Slashdot Mirror
Nanomedicine Patent Thickets Threaten Future
cheesedog writes "Over 5000 nanomedicine/nanotech patents have now been granted, and the patent land grab continues unabated. Dr. Raj Bawa says, "Patent thickets are considered to discourage and stifle innovation. Claims in such patent thickets have been characterized as often broad, overlapping and conflicting - a scenario ripe for massive patent litigation battles in the future." According to Bawa, nanomedicine start-ups may soon find themselves in patent disputes with large, established companies, as well as between themselves. In most of the patent battles the larger entity with the deeper pockets will rule the day even if the innovators are on the other side."
The worst thing about Nano Patent Thickets is that they're fractally recursive.
You can hack your way through them, though...if you've got a small enough machete.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
It happens in every industry. Too bad they're gonna sue each other ASAP. Spending money curing people and developing nanotech is just a dream.
Xatrix Security - Computer Security news portal
Can someone tell me why this is bad news? Why is the assumption that innovation will be followed by excessive litigation? Even though there have been patent lawsuits that are meritless, I can only see the amount of innovation in this area as a good thing.
No Sigs!
Why of course, the sooner these folks are granted their "over-broad" patents, the sooner they'll expire, leaving the field WIDE-OPEN.....
Perhaps we could see a situation where the first of these patents are expiring before the first real nano-technology is available! By all means guys... get your patents in early, the earlier the better.
I seem to recall there was a catch though....Didn't you need to actually be able to "do" the thing you were going to patent? I seem to recall that was part of the test, that it actually needed to be possible at the time you were patenting something, not just a crack-pipe dream....
At least we can expect really finite, well defined patents. If you are patenting something on a nano scale then you must be able to finitely define it.
If only it worked that way.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Vioxx. After that disaster, they're still trying to figure out which end is up. As is typical for a government agency, they have swung from one extreme to the other.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
In most of the patent battles the larger entity with the deeper pockets will rule the day even if the innovators are on the other side
And this is different from any other patent battle, or any other legal battle whatsoever... how, again?
This "article" is really a press release from a company that serves as "the missing link between buyers and suppliers of nanomaterials." However, Dr. Bawa seems to be someone who knows a lot about the subject and has been talking about this to anyone who will listen.
My knowledge of nanotech could fill a nanotube, but I pay attention when someone who does seem to be deeply involved in nanotech raises the alarm about this tide of patents.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It happens on the Internet too, with Domain Name squatters. People end up paying quite a bit of money for reasonable names (when they should get them for free).
And it certainly happens in every other industry: new industries are especially prone to squatters because it's a way to make an easy million.
However, most/all of these patents are for totally incomplete technologies. Imagine if the designer of the first computer patented the sequence 1001 and made coders pay a $100 fine if that sequence was used in any binary code...the content might be there, but the functionality is totally lost. In a field that can help people, it is the scientific way (and the right way) to allow for the free exchange of ideas. Though it would be fun to have a race to see who can make the most tiny steps first, wouldn't it be wiser and more productive for the industry to be regulated? This way, leaps and bounds would be rewarded.
Of course, I don't see science as being a badly-formed MMORPG, but if you're fine with stopping progress in a fledgling field, then by all means, we should allow this to continue.
What happens when other counties? Seriously? What can the USA realistically do? Impose sactions and/or invade the infringing countries?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I think one of the fronts for patent reform will come from outside the US border, when other countries finally wise up and simply make it their national policy to ignore stupid patents (or all patents).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I think nanotech patents should be allowed, provided that they are printed on really small paper. The way patents are going nowadays, a whole tree will get killed just to get a printout and some poor old lady at the patent office will break her back when filing it, thereby requiring a nanotech cure in the first place.
lawyers are the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
By patenting all aspects of nanotech now, there will be lots of prior art in the expired patents when the technology really takes off in a few decades. If enough stuff can be patented now, there won't be a whole lot left to patent when we're actually ready to start building nanomachines of the complexity envisioned by sci-fi authors.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
if you think nanotech coming before AI is a bad thing. Let the conspiracy theories begin!
mark my words:
In 20 years (give or take) the medical patent fiasco will have led / be leading to violent warfare. Everything from 'insurgents' (read: terrorists / read parents who don't have 100 grand for their kids cancer) to invasions of countries that are violating some (Bush family read: Phizer) intellectual property feudal land holdings. It's not a coincidence that the US pharm industry is stacked with 'retired' air force generals and military industrial profiteers.
mark my words and sign me
Anonymous Coward
For the true Einstein like scientist, what would be his/her motivation to stay in a western country? Seriously?
If this doesn't change then in 50 years time we are going to find ourselves being totally owned by the other half of the world.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Why is the assumption that innovation will be followed by excessive litigation?
