyway, Patent (and more generally, Idea) stealing goes on all the time - in both directions. That's business - get used to it.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[tanveer1979]

Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.

American companies have been patenting commonly grown stuff and known medicines in poor eastern countries. If global patents were in place then lots of people will lose their right to practice something which their forefathers have done since ages.

What stops an american corporate to patent a traditional chinese or indian mixture of herbs as its own creation. Most small scale industries now dont have the idea that they are violating patent.

Such stuff has happened before.
Examples
Texamati : A variety of rice which is same as basmati which has been grown in india since more than 300 years
Neem extracts : Historical texts have explained the usage since 2000BC
Tulsi : Patent pending, used as a releif from flu and common cold since thousands of years.

No thanks we dont want american patents to be slapped on us, unless the American patent office takes full responsibility for any bogus patents filed and gives compensation. Neem patent was defeated after Indian Govt intervention, and even after presenting the office with historical docs, it took more than a year.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[The Cydonian]

Very very valid points. The point here is, we are not even talking about industry here; for instance, my grandmom, grows the tulasi plant for medicinal and religious reasons. Now, why should she pay, what in effect will be, tax to an (American) corporation, for what she's been doing for the last seventy years or so?

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Eric Ass Raymond]

Such stuff has happened before. Examples

Uhhuh? And did the people who grew Texamati, extracted Neem and used Tulsi have the means and infrastructure to make all these available worldwide or even on a national level? No? Well, don't complain when someone who actually can bring the benefits to the wider public does it.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

who actually can bring the benefits to the wider public

WHOA! My bullshit meter just broke.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Zemran]

Did that crap actually make sense to you or did you just write it and press submit without thinking ?

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Eric Ass Raymond]

WHOA! My bullshit meter just broke

As did your closing tag.

Again, I challenge you to refute my points with facts - if you can. Short, meaningless sentences like your post serve no-one.

I don't see how the commercialization of traditional medicine, food and other products would not serve the public.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Basmati rice was available in europe (imported from India by routes known for millenia) for ages before the americans decided they owned it.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Commercialization yes. that can serve the public.

Patenting is a monopoly that is suposed to go to an inventor to compensate for the discovery cost.
When you take something that already exists there is no discovery cost.
Therefore granting a patent monopoly then would be stealing the product from the commons. This is WERY bad.

Do i have to explain it any more clearly ?

/Caridon

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

American companies have been patenting commonly grown stuff and known medicines in poor eastern countries. If global patents were in place then lots of people will lose their right to practice something which their forefathers have done since ages.

Bullsh*t. Even patents granted by the evil USPTO don't stop grandpa from growing anything. Only if he tried to sell it in a country that the patent covers would it affect him, and probably not even then.

Look at your examples:

Texmati - this patent does not cover traditional basmati because Texmati is not the same thing. Texmati is a rice bred from basmati and a type of long-grain American rice. Where the problem arises is that India apparently developed a similar type of rice with many of the same characteristics. Even so, this still does not affect traditional, pure basmati rice strains.

Neem extracts - this patent was for a pesticide, and was granted and subsequently rejected by the European Patent Office. If you have a problem, b*tch at them.

Tulsi - I couldn't find a patent on tulsi as a whole but I did find a patent for the use of a specific extract from tulsi. Interestingly enough, all of the names on the patent application were Indian. If you have a problem, b*tch at them for exploiting their own people.

I don't like some of the things the USPTO does, but let's not jerk our knees every time someone posts something about them. Do a little research next time.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[kogs]

This is only possible in the US and then only because of a quirk in the definition of prior art in 35 USC 102 which excludes use outside of the US from the prior art. This means that if a description of traditional remedy from outside the US has not been described in a printed publication, it can be patented in the US. Direct taking of the traditional remedy would fall foul of the patent application not being made by the inventor. However, if the claimed invention is a variant of the traditional remedy, the fact of the foreign prior use cannot be used as the basis for rejection of the patent application on the grounds of obviousness.

Most patent systems define the prior art as what was available to the public (i.e. anyone, anywhere) before the filing date of the patent application or the date of invention. In such a case the use of the traditional remedy would render unpatentable any obvious variants or developments of it.

Re:Only global patents make sense

[Hugonz]

Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.

...and they will not be able to sell it in the country where your patent was granted, thet's the point.

Perhaps you want to do the exploitation yourself? Or perhaps it is that a (*yuck*) independent country is doing it. No one is forced to respect *your* monopolies...

Do we live in the same world??

[jkrise]

Why did we divide the world into three parts? Third World countries seem to be creating big headaches for the other two.

Now, we have politically correct phrases like "Developing Countries" etc. Centuries old Third World ideas / patents are not honored by so-called Advanced Nations.

The tech world has got the greatest lopsidedness in it's structure - Third World folks sitting in the First World and taking their creamy jobs.

Knowledge is Power. If you have the Power to assert it.

Re:Do we live in the same world??

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, we have politically correct phrases like "Developing Countries" etc.

Don't forget that other p.c. term, emerging markets. Why don't these liberal economists refer to them as they are: backwards shitholes.

Re:Do we live in the same world??

[Anonymous Coward]

Wipe your mouth, you're frothing.

There already is a global patent office

[inaeldi]

It's called the USPTO.

At least, that's what it seems like with all the cross-border lawsuits.

$7,000 may be expensive, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... surely you would only patent something you thought would reap you many times that amount.

And the price barrier to getting a patent (versus the plain old bureaucratic barriers) discourages companies / people from patenting silly things, where a patent would be a nuisance to the rest of society.

Re:$7,000 may be expensive, but ...

[windows]

The solution isn't to make it difficult to patent stupid things by making the price prohibitively high. The solution is for the patent offices to do their homework and actually review prior patents, get a clue as to what they're granting patents to, and make better attempts to verify that there isn't prior art out there already. Raising the price of the patents doesn't screw over the large companies. To them, $7,000 is a drop in the bucket. It hurts the small companies and independent inventors that don't have the money just sitting around. If the patent system were globalized and one large patent office replaced the ones for every country, and each country helped fund it, it might be possible to have a reasonable price and still be able to have the money for the office to do their homework and check up on things before granting patents.

There is a European Patent Office you know...

[pwagland]

For small inventors, it argues, the cost of globalizing the rights for their invention are just unbearable. For example, in Europe it costs about $7,000 per country to file a patent application.

