The Patent Epidemic

cheesedog writes "BusinessWeek is running an editorial titled The Patent Epidemic, which chronicles not only how abusive and absurd our patent system has become for software and business method patents, but how it hurts even traditionally innovative fields such as the automobile industry. Interesting commentary can be found in the regular places, with Right to Create suggesting action you can take to stem the spread of this epidemic, and Patent Prospector attempting to refute BusinessWeek's arguments."

Comments

No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dada21]

A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from a slashdot reader asking me if I'm behind a "libertarian" conspiracy on slashdot. I brought it up at an anarchocapitalist meeting I had at my place in the middle of December, and the AnarCaps generally laughed -- none of them have the time or the drive to back up my posts with positive moderation.

Now I'm seeing similar "libertarian" pushes at various newspapers and even noted on my local TV morning news (Chicago's WGN9 news team, hilarious people) a more freedom-loving perspective on some of their opinion pieces.

It confuses me -- as a freedom lover, I'm known to promote my views heavily one very blog and forum I'm on. For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?

On topic: all the links provide interesting viewpoints on the problems with patents (and copyright and trademark and all that). The downside to the articles is that the recommended changes require MORE laws and MORE government intrusion rather than less. Does anyone really think that the same coercive laws can really be fixed with more coercive laws? Will we see laws "protecting" freedoms by taking them away?

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It confuses me -- as a freedom lover, I'm known to promote my views heavily one very blog and forum I'm on. For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?

ON topic more like- because this very article is "What the hell is going on here?". I'm one who rejects libertarianism as unworkable in the long run- though even my personal economic and political system (distributist democracy) certainly does contain some libertartian principles, since the real power lies in the household and then works it's way up in an upsidedown pyramid from there. But even I see that freedom gets the most press in times of slavery- and between patents, trade agreements, layoffs, the war, energy prices, and health care, Americans aren't feeling very free right now. WAY too much external to the household affects the happiness of our lives- corporations and governments, nonhuman entities, have been allowed to take over instead. Nothing sparks interest in liberty than a lack of it.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dada21]

I have many Marxist friends -- many more than my AnarCap friends in number. I understand the Marxist philosophy, but it confuses me how a Marxist can't see that their end game can't come out of laws and regulations.

AnarCaps (and libertarians) believe in the household is first ideals, too. We believe in the idea of unanimous democracy -- no law shall be passed unless everyone in the group agrees.

Let's boil that down:

If every single US citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the state.
If every single Illinois citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the county.
If every single Lake County citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the village.
If every single Gurnee citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the neighborhood.
If every single Brookstone Place citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, sent it to the household.
If every single person in my household agrees with the law, set it into motion.

That's the basis for freedom -- the ability for every household to choose what is good for them and what isn't. You might decide to live with 100 other families with similar beliefs: you'd see your "laws" acted out voluntarily, not through force and coercion against those who disagree with your beliefs.

I hate corporation and government, but they're one and the same. We gave government the ultimate authority in our lives, and now we're suffering because we don't have authority over our lives anymore. I see no problem with the outcome -- we wanted it, I guess.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[God'sDuck]

For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?

it's a distance-from-center issue. 8 years ago, with a president chasing every tail on the hill and the biggest thing in the news being sex and violence on TV, most moderates found themselves to the right of government, and liberty-oriented activism was considered radical-far-left. now, when all the news is on domestic surveillance, republican dominance, and DRM, moderates find common ground with anarcaps. the point: enjoy the next decade - you'll be called crazy again in the twenties.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's how distributism works- except for the assumption is the reverse. If a single household agrees with a set of laws and morals, that's the traditions of that household. Next up is the neighborhood, then the village, then the township, then the county, then the state, then the country. Of course- we accept only a 51% vote as well. But allowing people from outside to own land or invade the market- that's the bad part. Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally- the whole idea is to make manufacturers and consumers LOCAL to each other, so that business decisions such as pricing and wages can be made with full knowledge of the individual human beings involved and their situations, instead of canibalistically profiting off of strangers. The rest, would happen organically.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dada21]

But allowing people from outside to own land or invade the market- that's the bad part. Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally- the whole idea is to make manufacturers and consumers LOCAL to each other, so that business decisions such as pricing and wages can be made with full knowledge of the individual human beings involved and their situations, instead of canibalistically profiting off of strangers. The rest, would happen organically.

This is where I disagree -- when you allow international trade, you open yourself to finding people who are more efficient at a given task than people local to you. This frees up the local people to find what they're most efficient at doing.

What ruins international trade is all the treaties, agreements and tariffs: they screw up the market and screw up the ability for people to find their best marketable talents. For decades we supported steel workers in the US even though other countries could get us steel cheaper (even after considering shipping costs). This made our cars more expensive -- taking money out of the households that could have been better spent elsewhere.

I would say that 30% of my Internet income comes from overseas. Your arguments would have convinced me up until 1990 or so -- once the Internet took hold, we saw the power of anarchy. Look at eBay. eBay could exist without the law, as the moderation system allows you to trust your seller. If a seller decides to defraud people, they COULD start all over with 0 moderation points -- but people are less likely to trust someone with 0 feedback.

For me, I want completely open trade and complete access to use my property as I see fit. If someone wants to take the time to copy my old books or songs or videos, go ahead and sell it. I'm working on NEW items, and those who support my work will support me financially. It has worked in my life and it has worked in the lives of millions without them knowing it. Patents are no different -- inventions are only as good as your ability to not only sell them but to convince your customers that your item is better than your competitors. If a patent is your only advantage, you're not providing the market with what it needs: quality, cost and efficiency.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[JWW]

liberty-oriented activism was considered radical-far-left

WTF? While I agree that the far right is not promoting liberty in its truest sense, the far left is no better.

When on side promotes telling people what they can an can't do in private (the right), the extreme on the left promotes taking property from all and redistributing it based on _their_ beliefs (hardly true liberty there either).

Liberty in truth lives in the middle or at least in a stange mix of both left (social) and right ( fiscal/ownership) policies.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Marxist Hacker 42]

This is where I disagree -- when you allow international trade, you open yourself to finding people who are more efficient at a given task than people local to you. This frees up the local people to find what they're most efficient at doing.

That's what they tell us- but in practice it's not that easy to retrain for a different job- and in human happiness, this ends up a big negative for both cultures. A good example is what's happening between India and the United States right now- a small number (2%) of US citizenry is really good at farming, especially with subsidies from the US Government. A small minority of Indians are very good at high tech engineering. So following your idea, we put people out of work here to turn engineers into farmers, and we put farmers out of work there to turn them into engineers? But since it's only a small minority in both with these talents, what we're really doing is throwing huge numbers of people onto the welfare rolls of both countries- and those welfare rolls are collapsing and people are literally suffering from malnutrition when they can't afford food at US prices and can't afford to grow their own.

What ruins international trade is all the treaties, agreements and tariffs: they screw up the market and screw up the ability for people to find their best marketable talents. For decades we supported steel workers in the US even though other countries could get us steel cheaper (even after considering shipping costs). This made our cars more expensive -- taking money out of the households that could have been better spent elsewhere.

But some people have NO other marketable talents- and thus you end up taking US Steel Workers, who have been in that industry for generations and ARE more productive than other people at what they do, and throw them out of work to do what? Retrain in selling french fries and speaking Spanish? Sometimes efficiency is the *worst* thing to make economic descisions on.

I would say that 30% of my Internet income comes from overseas. Your arguments would have convinced me up until 1990 or so -- once the Internet took hold, we saw the power of anarchy. Look at eBay. eBay could exist without the law, as the moderation system allows you to trust your seller. If a seller decides to defraud people, they COULD start all over with 0 moderation points -- but people are less likely to trust someone with 0 feedback.

They could also form a group to "sell" token items to each other giving them good feedback, and then use that to defraud people on larger items. And in the mean time, the anarchy comes home when you force your next door neighbor who used to make that item for you to break into your house in search of food. That's a hugely bad idea in the long run.

For me, I want completely open trade and complete access to use my property as I see fit.

Does that include the right of somebody else to steal your market?

If someone wants to take the time to copy my old books or songs or videos, go ahead and sell it. I'm working on NEW items, and those who support my work will support me financially. It has worked in my life and it has worked in the lives of millions without them knowing it. Patents are no different -- inventions are only as good as your ability to not only sell them but to convince your customers that your item is better than your competitors. If a patent is your only advantage, you're not providing the market with what it needs: quality, cost and efficiency.

And you're also impovershing your neighbors. Who will eventually revolt at that impoverishment- because it removes their freedom.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[corbettw]

Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally

What's your definition of "locally", though? Is it OK to buy Hondas in Detroit, even though plenty of other cars are made there? What about buying Fords in Marysville, OH, where Honda has one of their largest manufacturing plants? In the case of Marsville and Honda vs. Ford, which one is "local"?

For that matter, what's your definition of "made"? What if your local township had a company that makes widgets, but they only make them in green. You, for some reason, hate green, so you'd rather buy one in blue. But the only company that makes blue widgets is based two counties over. Is it ok for you to buy that blue widget, since you can't buy one "locally"? But you can buy widgets, so maybe you should just suck it up and spend your money on the local guy.

Any time you place artificial restrictions on the market, all you're doing is removing choice from the picture for all actors. You're telling the producer "You have no choice, you can't sell that here", and you're telling the consumer "You have no choice, you can't buy that here". Do you really want someone putting a gun to your head* and telling you what you can, and can't, buy? How does that help anyone?

* By definition, anytime the State enforces something, they have a gun to your head, in that if you don't do as they say they have the power to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. No one else has that power, not even multinational corporations. When they want to deprive you of property, they have to sue you first, in which case it's really the State doing it.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dada21]

I see politics as a two sided coin: you have authoritarians on one side, and libertarians on the other.

The authoritarian side has a left (socialism), a right (fascism) and a center (moderate). The libertarian side has a top (anarchocapitalism) and a bottom (anarchosyndicates).

I don't really believe there is much "mixing" from either side into one-another.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It also just occured to me that we're really talking about two different things here. E-bay is largely about luxury, not neccessity. Food is largely about neccessity, not luxury. The best part of distributism is that even if the whole grid goes down, you've got your neccessities in walking distance, supplied by people you know and trust. You can't know or trust people online- which is fine for luxuries, but God help you if you're trusting people you don't know for neccessities, because only he can.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dada21]

That's what they tell us- but in practice it's not that easy to retrain for a different job-

Really? I've changed markets with 1 year of retraining. Many people learn a career after being duped into believing the market exists -- all that exists in some markets is temporary preferential treatment by local governments. I can't believe how many people keep entering some markets that are on the verge of collapse because the government can't prop them up any more (after 20-30 years of help).

But since it's only a small minority in both with these talents, what we're really doing is throwing huge numbers of people onto the welfare rolls of both countries- and those welfare rolls are collapsing and people are literally suffering from malnutrition when they can't afford food at US prices and can't afford to grow their own.

This is a myth. The farming industry has been destroyed by both the IMF and by currency manipulation that have made prices rise when in fact they should have fallen in many areas. Land values have gone up due to the fed manipulation of the currency base, causing farm land to be worth more to developers than would normally be true. This is a VERY complex problem, though, much more so than can be handled in a simple post.

Sometimes efficiency is the *worst* thing to make economic descisions on.

That is completely unfounded in reality -- efficiency is the basis for price and performance, period. Steel workers were duped by the governments (local and federal) into thinking there was demand for them. We paid for that fake demand in higher prices that could have allowed money to flow to where jobs would be needed. Those steel workers are getting what was coming to the industry 2 decades ago, it is unfortunate. Yet in my area we had approximately 10,000 open positions paying over $12 per hour within 30 minutes of my home. Don't tell me jobs aren't available -- they're readily available. The fact that people planted their lives in an area (Michigan) because they were duped by government is not MY fault. I know better than that, I would never trust a politician to secure my job. They did, they stole from me, they're not getting another cent out of me (check out my blog from today regarding Michigan and welfare).

They could also form a group to "sell" token items to each other giving them good feedback, and then use that to defraud people on larger items.

Huh? Is that really going to be more efficient than just providing a good service? It seems that every socialist on slashdot wants to use the same old trite responses rather than look at what is really happening. Amazon and eBay performed tens of millions of transactions in the past 90 days -- the great majority of which went through with no problems. In every trade there is risk, but when the risk is less than 0.001%, to me it is a success.

And in the mean time, the anarchy comes home when you force your next door neighbor who used to make that item for you to break into your house in search of food.

My church offers food kitchens for the poor -- in exchange for helping them get off of drugs and into work. I don't have any starving neighbors. The few who are starving are addicts unwilling to make changes, and I have no desire to give them money if they aren't making changes.

Does that include the right of somebody else to steal your market?

You can't steal a market -- you can only be as competitive as possible. If someone provides a better product/service at a lower price and at a higher quality than you, you're in the wrong business.

And you're also impovershing your neighbors. Who will eventually revolt at that impoverishment- because it removes their freedom.

How? By providing people with a better service? If they're trying to hold onto old ways, they're not efficient. They won't starve, they'll just change jobs. In every mar

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What's your definition of "locally", though? Is it OK to buy Hondas in Detroit, even though plenty of other cars are made there?

Not unless the Honda is made locally as well. Actually, ideally, Morgan should be encouraged to create a few more factories- and you should buy your Morgan from your next door neighbor who build and signed each first machined part.

What about buying Fords in Marysville, OH, where Honda has one of their largest manufacturing plants? In the case of Marsville and Honda vs. Ford, which one is "local"?

Honda is obviously.

For that matter, what's your definition of "made"? What if your local township had a company that makes widgets, but they only make them in green. You, for some reason, hate green, so you'd rather buy one in blue. But the only company that makes blue widgets is based two counties over. Is it ok for you to buy that blue widget, since you can't buy one "locally"? But you can buy widgets, so maybe you should just suck it up and spend your money on the local guy.

Or better yet, you should just suck it up, and ask the local guy to make it in blue- that's the magic of actually having a human connection between customer and manufacturer. Mass production is great, but only if everybody is the same.

Any time you place artificial restrictions on the market, all you're doing is removing choice from the picture for all actors. You're telling the producer "You have no choice, you can't sell that here", and you're telling the consumer "You have no choice, you can't buy that here". Do you really want someone putting a gun to your head* and telling you what you can, and can't, buy? How does that help anyone?

It avoids the other guy putting a gun to your head and simply stealing his needs from you.

* By definition, anytime the State enforces something, they have a gun to your head, in that if you don't do as they say they have the power to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. No one else has that power, not even multinational corporations. When they want to deprive you of property, they have to sue you first, in which case it's really the State doing it.

You've apparently never dealt with a multinational corporation directly when they *really* want something and know that you are powerless- they don't just stop at the lawsuit.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Really? I've changed markets with 1 year of retraining. Many people learn a career after being duped into believing the market exists -- all that exists in some markets is temporary preferential treatment by local governments. I can't believe how many people keep entering some markets that are on the verge of collapse because the government can't prop them up any more (after 20-30 years of help).

The grand majority of people can't even afford that one year of training- most go bankrupt after that without ever retraining for anything else. The market wouldn't be on the the verge of collapse if people actually supported their neighbors by buying from them- but I'd agree, the government shouldn't prop anything up THAT way.

This is a myth. The farming industry has been destroyed by both the IMF and by currency manipulation that have made prices rise when in fact they should have fallen in many areas. Land values have gone up due to the fed manipulation of the currency base, causing farm land to be worth more to developers than would normally be true. This is a VERY complex problem, though, much more so than can be handled in a simple post.

IMF and currency manipulation are certainly a part of it as well, but in the 10 years the WTO has been around, we've seen a huge acceleration in the process. Needs should simply be produced locally to the consumer as possible- you shouldn't have to rely on food shipped from 12,000 miles away.

That is completely unfounded in reality -- efficiency is the basis for price and performance, period. Steel workers were duped by the governments (local and federal) into thinking there was demand for them. We paid for that fake demand in higher prices that could have allowed money to flow to where jobs would be needed. Those steel workers are getting what was coming to the industry 2 decades ago, it is unfortunate. Yet in my area we had approximately 10,000 open positions paying over $12 per hour within 30 minutes of my home. Don't tell me jobs aren't available -- they're readily available. The fact that people planted their lives in an area (Michigan) because they were duped by government is not MY fault. I know better than that, I would never trust a politician to secure my job. They did, they stole from me, they're not getting another cent out of me (check out my blog from today regarding Michigan and welfare).

What you should be able to do is trust your NEIGHBORS to secure your job, not some faceless politician. Oh, and those 10,000 open positions? I'm willing to bet at least half of them were fake propaganda- planted by the DOL to fake the labor "shortage" and get more guest worker visas.

Huh? Is that really going to be more efficient than just providing a good service?

Yes- any time you can cheat the system it's more efficient to YOU than providing a good service.

It seems that every socialist on slashdot wants to use the same old trite responses rather than look at what is really happening. Amazon and eBay performed tens of millions of transactions in the past 90 days -- the great majority of which went through with no problems. In every trade there is risk, but when the risk is less than 0.001%, to me it is a success.

My personal experience on EBay, which is why I quit using it, was about 50% risk. Unless you can actually talk to the properiter and become friends with them, you have *NO* idea how truthfull they are.

My church offers food kitchens for the poor -- in exchange for helping them get off of drugs and into work. I don't have any starving neighbors. The few who are starving are addicts unwilling to make changes, and I have no desire to give them money if they aren't making changes.

Lucky you- I'm in the Silicon Forest, where housing is about 25% vacant, and I know plenty of homeless people who aren't adicts. Several churches around me have the same service yours offers- and have seen a 200% increase in need in the last 5 years. Even the s

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the problem is that people trying to discuss their politics/economics on slashdot is like taking a film, cutting it into lots of pieces, throwing them in the air, and taping the pieces you can find back together as best as you can. Dada professes that he can't figure out why sometimes he's reviled and now people support him, yet he only reveals his political stance one facet at a time. Frankly, some of these facets are quite repugnant (to me) when taken alone, but piecing them together I can begin to make a rather nice jewel (hmm... I seem to have changed metaphors mid-stride).

It boils down to slashdot sucking as a political forum. This leads to dada hijacking articles that are only vaguely related to economics or politics in order to discuss some fraction of a policy his political position would dictate in this case. Then random people either intentionally troll him or appear to due to their lack of knowledge about his worldview.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[C10H14N2]

"It's the new catch-all word that they're using to try to classify people without a definitive political classification."

For proponents, it conveniently evokes Liberty, and what could be more american than that?

For right-wing opponents, it sounds deliciously like "Liberal," which has become little more than a expletive whose definition has morphed basically into "anyone who is not a Republican and, thus, whose opinions are not a subject of serious discussion between enlightened minds."

For left-wing opponents, one can't help but think "Libertine," and who wants a bunch of reckless savages running around calling the shots? Tres barbare.

For centrists, eh, who cares? All of the above apply in equal measure.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[squiggleslash]

It's relatively easy to explain. You keep going on, and on, and on, and on, and on about how copyrights should be abolished. A sizable proportion, possible the majority, I don't know, of Slashdot readers are, to put it bluntly, cheapskate freeloaders who want to be able to download anything they like and not contribute a cent towards its development.

These people are being seriously burnt right now, because a group representing a large number of companies that fund the creation of much that the aforementioned Slashdot readers want for free (No! Not the Association of Responsible Sellers of Erotica; I'm talking about the music industry's rep, the RIAA) is threatening them with ferocious lawsuits of the type that seriously hurt.

Now this position doesn't make them libertarians, let alone anarchists, or even anarcho-capitalists, or Trotskyite Libertarians, or the Judean People's Front. But it does make them supportive of anyone who promotes abolishing laws against freeloading. And that's what you're doing.

So you're being modded up. You can always depend on those threatened by a law to support those who oppose it, regardless of whether the law is right, wrong, or right in principle but in need of serious tweaking.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[JWW]

When you slice it that way there isn't much mixing.

To bad (the major) american political parties aren't aligned that way. I really wish the libertarians could present more of a force in american politics, as I feel both parties really do not provide enough for any libertairian to wholeheartedly back either one party or the other.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Part of the problem is that people trying to discuss their politics/economics on slashdot is like taking a film, cutting it into lots of pieces, throwing them in the air, and taping the pieces you can find back together as best as you can. Dada professes that he can't figure out why sometimes he's reviled and now people support him, yet he only reveals his political stance one facet at a time. Frankly, some of these facets are quite repugnant (to me) when taken alone, but piecing them together I can begin to make a rather nice jewel (hmm... I seem to have changed metaphors mid-stride).

True enough. Especially I seem to have made the mistake in this discussion of not separating need from luxury from the start...

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If a seller decides to defraud people, they COULD start all over with 0 moderation points -- but people are less likely to trust someone with 0 feedback.

So what? You can buy positive feedback for about $1/point. What did you think people were selling used gum for, anyway?

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dpreston]

I personally completely believe in the idea of patents. Giving innovators the right to benefit from the fruits of their labor is right, in my opinion, and CLEARLY gives them incentive to do so. Without laws like this, people WILL NOT just produce for "the good of mankind", at least not in our capitalist society. If someone can propose an idea that will allow for this, then by all means tell me how we can solve human self-interest!

Here's my idea. I personally have not thought of or head of any ramifications, so anyone who is much more knowledgeable than me in this area, please post your comments. If we were to require firms to show proof of investment or research into an idea, it would force them to innovate within their ideas, thus not allowing corporations to form simply on the basis of "Patent, lawsuit, patent, lawsuit". Of course, we could have clauses for reasonable investment/research (a man with google is not enough), etc. But, with more elboration, could something like this work? The biggest argument against this that I can think of is the practicality: How do we audit such cases? But, I would say that we necessarily don't need to - these can be done on a need-to-know basis. When a firm sues for patent infringement, they must prepare documents and proof as to their R+D. I'd like to hear all of your opinions.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dancpsu]

The problem with the current patent system is that it was made with the idea that the economy would be a craft/agrarian economy forever (when the patent system was invented so that craft makers could protect their inventions). In our main economy, the world has moved from agrarian, to a craft economy, to an industrial economy, to the modern design economy. At each stage the lower stages become streamlined and mechanized so that few people are needed at the lower levels. An agrarian economy falls to mechanized farming, a craft economy falls to the assembly line, and an industrial economy falls to robotic manufacture, or a highly mechanized assembly line. In essence, the western world is in a design economy, but mechanized fabrication is not well utilized thanks to extremely cheap foreign labor. At any rate, even without foreign labor, robotic manufacturing would have pushed us to a design economy by now, but now since ever larger teams of highly trained people are designing each new product to be manufactured, the patent system has now become an impediment to the moving forward of the new design economy. The main goal behind economic laws are to make sure that proper protections are given to people who contribute to the economy so more people contribute. A proper reform would be to do away with the patent system, and slightly expand the copywright system to make sure that designs can be copywrighted in their totality, but not tiny, minor, broad mechanisms.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Master of Transhuman]

Steven Kinsella's comment (which is in the Business Week comments about the article) follows - should be required reading:

Nickname: Stephan Kinsella
Review: As a practicing patent attorney, I've observed that both proponents and opponents of the patent system use unprincipled, flawed, utilitarian (wealth-maximization) reasoning to support their position. The primarily principled opponents of patents are anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists. The solution is to realize that there is a non-socialist, pro-property rights, principled case against patents, as I have laid out in my article Against Intellectual Property, available at Mises.org http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf> .
Date reviewed: Jan 3, 2006 8:54 PM

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[suitepotato]

If every single US citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the state.
If every single Illinois citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the county.
If every single Lake County citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the village.
If every single Gurnee citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the neighborhood.
If every single Brookstone Place citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, sent it to the household.
If every single person in my household agrees with the law, set it into motion.

Just so you know, the state of NY just decided to try this method and could not unanimously agree on laws against murder, rape, and robbery but they did decide unanimously to send all their criminals to your place.

Since that makes it law, does eight o'clock next Tuesday night sound good for you?

(insert rolling eyes emoticon here)

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[mrchaotica]

Exactly: The Democrats are liberal and authoritarian and the Republicans are conservative and authoritarian. The trouble is, everyone is paying so much attention to the liberal/conservative spectrum that they fail to notice that both parties are authoritarian, and that our civil liberties are at risk. What we need is to somehow refocus the public's attention on the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum instead (which is orthogonal to the liberal/conservative one).

