Slashdot Mirror
Patent Office Head Lays Out Reform Strategy
jeevesbond writes to tell us that Jon Dudas, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office has laid out a plan for patent reform. "Speaking at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose, Dudas said that characterizing the patent system as hurting innovation is a 'fundamentally wrong' way to frame the debate. 'I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S,' Dudas said. 'It's a proven system, over 200 years old. The Supreme Court, Congress and policy makers are involved [in cases and legal reforms] not because the system is broken. It's not perfect, and we should be having the debate on how to improve.'"
Other than the fact that this guy is out of his bloody mind?
Software patents: totally ridiculous, and putting a huge hurt on an area that should be boiling with creativity. Creatively speaking, this time in our history offers more creative ground and lower barriers to entry than ever before in our history. The primary barrier, aside from your own intellectual resources, is the patent system. It is a barrier to creativity, and furthermore, it is a barrier to progress.
Hardware patents: First guy with the money into the patent system and with the wherewithal to defend the patent wins. Nothing to do with the actual inventor; totally centered about money. Anything wrong with that? Only that it suppresses any inventor without corporate backing, which ought to be a crime in and of itself.
And oh yeah, the other inventor(s) who worked on this? A second late to file, and they are well and truly locked out. Is that fair? Is that even slightly fair?
The US patent system is a well of misery, corporate bootlicking, and "let's crush the little guy" methodologies. Sure, everyone else looks to the US system, because it is a system designed to turn over money, not encourage innovation. The fact that it manages to encourage at least corporations to innovate can be considered a side effect. It certainly isn't the main goal of the system, which is to feed the legal profession a regular set of juicy, meaty bones.
I'll tell you what is "fundamentally wrong"; The US patent system is fundamentally wrong. Why? Because it is a system that guarantees that anyone but the 1st to the gate is hammered; because it is a system that guarantees that anyone without deep pockets cannot actually be protected (read, encouraged) by the system; because it discourages innovation. The number of devices/programs you can actually create without running smack into someone's fool patent is very near zero. So much for encouraging innovation. Now lawyers... they are encouraged. Oh yes. Very much so.
The copyright system isn't doing a lot better, but that's a different issue, somewhat.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...I'm afraid I have prior art claims to that plan.
FP!
But only because US companies push a lot of money into the political chains to push the broken patent system of gentech and software upon the rest of the world. It is a shame what is going on here in Europe, the affected polticians dont even try to hide on who's paylist they indirectly are.
"It's a proven system, over 200 years old."
Using that logic, we should all be using horses as our primary mode of transportation. Just look how proven and older that locomotion model is!
Why don't we use evidence from the world since the Internet was invented, and base our new system upon the modern world?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Gamasutra had a good article on this recently. The thing that caught my eye was that the patent office is supported by fees collected for each patent application. They had a signed framed that read Our Patent Mission: To Help Our Customers Get Patents.
To me, that speaks volumes. Any system with an incentive to do crazy things, tends to do crazy things over time. In this case, the goal is to get as many patents issued as possible, so that more people patent odd things and more money flows into the patent office. Break that incentive and people might start behaving rationally again.
I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S.
should probably read
every nation that we can strong-arm into accepting our rules is modelling its IP governance after the U.S.
If he were honest, that is.
But not being a particularly honest person was probably a job requirement for his position, though.
A.
Nice spin. I think he means nations are afraid of not modeling their system after the US since the US has proven time and time again that whatever needs to be done to have their way will be done.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
'I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S,' Dudas said. 'It's a proven system, over 200 years old.
Just because it's a proven system over 200 years old, doesn't mean it still functions today the way it was intended 200 years ago. Hell, I don't bank the way I did five years ago. Times change and a huge part of why it doesn't work is that almost everything has changed along with it.
Life's parameters change. When that happens the algorithm that governs it sometimes must change too.
Anybody else spotted this ?
[Pruneau
"every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S"
Other nations are thinking about it because of heavy pressure from the US to comply with the US model. That pressure comes in turn from lobbying of US govt by US businesses. In no way are other countries spontaneously saying "Hey, what a neat model!" Absent US pressure for trade agreements etc we would keep the status quo, or even free up current regimes.
If I were a betting man, and I bet you I'm not, I'd say he's spoken to people throughout the world who already agree that much tighter intellectual property laws are required who may coincidentally talk a lot to large corporations, many of which may be US based, who would like to protect their profits and don't have any reason to consider the social side of intellectual property legislation.
Also to say that the rest of the world is currently so awestruck with the benefits brought by US intellectual property legislation as it currently is wouldn't appear to be a good reason for suggesting changes to that legislation.
