Slashdot Mirror
Court Blocks Controversial New Patent Rules
An anonymous reader writes "InformationWeek is reporting that a court in Virginia has issued an injunction against controversial new patent rules that were supposed to go into effect tomorrow. The court granted a motion filed by GlaxoSmithKline, which is suing the US patent office over the issue.
Among other things, the new rules would limit the extent to which existing patent applications can be modified. The patent office says the new rules would speed up the patent process, but critics say they hurt inventors."
It's the number one way to fight for something that the facts tend to be against. If you're on the wrong side of the facts you can't exactly make an Argument from Logos. You may or may not be able to make an argument from Ethos, depending on how well known you are, patent trolls tend to be unknown or disliked, so they can't use that.
They're left with just Pathos, trying to get people emotionally rallied behind an argument by asking them to think about what effect (insert strawman that's highly unlikely to happen but sounds like what the other side is arguing for) will have on (insert group that looks small and poor, someone whose life depends on the current system).
It's the same system the RIAA uses, some argue the government does the same thing (I happen to agree), it's the last argument of those unable to argue from reason, as such it's used a lot by groups who are heavily disliked as they have nothing else to turn to.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
One of the tenets of the capitalist system is clear ownership of property. How can one invest if the ownership can be taken away.
Yet, the current patent system dies exactly this. The abuses that are possible under the current system allow for someone to develop a product and later, through the monopoly granted under the patent system, effectively have that intellectual property taken away.
The problems are many: submarine patents, the fact that the possible award of punitive damages discourages searches for pre-existing patents, the over-broad patents that may or may not apply. Uncertainty kills investment and the current patent system provides plenty of uncertainty.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
While he certainly financially benefited from his invention, is it really fair to patent something created on taxpayer dime, student tuition, university equipment and probably work of many (post)graduate students who were not in any way compensated for their contributions?
Ask most any patent attorney ...
That's my point about legal costs. Can I afford your services to patent a dozen inventions and then get Microsoft to license one they are infringing on?
Well, let's see... you:
1) have avoided the question by not naming even one such person/patent as the parent requested
2) have a huge vested interest, as you depend upon the existing patent system, and your experience in navigating its legalities, to make a living
Why should we take your entirely unsubstantiated assertion as anything else?
Can you afford not to patent your dozen inventions and watch as you release your product(s) and Microsoft simply incorporates them into their latest product(s) without paying you dime 1?
Not if you don't have enough money to pay for patent lawyers to outlast their patent lawyers. If it is Microsoft we are talking about, I bet they could drag the case out for years without paying a dime while you're burning away my life savings paying a lawyer. You might win, but then they'll keep appealing and try to get you to settle.
The point of this issue is that when you have that much money to kill you can get your way no matter what.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The fact that an ordinary smart guy can't draft their own patent applications - as you imply - demonstrates the fallacy that this great society is so civilised. If an ordinary "smart" Joe can't file the appropriate paperwork to protect his efforts and concerns of being swamped then I put forward the system has failed.
The fact that an ordinary nuclear family "needs" a financial advisor just to get them through the hurdles of our financial system in order to get ahead, demonstrates a large failure of our financial system. Think of it as a computer system that needs a large number of sys admins and programmers just to keep the thing running and how poorly designed we all know them to be (how many of them have we bemoaned). Good systems run themselves providing efficiencies of scale with minimal overheads. Civic systems are the same else they are of little good to the little guy.
Who would own a car if you needed a mechanic to spend an hour a day performing maintainence on it for you and a driver to operate it? Not the ordinary person. Only rich folk and corporations would use them - as they once did in the early days.
Patent system is the same. If it's harder to file a patent claim then it is to invent new technologies and products then there is little money to be gained from releasing your invention into the wild. That's why I build systems for myself, my family and friends. Somebody else can come up with their own ideas for the rest of humanity.
We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.