The EPO, when it grants a patent, grants a patent to cover all of the EU. I don't know what the costs are, but I am fairly certain that it is less than $84,000...

Re:There is a European Patent Office you know...

[kinnell]

I bet he'll kick himself when he finds that out.

Re:There is a European Patent Office you know...

[seschmi]

Yes, there is a European Patent Office, but there is still no European Patent.

Despite there have been vast efforts for more than 20 years, an "European Patent" is still nothing else than a bundle of national patents. Therefore you have to pay fees and - more important - translation costs for every country (of course several countries share the same language, and in some countries patents may not be enforcable very well).

Anyway, if you want a valid patent in most of the european countries, 50.000 Euro is not a bad guess.

On the other hand: If you look at the long and unpleasant history of the "European Patent", a world patent doesn't seem very likely during the next 50 years or so.

how long before...

[Kircle]

How long before someone tries to patent the Global Patent System?

Wonderful...

[Wrexs0ul]

I can imagine the United States trying to implement a global patent office, only to be sued for infringing on someone's patent covering global access systems to public information. ...I bet it's already been issued somewhere, waiting for the day it can bite the hand that feeds it.

-Matt

Re:Wonderful...

[kisak]

... waiting for the day it can bite the hand that feeds it.

The US feeds the world? A strange concept indeed.

A Global Patent System Is Cool

[MoThugz]

... and all, but the problem is not with the system itself, but means to enforce the rights of the patent holder.

eg. Let's say someone from Ghana created some cool gadget which has no predecessors or anything even remotely similar already available in the market. How soon would someone from the US inventing a similar gadget would know that there is already such thing patented a few days ago?

Another scenario, assuming that local authorities are given the power to enforce this global patent protection law... would they be able to do it without bias? I mean if someone could build a pet robot dog that is just as intelligent and fun as the Aibo but is priced at 50% of the original Aibo, would the local authorities feel obliged to arrest this guy for patent infringement?

And while we're at the subject of infringement, who decides whether an infringement has occured? And where will these records be stored? This might be one of the most massive database ever created (if this is feasible in the first place)!

Re:A Global Patent System Is Cool

[sharekk]

eg. Let's say someone from Ghana created some cool gadget which has no predecessors or anything even remotely similar already available in the market. How soon would someone from the US inventing a similar gadget would know that there is already such thing patented a few days ago?

But where do you draw the line there? If you allow a 2 day margain why not 3 or a week? or a month? Once summer I was doing an internship with cryptography and thought of something no one in my company had. They urged me to start the patent process and I did only to find out a year later it had been 'invented' two years before. Granted, I had invented it independantly of whoever had prior art so should the gap be 2 years? That's just asking for someone to go through a patent database and claim he invented things independantly when he did not.

Intellectual property needs broken down

[CrazyJim0]

Theres several categories of intellectual property.

If someone owns the rights to a song, are you allowed to:

Re-Record it
Sing it
Say the title in public
Play it in public
Parody it
?

What if someone designs a part to allow flying cars steer? We don't have flying cars yet... But when we do, should we bow down to the inventor of the steering wheel even though anyone could create one. Oh lord almighty who walks on the earth, we must bow to thee because you wrote some dumb fucking thing on a piece of paper and sent it to the patent office.

With all the confusion with current patents, and only big corporations having enough to buy expensive lawyers... Maybe a working system should be thought up before applying it to the world.

Heres how the system currently works. Thousands of little buisnesses try. 90% of them fail. 9% eek out a living. 1% hit it big. A corporation sees the guy who hits it big with a good idea, and steals it for their own.

Re:Intellectual property needs broken down

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think it would be very ingenious if someone invented a steering wheel for a flying car! It's not like an ordinary steering wheel is any good when you have a three-dimensional space to fly in... Note that even aeroplanes are steered with joysticks, not steering wheels.

Re:Intellectual property needs broken down

[pommiekiwifruit]

Note that even aeroplanes are steered with joysticks, not steering wheels.

But surely a yoke (which does have a steering wheel in it for banking) is more fun than one of those namby-pamby fly-by-wire joysticks :-)

WIPO

[millwall]

There is a Swiss based organisation called World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) with 179 member states promoting worldwide patents.

From the Website:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to helping to ensure that the rights of creators and owners of intellectual property are protected worldwide and that inventors and authors are, thus, recognized and rewarded for their ingenuity.

Send in the tanks, then Hillary Rosen

[nagora]

Guess who Bush sent into Iraq to help "modernise" its IP laws after the invasion? Good old Hillary Rosen.

That's how you get a world-wide IP system: tanks and bloodsuckers. Your country could be next...

TWW

Re:Send in the tanks, then Hillary Rosen

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. THAT wasn't on CNN.

Free Iraq my ass. It's still about owning Iraq.

Re:Send in the tanks, then Hillary Rosen

[Tonytheloony]

Were I Bush, I would have sent Hillary Rosen first...

Properties of Intellect vs Intellectual Property

[jkrise]

I've seldom seen any debate on Slashdot regarding the Properties of Intellect. Numerous articles, such as this one, talk about Intellectual Property though.

I think one can safely say that Intellect is EXTERNAL to the physical human body, and exists independent of it. Couple of quotes:
1. Learning is Finding Out what you Already Know - Richard Bach.
2. Education is Drawing Out - not Putting In.
3. The word 'Guru' - or teacher, past-master etc. Gu - remover, Ru - Darkness. Thus a Guru does not shed light on a topic, he merely removes the darkness surrounding it.

Enuff of the rant... to get back on topic, I'd like to think that intellect is COMMON to all humanity (indeed the Universe) and one merely tunes to it. Unlike real estate, money etc., intellect is NOT a physical commodity. Different people thinking about the SAME topic would come to the SAME conclusions.

Thus, if patents are granted to intellectual processes, they must be for a highly limited duration (say 3 years)- this alone can restrict damage done to the ENTIRE universe by corporations who hoard IP and adopt the dog-in-the-manger attitude. After this period of 3 years, the patent must fall into public domain. (Incidentally MS grants a mere 3 months for WinCE based ideas, owned by the programmers)!

Obviously, patents must also be world-wide for the same reason. Like the internet, the patent process has to be democratic, free (almost) and transparent. The stakes with IP are much much larger compared to the Internet.