The "200 year old" system he's bragging about worked fine. It's the recent introduction of changes to that system which have caused the problems.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Lots of systems "break" when the incentive for folks is to behave a certain way. In many cases, it's unexpected and unpleasant.
For example, one could argue that lawyers have an incentive to not settle and to draw out a case as long as possible, assuming their client has the means to pay. Since they're paid by the hour, they want to "milk" their client as long as possible. Going to court is the way to do that.
Another is doctors, who get paid per procedure they do, regardless of how necessary it is. There was a movement years ago with HMOs trying to manage this excess, but patients kept clamoring for the latest treatments and newest drugs, even if the evidence of effectiveness was minimal. Now I have my dentist wanting to fill every tiny groove in my teeth, even though I've had perfect teeth my entire life (my dad was a dentist).
On the other hand, there's typically counters to that incentive. Going to court is unpleasant, which is why my mom would always try to settle (she made her money with high-volume, low-cost council). Once my last dentist started going bonkers with procedures, I quit and switched to someone else. I'm not sure what it is for the patent system, though. It's pretty bad these days.
Was it the part about doubling their staff?
Was it the part about "more and better information"...
"We have to get more and better information and make sure the examiners have the right tools and information to make the best decisions."
...where the "more and better information" consists of assertions by applicants?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Because when you're trying to get a patent approved, the last thing you need is people pointing out the prior art, or people double checking your 'facts'- those things are harrassment and hold up the timing of application processing!
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Whoops, you just handed the IP gnomes a weapon. The proper statement is, computer code is just one of many descriptions of an idea. Descriptions are trademarkable. Instantiations are patentable.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
It was all about bullshit then, and it still is.
While we're at it, maybe we can also deal with one area where patents work *too* well: drug patents.
The problem with drug patents isn't that they stifle innovation: it's that they encourage the *wrong sort* of innovation. After the patent on a useful and effective drug expires, it is quickly manufactured as a generic and profitability drops (which is exactly what the point of a patent is in the first place). Great.
The problem comes in when drug companies spend their R&D on creating new drugs that treat the exact same conditions as already existing drugs - just because they'll have another patent and therefore another (however short-lived) monopoly on the drug, which equals large profits.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Sure, when you get the hard stuff back, you have something tangible.
Here's the kicker though. If you get a patent, then you're protecting the **idea**, not a physical board. At the stage in the process when the ideas emerged (ie. design), there was no "hard stuff" involved. I don't really think that there is a case to treat sw and hw patents differently.
The biggest problem with software patents is that they are examined badly. Being able to spot really novel software is very difficult, but the same applies to, say, a hardware motor driver circuit.
And, for the record, I design both hardware and software.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The fact that the Triad and Yakuza are modelling themselves on our proven practices shows that we just need to be having a debate about how we can better... "protect"... our "customers".
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
From reading the article there are many benificial changes that are being looked at. The most important IMHO is more open review:
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
What is it about the word "broken" that the head of the Patent Office doesn't understand?
The patent system is broken. Consequently, the numbers that he's using to justify the existing system are totally bogus. You can't measure the stifling of innovation by using a broken system. You need a completely different approach.
Software used to be a highly innovative field back in the 1980s. Anybody could develop a new software system out of their house and become millionares. In fact, many people did, and we have those companies around today (let's see, Microsoft is one).
How many are happening now? Darned near 0. That's because anybody who comes up with a successful product is guaranteed to be sued as soon as they get some money in their pocket. Or if they look like they are remotely a threat to an existing big company. Unless, maybe, you get Venture Capital; but even if you do, you're going to have to spend a good chunk of that money on lawyers, and not developers.
This is not how to encourage innovation. This is how to discourage it. Heck, I doubt you could even build the Internet again today, because instead of the open RFC process you'd have to worry about some clowns promoting things based upon submarine patents (ala Rambus).
The head of the Patent Office just doesn't understand reality. He's completely out of touch with what's going on. We need help if we're ever going to restore innovation to the marketplace, and because this dude thinks things are OK, we're just not going to see innovation restored to the software field any time soon. And probably not even in our lifetimes.
I know a guy who worked as an examiner at the patent office. It's basically like working on a factory assembling line. Everything is based off of how many applications you can process. I think that new examiners are expected to do 2 or 3 patents a week, if you want to stay ahead and get promoted. Don't do your quota, you don't get promoted, and maybe eventually you get fired (but it's a government operation so let's not get too ridiculous here).
