Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Gets Patent on Consumer Reviews
theodp writes "Review your local dry cleaner, pay $10 million? Among the three new patents awarded to Amazon.com this week is one that covers collecting reviews by letting visitors to a Web site fill out a form. Amazon.com spokesman Craig Berman said he couldn't speculate on whether the company would attempt to license its new intellectual property." From the article: "In one embodiment of the patent, the system sends consumers a message inviting them to write a review in a predetermined amount of time after the purchase. It's a method widely used by online retailers, including Yahoo Shopping. The patent also covers the method of tracking who returns to rate products by asking them to click on a unique link in an e-mail. But the patent even covers collecting reviews by letting visitors to a Web site fill out a form. "
I would comment on the news article but it might be classed as a review and me or /. might get sued for patent infringement.
AT&ROFLMAO
Whenever I call for an end to copyright and IP, people ask for the theory behind a copyopen world. They say the world isn't black and white, that we just need more laws to balance copyright and copy rights.
What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force. It is completely incompatible with freedom. When some law is made giving 1 person in 10,000 the unique power of force, there is a problem. This patent hells ezos and the top shareholders, not the average employee of Amazon.
If I tell you that you can't eat an orange, you'll tell me to shove it. Rather than explain why eating an orange is bad and convincing you, I'm going to use government to force you to stop. If you don't, you go to court. If you refuse the court, out come the guns.
To those who believe their livelihood depends on copyright and patent, I call shens. I've written two books that are "freely" copyable. In both I request $20 to acquire my official version and help motivate me to write more. Guess what? I get the money. Often. With the web, it is even easier to make money this way.
Patents and copyright are dead. Use your talents to build and convince, not build and coerce. What you invent likely came from seeing the inventions of others and making a new or better way to do something. If you want to cut off others from bettering your idea, then make another, better version.
BTW, I stopped using Amazon years ago. I prefer buying local, and promoting my own businesses while I do. Local store owners, managers and employees then hire me rather than going online. It is a nice circle of barter and trade rather than padding UPS' and Bezos' pockets. I have no shortage of work for myself and any of my employees, who also refuse Amazon as they know their lives depend on our neighbors.
Slashdot patents the blog.
suddenly get the feeling the world just got a bit more silly?
Wow, no one has ever thought of gathering customer feedback before... Brilliant patent
Has anybody performed a study regarding the loss of productivity due to patents? Indeed, not only is there the issue of conducting numerous patent searches during the development of a new product, but also the resources spent on legal action regarding patents.
The time and money spent on such actions could be put towards far better activities.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
At what point will it become impossible to innovate with software without infringing on someones patent?
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
Hey, it could be... maybe.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
Is there not anyone at the USPTO that has seen consumer reviews on (for example) PriceGrabber, NexTag, ePinions, or ANYWHERE?!
It's like patenting the personal computer. Pardon me while I throw up...
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
I think I should patent sex. I'd get to sue all those pr0n companies :D.
Current mood: Sued for allowing comments/reviews on user journals
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Negative:
I left this feedback, and was sued by Amazon for leaving a comment.
Why slashdot? Why not?
While the description seems to imply that Amazon is patenting user reviews, (and the article, which it quotes, does the same), these patents apply to purchase circles and sites that allow searchable reviews rather than to those who write the reviews. More of a threat to CraigsList.
Still another dumb ruling by the USPTO, though.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
It's not necessarily that these are ridiculous patents on things that have been around for a long time. It's that the granting of these patents forces all other companies to start protecting themselves by filing for patents on things that they never would have thought to patent before. Only in this way are they safe from the so-called "submarine patents" of competitors.
However, this mutually assured destruction style of research does little to progress the state of the art. It does a good job of cementing the current technology as an ad hoc standard, but it acts as a chilling effect on new technologies.
Not that I blame any company for doing this. It is the rules of the government that created this situation. Companies must learn to play by those rules or face elimination by competitors who understand the system and manipulate it successfully.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
I doubt it will happen, but if that was there plan it would make me prefer them above all other online retailers..
We are the Borg...
In related news, a patent was recently granted for a perpetual-motion machine, breaking the rule to reject inventions that defy the laws of physics.
Will code a sig generator for food
Of all the days to receive 5 moderator points! I guess there won't be any "comment reviewing" for me...
Go, and never darken my towels again! -- Rufus
The system is broken.
How many examples do we need (patenting story lines, genes, methods of evaluating employees) of the idiocy that is allowing business process and software patents?
Write them. Call them. Fax them.
Somebody else karma whore with the contact info, I have to go somewhere and be ill.
sigs, as if you care.
quick, someone file a patent on breathing! you'll make a killing (literally!)
The federal court judges who opened this Pandora's box should be made to lie down in the released filth.
Perhaps there should be a limit on the amount of time that can pass between when an idea goes into use and when the patent application is submitted. That doesn't address the silliness of this patent, but at least it would have eliminated it.
Guardian Unlimited (2002): Bezos counters that Amazon has made numerous innovations in web commerce that have been widely copied which it didn't patent, such as...customer reviews. oreilly.com (2000): Jeff countered that Amazon has made countless other innovations in Web commerce that it didn't patent, and that have been widely copied.
My personal opinion is that Amazon patents suck. Patent this, Amazon. It's a boycot from now on, because of spoiling development with obvious "inventions".
Anybody else get the idea Amazon has some sort of vision problem, they spend their time obsessing over one-click patents, mechanical turks and whatever else whilst at the end of the day their profit margins are terrible and only achieving any profit after wasting billions of $ ... their business model is to philanthropic as they now have even lower profits due to shipping books for flat yearly rates and their still obsessing over moronic patents ... the fact that they even pursue such stupid things at great time and legal expense ...
I know the fsf did stop their official call to boycott amazon but I for one have never bought a thing from them. Maybe they aren't attacking everyone with their patents, but for me just giving the US Patents Office the filing fees for this rubbish is enough to keep me saying no.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
How about a method for NOT purchasing goods and/or services from individual websites?
dada21, You da man!
Do you have a link to your books?