Also, if patents and IP had been awarded and enforced with the same vigor as of now, say, even 10 years ago, the Desktop PC may have never happened! We need to have a Global System of Patents in place as early as possible, to foster innovation. Currently, innovation seems to be about blocking others rather than doing things better (Qualcomm-GSM, Intel-Via, MS-Sun, MS-Rest etc.).

How about a reversal?

[Rande]

How about the Patent Office gets money for every patent denied?

This will stop a lot of frivilous patents and only the really and assuredly original works will get through.

It ain't so easy at all..

[Mr Europe]

The problem is real but there are severe diffulties on the road to global patents.
1. Many developing countries have no interest in commiting to such international agreements. They see the cheap labour their only weapon to get to the international market. And they cannot afford much research.
2. The consept of patent varies a lot. As a well known example many ideas patented in US could never get a patent in Europe.
3. Many countries are trying to protect their own industry and reluctant to accept unbiased treatment of foreign and own patents. That the real world situation. And I'm now talking about the "civililized"/rich countries with many international contracts.

Ideas

[rf0]

I would love to be able to pantent something. Unfortunatly all my ideas such suck. I mean who would ever need things like a solar powered torch? No actually wait thats a good idea. Damn its already been done.

rus

Patent issues

[91degrees]

The cost of filing in several different countries is largely irrelevent to a small inventor. The income from one country alone could often result in a significant return on investment. There are other issues though:

1. The cost of filing in one country. Most inventions are failures. $7000 just for one country is a lot of money to invest in a product that the world just isn't ready for. With careful budgetting, this could support the inventor for another few months, allowing for him to perfect his invention

2. Timeframes. 20 years is far too long. Nothing that's 20 years old could ever be considered at all modern. Most cars last about 10 years. Computers are out of date in about 3. Even industrial equipment is usually outdated much more quickly than that. If something has not returned the investment cost within 5 years, just about any organisation would consider it a failure.

3. Lack of protection for independent inventors. It's actually very likely that several people will come up with the same idea at the same time. - for example, Bell beat Edison and others to the invention of the telephone by a short time - Shouldn't others be entitled to actually finish their invention without being charged with breaching a patent that hadn't been granted when they started?

Re:Patent issues

[A Life in Hell]

"Timeframes. 20 years is far too long. Nothing that's 20 years old could ever be considered at all modern."

The thing is, that's actully completly not true - the whole point of patents are to protect things that are completly revolutionary. A good example of this, is we're still using RSA public key crypto, who's patent expired a couple of years ago. Public key crypto is still clearly modern, 20+ years later. There are many other examples of this.

Yes, many things go out of style quickly, but then, many things shouldn't be patentable - the idea of a patent is to encourage people to spend their lives coming up with somehting incredible that no-one else would have come up with or released otherwise.

Re:Patent issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say make everything 10 years. I have an idea, and to make a small 1-man multi-national business would take me 5-7 years. The patent system is there to prevent a Microsoft or IBM from implementing my idea in 1 month, and out advertising me and giving it away for free. The patents do need to run out so the free market can take its course though. And hopefully I will have a good enough product to compete with competition by that time.

You should be able to opt for a very low file fee, if you agree to pay 1%-2% of the profits or some max amount, which ever come first.

Re:Patent issues

[marcello_dl]

...for example, Bell beat Edison and others to the invention of the telephone by a short time...

Great choice for an example: Bell wasn't the first to invent the telephone, and the case ended up in court.

Re:Patent issues

[91degrees]

Thanks for the link. This bit: "although he was too poor to protect his inventions with a patent (this would have costed him $250, that he did not have)". makes it seem very relevent. Patent costs arte just the first step. Defending your patent costs considerably more.

Re:Patent issues

[JaredOfEuropa]

Here's another interesting issue for small-time inventors: taxes!

A friend of mine patented an interesting improvement to some method of industrial production, which he hoped to sell to other companies. The next year, he (or rather: his company) received the estimate for that year's tax from the tax office (which you will have to pay up front!). In the statement was a sizable amount listed, with an explanation: 'Your patent #123 will by our estimates generate x euro's in revenue in Holland. Your patent is also valid in Germany and Belgium, where it will generate an estimated y euro's. We estimate the tax on those revenues to be z Euro's.' Mind, this is and advance on estimated taxes, payable before (possibly years before) you'll gross dollar one on your patent.

It is very hard for companies to get a reprieve from paying this tax advance, and even harder to contest the estimates. My friend's company had the cash to cover it, and he paid, but if his patent would have had world-wide validity...

Re:Patent issues

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of evidence that an IRISH man Stephen Mitchell Yeates invented the telephone 10 years before Bell did.

See here if global patents had existed then, maybe the americans couldnt have stolen the idea then.

Re:Patent issues

[91degrees]

Which is kinda my point.

Lots of people invented the telephone. Itwas just something that was due to come along at that time. It's quite possible that they were all independent. Even with a worldwide patent though, Yeates would probably not have been able to defend it.

Re:Patent issues

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious example for the need for long timescales would be pharmaceutical patents. The amount of time to develop, trial, manufacture and market means that the actual window for these companies to actually recoup and gain the ...profit!!! is quite small, even with the current patent timescale.

Re:Patent issues

[91degrees]

That's true, but pharmaceutical companies already are a special case in patent law pretty much for those reasons.

This is a seriously bad idea

[rpozz]

With patents being more expensive, the public (ie the people patents were meant to protect) will not be able to afford them. You also have the 'small' problem of organizing it.

And while we're at it. . .

[ahfoo]

Let's make the global standard for patents five years non-extendable and let's put copyrights around ten years.
Oh, and how about penlties for obfuscatd patent applications since the goal is to increase the knowledge in the public domain. That is the goal, right?

Sideways PDFs

[Spytap]

As much fun as it is to try and crane my neck to the left so as to read a PDF file that has been posted sideways, I'll just go on and assume that the list shwos some huge modern corporation, or some part of the American Military Installation (possibly, even the United States Military itself).

Want to patent something? Patent PDF files that don't suck!

Re:Sideways PDFs

[insecuritiez]

How about patent the rotate clockwise button. It's there in Acrobat Reader and XPDF.

Re:Sideways PDFs

[zerblat]

Heh, if you're using xpdf, right click and select "rotate clockwise". If you're using gv, switch from "portrait" to "landscape".