But basically, 2 or 3 patents need to cross your desk a week, and either be accepted or sent back. That means you can give each one maybe two days. That's two days to do all the research, and look for all the prior art, and make a judgment call. That's nothing on some of these patents, which can be hugely technical, particularly when the people filing them can take all the time they want to obfuscate their intentions and tweak the language to make them as broad as possible.
And here's the best part: if an examiner rejects a patent and sends it back to the applicant, and then the applicant sends it back in with updates, that updated application doesn't count towards the examiner's quota. So there's an obvious advantage towards accepting applications, because that's the absolutely sure way of getting it off your desk and making sure that it's not going to come back to haunt you later.
Anyone see anything wrong here?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Perhaps I misunderstood your post: "Without them, the US would see even more off shoring of research jobs." How would a lack of IP laws in the US create even more off shoring?
jeevesbond writes to tell us that Jon Dudas, of Camptown Races fame, is planning to re-invent himself as an R&B song.
"The "200 year old" system he's bragging about worked fine. It's the recent introduction of changes to that system which have caused the problems."
That's essentially what he's saying. Parts of the system are imperfect, but as a whole it's working fine, so let's not throw it all away just because you have a problem with software patents.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Dudas's past might have suggested he would come up with such an obviously ridiculous claim (looks like he was involved in DMCA, for example).
Instead of trying to fix it in the patent office (which would be near impossible, although it would certainly help) I think the system would be better fixed in the courts. Just pass legislation that says "If a patent holder sues an alleged infringer for $X and loses, the winner is entitled to an award of $X from the loser."
This would automatically place a reality check on the award amounts, and even reduce the number of patent cases brought into court in the first place. It'd be like betting on your odds of success in the courtroom, balancing out the risk/reward ratio for patent trolls.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he file six patents or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a high profile patent case, with the most powerful legal team in the world, and would blow your business into bankruptcy, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Liberty in your lifetime
Can someone explain to me the real issue with software patents?? Why can they or can't they be patented? As far as I know everyone goes back to the "You can't patent Math" reason. The fact that software is just a collection of math algorithms that are laid out for you to run seems a bit of a stretch. That is like saying that everything I "see" is just an electrical impulse. Or that because the Second Amendment gives me the right to bear arms, I should be able to have my own nuke or rocket launcher. Or that a car is just a fancy mechanical horse.
As far as the money "issue" goes, everything is done for money, otherwise it wouldn't get done. And please spare me the "doing it for mankind", there is always money in the equation.
So was slavery, but finally we began to see the light. We have overcome our narrow mindedness. Many of us still have a dream where inventors and developers can invent and develop together without fear of litigation.
The test I'd like is this:
X) How long would it take to make a profit from this invention.
Y) How long would it take to copy this invention.
The concept of whether something is patentable is only for X>Y inventions.
So software, trade secrets protect the inner workings, Y is large, low production & duplication costs, X is small. Software fails this test.
New complex drug, the chemistry can be analyzed easily Y is small, the approval time is long, X is big. Allow patents.
the US IP system you see today is certainly not 200 years of success - in fact, the founding fathers wouldn't recognize it. they also wouldn't, IMO, consider it at all successful. it's not even clear whether we could have gotten to where we are today (western sci/tech success) if today's system _had_ been in place since
the 1700's. dramatically many fundamentals of today's world would never have happened, or at least not happened in any recognizably similar way. (Unix, internet, X, browsers, ICs, transistors, computers, software, compilers, etc.)
Examiners obviously aren't getting proper information right off the bat.
Increasing applicant liability for prior art doesn't help the little guy- he's too busy to read through existing patents, and can't afford a lawyer to do it for him.
I'm confused about how unfriendlies can help get a known bad patent issued. Does 'too much information' hurt an examiner? Are you referring to patents that are poorly written? Those should just be rejected. If you are referring to other people providing information outside the patent, I fail to see how those can help push a patent through. What are you going to do, gush on about how it's the best thing ever written? It's alot easier to point out prior art than it is to show there is no prior art.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
The patent system as hurting innovation is a the right way to frame the debate. ideas frequently don't make it to market, and others can have the same idea and not be allowed to use it. Clearly the patent office is high on drugs.
The system isn't 200 years old. It has been fundamentally changed since it came into conception.
I would be lying by omission if I said I have been driving the same car for the last 20 years.... and had the motor, transmission, hood, trunk, etcera changed until the only thing that is the same with the original car is the gas guage.
Now, that is an exaggeration on the patent system. But if the Patent system hasn't swayed from it's original need to have a working model, we would not be in this debate. What the guy said is a good PR clip, and yes, some people in the rest of the world (like some in Europe) are clamoring for the US style patent system, but those are idiots to begin with (those who want it, not all Europeans, btw).
