Slashdot Mirror
Patent Infringement Exemption for Research?
cheesedog writes "It has been said that 1/5th of all scientific research projects in the U.S. are currently being stifled by patent claims. Well, it looks like the Senate has taken notice, with a recent proposal that has made it into the PACE Education and Research Act that could extend an exemption from patent litigation for scientific research. The Act also proposes treating specialized industries (such as software and business methods) differently than traditional patent areas."
text of the bill.
It has over 40 co-sponsors (From Allen to Obama) and doesn't look like it's going to become a partisan battle, so maybe it'll actually pass.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
No, Universities often do research to get grants. They don't do research to directly make products, they aim to do basic research. They use successful research programs to win grants to do more research. Otherwise you'd see UNC or Berkley or Harvard branded products.
So the problem is less of one in creating, say, a Viagra tablet for drug research, but rather purchasing bottles of Viagra to do research on other health effects.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Why? What's the penalty for just doing the research? Is it that you can't ultimately profit from the result?
No, the penalty is being sued for lost royalties by the patent holders, because you used their property without their permission, and then having your research confiscated as it contains and is based on their property. So you're out all that money, <i>and</i> you no longer have access to your own work.
A scientist independently arrives at an idea that may be covered by an overly-broad or obvious patent claim. The scientist innocently begins conducting research in the area (because there is no way he is keeping track of the 100s of thousands of patents filed each year), eventually letting the world know what he is working on. Big Corp[s] (or Patent Troll[s]) that hold a patent gets wind of his work, and sends him a threatening 'cease-and-desist' letter.
If the researcher continues past this point, and a court later finds that his work did violate the patent, he is guilty of willful infringement, resulting in court-ordered payment to the patent holder. If willful, those payments may be treble what they would have been had the researcher licensed the technology upfront. And the patent holder can still force the researcher to stop his research immediately.
Patents grant are a legal right to exclude others from excercising the claims of the patent. That's it. Under current law, there is no exclusion for people excercising the claims in the name of science, solely for their own personal use, etc. The exclusion is 100%. It is an artificial monopoly.
Okay, this is secondhand info from my dad (who is a research scientist working in a private firm, so has a good idea what's goin on in the area).
Let's say a company is researching, say, a cure for smallpox. They're going at it in a bunch of different ways, and they want to try a specific treatment that requires "Chemical X."
Now, the most EFFICIENT way to produce Chemical X is patented by another company. That means that in order for this company to do its research, it has to use some roundabout method of producing Chemical X to avoid a lawsuit. All this for an approach that might be a dead end - the Chemical X treatment may not work at all.
This means that currently, the lawyers are involved in every step of the process. Whenever my dad or people in his lab want to try something, they have to have it reviewed by the company lawyers to make sure they're not setting themselves up for a lawsuit. Undoubtedly an expensive and time-consuming factor in research.
If this law passes, it seems that they could whip up some Chemical X using the efficient, patented process, and then if it DOES work, they can let the lawyers deal with manufacturing and licensing down the line. Essentially, the lawyers are removed from the research process. Sounds like a big improvement, if not the patent-free world some people would prefer.
IANAL and I'm fuzzy on the details, so someone please correct me if I'm full of it here.
Universities now file their own patents, while the inventing professor(s) take an extended leave of absence to found a for-profit company that licenses the research from the university, to the better bank balances of professors and universities alike. This is why there's a grumbling about the change in direction of academic research and the decreasing amount of basic research that is being done. Grants are fewer, patent licenses are greater, research goals are shifting.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Now, if something gets done which is patentable and potentially licensable, they will certainly pursue it - but the university administration doesn't make the research decisions.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.