IBM -- Holy Shiza!!!

[rowanxmas]

3,000 Patents!!!!! I guess I better not invent anything.

Re:Properties of Intellect vs Intellectual Propert

[kinnell]

I think one can safely say that Intellect is EXTERNAL to the physical human body, and exists independent of it

Oh, we can, can we? I think we can safely say that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Try studyiung philosophy before making ridiculous comments like that.

intellect is NOT a physical commodity

The whole point of patents is to protect an inventor with limited resources who has invested in the overheads of developing an invention from being unable to capitalise on it because a wealthy competitor has taken the idea, without spending anything up front on developing it, and hence preventing the inventor making a return on investment. It is not an ethical matter, it is a practical one. People wouldn't bother developing a lot of ideas if they knew that all their hard work and sacrifices would just go towards lining someone elses pockets, so the patent system was created. Patents are not a god given right, they are an economic stimulant, much like fiddling with interest rates.

Patents do help

[thogard]

Patents do help drive some technology but only when they are low cost (how much did Edison pay for his early patents?) and the patent office does check for prior art. Unless the a patent office has a better database than google, they simply can't do their job.

He was robbed!

[Anonymous Coward]

His lawyers advised him badly. I work as a patent attorney for a major automotive systems company and their plan is to patent only in US, UK, France, Germany and Japan.

Their competitors can knock off as many copies as they like in third world countries like Ghana, Cambodia or Belgium, but if they can't import them into the major markets then it is pointless.

Always focus your patents on the countries you will sell in, and use them to block imports from elsewhere.

Re:He was robbed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the belgians would not consider themselves third world by any standards..

Re:He was robbed!

[dpille]

His lawyers advised him badly.

I kind of think the lawyers did really well- I mean, the firm now has equity in a promising enterprise, right?
Oh, you mean the advice was bad for the inventor. Sorry. I guess I do feel bad for the inventor from Atlanta who was convinced to pay for a patent in Georgia...

Re:Properties of Intellect vs Intellectual Propert

[jkrise]

"I think one can safely say that Intellect is EXTERNAL... you don't have a clue what you're talking about."

Think of the computer as an entity. Now, where does it get it's intellect from? The software - OS right? Now, who wrote the OS for the computer - a human being, right? Now, is the human being a part of the computer? Doesn't he exist independently of the computer?

It's likewise with human beings. Yes, we have the OS and the software (loosely called the mind), but the intellect is quite independent of the mind. Sort of like the radio, which tunes to signals available around. Ten different radios tuning in to the same signal will get the same content. Ten persons thinking about the same topic will get the same idea.

In fact, the very word 'thought' has a synonym in 'reflection'. Reflection implies the existence of an EXTERNAL object (intellect) which is mirrored into one's consciousness, by the mirror (Mind).

"Try studyiung philosophy before making ridiculous comments like that."
If you read "The Tao of Physics", you will understand that most systems of philosophy concur with this opinion.

Whole other idea

[lexcyber]

Remove the ideao of patents all together. And maybe we will have an evolution in technology only dreamt about! - Fuck large Corporations for a couple of hundred years, like they have fucked the people up until now!

Re:Whole other idea

[tomgarcher]

You fool. The idea behind patents is that it gives the inventor a time limited monopoly thus encouraging technological innovation. No patents means that we start to compete on who has most financial/marketing/political muscle - i.e. large firms win every time. Patents and copy right allow small firms to have a chance against larger companies and actually spur on technological development.

Re:Whole other idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, actually. IP-good-for-inventor is pure dogma. America got where it was at least in part by blatantly ignoring british/european IP laws until the 20th century.

Japan did well for a long time by discreetly semi-ignoring American IP laws (they made sure Japanese IP laws always trumped american ones, while preserving a thin veneer of acknowledging the american ones.)

While, indeed, IP rights secure something for the middle-time inventor (can't say small-time, since these days patent rights are too difficult for people like me to secure), they ALSO secure stuff for the bigger firms. So the big firms have patents/financial/marketing/political instead of just financial/marketing/political. And, as any scientist knows, it's near-impossible to make something "truly original", so the big firm will almost certainly have something in their portfolio already that you're infringing (by some stretch of the imagination that they can nonetheless make stick in court)- and with the "modern" American legal system almost always richest-guy-wins anyway, that's pretty disastrous.

Re:Whole other idea

[Anonymous Coward]

IP-good-for-inventor is pure dogma

Actually the policy is directed toward IP is good for innovation. This is because companies that invest in R&D tend to create more jobs than companies involved in more stagnant industries. So US IP policy is pragmatically established toward encouraging companies to invest in research, thus creating job growth for our US economy.

An individual inventor can still benefit. Usually the ones that benefit are the serial inventors that have, by necessity, learned IP law over years of fighting for their IP rights.

There are actually a few little guys fighting Mega corps in our federal courts today over patent infringement.

They had to do a lot of persistent work on their own to get into the ring to fight in the first place.

Just a couple of thoughts

[gnalre]

Firstly IBM tops the league by miles. SCO on the other hand do not even register, which given the recent news suggests SCO are on a hiding to nothing(or just a hiding).

Secondly Ericsson tops the telco's league. Considering they seem to still be losing money faster than, well actually I can't think of anyhing that is losing money faster than Ericsson, it goes to show bucket loads of patents is not a guaruntee of success. You still have to do something sensible with them.

my 0.01 eurocent

[mirko]

Such a system would be fine but if, it'd also offer for a minimal (or better : null) fee the possibility to "unpatent" inventions, in order to publish some invention in the public domain, it'd be a GOOD idea.

Global patents means global prior art

[GerardM]

Yes, you might think that it makes sense. But when a patent is to be granted, there must be no prior art. Therefore a global patent requires a global research for prior art. Consider the current quality of patents granted, how many are bogus. Consider the cost of researching for the admissability of a patent. Now would you want to reexamine ALL patents world wide or would you prefer the status quo? Thanks, Gerard

You can't think of the world as one country

[frinsore]

Yes, obtaining a patent in every country in the world is a huge mess and expensive, but there is benefit behind it. Each country can set their own patent limits and requirements and thereby effect their own ecomomy.
A poorer country can remove all patents and proceed to manufacture knock off products, sell them just above cost and stimulate the economy. This would also educate many people, they'd learn business, marketing, and engineering skills. It's happened in the past, and unless people make this a world wide government system, will most likely continue to happen.