Personally, I think the answer lies with the two largest 3rd parties: the Green Party and the Libertarian party. At first glance they seem like opposites -- Greens are liberal and Libertarians are conservative -- but they have common ground in that they're both libertarian. What we need is a coalition between them. I admit that this would be hard to achieve, since the Libertarians would have to suck it up and let the Greens spend money to protect the environment, and the Greens would have to stop yammering about pacifism and welfare. However, I think it's in both parties best interests to stop the government's slide towards fascism first, and then resume fighting over social policy.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[floodo1]

yeah its called the USA Patriot Act...it "protects" your freedoms by stripping them :)

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Chowderbags]

Could you imagine a system of laws for every individual person (which is what it essentially boils down to, since anyone could change their mind on a law at any level)? What kind of a nightmare is that for copS? If I think it's ok to go screaming at 90 mph down streets right next to a school, should I be able to do that? Should I be able to rape some hot woman, because it wouldn't interfere with my morals (hypotheticly)? I appreciate freedom, too, but I appreciate it as far as your freedom doesn't infringe upon mine, nor mine on yours. Your fist is free to swing as much as you want it to, but only up to my nose.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[tsm_sf]

It boils down to slashdot sucking as a political forum. This leads to dada hijacking articles that are only vaguely related to economics or politics in order to discuss some fraction of a policy his political position would dictate in this case. Then random people either intentionally troll him or appear to due to their lack of knowledge about his worldview

He's the most original troll we've had here in YEARS. I personally believe that he's out to prove a point about slashdot's mod system, but only time will tell.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Grym]

This is where I disagree -- when you allow international trade, you open yourself to finding people who are more efficient at a given task than people local to you. This frees up the local people to find what they're most efficient at doing.

Which, in the case of Ethiopians, for example, seems to be... well... dying.

The problem with a truly global economy is that it assumes a pretext of certain conditions (workers' representation, basic resources, market oversight, etc.), while selecting for the exact opposite. The inevitable result of this is consumers do save a few cents on products--achieving the academic ideal of efficiency--but at the expense of the health and well-being of a faraway people and land.

On the topic of efficiency, what is it that makes Malaysia, for instance, so efficient at textiles? Would you really have us believe that something particular about the region or people makes it more conducive to what amounts to unskilled, slave labor? What's really happening in these instances is that non-market values (societal independence, civil rights, environmental quality, etc.) are being disproportionately squandered to achieve maximal market competitiveness. Sure not all nations will (or will be forced to) take this route, but some inevitably will, creating the much-reviled "race to the bottom."

What ruins international trade is all the treaties, agreements and tariffs.

No, those only exacerbate the problem. What really ruins international trade (from a human condition standpoint) is the vastly skewed distribution of resources and power throughout the world. Think about it: patents, for instance, wouldn't be quite so exploitative if third world countries were producing them at the same rate per capita as their western counterparts. But this isn't the case.

-Grym

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[onemorechip]

Exactly: The Democrats are liberal and authoritarian

Well, it would be more accurate to say that the Democratic party has some liberal members and some authoritarian members. But the more liberal members (people like Russ Feingold) are less authoritarian than the less liberal members (people like the Clintons and Joe Lieberman). I think you'll find this is generally true. Go read Daily Kos and see how many authoritarian viewpoints you find there. Then compare with what you might read on, say, Michelle "Japanese-American internment was a great idea" Malkin's blog.

the Republicans are conservative and authoritarian

While there are a lot of authoritarians in the Republican party, I find them more radical (i.e., not conservative) than the Democrats. Do you call invading Iraq, or running up gi-normous deficits, conservative? What truly conservative actions have the Republicans given us lately? (And yes, I know that the Democrats have been accomplices to the actions I cited.) As the now well-known quote from a Portland, OR newspaper put it, "Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."

What we need is to somehow refocus the public's attention on the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum instead (which is orthogonal to the liberal/conservative one).

While I agree in principal with what you are saying, I take issue with the terminology. To me the usage of "liberal" and "conservative" as opposites sounds like gibberish. You might be using "liberal" to mean "leftist" and "conservative" to mean "rightist", although it's never quite clear to me what is meant by "leftism" and "rightism". Both sound like forms of authoritarianism to me. In other words, in a non-authoritarian society, this "left/right" split (what you call "liberal/conservative") probably does not exist.

When I use the word "liberal" I always mean the opposite of "authoritarian", sticking close to the original meaning of the term. A liberal believes the government is the servant of the people instead of the other way around; that rights are inalienable; that governments have no rights (only powers that are vested in that government to enable it to serve the people -- if these powers were "rights" then they would be inalienable); that "property rights" is an oxymoron because property is not inalienable (call them "property privileges", because that's exactly what they are). Liberals believe in separation of powers to ensure that the government can function as a protector of rights, not the consolidation of powers in the executive branch that has been happening gradually over most of the past two centuries. American government has strayed far from the liberal principals on which it was founded.

Some might claim that a belief in inalienable rights is a libertarian rather than a liberal ideal. But liberals do not share the libertarians' pessimistic belief that government cannot serve the people. Even regulating businesses that would otherwise infringe on individual rights is not a legitimate purpose of government, in the eyes of the libertarian. Most libertarians will also insist that there are indeed property rights (this might just be another matter of semantics). While I don't question the sincerity of libertarians when they claim a belief in inalienable rights, I've yet to understand how libertarians would try to protect those rights without government regulation.

What we need is a coalition between them. I admit that this would be hard to achieve,

The Democratic Party is a diverse coalition of civil rights proponents, environmental interests, some business interests (the entertainment industry, e.g.), labor interests, etc. The Republican Party is a less diverse but perhaps more unlikely coalition of business interests, fundamentalist/evangelical religious interests, and perhaps some other elements. So what's to stop a Green/Libertarian coalition?

However, I think it's in both parties best interests to stop the government's slide towards fascism first, and then resume fighting over social policy.

I agree with that!

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dada21]

I would hate to see the Libertarians align with any authoritarian party -- the Greens are ultraauthoritarians. My solution for the libertarian debate is to exit politics and become a prime example to voluntary cooperation.

Show people that you don't need coercion to help the poor, educate the young and be a benefit to society. This can only happen by volunteering your time and your money, but be vocal about your desire for freedom, not socialism.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[dada21]

Which, in the case of Ethiopians, for example, seems to be... well... dying.

Myth. I visited both Ethiopia and Eritrea -- I saw none of the poverty and suffering I saw on the TV for 2 decades. The people "dying" of "starvation" are generally people who were the children of monsters who committed vile wars against one another for nothing but desert holy land. I've spoken with so many Ethiopians over the web the past few years who hate that they're labeled poor when the cities have blossoming businesses and fruitful farming. The Ethiopian problem boils down to the government getting involved in the wars and making things worse.

The problem with a truly global economy is that it assumes a pretext of certain conditions (workers' representation, basic resources, market oversight, etc.), while selecting for the exact opposite. The inevitable result of this is consumers do save a few cents on products--achieving the academic ideal of efficiency--but at the expense of the health and well-being of a faraway people and land.

If we deregulated trade and dissolved every tariff and embargo, people all over the world would become more efficient and wealthier. Everyone would have the ability to produce what they're best at and the economies of every country would prosper. The problem is that the world player in ruining trade is the global currency situation: every country's elite has the power to inflate their currency bases differently, making it very hard for producers and consumers to trade equally. No one knows how much their currency is worth against another currency, as it takes 6-24 months for price inflation to catch up with central banking inflation.

What really ruins international trade (from a human condition standpoint) is the vastly skewed distribution of resources and power throughout the world. Think about it: patents, for instance, wouldn't be quite so exploitative if third world countries were producing them at the same rate per capita as their western counterparts. But this isn't the case.

If someone produces slower than another person, they have to sell the goods at a higher price. In the local market this is a plus, in the international market this is a negative. Yet EVERY land has the ability to create SOMETHING, even if it is merely a service.

The Internet allows everyone to become more efficient through education -- not public education but self education. Once people realize it is their government holding them hostage and ruining their economies and their opportunities, maybe we'll see a better world through voluntary cooperation -- the definition of capitalism. We live in a mercantilist world, but everyone thinks we're capitalists. We're not, we're big government supporters who think we need a nanny state. It is the nanny state that destroys hope, opportunity and eventually wealth.

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Bob Uhl]

Of course, it's trivial to demonstrate that unanimous consent doesn't work: many folks would like to be free to commit murder or theft, and they won't consent to laws punishing those acts...

Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]

[Money for Nothin']

Now I'm seeing similar "libertarian" pushes at various newspapers and even noted on my local TV morning news (Chicago's WGN9 news team, hilarious people) a more freedom-loving perspective on some of their opinion pieces.

You've noticed an upswing in libertarian thought in the Chicago area? I'm from that frosty socialist hell-hole myself, and I can't say as I've noticed... Something about rising cigarette taxes (although I do generally prefer sales taxes to income taxes, and besides a land-value tax, a tax on things with clear negative externalities (like cigarettes or automobile exhaust) are probably among the least-bad taxes I can think of) and a smoking ban that passed to apply to all of Chicago's restaurants just don't strike me as "libertarian"...

This isn't to say it's impossible though. I admittedly don't follow Chicago politics (or IL state politics) much, except to bitch about the latest corruption story coming out of Mayor Daley's office. I guess I'm just curious what other examples you might have, e.g. articles from the Chicago Tribune or something... :-/

On an unrelated note, as a club owner (IIRC from your prior posts), you wouldn't happen to be the owner of the E2 club, in which 21 people were killed or know the owner, would you?

PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[MLopat]

Yeah I wonder why PatentHawk refutes the allegations, despite them being blatantly obvious...from their site "Patent Hawk facilitates and mentors individual inventors in getting their own patents, as a way of fostering innovation for those interested in learning how to obtain their own patents, and who might not otherwise be able to afford it.

Read more about getting a patent with help from Patent Hawk.

Patent Hawk services are nominally $125 per hour."

If the US patent system is to be defended (can someone do it with a straight face?) then it should be done by someone with some credibility.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[IAmTheDave]

This is akin to "New study shows Microsoft Windows to be faster, more secure than Linux" by the independent outfit Tfosorcim Corp.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[jacquesm]

as far as I'm concerned most patents aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I've been part of the 'process' several times because companies I was working for at the time pursued patents for their 'ideas' (not implementations), and it's pretty disgusting to see how patent attorneys and their clients conspire to create patents that have the exact opposite intention than what patents were originally created for.

For example, it's not unusual to word a patent in such a way that a genuinely innovative company that would not even compete with the patent 'taker' will have to go and license (overbroad patenting by design).

Then there's the 'suing for peace' group that basically takes out patents and then sues to settle for a number roughly $1 cheaper than what it will cost to litigate.

I hate patents with a passion.

Some Hot Chick

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Wow- slashdotters are everywhere! Read the first post on the Business Week article: Post from Business Week follows
Nickname: Scott
Review: You are correct, Microsoft would not be what it is today if it were not for the failure of Apple to properly protect its Windows GUI :)These companies can easily design around most, if not all of these patents. It's just arrogance and ignorance that creates these problems. Date reviewed: Jan 3, 2006 4:04 PM

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[tomhudson]

Businessweek, almost as uninformed as Forbes ...

Microsoft would not be what it is today if it were not for the failure of Apple to properly protect its Windows GUI

I seem to recall something about Microsoft stealing a TV set when Apple has already done the B&E ... (hint: google for "windows gui apple broke in stole tv")

Xerox. Not Apple. Not Microsoft.

Next we'll hear critics saying that "Lord of the Rings" is a "great piece of adult literature." It might be - to a kid. But go back and read it today. It'll put you to sleep.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[mellon]

Apple licensed the GUI concept from Xerox.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[$RANDOMLUSER]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yep, that is "interesting"!!

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[truedfx]

Some Hot Chick [ww.com]

Okay, what does that have to do with anything?

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Kenja]

So you've worked for and with bastards that will try and take advantage of any system for profit. And its the patent systems fault? Sorry, I dont buy that. What if I was a small devloper that came up with somthing new and worthwhile. Shouldn't I be able to get protection from the sort of people you work for? Without patent protection a larger group could just take my idea and undersell me.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[lawpoop]

"Next we'll hear critics saying that "Lord of the Rings" is a "great piece of adult literature." It might be - to a kid. But go back and read it today. It'll put you to sleep."

LOTR is not just any literature. It's history, ok? HISTORY. It's not supposed to be entertaining, it's supposed to be informative.

It's the fucking HISTORY of another god-damned WORLD, OK? It's not a make-believe fairy-tale.

Sheesus.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[timjdot]

Imagine filing a patent in Jan 2001 and it not being reviewed for about 4.5 years! And everytime you call about it you get the /dev/null spill. The USPTO is broken. It is not beneficial to the average American. Only exists for the benefit of the corporate aristocracy. Don't even get me started on the ludicrous nature of the patent objections made by the USPTO. I seriously doubt they ever critically read the patents they cite and know for sure they are neither software engineers nor experienced in the field of the patent they review.

When I filed the patent the delay was 2-3 years. Then it went up to 3 years a few years ago. Now it is north of 4.5 years. At this rate, in a few decades then will patents expire before they are granted?

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Zerathdune]

Yeah. didn't even check that myself, but I clicked the link thinking, "this is going to be a load of shit" but then quickly forced myself to at least listen to it.

after the third time they reffered to the author of the article they were disputing as "BeavisWeek" though, I decided it was impossible to take them seriously.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[jacquesm]

I'm 40 years old, and have gained some experience since I was 20 or so and worked for these corporations.

I think it's the patent systems fault because it explicitly allows the abuse of the system. There is absolutely no oversight on what gets patented and what not, it's *WAY* too easy to get a patent on something frivolous, it should not be possible to get something patented without actual development and the presentation of a working device. Business methods and software should NOT be patentable at all, or only for an extremely short period.

The sort of people I worked (not WORK, I've been self employed for quite a while now) would do just about anything to make a buck, I was fairly young, fairly naive but I got wise and split with them and their ways.

Taking your 'idea' and underselling you is not the kind of abuse I was talking about. I'm specifically referring to submarine patents and patenting stuff with no intention whatsoever of ever marketing the device (or even developing a working prototype).

The kind of protection that is needed would push the cost of a patent up quite high, but in my opinion that would be a good thing. It would be an initial barrier that would get people (and especially the corporations that take out hundreds of patents annually) to pay attention to the filing process and the requirements. It would also make sure that you only patent those things that you actually intend to spend development capital on.

If it's 'just a good idea' you should not be able to patent it at all.

If it took you hundreds of hours of sweat and labour and mortgaging your house to research your idea your patent should be a solid one.

Right now a patent is just another gun in the armory of larger corps. As a small time inventor you will probably not have the stamina and the funds it will take to defend your patent, and as a larger corp you can use the patent system to beat up competitors smaller than you.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[jacquesm]

well, errr, some people like hot chicks :)

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[truedfx]

Heh, I do too, but it's kind of nice to be able to strip sigs and only read comments relevant to the story :)

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Fishstick]

> Apple licensed the GUI concept from Xerox.

You misspelled 'borrowed'. ;-)

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[feijai]

Try again, nitwit. Apple licensed Xerox's GUI. As in: paid them $$$ to use it.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[ichigo 2.0]

I might get modded offtopic for this but I have to protest. Your answer to the GP makes it seem like you think history is something that puts you to sleep, but as an avid reader of history I have to say you are wrong.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Anonymous Coward]

Without patent protection a larger group could just take my idea and undersell me.

At least that would provide a service to the public: cheaper goods. The patent troll companies we are complaining about here are pure parasites that only raise the price of goods.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[lawpoop]

I guess if you view history as a narrative, then yes, it can be exiciting. I guess that would depend on the historian's skill as a writer and storyteller. However, as a scientific minded-person, I would tend to think that history (if you consider history something other than the glorius stories of kings and heroes) would be quite mind-numbing.

If you get off on factual details, regardless of how they are presented, then I guess history is exicitng anyways.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[yorkpaddy]

I was thinking a possible fix to the abundance of ridiculous patents would be to provide examiners disincentives for frivolous patents. It would work something like this, when an examiner issues a patent that is later overturned (I know that is a big if), that examiner suffers moneterily. The immediate result of this would be significantly less frivolous patents filed. This might not be the right way to go about fixing the patent system, but I like the theory. We have to make it expensive for the patent office to continue doing a poor job. Once it starts hurting someone in the government in the wallet, they will change their ways.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[ichigo 2.0]

I find history as well as science exciting, not because of factual details (years and dates matter little to me as I have trouble remembering which month we live in) but because they're both about answering the essential question of "Why?". Science examines it on a universal scale, history on a human scale. By knowing and interpreting past events one not only understands why things happened as they did, but even understands why they happen today. As with science, true passion for history requires an open mind, and the willingness to examine the data and make your own interpretations instead of relying on other people's opinions. So I guess it essentially is about the search for truth, and it is not mind-numbing at all, quite the contrary. :)

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[yorkpaddy]

I just figured out an incentive. Make the government pay for the defense of patents of individuals. It wouldn't matter that the defense would suck, it would cost the government an S-load of money to hire all of their own lawyers to fight the corporate lawyers. This would quickly lead to a change in patent law.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[lawpoop]

I guess that was a misconception I had about history -- it's solely about humans? I can see how that would be interesting. I think humans are hard-wired to think that stories about people are interesting.

But for stuff like natural history, such as the life cycle of a star or the origin or Earth -- most people think that's really boring, since there's no human drama involved. To them, it's a dry-dry-dry list of facts, regardless of how excited nerds get about learning something.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Chowderbags]

The world of Kerploosh was created 3 billion years ago. It went around a big red star, and developed bacteria. Let's examine the bacteria as they expand across the planet for a few hundred billion years. Chapter One Jimmy the prokaryote was attempting to absorb some primoridal soup, when all the sudden, Biff, the bad virus/protein complex... Stay tuned, for the most epic book of all time, no matter how boring it is!

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[ichigo 2.0]

Sometimes I forget that history doesn't literally mean our civilization's history. I don't think the life cycle of a star or Earth's origin is studied for their historical value, I think it's more about learning to understand the mechanisms involved (and maybe someday replicate them). But yeah, a list of facts about random occurences between unintelligent matter sounds boring; I wouldn't personally call that history though. :)

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Fishstick]

I didn't know that. I had always read/heard that Jobs got a tour at PARC and went back and incorporated what he saw.

Do you have a source for that? I can't find anything that says Applic licenesed anything from Xerox.

on the contrary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

In an odd twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. The Xerox case was dismissed on a technicality.

If Apple had licensed Xerox GUI ideas/designs/components, why did Xerox sue?

In fact:

http://news.com.com/5208-1016-0.html?forumID=1&thr eadID=6103&messageID=38010&start=-114

Apple licensed technology from Xerox and improved on it
Reader post by: Michael Louka
Posted on: April 15, 2005, 6:14 AM PDT
Story: An early peek at Longhorn

This is incorect, based on common myths about Apple and
Xerox, which are really unfair to the true innovators. Douglas
Englebart, Xerox, and Apple all contributed to the development
of the desktop GUI as we know it today, and each of them added
significant innovations

1) The concept of the mouse-controlled UI was NOT a Xerox
innvolation. It was conceived by Douglas Englebart much earlier
(see for example http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/
1968Demo.html)

2) Xerox produced the first (very expensive) commercial system
with a bitmap GUI display with pop-up menus that used a
windowing concept and some SmallTalk niceties (that the Mac
OS did not learn from), and a mouse to control it and do stuff
like selecting text (however the mac introduced direct
manipulation of such text).

3) Apple licensed the technology from Xerox. Yes, they actually
*paid* for it. Apple is commonly accused of stealing ideas from
Xerox (like many later accused Microsoft of stealing ideas from
Apple), but Apple licensed the technology from Xerox, and it
was knowingly demonstrated to Apple, so these repeated
accusations of stealling are very unfair, especially since those
that accuse apple of stealing the interface extend the interface
concept way beyond what Xerox had, to also encompass Apple's
own innvoations, which Apple should be credited for! See http:///
www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?
project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progre ss.txt&t
opic=Origins&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=med ium

4) Apple developed the desktop metaphor (The Mac Finder with
drag and drop manipulation of files and folder, the trash can,
etc.) that most modern systems use. This was not a part of the
Xerox design and was a significant innovation by Apple that
greatly enhanced the usability of computer systems. The Star did
not even have overlapping window, which were also a Mac first.

if you are interesting in computing history and the development
of the desktop GUI as we know it today see:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macin tosh&story=Busy_Being_Born.txt&topic=User%20Interf ace&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium

I realize this is a post on a user forum and hardly authoritative, but it was the best I could find on short notice to respond to the 'nitwit' belittlement.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[radtea]

Right now a patent is just another gun in the armory of larger corps. As a small time inventor you will probably not have the stamina and the funds it will take to defend your patent, and as a larger corp you can use the patent system to beat up competitors smaller than you.

This is absolutely accurate. A patent is nothing more than a license to sue, and if you don't have a phalanx of lawyers on staff to enforce them they are not particularly useful.

I've been involved in a number of small corporations and startups that have spent a significant fraction of their budgets pursuing patent protection, but they have in the end had to face the reality that while a patent costs ~$25,000 to get (no small expense for a startup) patent disputes typically cost in the range of $2-5 MILLION if they go to court.

Ergo, if Big Corp is violating Small Corp's patent, they can do so with impunity so long as Small Corp does not have a war chest of a few million waiting to be deployed to fight a court action.

Of the many proposals for patent reform, denying trivial patents and patents on copyrighted work are the most important, but putting in place a non-adversarial, low-cost dispute-resolution mechanism would also be extremely valuable. Such a system would not be perfectly just, which would be a big improvement over the current system, which is perfectly unjust.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Anonymous Coward]

It is unfortunate to see both sides of the discussion using the same flawed reasoning techniques (and on slashdot, getting high scores for it as being "insightful"). The interests of Patent Hawk do not in themselves imply their assertions are false. However, Patent Hawk's inability to form/express a cogent argument will hopefully lead most readers in that direction.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumsta ntial-ad-hominem.html

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[back_pages]

as far as I'm concerned most patents aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Amazon pays $40m in patent settlement. HP pays $141m in patent settlement. Digene Corp. pays Georgetown University $7.5m plus royalties in patent settlement. Medtronic pays $1.35 billion in patent settlement. I mean, I don't want to call you a liar, but it seems to me, just kinda, jumps out at me, maybe I'm just mistaken, but it seems like patents are worth more than the paper they're printed on.

I've said it before (check my post history) and I'll say it again. Slashdot is the Fox News of Patents. It's just a bunch of people standing around a burning barrel bitching about something they don't (or refuse) to understand.

And no shit nobody pays any attention to that.

But if you ask anybody around Slashdot, it's because Slashdot has the geniuses while they system is filled with idiots. I'm no psychologist, but I'm pretty sure that begins to meet the symptoms of schizophrenia.

But don't let me slow anybody down. By the way, I'm in no way associated with but recommend Patently-O. Try understanding the system that you hate so that you don't end up making statement like:

For example, it's not unusual to word a patent in such a way that a genuinely innovative company that would not even compete with the patent 'taker' will have to go and license (overbroad patenting by design).

I mean seriously, WTF. Please show one legitimate example of this . Don't be like this guy. Know what you're talking about.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[back_pages]

There is absolutely no oversight on what gets patented and what not

USPTO, CAFC, US District Court, and the US Supreme Court. Maybe you're heard of one or two of them.

it's *WAY* too easy to get a patent on something frivolous

Please cite any statute, federal code, or case law suggesting that frivolous ideas aren't protected by patents. (PLEASE refer to the term "useful arts", because I'm dying to explain what that term actually means in the patent system.)

it should not be possible to get something patented without actual development

A fair point. Call your senator and congressmen. This is a complaint about the United States Code.

and the presentation of a working device.

I agree! Inventors who cannot afford to develop their own prototype DESERVE NO PATENT! Like you, sir, I also spit upon the poor. Incredibly wise of you!

Business methods and software should NOT be patentable at all, or only for an extremely short period.

See my first answer. Everybody agreed with you about this (USPTO, CAFC, US District Court) except one (Supreme Court). Why the hell ONE group gets to decide law for the REST of us is beyond me. What is this, the freaking Kingdom of the Supreme Court! GOSH!

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[feijai]

I realize this is a post on a user forum and hardly authoritative, but it was the best I could find on short notice to respond to the 'nitwit' belittlement.