The problem is that the innovations that are being patented haven't happened for the most part yet. That is, people rush out and patent ideas for applications of nanotechnology without actually having done the hard work of actually developing them, and that discourages people from making the massive investments of actually making them work.
By the powers invested in me, I now declare all patents null and void. Voila, problem solved, now we can get on with innovation instead of legal battles.
In China from the Ming dynasty onwards the bureaucrats strangled innovation allowing the West to catch up and starting from the mid-19th century overtake it (a famous example is Zheng He's fleet). The result was the collapse of what had for most of human history had been the largest economy in the world (China) and the rise of the West. Looks like America's patent system is going to repeat history.
I'm not saying the patent system doesn't have problems, but that patents DO play an extremely important role in creating the incentives to develop technology and to bring certain technologies to market. Even after a researcher/inventor has a completely working prototype, I think most people underestimate the vast amount of resources required to setup a company, produce a product efficiently, and actually sell the goddamn thing (especially something difficult to manufacture like nano-tech). Patents play a critical role in giving business people and companies the incentives to make that happen. Nanomaterials is probably the furthest along commercially; Quite a few nano material companies exist and several already have commercial products. I think we'd be much further back if not for the strong IP system in the US.
If I had mod points I would have modded the parent post up! (I'd also wager some biased moderator will mod it as troll because the post is pro-IP, but hopefully I'm wrong.)
Well the article is interesting in that at least people now recognize publically that patenting some technology is viewed as the best way to stiffle competition. This is probably not surprising to most slashdotters but opinions like this are important outside the geek community.
This really tells how a system that was devised to foster inovation by disclosing discoveries (i.e. help build the competition) is now used as a way to do the exact opposite thanks to various flaws in our current economic model, namely:
- lack of proper validation of the patents (for some parts only, really if you think about it: there is nothing wrong in stating and formalizing something obvious, it is just not terribly usefull on a knowledge sharing level)
- the current state of the legal system that always favors the richer and the more powerfull (this is the main issue really, and this is not limited to patents.) Fixing this is beyond the power of any government I am afraid as it is really deeply rooted in the way society works, not only in the states but anywhere.
- of course this situation is not made any better by governments too happy to support it and not willing to assess the situation fairly.
Really the all thing is an indication of how our modern world works now: a new knowledge far west: the only rule is how much money you have (i.e. do you have the better gun ?)
Oh well, and finally for the obligatory slashdot reference:
1. patent something (preferrably usefull, obvious or not)
2. ???
3. profit
et les Shadoks pompaient...
>> other countries finally wise up and simply make it their national policy to ignore stupid patents (or all patents).
Well it's not for want of trying, but we're being ignored.
We need public soundbites and catchy phrases and other tidbits for the news media to pick up on and ride with, in order to give anti-patent activism a higher public profile.
The logical/commonsense approach just isn't working so far. The politicians have been totally ignoring everyone except the megacorps, who have a vested interest in bolstering the current mess even further. And of course lawyers everywhere are contributing to the nightmare, seeing a future of unlimited litigation and profit at the public's expense.
Personally I don't hold much hope that anything involving politicians or lawyers will lead to a solution, as it doesn't appeal to their self-interest.
Instead, patents should be undermined by creating an automated system for public ideas registration, something easy to grow and without central adminitration, and which can in part be populated automatically to generate a massive global public repository. And once it has a few million entries then beat on politicians with a single-issue demand: that the repository be scanned automatically before any patent is even considered.
When paper pushers fail us, perhaps technology won't, as part of a solution.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Actually, this popped up some time back on Slashdot.
Back at the beginning of the 20th century, Theatre was in New York, but the new movie industry grew up in Hollywood.
Why, because the Theatre industry had the whole thing sewn up, from the (now called) I.P. laws governing usage of productions to the workers, both on and back stage who brought them to life. Movies never had a chance, starting with all of this baggage. So they moved as far away as possible - to the opposite end of the country.
Nanotech *was* poised to be the Next Big Thing in the US, to take over after the Internet/computer wave.
But now our fascination/abuse of Intellectual Property has all but guaranteed that the boom will be anywhere BUT the US.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
These patents are for things that the technology of today is not yet able to mass produce.
And in about 17 years the patents will expire.
While I know that the rate of technical developments might well mean that these things could get into mass production in a decade or so, the net effect is that these patents won't really stymie innovation for very long. I'm half-willing to hope that they think up 90% of fundamental nanotech possibilities NOW and patent them NOW, so that by the time most of them can actually be implemented, the patents will have expired.
you dont get it .. they are patenting overbroad generalizations. I can sit here and spout out hundreds of combinations of things without any knowledge of science whatsoever and patent them all, and hope one or two of them get a hit. This is especially true with medicines. Patent entire classes of chemicals, as well as "cause and effects" and then when someone does research and finds that a specific one in that is useful .. you get paid.