Patents should be limited so that encourages innovation but doesn't stifle others from inovating in the same area. What type of limit that is, or it's duration depends on what people see as good for their economy.

I am a different person, thinking about the SAME topic and coming to a DIFFERENT conclusion. Nothing's black and white like that, there is no "right answer".

WIPO

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm doesn't the World Intellectual Property Organization essentially fill this role?

WIPO

http://www.wipo.org

The EU doesn't have a common patent system yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they will in another decade or so.

Re:You can't (?) think of the world as one country

[jkrise]

" Yes, obtaining a patent in every country in the world is a huge mess and expensive, but there is benefit behind it. "

The meagre benefits that this could entail, far outweigh the potential confusion and misuse/abuse. If the Internet had been set up and administered country-wise, we would have had total chaos. Lawyers and politicians would've become insanely rich, and very little public interest would have been served.

Worse, there wouldn't have been Slashdot!

MOD THE FUCKER ABOVE DOWN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Total cost for Euro patent

[LucVdB]

According to the European Patent Office, it comes to about EUR 29800, or over US$ 32700. I'd better start saving.

In other news:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is discussion about the possibility of a world-wide standard set of measurements that uses decimal conversions between units. (The USA has filed for a patent to this invention, but would be happy to extend the invention to other countries, even France.)

"Too long has the world been forced to multiply strange numbers in their heads when converting between feet and miles," said a US spokesperson, "This new system allows them to multiply by 1000, and we believe the world would be a better place should they adopt it too."

Link?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to post an inflamatory comment like that, you had better back it up with a link to a reputable source.

Re:Link?

[PerryMason]

Well the Register is running with it, but it seems more like she is just helping draft the legislation and keeping on with her wenchery at the RIAA.

First its Cheney's pals, then the GSM thing, now the RIAA gets a look-in. I just hope Australia gets something out of being in the Coalition of the Willing. I wouldn't like to think that i'm a terrorist target on the global scene now without my country at least getting a few tenders!

Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify, money is not physical either. Not since it stopped being tied to gold reserves. Money is onyl worth what we agree it is worth.

MIT

[Anonymous Coward]

MIT has soooo much to gain by this patent system.

"The small inventor", Ya sure...

MIT has one of the hugest patent portfolios.

Anyone who tries to do some innovating in an MIT field is gonna end up oweing them cash.

Prior art is already global

[misterpies]

Prior art is already considered globally -- everywhere except the US. You can't patent an invention in the UK if it's already been invented somewhere else, for example. But you can patent it in the US even if it's in use in every other country in the world.

Consider what that means. Suppose I patent something in Japan, for example. When a patent is issued, the details of the patent are made public. That means that someone else could take my Japanese patent and use it as a basis for their own US patent. I then wouldn't be able to sell my own invention in the US.

Patents are supposed to promote innovation by protecting inventors' rights. The US law on prior art makes a complete travesty of this -- why bother inventing something when you can just patent a foreign invention?

Effectively, this means that foreign inventors are forced to file a US patent at the same time they file for one in their own country. No wonder the USPTO has a massive backlog.

World Feudalism

[rknop]

We're not heading towards World Democracy or even World Communism, but World Feudalism. It is rapidly getting to the point that if you want to invent or create something, you will need to do so under the aegis of a large corporation. You will need the legal and financial backing of a large corporation (your feudal lord) to protect you (with their own patent portfolio) if you want to create anything-- otherwise, one of the other fedual lords will quash you, and you won't be big enough to defend yourself. In exchange, you will show fealty to your corporate feudal lord by signing over any rights to anything you create, hopefully being reasonably well paid in the process.

Most people may be relatively comfortable, or at least fed, but the individualist creator simply won't be able to exist. (And, alas, nobody will think there's anything wrong with this. Most of the world doesn't really care about freedom of thought. Once they're fed and comfortable, people seem to care care more about bread and circuses (or SUVs and HDTVs) than actual liberty.)

Yes, global intellectual property concerns are making the world safe for medieval forms of government and social organization.

-Rob

Re:World Feudalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well said, sir. You just made my day.

Too bad neither you or me can do anything about it.

Re:World Feudalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Now somebody please say that patents are to protect the little guy.

Re:World Feudalism

[axxackall]

There are feudal lords (in fact the hierarchy of them) and there is monarch king. Lords are headquaters of international corporations as well as goverment cabinets of various countries, the king is the US administration (whatever is current).

The law is as it always was:

• whoever is closer to the top has more power and thus more freedom to do whatever he wants;
• whoever is unhappy with the current position must be smart enough to kill (damage) someone higher him to erase the place and to get it;

Lords always create unions and always fight to each other, hiddenly (politically) or openly (the war);

Periodically lords want some laws on papers to make such unions more stable. When such laws are against the king interests - the king either ignore such laws or stand up against them. When some lords behave in a way against interests of the king - they are smashed in no time.

We, simple people, are devided onto two big groups:

• peasants with no voice - mostly citizens of "evil" countries who doesn't have their right to move to another country (from their evils) - no other goverment welcomes peasants (those rats and coacroaches!); I would call them not citizens of their countries, but prisoners of Iran, Siria, etc :(
• "real" citizens - people of "good" countries, who can traver and work around the world, who can use their votes to elect their goverments... or actually to think they use they votes to elect... clowns :)

Now tell me, how this picture is different from what we could draw several centures ago?

Re:World Feudalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Observe. Study.

Organize.

Build something new.

It has worked in the past, and will work again.

For Democracy, beginning, middle, and end,
For the Free Society.

Re:Properties of Intellect vs Intellectual Propert

[D iz a n k Meister]

I'm a Reluctant Messiah as much as the next guy, but I don't think that Richard Bach would be down with your post.

If Learning is finding out what you already know, I fail to see how that leads you to define what intellect is for everyone.

Richard Bach wrote about knowing yourself, and using that intimate knowledge of yourself to make choices in life. He did not write about using knowledge about yourself to figure out deep metaphysical issues which will lead you to the way public policy ought to be made. I think he was clearly against that.(Tale of "the pages" in One ).

I never thought I'd discuss Richard Bach on /.

Not a good idea

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Such a system would be a disaster for tinkerers and smaller, specialized companies. Frankly, patents should be harder to obtain but quite cheap. That way, we'll get more innovation.

