Slashdot Mirror
Patent Reform Bill Introduced in U.S. House
kanad wrote to mention a ZDNet article covering the introduction of the Patent Reform Act of 2005 to the U.S. House of Representatives. From the article: "Probably the most sweeping change would be the creation of a process to challenge patents after they are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. 'Opposition requests' can be filed up to nine months after a patent is awarded or six months after a legal notice alleging infringement is sent out. The bill is supported by the USPTO and Microsoft who have been recently asking for patent reforms ." More details of the bill are available at the Congressman's website."
"The bill is supported by...Microsoft who have been recently asking for patent reforms."
Everybody should immediatly be very, very suspicious of this bill if that's the case. What do they stand to gain then, exactly? You can bet it isn't immediatly obvious. Has anyone checked all the sub-cluases on this thing yet?
Finally, a little bit of sanity in the Gov. what will come next? a fixing of the software patents?
Why not introduce a peer review process by which a patent in a particular industry is reviewed by patent holders in the same industry? In this manner, a frivolous patent could be easily circumvented with a simple review request. A few hundred peers simply review the patent and then decide if it is legit.
The same method could be used to avoid costly court battles. This seems like a no-brainer. What am I missing?
More
Why not forever? A bad patent doesn't instantly become a good one after it's been a patent for 9 months.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Probably the most sweeping change would be the creation of a process to challenge patents after they are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. "Opposition requests" can be filed up to nine months after a patent is awarded or six months after a legal notice alleging infringement is sent out.
reexamination works pretty well, but there's a backlog. of course, this new system is gonna get backlogged REAL fast.
Another major change would be to award a patent to the first person to submit their paperwork to the Patent Office. Currently, patents are awarded to the first person who concocted the invention, a timeframe that can be difficult to prove.
i dunno about this. 'first to apply' has major disadvantages.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
If Microsoft's for it they can surely afford to buy it through, athough whether it benefits anyone else remains to be seen.
Added to the legal process so that patent lawyers can charge a little bit more. Yay! Lets have more lawyers making more legislation.
Deleted
...that the same people that accepted a stupid patend in the first place would be the one to read a reasonable request to why the patent is to be removed?
It sound like this is a perfect plan carried out in the worst possible manner..
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
Should be interesting to see just why MS is stepping into this fight. Do they simply want to challenge their competitor's patents for personal gain or do they genuinely want to encourage innovation? Given that their own patents will also be placed under the same scrutiny, it is hard to imagine how they would stand to gain more than anyone else in this situation.
Failing that, how about starting the patent challenge clock when the patent holder issues a claim instead of starting the clock when the patent is issued. It'd deal with submarine patents as well as eliminate the need to look over the patent office's shoulder on each and every patent they issue.
Then the little guys will have to fund their own patent defense. The big guys have a clear edge here because they have more resources.
They already have the ability to do that in a litigation case, but this gives them the ability to do it preemptively. That last word is becoming increasingly popular.
Doesn't this give companies with lawyers on retainer a competitive advantage over John Doe because they can afford to challenge any patent they want?
Sounds good. Or is this one of those bills where it does the opposite of what it sounds, the way the Clean Skies initiative leads to dirtier skies?
"said Smith, a Texas Republican.
Never mind, I can guess the answer now.
"The Business Software Alliance was quick to praise the bill,"
Well, there's a strike against it.
"saying in a statement that it goes a long way toward "improving patent quality, making sure U.S. law is consistent with that of other major countries and addressing disruptions caused by excessive litigation."
Uh huh. Whenever they trot out the "Let's make sure our laws are consistent with other countries," you know the fix is in.
You want sweeping? Here's sweeping: No software patents. Period. They are already protected under copyright law.
Patent Reform= Attempt by Big Software to kill linux once and for all
In other words, just because you were the first person to invent a device, it doesn't mean that you can rightfully own a patent for it. So if some young inventor creates something and some other company swipes it, it is a race to the patent office. I am guessing that a big company's lawyers know a shortcut or two.
Bill info on Thomas
It has no provision regarding eliminating "business method" (read: software) patents. This bill won't do anything but clog up the patent office more with so-called opposition requests.
It would be interesting if the Judiciary committee could be swayed to eliminate software patents. If your congressman is on the committee, let them know how you feel.
I didn't think I'd ever see that in the same sentence.
Anyways, anything that has to do with "patent reform" that Microsoft backs really makes me leary of what this is actually all about. Are they mad because they missed the boat on a couple of "ideas" they could've scammed from someone else by patenting them first?
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
First the Canadian government wants to get a new Copyright Law and now the USA is going to change it's dumb patent laws.
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
1. So they'll have a whole department sitting like hawks watching the patent office and challenging everything remotely connected to their markets, and you and I will not have a department challenging every BS patent Microsoft submits.
When you come to challenge it, they'll say "well he didn't challenge it within the alloted time...."
2. "Another major change would be to award a patent to the first person to submit their paperwork to the Patent Office. Currently, patents are awarded to the first person who concocted the invention, a timeframe that can be difficult to prove."
No need to invent now, just have to have a patent office ready and waiting to patent other peoples invention! And best of all its completely legal!
The central problem is that it's unconstitutional in that it no longer would award patents to the first person to actually invent something, but rather to the first person to file for a patent. The Constitution permits Congress to grant patents to inventors, not mere filers.
Additionally, this is probably more likely to harm the rare, but important small inventors, since it can take them a bit longer to muster the resources to file.
It also harms the public, since it ignores the decision of an inventor to not get a patent, and thus allow the invention to lapse into the public domain right away. If this passes, not only would the inventor have to decide not to seek protection, but so would any other johnny-come-lately.
First-to-file, as opposed to first-to-invent, is a stupid idea. As usual, it was pioneered abroad (much like a lot of the stupid copyright laws we've been seeing for the last few decades) and is being pushed on the US for no good reason other than to standardize on whatever everyone else is doing. That all the other kids are jumping off cliffs is no reason for us to do it too. Our laws should be based on good policy, without regard for what other countries do.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That's what patents are in the first place. And not just software-patents.
We're being swamped by genetically modified whatever, just because some company managed to get a patent on it and thus has no incentive to keep its bacteria in the tank. So what if the whatever just produces some disaster like polluting fields of non genetically modified crops? Its patented, you can sue the victim of the pollution.
And even better, some companies managed to patent parts of viruses (which they didn't invent, of course) -- now, whoever wants to identify them in something like a HIV-test has to pay royalties. The international red cross who wants donated blood checked for instance..
Now talk about "growing costs in health-care". The whole affair is just stacking up costs everywhere, in the judical system, taxes, health-care, ecology, you name it. Patents are a frigging financial catastrophe.
That's fucked up beyond any repair, the whole thing has to be ditched.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
While a trivial parent can be struck down, it's expensive to do, and will usually be cheaper to pay for it.
What would solve this would be that if a patent holder demanded damages, and the patent was struck down on the basis of obviousness, then the patent holder would haveto pay the same amount that he was demanding in the first place.
We'd probably want to be careful not to penalise patent holders whose patents failed on minor technicalities, but that's something that can be dealt with by legal experts.
First to apply is to bring the US system inline with the European and Japanese Patent Offices.
I am a patent examiner.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Because patents are important parts of business plans. Somebody who holds a patent in good faith (as opposed to one of these dimwit patents we've been seeing so much of) wants to get started making money off that patent before it expires. And it'll be harder to get seed money based on your patent ownership if your investors are afraid that you will be challenged over it.
However, there is one important "forever" component to this legislation: if a patent holder uses the patent against you, you can file to have it overturned, no matter when the suit is filed (as long as you do it within six months of the lawsuit filing). So if you add one-click ordering to your web site, and Amazon sues you over it, you can try to have that patent overturned.
