The New Yorker on Business Process Patents

caledon writes "The New Yorker has a clear, concise, nontechnical essay by its finance columnist James Surowiecki criticizing business process patents: Patent Bending. 'Although we have always had a vibrant patent system, we've managed to strike a balance between the need to encourage innovation and the need to foster competition. As Benjamin Day, Henry Ford, and Sam Walton might attest, American corporations have thrived on innovative ideas and new business methods, without owning them, for two centuries. In the past decade, the balance has been upset.' Makes the argument persuasively."

Comments

Nice to see in popular media

[Chris_Jefferson]

Not really a lot I can say, but seeing as I seem to be first(ish) here, I'll say some stuff anyway :)

It is nice to see this kind of coverage in the popular media. It no longer seems as ridiculas as it did to imagine a general shake-up of patents, which is good. The article also describes the problem well, with good examples (as opposed to some of the more usually used stupid examples).

I don't think we should get rid of patents, I don't even think "software patents" are a bad thing (if anyone tries quoting the 'all software is produced by a turing machine, so is all obvious argument, I'll hit them!), but hopefully we can reach a sensible system!

Software?

[phorm]

I think to a certain degree software should be patentable. If you go out and develop new, innovative, and suddenly popular software - you should have a time when you don't have to worry about being deluged with copycats. That being said, a more intelligent idea might be to have time limits with variance per the item being copyrighted.

Software (methodology) patents could be what, a few years, and business methods perhaps one. It allows the creator to enjoy the fruits of his/her labour for awhile, while still allowing competition to foster and innovation to flourish in later years.

Oh yes, and you should not be allowed to patent something that already exists in a previous medium (online XYZ based on real XYZ).

Case Law

[petronivs]

But in July, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did away with that principle.

I wonder if this case (or a similar one) ever made its way to the Supreme Court. It might help matters, and it would be much more likely than waiting for Congress to do something about the situation. Any action in Congress limiting these kinds of patents would certainly be opposed by entrenched corporations (which might not control Congress yet, but do have substantial influence in it).

Fast Food ...

[Tranvisor]

For all you people who think that McD's came up with everything, remember that the first fast food place to come up with the drive-thru window was Wendy's. May seem obvious now, but back then it was huge that you could get your food in less then 10 minutes.

Who knows how long we wouldn't have the drive-thru had McD's stifled all the Wendy's and Burger Kings out there from making their own innovations.

Re:Business patents and time to railroad

[DarkSkiesAhead]

Don't forget that without strong intellectual property laws, the GPL would not exist, and it would be in nobody's interest to share code or ideas for fear that they would get stolen. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

I don't think people are calling the principle of strong IP laws into question. That's a different issue. The issue is the breadth these laws have been expanded to in recent years. It's one thing to say "my innovation should be protected for a reasonable time." It's another thing to say "my vague idea should be given absolute power in my field for the next 120 years."

Re:an elegant solution

[PickaBooga]

The idea that patents help the individual inventor is a myth.

The best resource I know is Don Lancaster's "The Case Against Patents":

For most individuals and small scale startups, patents are virtually certain to result in a net loss of time, energy, money, and sanity.

One reason for this is the outrageously wrong urban lore involving patents and patenting.
A second involves the outright scams which inevitably surround "inventions" and "inventing".
A third is that the economic breakeven needed to recover patent costs is something between $12,000,000.00 and $40,000,000 in gross sales. It is ludicrously absurd to try and patent a million dollar idea.

Don Lancaster is a old-school hardware/AppleII hacker. On his website he lists a lot of alternatives to patenting that are actually helpful to the individual inventor.

Re:Greed != Good anymore.

[e40]

You have correctly identified republican philosophy: corporations can do no wrong, government should be a small fraction of the size it is today and profit is the almighty.

OK, you right-wing nuts out there, jump on me. Go ahead. You can't refute the facts... like, Bush, et al would like to get rid of the EPA (and the republicans almost succeeded in gutting their budget a few years ago). Why? Too much government interference in corporate profits. Damn those toxic waste dumping rules!! They could make so much money if they didn't have to cart that crap off to Mexico...

Regarding dramatically smaller government, read this. It's written by a life-long republican, lest you nuts raise the spector of the "liberal media".