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."
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
"Why is the assumption that innovation will be followed by excessive litigation?"
That's not the assumption at all. The assumption is that 5000 patents doesn't equal 5000 inventions. Far more likely, it means 4000 obvious applications of things whose true inventors will never see a cent, 990 "land-grab" patents which don't cover anything real but will be used to sue the pants off anyone doing anything real in the future, and, being extremely generous, 10 truly groundbreaking creations.
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. "
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
What?
Your thesis is that by knowing the human genome, then drug treatments for diseases logically follow. Sorry, but although that may be the promise of genomics, the actual yield of useful therapeutics remains to be seen. You don't automagically understand the molecular pathways of the normal process and the disease just by staring at the DNA sequence. Lots of hard work, luck, time and money have to get done before a pill rolls out of the bottle. Not that I'm trying to apologize for big pharma's incredible waste and inefficiency, not to mention bizzare and shady business practices (some of which have to do with technology, very little have to do with nanotech).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Patent landgrabs are done pretty much according to the following method:
a) Make a list of existent business processes
b) Make a cross list of all entries from a) with all latest technology trend words/expressions (eg "over a network", "wireless", "with nanobots ). Thus for example "A method to deliver text messages" can become "A method to deliver text messages over a network" (e-mail/im) or "A method to wirelessly deliver text messages" (eg sms).
c) Patent as many as you can
d) Wait a couple of years
e) Sue the pants out of anybody that actually came up with a way of MAKING HAPPEN any of your algorithmic generated "ideas".
A couple of years ago one would generate patents using expressions such as "wireless" or "over a network" nowadays it's "nanobots" or "genetic".
The only in any way innovative thing any such an "inventor" does is figure out the most likelly trends to blossom in the coming 10 years - all the rest is algorithmic.
Another way is to pick up a couple of industry specialists, put them on a room together for a couple of days and pay them to "come up with ideas". Then just try to patent any of those ideas.
The current patent process will actually grants monopoly rights based on this.
How exactly does granting protection to an algoritmically-generated or pulled-out-somebodies-ass abstract idea (without actually stating a working way to actually do it) that at some point we might have "A method to build macro-structures using nanobots" helps advance technology?
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...
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