That doesn't get in the way of business planning, because it can't be used pre-emptively by a competitor once the nine months have passed.
There are still serious ways to abuse this system if well-funded competitors file challenges intended to force you to spend your money defending your patent rather than exploiting it. And a small company will still have a hard time gathering the money to sue if Microsoft is violating its patent. The wheels of justice still grind slow, but I haven't got a good solution to that problem.
This is more like sarcasm than flamebait. Do your jobs properly please.
Then said "young inventor" needs to keep his/her invention (and other supporting materials) away from prying eyes. Oh wait, that's how it is now too!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
When Microsoft and other big companies started getting hit with patents, I knew we would get some fixes to the patent system.
I was at the CCIA caucus in May when we talked about patents and their problems for open source, so I knew this legislation was coming. One new addition is the six months after infringement clause, which will help open source so we can fight only the patents that attack us, rather than all of them within the first nine months of issue.
Read this very carefully. It appears to be an attempt to shift the power in the system from independent inventors to large corporations.
I understand that Microsoft wants to eliminate patent shops, but many provisions in the proposed legislation do more than that. The simplest way to eliminate EOLAS-type lawsuits would be to demand that the invention be implemented within five years of being filed and raise the bar so that only very or highly non-obvious applications are accepted.
Clearly, Microsoft doesn't want to raise the bar because that would invalidate many of their own patents. What Microsoft wants to do is make patents the exclusive domain of well established corporations and eliminate any threats that startups might pose to them.
Again, read it carefully. There are many ways to solve these problems, but these provisions are specifically aimed at decreasing the power of independent inventors.
Proposal: Lowering the penalties for willful infringement.
Result: Encourages willful copying without paying inventor.
Proposal: First to file rather than first to invent
Result: With this provision, Microsoft and/or IBM could make regular passes of SourceForge and file patents on all innovative work there. On hearing of any new product from a startup, they could patent the techniques used in that product immediately. Note that even if they didn't receive the patent, there would be no penalties. In fact, they would benefit because by filing first they eliminated the possibility that the original inventor could receive a patent.
Proposal: Allowing judges rather than the patent office to review challenges,
Result: I'm not sure what this means because the details aren't spelled out. In the best case, it is a needed fix because it catches mistakes made by the patent office when a bad patent slips through. What worries me is the choice of forum. In the worst case, it is shifting challenges from the patent office to a courtroom. The same thing could be accomplished without moving it to the courtroom by simply funding the patent office. The purpose of moving it to the courtroom - which is more expensive for the government - could be to allow large corporations to crush independent inventors or self-funded startups who cannot afford the legal costs. Or it could be to make it prohibitively expensive for the open source community to challenge bogus patents by Microsoft. Either way, the specification of forum is of some concern. The patent office may not be effective, but its best aspect is that small inventors can afford it.
There is a need for patent reform, but the brief description of this legislation sends up warning flags. Raise the bar on what can be patented and fund the patent office so it can spend more time reviewing. Allow patents to be challenged if the inventors haven't creating a prototype within five years of filing. These and several other approaches would be far simpler and more effective at solving the current problems than Microsoft's proposals.
-- N
altho it may seem strange, patents are very cheap by corp stds - diy for a few Kbucks, and in a well run company, even with the attys, it is 50 Kbuck to file a patent - this is small money for even small companies (think about the cost of hiring 10 programmers, with fringe + office space).
HOwever, if you allow oppositions, then you get into court type appeals, and the cost skyrocktes, so only very large, well heeled companies can afford to do battle. For example, say MS does not like a patent on how to handle wierd fonts. They can afford to fly in experts from all over the world, gets hundreds of hours of video testimony, do studys, etc. How is a small company going to fight that ? not to mention the years of delay, which always work in favor of hte big guy with cashflow.
NOt to say that the patent system isnt full of problems - there are certainly a lot of patents out their that should never have been granted.
HOwever, if you want to do something for the small guy, change the system from date of invention (which requires record keeping to a std to satisfy attorneys) to date of filing, which is obvious. this would really help the small guy
Why not review the patent application critically BEFORE awarding the patent (much more critically than the current process)? The post-award-review process is nice 'set up' for people with lawyers on the payroll and not for the "inventor."
Just the fact certain big companies support the bill should give the normal people reason to pause and examine this bill critically. It looks like another band aid solution than "Probably the most sweeping change... " hype.
No software patents. Period. They are already protected under copyright law.
No, they're not. Implementations are protected under copyright law. Patents are supposed to protect truly innovative methods of solving some particular problem, and I see no reason why those involving physics or mechanical engineering are more deserving than those involving information processing. The problem isn't software patents. The problem is stupid patents, whether they be one-click shopping (software), or swinging on a swing sideways (hardware).
Anybody notice anything strange about this? Look back about 8 /. posts.
See it yet? The post titled "Your Rights Online: Microsoft Found Guilty of Patent Infringement"
Microsoft gets hit for patent infringement and suddenly is behind a bill to reform patent law?
Hey, if they pay enough money and get this bill passed fast enough, they may still be within the 6 months they have to challenge!
can be found at:
e ction/2005_draft-patent-statute.pdf
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/sections/ips
(would someone like to mirror this?)
In the left corner weighing in at $60Billion dollars we have William 'Bill' Gates. In the right corner we have Patent Reform 'Bill'....
"Patent Reform" is code for making it even worse than it already is.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
You'll also have to fight Microsoft to get a patent through...
...who feels like legislation these days doesn't stand a chance unless a major corporation is behind it?
The bill proposes that third parties may submit prior art challenges for up to six months after the date of publication.
Why only six months? Why not forever? After six months of a patent's existence, only the person with prior art could file an objection.
If the interest of the law is justice, then it shouldn't matter when an error is discovered. It also shouldn't matter that some company has made an investment in a particular technology based on the belief that their patent is good.
If you didn't think of it first, you shouldn't get a monopoly on it, ever.
sigs, as if you care.
I just wrote a research paper suggesting opposition requests for patent reforms.
Too bad I didn't get a patent on the idea.
"It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
or six months after a legal notice alleging infringement is sent out.
So if I decide to challenge someone in court after the 9 months are up, anyone can choose to try to kill the patent for the next 6 months. Basically, as long as I don't try to sue anyone, the patent would be able to stand after that 6 months. As soon as I try to sue someone (which is what we really care about) there are 6 months for someone to initiate proceedings against the patent every time I try to sue.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Very well said. EU constitution just says "intellectual property shall be protected", without all that pesky "to promote progress of Science and the useful arts" and "limited times" crap. That way, nobody is going to run to Supreme Court and whine that software patents actually don't promote progress, and thus are unconstitutional. And European Comission will not need to come back every 20 years to prolong copyright terms by another 20 years: they'll be able to make it perpetual once and for all!
No is the answer!
It seems to me the problem is that most patents that have prior art troubles don't surface until many months if not years after the patent is approved. Sure Microsoft and other companies would support this. It gives them a way to write patents and ignore any prior art or it sounds to me like previous patents. This legislation sounds like an exceptionally bad idea to me.
I don't see it far fetched if small to midsized IT companies formed an organization to keep a eye on the patent office.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
No, sweeping would be no patents at all, not just no software patents, no patents at all!
I think software patents must go NOW because they simply won't work in the information age, but lets make no mistake about it. All patnet monopolies are evil.
Consider for instance the way that large pharmacutical industries acted when they sued African countries in the world court for attempting to make generic AIDS drugs.