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
This is outrageous. The biggest threat to the US economy isn't china or the eu like many analysts say, it's the abuse of patent laws. I think I am going to patent blowing your nose. Maybe I will patent the letter "t"; I'll trademark it too, and then charge royalties to all of you who use it on your keyboard. How absurd. We will see forums patented, etc. etc.
We need reform, and we need it NOW. I'd say the two biggest issues that the Federal government is failing in right now are Patent reform and Illegal Immigration.
If the the law doesn't stop soon, we will see our economy tank. When you stifle creativity and innovation (like these abuses do) then a free economy no longer exists, and that society will fail.
The method of handwashing through the application of soap and water has been patented. The patent includes the description of drying hands by holding them under a hand dryer for a specified amount of time. The company also disclosed that they intend to patent several different methods of urination, and revealed that "certain other" intellectual property is also on its way to being properly secured..
When you submit the patent, word it as a "method for recombination of gamete DNA to form offspring." It sounds better than "taking the skin boat to tuna town."
I am scientifically inaccurate.
when my patent on patents goes through, i'll be rolling in the cash with all the royalties amazon, apple, microsoft, and others will be lining my pockets with!
ds
I'm pretty unhappy with this patent and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I give it 0 out of 5 stars.
Did you find this review helpful?
[yes] [no]
come get me, Amazon.
This "invention" is so frickin' obvious that one of those brain-dead zombies from "Night of the Living Dead" could have invented it. My pet Dalmatian has thought of more innovative ideas than this. This is crap, it's nothing, it's not an "invention," it doesn't deserve a patent, and Amazon should be fined for filing a ficticious patent application.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
That's how it works, of course; all the different major retailers get sets of patents to defend themselves against eachother.
Which is all fine, but the little guy gets squeezed out.
Linux is lucky because it has friends like IBM and Sun who are willing to make patents available that are not only free to use, but can be used in its defence, so giving it protection in these battles.
Sounds like the USPTO is desperately out of touch.
I hate sigs.
...when they heard this? "D'oh! Why didn't we think of that one first?"
It is starting to look like a race with the objective to patent the most stupid idea first. But of course we knew that for a long time...
it was my first thought too, but in the end Amazon is just exploiting ridiculous patent legislation and the existence of completely and utterly braindamaged and illiterate patent reviewers who have no idea whatsoever about the trivial nature of these patents. They are the ones to blame and whoever is in charge of them should be aware of the fact that he is a complete failure and he'd better resign or shoot himself before he completely ruins the IT economy. ;-)
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Anyone run across the patent numbers for these? Apparently I suck at searching.
Hot news: Discovery Channel Store granted patent on having hot teenage girl outside blowing soap bubbles!
So..they patented an SQL insert query?
I haven't dropped a poo in two weeks because I became afraid that Jeff Bezos might have patented that already and would sue me. I have been going through the patent office's records to make sure, but it's taking a long time... eng... unh.... oooohhh....
just hand over all ideas ever made for the WWW to Amazon and get it over with. Someone is being paid well at the patent office.
And you would be OK with them reaping the profit from your work?
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
this BS will never stand up in court. there is so much prior art on this its not even funny...
No worries really, but one more huge bonehead move for the USPTO
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
You've misspelled 'Neitzchian' and 'recieved'.
I've seen websites that did this. Way before Amazon. I know, becuase I've seen them. I just can't remember where I saw them.
Darn my memory!!!!!
6,963,850 ("Computer services for assisting users in locating and evaluating items in an electronic catalog based on actions performed by members of specific user communities") looks like one - 6,963,850
6,963,848 ("Methods and system of obtaining consumer reviews") looks like another - 6,963,848
Anyone know the third?
I guess I just don't understand the legal issues as much as I thought i did...is there not clearly plenty/ of prior art to this? Can Amazon claim they invented any of what they patented? Can someone please explain how this works--and if it is really good by the books and not just because of some dolt working at the patent office, how the hell we've allowed it to get into the books?
as the lawsuits that follow. The USPTO has appear to have given up any hope of actually tracking IP. So they will issue copywrites to just about anything and let the lawyers sort it out in court.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
It is not primarily because the patent examiners are incompetent, as is often suggested. Instead it is the economics of running a patent office that make sure that it becomes like this.
Nowadays most patent offices around the world are "self funded", which means that they are funded by the fees that the collect from the patent applicants. This may perhaps seem like a sensible idea at first sight, but unfortunately it invariably leads to lower and lower standards for what is patentable.
A look at the USPTO Fee Schedule explains the underlying math.
The initial application fee for a patent is $300. In order to collect that money, the patent office has to do quite a lot of work: set up a file, do an initial formal examination, perform a novelty search, and quite often engage in correspondence with the applicant to sort out various issues. It seems reasonable to assume that initial applications "as such" do not cover their own costs for the patent office.
But once a patent has been granted, nice things start to happen to the patent office's profitability calculations.
In order to keep his patent valid, the proprietor has to pay maintenance fees at regular intervals. $900 is due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years.
For a patent that is renewed throughout its full term, the maintenance fees add up to $7,000, compared to the $300 for the initial application.
And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.
The result can be seen at a patent office near you.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
I'm thinking about applying for a patent...
Naming a company after large South American Rain Forests! =-)
As to whether or not I decide to persue licensing...
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
I am going patent a method for generating electrical impulses within the human brain. That way, when someone says, "Penny for your thoughts?" I can jump in and be like, "No, that will be $14.99! Payable in cash, check, or credit card."
Isn't it in the patent laws that you can't patent something that exists already. EG. if I made a car and released it publically before a patent, anyone else has the right to make a car but no one can patent it since its public domain.
:)
I will patent walking, charge a dollar per step
Yeah Dada, I agree with you. I'm an independent producer. One way or another I get paid. It's tougher than the old days, but at least now I am in control of and in touch with my own work and my audience. I used to be in 'the business'.
I collected royalties and joined all the clubs, I had 'major' contracts with publishers. In the end all I got was ripped off and exploited. Copyrights, patents and trademarks are 20th Century rubbish, we are already long past that and the dinosaurs are doomed to die out. It's going to be ugly. 3 years ago I posted on this site saying the same thing. I predicted a split of culture into 'legitimate' and 'open' with the Open culture ultimately winning out and destroying the traditional orthodox business system. This last part of the prediction hasn't come true yet, but it will, watch.
