Slashdot Mirror
Broken Patent System? Google, Apple Disagree
Whiney Mac Fanboy writes "The AlwaysOn Stanford Summit featured the panel discussion 'The Patent Crisis: Crossroads for the Business of Technology.' Speakers included patent lawyers from Google, IBM, and Apple. According to The Register, Google's and Apple's patent jocks had diametrically opposing views. Google's head of patents believes the system is in crisis: 'The Patent Office is overburdened,' she said. 'The volume of patents going in is huge. And the quality of patents coming out — it could be better.' But Apple's chief patent counsel said the US patent system was 'not broken' and 'not in crisis,' calling it 'the best in the world.'"
What, you've never attended a wedding just so you could read off your list explaining why the couple shouldn't get married?
The way that patent examiners work is by number of actions on a case. Each patent application is a case and there are only at most 2 actions on a case: first action, usually a rejection for something; final action, either the patent is allowed or denied. Allowing a patent on the first round only gives you one action. The patent examiners are expected to complete a certain number of actions each week. As the patent examiner stays there longer they need to complete more actions. A new patent examiner, GS-5 or GS-7 would have to do about 4 patents every 2 weeks, where a GS-11 would have to do about 7 every two weeks. This never ever ever takes into account the complexity of the patent either. A 10 page patent application gets the same attention as a 150 page application. It does not take into consideration that the job is boring as hell unless you like dealing with lawyers.
Many patent examiners are not from the technical fields that they are working in and some are fresh out of college. Patent examiners are government employees and thus have the same lazy attitude that most government employees do.
Anyone who has been on /. for the past 5 years and seen some of the stupid issues that have come up because of patents would know that the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) is completely jacked up and not working.
Take it from me, I worked there, and to reject a patent I would have come up with any f***ed up logic just to get it out the door on time, and usually allow them the second time around, unless I really did come up with some good BS
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
If an inventor can't get a valid patent for a (let's assume) perfectly novel and new invention on their own with reasonable cost and chance of success then the system is BROKEN. That's how it should be defined.
I do like this way of thinking of things. It could be productive to think of situations which would cause us to say the thing is broken. Some ideas come to mind:
These are just suggestions, and you might disagree. However, even if you do agree, I still don't know what should be done about it. How can we improve our current system or build a new one which won't have these problems?
Anyway, your comparison of forum trolls to patent trolls is specious. Patent trolls have a large economic incentive, and their actions are significantly more damaging.
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
Yes and, furthermore, Apple's and Google's views are not necessarily opposed.
... "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant.", is most certainly disingenuous. Patents are very rarely litigated because the stakes are so high. Apple plays the patent game as aggressively as anybody and this is an attempt for them to direct attention away from the process of bogus patent hoarding which they so eagerly participate. Unlike the majority of large corporations, Apple uses its patent portfolio offensively.
The other quote from Apple, "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed,"
Saying the patent system is the best in the world doesn't mean it isn't hopelessly corrupt.
Um, doesn't it go without saying that a bunch of patent lawyers, who are undoubtedly extremely well paid for working and exploiting the existing convoluted patent system, wouldn't want anything to change? If software patents go away, a certain percentage of patent lawyers go away. If the patent system was better designed, easier to understand, simpler for individuals to work with, then another percentage of patent lawyers would go away.
So most oncologists don't want a cure for cancer to be found? I've talked with a lawyer who works on patents on several occasions about this, approaching it from a slashdot-centric the-system-is-broken kind of viewpoint, but after hearing her talk about it I've come to the realization that the system isn't quite as bad as we make it out to be here. It is not easy to get a patent; patent applications are frequently denied, or revisions are demanded, and just because we've seen some dumb patents get granted doesn't mean that the whole system is somehow irredeemably broken.
It's like the people who argue the legal system is broken because they cherry-pick instances where frivolous lawsuits succeeded (usually completely fabricated instances).
Apple is, itself, quite the patent whore. Look no further than the iPod click-wheel patent for evidence of that. Apple may not be in the same class as IP-only companies, but it uses its patents destructively as much as any. Unlike the vast majority of larger companies that use their portfolios defensively, Apple actively surpresses competition with its patents.
It's no surprise that Apple argues against reform of the patent process. They are one of the big players of the system.
I would even agree with you, providing patent trolls, once caught in the act of extorting licensing fees based upon faulty patents, be permanently banned from ever submitting patents again. They should also be due to pay punitive damages to those who they extorted money from. The system needs to have a severe and permanent punishment mechanism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I am a recent law grad who planned to practice patent law, specifically related to computer science (largely software-based in nature). After working in the area for a summer and seeing how truly worthless many of these patents were, I came to the realization that I could not pursue a career in this field with a clear conscience. It should be telling that there are some people like me who eschew a career in patent law based on the failings and injustice of the system, even with a mound of debt. The fact that some patent attorneys are speaking out against the system when they have clearly vested interests in it is further demonstrative.
Sadly, I perceive that the U.S. patent system is virtually assuring the continued decline of technological innovation in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. Not that the U.S. has some right to be a leader, but there is no good reason to shoot your own foot...
Simple. In hardware, compatibility with other hardware/software is not a requirement. If Intel patents something that AMD needs, AMD can implement something equivalent that doesn't work the same way, and software developers will write compiler extensions that take care of the details (for the most part).