If I said (like them) that I have no incentive to make AIDS drugs without owning patents, and I said like them that I was kind with charitable programs to the Africans - how is that really any different than saying "I have no incentive to grow cotton without slaves on the plantation, and I am kind to my niggers"?
Don't worry. After heavy pressure, the pharmacuticals dropped the lawsuit and got the US govt to buy 13 billion of patented ADIS medications for Africa at the taxpayers expense instead.
The article states, "Another major change would be to award a patent to the first person to submit their paperwork to the Patent Office. Currently, patents are awarded to the first person who concocted the invention, a timeframe that can be difficult to prove."
Based on this, would it be possible for someone to take someone else's idea published in the open literature, concoct the software, file for the patent, and have it awarded?
It's called USPTO, and it is loosely based on Magic the Gathering. I for one got a bad manna shuffle.
...
The entire planet is first-to-file EXCEPT the US, this is a long anticipated change to bring us in line with the world.
;-)
You mean that Europe does not check who invented something first before awarding a patent for it? It sounds to me that the wrong people are changing their policy. It sounds like it should be Europe that should change their policy to match the US policy, not the other way around.
Did I really just say that?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Microsoft wants patent reform. They don't want some Guatamalan pip-squeak sneaking up on them and taking what's "rightfully" theirs.
What?
"Ah, more zealotry. The entire planet is first-to-file EXCEPT the US,"
Not true, the entire planet is first to file ONLY IF THE INVENTION IS NOT DISCLOSED BEFOREHAND. The USA on the other hand doesn't require you to keep the invention secret before filing.
European company X invents something but discloses it.
American patent scam company Y comes along and patents it in the US.
The only thing preventing this now is that American company Y has to be able to show they are the first to invent it, and anyone can point to the European companies product as prior art.
This would remove that obstacle permitting non inventors to receive patents for things they didn't invent.
The software patent system is hopelessly screwed up. The best reform is to eliminate it. But since that's not likely to happen, why not shorten the patent term to 5 years, non renewable. The pace of innovation is so great anyway that a 20 year patent is ridiculous. If you shorten them to 5 you at least limit the amount of damage that patents cause.
if I remember correctly once a given invention is made public, the inventor has a year to file for patent rights. If the first to file section isn't written very carefully that means that when someone invents something and say, donates the code to open source, large companies such as Microsoft can then go file for this idea they had nothing to do with.
Unless I'm missing something this little change has some pretty nasty implications.
In theory, this would be an opportunity for the little guys to challange some of the ridiculous patents that are out there.
In reality, the big guys like Microsoft have the resources to challenge any patent out there, justified or not, and to defend themselves against any challenge (justified or not). The little guys will usually not have enough resources (read $$$$$$) to challenge or defend successfully.
I am so smart!
I am so smart!
S-M-R-T!
I mean S-M-A-R-T!
OK. So if this bill passes, you're going to see a curious result almost immediately. Suddenly, venture capitalists are going to start appearing as the inventors on new patent applications. Since many submitted business plans 1) contain detailed descriptions of new technological ideas, and 2) those ideas (obviously) have not been published, it will be open season for VCs (who tend to be opportunist types anyway) to just file patent applications with all the "secret" new ideas that naive budding entrepreneurs send to them.
This legislation is patently stupid.
Perhaps you might be familar with the following drama...
Seems like a total non-starter idea to me...
The difference is that while "the local planning office" in The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy wasn't made accessible to the majority of people, "the local planning office" for the U.S. patent system is any public library. Walk into a library, find an Internet terminal, and choose "Search the Web". Type in [ us patents ] and submit, and it'll take you to uspto.gov, where you can search for patents.
Hmm. Why do we *need* some patent protection?
You run a pharmaceutical company. You make a minor discovery that a certain concoction may have an effect on cancerous cells. You spend the next 15 years and $100 Billion dollars to develop this. The result: the cure for cancer.
However, under your system, the patent system has been eliminated. You can't file a patent on this medicine. However, you've staked the future of the company on it. If it fails, your company goes under.
You amortize the cost of the research so that, over the next 7 years, you can recoup all the research costs, and maybe turn a 5% profit. The pills cost $90 each, but, hey, they cure cancer. No one, you are sure, will complain.
You launch amid a press fanfare, the world heralds your name, and everyone loves you, you are the savior of the moment. Your name will stand with Salk and Pasteur in the annals of medicine.
However, two days later, a rival company buys one of your pills, throws it into a mass spectrograph and, a week later, they start selling the same pills for $2 each. Their research cost -- about $90. They will make $10,000,000 in profit in the first month alone. Bereft of income, your company collapses, you go bankrupt, and die in poverty.
Patents have their place, and they should last 7 years as they were originally intended, with no extensions and no "50-year patents".
Just because a pharamceutical company doesn't want to go bankrupt (putting thousands of people out of work and depriving the market of all the drugs they produce) does not make them evil. Your comparison is not equivalent to the slave on the plantation being "treated well." What you are asking is for the master of the plantation, having just built a new manor house to hand over the keys to the slaves and start sleeping in the corn field.
Software is a written work, and should be protected by Copyright, not patent.
You are suffering from a severe case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Just ban software patents, period! Is that too hard?
I appreciate that everyone (afaik) drafting patent laws initially had clear exeptions for things like mathematics and mind games. I don't appreciate that these limits have been circumvented imho clearly against the spirit of the law. I for one think the idea of protecting the processing of data is abhorent and against the basic fundamentals of freedom of expression. I ask you if you believe light processing (film patents) and audio processing (music patents) should also be treated the same way? Should I have been allowed to patent the process of displaying an image on a screen in monochrome except for allowing certain areas (perhaps chosen by original colour) to feature one or more other chromatic values? Should I be allowed to patent a chess manouever and refuse to license my opponents if they try and use it against me? Do you draw a line anywhere?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Microsoft supporting other OSs in its hypervisor..
Now this?
I think I'm confused.
I looked it up and the phrase is wrong in my second paragraph - but still - willful ignorance gets you less penalty than trying to make sure your program doesn't infringe on any patents
seriously - independent discovery should be fair game. always.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
considering microsoft spends billions to pay off patent settelements that seem to be people patending somewhat common sense features that would eventually be developed.
a recent example: settelement for access/excel integration. obviously software companies seek to integrate their software, so its somewhat silly to allow someone to keep a patent like that.
Allowing microsoft to challenge these might save them billions.
The last line of the article says it all: Crouch said. "This version still has something to offend almost every interest."
I agree something has to be done, but switching to the first to submit an application? Come on! Yes, I know that's what the rest of the world does, and I've often wondered why they do it. It makes no sense to me.
The challenge to a new patent is a good idea though.
Obviously, eliminating bad patents in the first place is contrary to the interests of both the patent office and the lawyers. Eliminate the bad patents, and there are fewer filings and fewer fees. The patent office is a government agency that actually makes money for the government; possibly the only agency that does that.
So, add in a challenge process and you can probably collect more fees, but nevermind that. This is yet another case of lawyers writing laws that will create more demand for lawyers who write laws who...
That's where the real money is.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
What is the bill number, and what is the URL of the bill text at the Library of Congress?
This is basic information that should be cited when discussing any bill!
"unless they modified 35 USC 102(f), which requires the applicant to, in fact, be the inventor of the subject matter for which the patent is sought."
European company invents "Magic wheel 2000".
US patent scam company comes later to patent office with "Wonder wheel 3000", which they simply designed by looking at Magic Wheel 2000, understanding how it worked and writing a patent.
You have no way of telling that they are NOT the inventor, because you could never know if they read up on the "Magic Wheel 2000" before time. You cannot read minds.
At the moment you have a crude test, the "Invention date", if they can show they invented it first, then they could not have simply copied the Magic Wheel 2000 because time flows forward.