I also said that the dinosaurs wouldn't die gracefully without an ugly fight and trying to take everyone else with them, you only need to look at Sony today to see how this is going to pan out. It's catch 22. If governments repeal patent laws overnight hundereds of major companies will go to the wall and the economic fallout will be unbearable. If we all fail to get patents and copyrights destroyed then the future is even worse economically, as the several reports published recently indicate clearly. Let's face it the idea of this patent on 'reviews' is absurd and laughable. And I thought a patent on one click was as surreal as it would get. I think that the current climate of patent cases indicate an underlying mental illness in society. We have a problem with psychopathic entitlement endemic in the corporate world. Frankly some of these people need rounding up and institutionalising for the larger benefit of society. But there is hope. Madness often precedes a breakthrough or recovery, and perhaps the signs we are seeing now, that this is all getting beyond a joke bode well for change. Consider the story below this one, frightened fools trying to restrict quantum computers. If you are dumb and uncreative the only way you have to stay ahead is to hold everyone else back. Right now it seems the corporates are running scared, they have nothing to offer and so they are trying to destroy everybody elses attempts at progress. Shameful human defects.
...have also recommended patenting: Respiration, One-click Defecation, and Iteration using For-Each loops.
I'm undecided about this. First I felt enraged as I begin to think about most of the consumer reviews losing from internet, but then I saw that this actually might be good. If there would be just one place where consumers could send their reviews about goods they have experience of, that might save everyone from hours of googling when looking for opinions! This can be good, or this can be bad - but the idea of someone being able to make such patent IS bad.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Where is that short haired lesbo workout chick when you need her?
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
I patented a system of using one's fingers to input data into a computational device.
So all of you posting here owe me a $699 licensing fee. Please send your check to 'Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield'
I don't know if they are going to post it but I just submitted a bit to /. about how a a patent has been granted for an anti-gravity machine. The USPTO is infamous among /. readers for the idiotically obvious and obviously idiotic software and business process patents that it grants. Every time a new one of these howlers shows up here I complain that the USPTO is not doing its job and leaving the real work for the courts...where rich corporations will usually prevale. But they seem to hit new lows every month. Their own stated and court-tested policy is to refuse patents to any idea that violates known physical law. The examiner must be an idiot.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
How shall we pay the $10 million we owe for this poll? 1 - Beowolf cluster laundering money 2 - Sell our tinfoil hats 3 - Slashdot 'em in response, and hold their servers for "ransom" 4 - CmdrTaco! Oh, I vote for the last
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
Is anyone even reading the patent applications before they are approved? What ever happened to "Prior Art"?
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
... the process of companies filing patents on really silly things in order to raise some extra operating capitol at some later date by suing someone with deep pockets for patent infringement.
I expect to sue Bezos, Gates, and the rest of the cretins as soon as my trust runs low on cash.
--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Can anybody say "guestbook"?
patent the if then else statement and operator
Methods and system of obtaining consumer reviews
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let's be pragmatic, companies which only innovate, and don't persue patents, will lose. Unless laws change, there is no other way of doing business, period.
ction? We're told Amazon will only use patents against those who use them against Amazon. So if you're starting out a company and have a great idea, it seems as if the best thing to do is not get a patent and avoid this mess.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
To anyone submitting a story about patents:(1) Make sure to mention whether it is a patent or a published application, (2) link to the friggin' patent or publication, which is easy to do since they are all readily available at www.uspto.gov, and (3) if it is a granted patent, RTFClaims! This is what the actual patent protection comes down to: each and every limitation of the independent claims has to be met for something to infringe (or an obvious variation). I mention all this because, without these three things, you can't even begin to discuss problems with the patent. Not that it ever stopped anyone here, though...
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I expect that you both know what you're talking about. The problem is, the person you replied to is suggesting that the law in this area is currently failing any useful rationality or benefit test. Your understanding of this portion of the law doesn't make it more or less rational or beneficial.
For me, such decisions tend to cause me to favor the view that patents of non-physical items are a significant barrier to innovation and we should consider ending them as a means of encouraging innovation.
might as well go ahead & set up your legal fund donate button ... before they patent that!
I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
Here is the patent in question.
For those too lazy to click, here's the primary claim:
One thing that's common to all the claims is that the system estimates when the user will have evaluated the item, based on what kind of item it is. So if you always send the review request three days after shipping, you're not infringing the patent. OTOH, if you figure that books take longer than DVD's to evaluate, and therefore don't send a book review request for a week, then you may be in trouble.
Also, note that the patent application was filed in March 2000, so any prior art would have to predate that.
Interesting that the article omits these kind of details.
I'm sure it would be as useless and biased as all other "productivity" studies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The obvious solution to the software patents problem is to just reject them on principle. But here's another thought: How about speeing up the cycle on software patents, aprticularly Internet-related ones?
Standard patents last, what, 20 years? And it usually takes a year or two (sometimes longer) to get approved, by which time everyone has either moved on (if it's specific enough to be worth patenting) or it's become so widespread that it threatens to throw a wet banket over the entire Internet. (Think Eolas.)
Suppose we limit software patents to 3 years, max, with an approval time in months instead of years. (Assuming, of course, that we can find some way to pay for more reviewers to adequately process them within that timeframe and not just rubber-stamp them to fill a quota.)
That takes care of most of the patent-as-weapon problem, and the dredge-up-an-old-broad-patent business method. If someone wants to profit from a patent, they have to enforce it immediately, and it will generally be the people who actually did the work, not some holding company that bought out a bankrupt start-up's patent portfolio.
All that's left is finding a way to prevent them from being used as a weapon against open-source projects. Perhaps a cap on royalties paid by non-profits?
Just some thoughts.
It sounds like an excellent opportunity to let the vict... err recipients of Amazon's "you just bought a product, please review it" emails to instead use the review to give them a piece of your mind on their stupid patent tactics (ala product reviews and 1-click shopping, which they've enforced).
the PTO gets funded bty royalties (small %) of the patent licensing. No up-front fees, just paid for by collecting a "fair share" of the wealth they helped create.