In software, the fundamental functionality of software requires that data files be able to be read by other applications. Often, these patents cover the only possible set of steps to decode a file format. Thus, these patents take control over content created by an end user away from the content creator. This is fundamentally wrong. Also, since you can't force a company to provide open APIs for writing importers, the customer gets screwed if it is not possible to also write the competitor's file format.
Software changes much more rapidly than hardware because of the lack of physical form. Most computers still use the same basic instruction set that was created over thirty years ago. Most computers use an operating system written in the last ten years. Most computers have at least one application that was been updated in the last 3-5 weeks, while their CPUs were only upgraded within the last 3-5 years. Thus, the duration of absolute protection currently provided by patents is entirely unreasonable for software. Some might argue that it's unreasonable for computer hardware as well, but it is definitely unreasonable for software. This can be fixed, but until it is, it still represents a good reason not to allow software patents.
Algorithms are either mathematical in nature, in which case they should not be patentable because math is considered to be factual and unpatentable, or they are so trivial that a description of the result to a programmer will get you a similar (if not identical) piece of code. The complexity of software is not in creating anything new, but rather in the constructing of a whole from lots of standard parts in useful ways. The more complex the piece of software, the less likely that the whole piece will match someone else's, but the more likely that some smaller piece will be an almost exact match. As such, it is far closer to an art form than a science, and thus should be protected by copyright, not patents.
That brings us to the last point: prior to the recent allowance of software patents, nothing was eligible for both patent and copyright protection. It was always one or the other. This was very much intentional in the creation of these laws. They were supposed to be mutually exclusive. Right now, we have a situation where a small percentage of software authors want to have the extended duration provided by copyright and the absolute protection from fair use that patents provide. It's a clear power grab that should not be allowed. Allowing both types of protection on the same piece of technology gets around all of the protections built into each individual protection against abuse.
I'm sure folks can come up with other reasons, but those are the ones that are most obnoxious in my view, and are pretty fundamental to the nature of patents. Of course, if a software manufacturer is willing to forgo copyright protection in exchange for patent protection....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on?
...) patents. They just can't know which ones, until the courts tell them.
We can't know that until the courts decide.
This simple fact is the main evidence of how broken the system is. Current patents, at least in the US, are unreadable by the engineers that they are ostensibly written for. Even if you read one and think you understand it, fact is that if you aren't an experienced patent lawyer, you do not understand it. In Legalese, there are a lot of English-like words whose meanings are rather different than in normal English, and there are many more words whose meanings are very different from Engineering English. In the case of computer-related patents, many of the patents deal with new concepts that the legal system hasn't yet adjudicate, so the legal meaning of much of the text hasn't yet been decided in court. Google can't know what patents they are infringing, any more than Apple can.
Considering all the new stuff they're involved in, Google can be reasonably sure that they're violating some of Apple's (and Microsoft's and IBM's and
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
As well they should be; If they'd taken that position 15 years ago with the mouse and their UI, Microsoft wouldn't have broken into the consumer market, and we'd have a a much more Apple-centric universe, with turtlenecks and goatees.
Probably not the best for everyone, but much better for Apple. Typically doing what's good for your company is regarded as a good business move.
--
It could be productive to think of situations which would cause us to say the thing is broken. Some ideas come to mind: ...
;-)
. If whole industries, scientific progress, or the productivity and well-being of a society can be held up by a patent
Various historians have written about how this has been true since the early days of the patent system. Using our current terminology, the patent system was broken by design. Its supporters always claim that patents encourage improved technology, but history says that patents primarily impede advances. In many cases, this doesn't even benefit the patent holders. Thus, in Levine's first example, James Watt spent most of his life in court, suing people. He made very little money from his big invention, until after his patents ran out, and only then did he settle down to building and selling the steam engines that eventually made him rather wealthy. His patents effectively set back the development of steam transport by several decades.
How can we improve our current system or build a new one which won't have these problems?
Considering that we've had this sort of problem with patents from the start, it doesn't seem likely that we can fix the problems. If we could, you'd think that some country would have stumbled onto the solution by now.
The only approach that seems to have helped at all is the compulsory licensing system that many countries use with copyright. This involves taking control of the "invention" away from the patent/copyright owner, and decreeing that anyone can use it for a standard, fixed license fee. Needless to say, the owners of such "Intellectual Property Rights" don't agree with this, though history shows that it seems to be about the only thing that takes the profits away from the lawyers and gives them to someone else. Of course, the "someone else" is usually a corporation, not the actual inventor, but that's another topic that we could flame to death in another thread.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
So... I think Google has a better understanding of tha patent system... as they are trying to digitally catalog it. Apple probably sees it from a purely business point of view. My friend in the patent office says they have a decade long backlog. He did Computer Engineering in college so I assume he is looking at software patents.
I couldn't agree with Apple's counsel more.
Everyone seems content to blame the PTO for the problems in the patent system. The reason there are patent trolls applying for superfluous patents is not because they know they can sneak the applications through the PTO's inefficient, government run system. The patent litigation laws in the US are the source of the real problem. The massive potential returns on litigation make it economical for the trolls to exist, and, in turn, force the big companies to use their patents "like shields" against each other. One golden patent application in a 1000 is all it takes for a troll to pay for the fees associated with all of them.
Get rid of the trolls and unnecessary patents by making them uneconomical, not by forcing the PTO to hire PhD's. With a lower upside to litigation, every application that is filed must necessarily be of a higher quality in order to make it worthwhile economically.