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."
As a result of this, patent cases are often fairly random in terms of the results obtained. It's difficult to know what can be done about this, other then to allow the bench to call an independent expert witness.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
Most reasonable legal systems are tuned to avoid "false positives". That is, it is acceptable that some number of people who actually committed crimes walk away unpunished, as long as those who are punished are done so justly.
If a country's legal system does not attain to this rule, then it is probably not deemed safe to visit there.
It is a principle well known to legislators, law enforcers, lawyers and citizens in generals.
And I think it should be applied to patents as well. Only if you prove beyond doubt that your patent is non obvious, innovative, and all the criteria apply, it should be granted.
In exactly the same way that nobody is (or at least nobody should be) sent to jail if there are doubts. If there are doubts then you are free.
The patents system is not flawed per se. The problem is that it is being abused with a high noise to signal ratio.
as a way to advance science and copyrights the arts.
In exchange for opening the information, inventors were given a limited time monopoly on said invention. What the founding fathers wanted to get beyond were secretive guilds and the hording of information - instead encouraging a free flow of ideas. One historical objective is to avoid the technological stagnation that accompanied the middle ages.
But with the original aim of inventions in mind - now that it seems that there is a lot of unintentional infringing of patents - it suggests that the original intention is outdated - the patents are protecting knowledge not worth protecting since others stumble onto the ideas at roughly the same time, negating the need to open the information. Even if it is not stumbled upon, reverse engineering can and does often provide the information needed for someone to duplicate many of the results - again negating the original need for patents.
Could it be that patents should only have been training wheels for the industrial revolution until a technological society is achieved - because once a certain level is achieved, there is no easy way of going back, of ceasing the competition for better products, advances, etcetera? That they should have been discarded after a time?
Could there be another way to promote an open exchange of ideas? Which was the original intention of patents. Because it seems that patents, in their current state, are setting us behind other countries (China) in terms of the future, dragging our economies down, and not at all fulfilling their original purpose. And from what I have read - the purpose of the patent was an ultimately social function, not to protect businesses or let them rest on their laurel in perpetuity (Atari).
From the same Supreme Court that in Eldred vs. Ashcroft ruled, in essence, that a copyright term remains "limited" and thus is in keeping with the Constitution as long as it has a stated limit, even if the limit increases over time at the same rate that time passes? You must be on some other planet if you think that same Supreme Court will make any improvements (from the point of view of actual practitioners in the various fields, as opposed to the patent attorneys) to "intellectual property" (gad, how I hate that phrase) law.
I think it's at least as likely that they'll decide that "obvious" really means "obvious to even the greatest of morons in the field", and thus that pretty much anything you care to name is patentable.
Of course, that assumes that they'll issue any sort of meaningful ruling whatsoever. It's entirely possible that they'll simply say that it's up to Congress to define in greater detail what it means, and until then leave things as they are. Just like they did in Eldred.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
"Obviousness" can be decided in a trial if the jury is made up of peers of the inventor -- those skilled in the art by some reasonable criteria.
Seastead this.