Inventors Protest Patent Reform Bill

narramissic writes "A group of inventors and U.S. company execs, among them Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway and the AutoSyringe, and Steve Perlman, inventor of WebTV and lead developer of Apple Inc.'s QuickTime, paid a visit to Washington to encourage Congress to defeat the Patent Reform Act. The inventors say the Act will weaken the patent system, devalue patents, and encourage infringement. A version of the act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this month, is supported by several large tech vendors including Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco. The big companies hope it will make it harder for patent holders to sue and collect huge damage awards when only a small piece of a tech product is found to infringe."

Comments

"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors"

[Doc Ruby]

Those people protesting the patent reform aren't notably "inventors" so much as they're notably "incumbent patent holders". They are a group defined by holding patents themselves, under the existing broken system, and getting rich off it.

I really don't understand what effects this proposed tweak to the patent system will have. I expect no one really does: the system is so unjust and complicated that it needs to be ripped out by the roots and replaced by something simple that merely "promotes science and the useful arts", without infringing our rights to free expression (including copying) more than is absolutely necessary to protect essential commerce. But if these rich guys are protesting the tweak, which would reduce their own protection (and evidently increase the rights of the rest of us to invent freely, using other inventions), then it starts to look like the reform is at least worth trying. Because they're making their money off their monopolies under the current law, and didn't seem to be so motivated by its existing injustice as to protest the old way, or to propose a workable new regime that protects the rest of us as well as it's protected them.

Re:"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors"

[iamacat]

Let's say a guy finds a killer algorithm to speed up data mining. Big corp selling data mining software can gobble it up. Guy can't sell any data mining competing software because I'm infringing 800 silly patents (double linked lists and stuff).

Let's say a guy finds a killer algorithm to speed up data mining. Big corp selling data mining software can gobble it up. Guy can't sell any data mining competing software because I'm infringing 800 silly patents (double linked lists and stuff). Those two issues are not mutually exclusive and must be both addresses in law. Make it easy to challenge a patent and do not award damages with no rational basis.

Re:"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors"

[serbanp]

Let's say a guy finds a killer algorithm to speed up data mining.

Let's say that algorithms are one category of discoveries that should be not patentable, along with laws of physics and the like.

Re:"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, gotta love absolute limits on how profitable a device can be. Sounds like a great way to let someone get steamrollered on their billion dollar idea that cost $150k to research.

Re:"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors"

[2short]

If algorithms should not be patentable, neither should anything else.

If you just want to abolish patents entirely, I see some potential problems with that that would need to be addressed, but it's an arguable position. If you think inventions that manipulate stuff deserve protection, but not ones that manipulate data do not, I don't buy the distinction. All patents are essentially for algorithms. Eli Whitney's patent protected not a particular instance of the device, but the idea of how to construct a cotton gin.

Re:"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You're tying the extractable value of a device to its development cost. That makes no sense. Also, you have to consider that $1.5M isn't enough to set up a business capable of dealing with the existing giants and, for existing companies, you'd have to account for how much of the development and profit was attributable to a specific patent. This is madness and will just tie companies down with onerous audit requirements.

What part is most dangerous?

[meburke]

I strongly object to the part that awards the patent at "first to file" rather than "first to invent". I believe that the policy of "prior art" protects the small inventor. Somehow this change is being ignored in light of the "small detail" portion of the bill. Some of the awards are clearly out-of-hand. An inventor should be compensated for someone stealing his/her invention, and punitive damages are appropriate, but surely the remuneration award should be based on fair royalties, right? So if an an inventor discovers his $.30 invention is being used in someone's $30,000 machine, shouldn't the remunerative part of the award be based on fees due him from licensing the $.30 part? If he didn't invent the whole machine he shouldn't be entitled to all the accumulated royalties due the other contirbuting inventors.

Re:What part is most dangerous?

[Vellmont]

So if an an inventor discovers his $.30 invention is being used in someone's $30,000 machine, shouldn't the remunerative part of the award be based on fees due him from licensing the $.30 part?