This affects most websites. This is TOO far reaching. Its like trying to patent a 'submit' button!
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
You can't infringe on the patent just because he says he wouldn't enforce it. It's too risky. Who's to say he'll even be the CEO next year? He would have to grant me a free and perpetual license before I would ever do anything that knowingly utilitizes his patented "technology".
This is all going to backfire big time, I can just see it. Eventually someone is going to get a patent like this and try and enforce it.
I'm torn. I like the system you're proposing, and it sounds effective. The only problem is that the socialist in me doesn't like the idea of having to sump a deposit - that would sumarilly reduce pattent applications from smaller business, poor people, etc. It would help to ensure a monopoly on IP by large companies who have a vested interest in reducing competition.
I just used Amazons comments form to tell them that I will boycott them if they try to enforce this BS. Probably go unnoticed but maybe if they get enough of them from us...might make a difference. BS like this and Sony's fiasco are getting out of control! Boycotting is about the only way that corporations will listen to consumers these days...they can't ignore it when customers aren't buying.
I'm probably setting myself up for my first "troll" point, but I hope you're aware of how infantile the reasoning in your sig is.
Isn't that all their reviews are. Basing it off of getting a patent for collecting the information through a form.
You can find links to a dozen or so studies that come to the conclusion that software patents are in fact harmful to innovation and the economy as a whole here.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
Using web forms to make consumer ratings?! I guess RateBeer.com is out of business as soon as Amazon steps into the beer space. Heheh.
The granting of this patent makes it obvious that any stupid idea will get patented if the person filing is willing to pay a fee. So in the interest of simplicity and efficiency why not eliminate the pretense of the patent concept! Simply issue a "generic" patent for say $10,000.
Then when Microsoft decides to shut down a competitor they could sue using their "generic" patents. This would simplify the legal process as well. All the judge would have to do is have each party reveal the number of "generic" patents owned and the one with the most wins.
If they wanted to make it more interesting for the public they could add a random die roll and multiply that number by the number of "generic politicians" each party has paid for. I would even go so far as to suggest multiplying that result with the evil factor of each party. The more evil a party would relate to the number and severity of dirty tricks that party was willing to pull.
I say for the sake of transparency in government we should give this a try!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Let them come!
"So why does the patent office keep on granting so many obviously stupid patents?"
My guess is Bush managed to get some of his friends into the Patent office...
What I haven't seen is anyone talking about the fact that there are checks and balances in this system. Using an example of one bad patent to throw the system out is unfortunately far too easy to do. Coming back to reality though means that if you think it is a bad patent and it is going to impact your business, you can challenge it in court. The courts throw patents out all the time. When large corporations write patents they do so to maximize their coverage. They do so often at their own risk. The broader the coverage, the more likely people will be to challenge it (and win). This gives rise to multiple patent strategies. They may write a narrow application to cover the idea they think they can defend, and a broad application that will likely get challenged. This is a pretty low risk strategy. If the broad patent gets granted they draw whatever benefit they can off of it. I know of some cases where the broad patent was written just to delay a competitor from entering the market. The competitor would have to defeat the patent before they could launch. So just because a patent gets granted, it doesn't mean it will necessarily survive.
So, has anyone patented online credit card payments yet, by method of using an online form? Or how about patenting displaying price about a product on a page? Let's patent these and jump on the "Good ol' American Lawsuit Bandwagon"®©*.
;o)
/. affect been patented yet?
**Patent Pending
Has the
Cheesy Movie Night
Wow, even _I_ can claim prior art on this one! My first web site, which I built way back in the dark ages of 1994, had a form for people to fill out reviews / comments on my site. I'm sure I could dig up a version of the site from the wayback archive if Amazon would like to go to court over this one. Or they could just cease and decist being pricks and a**holes.
--
Guy
For example, Edison's lightbulb patent written in these terms would have patented "A method for using electric current to produce visible light in a small self-enclosed casing." Which would cover and preclude from legal invention the LED, neon lights, and electroluminescent wire. It's pretty easy to see/demonstrate that all of those items produce light in vastly different ways than a standard filament bulb, yet all would infringe on the vague method-style patent I used.
Method and software patents are completely broken, by allowing the patenting of an entire concept, rather than a unique implementation of that concept, the USPTO is clearly stifling innovation and competition. Essentially making it impossible for others to legally explore similar inventions/products that may have fundamental differences from a method patent they supposedly infringe.
IANAL, I have read a fair amount about patents but am certainly no expert, please someone point out any flaws in my reasoning, but it seems to me the overarching vagueness of these patents is what's causing problems.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Seriously, who is working in the US patent office? Gomer Pyle? Woody from Cheers? Radar from MASH? Joey from Friends?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As I understand it, you can patent an improvement to an already existing patent.. SO Someone quickly file for a patent on collecting user reviews by allowing them to comment via web forms AND rate the product on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 to 5, or by using stars to denote product satisfaction. Then, donate the patent to someone who can be trusted with it.
Say you file a patent, you try to charge someone a licensing fee, they refuse to pay, you sue. If in the process there is found prior art, the patent is not invalidated. Instead it is transferred to the originator of the prior art, and the original patent owner is required to pay their originally demanded sum of the licensing fee to the new patent holder (after all, it's a given that they think it's a fair fee). Companies/people would have a huge incentive to research for prior art on their own before filing a patent, relieving the patent office of that burden. Obvious patents like this would be naturally filtered out because of the preponderance of prior art. The idea is so obvious everyone who thinks of it is reasonably sure someone else has thought of it before and has prior art. Defensive patents would not be affected because they're never used to sue others.
The patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netah tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6960975.WKU.&OS=PN/6960975&RS=PN/ 6960975/
The abstract:
"A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is provided comprising a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, a power source, a support structure, upper and lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, and a flux modulation controller. A cooled hollow superconductive shield is energized by an electromagnetic field resulting in the quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle. The spacetime curvature imbalance, the spacetime curvature being the same as gravity, provides for the space vehicle's propulsion. The space vehicle, surrounded by the spacetime anomaly, may move at a speed approaching the light-speed characteristic for the modified locale."