The fact that patents on software hurt innovation is EXACTLY right and should be the way to frame the discussion.
"It's a proven system, over 200 years old."
Unfortunately wide spread computers and their programs are a relatively new phenomenon. The fact that the patent system is 200 years old should be your first clue that it may not work for such a radically new and different set of circumstances!
You sir are a moron... Oops... Strike that last sentence... (Damn and I was doing so well too!)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The US patent office is, for all extents and purposes, a free enterprise one that decidedly wants to nuture a market for patents and increase patentability across all areas, including absurd contexts like ideas (software, musical forms, literature forms). A software patent isn't a monopoly on a design, it's a monopoly on an idea, you don't even need to implement the 'invention' in the US patent system; Legal shops are incrasingly responsible for software patents, they probably don't even need a programmer on the team.
Dudas himself directly benefits from high volumes of patent applications. He runs a business. The less popular patenting gets the poorer he gets. Asking his opinion on the matter of reform is ridiculous.
The US patent system is a well of misery, corporate bootlicking, and "let's crush the little guy" methodologies. Sure, everyone else looks to the US system, because it is a system designed to turn over money, not encourage innovation. The fact that it manages to encourage at least corporations to innovate can be considered a side effect. It certainly isn't the main goal of the system, which is to feed the legal profession a regular set of juicy, meaty bones.
As the patent system in the US is now it is a drag on progress, which it was originally supposed to do, however it has been corrupted. As have copyrights. Thomas Jefferson was originally against patents but then his friend James Madison convinced him patents could encourage progress. Once convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuary table and calculated a patent term of 14 year with one 14 year extension possible was the optimum length they should last.
The number of devices/programs you can actually create without running smack into someone's fool patent is very near zero. So much for encouraging innovation.
That's not the fault of patents, that's a symtom of a broken patent system. More needs to be done to investigate whether a patent application actually deserves to be awarded, whether prior art already exists or if something is actually novel. Also in no way, shape, or form, should patents be issued for either algorithms, business methods, or for software!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
"it has to be novel and non-obvious."
...
These are 35 USC Sec 102 & 103 (novel & non-obvious, respectively)
Novel (Sec 102) means that some form of prior art teaches or shows EACH and EVERY element of the claimed invention. If it shows 1 thing less, the claimed invention is novel. This is the bright-line test.
Non-Obvious (Sec 103) is the not-so-bright-line test. It is obvious if "one skilled in the art" would find the invention obvious given the prior art. This is really a 3 part test. (1) You can combine as many pieces of prior art as you want to show EACH and EVERY element of the claimed invention. (2) you have to show why someone would have been willing to combine these works of prior art and (3) you have to show that this combination might have actually worked.
So, you can't take a heatsink from 1 piece of prior art and an invertor from an arc-welding piece of prior art and combine them. Because noone would have looked at both a low-voltage hear disapator and a high voltage heat generator and combined them. Now, what this really means is that the Examiner picked poor pieces of prior art to combine, but
The Examiner's have a New York Yellow Pages sized book the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP, online at www.uspto.gov) whichthey should follow when determining what should be awarded patent status.
Oh, I guess that gets into the actual physical process.
You start the pipeline by sending a patent application (note: a patent is really only an issued patent, not an application for a patent which is what we have here). The application has 2 parts a specification (engineering document) and the claims (legal part)
The application is assigned a technology group and Examiner by the Patent Office.
A few years later the Examiner finally pulls your App off the stacks. The Examiner has 8 hours to read your App, search for prior art (usually in existing patents), and issue an Office Action (aka a rejection).
Your App is rejected. Your attorney then tells the Examiner why they are wrong. Often amending the claims to get around the prior art.
The Examiner then either allows the App or issues a Final Rejection.
You have 2 choices (assuming rejection). You can (1) Appeal the rejection to the Patent Office Board (and take 2 more years), or (2) pay more money and continue arguing. You get 2 more Office Actions for your payment. Think of it as the Python sketch where you pay for an argument.
Eventually your Application either issues as a patent (almost always with narrowed claims) or you abandon the application
So, usually 1 guy and his boss make the decision to grant you Application or not. Maybe a 3 person Administrative Appeal Board (but really 1 guy on that board reads the appeal and tells the others his opinion). You can further appeal to the Federal Court, but no one really does that.
When you assert you issued patent in a court case, once again it has to fight for its life.
This is the main difference between copyright and patents. Copyrights exist and can't really be taken away. Patents have to fight for their lives every step of the way.
