Slashdot Mirror
EFF, PubPat Each Seeking Some Patent Sanity
AbstracTus writes "According to Wired, The Electronic Frontier Foundation is trying to get the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine 10 patents that were selected from public submissions. We slashdotters often curse patents that should have been rejected, but are not. Do you think that the EFF can have any influence on the U.S. Patent Office? Are there other actions that are more likely to work?" And sharkb8 writes "The Public Patent Foundation is searching for
people with experience in all technical fields to help examine patents. This is the perfect chance for attorneys, law students, and geeks in general to do some pro bono work. PubPat is the group that recently
challenged one of Microsoft's FAT patents."
There is definetly a large need to stop the excessive Patents. Microsoft will go as far as to start Patenting Open Source code if no one else has. I have to say the Patent Busting Competition is one of my favorites. I am running a fight semi-assoicated with the EFF at http://www.uberhacker.com, we are trying to stop the CyberCrime treaty which may shutdown sites like Zone-H or Security-Focus
I'm hopeful, but I can imagine all kinds of scenarios, such as discreet placement of Microserfs on various committees, boards, etc., to ensure that ludicrous patents stay in place...
Face it, patents are screwy because certain large companies profit from that screwyness. It creates a world in which only the big dogs can play, because only the big dogs have the legal teams to field.
Reform Tort law. The patent system will fix itself.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
The new millenium's fastest growing profit machine -
1) buy small company that has a few loosely worded patents
2) begin campaign of lawsuits and harrasment against legitimate businesses that didn't think they needed to patent a process used by everybody
3) Profit!!!
you can't tell which side of the argument I'm on can you..?
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Heck, look at Nortel. They just announced that they are selling off their factories to focus on research. Not that they weren't making money. They weren't making enough money.
Can someone please explain this to me. If you are making a profit, you are making a profit. Money in hand. Mula. Black ink. Why a company can't simultaneously produce goods and research new ones is beyond me. Of course there are other companies that try to make everything from razor blades to condom testing equipment to cruise missile navigation systems. That seems like more of a stretch.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Seeking qualified patent examiners. Don't you think all the big corps will "donate" people with agendas, and the mess will continue?
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the inventor is not "pro-business"
But the majority of patents filed are not coming from independent inventors. They're coming from businesses either to try and take claim of some recent "innovation" (double-clicking or pushing a button) or as defensive patents. Patent fees prevent a significant number of indie inventors from getting patents, and they often go through businesses for funding, giving them a controlling force in the patent. Even where I work, a patent might be associated with my name, but it's very clear that the company would like to assume ownership of it.
By definition, inventions are novel and non-obvious
If that's true, then I'd say that the majority of patents today are not for "inventions", then. And that's just wrong.
Frankly, I think granting non tangible IP patents is ridiculous. However, in the real world they aren't going to get rid of them entirely any time soon, not in the US anyway, and this MUST be admitted to I think to move forward in dealing with the problem. Taking them on a case by case by case basis in a retroactive review will be like herding cats. Theoretically possible, pretty dismal results in the real world and mostly a waste of time and resources.
I propose a different approach. Recognize the inherit difference between an intangible IP and a normal tangible product patent, and severely limit the patent exclusivity time limit with any that are IP. Make it a totally separate "class"of patent. Drop it down to two years, then that's it, in the public domain. Make it retroactive as well.
Unfortunately, embarrassing a government employee almost always guarantees that you will get shafted somehow. There are just too many ways for them to "get even" with people who interfere in their little "kingdoms."
Congress has to change the law - they are the ultimate caretakes of Patent and Copyright law. And Congress is beholden to a few major copyright holders (Disney, anyone?) and major corporations who WANT the status quo. Think Microsoft is going to encourage Congress to change? Or any of the IP pseudo-companies?The problem is that it's hard to get the electorate interested in this problem, and unless the masses start chasing Congress-critters with placards (or worse), things aren't going to change.
So, after having read the article, it looked like the reason behind every one of those selections was because the owner of the patent chose to enforce it. There wasn't one word mentioned on why any of the patents themselves were a bad idea. For example:
1) "The EFF is worried that Acacia, which has already sued several large communications companies, is unfairly targeting small audio- and video-streaming websites."
5) "...said the EFF is afraid Ideaflood may try to go after LiveJournal members."
7) "The EFF is afraid Test Central will use its patent to scare off distance-learning organizations."
8) "But Nintendo is being a big bully."
And so on. Now, don't get me wrong. Some of those patents look dangerous to me, given the overly-vague and broad descriptions, but revoking a patent simply because a company is "a big bully" is ridiculous. What would be the point of having a patent if you couldn't use it? Furthermore, just because a technology is extremely useful (read: Kill App) doesn't mean it belongs in the pubic domain.
Let's consider #3 for a moment, Acceris Communication's voice over IP technology patent. Assuming it's much more specific than the article suggests, why should they not be able to benefit from creating that particular VOIP technology? So what if lots of people use it? Isn't that the whole point? Create a killer app, then sell it for tons of money. Then when the patent expires other people can copy it.
There's no mention of prior art anywhere in the article, which is a whole other argument. I mean, if I suddenly patented the wheel, for example, and started suing everyone who had ever used a certain geometrically shaped object, then I could see you having a case.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Is the PTO's business model the same as that of a diploma mill? Well, is there anything to stop you from applying for a boatload of abusive patents yourself, then launching swarms of lawsuits against all those vile corporations that are stealing your ideas to transport energy through metal wires, represent infomation as '0's and '1's, make money by selling above cost, etc.?
If you can transform the PTO into a national lottery for millions of little people, with the courts clogged with drawing the winners, and big business bankrolling the prizes, then the system might get fixed. Might.
On another front, the U.S. has signed plenty of treaties promising free trade. Can you argue that the PTO's cluelessness is, in effect, just another form of government subsidy for U.S. companies and/or a red-tape barrier to imports - and thus is a violation of a treaty? Can you find a foreign government eager for an excuse to yell "no fair!" and slap a retaliatory tariff on politically sensitive U.S.-made goods? Take a good look at the recent fuss over protecting the U.S. steel industry - Uncle Sam was forced to back down, eat crow, and change his rules.
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
His question is: Why can't you have 100 factory workers and 100 researchers make a profit of $1500?
Because then your profit per employee is only $7,50. If you sell off the factory your profit per employee shoots up to $10,00. Why this is important is beyond me, but some people on Wall Street seem to think it is (ie. "Gross Margins").
People often say this ... what if I invent a spaceship propulsion system (eg the solar sail). How do I get it to the patent office. How does the examiner verify that it is a "working example"?
... "it must be here somewhere ...".
How about a nano-machine, I can just see the examiner with a plastic baggie and a scanning electron microscope
Or perhaps a deadly biological agent.
Or a killer computer virus (where software patents are allowed).
Or a brain implant.
It'd make life interesting for patent examiners I guess.