Wow what a great invention. Too bad we don't have any of the items he wants to build it out of. Flux modulation controller? Quantized vortices of lattice ions? Gravitomagnetic? WTF?
The actual text of the patent just gets better and better. Some of my favorites:
"In the late 1940s, H. B. G. Casimir proved that the vacuum is neither particle nor field-free. It is a source of zero-point-fluctuation (ZPF) of fields such as the vacuum gravitomagnetic field. ZPF fields lead to real, measurable physical consequences such as the Casimir force. The quantized hand-made electromagnetic processes, such as those occurring in superconductors, affect the similarly quantized ZPFs. The most likely reason is the electron-positron creation and annihilation, in part corresponding to the "polarization effect" sited by Evgeny Podkletnov in explaining the gravitomagnetic effect reportedly observed by him in 1992. ("Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu33O(7-x) Superconductor Below 70 K Under E.M. Field", Evgeny Podkletnov, LANL database number cond-mat/9701074, v. 3, 10 pages, 16 Sep. 1997). "
"String theory unifies gravity with all other known forces. "
This is a clear case of prior art.
The Patent Office is so swamped these days that they usually just approve everything that isn't pattented already and let the courts sort out prior art claims.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
Innovating is not a problem. If you come up with something that is truly novel and not obvious in software, there's hardly any chance it's patented. The problem is coding straightforward solutions to day-to-day problems. That's where you'll trip all over hundreds of patents.
Of course if someone steals a novel and republishes it without permission that would be copyright infringement. But that is a complex piece of IP that it would be nearly impossible to duplicate simply by chance when someone writes a novel from scratch. Rather than having written a specific and unique novel, what Amazon has done is the equivalent of patenting the idea/concept of a printed document that contains a work of fiction.
Wish I had MOD point.... well done.
Help screw Amazon: use Book Burro. It lets you use Amazon's web pages, then finds the cheapest price for you among many different retailers.
I know from working on personalization within the WebSphere 5.0 Portal Server that this app was developed from the LikeMinds engine. (bought by IBM from Macromedia?)
Can Amazon hold the right to personalized content using these three patents as a platform to this idea?
Maybe I ought to patent GuessWerk?(TM) It's the engine that randomizes content which reads, "Out of the X number of people who bought this product, we're guessing that these people might have bought these items..."
"I've written two books that are "freely" copyable. In both I request $20 to acquire my official version and help motivate me to write more. Guess what? I get the money. Often. With the web, it is even easier to make money this way."
That's fine if you live in your mom's basement and only need $40 a month to cover the Cheetos and Mountain Dew. But try building a corporate empire on that kind of income...
welcome our new book-selling overlords
----------------------------
Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
the solution is simple. Throw whoever runs the patent office in jail. by now they've clearly let enough bad patents through to consistute an sustained and deliberate assault on the american economy. It's subterfuge and sabotage if ever I saw it. Lengthy sentences are in order all round!
May the Maths Be with you!
It is in the patent clerk examiner's best interests to simply pass every patent application received.
If the patent office approves a request, they're "off the hook". It then becomes in the hands of the courts and the free market to actually determine the validity or legitimacy of the patent and the technology involved. When the patent goes to court, the patent office itself does not have to show up or be involved in any way at all. They're done, take the money and move on. Reviews like the Eolas "browser plug-in" one are extremely rare, and often simply keep the status quo.
If the patent office *rejects* a patent, they can be required to get involved. The clerk involved may be ordered to go to court or otherwise write up a document defending their decision that the technology was affected by prior art, triviality, or obviousness.
For a measly $35K a year, its not worth their time or trouble. Pass it and its no longer their problem, its somebody else's...
The process of approval itself encourages lazyness and haphazard investigation. As such, their modern definition of "prior art" is merely "has a patent application already been filed in the United States of America on this?". That's it. triviality and non-obviousness are beyond them because 1) they wouldn't know, and 2) they'd have to defend their decisions, wasting their time from doing their *real* job which is to process (and approve) patent applications, not act as surrogate lawyers far underpaid for that role.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
If you or anyone has a single sentence test that clears up this extremely complicated issue, everyone in the patent industry is listening.
"Computer software, algorithms, methods and techniques; numerical / mathematical algorithms, manipulations and techniques; and any other "inventions" with no physical manifestation - are NOT eligible for patent protection."
Or something to that effect.
Requiring a physical prototype of the invention would help as well. There should also be a method of publishing patent applications for public review, and a simple, direct method for the public to submit comments and references to prior art, before a new patent is approved. Patent examiners also should not get paid based on the number of patents reviewed, rejected, approved, etc. Make 'em salaried, exempt employees, with no motivation to reject or approve patents that relates to their compensation. And get patent examiners who are actually skilled in the fields where they will be examining patents: eg, require a degree in mechanical engineering for examiners who will examine patents for boilers, a degree in electrical engineering for examiners who will examine patents on new transformers, etc.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
so any site that gives users the option to "rate" or "review" amamzon can sue?? how about i put a patent on oxygen and everyone that breathes it will have to mail me a check??
This patent application is for a business process.
Method: company shall analyze prior art and patent prior art in obvious, clear violation of patent laws, counting on patent clerks' willingness to simply rubber-stamp any moronic patent application to come in the door with the application fees. Prior art shall be patented, and then company will send out cease-and-decist letters to businesses violating the new illegal patent. When companies laugh company off, company shall sue infringing company for damages due to loss revenue and force licensing fees moving forward.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
No, really, it is obvious. Which makes a patent on it legally bogus. Should never have been issued in the first place. It would be thrown out of court without a second thought if challenged. I don't think anyone has to worry about violating this patent.
Let the checks start rolling in!
I home that bastards go out of business.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Could be a state of euphoria if A/C pulls it off.
The patent application, however, is certainly not state of the art.