Re:Properties of Intellect vs Intellectual Propert

[kinnell]

If you read "The Tao of Physics", you will understand that most systems of philosophy concur with this opinion.

Solipsism certainly doesn't. The point I was making is that you can't "safely say" anything. It's just your opinion. Just because a lot of people agree with your opinion, doesn't make it right. Using a literary argument to prove something is just as shaky as using a dialectical argument, which is how your proposition was first accepted into western culture (read Plato's Republic). Socrates considered himself to be incurably ignorant when he was sentenced to death in his 70s. You should to.

Economically, philisophically...

[rzbx]

Economically it is not a good idea for a developing country to institute patents. This seriously hinders progress. As it already does this in counties like the U.S. it is even worse for those countries not at any level to compete. Imagine what the U.S. and other countries seem like to these little guys. It would seem that they just see everyone is trying to steal from them. Plus, I've said it once and I'll say it many times again, before it finally goes away: Patents are one of mans worst ideas which intention has been skewed into a rent seeking behavior that hinders progress and creates an unequal playing field in the world of competition. Patents go against capitalism. Capitalism encourages competition, patents discourage it. Should we allow such insanity to continue because we think that patents help the small researcher or inventor? Do some research and you will see all those assumptions and myths about patents and how they are intended to protect the little guy and help him make money does in fact little to this extent.

Re:Economically, philisophically...

[Anonymous Coward]

If IP law isn't good for developing countries, then it sure the shit isn't good for an american economy which is in a recessionary rut it seems unable to con it's way out of.

so, instead...

[g4dget]

Right now, the cost of international patent filings is pretty much the only reason why many patented inventions are still available in source form somewhere--$7000/country/patent plus lawyer fees even matters to corporations.

If companies can just file patents world-wide, it means that source code implementing something patented will probably become unavailable world-wide. This matters even if people don't intend to violate the patent--a lot of open source implementations of patented inventions take place in countries where the invention isn't patented, and as soon as the patent expires, those implementations are available world-wide.

As far as the "small inventor" is concerned, with few exceptions, the patent system stopped working somewhere in the 20th century anyway. Even if you manage to get a patent these days as a small inventor, chances are that whoever has more expensive lawyers and better patent bargaining chips will win, and that won't be the small inventor. All we are discussing when discussing changes to the patent system is how much we want to let ourselves get screwed.

Patent costs

[canpat]

I have been working in the patent field for a few years and I feel bad for the inventor mentioned in the article. There are ways that the costs can be structured to avoid the cash crunch he experienced. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT, which is administered by WIPO) now operates to allow an inventor up to 30 months from filing in their first jurisdiction to decide whether to file in other PCT member nations. Most of the world is part of the PCT (with the exception of much of the Arab world, some of South America, and Taiwan). The PCT process is an application which is subject to a prior art search, like any other patent office, and to an optional examination. Therefore, a current inventor faces the following costs (approximately): Day 0 $7000 for preparing and filing in the US Month 12 File a PCT application (charges about $4000); File in non-PCT countries Month 14 $3000 in legal fees for examination process in US Month 30 File in other PCT countries ($$$$$$) While the costs at Month 30 are huge, as mentioned in the article, the inventor has hopefully been marketing his invention since Day 0. By Month 30, the inventor can decide whether the invention is marketable and to what extent. Depending on his cash flow at that point, he can decide how much he has to spend on getting patent protection around the world. One of the big costs to filing in other countries is the translation costs. Japanese translation costs can hit $7,000, as much as to draft and file the patent. Therefore, you can also target a few major languages such as French, Spanish, German etc. Many countries will accept a patent translation in one of these languages and thus you keep your costs to a minimum. As far as the debate about which countries to file in goes, producers vs. consumers, the answer is "yes". With limited funding, generally you would patent in major consumer countries, because their legal systems are generally more patent friendly. With more funds, you would then start to target producer countries. The reason is that it may be easier to stop one producer than dozens of distributors. However, much of this decision rests with the type of product and the nature of the industry. Remember when we're feeling sorry for an individual inventor (and I work with with many of them) that a patent is an asset and that the cost of assets are part of the startup costs of any business. Most small businesses fail just as most inventions fail. The main reason that inventions fail is not in the patent system, but in the marketing. Just a thought to keep in mind.

Just to update all the people who read the article

[lateralus]

I've just been granted a patent on reading between the lines. Everyone must now take every Slashdot article and posting at their literal value only. Failing to do so may incur patent suits. Also it is forbidden to try and find hidden meanings and sarcasm in this post as doing so would clearly infringe on said patent.

Note that creating a mechanism that circumvents the above is a clear breach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Two things:

[PincheGab]

1) Don't the latest WTO accords force menmbers to recognize and respect each other's patents? The US had to slightly change their patent laws, the rest of the world had to change their own laws as well (More so than the US did). We already have this "global patent system."

2) Why should getting patents be cheap? Yes, patents should be expensive, and if anything, much more well-researched before being granted.

I'm much more afraid of patents being too cheap than too expensive.

Re:First!

[CyrusSukhia]

first post redundant?

Re:Properties of Intellect vs Intellectual Propert

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of patents is to protect an inventor with limited resources

Pretty good theory, but completely false. Pure propaganda.

Read the article. Read whom are patents enpowering ACTUALLY.

This really bothers me..

[Epistax]

Can anyone trace what these costs actually are? I've looked at the statistics for the US patent, and they all say things like such and such handling fee, etc, etc, amounting to thousands and thousands of dollars per claim.
Is there an actual basis for this? It sounds as if the patent office should be the richest thing I've ever heard of. Hundreds of thousands of patents, times thousands of dollars, with most patents being glanced at and rejected.
As far as I can tell, this is a major force to make sure new companies can't start, as only existing ones can afford such nonsense.

Patents and corporations making things expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Take the artificial profit away from these guys by reforming IP law and you'll see the gap between the rich and poor shrink, it would be like "cutting the head of the snake off!"

Don't you just love how "experts" are quick to point out there is "no corrilation between terrorism and poverty", they just keep feeding you this so they can continue to screw the working class and have their elegant lifestyle.

If those in power, truely wanted to do something about poverty, they would reform IP law, and quit making artificially high profits

My hope is some day soon encrypted p2p's and the spirit of sharing, will somehow suck the profit from this racket milking the working class. Didn't you just love it when IPDRoids face elimination by competition.

