Slashdot Mirror
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."
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*
-Christopher Wu
http://www.christopherwu.net/
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..
---
Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.
BOO! TERRO
At least, that's what it seems like with all the cross-border lawsuits.
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.
uhm doesn't the World Intellectual Property Organization essentially fill this role?
WIPO
http://www.wipo.org
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 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.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
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!
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
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.
Stop the brainwash
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.
Question everything.
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.
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!
"I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
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?Less is more !