I was unkind, and your response was levelheaded. Let me back off. Here's the deal:

• Apple gave Xerox a $1 million block of pre-IPO stock in return for the rights to visit PARC, without an NDA, and take notes. Xerox showed them everything openly and happily. Keep in mind this is well before software patents etc. http://www.woz.org/letters/pirates/12.html, http://www.sitepoint.com/article/real-history-gui/ 5 http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html
• Apple subsequently hired half of the Alto staff.
• Xerox later sued Apple, claiming Apple was using Xerox-"copyrighted" code. The complaint wasn't so much that Apple was making money off of the code, as it was that Xerox was not able to license the code to others because the others were worried Apple would sue them. http://www.krsaborio.net/research/legal/xerox.htm
• The lawsuit was not dismissed on a "technicality" -- it was dismissed because Xerox's claims were found to be entirely unfounded. Apple wasn't using a single bit of Xerox code. Furthermore, Xerox had decided long ago not to patent the relevant technology. And the judge ruled that if other firms were worried about being sued by Apple, then it was they and not Xerox who should be suing Apple.
• Unlike the Apple-Xerox transaction, Microsoft didn't pay Apple anything.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Coniptor]

Shut up retard. Your opinion is worthless and presents no valid counter arguement.
The patent system is NOT SUSTAINABLE as it is and with ANY one of the kind of people who have already had a hand in perverting it continue to do so it will NEVER recover.

Keep fantasing all the way to hell about striking it rich and being able to kick your feet up and never work again asswipe.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[cthellis]

Unlike the Apple-Xerox transaction, Microsoft didn't pay Apple anything.

...not to mention they probably did more than a little code-leeching, since they had a whole lot of access to Apple's OS code for software development.

Apple, however, subsequently farked up the licensing agreement.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[Fishstick]

>I was unkind, and your response was levelheaded.

Well, I'm glad then I fought off my initial impulse to call you an ass-ramming testicle-shitting donkey-raping rectal wart. ;-)

Seriously though, thanks for the links. I think I had formed my impression of what had happened based on a Frontline episode & that Gates vs Jobs made-for-tv movie. I never really cared much one way or the other, but I do understand it better now and I thank you for taking the time to set me straight.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[nothings]

I think there's a valid meta-debate issue that is implied, though.

In a public policy debate, the idea is supposed to be that the law in question is maybe actually good public policy in that it has indirect benefits for the public, as well as direct benefits for certain individuals.

For example, in the copyright debate, some people will argue that the copyright monopoly offers the population at large a benefit by giving an incentive for creators to create new works. Moreover, some people argue this even though they themselves do not have a significant financial stake in copyright; that is, they will only benefit through that indirect gain of more new works. The fact that some people will argue even this position even though they only gain indirectly gives some credence to the idea that it's a legitimate public policy argument.

On the other hand, you have the patent argument. A similar claim is advanced re: innovation. However, in my experience, everyone who defends (software) patents turns out to have a direct financial stake:

• patent holders (and patent-holders-to-be)
• patent lawyers
• the patent office

Obviously a government program that gives money to people of type A, B, and C is beneficial to people of type A, B, and C, and of course people of type A, B, and C are going to be in favor of such a program. But this is not evidence that such a program is good public policy, especially if it deprives other people of something (in this case, by granting a monopoly).

So when an individual in the patent debate turns out to have a direct stake in patents, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I'm not even going to bother reading that because I've seen this pattern far too many times over the last 15 years.

Re:PatentHawk charges $125/hour

[back_pages]

Shut up retard. Your opinion is worthless and presents no valid counter arguement.

He said that patents aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I cited four patent settlements that totaled something like $1.8 billion dollars. Not only did you misspell "argument," you don't appear to understand what the word means.

Keep fantasing all the way to hell about striking it rich and being able to kick your feet up and never work again asswipe.

What on earth are you replying to?

Four examples

[karvind]

Patently Silly

Totally Absurd Patents

IP funny

Patent of the week

I am sure there are more, but it gives you a glimpse of the absurdity in patents. Some of the patents are funny too .. so enjoy :) (just don't spill coffee while reading)

And The Cure....

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The only way to purge this infestation is to burn the infection out with high priced legal action!!

Oh wait...

BeavisWeek?

[Flaming Babies]

I couldn't take anything in the Patent Prospector link seriously after reading that...
When you can't make it through one paragraph before resorting to namecalling,
you must not have a very strong argument to make.

Re:BeavisWeek?

[Billosaur]

When you can't make it through one paragraph before resorting to namecalling, you must not have a very strong argument to make.

Of course they don't. They're busy trying to capitalize off the explosion in patents. They'd hate for the process to become fair and reasonable, because then the number of numbskulls they could charge $2000 for their services would dry up and they's have to go back to their paper routes.

It's always easier to pooh-pooh complaints about a problem when you're helping to create the problem.

Re:BeavisWeek?

[ahsile]

I concur. The namecalling (and the little picture they had beside it: "BeavisWeek: Lies") really turned me off the whole article. I believe the author should take a course in Critical Thinking. Even some slashdot posters can put together posts without letting insults fly (sometimes).

Re:BeavisWeek?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you really shouldn't talk about our friends the french like that.

Re:BeavisWeek?

[InfiniteWisdom]

Someone should point out my sig to them :)

Make Public

[superpulpsicle]

There should be a law to make public the patents that are in dispute in plain English. Like Billion dollar Corp vs Little joe's pet project etc.

I think if people can see how ridiculous some of these claims are, they will actually think twice before abusing their power. Usually the one with the deepest pocket wins anyways.

Re:Make Public

[theonlyholle]

Hmm, really? I think unfortunately there's pretty much nothing that will deter some people/companies from abusing their power (or what power they believe to have) - anyone remember SCO vs. IBM?

Re:Make Public

[Torinir]

anyone remember SCO vs. IBM?

We should... it's still going. Nothing outlasts the SCO-gizer. It keeps suing and suing and suing...

Re:Make Public

[Jerry Coffin]

There should be a law to make public the patents that are in dispute in plain English.

Let's see -- how about if we went a bit further, and required that all of every patent be made public, even if it's not in dispute. Then we could require that the patent itself require a description of what it covers, in plain English. As long as we're at it, we might as well require that it not only describe the invention itself, but how to make and use it, and require that this description be understandable to anybody who works in that area of technology.

Maybe wording something like this:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Wouldn't that be great?

Looking at 35 USC 112, maybe that idea's not very original though.

Re:Make Public

[KarmaOverDogma]

That's one of the finer pieces of sarcasm I have seen in quite a while.

Still, I think part of what the parent poster was getting at is the often uneccessary complication/obsfucation of contracts/legal complaints and other legal matters. This does not mean it has to be free and open to the public when it's not approriate for certain parties to be invloved, but when things are so complicated that the common man cannot understand, let along participate, in legal matters without hiring an attorney (which is another debate entirely) we are, IMO, getting far away from the 14th Amendment and the need for an inclusive, informed and deliberative society in general.

I personally feel that all *contracts* and legal complaints/rulings should be written in "plain english." However, I have heard from some sharks, er, I mean attorneys, that while there is some usefulness to making legalese easier to understand, it does often serve the purpose of being very specific and distict to the task at hand.

Still, I think this can be done most often without having to resort to language that is often so arcane that unless you are an attorney you run the risk of not understanding (or worse, misunderstanding) the legal matter at hand. I dont mean to say that legalese does not have its place in very specific circumstances, just that it has gone way too far in that direction. Some may say that this is merely proposing the "dumbing down" of our legal system and/or it's language, but I believe a distinction can be made between the expression of an idea and/or concept and the understanding of it. For example, outside of a discussion amoungst collegues in a partuclar event for the purpose of absolute clarity and brevity, instead of saying "the biota experienced a 100% mortality response," why not just say "All the fish died"? If you look at both phrases literally they do say exactly the same thing, but one is a whole heck of a lot easier for the common man to understand.

Some may say, "but that just leaves room for people to misinterpret and misunderstand," to which I respond "and complicated legalese that takes twice as long to say does not?"

This all gets to a lot of hair-splitting over a subject that may be far off from what you were trying to communicate, if so please pardon my soapbox speech; I'll get off of it now.

Patent-exploiters are hackers...

[mi]

They are not the ones, who built the exploitable system. They just use it -- legally.

Re:Patent-exploiters are hackers...

[Skeptical1]

Very insightful, however more and more, the ones with the interests and means to change the laws are bending the laws the suit themselves, i. e. rewriting the system.

How about this simple change-

[GWSuperfan]

In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting. Otherwise, the product/concept/business process/whatever else we've decided is patentable this week is subject to invalidation if someone else can produce a working example first. This would completely eliminate "patent trolls" and would provide a much larger incentive for entities seeking patents to bring their ideas/concepts/products to market more quickly.

Re:How about this simple change-

[Andrewkov]

Also I say we should allow people to build a product that *improves* on an existing patent, while not cloning an existing product. This way the patent holder is still protected from people cloning his product, but innovation can still happen in the marketplace.

Re:How about this simple change-

[kannibal_klown]

But then you get to the murky definition of "improve."

Inventor A: Look, I just patented a device that will remove boarfix broken pixels. I'm gonna make a fortune.
Inventor B: Wow. That's a great idea.
2 weeks later
Inventor B: Look, I just patented an improvement on your pixel fixer.
Inventor A: It looks just like mine and uses the same principles.
Inventor B: But mine has a cup holder. So they can fix pixels AND drink beverages.

Re:How about this simple change-

[sammy baby]

Unfortunately, that rule may defeat the entire purpose of having a patent.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're a real life engineer with a real life idea for a genuinely useful (and non-obvious) device. The problem is, these devices are extremely difficult to construct, requiring equipment or materials outside the reach of the individual.

As it stands right now, you could apply for a patent for your device. Assuming you're approved, you can then take your design to a company with the resources to implement your design, and license them the right to use it.

Sans patent, there's really nothing presenting the company from saying, "Hey, great idea. Think I'll take it." Then, since they have the resources that you lack, they're free to go ahead and build your idea, without having paid you a dime.

As it turns out, the "someone else produces a working example first" thing is already in patent law. It's called "prior art."

Re:How about this simple change-

[i_should_be_working]

Then maybe the requirement should be for a 'realistic design' or blueprint that includes specifics of how, exactly, it works. That at least would narrow down the area that the patent covers. No more patenting a general idea that covers many different implementations. Software application patents would have to actually have code.

The patent could also cover anything directly derived from the design, so the company you go to in order to get your device built can't just take your idea and improve upon it and call it theirs.

Re:How about this simple change-

[pete-classic]

The prior art element is clearly failing.

I think the idea has merit. How about allowing application without a working prototype, but require the prototype before the patent can be issued?

-Peter

Re:How about this simple change-

[parodyca]

I would also suggest heavy penalties for companies that produce junk patents. If all NTPs patents were declared void because (is it up to 5 now?) patents found wanting, then that would make them (and others) think harder before submitting their patents. It would quickly relieve RIM of its problems as well.

As a side note I can't figure out why RIM is not counter-suing NTP and also suing the USPTO for negligence.

Re:How about this simple change-

[Overzeetop]

I don't see why it would fail. Heck, I'd add that you must either manufacture your device in commerically suffcient quantites within 1 year of granting of the patent, or be subject to mandatory licensing, at a fixed rate. Now, that seems harsh, but the purpose of patents is not profit. Profit is just an incentive to create, and the intent of patents is to encourage creation.

If you've invented the first bread-slicing machine, keep it secret until you've got VCs on board. I hate to say it, but the days of the super-inventor working in his garden shed are over. Tell your grandpa to go get a lawyer and work up an NDA along with the drawings if you want to pitch your idea to MegaCorp.

Re:How about this simple change-

[ivan256]

I hate to say it, but the days of the super-inventor working in his garden shed are over.

Right, they're more likely to work in their home office where they have electricity and a computer.

Just because today's technology seems too complicated for you to imagine being able to invent something yourself doesn't mean the rest of us are so handicapped. The goal should be to protect the individual inventor more, not less. For example, the tools of nanotechnology, devices that can manipulate matter on a molecular level, can be built at home for a few hundred dollars. It's just as likely that some guy with a homemade scanning tunneling electron microscope will invent some big nanotech product as somebody in a billion dollar lab somewhere. Some of the best insights into new technologies have come from industry/academic outsiders, and there's no reason to believe that this won't continue to be true.

I agree with you about compulsory licensing though, especially for pharmaceutical products.

Re:How about this simple change-

[Jerry Coffin]

In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting.

Not a new idea -- in fact, once upon a time, you were required to submit a working model with every patent application (in the US). The USPTO still has a museum of these working models, but storage became a problem.

Otherwise, the product/concept/business process/whatever else we've decided is patentable this week is subject to invalidation if someone else can produce a working example first. This would completely eliminate "patent trolls" and would provide a much larger incentive for entities seeking patents to bring their ideas/concepts/products to market more quickly.

This, however, favors larger companies (and such) with greater resources even more strongly than is currently the case. Assume, for example, that I have an idea for how to make CPUs twice as fast without using any more power than is currently the case. To build a single CPU using this technique I have to raise something like a million dollars just for mask work. Meanwhile Intel or IBM gets wind of the idea, and uses my invention to build a few CPUs in their own fab, so I can't get a patent on my idea -- in short, you've legalized their stealing my invention.

Re:How about this simple change-

[Derling Whirvish]

How about this simple change: In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting.

That's the way the Patent Office actually worked between 1834 and 1880. In 1880 they dropped the requirement for a model to be submitted along with the patent application and made it "subject to request by the Patent Office if they thought the application was infeasible for some reason or another. The provision for the Patent Office to be able to request a model was even later dropped. So your idea has been used in the past -- a sort of "prior art" if you will.

Re:How about this simple change-

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Not such a problem if people still have to license from you to get into the game, and then have to license the "improvements" to be competitive. Just licensing the improvements will only get you the cupholder, and what good is that without the boarfix broken pixel remover? It is just a cupholder.

Re:How about this simple change-

[vertinox]

Sans patent, there's really nothing presenting the company from saying, "Hey, great idea. Think I'll take it." Then, since they have the resources that you lack, they're free to go ahead and build your idea, without having paid you a dime.

If it is that complicated, then they'll have to hire you on. You can't just steal plans for a particle accelerator that generates fusion power by what you scribled down on a coffee napkin.

Seriously, people if you can't replicate a prototype then you need to make yourself required for the deal. If you can't do that then your idea was probaly not going to work with feasible means.

The issue here is that information and ideas are not important, these things are going to be $0 dollar value commodity. The fact you can process and generate information in a certain fashion should be of value and this is why the companies pay you the money.

Otherwise your just an infinite monkey sitting on a toliet thinking up infinite ideas which may or may not have pratical value in the real world.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

What do we have to look forward to?

With the RIAA claiming vigilante rights over music copyrights, I'd hate to see what militant/terrorist group the patent lawyers come up.

Re:Oh no!

[KarmaOverDogma]

"With the RIAA claiming vigilante rights over music copyrights..."

The RIAA did not claim any such vigilante rights - they were legally purchased from Congress, just like copyright extension.

So there. :-P

Strange sense of deja vu...

[Caspian]

SlashDot recently covered another BusinessWeek opinion piece entitled "Cutting Through the Patent Thicket", which argued that "the current U.S. system is harming innovation. A simplified process with stronger patents would encourage economic growth".

Re:Strange sense of deja vu...

[trosenbl]

SlashDot recently covered another BusinessWeek opinion piece entitled "Cutting Through the Patent Thicket", which argued that "the current U.S. system is harming innovation. A simplified process with stronger patents would encourage economic growth".

I'm not sure of the intent of this post, but I think this is a good thing. This means that the general public is being more and more exposed to the idea that the patent system is in need of change. No matter how necessary a change is, unless the public wants it to happen (and thus is aware of it), it won't happen.

On the other hand, we've all seen the quality of results that comes from a large group of people clamoring for speedy change in the government.

Re:Strange sense of deja vu...

[Shadowlore]

Patenting Deja Vu

Basically.

the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[cheesedog]

The downside to the articles is that the recommended changes require MORE laws and MORE government intrusion rather than less. Does anyone really think that the same coercive laws can really be fixed with more coercive laws? Will we see laws "protecting" freedoms by taking them away?

So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?

If you are sympathetic to the idea of abolishing patents and you live on this planet, the best you can hope for is gradual change towards weakening the power of patent monopolies. Only by performing the experiment of reducing patent force can our society begin to see the benefits of less government interference in essential human rights, such as the right to build stuff and the right to create new things -- rights that patent monopolies prevent you from doing.

So I guess what I'm saying is, instead of pooh-pooing meaningful patent reform, you should be supporting it. Unless, of course, you are advocating sitting on our hands and letting the IP-maximalists continue to increase and concentrate their power.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[dada21]

So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?

The latter would be great. The current system of patents was completely broken from the start. Even if the US had the best patent law in the world, what stops other countries from ignoring it? I don't want to see the military going overseas to protect patents, and I don't like ANY trade deals as they are all forms of favoritism.

If you are sympathetic to the idea of abolishing patents and you live on this planet, the best you can hope for is gradual change towards weakening the power of patent monopolies.

How? There is no chance of things getting gradually better -- laws that protect 10 cartels worth billions are not going to get changed by 200 million individuals who might save $10 a year each because of the monopolies created. 10 people chasing $2 billion will work harder than 200 million people chasing $2 billion.

Only by performing the experiment of reducing patent force can our society begin to see the benefits of less government interference in essential human rights, such as the right to build stuff and the right to create new things -- rights that patent monopolies prevent you from doing.

I agree, but my argument from the previous paragraph stands: you won't see things becoming "kinder and better" as long as we allow Congress and the federal branches such abusive powers.

Unless, of course, you are advocating sitting on our hands and letting the IP-maximalists continue to increase and concentrate their power.

Their power that We the People granted them by ignoring the Constitution. We gave our federal branches the ultimate powers that they were never allowed, and we're surprised that they give those powers to the highest bidders?

The solution is no more laws and more control/regulation. The solution is to remove those powers from the federal politicians, and return them to the People.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Even if the US had the best patent law in the world, what stops other countries from ignoring it? They'll have a hard time selling the patented goods in the US. Take China, which flouts computer/video game patents openly. However, they're very careful to obey the law regarding textile/electronics exports, because it's a large part of their economy.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[cheesedog]

Your views of the political world are very cynical. And I don't blame you -- our politicos inspire a lot of cynicism. And I absolutely agree that the corporate hijacking of our political process is discouraging.

But I cannot allow myself to wallow in cynicism. As long as there is a good fight worth fighting, I'll fight it. To do otherwise is cowardly, isn't it?

So, here's my challenge to you: if you don't like any of the proposed solutions, propose one that you do like, and let us know how to help and why we should. If you want to abolish the patent system, tell us how you plan to go about it, and what steps we can take to help you achieve it.

Otherwise, you are just sucking up valuable mindspace.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[dada21]

I don't need to propose anything, really, because my "dream" utopia is coming to fruition with almost NO need for me. I look at the Internet and see anarchy at work. Sure, many governments are trying to find ways to control the web, and megacorporations are, as well, but in the end the individual is finding just as much strength as everyone else. Do I fear Google or MS or Yahoo could take over at any minute? No, because anyone else can come up with a better product and get it in motion if the market wants it.

eBay is a great example of anarchy in motion -- it isn't chaotic or nihilistic at all, it is two people with needs trading with one another and both parties profiting from the trade. Sure, eBay may rely still on some legal procedures, but they're connecting people in different countries with different laws and the process mostly works. The same is true of the blogs out there: how many bloggers include copyright symbols on their blogs? Quoting, sharing, linking -- it all works to get information out there in a controlled anarchy -- controlled by the market, not by the government.

The only way I see anything falling apart is if the Internet gets regulated more, or if central authorities find a way to control it. I don't see that happening, especially with the anarchy of BitTorrent and AIM and other systems that provide for competitors to come in and give them a run for their money.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[cheesedog]

The only way I see anything falling apart is if the Internet gets regulated more, or if central authorities find a way to control it

But isn't that exactly what our current patent system allows? I.e., there isn't another priceline.com because priceline has a monopoly on Internet reverse auctions.

When I look at the number of patents issued that cover essential Internet techonologies and even simple programming practices, I see a world that teeters on the edge of widespread regulation and central control.

To date, many of these [defensive] patents haven't been excercised. But we are beginning to see the lawyers come out of the woodwork, so to speak, and trying to put anything up on the web is increasingly a process of obtaining the correct "permissions" from those holding exclusive patent monopolies.

I know this from personal experience, having had to remove a simple research project, website, and java applet from the web while in college because of a cease-and-desist letter received from a patent holder. It didn't matter that I didn't think the patents applied to my work. It didn't matter that I thought I could win the "right" to continue my work in a court of law -- I didn't have the resources to go through that battle, so I folded.

And I'm not the only one.

In my case, the project I worked on wasn't earth-shattering, but I certainly think it could have made the world just a tiny-eeny-wee bit better had I been allowed to continue. My fear is that we are squashing a lot of really earth-shattering stuff that could benefit all of us, as well as their inventors.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

The latter [ get rid of the patent system ] would be great. The current system of patents was completely broken from the start.

It would take a constitutional amendment to "get rid of" patents. Making the filing of a frivolous patent a felony would fix the system.

Don't expect that to happen, though. The multinational corporations own the US government lock, stock, and barrel. Your vote is a meaningless joke when GM can bribe both candidates equally.

Their power that We the People granted them by ignoring the Constitution.

Actually, Section II article 8 sets patents and copyrights.

Look at the bright side, though - at least patents only last 20 years, unlike copyrights. If copyrights were as short as patents, almost every CD, tape, and album in my collection would be in the public domain. The Dirty Harry movies would be in the public domain. The Terminator would be, as well as most of Disney's trash.

Also on the bright side is that the system is starting to annoy the big multinationals, so you can expect change. Just don't expect any change that helps the little guy.

A note on anarchy: It's been tried and doesn't work. Anarchy leads immediately to monarchy. When there are no laws, the guy with the biggest army is the law. Which (ahem) isn't much different from Amerika (Heil Bush) today.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[zcat_NZ]

Since you mentioned it first..

    Copyrights and patents are OPTIONAL.. "congress _may_ .." grant a limited monopoly, the constitution doesn't say they have to.

    More important however, is the phrase "To promote the sciences and useful arts..". This is the only reason given in the constitution that justifies the existence of copyright, patent and trademark protection. Any law that fails "to promote the sciences and useful arts", and certainly any law that can be shown to hold back the sciences and useful arts is completely unconstitutional and should be overturned immediately.

    The current patent system is borderline. Patents in software are clearly unconstitutional. The DMCA is completely unconstitutional. And apparently nobody cares any more.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[Elektroschock]

I would be great to

* get a real US patent reform
* let the US sign the EPC
* cut budget of WIPO
* get rid off the TRIPs inflexibilities.

All this is Libertarian thinking so to speak.

Whatever you want the patent system to be: It is worth to get organised with like-minded people.

For Fighting Software Patenting subscription to
http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl
could be very useful.

As an European I am surprised by the capacity weakness of the US debate. Either you get organised or your get ignored and evil things just happen.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[LordoftheLemmings]

Don't expect that to happen, though. The multinational corporations own the US government lock, stock, and barrel. Your vote is a meaningless joke when GM can bribe both candidates equally.

Shift of blame. You are blaming the corporations. You take no responsiblitlity for yourself. Who did you vote for the last election? Is the people elected in your government the result of the corporations or the people. I hear a lot of this crap lately. Crying about how the evil companies are the blame for all of the worlds problems. No one blames peoples the sheep like mentality of voteing for the same two damn parties all the time. If you don't like the people in government, help others to get elected or run yourself. This is a government for the people by the people. Your cynical acceptance of the status quo is what allows a few immoral corporations to take advantage of situations created by your indifference.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you expand on how software patents are unconstitutional? And please compare and contrast software patents vs. hardware patents and mechanical patents.

How are software patents radically different?

I don't wish to shoot you down just learn what the view point of others is on this issue.

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are software patents radically different?

I'll see your question with another: How does a patent on the FAT filesystems promote the sciences or arts? FAT was patented until just a couple of years ago when Microsoft threatened some camera/flash makers with licensing fees, and the camera makers fought back. Even had the filesystem not be copied practically verabatim from a textbook (which resulted in it being overturned), is a 20 year old filesystem patent promoting anything?