You are about to remove the only test (and it is a piss poor test at that) that the person is the inventor.
I see no reason why those involving physics or mechanical engineering are more deserving than those involving information processing.
Because the word "deserving" in that sentence is the result of a misunderstanding. The purpose of patents is not to reward inventors, it is to encourage the development of the arts and sciences by rewarding inventors. Software and other "pure process" patents are not necessary because there other mechanisms for achieving that goal, and because on balance software patents do more to discourage than promote invention.
I call BS. People said the same thing about opperating systems in the 80's. No one would invest in developing one unless they could forbid everyone from copying it. The correct answer we know today is that when people can coppy freely they can also collaberate freely and do far more than any billion dollar R&D department can. Patents almost guarantee that researchers working with different companies can't collaberate - and so kill countless innovations and discoveries that would have happened otherwise.
Not to mention that patents create a huge reward for pushing other alternatives out of the market place. For example, today, naturally occuring chemichals that can't be patented, but have healing effects, are often regulated out of the marketplace.
Finally, your premise is simply a plain lie. No pharmacutical spends that kind of money on R&D - most big R&D successes have happened by accident or at low cost (think insulin). The solid measurable fact is, the big money gets spent on marketing after the fact and not on R&D.
So bzzt, wrong, and bullshit. You are suffering a suvere case of being led like a dog by the nose. So now why are so many Africans who are dying of AIDS forbidden from making generics? So why did my tax money pay for 13bln worth of patented AIDS medications that the Africans could have made themselves?
How?3 105.htm
1 /introduction.htm
1 /observations.htm
Well the UK Patent Office has just revised their guidelines on how to make third party observations:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2005/
and
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section2
You can now make observations by email:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section2
Have not RTFA.
Hopefully there is a timeframe limitation for patent holders to file claims.
I hate when someone sits by and 10 years later, after totally open use in the market for a long time, they file a patent case AFTER something has become the defacto std.
That is BS.
This actually helps the little guy. Little guy files in the UK, big buy comes along and says "we have lab notebooks that say we did this first". Who cares? Little guy filed first.
Right now, *anyone* can claim that they invented something and overturn a patent. Only in practice this means "big guy with legal department". So if you're a little guy you get your patent stolen from you.
Yeah, for sure, little guy can get beaten to the draw by big guy, but that doesn't often. Little guy being cheated happens all the time.
K.
And that only if their invention came more than six months before the filed patent.
Result: greater stability of investment (especially after the first six months), no ridiculous patenting of ideas that have been in the wild for a while, and first-to-invent is still kept as a principle.
It seems to me that this would satisfy most legitimate interests.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Sorry but making a new drug is not the same as making an operating system. An operating system can be developed by a single brilliant programer. Given the expense of FDA trials no drug can be developed that way. The R&D expense of bringing a new drug to market is roughly $750 million. Granted with a patent you will be looking at a 20 year monopoly which will allow you to get your investment back.
To argue that natural medicines are being forced out of the market is silly. You clearly know nothing about drug companies. Yes they spend a lot of money on marketing. They also spend three times that much on R&D. What companies are you exactly talking about?
Thalasar
With physics and mechanical engineering the creation is separate from the idea.
You have the idea for some incredibly innovative kind of windshield wiper. Okay. You now have an idea. What you don't have is a windshield wiper. You can go and get this patent on your idea, then implement your idea, and the two acts are separate.
With a software program the difference between an idea and an implementation is so negligable you can barely define it. You come up with an idea for an algorithm of some kind, and you've got the algorithm. Moreover you've practically got an implementation, so long as you change some punctuation. Pseudocode tends to look a lot like Python, and patents are written in such a deterministic and stilted fashion that you could practically create an interpreter to mechanically translate lawyerspeak into C. About the only times this principle isn't stuck to is when the patent issued is so vague and leaves so much out that it shouldn't have been issued in the first place. Which, as it happens, is almost all of them.
It basically comes down to why we have patents in the first place. Patents are necessary for physical inventions because the most innovative inventors in that area can often be working in fields where it takes tremendous amounts of resources to create an implementation-- if you come up with a great idea for a scanning electron microscope, but you don't have a benefactor to build it for you, you're screwed, because you can't just do that shit in your garage. With software, you can just do this stuff in your garage. If you have the resources to write a patent proposal, you have the resources to write an implementation. In fact one might say an implementation requires less resources than a patent proposal, since patents require filing fees and many compilers can be had for free.
This takes a system designed to balance the needs of various larger and smaller parties, removes any balancing factors in the favor of smaller parties with legitimate needs, and does absolutely nothing to remove one single avenue for abuse.
And since the result in the software patent system has been a system which is only useful for abuse, abuse has been the only thing people have made out of it. Almost all important computer science developments ever to happen occurred without the aid of patents; patents for software didn't appear until a court invented them in the 80s, and even then only in America. Since then software patents have been alternately ignored, used to lock people out of things, or used against independent inventors in such a supermajority of cases you can barely find any other examples. This isn't a few "bad apple" patents, this is an entire barrel full of bad apples within which we are hypothesizing, by the law of averages, there is almost certainly at least one good apple somewhere within. If patents for software are so great then where are the success stories? If this is supposedly beneficial then why isn't anyone benefiting from it?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
So, say this bill gets passed. Wonderful. I write a software application containing code that I keep under copyright, perhaps an open one. I blog about what I'm doing, perhaps sharing some code snippets. Later on, that code is taken by another entity, and the process is patented as a new invention. We both publish this code. I see what the other entity is doing and sue him for copyright infringement. He, in turn, sues me for patent infringement. He has more money for lawyers than me. Can I be sued for exercising my own copyright?
I think the only remedy here is that all the Slashdotters move to a state (leave the Trolls behind) and declare independents.
We won't recognize other countries patents or copyright and we will be full of top tier geeks. And, political campaigns will be paid for by the government in exchange for never receiving any compensation from a lobbyist or ever receiving any remuneration from a company you presided over in a committee.
Anyone recommending a "decency law" will be shot. The first solution to any problem will be education. The second will be Rules that apply to everyone, equally. Executives will be liable for corporate misdeeds in criminal court. Teachers and Doctors will not be liable --but the boards who license them will (apply that to every licensing body for real accountability). On your tax return, you get to choose towards which government programs you put your money --reducing the need for appropriations bills, and providing taxpayers with at least some entertainment. OK, scratch income and sales taxes, and get back to taxing ownership and not people working for a living --like we used to. I'll probably have to start an education Gulag to get everyone to realize again what actually is good for them.
Let's start small with something like Rhode Island. Then we take New York with us as they see how well we manage.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
"Why not forever?" I can imagine one malicious scenario that could be exploited with a challenge-at-any-time system (check my logic and let me know if I messed up):
Under a time-limited system where a patent wasn't being actively litigated, this couldn't happen.
Note also that the provision that allows for a challenge after the patent holder litigates makes it possible to challenge a patent after the initial 9 month window for any patent that is being actively enforced.
(So, this concept doesn't seem bad to me, but that doesn't mean I like the bill as a whole -- it's soundling like it tips the balance too far in favor of big corporations.)
..wayne..
Did you even read what I wrote? I said software should be protected by copyright not by patent. Your argument about OS copying was about copying the OS *whole cloth*, not about copying bits and pieces and using algorithms. That's protected under copyright not patent. Talk all you want about open source and Linux, but a hobby project that's grabbed a whopping .7% of the desktop OS marketplace isn't exactly what I call "a giant success". Those lawsuits were about people literally stealing/reverse engineering the operating system, rebranding it and selling it as their own product. I know -- I was already working in the industry back then. They'd take 20 man years of someone else's work, and 15 minutes later they'd be selling their own CASH-DOS for $5 less than Micro$oft. Sorry, but no matter how much you hate Bill Gates, that's still theft, and those lawsuits were about fixing copyright law to close the software loopholes, not patent law.