BTW, the GP's #1 is 35 USC 101 and #3 is 35 USC 112
Throughout its 200+ year history, the U.S. patent system has granted private ownership rights to abstract ideas. Some people don't like that notion. It's understandable - even Thomas Jefferson was opposed to it at first.
Yea, it took Jefferson's friend James Madison to convince him patents would encourage progress.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The patent office is one of if not Microsoft's best friends and that of any other monopoly here in the US. All the patent office does is create monopolies and discourages improving upon existing ideas. It smothers innovation and forces consumers to put up with crappy merchandise for years until *competition* comes in to improve things. The entire basis for the success of capitalism is competition, and the patent system is the complete opposite. There are other ways in which inventors would be rewarded, and companies would be reimbursed for research, or would find alternate ways of researching, if the US patent system didn't exist or was changed to an entirely different system. The industrial strength of the US was better and stronger without patents to hamper progress, and the success of the US as a powerful nation was in no way due to it's patent laws but it's resources among other things instead.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Oh, and one more thing, the ONLY EVIDENCE you need to see that *software* patents in particular are bad is look at the advancement of OSS. Oh but no, maybe they are right, ideas would never progress if it weren't for the "ability" to "protect" them from others who might want to "steal" them. :P Gotta love the FUD coming out of the patent office.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
It seems more than a bit disingeneous on part of mr. Dudas to bring that up in support of US style (software) patents.
Both of these systems are rooted in the 18th Century. They never anticipated:
a) a global economy
b) lightspeed evolution of technology, instant communication, blah, blah.
Patents are hopeless - they really operate as a kind of lifetime income protection scheme for lawyers - how can anyone really protect anything if there are separate systems for each country? Patents are a kind of new-age trading card. Fun to collect and swap with your strategic partners. Otherwise,they just inhibit innovation.
Copyrights are fine in principle, but suffer from the same problem - either there's one global system or forget it. And, oh yes, they're virtually zero protection for the creator (distinct from their aggregate value to mega publishers).
I'm imagining a kind of IP anarchy, where you just get to market earlier and better than the next guy. Ooooops! Isn't that really the way it works?
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!
Most of this 200 year history is based on areas where the patent office assumed that everyone would apply for patents in some area of endeavour, so that searches could be done basically in patent applications. In software and many other areas today, prior publication of ideas occurs in user groups, internet, bulletin boards, magazines, and on and on, and the cost of publication is practically zero so examining books in print does not begin to cover what is published. Nor is it all on the internet since the internet's time horizon is fairly short...many publications fall off. Result is that a prior art search is several orders of magnitude harder to do right now than it used to be (and it is not at all clear it was adequate even 200 years ago). Result is that now there are effectively no searches, and criteria for what is obvious bear no relation to the English term "obvious". If I show a problem to 10 people skilled in some art and any of them come up with my idea for a patent, it is obvious, or they would not have come up with such. But no such criteria are used. Indeed, not even if all 10 came up with the idea would the USPTO think the idea obvious. They want prior publication, yet neither they nor anyone else looks for such. The situation is shameful and this bureaucrat deserves to be jailed as an accessory to massive theft, which is what the USPTO is engaged in.
And not coveted by other than multinational corporations. This is idiotic. The short phrase that outlined patents and copyrights are not recognizable in today's patent and copyright system. The nature of the system today is intended to protect the power of corporations, with deep pockets for lawyers.
It is really a worse abuse than any tort abuse. A jury can understand most tort cases. Patents have lost usefulness as far as enhancing progress in science, whether it be computer software or medical research. The human genome has been mapped, but the information is quartered by organizations that may not have the resources to exploit it. Much, if not most, of the technology research was subsidized by the public.
Copyrights have been extended far beyond reason to protect the profits of corporate copyright owners. Patents mostly protect corporations with the money to file and defend the patents. The Patent Office seems helpless to change the system.
This is a daunting problem, but we have gotten a long way from the purposes envisioned in the Constitution.
Jefferson and Madison corresponded at length about patent rights during Madison's formulation of the Constitution.
Originally Jefferson was against patents however Madison, who was his friend, convinced Jefferson patents were good and that they would encourage progress.
FalconShould there be a Law?
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/ElectronicFrontie r/LaserPatentWars
First to office can be crucial
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
'I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S,' Dudas said. 'It's a proven system, over 200 years old. The Supreme Court, Congress and policy makers are involved [in cases and legal reforms] not because the system is broken.'"
From his point of view, its an awesome system. Everyone wants to have a system like ours. The reason: we won't do trade with them if they don't have strong IP laws, look at Russia and AllofMP3.com
He also forgets that most of congress is bought by big media and their involvement in the patent system is purely a puppet event because they're getting paid money from special interest groups.