Here is a rediculous patent reported just this morning.... http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/patent-69609 75-stargate-spaceship-136753.php
Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
Okay, so when will they get patents on: (1) getting unpaid volunteers to create content for them to help their business (in the form of reviews); (2) getting other people to generate revene for them (what percent of net sites have exec/obidos links?); (3) getting volunteers to provide free advertising their sites with exec/obidos links; etc.
Holy crap, this is just getting worse. I was doing this on my website for restaurant reviews before anyone ever heard of amazon. Sheesh. what's next, they patent the use of a keyboard to initiate a transaction?
Got sushi? The Sushi FAQ
As copiously posted above,just reviews would be a very hard patent to enforce since reviews are essentially a type of moderated message board - a very old concept for computer systems. Also, as the parent post points out, Amazon ties reviews to three other components-
*Prompting a customer who has made a purchase to post a review.
*Using the review to recommend other products to the customer.
*Using the review to recommend that product to customer's who have made similar purchases.
It's the combination of reviews and previous shopping data that makes the Amazon patent unique.
Now there are software companies looking to provide this kind of services to other retailers. This ability to match customer's evaluations of products to recommendations is a fundamental advantage that Amazon has over competitors in books, music and electronics. While it doesn't put the squeeze on independent review sites, it will pre-empt other retailers from putting in social-based recommendation systems similar to Amazon's. Most online retailers are still little more than electronic catalogs. Few sites attempt to match products to consumer interests unless the site is dedicated to a sub-market - like ThinkGeek in electronics or Insound in music.
Well I was thinking, what about prior art? So IMDB came to mind. Where the public has been building this huge database over almost 2 decades, starting way back on USENET. So at least IMDB ought to be able to kick amazon's ass in the courts....Here's a history.
http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?history
Because of its growth out of the Usenet community, the mission statement to provide it for free to the users of the internet, and the strong anti-commercial sentiments as more corporate traffic and advertising moved online, deciding to turn the IMDb into a business was a very tough and debated decision. But the need to be able to support its growth, compete with new commercial projects and control its destiny made it obvious that the IMDb would have to incorporate. In late 1995 the decision was made to incorporate and in January of 1996 the IMDb was incorporated as became Internet Movie Database, Ltd.
So, commercial, but not yet pure evil.
Well, talk of the devil..... fast forward to 1998....
In Jeff Bezos, the people at the IMDb saw a kindred spirit, someone who understood the internet and its community, not just its potential as a marketplace, and thus when Jeff's people at amazon.com contacted them, they were willing to listen. What they heard was amazing, essentially "we want you to keep doing what you're doing."
IMDB - An Amazon.com Company
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
What is next?
Letting users change the theme of a website?
Letting users see information?
Letting users use a shopping cart?
Letting users enter information?
If I break a patent by putting an entry form on my site and say:
If you tried XYZ product, you can write 20 words about it. Button, 1-5 selection, then BE IT...
This is outrageous and retarded.
We used rating systems in our BBSes 15+ years ago, with PPE we wrote ourselves, now some bigassed company comes again and says: hey, now you pay us if you want to do it our we sue you out of your boots?
Of course my rage would just ruin my day...
Seriously what can be done against it?
Any lawyers here? What if I am not in the states and not a US citizen or company?
Can that crap be applied to a foreign entity?
Now probably some will kill me, but can you US people (YOU PEOPLE - PUN intended) just cancel your patent chaos and please sign it over the the U.N.?
Am I misguided and is this already a patent that applies everywhere ?
They could use this patent to annoy other stores online or..
They could have took this patent to avoid other stores get such a patent and sue them.
Some companies like IBM often take patents more to protect themselves than to ask
people to give them huge amounts of cash like some crack addicts like SCO^H^H^Hlamers.
Looks like Slashdot will have to stop people from posting customer reviews in its comments section. Or alternatively pay $$$ or relocate to another country.
:(
United States of America, the new Taliban of Intellectual Property. Just another case of Americans undermining their own country, lets hope other countries don't follow suite. Quite sad really.
Always read patents that just expired, and build your products based on those.
Did anyone but me notice that McDonalds introduced their 'McFlurry' at the same time Dairy Queen celebrated the 14th anniversery of their 'Blizzard'? 14 years being the length of a Patent in those days?
I guess DQ patented putting chunks in ice cream.
My only problem with Patents is that they were made longer, 20 years instead of 14, instead of shorter, when the pace of technological advancement has increased.
Software patents should be cut to 7 years, because 7 year old software is basically obselete. (Windows 98 anyone?)
Along with a 'Submarine' defense. If a patent holder participates in a standards group, and later claims that the standard infringes on their patent; their claim, in reguards to that standard, is void. However they could still pursue infringment outside of the standard. It would allow standards to be made with protection for both the Standard and the Inventor.
The benifit to the consumer? Think of DRM 'protected' 'CD's, that not longer meet the official 'CD' standard. The other companies that make True CDs could sue the producers of those discs for infringing on their patents that they contributed to the standard.
I'm more for making them impossible for theoretical entities to hold (companies), and impossible to deny usage of the patent (as long as there is a 5% royalty on profit).
As far as I can tell this would lead to inventors being valued and well paid.
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
A man's got to do what a man's got to do: I'm going to patent the patent.
-- Cheers!
I have a solution to the problem, charge a fee if your patent is denied. Since the patent will rake in $7000 in revenues over its life if it is accepted, make the patent rejection fee $7100. Problem solved.
... 5000th, 6000th now? The price per patent should be in the $million dollar range now. This way companies will pick and choose which patents to submit because they know their current activity will spike future costs ... so no more throwing hundred of useless patents at the patent office as a crap shoot.
On a more serious note, perhaps the more patents a particular entity (or related entity) submits, the higher the price should be? Amazon is on their
Older British readers (and perhaps others) may remember a radio comedy show - The Goon Show http://www.thegoonshow.co.uk/ - in which the scriptwriter, Spike Milligan, poked his barbed wit at topical news stories, films or the cast's wartime experiences.
Many of the shows reflected a topical item of news. One such was the show entitled 'The Great Regent's Park Swim' in which the hero (Neddie Seagoon), having been administered a sinister green liquid, discovers that he now floats when he falls into water. He therefore attempts to patent 'swimming.'