At the very least, the government could introduce excessive regulational burden and increase the cost of patent litigation, so it's not worth it for the IPDroids to try to protect use of ideas.

yet another step...

[maxpublic]

...towards U.S. global domination. As a U.S. citizen I'm firmly opposed to any national attempts to build empire, whether it be militarily or economically. I hope this thing falls flat on its face, and that many developing countries out there take the things that have been given ridiculous patents in the U.S., 'steal' them, and then turn a nice fat profit off of them.

Perhaps then my people will see that they aren't capable of imposing a world-wide dictatorship and will just give up on this insanity altogether...yeah, right. Hey, at least I can dream of an America not ruled by loons and people who spit on the Constitution.

Max

Patents don't HAVE to be on something possible.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

One takes a look at all the patents given in the US that don't and can NEVER be produced because they are physically impossible.

It's not the job of the patent office to determine whether the invention actually works, or can even be constructed.

It's the job of the patent office to certify that, within the results of a reasonable search, what you registered is not already registered.

This certification is a time-limited "license to sue" anyone else who does the same thing the same way - and a presumption that you have precedence. (i.e. it's up to the other guy to prove that his thing is different, or that he had it before you did.)

A patent on something impossible is just a number used up in an aleph-null namespace, a few documents on file in a bureaucracy, and some manhours that were paid for by the guy who patented the impossible thing. In theory, nobody is going to infringe a patent-on-the-impossible, so no court case (unless the fruitcake starts suing people randomly, of course).

Single exception: Perpetual motion machines. The patent office was SO clogged with perpetual motion applications in the steam-engine era that they bogged down. So they still require a working model. (As, back when they started up, they did for everthing, before the office became clogged with working models. Which is where the Smithsonian got a lot of their exhibits. B-) )

Routinely bouncing putative perpetual-motion devices sometimes is a problem. For instance, an inventor came up with a VERY efficient still: Very tall, so the top is at a near-vacuum due to the weight of the liquids. Counter-current heat excanger transfers heat from the the condensate and brine to the feedstock, so most of the heat is recycled and the product and waste come out cool. Base-of-couumn pressure difference between the feedstock and the outputs, to create the temperature difference across the heat exchanger.

Patent office bounced it for being a perpetual-motion mcahine. Inventor got his patent after proving that you still had to energy to provide the heat-of-solution of the impurities and to replace losses in the (necessarily) less-than-perfect heat exchanger and through the insulation between the column and the environment. It was VERY GOOD - because the input heat got used many times rather than once - but it wasn't free.

Re:Patents don't HAVE to be on something possible.

[jpt.d]

I was always under the impression that patents were for inventions and not ideas (minus this crap about software patents).

Re:Patents don't HAVE to be on something possible.

[Lonath]

Well. What if you write some vague description of a computer program or some device, but can't figure out how to make it work with all the details in it? That's where the problem comes in. They should require working models of the patented products (in the case of software: working source code if there really must be software patents)) so that you're sure that the person patenting the invention has done the real work of inventing something. Heck, by the logic of not having to have working models, you should be able to patent a holodeck and then beat the crap out of anyone attempting to do any kind of VR research. Or, alternately, you should be able to patent a holodeck and make VR research patent-free after 20 years.

I've often thought of patenting a machine that produces power to run a computer running a compression algorithm that can compress completely random data that will cause a local change in entropy (since you're decreasing "order" by reducing the total amount of data which then sucks entropy from the nearby universe) when the data of length N is reduced to one of length n that can then be fed back into the power source for the original machine. See, it produces its own energy. :P

Re:Patents don't HAVE to be on something possible.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

What if you write some vague description of a computer program or some device, but can't figure out how to make it work with all the details in it? That's where the problem comes in.

Indeed. But part of the requirements that the patent examiner is checking is that the description is adequate for "someone expert in the art" to "perform the invention". Sometimes it's complicated enough, or enough beyond the examiner's expertese, that the examiner (who has limited time) lets it go through even if it really is broken or incompelete. (And that's how the occasional perpetual motion machine still gets patented.) But

They should require working models of the patented products (in the case of software: working source code if there really must be software patents)) so that you're sure that the person patenting the invention has done the real work of inventing something.

Why? They DID that. And they got BURIED in working models.

What do you do when making the first one costs billiions? Say: An orbital skyhook design? Or how about the "whip" satelite launcher? (Trail the satelite behind a 747 on a long cord, do a loop and "crack the whip", releasing the satelite when it's headed beyond the atmosphere and the 747 is flying a couple miles lower.) Are you saying deliver a skyhook or a 747 with a whip to the patent office or forego the patent?

What about a gene-engineered bacterium that kills colon cancer? A "working model" would include the patients of the human trials.

And the time to patent a lot of stuff is when it's still in the design stages - when you know WHAT you're doing but haven't had a hundred-man team dot the Is and cross the Ts of the implementation. (And three of 'em quit and go work for the competition.) "Working source code" is right out in such a situation.

Re:Patents don't HAVE to be on something possible.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I was always under the impression that patents were for inventions and not ideas

That's right.

[...] (minus this crap about software patents).

Software is only patentable when it is an "invention". For a long time it wasn't patentable at all. If I recall correctly, the logjam broke when somebody snuck one through by describing a hardware device to do the same computation, then griped about it in court. And another patented an invention that included a software-driven component.

IMHO a piece of software is simultaneously a "mathematical algorithm" and a "work of composition" but not a "performance" (even if it DOES prescribe a machine's actions). So it should be unpatentable, the source code should be copyrightable (though the current near-infinite copyrights are nuts), and the copyright should carry over to the object as a "derived work". And it should be subject to reverse-engineering of how it works, fair use of tiny snippets of code, but not verbatim plagarism of the whole or large chunks of code.

Old?

[jemenake]

some people might like to take a look at the list of the largest patent holders per industry in PDF format

This must be an old edition... I couldn't find the dude who invented the "Salad Shooter" anywhere on it.

Alternative systems

[Anonymous Coward]

A patent is an ongoing protection, so the fee should be ongoing, not a one-time cost.

Establish a system of a cheap initial patent that requires regular renewal at an increasing rate. Say something like $2 in the first year, $4 in the second, $8 in the third, $16 in the fourth, ect.