I think its time we demand an election for the head of the patent system. Appointing or hiring someone to be the head isn't working.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
He also asserts that "It's a proven system, over 200 years old.". But business model patents, which are probably the most abused and the most common violators of "obviousness", are only a few years old, especially the common "Do {some normal business practice} ON THE INTERNET" business models which cropped up after the Internet became popular in the late 1990s. Even software patents didn't exist before 1979, and for the early years they had to work by pretending to describe hardware.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
At a functional-block level, an op-amp is a building block like, say, a sort algorithm is a building block in software. The general concept of an opamp is an **idea** you can build one out of discrete transistors, much like a sort algorithm (read an explanation and then write one in C). Why should you be allowed to patent all op amps: "I thought of opamps, so everybody who builds an op amp should pay me royalties" but not allowed to patent a specific sort algorithm: "I thought of qsort so everyone who writes/uses a qsort should pay me royalties?"?
Software copyright does not protect an algorithm, it only protects a body of code that implements it. The same applies to electronics too. If you have built a particular opamp in a chip then copyright protects that op amp lithography, or if you have built an opamp out of discretes, then Copyright protects the PCB layout.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
It really is not, and anyone who promotes it as being such will have father physics and mother nature to answer to. Though it may not be those supporting software patents who feel the wrath of father physics and mother nature in their pathetic short lives, it will be the generations who unknowingly suffer form the stifle of advancement.
... well... us humans. Elements or facets of abstraction physics include the actions of abstraction creation and use, such as:
Consider the catholic church who only in the early 1990's exonerated Galileo.
Why do such idiots exist and who give them support enough to harm so many in such a easy to hide manner.
When are we as a population going to simple say NO?!
And here is the honesty of software:
Abstraction physics
Contents
* 1 Introduction:
* 2 Abstraction action constants:
* 3 Primary computer user interfaces:
* 4 Commonly practiced, yet to be recognized:
* 5 Economic hindsight projected forward:
* 6 References and notes:
Introduction:
The physics of abstraction is of an outside looking in perspective, where rather than creating another abstract language (inside), instead sees the underlying action machinery enabling the ability to create languages (outside looking in). Since Abstraction is a human mental characteristic, there is an inherent subjectivity to the topic. However, through the use of computers we can be more objective about abstraction physics. See: Abstraction (computer science)
Abstraction enters the picture of computing with the representation of physical transistor switch positions of ON '1' and OFF '0' or what we call "Binary notation". However, computers have far more transistor switches in them than we can keep up with in such a low level or first order abstract manner, so we create higher level abstractions in order to increase our productivity in programming computers. From Machine language to application interfaces that allow users to define some sequence of action into a word or button press (ie. record and playback macro) so to automate a task, we are working with abstractions that will ultimately access the hardware transistor switches which in turn output to, or control some physical world hardware.
Programming is the act of automating some level of complexity, usually made up of simpler complexities, but done so in order to allow the user to use and reuse the complexity through a simplified interface. And this is a recursive act, building upon abstractions others have created that even our own created abstractions/automations might be used by another to further create more complex automations. In general, if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner.
Abstraction action constants:
There is an identifiable and definable "physics of abstraction" (abstraction physics), an identification of what actions are required and unavoidable, in order to make and use abstractions. Abstraction Physics is not exclusive to computing but constantly in use by
0) Defining a word to mean a more complex definition (word = definition, function-name = actions to take, etc.)
1) Starting and Stopping (interfacing with) of an abstraction definition sequence.
2) Keeping track of where you are in the progress of abstraction sequence usage (moving from one abstraction to another).
3) Defining and changing "input from" direction.
4) Defining and changing "output to" direction.
5) Getting input to process (using variables or place holders to carry values).
6) Sequencially stepping thru abstraction/automation details (inh
Whenever I see a patent conversion, I point people to probably the best article on patents ever:
http://philsalin.com/patents.html
Here's a third: to protect an open technology standard:
Patents aren't needed to protect open tech standards. Two examples are Linux and Apache. That is that I know of, I don't know that either has patents, copyrights but not patents. And MS's Embrace, extend and extinguish hasn't been able to get rid of them. I'm not sure about Apache but Linux is actually growing not being extinguished, no matter how much MS tried to use FUD or pay others (SCO) to get rid of Linux.
FalconShould there be a Law?
>>> "In the case of software patents, outside certain complex algorithmic areas like digital signal processing, almost everything is inherently obvious if the problem is stated clearly."