In the general sense, what case can you make for 20 year patents to promote any innovation when said innovation is "old hat" in a year or less? By itself, this would not be such a critical issue: Microsoft could claim they are using the revenues from older patents to develop new innovations. But, with the emergence of the "patent trolls", technologies are being locked up in such a way further innovation is either impossible or just very expensive. What reason would a researcher have to develop better AI, when he or she has to pay $50,000 to one patent holder for the operation of a dual-layer neural network, $2000 to another for a method by which a computer can identify an object in an image, $8000 to yet another for a method by which a computer can identify multiple objects in an image, and so on (these are merely examples, though computer vision techniques probably are patented). Worse, should researchers shell out the dough, they do not receive a dual-layer neural network or a computer vision implementation, no, they merely receive permission to use one, should they manage to come up with one.

(as an aside, this alone makes "idea" patents radically different than historical ones: should someone license a mechanical patent, the patent itself was the implementation, one would simply refer to the diagrams within, where the inventor had already done the design work.)

Worse still is the next level: If the researchers invent a brand new beast that performs the same function as a two-layer neural network, but in a different way (perhaps better... say twice as fast), the patent holder will still have them put up against the wall, because unlike a machine where one can easily disassemble it to see how it works, compiled software is a nice black box. So the patent holder sues the researchers, and the researchers are forced to choose: lose, settle, or release the source code to the software so that they can prove that they have in fact created something new. You can bet that should they do the latter, the patent holder's next version of their software (assuming it's not just a "troll") will "mysteriously" be twice as fast as the previous. Of course, should the researcher be with a large company, their lawyers will probably deal with the other company's lawyers and iron that out, but if you're working on your PhD and living off your stipend, what are you going to do when someone at your thesis defense points out that FooCorp just released a product just like the research you were doing?

Now, as for extending that to proof of unconstituionality, that I'll leave to the original grandparent ;)

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to remove those powers from the federal politicians, and return them to the People.

If you return them to the people, then they are no longer powers, because they no longer represent a "right" to initiate force (an actual power over other individuals). They are simply the human rights that individuals have always posessed and deserved by nature, regardless of what the current law says.

An individual has a natural (god-given if you prefer) right to voluntary association. That is not an initiation of force; it is the exact opposite. It is a natural human right because it does not represent agression against any individual. On the contrary, when government holds the "right" to prohibit you from some act of voluntary association, it is founded on an initiation of force. Human nature does not grant them the right to do so; sheer force does (i.e. guns).

And FYI, when you say that "we" granted powers to government, that does not, in any way, include me.

Re: the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[Black Parrot]

> If you are sympathetic to the idea of abolishing patents and you live on this planet, the best you can hope for is gradual change towards weakening the power of patent monopolies.

Unfortunately our lobbyarchy is eagerly strengthening it rather than weakening it.

There's a law in the works (google for "patent reform"; also discussed on Slashdot last spring, IIRC) that would change a number of the provisions of current patent law, supposedly in the name of reducing lawsuits. The most shocking provision, IMO, is that patents would be awarded to whoever filed first rather than whoever actually invented it (to reduce court cases, of course).

Thus if you created a game that had a nifty idea in it that some company or rich fart saw, he could patent it and charge you a fee for using your own idea.

And it doesn't even have to be an idea certain to be worth patenting. We already have "technology firms" that operate by buying up everything on the assurance that a few "hits" will compensate for all the stuff they paid to patent but couldn't leverage. The little guy can't afford to do that.

I don't have the faintest idea what this would do to the doctrine of prior art. It seems to be completely incompatible. Wouldn't you like to be the "first to file" for a patent on the wheel, the wing, the nail, the roof, etc.?

Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?

[dada21]

I agree with you. The comment I posted a few minutes ago ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172857&cid=143 91891 ) points to the changes I made in my life to back out of the support of the initiation of force.

Drop me an e-mail.

Best quote from the article

[Billosaur]

From Business Week: Old Economy companies face similar trouble. Apparel maker VF Corp., for instance, regularly gets letters complaining it has infringed bra patents. "In the old days you would think of these things as the tinkering of a technician who knew his way around women's apparel...and wouldn't even think about getting a patent on it," says Peter Sullivan, the attorney who filed the brief in the KSR case on behalf of VF and others. "How many bra patents can you possibly have?"

That says it all.

Re:Best quote from the article

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but my friend is a retired bra patent specialist, and he still likes to keep his hand in the business.

Re:Best quote from the article

[mopslik]

"How many bra patents can you possibly have?"

I'm guessing it's some multiple of two.

Re:Best quote from the article

[b1t r0t]

"How many bra patents can you possibly have?"

It looks like we have problem here with over bra-ed patents.

Re:Best quote from the article

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but I'm off to patent the idea of having all the joints between straps & cups made with remote controlled electromagnets rather than stitching and clasps.

All 3 billion men on the planet are going to want to buy one for that special someone and I'm going to be a millionaire, whooooo!

a friend of mine in high school

[kevin.fowler]

16 year old kid invents 2 cool things, takes them to 2 companies for good-faith reviews. both are patented by the companies within a month and are never commercially marketed.

just one of many seedy things i've heard patents being used for. of course the situation is different, but it leads to the same result... stunted innovation.

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[silentbozo]

That's why publishing your invention (assuming you're willing to give up overseas patent protection) is so important to keeping knowledge in the public space. In the US, you can publish and still file within a year of disclosure, which means you can get feedback on your invention and introduce it to the public, without fearing that some asshole patent portfolio will scoop it up and use it as another tollbooth against industry and innovation.

A lot of people will tell you that you should file before disclosing, but who can afford to file? Big companies with lawyers on salary, research universities with lawyers on salary, and companies that are made up of nothing but lawyers.

If you can't make truckloads of money on something you invented, at least you can make sure that people can benefit by the knowledge that you have gained. And if enough people start believing in the stuff that you've created, you might stand a better chance of getting the money and support to patent, produce, and market your NEXT invention.

At least, this is my opinion, having researched the process for something I built and thought was obvious in the field, but people kept telling me I ought to patent.

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[Moby Cock]

My Master's thesis advisor pressured me into filing a patent on an UWB antenna I designed. I never did bother to file, mostly because I wouldn't have made any money on it. Although he refused to forward a paper I had written for an IEEE Transactions because he was afraid of losing patent elligibility. I don't know if he ever filed, he never contacted me about it, and I invented it.

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[corbettw]

That's why publishing your invention is so important to keeping knowledge in the public space.

I'm really curious about this. I'll explain more in a minute, but I have an idea but I don't want to pay thousands of dollars to get it patented. I do, however, want to start production in the next few months, and want to make sure my idea is protected, at least in the US (I'm not that concerned with overseas markets, if this one takes off maybe I will be for my next one). How does it work to publish your idea, and still have protection from competitors stealing it?

I performed a preliminary patent search, and it looks like this thing is not currently patented. A product search on Froogle, Amazon, The Sharper Image, and Wal-Mart turned up nothing like it, and price quotes from suppliers in India and China (thanks to AliBaba.com) mean the item would have a production cost of about $1.50 per unit, in denominations of at least 10,000. Based on similar products, the retail value should be $20 each, easily.

So, long story short, I've got something that could make me rich, but don't have the foggiest notion what to do first, short of getting ripped off by an "invention search firm". Any suggestions?

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[dwandy]

Introduce your friend to the acronym NDA. (s)he'll thank you from his/her yacht later...

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[beisbol]

Won't publishing your invention jeopardize your ability to obtain a patent for your invention in other countries? I believe some countries will not issue you a patent if your invention becomes public knowledge even one day before you file an application.

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[kevin.fowler]

This was a a long time ago, and I know for a fact that he went into those meetings naively, and without any actual paperwork about confidentiality. I'm sure that since then he's gotten his act together about not getting screwed over.

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[amliebsch]

Any suggestions?

Yes. Don't ask Slashdot. Ask a lawyer.

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Lucky you to have the option. My university owns the rights to research done for a thesis. Likewise, anything you turn in for credit (an unusual solution to a homework problem, for instance).

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[gvibes]

Definitely talk to a lawyer. ~$10k would be the cost of typical patent application.

Re:a friend of mine in high school

[gvibes]

FYI - if he ever sues on the patent, he loses. The patent is invalid for improper inventorship.

Re:Four examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazy mods?

This is kind of funny...I was going to mod this post up but I wanted to check that the links actually were informative and not shockpages. By the time I looked up a couple of those links, it was already +5. Way to go in the laziness department mods.

bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

to patents

Patent the patent system

[digitaldc]

Then nobody will be able to do anything.

Re:Patent the patent system

[Anonymous Coward]

But then only criminals will have patent's, or something like that...

Noncooperation

[Anonymous Coward]

What I think is needed is a concerted (Concerted: Unity achieved by mutual communication of views, ideas, and opinions ) movement of noncooperation with the software patent system. We must make the software without regard to the patent laws surrounding it.

We must refuse to pay the fines when taken to court if it comes to it.

If they put software developers in jail for this, the outrage would be huge, I don't think it would ever come to this, though I can't be sure. The system is unjust and we must make that so visible in our noncooperation with it, that they have no choice but to change or abolish these laws.

PS: Abolishing software patent law does not affect the GPL or other free-software licenses, these you copyright law, not patent law.

Re:Noncooperation

[TheDredd]

If they put software developers in jail for this, the outrage would be huge

Great idea! any volunteers??

Re:Noncooperation

[deathy_epl ccs]

They wouldn't put you in jail, though... they'd garnish your wages, take your car, your home, and everything you own. Jail is for criminal violations.

Re:Noncooperation

[Anonymous Coward]

If they put software developers in jail for this, the outrage would be huge, I don't think it would ever come to this, though I can't be sure.

I wouldn't be so sure about that outrage, but it wouldn't come to that anyway because these are civil matters. What would actually happen is that companies which use the patent-infringing software get sued. And then companies will stop using such dangerous software because they're in the business of making whatever the hell it is they make and not the business of promoting your pet theories about software. And so the software you're trying to use as a hammer becomes irrelevant.

What you're suggesting, essentially, is civil disobedience. It's one of the strongest tools we have for social change. But I don't see how it's going to make a damned bit of difference in this case. You have to pick the right tool for the job.

This is patently absurd.

[mmell]

There. Somebody had to say it!

Re:This is patently absurd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone said that already before you (And with a link too). You may wanna read before you post.

Re:This is patently absurd.

[mmell]

They hadn't posted as of the time I clicked "reply".

But here's the link you wanted.

Patents In and Of Themselves Are Not Evil

[ausoleil]

The problem with patents is not that they are being granted at all, as some intellectual anarchists would have you believe, it is that they are being granted for entirely obvious "inventions" that are not really inventions at all. I will not bother to list them, one only has to look into the portfolio of a Jeff Bezos to see that these things are not being reviewed for prior art, orginality or utility, but are instead being rubber-stamped by reviewers more intent on clearing their desk than doing their jobs. Even when they try to do their jobs, rarely does it seem that they know what they are looking at, and rarely do they reject anything for being an entirely obvious application.

Until such time that patents are made more valuable by requiring an invention to be truly unique, the problem of patents being used predatorily to stifle competition will continue. This will take a sea change in Congress, and will be fought tooth and nail by the large corporations with large patent portfolios. They'll naturally claim that each and every patent is indeed a wonderful thing and that each and every patent that they hold should be upheld.

The only thing I can see coming of this is another windfall for lawyers who'll end up battling this out in the courts, one way or the other. It may sound pessimistic, but the truth is that the people and fairness will lose out in the long run.

Re:Patents In and Of Themselves Are Not Evil

[vertinox]

This will take a sea change in Congress, and will be fought tooth and nail by the large corporations with large patent portfolios.

The only way to fix that is to get rid of the house of Represtatives and replace it with something else. (Well keep the Senate because we need to keep states rights and all that) A parliment based on total number of votes from the American populace... If you win 1,000,000 votes you get a seat in congress regardless of weather those votes were from California or Texas. This will get rid of pork spending and remove the congressmen from their constituates which are mostly the businesses in their local areas.

We'll keep the senate on for that purpose...

Re:Patents In and Of Themselves Are Not Evil

[MadAhab]

You got that right. As a novice programmer in 1997, I implemented in far less than a week, with a slightly more experienced colleague, "one-click purchase". I'd never heard of one-click shopping on Amazon or anywhere else - but the fact that we were able to do this so quickly, without a single post-graduate degree or equivalent study betwen us, shows that it's not an idea that should be patentable. It is obvious.

But we didn't deploy the service - we were concerned about too many accidental orders - and of course we wouldn't show up as prior art even if we actually beat Amazon to the punch. Software patents - the vast majority of them - are business process patents, and are thus bullshit. They are anti-capitalistic, anti-inventor, and pro-statist bootlicker. They are pro-monopolist and pro-extortionist.

I've been saying for years that the patent system is broken. For years people have regarded this statement as if I'd espoused communism. Funny that the hard core capitalists are now coming around to my point of view well in advance of the general public.

Re:Patents In and Of Themselves Are Not Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with patents is not that they are being granted at all, as some intellectual anarchists would have you believe

The reason why a true anarchist would not believe in patents is that they represent an initiation of force (like any instance of government), and not an act of voluntary association between willing individuals. In order to implement the concept of owning ideas, you need to initiate force, not retaliate against force as in a true self-defense scenario.

In contrast, the act of copying an idea for one's own benefit cannot be considered an initiation of force, no more than (for example) adopting a slang phrase from a different person.

For the ignorant slashbots

[fizteh89]

For your information, there is a so-called Provisional Patent Application available in US. It costs just 100$ to have your priority date locked for a 1-year grace period.

Better read about patent system first before posting ignorant comments

Re:For the ignorant slashbots

[silentbozo]

Yes I forgot to mention the provisional patent application within the US. It's like submitting an abstract for a paper (the paper being the actual patent application later.) I also forgot to mention that I am not a lawyer, and that you should refer all patent-related questions to a qualified attorney before you make any decisions. Lawyers (at least the ones that I've dealt with) will usually give you at least a half hour free, enough to ask a question or two, assuming you've done your homework.

Re:Ah yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding- it really is exhausting to read all of the infeasible/uninformed/exaggerated "solutions" most readers will put out there. I'd say two things to carry my end of the spectrum, without really explaining it to death:

1) You will all die without a patent system. I'm not sure I'd have even been able to use pig insulin, let alone human from recombinant source insulin, without the patent regime. Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?

2) Whining about the high-profile shortcomings of the system doesn't address whether the overall system works. We can all rend our clothes over some medical malpractice cases, but the moment one of us is a victim of actual negligence, we'd see barriers to court entry as a bad idea.

A good suggestion was embedded in the article:

[merc]

If the Patent Office closed its doors today it would need two years just to clear the backlog.

How about a 2 year moratorium on patents?

Re:A good suggestion was embedded in the article:

[sugarmotor]

Excellent suggestion. But give two years notice, and extend your period of 2 years to 3 years. In the next 5 years, a better process could be worked out. In the meantime accept patent applications, as before, but don't grant any except under the new scheme. Add another 2 years for that transition, and in 7 years we're done: 2013.

Stephan

Re:A good suggestion was embedded in the article:

[Shadowlore]

If the Patent Office closed its doors today it would need two years just to clear the backlog.

How about a 2 year moratorium on patents?

Every take a few days off? When you get back you've now got two days of backlog to wade through to get current.

Now if you quit your job , well no more backlog. ;)

To Clear Things Up a Bit

[thebdj]

First off, I believe some of their citations are a bit dubious. They mention these great critics without citing any, and use the period of two decades with no supporting fact for the decline over that time. The Patent backlog has only worsened in recent years and the only way I can think they came up with the two decade number is because that is around the time SCOTUS opened the door for software and business method patents.

Interestingly enough, the case they pointed to is in a field not covered by either of these, but this is their attack. This is probably because these have become the two hotbed matters of discussion so it is best to stick to what infuriates readers the most, I suppose. However, a decision by SCOTUS would affect all patent areas, so maybe they aren't too far off...but still.

They say the obviousness bar has been lowered. However, I truly believe it was only lowered once when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), decided to require motivations for making combinations and throwing "the one of ordinary skill in the art" out the window. Some have said this was an overreaction to hindsight issues in obviousness rejections.

They only mentioned one side of the brief as well. If I remember correctly an amiscus (that might be spelled wrong) brief was also filed against the arguments made by KSR. You see your technologies sit on one side while the bio-techs seem to be sitting on the other side, meaning two of the largest industries are pulling for opposite sides of the fight.

While they use the number of patent issuances going up, they seem to ignore the fact that patent filings have also sky-rocketed along with them. If the percentage of allowances per examinations are the same, then the stat is pretty irrelevant since the number would just be a case of more cases being viewed because of greater numbers of filings and more examiners examining cases.

I think an equally big problem with the patent process today is the number of simultaneous directions a company can use to defend itself. However, while you are waiting for a decision on one of the routes you may be decided against in another. The perfect example of this is RIM and NTP. RIM is waiting for the completion of re-examinations before the USPTO of NTPs patents and a case before SCOTUS on NTP's ability to sue RIM because of their location and operation as a Canadian company, but the District Court judge does not want to wait to hear from these cases (or the injunction case of ebay and Merch Exchange) and may force RIM into an expensive settlement that turns out to be pointless.

In the end, the blame for obviousness problems lies fairly firmly on the CAFC who added the unnecessary burden on the examiner of providing motivation for the combination of references. If this gets overturned it would send many patents tumbling and make rejections a lot easier. The last line of the article, however, is just plain wrong. I would be willing to wager that obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103 are the most common form of rejection used by the USPTO. It is very rare that anyone files for a patent for a device that has been previously released and would be rejectable under 35 USC 102. The article does provide some good information, but it also sorely lacks facts and definitely shows some degree of bias on the issue; however, it is an op-ed piece, so bias is fairly inherent.

Re:To Clear Things Up a Bit

[slo_learner]

While they use the number of patent issuances going up, they seem to ignore the fact that patent filings have also sky-rocketed along with them. If the percentage of allowances per examinations are the same, then the stat is pretty irrelevant since the number would just be a case of more cases being viewed because of greater numbers of filings and more examiners examining cases.

This paragraph assumes that the average quality of an application is the same despite the marked increase in filings. I don't believe you can justify that assumption. In fact I am quite sure it is wrong.

Re:To Clear Things Up a Bit

[mavenguy]

...around the time SCOTUS opened the door for software and business method patents.

I think the real bomb blowing up the bullwark against software and business method patentability has, like the obviousness business I will comment on below, has been the CAFC, although I haven't closely followed the SCOTUS rulings since the 1980's. Remember, don't count denials of cert as implicit affirmances of the CAFC, since, historically, patent cases have not been a SCOTUS specialty.The SCOTUS made a firm stand with the Benson case back in the late 1960's and the CCPA and successor CAFC have been chipping away ever since, leading to the current situation.

They say the obviousness bar has been lowered. However, I truly believe it was only lowered once when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), decided to require motivations for making combinations and throwing "the one of ordinary skill in the art" out the window.Some have said this was an overreaction to hindsight issues in obviousness rejections.

Bingo. This is the point I made a few weeks ago on /. As for the "hindsight" argument, this is (or maybe was, superceded, now, by the "motivation" argument) the standard boilerplate argument by the attorney to the examiner arguing against a 103 rejection (with or without amending the claims). Again, Graham Vs. Deere is the last clear SCOTUS opinion on obviousness, and the CAFC, as with software and business method patents, has been chipping away ever since with their entire, made up "interpretation" of Graham. Indeed, the creation of the CAFC and its jurisdiction over all patent appeals has created a significant legal monoculture (to use a favorite /. meme) in patent law, given how relatively infrequently the SCOTUS takes patent cases. Critics, at the time this court's creation was being debated, argued that this was not a good idea, and that patent law, as with most other areas of law handled by the Federal Judiciary, should remain the provance of the regular Circuit Courts of Appeal, and let the SCOTUS resolve conflicts. Uniformity in the law, is of source, a laudable goal, but having the possibility of several different formal legal analyses would better crystalize the issues, from which the SCOTUS could set forth a (hopefully) authoritative answer.

While they use the number of patent issuances going up, they seem to ignore the fact that patent filings have also sky-rocketed along with them. If the percentage of allowances per examinations are the same, then the stat is pretty irrelevant since the number would just be a case of more cases being viewed because of greater numbers of filings and more examiners examining cases.

Not neccessarily. While I can't cite any sources to support this (so, yeah, I'm pulling this out my ass) you have determine how much of the growth in filings is due to the natural expansion of technology (which, clearly, has exploded in many fields, even beyond pure software and business methods) and how much is due to the "previously barred" fields most relevantly software and business methods. And the allowance rates (after adjusting for the more liberal rules that have developed over the last 30 years that have lead to the filing of one or more continuing applications as a way to extend prosecution) have to measured against the increased difficulty in making 103 rejections; a good gedanken experiment would be to estimate what the filing amount and allowance rate would be under the legal regime of, say, 1970.

I would be willing to wager that obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103 are the most common form of rejection used by the USPTO. It is very rare that anyone files for a patent for a device that has been previously released and would be rejectable under 35 USC 102

You are correct. I

Re:To Clear Things Up a Bit

[thebdj]

Just for reference some consider Diamon v. Diehr the SCOTUS case that opened the way for software patents. The office attempted to limit business method patents, but the recent Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) ruling will make that harder.

Re:To Clear Things Up a Bit

[mavenguy]

Yeah, Diamond might be cited as moving in the direction of the patentability of software, but really, IMHO, does not permit hold that software, per se, constitutes 101 subject matter. The overall method was a legitimate, traditional method (i. e., tire manufacturing). The software was in the timing of a process step (vulcanizing?) that had a direct effect on the physical properties of the manufactured item. The fact that this timing algorithm was the only "point of novelty" relative to the prior art is irrelevant. Your Wikipedia reference doesn't give all the details of what was claimed, but, IIRC, there were no claims solely directed to the algorithm; indeed the opinion, again, was that the claimed invention, as a whole, must be considered.

As for business methods, this was totally a construct of the CAFC under their "if it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's permissable" approach to patent law. And, as far as the Board is concerned, they have little weight, if any, outside the Office, at least beyond the standard "presumption of validity" of any issued patent. They are nothing but an adminstrative in house review body not held with the respect accorded them 50 years ago when they were Prsesidential appointees, not inhouse promoted bureaucrats.

Litmus test for patents

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I think the simple solution is to employ some form of litmus test when a person applies for a patent.

The test I would suggest is as follows:

"If the innovation in question can be duplicated by an individual, or a group of individuals with limited time, resources, and money, then the innovation in question cannot be patented. Period!" If I can create the same technology in my garage over the weekend, there is no reason why I should have to pay royalties or licensing to implement the technology.

Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded). I simply can't understand how a patent for putting a hyperlink in a web page or a special button on a device has the same legal standing as developing a hybrid car engine or a new innovative propulsion system that will take us out of the solar system, i.e. REAL INNOVATION!

Another aspect of the patent litmus test is to question whether the patent is ACTUALLY a unique innovation, or whether countless other people have the same idea and simply don't have the resources or time to go through the patent process. What right does someone with a high priced team of shysters have over winning a patent over a thousand other shmoes that wake up one day with the same idea but without the resources to make the patent happen. These days, patents are nothing more then a race to see who among hundreds or even thousands can cut through the red tape quickly enough.

Also, why not insist that if the innovation has merit to benefit mankind, then the patent will only be awarded if it becomes public domain. I.e. a process to create medicine to save the world from AIDS or Cancer cannot be licensed or impose royalties on to those companies willing to make the product a reality. This will separate those looking to profit from the suffering of mankind to those people looking only to make a quick buck squating on some new web idea.

Finally, a patent should only be awarded to a company or individual willing to make the innovation a reality. There are lots of companies being established that simply buy ideas off of the average joe or create think tanks and finance the patent into existence without EVER desiring to actual create the innovation or product in question. They instead rely on greedy licensing fees, or sit on the patent waiting for that fateful time when some other company actually creates a product that patent might infringe on, even if it has nothing to do with the original patent purpose, and sue the pants off that company.

In all honesty, the whole patent process is out to lunch, allowing of millions of meaningless and trifling ideas to become legally binding innovations when they can either be easily duplicated or are thought up by thousands of other people.