I think software patents are bullshit. How can you patent a shadow casting algorithm based on a text description of it? You can *copyright* specific code, but the algorithm itself is too intangible to be patented. You can patent a hammer, but not how you swing it.
On the other hand, solid, mechanical or chemical devices don't fall into this category. They represent real cash outlay to devise and develop. This costs money. If it didn't there would be "Open Source Cars" on the road right now, and "Open Source Microwave Ovens" in the kitchen that you walk into the "Open Source Store" and pull off the shelf for free.
If anyone has a premise that's broken, it's you.
And as for R&D costs, I happen to know people who work at pharmaceutical companies, and my sister-in-law works at 3M (another big R&D firm). It's not unusual for 3M to spend $10 million to develop a new type of adhesive that's "just a little stickier" then their current one. Research is *DAMNED* expensive. Drug research is doubly so, because you are looking at a 7-15 *YEAR* cycle of testing through the FDA. Fast-tracked drugs might cut that down to 3-5 *YEARS*. That's time where your R&D is complete, all the money is spent, and you can't make a penny of profit, because you can't sell a thing. *NOR SHOULD YOU* as the drug has not proven to be safe. At the end of a cycle of R&D, Testing, Studies, Review, Testing, and finally Marketing (and yes, marketing is part of drugs in the modern market. It's part of every other market, why are Pharmas *evil* for daring to market?) the costs can *easily* be in the Billions of dollars.
You cite insulin as a drug "discovered by accident". Well, if you consider "by accident" as 5 years of lab work, 10 years of refinement and testing, and hundreds of man-years in the succeeding decades to improve, perfect, and synthesize the drug as "an accident" then you're right. Read about how insulin was discovered. Yes, the "lab assistant" found the insulin link "by accident" (in a controlled study with hundreds of tests, etc., etc.), but it's not like they were selling it over the counter the following Tuesday. So, you want to call bullshit, I call bullshit on you.
I've watched the patent process first hand when my dad developed a (we'll call it a widget, since it's for a very specialized and technical field) widget. He designed it, developed prototypes, tested it, showed it worked, put the protoypes into the hands of the industry experts in order to improve it, perfect it, and finally, after spending about $250,000 of his own money, he went on to patent it. He was able to negotiate with an industry company to manufacture and use the widget, but unfortunately passed away (from cancer) before he could make one red cent of profit from it. The company has since started manufacturing the widget without owning the patent and my mother (who now owns the patent) has started the process to sue them for patent infringement.
Explain how that makes my dad or mom evil?
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
I don't believe that is how the first-to-file rule works. It would still be possible to show that an idea has been used publically, and thus invalidate a patent with prior art. What changes is the patenting of non-published ideas -- for that you don't need to show that you thought of the idea first (or that you can forge documents to make it appear that you thought of it first), but just that you filed first.
..wayne..
I once heard a good argument that software should be patented INSTEAD of copyrighted.
1) Copyrights protect creative expressions, but software isn't a creative expression, it's a technical implementation. Doubly so for binaries.
2) A technical implementation is a method. Methods can be patented. So patent the method of implementing an algorithm, not the algorithm itself. This doesn't prevent anyone from writing their own implementation, as long as it's different from the original.
I don't agree with the above, personally, but it is interesting to think about. If you unable to think about it, you're being too dogmatic on an issue undeserving of dogmatism.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Anyone who themselves has prior art can show it any time and challenge a patent.
I think both software and non-software patents are a good idea. I think that if I create a revolutionary process for doing something, I should be able to patent it whether it's software or mechanical. Software, afterall, is instructions for how the mechanical part of the machine should behave. Silly shit like the one-click patent and minor improvements on other works or the even dumber interface patents is stupid.
"You have no way of telling that they are NOT the inventor, because you could never know if they read up on the "Magic Wheel 2000" before time. You cannot read minds."
Don't need to, there is a special procedure where you prove that you invented something before it was patented by another company. You can then distribute your invention without having to pay for licences to that company.
It's a little more complicated than that, but it comes down to this.
We don't need no stinkin patents. This law is a step in the right direction me thinks.
Jesus, did anyone posting on this thread even read the article summary? It very clearly says that they can challenge the patent for 6 months after any litigation has begun. RTFA next time before you post.
The moderation of this post clearly points to the biggest flaw in the moderation system, retarded moderators.
" there is a special procedure where you prove that you invented something before it was >>>PATENTED by another company."
Patents are to reward an inventor correct?
The order of the world is invention comes first, followed by patent of invention, Correct?
So how could a new invention have already been patented? If it had, it wouldn't be a new invention!
In the scenario I have Magic Wheel 2000 was a *new* invention, not a reinvention of an already patent idea.
The patent is award to a non inventor, because you have removed the only (piss poor) check that they are in fact the inventor.
The problem in this case is how to separate a trivial patent from a meaningful one. Under the current law, you can patent "business methods". Well, arguably I could then patent a "means of consolidating related business information into a connected whole using a wire bending apparatus" and then sue every company that uses a stapler to bind their documents together.
That's bullshit.
And the real problem is, how do we separate something that simple from something truly revolutionary. You talk about a revolutionary process, and I'll tell you that such a process is either going to be a minor change or collaboration of already existing processes, and thus shouldn't be patent protected, or, it's such a huge and sweeping change that the magnitude of code it requires would fall far outside the "fair use" clause of copyright and would thus be protected. That's what the whole slew of lawsuits in the 80's was all about, and why "look and feel" is actually now a legal term.
You say "software is a set of instructions for how the machine works" -- how is that different from telling me that "You can't swing the hammer that way, I patented it." You're defining the use of a machine in very specific terms (i.e. programming languages). That's the same as trying to patent the way to swing the hammer. It's insane. Now, if you have worked out a new way of swinging that hammer and use a lesson plan to teach it to someone, and then they try to sell that lesson plan as their "NEW HAMMER SWING version 2.0" you can sue them for copyright infringement.
In other words, the protection is already there.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
I really don't think that MS is being evil here. Microsoft patents everything and anything because if they don't, they can get screwed (see recent articles about them being sued over patents).
Sure MS uses them offensively also, but if you take a look at their patent portfolio and cross refrence it with whom they have sued, I'm sure you will find they don't abuse it too much.
It would save MS _a lot_ of money and the rest of the world could be saved a lot of greif if they didn't have to worry so much about a broken patent system.
http://brandonbloom.name
In addition, small entities who invent one thing are quite likely to invent another; the licensing means that the money goes to the creative entity. This money will then return to the economy in the form of spending and in new capital though saving, replenishing the lost income to the workers of the larger companies, although perhaps not in the same sector.
Existing employees. Shareholders of existing companies.The money doesn't go down a black hole, you know. And if fewer employees are needed, that is called growth, since although those employees have to find other work, the goods concerned become cheaper before long, and the displaced spending makes for jobs elsewhere.
If you really want to "play safe", and protect jobs, why not just go for state employement? The state isn't too different from a large company, you know...
Not at all. Rational growth- and future-oriented policy is to give bias to a plurality of smaller entities. Competition is a great thing!Wikileaks, no DNS
Did you even read what I said? I don't care if patent inventions are a "physical" process. They are a scaleable process. So bzzt, wrong agin, most R&D costs are labor costs, not machinery costs.
Oh, and also, most of the expenses are marketing expenses "http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr131n.htm" , so bzzt, wrong again... sorry.