... your comments reminded me of that.
I think it was Socrates who did a gedanken into how any idiot knew everything. You just break down the problem in to very basic elements and lead them through it
That aside, I think that recognising and clearly stating a problem can be a very innovative process. The problem I had as a (UK) patent examiner with obviousness arguments was that in any argument for obviousness the applicant can always respond with "if it's obvious why hasn't it been done before". Which is actually a good argument - finding dated documentary evidence for software patents has been difficult; not sure about the current state of play. Several times I thought "this must have been done". But it turns out I should have been working in electronics R&D because even spending twice as long on researching as I should I couldn't find any details about it.
In software there's a problem of extreme complexity and lack of experts.
It might not be such a great idea to reject because there is only one (known) solution. Lots of folks work years to solve certain problems, failing over and over, when finally one of them comes up with a solution. For example, I worked on a problem that had confounded experts for 50 years. Three weeks before a trade show, our competitor even published a paper explaining why it is not possible to solve. We demonstrated our working design at the trade show, proving them wrong. If that isn't a non-obvious invention worthy of protection, what it?
It's also a good example of why "teaching away" is considered proof of a patentable idea.
>>> 'I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S,' Dudas said
If that's a direct quote then this guy need to get a speech writer that can let him tell the truth and sound good rather than just obviously lying.
We need to remember why the patent system was established in the fist place; it brought invention out of the shadows and brought revelation at the cost of exclusive license. Far too often in history knowledge was guilded and hoarded such that important concepts were not only lost but never expanded upon. The US patent system has been effective in this respect. Failures include probabilistic patents (those that are intended to remain in application status and never be actually granted), software patents, business process patents, overworked/incompetent/bureaucratic patent office and examiners, and laws outpaced by technology and drafted imperfectly. It is damn near broke. As a society we really need to have a conversation about this; a good patent system will produce good results spurring innovation, invention, entrepreneurship, and general technological development.
Perhaps, it does have a lot of ammendments. Plus, things Bush has done, and legislated into existence, violate the spirit and wording of the Constitution. Yet most Americans support Bush, right ;-)
The last poll results I saw, last night on CNN, was that 55% of Americans disapproved of Bush's policies. I used to feel lonely, but now more are waking up to what they elected.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It is not true that the map of freedom will be complete
with the erasure of the last invidious border
when it remains for us to chart the attractors of thunder
and delineate the arrhythmias of drought
to reveal the molecular dialects of forest and savanna
as rich as a thousand human tongues
and to comprehend the deepest history of our passions
ancient beyond mythology's reach
So I declare that no corporation holds a monopoly on numbers
no patent can encompass zero and one
no nation has sovereignty over adenine and guanine
no empire rules the quantum waves
And there must be room for all at the celebration of
understanding
for there is a truth which cannot be bought or sold
imposed by force, resisted
or escaped.
Greg Egan, author of Distress.
Shamelessly copied without permission.
Once convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuary table and calculated a patent term of 14 year with one 14 year extension possible was the optimum length they should last.
I'm pretty sure you're confusing patents and copyright. They're different.
Yes copyrights and patents are different however they both had the same length of duration, 14 years: "a Patent Law (1791) gave inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for 14 years."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why not just have the ability for the public to comment on prior art? Leave the application process approximately the way it is, and just post the approved patents online (as they do now), but allow individuals or corporations to send in a notice describing their prior art if it exists. If a member of the public sees an application and knows that prior art exists, then they can simply notify the person in question. This is far from perfect, but it is a relatively simple mechanism to prevent some of the more ridiculous patents in a way that would not cause a flood of correspondence for the Office to deal with. Once a reasonable period has passed, perhaps 30 days, then the patent would be finalized.
The USPTO is entirely funded by the money the receive from processing patents (and trademarks). This is the same principle of operation as the postal system, the Federal Reserve, and numerous other federal entities that essentially act as private businesses.
Changing this isn't as simple as just funding the USPTO with taxes (or other federal funds). If the government were to actively step in by funding (and hence regulating) the patent office, there would be a lot of issues to deal with wrt the government effectively legislating through the USPTO. Not to mention that this would be more costly, the USPTO is currently self sustaining, and it could potentially cause major disruptions.
#include ".signature"
I'll give you a counterexample, though. In fact, the very term "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was invented to describe MS's tactic of destroying the ActiveX platform in order to throttle one of Netscape's best features. Worked very well, too - ActiveX is a swamp of crappy technology that no one really wants to touch.
