Patent Reform Bill Unable To Clean Up Patent Mess

First to submit writes "Ars Technica analyzes the Patent Reform Act that has passed the House and is being debated in the Senate. Unfortunately for those longing for real, meaningful patent reform, the bill comes up short in some significant ways. 'Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides, it is unclear if the legislation will do much to fix the most serious flaws in the patent system. A series of appeals court rulings in the 1990s greatly expanded patentable subject matter, making patents on software, business methods, and other abstract concepts unambiguously legal for the first time.'"

Comments

Re:Do we really need patents?

[cpt kangarooski]

My main gripe with patents is that they use federal regulation establish intellectual property.

That's just a weird statement, right there. "Intellectual property" is a terrible phrase, which is deliberately meant to confuse people. But basically, if anything, it would refer to a patent (or copyright, etc.) itself, and not the invention the patent pertains to, nor anything which embodies that patent, such as a tangible machine. So you seem to be saying that your gripe with patents is that there are federal laws that provide for patents. Like I said, it's kind of odd.

I don't see why they can't just write a law establishing that you own your ideas, and that other must secure your consent or give you reasonable compensation before using them.

1) Ideas are more plentiful than air; why should there be ownership of them. There's certainly no scarcity.

2) Ideas are not really valuable, in the main. I have an idea that I'd like to fly around like Superman. I don't know how I would accomplish this, but if someone else figures out the hard part, why should I be able to demand payment because of my contribution?

3) Ideas are largely private. If you don't publish them for all the world to see, how would anyone know what was already out there, who came up with it, and when? If you do publish them, who pays for that?

4) What's 'reasonable'?

5) Ideas are generally unoriginal. If a hundred people each independently have the same idea, how is the conflict between them resolved?

6) Ideas are extremely broad. If I have an idea for a story that goes 'Boy meets girl,' or 'Man against nature,' then I basically get paid by every author and filmmaker in the world. Seems like quite a windfall for so little effort.

7) The transactional costs would be so immense that the economy related to ideas -- inventions, creative works, etc. -- would grind to a halt, causing dramatic harm to human civilization and progress. How could that possibly be a good idea? I'm reminded of the Golgafrinchans, who would surely love the notion.

8) It's just plain dumb. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Patents and copyrights are intended to prevent people from free-loading off of the work of others

No they're not! And that sort of thinking is what has screwed it all up!

They're intended to encourage free-loading, which is a highly useful and desirable activity. Why the hell should everyone have to reinvent the wheel, after all. Better to freeload off of the inventive caveman who came up with it. Think about how patents (and copyrights, until the system broke in the 70's) require publication. Think about how the terms expire (again, increasingly broken as terms grow longer).

The ideal world would be one in which as much public creative and inventive activity as possible took place, and there were no patents or copyrights, and everyone could free-load as much as they pleased. We can't manage that, it seems, but we should try to get close, with as much creative and inventive activity as possible and as much free loading as possible. We may have to trade one for the other, but they don't scale linearly (year one of a copyright is worth far more than year one million, even though both are just one year long), so we can get gains in excess of costs, if we're careful.

Just something to think about.

If you had, you wouldn't of bothered to make that post.