Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Set To Examine Combinatory Patents
eldavojohn writes "The Washington Post is reporting that businesses are split on the current situation with patents in the United States. From the article: 'The court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on what's obvious when older inventions are combined to create something new. The law says an invention that's "obvious" isn't patentable, but the definition isn't clear despite decades of litigation. The ambiguity, critics say, has led to an explosion of patents as companies stake claims on everything in sight, from strategies for avoiding taxes to golf ball designs. The result has been extensive and costly legal wrangling as companies of all sizes fight over who's infringing what. In some cases, small companies acquire patents not to develop new products but to sue for a quick windfall.' This sounds like some common criticism of the patent system that often pops up on Slashdot. The last part of the article mentions that most legal experts are expecting some changes to come of this. Hopefully soon we'll see some changes to the patent system for a better concept of intellectual property."
Some sort of patent system is necessary to protect genuine innovators. The problem with the current system is that is has been gamed so that it now does almost nothing to help innovation in some cases.
w
The system clearly needs reform. Talking about the founding fathers wanted with patents is a bit misleading though. Modern patents were invented (sic) in Venice in 1474 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_la
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
The leading article in the current issue of OUP's International Journal of Law and Information Technology features quite a remarkable discussion of these issues in the context of software.
Talking about the founding fathers wanted with patents is a bit misleading though. Modern patents were invented (sic) in Venice in 1474
The actual lessons of history are often forgotten.
Current concerns about patent abuse, especially abuse of overbroad patent claims, somewhat reflect concerns that lay behind the 1623 English statute of monopolies. That was an attempt to prevent future abuse, and it specifically said that, in future, patents should not be granted or valid where they would be "contrary to the law or mischievous to the state, by raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient."
Wikipedia is rather misleading about patent law history, I'm afraid. Agreed, it has now become a commonplace to cite the 1474 Venetian ordinance about inventions as the 'progenitor' and so on of modern patent law, and chronologically it was the first. But it is only anachronistic hindsight reconstruction to say that it was also influential on the later developments -- because the Venetian history was only (re)discovered by scholars interested in origins of modern patent law within about the last century and a half. Way back before then, at the time and place of the founding fathers in the 1780s, nobody had heard of the Venetian history. What the founding fathers knew much more about then was English law. Many of them were lawyers trained in English law. The question they asked themselves was effectively whether they wanted patents on an English model. And in effect they said yes. The early US patent lawyers and judges looked to English legal practice for details of patent law or practice left open by the US statute. Fessenden's early US patent law textbook of about 1811, as well as Justice Story's Notes on Patent Law, make that very clear. (Even now, when the two systems have thoroughly diverged, it still occasionally has happened that senior courts in US, including the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court, have referred back to old English 18th-century and 19th-century patent law reports, as in the 'Markman v Westview' and 'Warner Jenkinson v Hilton Davis' cases.)
But in the US (as in England), the safeguards mentioned in the 1623 statute of monopolies became forgotten in law and in practice, and nowadays some patents do seem to operate as "mischievous to the state, by raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient".
-wb-
"Shows the reason why a patent is needed. To allow an intentor the right to make reasonable return on his work."
That was never the intention of patents. That was the reward offered to the inventor in exchange for his disclosure and it is a restriction to a free market.
The original poster was right, patents are offered to encourage the development of knowledge. If no such encouragement is needed any longer, then the need for patents is called into question.