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."
"Why is the assumption that innovation will be followed by excessive litigation?" - Well, for starts, how about because it's demonstrably true? With the availability of the human genome, we should be seeing an EXPLOSION in the number of drug treatments for various diseases. And yet, how many medicines gained FDA approval in 2005 for use on humans? 20. Yep - lowest number ever. And the reason? Pharmasetical companies are content to keep making the drugs they have patents on, and not to any new research.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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
I believe patents have about 20 years of shelf life, however it seems that after a patent expires, it is possible to file another one that is very similar and covers the same ideas.
You can't handle the truth.
It's bad news because it isn't innovation. Remember, the inventor does not have to be the person who submits the patent. Take this patent for example; a patent on comb-overs for bald people! That's not innovation. That's a guy who wants to make money from sueing the crap out of others. Or how about this?(a patent on swinging side to side on a swingset). Or this? (well, ok, a paddle-wheel plane is innovative, but I wouldn't want to fly it). Or this? (a device for moistening stamps: "The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue")
This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
Actually, I remember that. The story was that import restrictions on computers left the Iraq regime strapped for computing resources, and an easy way to get around that was to buy PS2's and use them to crunch numbers. Here's 1 link: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/089/089251p1.html
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
Oh, SNAP! That's it. I have hit my breaking point with Slashdot.
Problem is, patents can be renewed - so a 17 year patent can really be a 34 wait for innovation.
I want an explanation for this statement. I demand that you stand up and explain where on Earth you discovered this renewable 17 year patent term, with citations to the compiled laws or civil code of the country in question. I mean it.
Why? Because I have been an IP attorney for years, and I know that this statement is pure fantasy. Patents have never been renewable. Patents that have been filed since mid-1995 haven't even been eligible for the 17-year-from-date-of-grant term that was the norm until the Uruguay round of GATT changed the regime to a 20-year-from-date-of-filing system.
Congratulations. You have personally forced me to conclude that it's useless to discuss patent law here. Everyone is an expert, passing on unattributed scrawlings on the outhouse wall as sage commentary, and recommending sweeping changes to a system with essentially no knowledge of how the system works or what the existing requirements are. Better yet, the moderation system rewards them.
Here's a hint for everyone who doesn't quite get it:
"Source code copyrights suck. You can't even run the code that somebody copyrights, it merely protects someone who parks their butt on a bunch of variable names and brackets, meanwhile the real men have to go out and compile the source code into object code. Then the FSF and GPL trolls come and sue them out of existence. Why, I personally know of this guy my friend's aunt's cousin knows who copyrighted the source code to a http daemon, and now nobody can run a web server without paying him royalties. It's stifling innovation, especially that Hamster Dance site that I love (that's run by my brother). Copyright should only protect books (because I don't write books and don't care), but it's clear that source code copyrights violate reason and my human rights."
Slashdot is not news for nerds, at least with respect to patents. Nerds understand the topics that they work with and discuss. Slashdot clearly, with rare exceptions, does not. It's an uninformed mob throwing a tantrum. So long as it is, it is not going to change anything.
Sigh, another day at slashdot of patent bashing.
If I think flying cars are going to be produced in the next 10 years. I can't get a patent just by writing a claim that says:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a car; and
a flight engine attached to said car allowing said car to fly.
There is really nothing wrong with this claim, the problem is going to come in the description. 35 U.S.C. 112 is the written description, and it requires the specification (the part before the claims) and figures to adequately support the claims and explain how it works. While the claim can be cast in these fluffy terms like "flight engine". If a person of skill in the art wouldn;t know what a flight engine is the patent is going to be invalid unless its adequately described in the specification.