This would keep cost low for initial inventors, would reap back the costs from sucessful inventions to fund the system, and reflect the increasing value of the IP to the public.

If you fail to pay you patent fee before or when due, you lose your patent and the property becomes public domain.

This should include all patents held by all entities, public or secret.
It would also be good for copyrights, which is just another form of ip.

Not to mention the citizens

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Unwarranted patents also hurt consumers. Don't forget that. If the patent is wide, there is little incentive in improving radically until the patent expires. That is certainly not in the best interest of the consumer.

who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

AMD actually has more patents than Intel does. what effect does this have on them?

does government own all ideas?

[AnotherBlackHat]

Patents define things which only the filer of the patent is allowed to do.
This power to deny comes from the goverment that grants the patent.
Doesn't that mean the government claims ownership of all ideas,
even the ones that haven't been thought of yet?

-- this is not a .sig

WIPO? What?

[crmsndude]

What the Hell? I thought WIPO was supposed to facilitate IP issues such as global copyrights. What the Hell are they doing in Geneva?

Re:Get off your high horse

[Daniel Phillips]

The UN has no legitimacy in the US...

Restores my faith in humanity[1] to see the above poster modded into oblivion.

[1] Humanity in this case defined in terms of Slashdot moderators

The Corp is always right

[HiThere]

MIT Technology seems to come with the attitude that whatever is good for (big) business is good. No further justifier like "for the country" is needed.

They cover many topics quite well, but their pro-business is so grating that I'm not planning on renewing my subscription. Even at times when they attempt to promote small businesses, their idea of a small business is one with a 200-300 employees, and planning on how it can go public. And their focus is not noticably on the good of any people except in their role of stockholders or corporate executives.

If they advise something as good policy, I would suspect that it might be likely to be quite dangerous to some group of individual rights.

That said, I did read the article. Everything I said in general seems to apply to this article, except that they did include a few quotes from someone that they described as an "Inventor". Perhaps he really is an inventor rather than a business manager of a technology company, but I wouldn't bet heavily that way. Probably what it means is that he owns the company and got the patents issued in his name.

As a citizen....

[flyneye]

as a citizen of the several united states,I recognise no foreign entity as an authority.
ESPECIALLY ONE THAT CLAIMS WORLD AUTHORITY!
(goes double for the U.N. morons)

Re:As a citizen....

[jaoswald]

Well, you'll have a very interesting time if you try to visit a foreign country (I'm assuming you are in the U.S. now) and don't recognize the local "foreign" authorities. Try to rob a bank in Germany, for instance, or, more likely for you, not pay taxes there, and a foreign entity is going to come lock you up, and the U.S. isn't going to be able to do much more than ask to visit you in prison to ask you if your ass is still intact.

I'm guessing you've never thought about actually visiting a foreign country, though.

More to the point, when the U.S. signs and ratifies treaties creating an international organization, such as the U.N., do you just ignore that fact?

Re:As a citizen....

[flyneye]

You're correct,I've no intention of visiting a
foreign country(yeah,i'm in the u.s.)but if I did
I'm smart enough to stay out of jail.(note to self,no smuggling buds back from amsterdam)

Like any good American I realize that I have constitutional protections that SUPERCEDE foolishness in treaties (tho it is possible for the gov. to sign them away,we haven't yet)

Since the U.N. was an organization set up by
poor countries and enemies of the U.S. expressly for the purpose of begging money and politically antagonizing us(Islamics screwin with the Jews was just icing on the cake) Yeah pretty much like
everyone else I ignore the U.N. for what they are;
a buncha whiners and thieves who have no real legal say over us,but want to feel as tho they do.
BTW being an "international organization" and not a real international "authority" and $1.50 will get you a latte at barnes and noble.Notice that the U.S. is the real international authority and we do what we want despite appearing to try to appease the lil sissies.(after all we still have financial interests abroad)

"Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N."

Re:As a citizen....

[jaoswald]

If you believe the U.N. was actually set up by the poor countries, why do you think the U.S. has a veto on virtually everything the organization does?

Fact: it was set up by the victors in the Second World War, including the good-ole-U.S.A.

Re:As a citizen....

[flyneye]

well,it doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize we sorta take part in the U.N.,sorta being the operable word.
We havent actually paid dues for years and years.
We do hold a vested financial and strategic interest in attending and posturing.but if you look at the participating countries and their history of activity,you would have an understanding of what youre talking about(once again)instead of regurgitating that crap you learned in public school or from that lefty professor.

Re:As a citizen....

[jaoswald]

Pay attention. The words were "SET UP" not just participate in, show up, or pay dues to but set up, as in create, form, bring into existence, start, build, make.

The U.S. was one of the initial signatories to the U.N. treaty. The U.N. was *created by* the United States. Not by the "poor countries" that you assert. The name "United Nations" was made up by FDR. The charter was based on negotiations held at Dumbarton Oaks in the U.S., including the U.S. government. U.S. ratification of the charter was a condition of the U.N. coming into being.

Why global patents are unnecessary

[rollingcalf]

The main purpose of patents is to promote the creation of inventions, not to guarantee profit for the inventors. Any reward to the inventor is just a means to an end.

If the patent from your own country was sufficient to urge you to create the invention, you need no further incentive -- it has already been created.

The only question is whether there are uncreated inventions lurking out there that would be created if and only if global patents exist. I doubt there are a sufficient number of those to justify the harm to society that erroneously awarded global patents would bring (a bogus global patent would have far worse effects than a bogus patent restricted to one country).

Needs rethink

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole idea of patents needs be re-thought. Period.

Our entire civilization is built on the fact that new ideas are built upon old ones - "standing on the shoulders of giants" as it were.

There really is fuck-all these days that is truely "novell" - it is worthless without "prior art".

Ok - so you have an idea. Good for you! But then to attempt to squash anybody elses attempt to build on that via legislation is just plain wrong. It seems now that short-term greed will largely restrict innovation and the evolution of civilization as a whole (especially when it comes to medications where human lives are at stake).

Dont get me wrong, I am capitalist - I like money and the things it brings. But as a capitalist, I am also really pissed off that I cannot buy exactly what I want because of some bullshit patents that restrict the ability of vendors to deliver.

There must be a balance here - not just corporate-driven enforcement of a fundamentally flawed (US?) system...

Re:A note of caution

[Jonin893]

Oh, come on, offtopic? How so?