ActiveX is by Microsoft, MS didn't try to extend and kill it, MS originated ActiveX:
ActiveX is a series of high-level, Internet/Intranet technologies Microsoft introduced in mid-1990. The term ActiveX itself is seldom used today, and many of the technologies were rendered defunct or renamed, but some are still in wide use.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I ought to know, I was a patent examiner and I got tired of dealing with lawyers trying to get something patented even though it was obvious to me. MS wanted to patent a data struture. The claims were so broad that they covered just about any data structure that was used to store font information. WTF!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Patents are government issued monopolies... that's more than "broken", that's wrong.
Patents give the inventor the possibility of making a profit therefore they encourage progress. Which is what patents are for. How many people or businesses spend millions of dollars to invent something if they couldn't potentially make a profit?
FalconShould there be a Law?
--> "Speaking at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose, Dudas said that characterizing the patent system as hurting innovation is a 'fundamentally wrong' way to frame the debate.
Well of course, anything that tells Dudas that he should start looking for a real job is wrong for him. State executionners are also for the death penalty, and bordello owners or pimps certainly approuve prostitution.
--> 'I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S,'
Bull! Mr Dudas visited areoports all over the world coached by the state department, and met people that knew what he wanted to hear, and told him that.
Mr Bin Laden has also traveled around the world, and in every nation all the people he met told him what a super duper guy he was, ain't that nice.
--> Dudas said. 'It's a proven system, over 200 years old. The Supreme Court, Congress and policy makers are involved [in cases and legal reforms] not because the system is broken. It's not perfect, and we should be having the debate on how to improve.'"
Some things are beyond repair..
The situation is similar to the pre first world war german, austrian and russian empire: How to change everything so that nothing really change.
Well it didn't quite work as planned....
characterizing the patent system as hurting innovation is a 'fundamentally wrong' way to frame the debate.
Do not blame me, I just work here.
I have traveled around the world,
I always did like that song, "Southern Cross".
every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S
Huh, pass.
It's a proven system, over 200 years old
My parents do not care, why should you.
The Supreme Court, Congress and policy makers are involved [in cases and legal reforms]
My parents told me everything is good.
not because the system is broken.
Would you like some cheese with that wine?
It's not perfect
It works for me.
and we should be having the debate on how to improve.'"
And by the time an answer is agreed, I will be retired.
"We got some Movies, Color TV's" - Dire Straits
Luddite legacy IPR good for some bad for US, because you cannot enforce the present IPR laws (due to technology always changes) globally or locally; Therefor, the Luddite legacy IPR laws are failures
... and other well developed economies that blindly insist on continuing a failed IPR system, you change words and phrases, but maintain the anti-competitive structure of an International Luddite legacy IPR system. It is time for US and EU to lead the international community in moving towards a Global Open-competition economic architecture and quickly away from protectionist legacy economic models. A Global Open-competition economic architecture that rewards productive innovation and deters creative, developmental, research ... sharing of information.
...; ALSO, we must reward all owners of information, copyrights, patents ... production/services that has a marketable product financial value (including when it wins friends/influences people). (2) No IPR holder can prevent free (non-monetary/financial) use by any person, company ... country for creativity, product development, scientific research ... educational sharing (Binding court arbitration on the proportional sharing of performance profits). (3) All IPR falls in the public-domain, but all property falls in the (as determined by law and court) public or private. (4) Obvious/Public patents/IPR will be determined at the time of binding court arbitration (judge and independent empaneled topic experts) on the proportional sharing of performance profits, and any attempt by an arbitration participant to defraud the court or other participants will be considered criminal (big fine, 2-10 years in jail).
... not I filed it, I got it, you cannot have or use it (which is counter productive stupidity).
Luddite legacy (industrial-age) IPR is a failure and exceptionally harmful to US, EU
An IPR system needs to reward performance and productivity. (1) We must allow globally the free (non-monetary/financial) use and sharing of all information, copyrights, patents
I think, EFF, ACLU, and the FSF-GPL folks could manage developing a damn good and functional International Open-IPR treaty, but the USA Congress, EU, and others are still beholding to the corporatist special-interest more than the Public's/Citizens' and/or National interest. IPRs should be productivity based control
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Thanks for the thoughts.
Really, good luck getting things turned around and breaking into the photography business - my sense is that it's a rewarding one.
I've always been interested in photography. I took it in high school, then while I was in the army I was my unit's unofficial photographer. Whenever we went out for training and in other circumstances my CO, Cammanding Officer, wanted photos taken he'd go to an office on post to pick up film for me to shoot. After I got out and started college though my major then, before my accident, was Computer Engineering I kept my interest in photography. Now, it may be the one thing I can do for work.
FalconShould there be a Law?