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....
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. "
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
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
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
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...
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.