More Calls for Patent Reform

ibi writes "On the heels of the PriceWaterHouseCoopers report about the threat of SoftPats to innovation, comes a book by a Harvard B School and Brandeis economics professor about how broken the patent system is in general. In short their book argues that the entire system is a (stunned silence) scam. (They actually call it 'a creator of litigation and uncertainty that threatens the innovation process itself' instead but that's cause you don't get tenure for using words like 'scam'.) Interesting to see that its gotten so bad that a professor of Investment Banking at Harvard even thinks something oughta be done."

Comments

Progress

[keiferb]

People like this are exactly who need to get involved for things to take a positive turn. Technical folks can bitch and moan all we want, but until the non-techincal start to understand, no, care about, the implications, things just plain won't change.

Re:Progress

[mikael]

but until the non-techincal start to understand, no, care about, the implications, things just plain won't change.

More importantly, the financial folk from respected institutions.

This seems more like a litigation problem

[a_nonamiss]

This comes across as more of a litigation problem, not really a patent problem. If I invent something, I don't think it's out of like for me to expect to be compensated for it. The problem is, there are too many damn lawyers. We are a litigious society, and that's really the root of the problem here. Why else would there be a warning on the Windex bottle warning me not to spray it in my eyes?

Ah nothing quite like submitter putting bias into

[antifoidulus]

the summary. I read the article(admittedly I haven't read the book), but the following statement seems to miss the point entirely: In short their book argues that the entire system is a (stunned silence) scam.. Um, no it doesn't. What the NYT article states is that the authors see a lot of the changes made to patent law and how the patent office is funded since the 80's has only rewarded trial lawyers.
They don't say that patents should be done away with entirely. They recommend some serious reforms to the system such as a much stricter patent review process where 3rd parties are allowed to have input. They also say that most businesses are more worried about tax reform than they are about patent damage. These are good ideas, and a start to reform.
Gah, I really, REALLY wish people would stop putting bias into their summaries, but this is /., I'm expecting too much I guess.

Re:Problem Lies Somewhere Else....

[rdc_uk]

"In fact, medical research thrives on patent protection."

And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.

Nice call there.

Re:Duration

[AnotherBlackHat]

There is nothing wrong with software patents,

There is nothing right with software patents.

Software patents do not promote science and the useful arts.

Software patents have not caused an increase in the amount of software being written.

Software patents have harmed some software developers by forcing them into costly litigation.

Software patents have a chilling effect on developement. Knowing that a piece of software you are writting might be patented makes it less likely that you will work on it.

What good thing has happend as a result of software patents?

Software patents should not be allowed to start, and in countries where they've already started, they should be abolished.

-- Should you question authority?