Only if the $.30 part isn't the linch-pin that makes the whole $30,000 machine possible. The monetary value of the part is really irrelevant, it's the role the part plays in what the invention does. If I invented a magical $3 device that allows a car to run on gasoline, I'd expect an automaker to pay me a HELL of a lot if they infringed on that patent. Such a device is pretty useless in isolation. On the other hand, if I invented an adjustable cup holder, and an automaker infringed on it, I'd say damages awarded against anyone infringing on that should be based on the little amount of value generated by the better cup-holder, not the whole value of the car.

What the law actually says I don't know.. summaries of law are notoriously terrible.

Yeah, that's the idea.

[kebes]

From TFA:

The legislation "will weaken the patent system," said Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway and the AutoSyringe. "It will devalue patents..."

Umm... yeah. That's the idea: to weaken a system that is currently very strict and uncompromising. The end of the quote is:

"It will be a disincentive for people to invest in the future."

Well I guess that's what is being debated. On the one hand there you can argue that without strong patent protection there is a disincentive to invest in future ideas, because you can't protect your expected profits. On the other hand you can argue that with strong patent protection, there is a disincentive to invest in future ideas, because you can't be sure you won't infringe on other's patents, and have your profits sucked away.

It's not at all obvious that the current patent balance (or one involving even greater patent protection) is the optimal one. It is obvious that no matter how you set the patent system, some people will not like it, and will experience a "disincentive to create." But that's hardly relevant: the proper balance is one which encourages the greatest innovation and progress overall. And, when analyzing the overall benefit to society, it should be noted that there are distinct advantages to allowing an idea to be used widely (perhaps even gratis), and to offer companies some assurance that their product will not be destroyed simply because of an obscure patent of questionable validity.

WebTV needed inventing?

[tehwebguy]

I must be missing something.. isn't WebTV just Web + TV?

Aren't these exactly the types of patents we DON'T want being granted?

Reminds me of the hamburger earmuffs, and the electric blanket mobile.

Ironic

[iamacat]

Given that it's impossible to ship a product without infringing on dozens of patents from big companies, at least one of which will refuse to negotiate reasonable licensing due to competitive considerations. What's not too like about the new rules? You get compensated for the fair value of your patent if someone uses your invention without license. If a BMW shop uses 1-click on their online website, do you really expect to get all the proceeds from their car sales as a reward?

You guys don't get first to file vs first to inven

[Dan Berlin]

First to file does not change what is prior art at all.

In both systems, prior art is more or less anything that is one year older than your patent filing date.

First to file vs first to invent only affects who would get an *otherwise valid* patent. It makes no more patents valid than were valid under a first to invent system.

In a first to invent system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid (IE there is no prior art that invalidates it), the winner of the patent is the person who can prove they invented it first. Well, actually, it's much more complex than that, and the winner ends up being the person who can prove they have more money to spend on complex and intricate "interference" proceedings and appeals.

In a first to file system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid, the winner of the patent is the person who filed first.

In *neither* system do you get a patent if there is prior art. The difference between the two systems is only in determining who will own a patent when two people claim the same thing.

Given that most small inventors don't have money to spend on interference proceedings (these often cost >100k), first to file helps them a lot.

Make the system work? Turn the clock back 40 years

[argent]

"Let's first make the system we've got today work the way it's supposed to work," Perlman said.

Start out by getting rid of algorithm patents. The first algorithm patent in the US, the UNIX setuid bit, was donated back to the public domain by Dennis Ritchie. Unfortunately that didn't seem to set a precedent... so let's set the clock back and eliminate all patents on mathematical algorithms, whether described as "formats", "software", or "protocols", just as if it had and all these patents on mathematics had been turned back to the public domain.

That would massively reduce the load on the patent system, and free Microsoft and the rest of us from this unwanted burden.

correct patent law

[celle]

What is it with you guys, just strip all patent law back to its inception when it was fair instead of adding on more legal manure on top of the old legal manure in the hopes something beautiful will grow. If you get it back to the basics before much of the legal and corporate corruption trashed it all you might get a legal system the average american can understand, be able to use themselves, and have pride in.