... but what will actually happen is that nobody will do the research because the classes of chemicals are already patented .. and who's going to pay massive amounts of money just for the right to look into something?
t _patent_decisions_ever_reaches_Supreme_Court#c1271 375
Sounds nice
See more in this comment on digg
http://digg.com/software/One_of_the_most_importan
There's many possibilities to prevent what you're saying from happening.
.. they patented that idea ..and started suing people who did tests for Vitamin B for the purpose of determining that heart risk .. but recently it came out that well that effect may not exist. The patent office is not a scientific body that tests the validity of science claims. Yet they grant the ability to own a concept regardless of merit or prior research. Point being, it appears companies are just patenting arbitrary ideas that may or may not be true .. for example a person having done absolutely no research or even understanding deep science can sit down at a computer and generate statements like "presence of a symmetrical molecule containing carbon may indicate cancer" .. guess what .. that's patentable. Now 99 times out of a 100 it's useless ... but then there's that one hit. It's all like squatting on random domain names.
Ten years from now, companies will start blaming their lack of innovation on the patent system's "short" 20 year duration for patent expiration and ask for an extension equivalent to the life plus 100 year expiration of copyrights. Copyright terms have been extended many times, and so have patents (patents used to only last 14 years before the most recent up bump). If Disney can buy an extension why can't anyone else?
Another possibility is that in the future the "understaffed", though profitable, patent office will simply grant ANOTHER patent squatting on basically the same set of ideas worded differently.
Slightly offtopic:
There was recently a case of a company that owned the idea of testing for a certain vitamin and using those results as an indicator for heart disease. Well anyway
I know this will get flamed to hell by all those who know better, but if you can follow the idea/intent and not so much the specifics....
So here's my idea, extremely shorten the life of a patent! (Say 5 years.)
Reasoning: A company or person spends some time, some money, thinks about it and comes up with this great innovative thing. As a reward for this they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want with it for the time period to establish themselves as a brand, develop the technology etc... If they're innovative (and they'll have to be now to survive) then they'll always stay ahead of the game and hence will keep getting paid (a 5 year headstart is a lot in technology). If they sit back just to collect bucks then it will be finite and still run out.
This way they can charge companies who want to use up-to-the-minute technology and when the idea becomes out of date, or commonplace/practice (e.g. MP4 !FU2BELL!) then it's anyone's game.
There are i'm sure a lot of dissadvantages to this, i'm not saying it's perfect, but even this is a shit load better than what is already in place.
I guess to cut it short there needs to be a patent system that
1) REWARDS INNOVATION
2) PUNISHES TROLLS
If you're 5 years ahead of the game before the competition can even start developing that technology, get in.
Maybe not even make it free, but say reduce it's costs to like a 1/3 of the price. I'm rambling and typing quickly, apologies.
I read: Over 5000 nanomedicine/nanotech patients have been granted..
Great! Nanomedicine for the Nano patients!
I once knew a dog named Nano.
soo.... I'll just go back to work now.. yes..
Defining Statistics and Social Research
In jury trials, it's been found that the independent inventor wins nearly 75% of the time, while in bench trials the ratio is more like 50%.
In any case, I really doubt that many individuals could do anything in nanomedicine without the resources of a corporation or academic institution.
Nano-med-plus, we treat you right.
When the world treats you rough.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
And in 20 some odd years all those patents are invalidated!
A more apt description you will never find. It's good that some people see things as they really are. Innovation...Phooey!
What?
odd parent is labeled flamebait, yet no flames. mods on crack...again (sorry still)
Why is everyone so obsessed with patents? Who says you actually need patents to spin something off? Trade secrets are perfectly OK with venture capitalists (you print it on a piece of paper - you show them at your first meeting), as long as you can prove you can keep them even after a product release on the market, i.e. that its not reverse engineerable. And that is simple: if you are the only person in the world who has a "secret recipe" how to make a particular nanotech device (like a device that uses infinite carbon nanotubes for instance) - then no ammount of looking at infinite nanotubes will help the competition copy your invention. That does mean that you cant publish anything during the research (that actually works) BUT a) you can publish on a non-moderated mongolian blog page where noone would find it(that counts for establishing priority, if needed, to defeat a later patent by competition), or in the local newspaper of a small village somwhere. b) noone publishes research that works anyway (except for those few that do get patents tickets beforehand, so the value of the publication is zilch anyway)
The WTO takes over when it crosses country boundries. They can impose their own sanctions.
---- Booth was a patriot ----