And Marxist???? I consider myself libertarian, you're the one that's marxist, you're the one that calls programs paid for at the tax payers expense "charity" instead of social codependence like it is. You're the one that wants to make Africans co-dependent on US pharmacuticals rather than independently make them on their own - IMHO they are more than capable of helping themselves if others just get the fuck out of the way. You're the one that treats patents like "property" when they are no more a property right than slaves on the plantation. Doubble bullshit on you.
And yes, your parents not only acted wrongly by trying to lock out everyone else (who could have also been doing that much work and research on their own), but they are also foolish for trying to make money that way because PATENTS DON'T HELP THE LITTLE GUY, and once again it sounds like they are living proof! SO wrong,bzzt, bullshit, and ding dong again.
"http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr131n.htm"
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.279 5:/
They haven't put the bill online yet, but once they do in the next day or two this will link to it.
Be as suspicious as you like, it will change nothing. Reducing the payout of lawsuits won will make patents less a money maker; so for those looking to cash in, will find their road bumpy.
No, piror-art is NOT lost here, the fact that patents granted can be taken to task on the basis of piror-art, means anyone and everyone can and should send in the piror-art on all patents questioned. This alone, will mean a patent application must have the ducks in order about what claims are being made as well not to step on the cracks in the sidewalk and patent something that has been in the public domain. Would make them look damn stupid in a court, don't you think ?.
As for the first to file, that addresses a big problem in the corporate world, the lawsuits filed and made it to court over just the question of who did it first. Fact is, if many are sending applications in, what other way to know other then the application when it was accepted and filed for review before granting the patent. More court cases and the cost of them is not the way to deal with the who did it first problem.
As for broken open source, if anything could have broke it, it should have been the PTO system as it has been for so many years now. The patents and open source is here. If the US hands down law that destroys the work of other, non patent owners, the rest of the world would not agree and see the US as the seed of anti-trust on a world scale. The little peopl could just keep their money and not buy computers or software for that matter.
Why would Microsoft, of all corporations want this reform. It would be cheaper to deal with claims of piror-art without have to go to court every time. The money saved means Microsoft lives another day to fight open source.
Wow, there are so many logical fallacies in your arguments, I don't even know where to start.
/. is your work mostly intangible, like software?
You use the term "Scalable Process" -- that doesn't mean anything. All processes, by definition, are scalable. By your argument no process should be patentable. You make the assumption that people do not deserve reward for invention or creation, and that is your entire argument in a nutshell. Everything -- in your philosophy -- must be open and done "for the good of society". Libertarian? I think not.
If R&D is a labor expense, so what? Are you claiming that people shouldn't be paid for labor? Again, there's an economic system that works that way, but it's not in the Libertarian philosophy.
And you point at the article and say, "See, they spend more on marketing then on R&D!" But I'll point out that most of them spend a far smaller percentage on marketing than practically any other manufacturer of products out there. The last company I worked for spent 87% of it's annual budget on marketing. Are they *EVIL*? Or are they trying to sell a product to a market. A market that is being continually handed stories about cheap grey-market goods.
Again, there's an economic model where marketing isn't necessary, but it ain't Libertarianism.
Your next diatribe, calling me a Marxist is so completely laughable I barely feel a need to respond. But, in the spirit of good dialogue...
I said "...THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, CHOSE TO SPEND..." Now, the last I checked, we live in a Representative Republic. The people chose, through the voting process, a group of representatives to travel to Washington D.C. and represent them at the Federal level. Those representatives chose to spend that money. Whatever I, as an individual think about that expenditure is unimportant (although -- again for the sake of argument -- I'll tell you that I think sending any money to any country is a poor use of taxpayer funds. As a strict Constituionalist I don't even think the U.S. has the right to do so) because the majority (as represented by their elected officials) have spoken, and they favor sending money.
I'm personally all in favor of letting the African nations go it alone. Right now that's resulting in widespread genocide (millions dead in Somalia, Rawanda and the Congo), starvation (Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and others) and feudalistic warlords sending death squads through the streets. Me, I'd pull out completely and leave them on their own because all we're doing now is sending money and aid that the despotic regimes steal and misuse.
But you see, that's where compassion comes in. I don't like the thought of millions being slaughtered and dying of diseases. I don't like the idea of funding warlords. I don't like the idea of propping up despots. You, on the other hand are willing to hand them the keys to the kingdom. Give them money, give them the means to produce medicines, technology, and weapons, all without the wisdom earned by having to develop them. You'd like to let the genie out of the bottle. You'd give them the technology to create genocide weapons. Oh, they'd wipe out AIDS in Africa all right. Just make one of those capsules out of pure cyanide and they won't have an AIDS problem anymore. That's what happens if we give them the ability to make the medicines.
As for your final paragraph, the complete lack of logic in it is staggering. You would have called Edison a bastard for inventing the light bulb. James Watt was an asshole for that whole steam thing. Orville and Wilbur Wright were the embodiment of evil.
Tell me, do you have a job? Do you get paid? Do you make a product? Or, like most people on
If it is, how can you justify, in your philosophy, earning a salary? Surely, you should just turn it over to someone who is better than you. Stop working and hand it off, because your selfish need to produce something is harming society as a whole. And you claim that
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
First off, rights don't center arround incentive or reward, they center arround natural law. For example, everybody can use an invention at the same time without coercing their will on anybody else. Maybe you work your fingers to the bone making mud pies too, so what? You have no right to controll how I use mud either. (or maybe you think you do at this rate)
Second, the point wasn't that RnD was a labor expense, the point was that labor can be done collaberatively to accomplish great results and distribute big costs. So there goes your theory that nobody will do great things without a patent monopoly bullshit theory. Same thing goes with charity, you don't need a big mega centralized government to get big mega results.
Third, I have no problem with INDIVIDUALS making money, inventing, or INDIVIDUALS doing business, but I have a huge problem when they get the government to lock out competition. Bullshit agin, thats not libertarian buddy, nor is it about individual rights. Do your invnetions as a service business or something, why do you need the force of law to keep other people from using similar inventions to make profit? Answer you dont, and it's not a right.
I think the thing that amazes me here is how just because people call patents an "intellectual property" right, people actually think and act like it's a property right. Bzzt, the government calls lots of things rights, but it doesn't make it so, get used to it.
You're either amazingly stupid, or amazingly illogical. Your statement that rights don't center around incentive or reward is almost laughable. Let's enumerate a right or two and see where it leads: Freedom of Speech - incentive: I am oppressed, because I have the right of Freedom from Opression, I want change. With Freedom of Speech, I have the right to speak out against my oppression. My reward, if my speech is found by others to make sense and be logically sound, is to have that oppression lifted. In the ideal society, the original perpetrator of that oppression is then punished to insure that such oppression will not occur again. Thus is law born from the rights of man. Go read John Locke if you don't understand this.
You claim that the *use* of invention does not damage an the inventor, and then make a fallacious comparison. If I work my fingers to the bone to build mud pies, I have no control over the mud. But the two are not the same. I never claimed control over the mud, just that I have found a use for it. You have chosen to be lazy, to see mud only as something that is squishy and brown. I have chosen to use my intellect and my effort to derive a new use for mud. If you then, being incredibly lazy, simply steal that process and make your own mud pies, I have received no recompense for my work, and you *HAVE* done damage to me. Even moreso, if you already have a factory which you can retool to make mud pies at a lower cost than I can to build a new factory, staff it, and produce those mud pies, and you corner the market, then you have done damage to me again.
You seem to think that individuals who participate in abstract thought deserve no recompense and can't be damaged or harmed by others. This is fallacious.
You also make the assumption that no idea is unique or revelatory. You must assume that if Einstein hadn't come along that all his work would have been found anyway, a position that most physicists would *DISAGREE* with (most consider his work in General Relativity to be so profound and groundbreaking that it would have taken decades if not centuries to discover.)
Should we discount this as having "no value", and therefore its theft and misuse as causing "no damage"?
Going back to the mud pies, no one can claim control of the mud itself. It is a resource. However, while you may make mud pies, I might choose to find a way to bake the mud with charcoal, then take the resulting material and use acids to etch it, chemicals to plate it, and techniques to shape it with light. In the end, I have a silicon microchip. They're both mud, but in your world, one has no more value than the other.
You talk about individual innovation being wasteful compared to group effort (there's that whole Community > Individuals problem again) while I can show you study after study that shows the group is more wasteful and less productive than the individual or small group. In fact productivity in groups larger then five goes down by orders of magnitude.
And I never *EVER* in all my items said that work can't be done without patents. What I said is that if an individual *CHOOSES* to take such a *RISK*, that they deserve a *LIMITED* protection from the misuse or theft of their work. I can't walk into a store and steal a physical item without facing consequences, why should I be able to do the same thing with 5 years of someone's blood, sweat, and tears?
Groups can accomplish things, but, by their nature, *THEY SPREAD THE RISK*. If something fails, no individual suffers overly, if they succeed, no individual profits greatly either. But if an individual risks all, then they deserve to reap all the rewards if they succeed, and all the damages if they fail.
Then you go on once again to say I'm in favor of big government and forced charity. Did you read where I said, "The government is bloated and has no right to distribute funds?" I again can't see how you can claim to say I'm in favor of big government. I stated that the decision was made according to th
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
From what the /. write-up says, this sounds good (well, except for Microsoft backing it, that worries me), but what about reforming/fixing copyright? There's just no need nor justification for copyrights lasting as long as they do, nor for the things the DMCA does to people who just want to watch movies how they want to, not how the media corporations want them to.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
information processing
Also known as "math", or even "thinking".
A sequence of mental steps is not an invention. It is absurd to even sugest that a person preforming that information processing PURELY MENATLLY is violating a patent / violating the law. That would amount to thought crime.
Information processing that can be carried out in PURE THOUGHT is not a patentable invention, and the use of an ordinary computer simply to speed it up is trivially obvious.
So the information processing in the abstract is not patentable, and saying it can be done on a normal computer does not turn it into a patentable invention.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Manny thanks you, Wyoh thanks you, Mike is just laughing.
Also known as "math", or even "thinking".
Whereas other inventions are merely "physics", or even "thinking". After all, I can imagine the gears turning, or the electromagnetic field fluctuating. Doing so can't possibly be a violation of anyone's right, And surely, building it and letting the laws of physics govern its natural operations is certainly not patentable either, since it's behaving according to laws that God put in place at the beginning of time.
I for one think the idea of protecting the processing of data is abhorent and against the basic fundamentals of freedom of expression
And why isn't the idea of protecting the building of a device just as abhorrent? Keeping me from cutting pieces of metal into particular shapes and attaching them with nuts and bolts is a violation of my freedom of expression.
I ask you if you believe light processing (film patents) and audio processing (music patents) should also be treated the same way?
Sure, if you invent a film that can be developed 10 times as fast, or come up with a device that creates sounds that nobody has ever heard before, then yes.
Should I have been allowed to patent the process of displaying an image on a screen in monochrome except for allowing certain areas (perhaps chosen by original colour) to feature one or more other chromatic values?
Too vague. There is already prior art for displaying mostly monochrome images on screens. What's the problem you're claiming to have solved, and what's your innovative method for solving it.
Best argument I've heard so far, but it needs to be backed up a bit: Given the (relative) absence of direct manufacturing costs to software (i.e. it doesn't cost more to reproduce a copy of a compled algorithm than it does to reproduce a copy of random data), there are no entry barriers that would slow a competitor down from reaping the rewards from your software-implemented invention. Thus, it isn't clear that patents are not necessary. On the contrary, it would seem that they are more necessary.
Your argument about doing more to discourage than to promote is a good one. But I submit that is more because of the poor quality (obviousness and/or lack of novelty) than the mere fact that the operation is governed by the laws of mathematics and logic rather than the laws of physics.
You have the idea for some incredibly innovative kind of windshield wiper. Okay. You now have an idea. What you don't have is a windshield wiper.
You're not being clear on what you mean by an "idea". If you have a description of what you want it to do, then that's just a specification, i.e. a glorified wish-list. If you have a *design* for something that wipes windshields better than any that have come before, then that *design* is the hard part, and it's completely intangible. The manufacturing process from that point is trivial, and surely you wouldn't suggest that it is the pouring of plastic into a mold that makes this thing patentable.
With a software program the difference between an idea and an implementation is so negligable you can barely define it.
Well, I wouldn't go so far. A well-crafted implementation of an algorithm expressed at a very high level can be a significant undertaking. But be that as it may, you've just explained why it is the algorithm that is patentable, and not a particular implementation.
Patents are necessary for physical inventions because the most innovative inventors in that area can often be working in fields where it takes tremendous amounts of resources to create an implementation-- if you come up with a great idea for a scanning electron microscope, but you don't have a benefactor to build it for you, you're screwed,
This is completely false. Patents don't exist to help cover manufacturing costs. They exist to protect the investment of time required to figure out how to solve a particular real-world problem.
Almost all important computer science developments ever to happen occurred without the aid of patents
1) So have all the most important physical inventions: the transistor, the microprocessor, penicillin, pasteurization, etc.
2) See SIGGRAPH's recent publication of the 50 seminal papers in computer graphics for a description of the Marching Cubes algorithm, used in medical imaging, and whose patent expires this year.
1) Copyrights protect creative expressions, but software isn't a creative expression, it's a technical implementation
False dichotomy. Software has to be created. It doesn't create itself or grow on trees. It requires brain work, just like the creation of physical devices. If you don't think software is a creative expression, then what about newspaper articles? Text books? Can any work of non-fiction really be construed as creative? Should newspapers, magazines, and textbooks not receive copyright protection?
2) A technical implementation is a method. Methods can be patented. So patent the method of implementing an algorithm, not the algorithm itself.
A technical implementation is a method only insofar as at is an instantiation of a method identified in the abstract as an algorithm. By your line of reasoning, only the specific physical device created by a physical patent holder should be patentable, and I should be able to build it out of aluminum instead of iron, or change the shape of the chassis, and not be liable for patent infringement.
If you're not preventing anyone from writing their own implementation, then you're missing the point of the patent, which is to provide a return on the investment of the difficult part of the process, which is the creation of the algorithm, not translating it to computer code, which any undergrad can do.
False dichotomy. Software has to be created.
So? My house had to be created too. My dinner as well. Why aren't these copyrighted? I will grant that the written expression of a program can be copyrighted. But you shouldn't be able to copyright the program itself, particularly the compiled copy resting on my harddrive or the ephemeral binary residing in memory as it executes.
I used the work "implementation" because I think that's the key. Software may be created, but is it an expression of creativity? If I can copyright software just because I can type it out, then why can't I copyright a command I type in my shell? Why can't I copyright the sequence of keystrokes I use to microwave my potstickers?
Again, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with this view, only that it's something to think about if your mind hasn't already been nailed shut by the propaganda of the BSA and FSF.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
After all, I can imagine the gears turning, or the electromagnetic field fluctuating.
Sure you can, but no matter how much you THINK about a cotton gin running you will never process a single peoce of cotton, not matter how much you about refining ore you will never produce a single ounce of metal, no matter how much you think about a chemical reaction you will never produce a single gram of a drug.
It is impossible to infringe a VALID patent by thinking. It is impossible to break (valid) law by thinking.
On the other hand with stupid software patents you CAN break the law just by thinking. You CAN commit thought crime. Some software patents can be thought through in a matter of moments, and some may take insanely long to run mentally, but they all have the same absurd flaw of claiming to make certain thoughts illegal.
Patented LZW compression in the GIF patent - can be run mentally.
Patented RSA entryption - can be run mentally.
And on and on. They all teach things that can be done mentally.
You cannot criminalize thought itself. It simply is not valid law. And if you look at US Supreme Court rulings, they do NOT support software patents. If you look at the last three US Supreme Court rulings they all have points explicitly stating that the software patents now being handed our are invalid. It was a lower court US judge in the State Street Bank case why REVERSED standing US law and and ordered the US Patent office to issue software patents in direct violation of those Supreme Court rulings. There simply hasn't been any software patent case before the Supreme Court since then, and that is the reason the lowe court order has not been overturned.
If you have any familiarity with the relevant Supreme Court cases, or you are willing to actually read them, I can gladly cite where, how, and why the Supreme Court says these patents are invalid. I have done extensive reading on Supreme Court law on attempting to patent software.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
there are no entry barriers that would slow a competitor down from reaping the rewards from your software-implemented invention.
You're still thinking "patents exist to reward inventors" rather than "patents exist to promote invention". Patents exist because it takes time and money to build a physical device, production line, or other hardware to turn a patent into a product, and by granting a temporary monopoly on the patented concept you give the inventor time to profit from that investment. For software, it takes less effort to prepare a concept for production than it does to prepare it for filing a patent. So what is the point of granting it a patent, if just preparing it (let alone filing it) has already cost more than the actions it's intended to promote.
So if I point out my documentation that I invented the flap windmill process-&-device http://www.newpath4.com/AAINDEX/extension_2.htm 2 years before it showed up adapted into Mr. Robert Hunt's 4 inventions http://www.fuellessflight.com/ where does that leave me? You'll still need a LAWYER to press your case right? Anyone, anyone? I originally placed that new windmill design on http://www.askinventor.com/extension_2.htm on March 10, 2003 and Hunt forthwith upon seeing it formed his corporation 2 weeks later. (( hahaha He had been sitting on all his new inventions, waiting for someone to fix the device he needed. The Device that had eluded him. )) What he did not know was that I had submitted my idea to a company called "The Egg Factory" http://www.eggfactory.com/ the year before and they said if anyone got ahold of my idea and used it they would come RUSHING IN AND BACK ME UP. Well, they ran like chicken shit on fire when I told them. Something else too. Neither of these people know how long I WAITED before submitting that idea to "The Egg Factory". It was quite a long time because I suspected I'd get ripped off, somehow. Of course I didn't suspect an honorable established corporation would do it or be such a happy accomplice... Sure was a good thing I covered all the bases. So, you're saying there's Hope for me yet eh? Gee, that makes me feel pretty good then. Thanks for the post. While I'm here I would like to announce that I submitted an ENGRAVED INVITATION TO DETROIT's AUTOMAKERS (FORD, GM, CHRYSLER) to develop my new engine & vehicle design that doesn't use gasoline: http://www.newpath4.com/Visiting+Detroit+Automaker s+newpath4com.gif and it is also accessed at the bottom of this page: http://free.seekon.com/Strongheart10 .
Any patent lawyers wants to work for a LUCRATIVE CONTINGENCY PERCENTAGE contact me. 804-506-4137 lv. msg. with contact e-mail. I have encrypted files saved from several years before all this garbage hit the fan blades. My device was a "180", Hunt made it "360" (circle-spin); same operation. One a reciprocating device the other continuous.
> ... we may have to start a dues-payable coalition to patent members' innovations ...
> just so they cannot be later enforced
One idea I thought of, unrelated to the new law discussed here, is that there should be an open registry of ideas, so that anyone who wants to make sure her ideas cannot be patented by others, but doesn't want to file for patents on those ideas (or just doesn't need the monopoly privilege that goes with a patent, only the protection from others gaining this privilege) can publish their ideas so that they are recorded and accessible, and can be easily claimed as "prior art" if later a patent has to be nullified.
I really don't have more than a vague idea: something like a technical Wikipedia, that is open for people to record what they know, and records the time when information was added. And then can be edited (like Wikipedia, in a way that preserves editing history so it can serve as evidence) to connect things in logical ways so they can be easily found. Of course it should be fully searchable.
It can serve for letting people record their ideas so that it can be claimed that they were first (or that others were not first). Another use can be for recording past technological history in a way that makes it easier to find "prior art" (probably lots of ideas that are now patented as "software patents" were already used in the the early days of computing. But is there anyone that knows how to find it? probanly some of the methods used for billing on e-commerce on the internet were already used in mainframe computers billing systems in the 60's or 70's. But you need an old timer that knows those systems to find these things. If you create a central depository for these, you can have retired programmers from those ages contribute their knowledge. If you wait a few more years the knowledge would be gone. There would be noone that is able to read uncommentred COBOL code and tell you it does exacly what someone implemented in php and tried to patent). You'd need real people to contribute their knowledge about anything technical that was created in the past, and about where real evidnce about it can be found.
Anyway, if you want to be able to resist stupid patents, you need to leverage the community: create tools that allows the community to locate relevant info that shows patents are invalid at a very low cost. And for this you need efficient ways to communicate and record the info, and to retrieve it, and it has to be info that can be used in a court of law as evidence, so you need at least a credible organization that can verify timestamps.
Now of course you can argue that such a registry would allow anyone to browse it and patent whatever one finds in a "first to file gets patent" world. But I really don't think it can work. No court will buy such a cheap trick. At most it can put whoever tries to do it behind bars. If you have a reliable timestamp on the published idea. If you have a central repository that can testify about the time info was submitted, and if this repository is big enough that a patent applicant (or the lawyer representing the applicant) can be expected to search for prior art before claiming an idea is new, a court would not allow a patent. But if you don't have this, then whatever you published might not be considered verifiable by a court,and of course the patent appplicant would not be expected to be aware of it, and then a court might accept a "first to file claim".
Does what I write make sense? Someone, please make sense of it.
Personally, I think the peer review idea is a very good one. Too sensible for the Feds to implement, of course.
Go to the US Patent and Trademark Office site and poke around.
What I'm not happy about (other than any pro-Fortune 500 gimmes weighted against the individual inventer) is that I'm going to have to shitcan the copy of "How to Patent" I just spent $40 on in a few months.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Though it gets interesting if you need to go back past 1976, then you'll need the Manual of Patent Classification to find out class/subclass and it'll help a lot if you have a clue as to when... because 1975 and before is all images, and that gets f*ckin' ugly. (BTDT) But the need to do that is rare with a modern technology invention.
For more info, get a copy of "Patent it Yourself" by David Pressman (Nolo Press)
Tech Public Policy stuff
Introducing a period of "public" inspection prior to making a patent even harder to overturn would, yet again, seem to favor those (corporate) interests that have the deepest pockets for the most and/or best lawyers.
Watchdog organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the League for Programming Freedom are still not-for-profit corporations.
I have no idea about where that story you mentioned is, but the idea is really great.
A non-profit organization that would patent some ideas created during the process of creating FOSS and making it available to all FOSS for free (and perhaps making money that would go to furthering the cause of free software by licensing to non-FOSS*). It would protect FOSS from the possibility of ideas being hijacked and patented by others, and can also serve for building a "patent portfolio" for FOSS to level the legal ground in the world of software patents.
* If licensing to non-FOSS would be an option, criteria should be decided on in advance.