Regrettably for him, the villain (Hercules Grytpype-Thynne) has invented, and patented, the word 'Help' for use by those who are drowning, and has set a fee of £250 for each use of the word.
And all this was nearly fifty years ago.
... other than a return to its shareholders.
See, what you're talking about would be the ethically Right Thing(TM) to do. But it may not be the profitable thing to do. And if you beleive the famous Freidman statement, whenever the two coincide, profit should and will win out.
Tweet, tweet.
So with all this patent badness how many of us on /. are boycotting Amazon now?
/. have loudly declared they're boycotting Sony in a kneejerk reaction to the evil rootkit installer they purchased recently, it's important to offer a bit of perspective.
Since a few on
This IP rubbish will have a much greater impact on our freedoms than Sony Music (a very separate entity from Sony Computer Entertainment BTW) trying to cripple computers of people who try to listen to CDs with them.
If successful, one of the above will eventually lead to culture that distributes mainstream music/movies that only works in certain pre-approved devices. Which will of course lead to a shift away from the mainstream.
The other can only result in a society where no one will be able to perform any programming, business practice or artistic expression without being obliterated by the 1 or 2 megacompanies that hold all the patents.
Both are very bad, but I know which is worse.
Pick your battles, people.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
don't shopping.com and netflix also allow user reviews. Does this mean they have to shut down now, or pay amazon royalties ? too bad the internet movie database is already owned by amazon.com does this mean we will never have a true internet book database?
The site member logs into the website and goes to the review page. Opens the installed review software and fills in the appropriate fields. The software connects to the sever and the server tells the software what item the client is about review. The member clicks submit and the locally installed software sends the info to the server.
Now this has by passed filling out the web form located on the review website.
http://www.devils.name/ Don't look. Dubyah's secret meetings revealed.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
That's basically the current rule and it's impossible to clearly enforce. The current way around this is to claim, for example, a mathematical algorithm that produces a result which is displayed on a screen, transmitted to another computer, or some equivalent "physical manifestation". And as in In re Sarkar, this practice "exalts form over substance" and allows basically every reasonable implementation of the algorithm to be patented. Personally, I think more weight should be given to the analysis in Sarkar, but for some reason that I don't fully understand (perhaps the age of the case?) its analysis is often dismissed in more recent case law.
Requiring a physical prototype of the invention would help as well.
It would help corporations with lots of capital. It would basically eliminate the concept of the individual inventor except in the Pasta Pot technology. Also, a prototype really has nothing to do with the patent examination process. An inventor is entitled to broader patent protection than his prototype, so the scale model is really little more than an extremely expensive toy.
. There should also be a method of publishing patent applications for public review, and a simple, direct method for the public to submit comments and references to prior art, before a new patent is approved.
It's called Pre-Grant Publication, it's part of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and it's been in place for basically every patent application filed since 2000. 37 CFR 1.99 allows for a 3rd party to submit prior art and has been in place for years and years, but I've never heard of anyone using it. There is a proposed bill in Congress that will expand this facility. Soliciting comments from the public is a very touchy subject. You could quickly get into situations where competitors in the marketplace get into inequitable conduct at the patent office and nobody at the USPTO is equipped or prepared to straighten that out. They have patent examiners; they don't have fraud examiners. You submit a patent and I (your competitor) miraculously submits all sorts of technical analysis, expert opinions, etc., that give the examiner so many things to doubt that your patent will never issue, regardless of the prior art.
Patent examiners also should not get paid based on the number of patents reviewed, rejected, approved, etc. Make 'em salaried, exempt employees, with no motivation to reject or approve patents that relates to their compensation.
As far as I know, examiners have never been paid based on allowing or rejecting patents. They are currently salaried, exempt employees who have no interests in whether an application issues except for filling out the paperwork.
And get patent examiners who are actually skilled in the fields where they will be examining patents: eg, require a degree in mechanical engineering for examiners who will examine patents for boilers, a degree in electrical engineering for examiners who will examine patents on new transformers, etc.
As far as I know, that's been the requirement as far back as colleges produced enough graduates. (It might not have been the case in 1820.. but for all of the modern technical era it has been true.) I know plenty of people who have gone to work at the USPTO. In almost every circumstance, having an undergrad degree with a great GPA and experience in the field is enough to make you an average new hire.
The fact that the later outnumber the former something like 100000 to 1 illustrates how really democratic the society is.
It would be nice if there was a public comment review period in conjunction with every patent. Give it like three months or something. Right now all you have is an examiner-and it certainly ain't working with that method.
Interested parties could chime in with examples of prior art, whether or not it was obvious, etc. If there was a public review before granting a patent. A simple form at the bottom of the web page for the application would suffice. Sort of a wiki patent review.
Oh well with patents like this I guess we cant expect any Einstein's to have worked in a patent office.
That's basically the current rule and it's impossible to clearly enforce. The current way around this is to claim, for example, a mathematical algorithm that produces a result which is displayed on a screen, transmitted to another computer, or some equivalent "physical manifestation".
Aaargh. Well, if that patent office accepts logic of that sort, then we have bigger problems. Aaah, well, I'm actually in favor of scrapping the entire notion of patents anyway, so this just reinforces my opinion. They cause more harm than good, and they violate the rights of an inventor who discovers (independently) something which someone else has already patented. After all, the government has no valid claim to any authority to regulate what I can do with my thoughts. Just because someone else had it first doesn't make it "theirs."
And as in In re Sarkar, this practice "exalts form over substance" and allows basically every reasonable implementation of the algorithm to be patented. Personally, I think more weight should be given to the analysis in Sarkar, but for some reason that I don't fully understand (perhaps the age of the case?) its analysis is often dismissed in more recent case law.
Interesting, if I find some spare time I'll look that up and read it over.
It would help corporations with lots of capital. It would basically eliminate the concept of the individual inventor except in the Pasta Pot technology. Also, a prototype really has nothing to do with the patent examination process. An inventor is entitled to broader patent protection than his prototype, so the scale model is really little more than an extremely expensive toy.
Well, as expensive as patents are - even if you file it yourself - and considering the expense of a patent attorney, I'd say the average solo inventor is already screwed by the existing patent system. I expect that large companies with plenty of capital already benefit more from patents than individuals do.