Someone should patent the patent process, this will end this stupid industry once and for all.

Re:Litmus test for patents

[RevMike]

Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded). I simply can't understand how a patent for putting a hyperlink in a web page or a special button on a device has the same legal standing as developing a hybrid car engine or a new innovative propulsion system that will take us out of the solar system, i.e. REAL INNOVATION!

I've often thought along the same line. In my method (Patent Pending?) the duration of the patent would be on a sliding scale depending on the kind of investment needed to develop innovations in a particular field. So a new pharmaceutical which took 10 years and tens of millions of dollars to develop might have protection for 20 years, while a software innovation developed by one guy in his Mom's basement would only be protected for 18 months.

Re:Litmus test for patents

[corbettw]

Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded).

This statement is completely at odds with your next one:

What right does someone with a high priced team of shysters have over winning a patent over a thousand other shmoes that wake up one day with the same idea but without the resources to make the patent happen.

If something must take years of research and represent a significant financial risk to a (presumably) large corporation, that alone would prevent small inventors from ever filing for a patent. So while you decry the system that makes it difficult for the "little guy" to file for patents, you previously suggested a system that would make it even more so.

Also, why not insist that if the innovation has merit to benefit mankind, then the patent will only be awarded if it becomes public domain.

Because then no one would have any incentive to develop those things. Do you know how much it costs to develop a new drug? If there was no hope of recovering those costs, no company or individual would ever be able to afford to do so.

Re:Litmus test for patents

[Pecisk]

I think it is just because of term 'intelectual property'. Copyright, patent, trademark is NOT property. It is time limited monopoly, granted by goverment. So there comes the biggest misunderstanding of modern economy (maybe specially wished misunderstanding?).

Shareholders want to see anything created by company to stay it's property (well, except open source driven companies). So, CEOs and legal teams came up with vision of 'intelectual property' - with idea that idea can be OWNED. Absurd, isn't it? How can you ensure then that this idea doesn't come in other people's minds? How to ensure that they DON'T think about it? It can't be owned, period.

So I think it is like that. Company brainstorms about the product, for example, iPod. It is slick, it is stylish, yes, I agree, the result of idea (result, not idea itself) SHOULD be protected for awhile in market with trademark, if it is specific design, then yes, it is yours - for a period of time - and you can get money out of it. There is also laws which forbids absurdly close copycating of products in almost all modern countries (see iMac cloning), so actually everything you have heard about 'protecting product with patents so no one else can copy it' is balant lie. I would like to point out that companies should invent things anyway for their products so they can sell well, but hey, if idea of 'owning idea of product for some time' is what shakes your boat, go ahead.

But there comes patent and IP lawyers with overblown and overplayed idea of 'ownership of ideas' that it is not even funny. So what - you 'got' idea, so what's next? If you can make it into good product - good for you. Apple, Intel, AMD, yes, even Microsoft - they all have made things work. Ok, sometimes with various quality, but what I want to point out, that ideas is worth a dime only then when real work is done to get them to the people.

The biggest problem with patent and IP laws and all lawyer case is that lawyers write laws for lawyers. Lawmakers should be lawmakers, and laws should follow some common ground logic here, not 'ohhh, this is important for very good business, big tax payers, yarayarayara'. Sometimes it can ring true to me, but mostly it is 'old boys deserve this tip, they should change new cars this year'.

So, in the end patent these days is used to ensure shareholders that they 'own' idea, no one cares, if it is original. It is like stupid game - shareholders are always right and if they demand to 'own' this idea, well, we do it. No matter that actually confronted with legal case we can loose idea and some serious money while been tragged trough the court.

Re:Litmus test for patents

[Who Man]

But how do we figure out how long it took/takes to develop something? If I wanted to patent something for a really long time, I could just say it took me a really long time to develop it. Even if we could somehow monitor progress to get the real development time, there's still a problem. Company X with all its inefficiency might take 10 years to develop something while Person X in his garage might take 10 weeks to do the same thing. Does Company X get a longer patent because they are inefficient?

Re:Litmus test for patents

[Mutatis Mutandis]

Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded).

Your proposal would sweep independent inventors off the market. If this would be the standard, every single patent would be held by large corporations that can make substantial investments, for independent inventors with their own patents would have no other choice than to sell out.

Also, who is going to be the judge of this? The patent office? That would become a bureaucratic and legal nightmare, much worse than we have now.

Another aspect of the patent litmus test is to question whether the patent is ACTUALLY a unique innovation, or whether countless other people have the same idea and simply don't have the resources or time to go through the patent process.

In principle this provision is already present in patent law; to be patentable, an invention must not be obvious to the mythical person skilled in the art. The point is how this is legally defined. American courts, for reasons no doubt known to themselves, have consistently judged that nothing can be considered known or obvious if it isn't written down on paper. (This belief in the magic of the written word is very American.) This has drastically eroded the obviousness test, and that is the problem.

Also, why not insist that if the innovation has merit to benefit mankind, then the patent will only be awarded if it becomes public domain. I.e. a process to create medicine to save the world from AIDS or Cancer cannot be licensed or impose royalties on to those companies willing to make the product a reality.

Again, your proposal would largely eliminate smaller-scale innovation. There are a lot of small biotech or pharmaceutical companies that do advanced research, often with a high risk of failure, in the knowledge that they don't have the vast resources that are required to actually get a medicine approved and bring it on the market. They reckon that if they are successful, they can license it to a bigger player, who does have the resources for development, clinical trials, approval and marketing.

Your proposal would eliminate any pharmaceutical company that is too small to go it alone all the way; probably that would be any company with fewer than 500 employees or a year budget lower than $500 million. It would also create a virtually unsurmountable barrier for new startups, for you will find few investors that are willing to furnish this kind of money, knowing that the success rate for drug approval is only 20%. The net effect would be to reserve the market entirely to "Big Pharma." I have no prejudices against Big Pharma, I currently work for one of them, but as far as innovation is concerned this would be a Bad Idea.

Finally, a patent should only be awarded to a company or individual willing to make the innovation a reality.

What's the legal standard for willingness? Is it required to have already realized the invention? If not, is willingness then distinct from ability? If I am willing to realize the invention, but am unable to do so, and Big Corp. is able to built it, does Big Corp. then have the right to take my inventorship away from me? If I am willing to realize my idea for a starship capable of transgalactic travel, but cannot do it because nobody has invented the faster-than-light stardrive yet, do I have a patent?

Someone should patent the patent process, this will end this stupid industry once and for all.

Let us not forget why we have patents. We have patents because the alternative is secrecy; and that is even worse.

Things we need, IMHO, is:

1. A more demanding definition of the obviousness test. The pe

Re:Litmus test for patents

[RevMike]

But how do we figure out how long it took/takes to develop something? If I wanted to patent something for a really long time, I could just say it took me a really long time to develop it. Even if we could somehow monitor progress to get the real development time, there's still a problem. Company X with all its inefficiency might take 10 years to develop something while Person X in his garage might take 10 weeks to do the same thing. Does Company X get a longer patent because they are inefficient?

I don't think I was clear on this point. I would not issue the patent based on how long it took to develop an innovation, but based on broad estimates of how long it takes to develop things in particular fields. So regardless of the fact that Company X is inefficient, the software industry moves at a remarkable pace, and so the patent would still be for a short term.

Another way to think about this is in terms of "generations". A generation for software is probably about 2.5 years - the landscape changes significantly in that time. A patent should probably last only that long. A generation in computer hardware is a bit longer - probably about 5 years - and so a hardware innovation should only be patented for that long. A generation in automotive technology probably lasts 10 or 15 years, and a generation in pharmaceuticals probably lasts a little longer still.

Re:Litmus test for patents

[Anonymous Coward]

I think 90% of all patents could be rejected as "obvious" by the following process :

If a patent examiner has the slightest suspicion that a newly filed, but not yet disclosed patent may be "obvious", he puts it in a category and takes it to a panel of industry experts for that category.

Lets say the patent application, translated into plain English, runs like this :

An apparatus for catching mice that uses a cage with a trap-door, in which a computer with a speaker reproduces a sound, eg. of a female mouse or a baby mouse calling for milk.

Let's also assume that it is the first patent for a mousetrap ever applied for, i.e. there is no prior art.

The patent examiner Q does not show the application to the panel of experts, but begins to ask questions :

Q: An apparatus for catching mice. How do you do it
A1: Net with a light barrier
A2: Robot cat chasing mouse with infrared detectors
A3: A cage ...

Q: O.K., a cage sounds good, but how do you keep the mouse in it
A1: with super glue
A2: with a trap door

Q: O.K., now we have a cage with a trap door. How do you get the mouse in it ?
A1: Lure it with some odour
A2: Lure it with a light
A3: Lure it with an image
A4: Lure it with a sound

Q: O.K. What sound
A1: Corn grains trickling from a sack
A2: female mouse
A3: Mozart opera
A4: ...

If after a while nobody mentions a baby mouse, the patent will be granted, but not for using a cage with a trap door, not for using a computer with a speaker, not for using a female mouse, but only for using a baby mouse calling for milk.

This is the non-obvious part.

For this scheme to work, the patent examiner must have a position like a judge, he must be independent and impartial.

This scheme has several advantages :

- The expert panel is a panel of peers. As an inventor, you don't want to make a fool of
    yourself by taking obvious nonsense before a panel of peers

- The expert panel comprises of people in your field, i.e. your competition.
    Unless you are perfectly sure of the non-obviousness of your invention, you will
    not file for a patent that makes your competition aware of your plans.

- This is basically a brainstorming session of the best experts in the hottest field
    of development. When the "animal catching" experts go home after examining 10 patents
    in a day's session, they will be full of ideas their companies might implement for the
    benefit of their shareholders, employees and society in general.

- It is a very cheap process, because no major player would risk not sending an
    expert to these sessions and have to wait a couple of weeks before the transcripts
    are available. So there would be enough volunteer panelists.

Now some of the really important inventions would have easily stood this test

- Edisons selection of the charred fiber of a specific tropical plant as
    the filament in a lightbulb (Edison did *not* invent the lightbulb,
    he just built the first durable ones)

- Shockleys invention of the transistor

- Teflon

- Penicillin (though I think this was not even patented)

About one-click-shopping, however, I am not so sure.

Re:Litmus test for patents

[deblau]

If I can create the same technology in my garage over the weekend, there is no reason why I should have to pay royalties or licensing to implement the technology.

This is classic hindsight bias. I invent a better mousetrap. You might have done the same thing in your garage over the weekend, but you didn't and I did. It's as simple as that. Sure, what I did is obvious in retrospect, but invention doesn't happen by looking backwards.

Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop

Because small inventors shouldn't get protection? Do their ideas deserve to be sucked up by big corporations who can afford lawyers?

Another aspect of the patent litmus test is to question whether the patent is ACTUALLY a unique innovation, or whether countless other people have the same idea and simply don't have the resources or time to go through the patent process.

If it's really that obvious, it's not a huge burden to require that at least one of those countless people actually write something about it. In which case, 35 USC 102(a) applies.

Also, why not insist that if the innovation has merit to benefit mankind, then the patent will only be awarded if it becomes public domain.

Patents by definition are monopolies of use exclusion, and public domain is unrestricted use. Since patents automatically expire, and their inventions become public, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Finally, a patent should only be awarded to a company or individual willing to make the innovation a reality.

This I agree with, to the extent that if patents should be granted at all, they exist to promote use, not hinder it. Seeing as how patents restrict use by their very nature, whether they can promote use effectively is debatable.

Re:Ah yes...

[bhima]

OK... I gotta ask Do you think that the patent system is *not* so broken as to be obvious? Do you think that the patent system is still achieving the goal set out for it in 1790?

or...

Do you think in order to point out that it broken or to propose a fix one must have an education in patent law?

or...

Are you complaining that when it comes to patent discussion the comments here on slashdot are even more uninformed, disingenuous, and sophomorically falsely cynical than they normal are. I have to admit this is something I find hard to believe.

And...

Why the attack on Zonk? We all know that while these guys are called "editors" what they are doing bears little resemblance to what most people mean by the word edit... they more are like gatekeepers who cut-n-paste...it even says so in the faq.

What Can We Do ???

[magma]

I might have missed it but I could not see any recommendations for how to fight these patents. How about these?

1. The GPL was a great idea, is there an equivalent for fighting patents? Perhaps the GPL is enough.
2. If I was to create documents of ideas in at least whitepaper form and post them on the web with "TBD? notice" would that help as prior art?
3. It seems like 'prior art' may not always be consulted. Looks like we need a store house for OSS "patents" or definitions of prior art that included the date added.
4. It would help if people using the art from the prior art web site stated that they were using it so that prior art would be easier to find.

Any other suggestions on what we can do?

Re:Four examples

[cexshun]

Well, while the above links may prove humorous, keep in mind that this does not in anyway speak poorly about the patent system. The issue with patents is not that stupid things are patented, but that patents are being thrown around on obvious inventions/methods.

All of the patents on patentsilly are quite silly. However, they are valid patents. There is a HUGE difference between silly patents and absurd patents. A patent on a glove that chews your food for you is silly. A patent on a 'review system allowing consumers that purchased the item to review it for the public' is an absurd patent.

If you think about it, a patent on a roller skate where the 4 wheels are placed inline seems quite silly. However, the inline skate is born and people are roller blading everywhere.

Re:Ah yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one will die without the patent system. The purpose of medicine is for people to be healthy, not for corporations to get rich. Pig insulin would have been used in any case, patents or no patents. Researchers get paid regardless of patents. Without patents the medicine will just be cheaper and more easily available.

Thank god some third world countries use illegal generics so that cheap medicine is available for the less wealthy!

Lawyers and Terrorists

[grumpygrodyguy]

Q) What do patent lawyers and terrorists have in common?

A) The more fear, uncertainty, and doubt they spread...the better they do.

Most software patent claims are defensive. They are made in anticipation of being sued at some future date over an implemented algorithm. If companies had reassurance that such a thing was impossible they wouldn't be making the patent claims...and a lot of lawyers would be out of work. It's a very old form of racketeering. You have to pay for 'protection' from other organized criminals by hiring your own organized criminal to prepare your defence. Of course, as most of us know 99% of these so-called "software patents" can be found in introductory computer science textbooks...and of course, only the organized criminals (IP laywers) benefit from this process.

So, just like terrorists...the lawyers have snuck their way in and they are hijacking our industry. The apathy, ignorance, and lack of perception at the higher levels of government have allowed it to happen. Then again, when the majority of legislators are themselves lawyers it's not hard to see the cronyism in action.

Al Gore spent 25+ years of his life championing freedom of information, accessibility, using the internet to lower barriers of entry and to disempower corrupt structures like gangs of wrongful IP prosecutors turning a buck through the patent system...sadly > 50% of the voting american public didn't consider these freedoms a priority in 2000.

Software patents are a scandal, and they won't go away as long as the political failings underneath them are ignored.

another ignorant slashbot

[fizteh89]

Hey, Slashbot retard, US patent system has been in place for more
than 200 years.

And nowadays every mindless fuck with a web browser wants to propose radical changes ...

The Founding Fathers were not idiots after all...

There has to be balance

[Saint37]

The rule that patent examiners can't reject an invention as obvious unless they can point to specific references suggesting the elements could be combined seems a bit excessive, but if you don't require this then hindsight will make everything seem obvious. For example, the airplane that the Wright bros invented was just the combination on pre existing fabrics, bicycle parts and an engine. People had been using these things to make gliders and cars for year. See? Obvious. Well, not exactly. So how do you strike a balance? I think it's too subjective. Almost like trying to legislate obscenity. The "I know it when I see it" argument just doesn't wash.

http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/

Re:There has to be balance

[magma]

I agree, if it is going to be so subjective then the protection limit should be much shorter, like 3 years max from the grant of patent, then the patent itself becomes prior art and unenforceable.

Re:There has to be balance

[macjim]

The airplane that the Wright brothers invented combined ideas and experimental work from others with their own contributions in both areas, and was successfully patented: with the result that airplane innovation ceased in the US and the work went on in places like France which weren't affected by the patents. This is one of the most prominent of many examples of patents working against progress and innovation.

I won't die without the patent system

[cheesedog]

1) You will all die without a patent system. I'm not sure I'd have even been able to use pig insulin, let alone human from recombinant source insulin, without the patent regime. Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?

This is false, and is contradicted by a wealth of historical data and analysis of spending by drug companies. See Why Drug Companies Don't Need Patents

Re:I won't die without the patent system

[Anonymous Coward]

I was hoping to learn something from that article, but it's so full of holes there nothing useful. It rests on the premise that governments do some of the research, so drugs would be developed anyway. But most of the money, as even the article notes, is spent in development. Got any idea how expensive drug trials are? Ouch! Oh, and FYI, India still doesn't protect chemical compositions. There's a billion Indians, and they're pretty darn smart and resourceful. But not too many drugs coming out of India unless you count generics.

Re:I won't die without the patent system

[dpille]

There are many problems with the referenced material and its ultimate source. I'd call it "6 number points having nothing to do with whether patents should be granted".

1) Historical analysis of local patent protection and pharmaceutical company performance. Does not consider that patents protect markets. Briefly, it ignores that any of the cited low-protection country corporations may have US patents (that is, patents in the largest actual market). This is a large enough flaw to make the analysis irrelevant.

2)Patents hinder drug research. Makes a seeming post-hoc-ergo-etc mistake: would the things that these drug companies are locked out of researching even be in human knowledge if patents weren't around? There's no information suggesting that the other companies would have independently discovered the material AND taken it further to fruition than the apparent patent holders.

3. Drug research is 55% publicly funded. Fine. What about the other 45%? I'd say we need it all. Additionally, its metric is "top-selling". We need only look at the COX-3 inhibitor family of drugs to realize sales figures have nothing to do with efficacy. And since when can we dismiss product development research? So I discovered a cancer-curing pill, but I wasted the 48% of the money I spent figuring out how to manufacture the pill?

4. Advertising/admin. Simply not relevant in that it doesn't address the question of whether patents promote the useful arts. I'm sure the Wright brothers spent some money on the sign outside of their bicycle shop, and maybe even employed someone to work the counter, if you know what I'm getting at.

5. Profits. See above.

6. Patents kill in the developing world. Again makes an error about the assumptions- would these treatments have been discovered and available at all if the patent regime didn't exist?

After Seeing the Bad, Please Show Me the Good

[th3ex9]

I've seen this critique of the PTO growing from multiple directions. What bothers me is that it's all too easy to find the bad patents we can all laugh at. If we need non-obvious, and non-trivial, and truly unique patents, how about if someone provides a few examples they judget to be just so? I don't want to hear of Patent XX which is bad. I want you to point out a half dozen patents that you think DO meet an acceptable standard of non-obvious.

Instead of taking the cheap shot saying what has not met standard, how about the harder job of truly judging what non-obvious looks like and put it out on the table for people to learn from?

Re:After Seeing the Bad, Please Show Me the Good

[conJunk]

how aobut the cotton gin? the winchester repeating rifle? your high school history text is probably chock-a-block with them

more recently, how about pdf? i assume that's pattented

What's a "boarfix"?

[b1t r0t]

Look, I just patented a device that will remove boarfix broken pixels.

What's a boarfix? Not much until he's taken night school classes. (rimshot)

Re:Ah yes...

[Wilson_6500]

Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?

There's humanity in a nutshell for you. If reading that doesn't make you sick, then I feel very, very sorry for you.

Re:Four examples

[lawpoop]

Where can I purchase one of your food-chewing gloves, my good man?

Re:Patents In and Of Themselves *Are* Evil

[dwandy]

The problem with patents is not that they are being granted at all, as some intellectual anarchists would have you believe, it is that they are being granted for entirely obvious "inventions" that are not really inventions at all.

Patents are no more "not evil" than marxism/communism is a viable alternative to democracy/captialism: in a perfect world that doesn't include humans it'll work just great.
The expected outcome of patents is to create more innovation: unfortunately there are additional results (patent trolls, litigation etc) that are not factored in the initial equation. Once a certain critical mass is achieved, the bad outweighs the good (I think we're there now) and the patent system (any patent system) starts to do more damage than good.
besides ... the mere fact that people invented stuff before patents tells me that patents fixed a problem where there was none ... just another hammer looking for a nail.

Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[maillemaker]

I know lots of people here love to bash patents, but really, they are a good thing.

I am a mechanical designer. I am listed on several patents for designs that I have been created or been involved with.

Yes, a lot of patents seem absurd. Hell, a lot of them probably ARE absurd. There is a reason for this.

Corporations like to build webs of patents around their products. It is not sufficient or desireable to just have a single patent. The idea is to create a web of patents around your product so that when someone infringes on one of your patents, and you take them to court, and they manage to use their highly paid lawyers to wiggle out of the infringement, you then can slap them with infringements on a bunch of other patents.

Another thing a web of patents do for you is they allow you to horse trade. Let's say someone comes against you with a lawsuit that you are infringing on one of /their/ patents. Well then you whip out your portfolio of patents and thumb through them until you find some things that /they/ are infringing on of yours. Then you horse trade: "Hey...I'll let you off the hook for THESE infringements if you let us off the hook for THOSE infringements..."

Sounds corny, but consider this - when Kodak tried to get into the instant film business to compete against Polaroid, Polaroid took them to court for patent infringement. Kodak had nothing with which to horse trade, and Polaroid refused to negotiate - they drove them out of the market. This after Kodak had invested millions in new plants and employees. You never want to get caught with no bargaining chips at the patent negotation table.

But more importantly, patents protect intellectual property. I know, I know, everyone likes to poo-poo the idea of intellectual property. But without such protections, there would be little incentive for companies to pay people like me to invent new products, because as soon as we did, they would be copied by places like China, and sold back in our markets for pennies on the dollar for what we could be able to sell them for.

Let's face it, folks, thought (IP) is one of the last marketable things that our country (USA) produces. Just about everything else that can be mass produced is now made somewhere else. Without some mechanism to protect IP, it will become worthless, and then we are going to be in some deep shit.

No one likes patents, until someone takes /your/ idea and makes a fortune off of it leaving you with nothing.

Steve

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thing a web of patents do for you is they allow you to horse trade.

So patents are good for.... protecting you from patents. Abolishing patents would solve the problem too.

No one likes patents, until someone takes /your/ idea and makes a fortune off of it leaving you with nothing.

Patents encourage this behavior at least as much as they prevent it. You invent something but don't patent it, possibly because you feel it's obvious. But nothing is too obvious for the USPTO. Somebody else patents it and then sues you. You can't prove prior art because the USPTO only looks at patents and published journal articles.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[Todd Knarr]

All true a decade ago. Today, though, you aren't going to be sued by someone who makes something. You're going to be sued by a patent holding firm whose only "product" is patent litigation. What good is your patent portfolio when your opponent doesn't make anything that could infringe on your patents? You can't horse-trade when you don't have anything the other guy wants (except money).

As far as protecting intellectual property goes, again most of the problem patents these days are of the "Balance your checkbook using exactly the same procedure used by millions of housewives for decades, but LETTING A COMPUTER PERFORM THE STEPS!" sort. That kind of "intellectual property" doesn't need or deserve protection.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one likes patents, until someone takes /your/ idea and makes a fortune off of it leaving you with nothing.

You had nothing to start with. An idea is just an idea --- we all have them. What you are describing is simply envy that someone else has managed to make money out of an idea when you yourself didn't.

As an electronics engineer and software architect with many years behind me, I have a stack of notebooks absolutely brimming with novel ideas, the vast majority of which I will never use in any product. Patenting them would be utterly diabolical, effectively denying others the right to invent those concepts for themselves independently.

Does it matter to me when someone else develops one of my ideas by themselves, or stumbles across it fortuitiously? Of course not. Ideas are two a penny, and "losing the potential to make money" is losing nothing at all. If I wanted to make money out of them myself, I would, and if I don't have the means to do so then this very clearly illustrates how that "potential" was actually an illusion and entirely worthless.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

without such protections, there would be little incentive for companies to pay people like me to invent new products, because as soon as we did, they would be copied by places like China, and sold back in our markets for pennies on the dollar for what we could be able to sell them for.

And by the same token, you would be able to take Chinese products and do the same. And the wheels of industry would turn that much faster.

Or do you think that only the west has a creative mind?

At the end of the day, your company needs to ask itself whether it wants to be in its current business or not. It sounds to me like the answer is "no", as the appearance of competition seems to be enough to make it want to cease R&D spending if it is not given the aid of protectionism.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[Macadamizer]

Patents encourage this behavior at least as much as they prevent it. You invent something but don't patent it, possibly because you feel it's obvious. But nothing is too obvious for the USPTO. Somebody else patents it and then sues you. You can't prove prior art because the USPTO only looks at patents and published journal articles.


Just curious, is the patent office or the courts just supposed to take your word for it that it was "obvious?"

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[obi]

Upto your Kodak example, you're basically arguing:

"Patents are good, because you need patents to defend yourself against patents"

See the circular logic here? If there were no patents there would be no problem in the first place.

As for your point about "protecting intellectual property" - I'd echo the sentiment that other people had - you could steal other companies' ideas too, and the advances in your field would actually advance much faster! Don't forget you're standing on the shoulder of giants - in science you use other people's innovations all the time. I'm willing to bet it's exactly like that with engineering too - the more components a system has, the more likely it is you're going to want to use someone else's techniques. That's why software patents make the problem so apparent - software is "cheap" (no materials, no tolerances, ...), so it's not surprising to see hundreds of modules/components/techniques/interactions in one software package (also a reason why there's so many bugs in comparison with the hardware world, but that's a different discussion).

What patents basically do is slowing the rate of progress - people and companies have to watch out for a minefield of techniques they can't use for 10-20 years, even though it would make complete sense to do it from a technical standpoint. That also means, that if you're not using these techniques, you're not going to build on them or evolve them. You're either going to work around it (re-invent the wheel) - badly in some cases - or you're just going to drop it. That's progress with its hands tied!

As to your final point: yes, I have known people that used ideas of mine, and made a nice profit of them, and basically my reaction was: good for them! Having ideas is cheap, doing the work and taking the risk to bring them to fruition is the hard (99%) work. Another thing you might notice about ideas is that very often they're the product of the environment you're in. The technology is finally ready to do this or that, we have finally enough bandwith for an application like this, CPU power is now cheap enough that we can do this, etc etc - and that's also why it often seems a lot of people have the same or similar ideas at about the same time. I'd be way more pissed if I couldn't work out an idea because some twit patented it, than if I found out someone was "inspired by" (or in your words: "stole") an idea of mine (or even more likely: "came up with the same idea independently").

You could argue: "yes but, ideas have value - if you choose not to capitalize on it that's your problem". Well, the only reason ideas have value, is because of the artificial scarcity created by patent law. This is not automatically bad, but I believe in this case it is. Patent law is a delicate balance - the advantage of encouraging inventions with monetary rewards vs. the disadvantage of stopping other inventors from using certain ideas. I believe in the case of patents the disadvantage far outweighs the advantage, because I think a lot more harm is done by stopping others from using certain ideas (even if it is only temporarily) than from the very few inventors who would stop inventing because there's more risk to make it into a profitable product to recoup the cost of inventing.

You are correct - people will game any system, including the system. I apply the same test as with law proposals "One should always judge laws by their potential for abuse, not by their proclaimed benefits".

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[Baki]

You have a utilitarian view on intellectual property which is unproven (only taken for granted by stakeholders) and morally unjust. Please have a look at the first reaction to the article, which also points to this excellent refutal of intellectual property on both practical and moral grounds: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[deblau]

Corporations like to build webs of patents around their products.

Corporate abuse of a broken system does not justify the system being broken in the first place.

But without such protections, there would be little incentive for companies to pay people like me to invent new products, because as soon as we did, they would be copied by places like China, and sold back in our markets for pennies on the dollar for what we could be able to sell them for. . . . Let's face it, folks, thought (IP) is one of the last marketable things that our country (USA) produces.

Without IP protections, we'd be making a hell of a lot more tangible goods domestically, and we wouldn't be worrying so much about foreign competition. On the other hand, IP protection by its very nature prevents free market domestic production of the same tangible goods. Strong IP rights being enforced domestically are, ironically enough, driving manufacturing jobs overseas, creating the very problem you fear.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents, but...

[kocsonya]

You know what, I would not mind to pay researchers and engineers and inventors out of my taxes and then get the damned thing be made in China on the cheap. In the long run it seems to be a rather nice proposition for society as a whole. Yes, individual companies, especially the ones that are based on the "very high profit margin protected by evergreen patents" and "buy submarine patents and sue a rich sucker for out of court settlement" business models would suffer or even go bankrupt. On the other hand, development would not be set back (most researchers I know do it because they like what they do and not because they even dream of getting rich of what they do) but the end result would be available a lot more readily to everyone.

Zoltan

Re:What Can We Do ???

[mgpeter]

I highly encourage everyone to listen to a speech given by Richard Stallman on Software Patents.

Audio Transcript

I know RMS may not be too popular because of his stern disposition, but I find that he chooses his words very carefully and is very articulate. Note that he does reference "Society" quite often and many people mis-understand him because of this. To actually get where he is "coming from" you may want to read the first section of "Common Sense".

On the origin an design of Government in General

Re:Four examples

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue with patents is not that stupid things are patented, but that patents are being thrown around on obvious inventions/methods.

When it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against a patent, then yest the issue IS that stupid patents are being granted. The USPTO needs to do its damn job right and not leave it to the courts to decide.

SUNW purchased MSFT?

[samj]

Nice [mis]use of stock ticker codes there:

"Defeating even a dubious patent can take tremendous resources. After Storage Technology Corp. (MSFT) sued Cisco for patent infringement, it took Cisco six years and $10 million to get a jury to declare last June that StorageTek's patent was invalid. (StorageTek was purchased by Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) a week before the verdict.)"

Isn't this a false choice?

[tkrotchko]

"So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?"

Isn't this a false choice? I mean, the solution isn't limited to: (a) do nothing (b) get rid of patents.

It could be something as simple as:
    Roll patent laws back to about 1960. Software is not patentable, regardless of the medium that it's fixed in. Business methods are not patentable, regardless of the medium that it's used or fixed in.

I think that solves the problem nicely. And if I've missed something, I'll add another sentence or two.

Re:Isn't this a false choice?

[shmlco]

Add some sort of peer review system to help reject "new" patents and I think you've got it.

Now that I'm looking . . .

[mmell]

Where's the post I'm supposed to be "redundant" of?

For that matter, did that poster get a patent?

Here are some more fixes

[HighOrbit]

1 - Make patents like trademarks, they have to be actively used and defended. This means that a patent holder must actively be engaged in the manufacture or production of the patented item (or at least show demonstrable intent to do so - like arranging funding to build a factory). That would effectively end the "patent troll" business model of being in business to only licence patents. If the holder is "too small" to own the factory individually himself ,then he can be a principle of the corporation or business that does.

2- If not ending software patents altogather, limit them to 5 years. Five years is practically forever in the software market. (perhaps they should do this with software copyrights too)

3- Because patents (and IP generally) are the work of the human mind, make patent ownership non-transferable and limited to the private individual who actually used his mind to invent it. No corporate ownership allowed.(Oh? You say that IBM funded the lab and not the indivdual inventor? IBM paid his salary? Well, then IBM can contract with the inventor to have a favorable or royalty-free license.) Corporations would be able to license, but never own. Provision can be made for joint ownersship in small limited partnerships when more than one person collaberated.

4 - Elminate method patents completely. If a method is secret, then it is already protected as a "trade secret".

Re:Here are some more fixes

[Audacious]

These are similar remarks I have made (and heard) of copyrights.

There are some problems though:

1. Huge undertakings (like the building of supercolliders and the like) usually require such vast amounts of money that only corporations or governments can afford to create them. This means that lots and lots of people work to make the item a reality. In this case, who should be on the patent and who should not? Just the original inventor? Just the corporation who paid for everything? Or all of those people who helped? (Hint: This is why corporations pay people salaries. Otherwise it is "We'll pay you as soon as you get it working." Which doesn't work all that well.)

While it is true that those people who work on a project should get paid something for their efforts - they usually are already being paid a salary. In my case, having helped create a software program I do get small bonuses every now and then for having helped to create the program. But I get paid a regular salary also.

The problem with making Patents like Trademarks is that a Trademark doesn't have to do anything other than just show up. While a Patent is something you don't want to show up, because then it's not unique. No. The way to end the Patent Troll is to put in to place some common sense rules without the legaleze attached to it. That is to say, the reason the Bill of Rights works is because it is in standard english that anyone can look at and understand. When you allow the lawyers in, then you begin to get what I call wiggle room. Throw out the lawyers and put in common sense rules and then you will get a better Patent system. Like so:

1. An item that already exists and that the general public can see,
   touch, hear, taste, feel, or in any other way, shape, or form interact
   with or have knowledge of - can not be patented.
2. An extension to an already existing item is not patentable.
   (Example: The light bulb was invented. Just because you make a
   blue light, green light, big light, small light, or any other change
   you want to make to the standard light bulb - it can not be Patented.
   However, different methods to create light [such as a Neon bulb, LED
   bulb, Hydrogen Bomb bulb, etc... - can be Patented.])
3. Patents come in slow, medium and fast types.

   Slow = 20 years maximum.
   Medium = 10 years maximum.
   Fast = 5 years maximum.

   Depending upon how many Patents are issued for a given
   field, it falls into one of the above areas.

   Slow: X <= 1,000.
   Medium: 1,000 < X <= 10,000.
   Fast: 10,000 < X <= Infinity.

   So fewer Patents are better Patents.

4. Patents can never be extended beyond the maximum range of its
   type. (So we have no "Limited Time" clause for lawyers to mess
   around with.)

I agree with you though - neither copyright, nor patent ownership should be transferable. The owner should only be able to lease out the usage of their copyright or patent. In the case of corporations though, the names of everyone who has worked on the patent BEFORE it was patented, should be listed. So everyone who worked on the project is given proper credit. (ie: It should not just be something like IBM CORPORATION. It should be something like "IBM CORPORATION via the work of the following people: A, B, C, D....) The corporation should have control of the Patent, but the Patent should not be allowed to change ownership. Again, the corporation can lease it out as much as it wants, however it wants to do so, but ownership stays with the originating corporation or person(s). I know some people are against this concept but it would reduce and remove ambiguity. It would also solidify exactly who owns what. Even if the lease is X number of dollars for usage of the patent/copyright until the patent/copyright expires - this is still more favorable than trying to figure out who owns what years after all of the originating people are gone. (Take John Lennon's songs for example.)

As I've posted twice

Re:Here are some more fixes

[blueflash2o]

For 3 would it be at the beginning of the patent term that the lenght would be choosen or would the length vary if more patents get issued in the middle of the term and if thats the case when patents start expiring does the latter patents get longer term when it goes to a lower bracket.

Re:Here are some more fixes

[Shadowlore]

Re #1: must be making/using it.
Why can't the person contract it out?

Re: #3: Because patents (and IP generally) are the work of the human mind, make patent ownership non-transferable and limited to the private individual who actually used his mind to invent it. No corporate ownership allowed.(Oh? You say that IBM funded the lab and not the indivdual inventor? IBM paid his salary? Well, then IBM can contract with the inventor to have a favorable or royalty-free license.) Corporations would be able to license, but never own. Provision can be made for joint ownersship in small limited partnerships when more than one person collaberated.

I think you are close, but still off-mark on this one. The underlying issue you are trying to address is large corporate abuse. Essentially, disproportionate power. You see, it isn't absolute power that corrupts, if EVERYONE has it. It is the imbalance of power that corrupts.

In this case, it is the proportional power of the corporate giant compared to "the little guy". The solution is to remove the power of the corporation. You attempt to do this by limiting the power of the individual when you say that only the creator can own it. but then you say to not allow corporate ownership.

This second statement is not even the whole fix. It is one I've been formulating for years. The basis for it is the fact that corporations are government entities. They exist solely by description/creation of legislation.

If the corporation has no ownership authority, perhaps much of the problem is likely to be solved. However, the change to "infinite licensing" of all but ownership will become the norm. Effectively, there becomes no difference. So what happens if Joe Shmowe owns the patent if he has given exclusive use of the patent over to Megacorp?

Essentially, it gets down the patent's very existence that is the source of the problem. Everything else is using a finger bandage on a large sucking chest wound. And this is where laws get tangly, twisted, and arcane.

Rule of thumb should be that the more conditions and complexities it takes, the more unsound the original principle is. For example, say we take the idea of non-corporate ownership of patents and copyrights.

Then, as I indicate above, we merely change to irrevocable licenses and such with littel difference. So Megacorp changes "we own any" to "you grant us an royalty-free, irrevocable, exclusive license to any" in your employment contract. All we've done is managed to change the wording, but not in any substantial way. All fluff, no crunch.

So we add verbiage to prevent that. And it begins to get complicated. Still trying to work around the problems the patent system itself creates.

Consider the fact that someone is trying to patent a plot.

Essentially much of the problem with the "modern patent system" is the loss of the original intent. Today the USPTO is granting patents on ideas not specific implementations of them. This is much of the problem, and part fo what you seem to try to solve by your requirement of active use/pursuing of the patent.

However, some things can not be done by the inventor. I may be able to determine how to make a new material, but lack the material to do it. indeed, history is replete with these cases. A short lifetime on patents would go a long way to solving this. And I mean short. Five years? Too long. IF there are to be patents, it should only be to protect copying of the specific implementation as well as to obtain first mover advantage. It should not be used for perpetual residuals.

One convoluted way would be to require a specific timeline to market with objective, verifiable milestones as part of the application and grant. It would also be required that this timeline be the shortest possible. if someone else finds a faster way, good for them they've now got something new and not covered by your patent.

But again this gets into twisted legalese far too quickly. Especially when Megacorp has LoL, Lots of Lawyers. Which brings us to the other half of the cause of the problem you are trying to solve: existence of corporations.

Re:Here are some more fixes

[Audacious]

Strange - I sent in a reply but it didn't post. :-/

It would be based upon the previous year's results for each category and it would be set at the beginning of the patent's term. That being, when the patent was issued would be the length of the patent's life.

I am also in favor of full disclosure of any patents which are submitted.

I am also in favor of the government assigning anyone who is given grant money to the task of reviewing patent applications for uniqueness in their given field. It should be a stipulation of any grants being assigned that they must review at least one patent a year. Probably more. At over 400,000 patent applications a year and (estimated off the top of my head) over 100,000 grants going out each year; having to review four patents a year would not be a bad thing. (Although I do realize that the majority of patents are probably falling into certain areas such as software patents and the like which can be mind numbing to say the least to review. Especially if the patent is covering ground like the movement of a mouse or something else that is so obvious as to be a waste of time to even review.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Is Patent Hawk a hoax site?

[hackwrench]

I'm seriously beginning to consider that possibility, since I haven't seen it do anything yet that makes sense from that perspective.

#125 an hour? Going alone is more affordable!

Consider this piece of fluff:
If "thinking outside the box" is the basic invention process, enlarging the box before thinking outside is the next level.

If you're enlarging the box, then there's less room to think outside of it. It sounds like tying ones hands instead of freeing.

Most if not all, "Patent prospector" entries are venom filled. Nor, when viewed as a whole, do they take a conistent position.

Too bad USPTO and /. can't unite...

[denis-The-menace]

Imagine creating a Prior Art section in Slashdot.
One or two articles per day is posted describing in English (not USPTO-ease) a software patent being applied for. /.ers would most likely find/remember prior art quickly and quash most software patents if not all of them.

Henry Ford

[Anonymous Coward]

Henry Ford's estate is suing all thos mass producers for his patent on mass production.

Simple solution...

[eth1]

1st patent this year: $200
2nd patent this year: $400
3rd patent this year: $800
4th patent this year: $1600

not so bad for the 'little guys' that patents are supposed to protect, huh?

50th patent this year: $112,589,990,684,262,400

better pick 'em carefully, though :)

or maybe the first patent you hold costs $2000 and the Nth patent you hold costs $N,000, regardless of time?

Re:Simple solution...

[sugarmotor]

You need to take into account that patents can be transferred.

Stephan

I'm going to hell for this, but...

[SpecBear]

"How many bra patents can you possibly have?"

I'd say four or five at most. More than a handful's a waste.

Gaming the patent system...

[maillemaker]

>All true a decade ago. Today, though, you aren't going to be sued
>by someone who makes something. You're going to be sued by a patent
>holding firm whose only "product" is patent litigation. What good is
>your patent portfolio when your opponent doesn't make anything that
>could infringe on your patents? You can't horse-trade when you don't
>have anything the other guy wants (except money).

I understand your sentiment. But just about any market gets gamed. Look at the folks who milk the virtual world for "credits" and sell them for real currency in the real world!

I don't really have a problem with firms who's sole function is the holding of patents. They are NOT in the business of "patent litigation". They are in the business of buying commodities - in this case thoughts. They hold onto those commodities until someone comes along with the resources to use them, and then they charge royalties for the privelege. Nothing wrong with that.

Thoughts are becoming very valuable assets. Of course you are going to find people who want to treat them like any other futures commodity.

If someone comes up with a patentable thought, and someone wants to buy that thought with an eye towards it being in demand later in the future, what's wrong with that? Nothing, in my book.

>As far as protecting intellectual property goes, again most of the
>problem patents these days are of the "Balance your checkbook using
>exactly the same procedure used by millions of housewives for decades,
>but LETTING A COMPUTER PERFORM THE STEPS!" sort. That kind of
>"intellectual property" doesn't need or deserve protection.

I hear you. But you would not believe how absurd some things that truly are patentable seem when you first look at them. You think, "How could this possibly be new and different?" The fact is, especially in the mechanical world, most of the mechanical ways of making structures have already been done. But when you put old ideas together in new ways to achieve something new, often as not, that can be patentable. Hell, I'm on a patent for a DUST COVER ( http://tinyurl.com/8eh7l ) - a simple rubber plug for fiber optic ports. It's all in the way you word your patent.

Are there absurd patents out there? Sure. But remember, patents aren't bullet proof, either. They can be rejected, even after being approved.

Steve

Re:Gaming the patent system...

[Todd Knarr]

I'm thinking of a comment a professional writer made: "Oh, so you'll come up with the plot, all I have to do is actually write the story and sell it and we'll split the money 50/50? Coming up with a plot's easy. Takes a bit of imagination, but it's no more than a few days work. I'd have to spend months typing it all in, correcting spelling and grammar so it's all right, editing and shuffling things to make the whole thing work right, editing it down to fit the page count, putting it in proper form for the publishers. Then more months of back-and-forth with the editor getting it ready for publication, and more time yet checking galleys before publication. You want me to do 90% of the work while you take 50% of the money? Such a deal that is.". My thought is that if A wants to come up with the idea and then sit and wait for some B to come up with it independently and do the hard work of turning the idea into a product, A doesn't deserve a slice of B's hard work just for being lazy. Now, if A's shopping it around to people who can actually produce it, that's another matter, but these patent holding companies don't put any effort of their own in, they just wait for someone else to expend the effort and then demand a slice of the profit. That's not the way to create an incentive for anyone else to do anything new.

Re:Gaming the patent system...

[asbjxrn]

I hear you. But you would not believe how absurd some things that truly are patentable seem when you first look at them. You think, "How could this possibly be new and different?" The fact is, especially in the mechanical world, most of the mechanical ways of making structures have already been done. But when you put old ideas together in new ways to achieve something new, often as not, that can be patentable. Hell, I'm on a patent for a DUST COVER ( http://tinyurl.com/8eh7l ) - a simple rubber plug for fiber optic ports. It's all in the way you word your patent.

You say that as if you're proud of it. That somehow your ability to describe a "simple rubber plug" in a specific way transformes the idea of the "simple rubber plug" into something valuable. You know what, it is still a "simple rubber plug".

Caterers on movie credits, patents for rubber plugs. Just serving the food and making sure your cable isn't clogged with dust before reaching the customer isn't good enough anymore?

Re:Gaming the patent system...

[maillemaker]

>You say that as if you're proud of it.

While it is cool to be listed on a patent, mostly I was happy to be /paid/ for it. Which is what patents really all boil down to - getting paid for what you invent. Every person listed on that patent got a $1000 bonus for filing that patent - not /getting/ it - /filing/ it.

>Caterers on movie credits, patents for rubber plugs. Just serving the food and making
>sure your cable isn't clogged with dust before reaching the customer isn't good enough anymore?

Nope. Because now Lucent can prevent anyone else from making a similar rubber plug in the markets where it was granted the patent, assuming the patent is upheld if challenged. That's valuable to Lucent, because that gives them an exclusive product. Others will (and have already) come up with other ways to achieve the same result, but they can't do it the way we did it.

Steve

Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies would just create subsidaries to hold small groups of patents instead of one IBM or Microsoft holding them all.

Best scheme I've heard of is to require escalating fees each year the patents are in force. Then worthless patents would run out quickly if they can't be monetized, and the ones that do matter can produce fees that cover everything so initial filing fees can be lowered.

On the value of thoughts...

[maillemaker]

>You had nothing to start with. An idea is just an idea ---
>we all have them. What you are describing is simply envy that
>someone else has managed to make money out of an idea when you
>yourself didn't.

You are completely incorrect. Sure, we all have thoughts, but some are valuable and some are not. Very genreally, if you have a thought, and can demonstrate that there was no prior art (no one else thought of it first), you can patent it, and capitalize on that thought. If it is a good enough thought, people will pay you to make use of it.

>As an electronics engineer and software architect with many years
>behind me, I have a stack of notebooks absolutely brimming with novel
>ideas, the vast majority of which I will never use in any product.
>Patenting them would be utterly diabolical, effectively denying
>others the right to invent those concepts for themselves independently.

LOL! Patenting them would be diabolical? It happens every day, dude. People invent things themselves independently every day. And you know what? If they are first to the patent office, they get themselves a patent. If you don't care to participate, that's great, but not much of an argument for the case you appear to be making that thoughts aren't valuable, protectectable assets.

>Does it matter to me when someone else develops one of my ideas by
>themselves, or stumbles across it fortuitiously? Of course not.
>Ideas are two a penny, and "losing the potential to make money"
>is losing nothing at all. If I wanted to make money out of them myself,
>I would, and if I don't have the means to do so then this very clearly
>illustrates how that "potential" was actually an illusion and entirely
>worthless.

This is so flawed I'm not sure where to begin. Just becase you don't have the means to captalize on your ideas does not mean that the idea was worthless. I would hazzard to say that this is the quandry with most inventors - they have great ideas but lack the means to do anything with them. Hell, just getting a patent is very expensive! But this certainly does not mean that the idea is worthless. If I invented a machine that could produce gold out of horse shit but I didn't have the means to actually make the machine would my idea for this invention be worthless? Hell no - I'd be selling that thought for billions to someone who /did/ have the means to bring that machine to market.

It may not matter to you if your thoughts are independently discovered by others and then capitalized by them. But it would bother me. But that wasn't my point in my original posting - what my point was then is that patents protect your thoughts that other people DON'T get independently (they copy you) and they make a fortune off of.

Steve

Re:Ah yes...

[CrimsonAvenger]

You will all die without a patent system

True. Of course, we will all die WITH a Patent System too. Or does anyone here really expect to not die?

Re:On the bright side of things...

[vertinox]

For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?

The downside of all this patent litigation is that every possible form of idea will be patented by 2010.

On the brightside, by 2027 all of those patents will have expired... Of course we might be speaking Mandarin by then due to the failure of the US economy due to the patents.

Level playing field?

[maillemaker]

>And by the same token, you would be able to take Chinese products and
>do the same. And the wheels of industry would turn that much faster.
>
>Or do you think that only the west has a creative mind?

Of course not. But if there is no protection of intellectual property, who is going to invest in developing a new product, just so someone else can benefit from all your R&D and go directly into production, often with a much lower cost of production? Answer: No one.

Besides, even if the bulk of the thought was NOT going INTO China as it presently is, what good would it do us to copy Chinese ideas if it costs us 10 times as much to produce the same good because of disparities in labor costs? We still couldn't compete.

No, the business of the future is to develop new, marketable ideas and then protect those ideas. This is why IP is heating up so much lately. It's the one weapon you can wield against globalization and cheap labor. You develop the idea and protect it, and it doesn't matter who makes it or where - you still get your piece of the pie.

>At the end of the day, your company needs to ask itself whether it
>wants to be in its current business or not. It sounds to me like
>the answer is "no", as the appearance of competition seems to be
>enough to make it want to cease R&D spending if it is not given
>the aid of protectionism.

LOL! What a statement. Of course my company wants to be in business, as all businesses do. What they don't want to do, however, is pay an engineering staff millions of dollars to develop a new widget and bring it to market, and then have someone else copy it after a week's worth of reverse engineering and start manufacturing and selling it themselves! That is not competition. That's riding on someone else's laurels. If you can't see that, friend you are just blind. And if you don't offer protection to those kinds of processes, NO ONE WILL BOTHER TO DO THEM.

Do you think drug companies would continue to invest in developing new drugs if, as soon as they do, anyone can copy them and, leveraging cheaper labor, produce them at 1/2 the cost to boot? Hell no! It's the same for any business.

Why don't you go spend a couple of million dollars developing a product or process and then watch while others copy it, sell it for less than you can make it, and drive you out of the business for the product you created. Then you can come back and tell us how enthusiastic you are about dumping more money into R&D for another product or process.

Steve

Re:Four examples

[Dr. Evil]

Inline skates took off when the patent expired. I think the most recent designs were from 1980. Now the patents are on the various brakes.

Re:Ah yes...

[lbrandy]

Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?

There's humanity in a nutshell for you. If reading that doesn't make you sick, then I feel very, very sorry for you.

Why? Why should that make me feel sick? Because we have to "put a price" on the cure for cancer? Are you implying it should be "priceless"? That no matter how much money it costs, we should spend it, and give it out for free, to everyone? Where is this money coming from? Me? Have you actually thought this through? It is my "human" duty to give every single penny I earn (read: my time...), to the study of the cure for cancer? Why cancer? Why not AIDS or poverty or paralysis? Should my kids eat rice every day, so I can squeeze every possible dime into curing cancer? Is this my duty? Is it that sacred?

He is absolutely 100% correct. Without the monetary gain from curing cancer, the progress would be 1/100th of what it is. I know you can pump all your "money is evil" plattitudes, but the simple fact is this... working to cure cancer puts food on people's table. Period. The more food it puts on the table, the more people will want to do it. Human beings have greater needs then scientific pursuit of the cure of cancer. We've lived millions of years w/o medicine to cure it, but we don't go a month without food.

I am given, depending on when the cancer kicks in, 70 years on this planet. I choose to give up a certain percentage of that time to do services for other people, in return for "food" and other necessities. My priority, in life, isn't "curing cancer"... in any form, whether it's giving money away for free, giving my time away for free, or having my money taken from me earmarked for that purpose.... I will spend my "money" on the things most important, first, and of what remains I will give what I choose to give.

So since the cure cancer should have no profit, who is going to pay for it? Me? The government? Who? Money doesn't conjure up in thin air. By asking scientists to work for free, you accomplish one of two things: You make them quit or you take their time (read: which is their money, which is their food).

If you are going to tell me that it is my "human" duty to rob from my children's dinner to help cure cancer, you are the one that is sick, and I feel sorry for you, and your children.

Sudden surge in anti-patent sentiment in media

[djelovic]

Funny. The media (especially business media) was very pro-patent up to a few months ago. Suddenly all these articles questioning patents are cropping up.

Either they are hurt by the fact that their Blackberries may stop working, or there is an orchestrated PR campaing going on.

Dejan

Recommend Everyone Read This Guy's Comment

[Master of Transhuman]

And his article referenced therein.

Nickname: Stephan Kinsella
Review: As a practicing patent attorney, I've observed that both proponents and opponents of the patent system use unprincipled, flawed, utilitarian (wealth-maximization) reasoning to support their position. The primarily principled opponents of patents are anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists. The solution is to realize that there is a non-socialist, pro-property rights, principled case against patents, as I have laid out in my article Against Intellectual Property, available at Mises.org http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf> .
Date reviewed: Jan 3, 2006 8:54 PM

Re:Recommend Everyone Read This Guy's Comment

[Shadowlore]

As a practicing patent attorney, I've observed that both proponents and opponents of the patent system use unprincipled, flawed, utilitarian (wealth-maximization) reasoning to support their position. The primarily principled opponents of patents are anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists.

Hardly. Most of them are "anarcho-capitalists", "libertarians", "Libertarians", and "free marketers". Patents are a government creation of monopoly, an interference with the natural flow. or so the argument goes.

While I am sure there are "anti-industrialist, anti-private-property socialists" opposing patents, they are more likely to be in the minority. And my experience as someone who has studied the situation for many years (long before people such as yourself even thought there to be a problem), my experience has shown that socialists are rarely in opposition to the patent system. Imdeed, most are growing ever more fond of it. After all, you can't prevent everyone from having private property until you control most of it. As long as there are patents, socialists can purchase or use them to garner more power. With stronger concentrations of power (bigger corporations), they have less work to do to achieve their agenda.

Re:Recommend Everyone Read This Guy's Comment

[Master of Transhuman]

I think you missed his point - Kinsella IS a Libertarian. He may well be wrong about what percentage of socialists oppose the patent system, but he's quite well aware of how most socialists believe in state power.

Mod your comment redundant.

Yes Patents Are EVIL

[argoff]

Essay: A Violent Protest Against Patents

Re:Ah yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

In a perfect world, cancer research facilities would have hot and cold running cash dispensers. Here in the real world
we have to work around this idea that nothing is available in infinite supply. Resources could be allocated based on what you feel is best. However, that might conflict with my opinions. For example, is curing breast cancer more important, less important, or equally important to curing lung cancer? IMO, a cure for breast cancer is more important as it's cause is not usually self-inflicted.

Other people might not give a rat's ass about one or the other, feeling that a cure for leukemia is more important (especially if they or someone in their imediate family has it).

At the end of the day, we have to allocate the resources efficiently, and a free market happens to do a pretty good job of that. There is a demand for a cure for cancer. That demand sends signals to the appropriate organizations who invest capital and work towards a cure. When they find a cure, they are rewarded for their efforts. If we disengage the process of finding a cure for cancer from that of the free market, we've still got potential resources (philanthropists with big checkbooks like Bill Gates or foundations which raise money from lots of people with smaller checkbooks) but the pool is much smaller and it's less likely that a cure will be found.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents - except lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sounds corny, but consider this - when Kodak tried to get into the instant film business
> to compete against Polaroid, Polaroid took them to court for patent infringement. Kodak had
> nothing with which to horse trade, and Polaroid refused to negotiate - they drove them out
> of the market. This after Kodak had invested millions in new plants and employees.
> You never want to get caught with no bargaining chips at the patent negotation table.

O.K., but the patent system initially was not installed to protect polaroids stream of revenue, but for the "furtherance of arts and sciences", or some such, I do not recall the exact wording.

The general idea was that e.g. polaroids founder would not have spent a lot of resources to develop the instant film process if he couldnt have been sure to reap the potential rewards of that risky development because of patent protection.

This may or may not have been the case.

On the other hand, during the last quarter of the 20th century, it was obvious to even the most casual observer, that polaroids

  a) sucked
  b) were a ripoff

Therefore, Kodak with its vast technological resources entering the field as a fierce competitor, might have really "advanced the arts and sciences" in the instant film business.

Furthermore, with Polaroid and Kodak more or less monopolizing the "instant" and "chemical" film business, respectively, in the US and other parts of the world, they arguably spend most of their resources fortifying their business by protecting it with patents, but did not pay enough attention to other emerging fields like digital cameras. (in fact, Kodak was and still is working on digital camera technology, but IMO not with enough vigour)

As a result, Polaroid collapsed a few years ago, and Kodak is only a shadow of its former self.

As for the Jobs of engineers like you, all at Polaroid and most at Kodak were destroyed.

The (now almost entirely digital) camera business is now largely owned by companies in the far east that innovated rather than rest on their patent cushion.

Therefore, in my view, the "instant film" example is an argument that, for the "furtherance of arts and sciences", as well as for the jobs of their citizens, governments around the world should abolish patents, or at least heavily restrict them to real technological breakthroughs.

I think that some parts of the industries in western countries, and especially those that look beyound the next quarterly conference call, begin to understand this.

If you take a highly innovative and fiercely competitive industry like semiconductor design and manufacturing, you will notice that the largest part of the expenditures are equipment and tools.

An SDRAM is a fairly simple device, compared to the equipment used to manufacture it.

If a company A builds a fab in the US, it can be sued by a competitor B about the alleged patent-infringing way it aligns the masks. A preliminary injunction could shut down the 2 billion dollar factor for a year, rendering it worthless.

In china, a local judge would never shut a local manufacturer Cs factory down for patent infringement.

Since the chips eventually imported by C from China into the US do not contain parts of the "mask aligning process", competitor B can not do anything about them.

However, A and B still pay hordes of patent lawyers to file "offensive" and "defensive" mask alignment process patents, and their engineers spend significant portions of their time checking and circumventing more or less trivial patents.

After a few years, A and B cannot compete any longer against C, they "deinvest", lay off the bulk of their workforce, and their remaining managers begin to harass the few remaining domestic competitors in bordering fields with the rest of their "valuable patent portfolio".

If you want to save domestic jobs in the long term, the patent nonsense must be stopped immediately.

How to file a patent...

[maillemaker]

>My thought is that if A wants to come up with the idea and then sit
>and wait for some B to come up with it independently and do the hard
>work of turning the idea into a product, A doesn't deserve a slice of
>B's hard work just for being lazy. Now, if A's shopping it around to
>people who can actually produce it, that's another matter, but these
>patent holding companies don't put any effort of their own in, they
>just wait for someone else to expend the effort and then demand a
>slice of the profit. That's not the way to create an incentive
>for anyone else to do anything new.

Why not? How do you think the patent holding companies got the patents they are holding? Answer: They paid someone for their ideas. There's the incentive. Or, they developed the ideas themselves, and they are hoping for a payoff at some point in the future - again an incentive.

Is it lame that someone buys the patent for an idea and then waits for someone to start infringing on the patents they own before demanding royalties for using their property? Maybe - some would call it shrewd. To me it's no different than the guy who buys cheap farmland and then years later sells it to developers for a fortune when the area has grown and turned urban.

Believe me, it sucks to get boxed in by patent constraints when you are developing a patent - I have had to change direction on my designs in the past when I have found out that I was possibly treading on someone else's patents. But that is the price we pay for having the protection for our ideas.

Steve

Re:How to file a patent...

[cduffy]

Believe me, it sucks to get boxed in by patent constraints when you are developing a patent - I have had to change direction on my designs in the past when I have found out that I was possibly treading on someone else's patents. But that is the price we pay for having the protection for our ideas.

It seems to me that you're arguing from the perspective that having "protection" for your ideas is an end goal in and of itself -- and for some, that may well be the case. However, in the US, the point of the patent system is encouraging invention -- not the creation of Yet Another Commodity.

I'm speaking as a shareholder and senior engineer at a startup making software targeted at a large and lucerative market. There are some extremely innovative elements to our product (where the unique part is not the number of man-hours but the concepts which guided how those man-hours were applied), and there are other elements which required large amounts of skilled labor from folks whose labor goes for a substantially higher market rate than your typical development staff. If I were looking out only for my immediate wealth (and not concerned about my company being sued for unknowingly infringing others' patents on non-differentiating technology), I would be strongly in favor of same sorts of "strong patent protection" you're espousing here.

However -- I can't honestly support that. Why? I'm not "developing a patent"; I'm developing software targeted to a very specific userbase. Part of my regular job duties is coming up with new devices and algorithms when necessary to efficiently perform some task I've been handed -- and as the geek-of-all-trades (unlike the many specialists we have in house), I perform a lot of different tasks, and build a lot of new tools. The goal of these isn't to have something we can sell to our customers -- rather, almost all of them are used to meet some immediate need, either for the customer or the business internally. Patenting the things I come up with over the course of my regular work (and there are a reasonable number of them which the USPTO would quite certainly accept -- some of the anti-tampering technology I developed comes to mind in particular, so long as nobody else has come up with it first) would be overhead: It would mean I'd have less time, and so invent less stuff. Worse, though, would be the case where I were obligated to check everything I create for infringements on others' patents -- my work would be damn near paralyzed. Can I justify patenting the big ideas that matter more than the implementation man-hour count? Absolutely... but those are very, very few and far between.

Finally, I have faith in our ability to make a good product -- not only to have differentiating features, but to get them out first, implement them best and provide our customers with good service. Let the competition try to play catch-up -- some of them may be larger, but being small means we can be faster on our feet, and we have some damn good talent. I'm much more afraid of the big guys driving us out of business (or convincing us to sell them our technology) by threating us with patents on items that should be obvious than I am of them beating us fair and square.

Why not? How do you think the patent holding companies got the patents they are holding? Answer: They paid someone for their ideas. There's the incentive. Or, they developed the ideas themselves, and they are hoping for a payoff at some point in the future - again an incentive.

It's an incentive, to be sure -- but if it's an excessive incentive, then it does the economy as a whole more harm than good. It should be enough to encourage innovation, but not so much as to result in the sorts of nonsense which presently occur (in which a company's ability to sell a large and complex product can be completely halted based on their ability to license a patent on some small and obvious component thereof -- thu

Saving domestic jobs...

[maillemaker]

>If you want to save domestic jobs in the long term, the
>patent nonsense must be stopped immediately.

So if patents are abolished, what products will we in the US be able to sell on the world market? If the last of our marketable products - thought, are rendered worthless, what jobs will be left? We've all but lost the manufacturing jobs. If the development jobs go, too, what will we have? Answer: Nothing.

Why do you think IP is heating up so much lately? Because that is the last of the marketable table scraps that we have left. Corporations big and small are coming to the realization that the 3rd world is catching up rapidly in terms of the kinds of things they are able to manufacture and quality. So unless you want your products being made in Elbonia in and sold for a fraction of what it costs you to make them, you had better stop others from being able to make them. Patents are a way to do that.

Steve

Re:Saving domestic jobs...

[cduffy]

So if patents are abolished, what products will we in the US be able to sell on the world market? If the last of our marketable products - thought, are rendered worthless, what jobs will be left? We've all but lost the manufacturing jobs. If the development jobs go, too, what will we have? Answer: Nothing.

If all we can generate is government-enforced monopolies, we've already lost. Collecting patents isn't creating value; creating products creates value. And honestly -- if we get to the point where all we generate is patents, why in the world would China even pretend to honor them? If it comes to where all the actual wealth is being created on the other side of the world, I wouldn't expect them to share just because our government says that so-and-so has been granted this-and-such a monopoly right.

Re:Saving domestic jobs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, patents are a 18th and 19th century thing. They prevent others from selling products embodying your patented ideas or using your patented processes ***in the country where the patent was granted to you***.

So, as far as process patents are concerned, elbonia just doesnt care, it does not issue process patents, and even if it did, good luck enforcing them.

As far as products are concerned, the question is :

If you are always causing these patent troubles, why should elbonia care to manufacture the goods you developed ?

In china, 370 million mobile handsets were sold.
This number is larger than the number of people in the US and canada combined.
The north american handset market is probably still bigger than the chinese handset market, if not in units then at least in volume due to higher ASP's, but this is probably going to change in the next decade.

Qualcomm, one of the shooting stars during the bubble, holds a lot of patents applicable to the North american Handset Standard (CDMA, i think). They make a pretty penny on that. But the rest of the world has chosen the GSM standard, which results in cheaper and possibly (due to higher volume with the resulting greater engineering effort) superior handsets.

The US still has a successful contender in the global Handset market (Motorola), but the global market leader is based in elbonia ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h finland ;-)

So basically, you could argue that patents issued to qualcomm in the US and other markets have hindered the adoption the CDMA standard abroad.

Or think of the software industry.

In the 80s, Microsoft DOS, and later Windows, swept all competing OSes off PCs for the superior value perceived by customers compared to other offerings.

It may not have been the technologically most advanced, but it did the job and let the customer choose between a wide range of hardware and software.

There was not a single patent involved in an innovation that laid the base for the arguably most valuable company in the world.

This is a product people wanted to buy !

Nowadays, if Microsoft tries to force their products onto consumers by patent shenanigans designed to keep the competition down, they are doomed in the long run.

Do you really think that the Dong-Feng-Garment-Works honor that Microsoft programmers invented the FAT-Filesystem in the 80ies when they decide which OS to run their accounting on ?

Every dollar Microsoft spends on IP-Lawyers in the US is lost for localizing windows and the accounting package to cantonese and make the Dong-Feng-Garment-Works *want* to use and pay for windows.

Re:Saving domestic jobs...

[maillemaker]

>Basically, patents are a 18th and 19th century thing. They prevent others from selling
>products embodying your patented ideas or using your patented processes
>***in the country where the patent was granted to you***.

This is correct.

>So, as far as process patents are concerned, elbonia just doesnt care, it does not issue
>process patents, and even if it did, good luck enforcing them.

Oh, they sure do care, because if the patent holder holds the patent in every country where there are people who want to buy the product, then Elbonia has no place to sell their product.

When you get a patent, you patent your invention in the countries /of your target market/, not necessarily of the countries where it will be manufactured. By doing this, you can prevent others from selling in your markets, regardless of where they might try and manufacture a copy. These sorts of laws are enforced every day in civilized countries.

>If you are always causing these patent troubles, why should elbonia care to manufacture the goods you developed ?

That's the point! Unless, of course, you are paying them to manufacture them FOR YOU. In which case they care to do it in order to get paid making a product for you.

>So basically, you could argue that patents issued to qualcomm in the US and other markets have hindered the adoption the CDMA standard abroad.

No doubt it did. But the guys holding the GSM patents are loving life, aren't they? Let's hope they got patents in China.

>In the 80s, Microsoft DOS, and later Windows, swept all competing OSes off PCs for the
>superior value perceived by customers compared to other offerings.
>
>It may not have been the technologically most advanced, but it did the job and let
>the customer choose between a wide range of hardware and software.
>
>There was not a single patent involved in an innovation that laid the
> base for the arguably most valuable company in the world.

Even if true, I'm sure there was a great deal of copyright protection instead.

>Every dollar Microsoft spends on IP-Lawyers in the US is lost for localizing windows
>and the accounting package to cantonese and make the Dong-Feng-Garment-Works *want* to use and pay for windows.

True enough - resources spent on IP protection are resources that cannot be spent on product development. The fact that corporations choose to do this anyway clearly indicates that they feel that without doing so their current products would be stolen and produced by someone else, eating into their profits for the products that they /have/ developed. It's hard to go after new markets tomorrow if you have nothing to sell today.

Steve

Re:Saving domestic jobs...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> So, as far as process patents are concerned, elbonia just doesnt care, it does not issue
>> process patents, and even if it did, good luck enforcing them.
>
> Oh, they sure do care, because if the patent holder holds the patent in every country where
> there are people who want to buy the product, then Elbonia has no place to sell their product.

I am sorry if i did not express myself clearly enough, but I was talking about *process patents*.

Maybe I do not clearly understand the legal intricacies, but my basic understanding is this :

1) I invent a process to cheaply transmute lead into gold, and get a US patent on this
2) I build a factory in the US that implements this process
3) Some guy builds a factory in elbonia using the same process I invented
4) Then he imports the gold transmuted in elbonia to the US
5) I can not forbid him marketing the gold in the US, because gold is an element.
      There is nothing you can patent about x neutrons and y protons smashed together,
      though the smashing together might be patentable

So, in all cases where the product itself cannot be patented, but the process can, elbonia wins.

>> Every dollar Microsoft spends on IP-Lawyers in the US is lost for localizing windows
>> and the accounting package to cantonese and make the Dong-Feng-Garment-Works *want* to use and pay for windows.
>
> True enough - resources spent on IP protection are resources that cannot be spent on product
> development. The fact that corporations choose to do this anyway clearly indicates that they
> feel that without doing so their current products would be stolen and produced by someone else,
> eating into their profits for the products that they /have/ developed. It's hard to go after
> new markets tomorrow if you have nothing to sell today.

And this is why patent law needs to be reformed.

If you are a manufacturer in the US, you need a patent lawyer to survive -> higher cost

If you are a manufacturer in elbonia, you don't, unless all the following conditions apply

- You need to export to the US

- The product, not just the production process, is patented

- You are unable to use a "sell and run" tactic, where you first sell your stuff through a
    dummy front corporation to Walmart.
    Nobody cares if the dummy front corporation is convicted of patent infringement
    after 5 years, it has long before folded

Therefore, elbonian manufacturers are set out to eat US manufacturer's lunches unless the US government eases the artificial burden imposed on domestic manufacturers.

This will hurt current holders of patents, which makes it hard to implement, but in my opinion is necessary in the long run.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents - except lawyers

[Macadamizer]

The (now almost entirely digital) camera business is now largely owned by companies in the far east that innovated rather than rest on their patent cushion.


But did they innovate because they didn't want to "rest on their (nonexistant) patent cushion," or did they innovate because they couldn't enter the U.S. market due to the existing patents? If it's the latter, then the patent system DID lead to innovation -- maybe not in the way some believe it should, but it lead to innovation nonetheless.

Look at it another way -- if Sony or Nikon or Canon had owned the patents instead of Polaroid or Kodak, would Sony or Nikon or Canon STILL have innovated, or would they have rested on their "patent cushion" while Polaroid and Kodak innovated?

This could all be solved fairly easily....

[Smoke2Joints]

...if the patent office would actually go out and check to see if the patent is vapourware or not, rather than just blindly accept that the person has created whatever it is.

No, patents must be rejected on principle

[Baki]

Please have a look at the first reaction to the article, which points to http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf. It is quite long but, IMO, is an excellent and very thorrow argumentation against all forms of intellectual property, both for practical reasons and for moral and principle reasons.

MOD THIS UP

[Baki]

I can't since I also posted a reference to this article. It is truely excellent, everyone must read it.
I have saved a copy and shall send it to everyone I know :).

Re:Ah yes...

[multiplexo]

1) You will all die without a patent system. I'm not sure I'd have even been able to use pig insulin, let alone human from recombinant source insulin, without the patent regime. Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?

Bullshit! There are plenty of counter examples to this, the Salk polio vaccine being a fairly huge one. The funding for the polio vaccine was raised by individuals who wanted to eradicate polio, not by a bunch of VCs who were looking to make a buck by cashing in on a patent portfolio. Also given the way drug companies work they're not going to be interested in finding a cure for cancer because the definition of a cure is that once you take it you're done with it. Drug companies want to find cancer treatments that they can continue to charge you for so they can guarantee a revenue stream.

Re:What Can We Do ???

[SpacePunk]

Prior art has nothing to do with what is publicly known. The search for prior art is done in the patent archives.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents - except lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Im an engineer, not an economist, so maybe I am seeing this too simplistic.

However, I am convinced that even long before digital imaging was ready for prime-time, "instant imaging" based on chemical processes could have been heavily improved for the benefit of all users.

So, the patent system has failed its purported goal to spur innovation in that field by rewarding risks taken after the initial development.

On the secondary goal, which in the current political discussion seems to get the most attention, securing each countries established economies against "unfair competition" from "copycats", it has failed even more spectacularly.

Sony, Nikon and Canon, amongst other japanese high-tech companies, traditionally have been in fierce competition against each other. Whenever one of them expanded in a new area of business, some of the others followed for fear of being left out of some lucrative area of business.

Initially, they did not put much weight in patents, as they all did not have any. They competed in the open marketplace, on the merits of superior engineering and manufacturing.

When they finally got important patents of their own, some of them may have fallen in the same trap Polaroid and Kodak fell in.

A good example for that would be Sony`s Trinitron CRT technology. With that, they ruled the business for about 15 years. Ten years ago, Sony was the undisputed leader in most fields of consumer elecronics. However, they failed to make the transition to flat panel technology, and today must be thankful to Samsung that they get some technological breadcrumbs for financing Samsung's leadership in the field. In digital cameras, they cling to their once equally superior, but expensive CCD imaging technology, while the emerging mass markets (Mobiles, mice, DSC's) slowly all switch to CMOS imagers. Here, a US player like Micron is even gaining back ground, because he comes from an extremely competitive field (Dram) to a formely static field (imagers, which Sony also ruled unchallengened for more than 15 Years).

patents vs. products...

[maillemaker]

>If all we can generate is government-enforced monopolies, we've already lost. Collecting patents isn't creating value; creating products creates value.

Collecting patents doesn't create value, but /creating/ patents sure does create value, because patents, and the investment that went into creating them, are valuable.

>And honestly -- if we get to the point where all we generate is patents, why in the world would China even pretend to honor them?

Simple: Other countries honor patents because if they don't there are repercussions for them. For one, we would stop honoring theirs. For two, we might well close our markets to them or otherwise penalize them.

Steve

Re:patents vs. products...

[Coryoth]

Collecting patents doesn't create value, but /creating/ patents sure does create value, because patents, and the investment that went into creating them, are valuable.

It is the new ideas, not the patents, that are valuable. The patents are an effort to attach additional artificial value to the ideas. Not having a patent on an idea does not make it worthless, and research into new things is still going to be valuable, even in a world without patents.

Let's take the cameras from earlier in the discussion as an example. Presume we are back in time in an alternate patentless past with Kodak busy making instant film cameras - something into which, in practice, they will have to put R&D. Sure, they can reverse engineer what Polaroid did to get the basics, but to actually manage to produce good quality working instant film cameras of their own they'll have to put in some research and engineering effort of their own. In the meantime Polaroid, instead of resting on their patent, is busy doing R&D to make better instant film cameras. As long as there are advancements to be made Polaroid, with their R&D team who are well acquainted with all the fine details of instant film cameras, far more so than reverse engineering people at Kodak, will always be the premiere instant film camera manufaturer, which is worth money. If Kodak simply reverse engineers everything they will be always be behind and playing desperate catch up ("how do we integrate this idea into our cameras? We would have to re-engineer all of X to do it!"). The only way for Kodak to actually get ahead and be anything other than the cheap knockoff brand would be to invest money in their own R&D team, working quite independently. Are the innovations that Polaroid might come up with as valuable as they might be with patents? Possibly not, but they are still distinctly valuable, and there is plenty of incentive for both Polaroid and Kodak to invest in R&D. Moreover, this alternate world would provide at least as rapid advancement in instant film technology as the real world with patents ever did.

But wait, there's more. While Polaroid and Kodak are busy slugging it out over instant film cameras there is still plenty of incentive for Asian camera makers to throw money into R&D on digital cameras because those investments will pay off. Even in the real world it is not so much patents holding Kodak back in the field of digital camera technology so much as the fact that Kodak just doesn't really "get" digital cameras. The companies that put in the hard slog researching and engineering digital cameras are way ahead. Kodak didn't believe digital photography would take off, and got into the game way to late. In our patentless alternate world exactly the same thing could very easily happen, and any company willing to put in the effort into digital camera technology would very likely see that effort repayed. There is still plenty of incentive for innvovation in the patentless world, and by not granting artificial monopolies companies are encouraged to push ahead in R&D rather than resting on their laurels from a single good idea. Innovation, research and development, and advancement of arts and sciences will all still occur, and quite vigorously, even in our theoretical patentless world.

But let's try another example, just to demonstrate that there is inherent value from serious research; that the value of research is not solely a function of patents. How could the US compete in a patentless world? What would they produce? Imagine a research thinktank specialising in technology X. If they come up some new innovative design that makes technology X cheaper, or more efficient, or just better, do you not think that technology X manufacturing companies in China, or India, or wherever, wouldn't pay good money for the fruits of that research? How much would they pay for contract with the thinktank for exclusive rights to any new innovations with regard to technology X for some fixed timeframe? Sure oth

Re:patents vs. products...

[maillemaker]

>It is the new ideas, not the patents, that are valuable. The patents are an effort to attach additional artificial value to the ideas.

No, patents are an effort to do two things:

Firstly, they get innovative ideas into the public domain, thus furthering the collective knowlege of all. In order to be granted a patent, you basically have to give away the secret of how your idea works. These patents are a matter of public record and easily searchable. Secondly, in exchange for giving away your idea for your invention to the world, most countries grant you exclusivity for some number of years. This allows the entity who came up with the idea some time to profit off of it.

>Not having a patent on an idea does not make it worthless, and research into new things is still going to be valuable,
>even in a world without patents.

You are right. But not having exclusivity, especially for an easily reproduced item, certainly diminishes its value. It also is likely to make entities more likely to keep their technology as a trade secret (if possible, i.e. the forumla for Coca-Cola), which will benefit no one but the inventing entity forever, or as long as they can keep the secret.

>Let's take the cameras from earlier in the discussion as an example. Presume we are back in time in an alternate
>patentless past with Kodak busy making instant film cameras - something into which, in practice, they will have
>to put R&D. Sure, they can reverse engineer what Polaroid did to get the basics, but to actually manage to produce
>good quality working instant film cameras of their own they'll have to put in some research and engineering effort of their own.

But not nearly as much research and engineering effort as Polaroid did. Basically, in your alternate past, Polaroid subsidised Kodak's camera development. Is that fair? I don't think so.

>As long as there are advancements to be made Polaroid, with their R&D team who are well acquainted with
>all the fine details of instant film cameras, far more so than reverse engineering people at Kodak,
>will always be the premiere instant film camera manufaturer, which is worth money.

And what if there /are/ no more advancements to be made? Let's say you patent something novel, yet very simple and easily reverse-engineered. Basically you get no reward for your effort to come up with such an invention. Or let's say you come up with something incredibly complex, but final, like, say, a cure for AIDS, or cancer. You invested 15 years of research and 5 billion dollars in the effort. But when you're done, anyone can make it. Is that fair? I don't think so.

>Moreover, this alternate world would provide at least as rapid advancement in instant
>film technology as the real world with patents ever did.

I doubt it very much. In your alternate world you are basically assuming that companies would invest large amounts of money in reasearch and development in the hopes that no one else can copy their work very quickly. The more simple your invention, the less likely this dream is to come true.

>But wait, there's more. While Polaroid and Kodak are busy slugging it out over instant film cameras there is still
>plenty of incentive for Asian camera makers to throw money into R&D on digital cameras because those
>investments will pay off. Even in the real world it is not so much patents holding Kodak back in the field
>of digital camera technology so much as the fact that Kodak just doesn't really "get" digital cameras.
>The companies that put in the hard slog researching and engineering digital cameras are way ahead.
>Kodak didn't believe digital photography would take off, and got into the game way to late.

So what? The purpose of patents is not to save companies from short-sighted business plans. It is, as above, the get novel inventions into the public domain, and reward inventors with exclusive right

Re:patents vs. products...

[Coryoth]

You're attempting an interesting straddle here. On the one hand you're claiming that the reason patents are good is that they ensure ideas are put into the public domain rather than being permanently locked up as trade secrets, unable to see the light of day (except for all the consumers who benefit when they buy the product), and on the other hand you're suggesting that the inventions that require patenting are all trivially able to be reverse engineered and flawlessly reproduced almost instantly. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If it can't be reverse engineered, then you don't need a patent, and it will never end up in the public domain anyway. If you need a patent to protect your investment then the ideas will be reverse engineered and become public domain eventually anyway. Patents don't provide any real benefits with regard to ensuring ideas are made public.

Presently existing contract law, including NDAs, trade secret laws, and copyright provide a suprisingly strong structure for promoting research and development (the contract that you claim is a patent is, quite clearly, simply a contract with NDA clauses and entirely covered by contract law - no patents or patent law is required). In practice research, and pushing ahead, has its own rewards in the market. That those rewards are not as great as what you can get if you are granted a monopoly on every idea that occurs to you, when, as can be seen presently, such a system can equally cause significant stagnation in R&D and innovation, leaves you at best, with a very, very muddied argument, with no discernable winner. The question is which system fosters greater advancement, And without some decent case studies I really don't see how you can honestly be so certain that one is superior to the other.

Jedidiah.

Re:patents vs. products...

[maillemaker]

>The question is which system fosters greater advancement,
>And without some decent case studies I really don't see
>how you can honestly be so certain that one is superior
>to the other.

I can be certain because I understand what drives people to invent things. Natural curiosity, and the expectation of a payback on the investment of effort.

I can also be certain because I have first hand experience of inventing a product and, because I could not afford to patent it, now half of India makes my product and sells it to other, bigger fish, who can buy in bigger volume than I can, and I can no longer compete selling my own invention. If I had patent protection, I'd own the market. Now I have nothing.

In a nutshell, most folks in this thread arguing against patents are doing so because they claim that patents hinder advancement.

You're right, from the perspective that it prohibits others from using the idea for a while.

Sure, if there was no value in a particular invention, because anyone could make it, you're right - people would be speedily moving on to the next thing hoping to make a buck before others caught on.

I think that stinks.

If I invent something great I should be able to profit off of that - not have to hope I get lucky and invent something else (and something else, and then something else).

Further, one could argue that patents /encourage/ advancement. I have had to design around patent issues before. Sometimes it causes innovation and new approaches to solve a problem.

Steve

heres an obvious one

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital camera with an electronic touch-sensative shutter release which also has the usual mechanical push-down action:
1. The touch-sen. part readies the CPU/RAM for action (i.e.takes it out of power save/boost the clock rate/flushes buffers etc)
2. Push down for "near" instant picture taking
3. I live in the UK
4 This site is in the USA

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents - except lawyers

[Macadamizer]

So, the patent system has failed its purported goal to spur innovation in that field by rewarding risks taken after the initial development.

That's one way of looking at how the patent system spurs innovation -- by rewarding inventors and making it financially worthwhile to engage in ongoing R&D. However, there is another way to look at the job of the patent system -- the tradeoff one makes with the government to get a patent is that you must disclose your invention to the public. The idea here is that, rather than keep your invention a closely-guarded trade secret, your invention gets out into the world and can be used to build upon by others -- that's how patents can spur innovation, by not requiring everyone else to start from scratch, they can build on other's patented inventions.

Of course, while the patent is valid, they may not be able to market or sell their new products without a license -- but they can develop new products, and potentially find that, rather than take a license, there is a different path that can be taken, i.e., why try and develop new instant films, let's move to another technology altogether. That's innovation.

As far as your Sony Trinitron example, I think there are also two ways to look at it. First, they "rested on their patents" and failed to innovate, as you suggest. However, maybe it made better business sense for them to milk as much out of their market leadership position in TV's as they could, rather than dilute their profits via R&D, let others bear the burden of developing the new technologies, see which technologies shake out, and then use their brand name to enter the market at a later time, once much of the uncertainty has vanished. I don't KNOW if that's what they did, but that could be a viable long-term business strategy. Yeah, Samsung is the flat panel leader right now, but if Sony started slapping their names on TV's, you can bet people would buy them based on their relationship with Sony products over the years. And Sony has been spared the risk of developing reverse-projection or LCD TV's, and can concentrate solely on plasma (or whatever TV ends up being the dominant technology in the flat-panel space) -- because they didn't have any "missteps" and didn't sink big R&D dollars into a product that ultimately the public didn't want, they can enter late and rely on their name and goodwill to carry them. As I said, I don't know if that's what they did, but it seems a logical possibility.

A technology leader doesn't need to innovate all of the time to remain a profitable business!

Just to get this back on the subject of patents, I think you bring up some very interesting points, I just think that there are several ways to look at patents, and their relationship with innovation -- it's not just a patents == good or patents == bad world, it's more complicated than that.

The obvious counterargument

[deblau]

In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting.

It may be clear (in hindsight, obviously) that there are many, MANY ways of performing a particular (novel, non-obvious) function. Do you have to produce a realization of each of these devices? For instance, you make a mousetrap covered with a non-stick substance to make clean up easier. No one has ever thought of this before. Do you have to give the patent office mousetraps coated with every non-stick substance known (and unknown, for that matter)? Under your 'production' system, the first guy who reads your patent will use a substance you didn't think of, and the rationale behind issuing your patent in the first place is defeated.

In order to meaningfully preserve such a system, you must allow generalization in the patent claims beyond what is actually 'produced' in order to preserve the rationales of the patent system. In which case, how far do you open the door? In what directions do you allow generalization? Only on so-called 'key functions', those that differentiate the device from devices which came before? Then who determines what the key functions are? (The patent office.) Who is responsible for determining whether the application, as filed, is 'close enough' to the produced device? (The patent office.) Who is responsible for determining that the application doesn't include anything that isn't in the produced device, to avoid 'trolls'? (The patent office.) I'm sure there's more work the patent office would have to do, that I haven't thought of.

Re:Everyone loves to hate patents - except lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

However, there is another way to look at the job of the patent system -- the tradeoff one makes with the government to get a patent is that you must disclose your invention to the public. The idea here is that, rather than keep your invention a closely-guarded trade secret, your invention gets out into the world and can be used to build upon by others -- that's how patents can spur innovation, by not requiring everyone else to start from scratch, they can build on other's patented inventions.

Yes, this is the idea developed during the age of James Watt, sell the improved steam engines everywhere without the fear of being copied in your lifetime (assuming 20 years of patent protection = remaining life-expectancy of an inventor in the 18th century).
If you die before you can deliver the first engine, then a couple of years later someone can take up the development of your invention.

But the "world wide web" practically came into being in 1995.
Why should we grant patents on "clicking on stuff to buy it" or "auctioning off articles on the internet" that run until at least 2015 ?

Do you really think the Ebay guy did a patent research before coming up with the idea to put up his wifes candy boxes for sale on a website ?

I am an developer myself, and are listed on a few "defensive" patent applications, but I never ever came up with the idea to do a patent research in my field to get technical solutions or ideas. And I do not consider any of these patents I was involved in extremely "non-obvious".

Re:Ah yes...

[Foobar of Borg]

OK... I gotta ask Do you think that the patent system is *not* so broken as to be obvious?
Do you think that the patent system is still achieving the goal set out for it in 1790?

or...

Do you think in order to point out that it broken or to propose a fix one must have an education in patent law?

Well, I would say that you do not need to have an education in patent law to understand that it is broken, but I would say that you at least need to have an in-depth understanding of both patent law and the patent examination process to be able to understand exactly what is wrong with the patent system. I've seen stupid slashbots quoting the title of the patent and chortling something along the lines of "see, patents suck!" without understanding at all what kind of protection is being granted to the patentee. The overall protection could simply be a small but non-obvious modification to a well-known system that makes it work a little better or do something different. The area of protection the patentee gets is small, but the patentee still winds up with an issued patent.

To give you what I think is an appropriate analogy: You don't need to have a detailed understanding of your automobile to realize that it is not working properly. That putterring or grinding or outright smoking is enough to show anyone with a little sense that something is wrong. However, to fix the automobile, you do need to have a detailed understanding of how an automobile works. You don't need to have gone to a specific technical training school to know how to fix it, but the detailed knowledge is still required.

or...

Are you complaining that when it comes to patent discussion the comments here on slashdot are even more uninformed, disingenuous, and sophomorically falsely cynical than they normal are. I have to admit this is something I find hard to believe.

Well, you may have a point there. But, at least with computer stuff, a lot of slashbots have some idea of what they are talking about. So long as you don't praise Microsoft (which I normally don't) or show any disrespect to Open Source Software (which I sometimes do), no one will mod you into oblivion.

And...

Why the attack on Zonk? We all know that while these guys are called "editors" what they are doing bears little resemblance to what most people mean by the word edit... they more are like gatekeepers who cut-n-paste...it even says so in the faq.

Oh, I was just being an ass. Zonk posted the article, so I thought I'd chide him. That admittedly was rather childish on my part.

Software patents are not good

[typical]

I'm not sure I'd have even been able to use pig insulin, let alone human from recombinant source insulin, without the patent regime.

I'm not sure either, but I'm also not sure that you wouldn't have had even better systems. Patents are definitely not a necessary component of medical advances -- they may well help, though.

"Who owns my polio vaccine? The people! Could you patent the sun?"

-- Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine

My particular beef is with software patents. I don't know enough about the chemistry, biomedical, mechanical, and business plan industries to know whether patents there are worthwhile. I work at a corporate lab that does computer science research, and yet I haven't read one software patent that I consider indispensible or even that directly helpful to the advancement of computer science. I have seen people making poor engineering decisions because once they have produced a patent, even if they discover a better approach to solving a problem, the people funding them expect them to conform to the patent. The image of expensive-to-develop, revolutionary ideas is simply not the reality of most worthwhile work. Worse, almost every engineer that I've worked with has at some point been constrained because of patent concerns. The only direct beneficiary is the legal department.

The idea of the patent is that without it, everything will simply become secret information (or, alternately, that there will be no advances in the field). This system might have been reasonable for, say, a new plow design. It is immediately obvious how a new plow works. The reverse engineering and production of duplicate plows can be done almost immediately. It is not feasible for an individual to produce a nation's worth of plows -- capital to produce these plows is required, so there is concern that the ideas of individuals will not be implemented without providing incentive for corporations to expend money on research. A new plow may have a lifespan of fifty years. However, this is not at all the case in computer science. A single person can easily come up with a new idea in computer science, produce an implementation, and replicate this implementation around the world. He *inherently* has protection -- it takes time to figure out what he has done and reimplement a competing product, if his idea truly is amazing, and if his idea is obvious and trivial, then it has a correspondingly weaker degree of protection. His production costs are low, he can recoup expenses in a short time -- software products generally have a lifespan that is far shorter than any patents protecting them. The time before someone can reverse-engineer and reimplement his work is significant in his case, unlike the situation with the plow.

There are other issues. One of the challenges associated with software is the degree to which a software vendor can create lock-in. Patents can be phenomenally helpful in this -- for example, TrueType is now the de facto standard font format in use, but hinting information in TrueType fonts cannot be used by the FreeType renderer implementation. Apple holds a patent that may or may not prevent FreeType from interpreting the hinting instructions. All the existing incumbent players simply cross-license their patents (completely contrary to the intent of how patents were intended to function). If you want to enter the font renderer world and be competitive, you now have to sell people on a new, incompatible format.

This cross-licensing is a severe problem. NVidia and Intel cross-license. Apple and Microsoft cross-license. ATI and Nvidia cross-license. Why? Because (a) they've long since realized that it is simply impossible for an engineer to legally function in the patent minefield of a competitive industry without simply overriding patents and (b) this simply allows them to prevent any new challengers from entering their arena. Every advance, no matter how minor, has a few patents attached to it, and the patents are used to en

The issue is concentration of influence.

[lenski]

Consequent to the merger-mania of the past 30 years, the number of human minds affecting huge swathes of the intellectual landscape has dropped dramatically. The smaller number of voices has increased the relative power of each of those voices. Furthermore, as they get higher in the food chain, their interests correlate more closely: They are all "big money people", instead of being "newspaper people", "car people", "steel people", "corn people', et cetera.

So we have a much much smaller set of people who have the ability to set our national agenda.

Unsurprisingly, that's just what they are doing.

You are somewhat correct though, we the people have not been watching the store. Instead, we've been caught busting ass trying to survive the onslaught of exceptionally high inflation in the areas where our middle-class finances are affected the most: housing, health and energy. Lazy? Indifferent? only by comparison to the rather more basic issues of survival.

The big money folks are not affected by the same forces as the rest of us, so they set the national agenda. That is why some of us are frustrated. Our middle class voices are part of a general din, but the voices of the powerful are amplified by the megaphone of their big money.

Corporations have many of the "rights" of individuals, due to what I think is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. Unlike people who have lives, children, and such, corporations are designed and built for exactly one purpose: Make money. They build stuff and sell stuff only because those behaviors serve the ultimate goal: Generate cash.

Our choices in elections are simple: Choose the representative of the corporate rights party versus the representative of the radical corporate rights party. They have the support (money) of the corporations.

You want us to be less indifferent? Start advocating for clean elections. But watch over your shoulder for the big money folks that are not interested in losing the influence their slush funds have bought them in the recent past, as they will be gunning for you.

Re:The issue is concentration of influence.

[dada21]

Our choices in elections are simple: Choose the representative of the corporate rights party versus the representative of the radical corporate rights party. They have the support (money) of the corporations.

I agree with your first paragraphs, I disagree heavily on your answer.

Congress is not corrupt because they can accept unlimited money -- they are corrupt because they were given unlimited power. Federal Campaign laws all violate the 1st Amendment completely. If you want to see third parties succeed, you need to dismantle the FEC and let the voices be heard financially and verbally.

Yet I don't think the FEC is the only problem -- the unlimited power of government must be stopped.

I did my part the best way possible:

I refuse to use the US banking cartel system -- the central bank gets nearly zero of my labor.

I refuse to use the electronic dollar -- no debit, no credit, no virtual money.

I refuse to use the loaning system -- any time I need money, I either save it myself or get a private loan from non-banks.

I refuse to use the corrupt stock market -- any time I have money, I either loan it privately or invest in a business I own or co-own.

My money is in gold, silver, my businesses, my property (no loan), my car (no loan) and the businesses of others that reaps a profit for me. All my currency is converted to gold and silver -- the ultimate store of wealth.

By backing out of the financial engine that is, in my opinion, the key to collapsing "their" power, I've taken myself out of their system. Sure, they still tax me, but the power to tax is stronger through the power to inflate the currency base. 2006 will be known as the year that the dollar died as the standard form of payment internationally. I believe the Middle East and South American oil companies will standardize on gold as a form of payment, the Euro, and the dollar. With the Euro and the US dollar both becoming devalued from excessive inflation by the central banks, you'll see oil prices skyrocket -- which is what I want to see. US$6 gallons of gas is no worry to me if I don't trade in US dollars.

Do your part and exit the politics: don't vote, don't use their currency, don't accept their loans and don't put your labor into their stock market. You'll be glad that you did, and you'll feel free from day one.

Re:What Can We Do ???

[Anonymous Coward]

"the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States."

Sorry, but no, you're wrong.

Possible Solution, but hard to get passed

[TemporalBeing]

Admittedly, I have not RTAd, and I am not pro-patents - however, I think it would be hard to get rid of them, so heres a solution that may work - though not all the details are here.

First - change the entire IP law system - get rid of the PTO AND the Copyright office; but in doing so create a new group that controls what was controlled by both.

Second - all IP follows the same rules; this works because...

When filing for IP protection (patent, copyright, etc.), the filing does not simply describe the work being protected (or consist of the work itself), it also consists of a business plan designed to recoup investment costs PLUS a percentage (no greater than 50%, but likely around 15-25%). When the amount is reached (however long or short that may be), the author/creator/owner is released of ownership and any right to profit, i.e. is automatcially becomes public domain.

To keep this in line, the IP would be required to be recorded on the books - an audit trail - that are reported to the SEC and the IRS, either one of which could be the acting auditing agency to very the term proposed and extend/shorten it according the to success of the idea/work. Reviews would be conducted on a regular basis - optimally once a year (IRS), though it could be more often (quarterly - SEC), or less (either one); but any filing should not be left without audit for more than 2 or 3 years maximum.

This would work for any industry dealing with IP since the IP owner-profit life would be relevent for each industry, and according to each technology, and since the PTO and the Copyright Office are eliminated and replaced by a single branch - the total cost should be no more than current costs. (Yes, there would be deluge of issues to start out with as the system works itself out.)

The biggest problem I see is that there are too many people with investments under current law to let this get past - though I think to solve that (at least partially) the current items (patents, etc) could be grandfathered so they last until they were set to expire by current law (i.e. there is no retro-activeness involved). But there may still be too many to let it get past.

So (if this happened) software patents should come within reasonable lifespans, as would business process and all those other pseudo-patents that shouldnt exist; AND copyright would be corrected too.

Just a thought...perhaps someone will know what to do with it, or how to improve it further to actually make it passable.

Re:What Can We Do ???

[SpacePunk]

Actually, it's more like 'how things should be done' vs. 'how things are really done'. I stated how it's really done.

Troll em.

[Anonymous Coward]

People should be trolling the hell out of that site. :)

Fool

[Weezul]

No company spends billions on cancer research now! Governments pay for almost all research into truely new treatments, and they don't spend much of their budget on it. Drug companies only spend on:
(a) figuring out how to make a marginally better version of a perfectly good product which is about to go off patent, so that they can bilk the patients out of more money.
(b) paying for trials to "veryify that a drug is safe," i.e. bribing the FDA.

Re:Ah yes...

[Shadowlore]

1) You will all die without a patent system. I'm not sure I'd have even been able to use pig insulin, let alone human from recombinant source insulin, without the patent regime. Who exactly is going to spend billions on cancer research if they have no market share following their discovery of the cure?

Sure, humans didn't arrive on the scene until we had a patent system. Somehow I don't remember that history lesson. Maybe it didn't get copyright protection so I didn't see it.

For thousands of years there was no patent system, or even a copyright system. Yet technology, science, literary, musical, theatrical and advancement in all realms of man occurred. This entirely demolishes the poorly constructed hypothesis that we NEED a patent system to survive. What drove people to create prior to the patent system?

We really should have an Irony tag for posts that whine about "infeasible/uninformed/exaggerated "solutions" " and then procede to be exactly one of them.