It's called Pre-Grant Publication, it's part of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and it's been in place for basically every patent application filed since 2000. 37 CFR 1.99 allows for a 3rd party to submit prior art and has been in place for years and years, but I've never heard of anyone using it.
I wonder why nobody uses it? Maybe they just need to publicize it more? I've heard the idea suggested before and did not know that it was already in place.
There is a proposed bill in Congress that will expand this facility. Soliciting comments from the public is a very touchy subject. You could quickly get into situations where competitors in the marketplace get into inequitable conduct at the patent office and nobody at the USPTO is equipped or prepared to straighten that out.
Yep, that would be a possibility. Sounds like another good argument for scrapping patents altogether.
They have patent examiners; they don't have fraud examiners. You submit a patent and I (your competitor) miraculously submits all sorts of technical analysis, expert opinions, etc., that give the examiner so many things to doubt that your patent will never issue, regardless of the prior art.
I'll be honest in saying that I believe that there are about 3-5 inventions per year, max, that actually deserve patent protection (this is assuming that one accepts that patents are a good idea in general). So the scenario you paint doesn't exactly disturb me. If there is any reasonable issue to question the validity of the patent, I say reject it. But, that's just my opinion.
As far as I know, examiners have never been paid based on allowing or rejecting patents. They are currently salaried, exempt employees who have no interests in whether an application issues except for filling out the paperwork.
Interesting, I believe I'd heard otherwise. Or maybe it was their performance review, not their actual compensation, which I'd heard was tied to the number of accepted
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Slashdot patents dupes
Here is an anti-gravity nuclear-powered spaceship. You know there was a time when they would reject this kind of nonsense. Is it time to re-file a patent on all those perpetual motion machines?
Whether or not "the patent office accepts logic of that sort" is irrelevant. It's only popular myth that the patent office decides these types of things. The patent office must comply with court decisions that set precedent, which is where "logic of that sort" originates.
They cause more harm than good, and they violate the rights of an inventor who discovers (independently) something which someone else has already patented.
Under the constitution, the guy who discovers (independently) at a later date has no right to the invention.
I'll be honest in saying that I believe that there are about 3-5 inventions per year, max, that actually deserve patent protection (this is assuming that one accepts that patents are a good idea in general).
As a person who works 50 hours per week in patents, this is simply not true - but first let's both acknowledge that the legal definition of "invention" is vastly different than the dictionary. This is one in a long line of misunderstandings the public holds about the patent system.
Interesting, I believe I'd heard otherwise. [about examiners being paid for allowing/rejecting]
Whoever told you that is at least extremely suspect. That type of system would immediately make every issued patent subject to the perception that fraud or bribery was involved. Examiners usually have at least some personal contact with the inventor's attorney during the course of examination. If the examiners had any financial interest in the application, the entire system would reek of corruption. I strongly suspect someone was speaking in hyperbole or was entirely clueless.
I speak with all the authority that the anonymous internet grants when I say that examiners have absolutely no financial reward/penalty tied to whether an application is or is not rejected. They do have a system that counts accepted/rejected patents equally to determine how much work they've accomplished in a given timeframe.
But I'm almost sure I'd read that they don't specialize patent examiners... that is, you're just an "examiner" not a "computer science examiner" or a "steam fittings examiner" etc.
I assure you that this is completely untrue. There is a senior level master's certification they can achieve as a master "generalist", but it's quite unpopular with the management and there are rumors that it's being phased out, even in certain areas where it could be justified (such as class 717, which loosely correlates to "software engineering" and obviously covers a wide range of disciplines).
PS - I don't know how fast this thread will be archived but it's been a pleasure talking with someone who is both interested and inquisitive about the patent system. If you happen upon a rant from me at a later date, it won't be you I'm flaming. ;)
Under the constitution, the guy who discovers (independently) at a later date has no right to the invention.
That's not strictly true. All the constitution says about that is in the enumerated powers clause, which contains
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
So Congress has the *power* (under the Constitution) to implement patents... but it isn't *required* to do so.
And the bigger issue is, "rights" cannot be taken away by Constitutions, laws, or anything else. "Rights" just are. You only lose a right when you fail to defend it. Personally - as a Libertarian - I do not acknowledge any implicit authority on the part of the government to restrict someone from taking advantage of a "discovery" simply because someone else discovered it sooner and filed a paper with the government. But now we're getting into political ideology which is really a separate discussion. And even all Libertarians don't agree on exactly what "intellectual property" means and whether or not the government has any role in regulating it.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Regarding the constitutional right, its read into the term "Inventors". The analysis is that something can only be "invented" once. After that, whoever comes up with it (on their own, as the case may be) is not technically "inventing" the concept.
Regarding the Libertarian topic.. yeah. I'm not asking you to agree, but the fact is that it is read into the term "Inventors" by every lawyer and judge who desires to continue a successful career in patent law. Let it suffice to say that I've yet to be persuaded by a Libertarian to change my voter registration.
The analysis is that something can only be "invented" once.
:-)
Yeah, I know that's they way it's interpreted, but I will respectfully disagree. If two people working on opposite sides of the word, with no contact or communication whatsoever, come up with the same "invention" at (or nearly at) the same time, is it proper to say that one gets rights to it and the other doesn't? I personally think not. But then again, I disagree with a great many things...
After that, whoever comes up with it (on their own, as the case may be) is not technically "inventing" the concept.
A suggestion which raises all sorts of intriguing issues regarding what it means to "invent" something, and what the definition of a "concept" is, etc. But at that level, one is changing topics to philosophy, and objective arguments become scarcer and scarcer. If we go down this path, pretty soon we'll be arguing over the definition of "objective" and then somebody will get into what Quine says about truth relative to common definitions, blah... pretty soon nobody will remember what we started talking about in the first place.
Regarding the Libertarian topic.. yeah. I'm not asking you to agree, but the fact is that it is read into the term "Inventors" by every lawyer and judge who desires to continue a successful career in patent law.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that I'm not interested in going into patent law for a living...
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig