MSM Noticing That Patent Gridlock Stunts Innovation

trichard tips a column on the editorial page at that most traditional of mainstream media, the Wall Street Journal, arguing the point (obvious to this community for a decade) that the US patent system costs more than the value it delivers. The columnist is L. Gordon Crovitz and here is an excerpt: "New drugs require great specificity to earn a patent, whereas patents are often granted to broad, thus vague, innovations in software, communications, and other technologies. Ironically, the aggregate value of these technology patents is then wiped out through litigation costs. Our patent system [is] a disincentive at a time when we expect software and other technology companies to be the growth engine of the economy. Imagine how much more productive our information-driven economy would be if the patent system lived up to the intention of the Founders, by encouraging progress instead of suppressing it."

Comments

ORLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

we-could-have-told-you-and-did dept is right

MSM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I ultra-unhip because I didn't know this was an acronym for "MainStream Media" without having to figure it out?

There's a reason for the gridlock.

[techno-vampire]

From what I understand, patents are not supposed to be granted for ideas, or methods, only for implementations. If this principle were followed, you couldn't patent, let's say, the RSA public key encryption scheme, although you could patent a program that implements it. Patents (in the US, at least) were never intended to cover such things as business methods, algorithms or "doing $FOO with a computer." If we stopped letting people get patents for things that should never have been allowed, and invalidated that type of patent the moment anybody tried to enforce it, the gridlock would go away. If you want to protect your programs, use copyrights; that's what they're for. If you want to protect your business methods, use existing trade secret protections. Use patents to protect things, because that's what they're for.

Re:There's a reason for the gridlock.

[QuantumG]

Actually, patents are supposed to cover methods and apparatus, and they always have.

When you're granted a patent it is supposed to cover *how* something is done. Unfortunately a lot of patents are so broad as to actually cover *what* is being done. These patents should be denied.

Re:There's a reason for the gridlock.

[cpt kangarooski]

I disagree.

The purpose of patents is to incentivize the invention, disclosure, and bringing-to-market of novel, non-obvious inventions which would not have been otherwise. It's not a reward for a job well done, or a particularly tricky bit of inventing. I suspect that Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman would have invented, disclosed, and brought-to-market RSA even if patents were not available to them (which was the case everywhere else in the world, in fact). In fact, this is probably true for the vast majority of inventors in the computer field.

If they're willing to work without that incentive, it is wasteful to grant it to them anyway. It doesn't matter whether the invention was on the cusp of becoming obvious to everyone, it matters whether or not the invention would have come about but-for the possibility of patenting it.

Re:There's a reason for the gridlock.

[cpt kangarooski]

There's really no problem at all. The thing is, there's no requirement that a piece of software be protected only under one legal regime. The regimes do not overlap, but they can each protect different aspects of the same software.

In copyright, there is the idea/expression dichotomy, which results in copyright protecting the implementation of an idea, but not the underlying idea itself. In the case of software, this would mean that all of the algorithms of a program would be uncopyrightable, but the way in which they were written would be copyrightable. So long as you write them a different way (or write them the same way independently, without having copied; or write them the same way due to some functional consideration, such as the dictates of efficiency, of a particular platform, language, etc.) you're fine. For tangible objects there is also the utility doctrine, which prevents the working parts of machines, for example, from being copyrightable.

Patents, OTOH, protect inventions, however they happen to be embodied. So if you invented some bit of functionality, the patent would apply regardless of whether someone copied what you did, or independently came up with it. It would apply whether their code was bit-for-bit the same, or whether they implemented the same invention in a totally different way which still fell under the patent. Of course, if they can achieve the same end result by a different method, then that's not infringing.

So in sum, copyrights are used to prevent people from copying particular bits of source or binaries, but patents are used to prevent people from making identically functioning software, regardless of copying.

Software patents are bad because they're so wasteful, not because they're ill-defined. They're not incentivizing invention, disclosure, and bringing-to-market in the computing field, and are probably hindering it. Since patents are meant to cause more of those things, at the least public cost, the best option for software would be to not offer patents. In the future, we can reexamine the field to see if the natural incentives present are no longer sufficient, and the artificial incentive of patents should be added. But right now, it's a bad idea. Ditto for business methods. That's also such a naturally fertile field that we don't need patents.

Re:There's a reason for the gridlock.

[davester666]

That seems to be how the drug companies are artificially extending their patents by finding new uses for their drugs or patenting the drug with a different coating on it.

Dead On

[JBG667]

Hallelujah! The main purpose of patent and IP law was to promote innovation by ensuring that those who innovate are able to reap sufficient financial benefits commensurate with their invested work. It was to do this IN THE INTEREST OF THE SOCIETY. However, over time, greedy corporations and overzealous lawyer twisted and bent this law to protect interests of individual corporation at the expense of the society at large. This has to be undone.

Patents generate great value

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Just ask the USPTO and patent lawyers!

The patent system is run by the USPTO + lawyers primarily for their benefit. They control it and their "experts" will drive any future changes in patent processes. From their perspective it is generating great value and there is very little motivation for change.

USPTO generates a healthy profit for Uncle Sam too. USPTO makes the same on a low quality or a high quality patent. All that matters is volume. Therefore the system favors cranking out many low quality paptents.

Cranking out patents generates good income for lawyers too. But the real money comes in when a patent is contested. This happens mostly when the patents are low quaility. Therefore patent lawyers score more out of low quality patents than high quality patents.

Therefore the whole system is set up to provide better revenue by generating many crap patents. Don't expect the system to change any time soon!

Re:Patents generate great value

[Aceticon]

Internationally, the number of patents issued in a country is often cited as a proxy for Innovation.

Thus there are even political reasons to keep issuing patents to ideas - it means that the US is praised as the most "innovative" country on Earth since more patents are issued in the US than anywhere else.

Re:Patents generate great value

[Kooshman]

To my understanding, the USPTO is entirely aware and quite unhappy with the recent turn of events. For better or worse, it does not have much influence over how the system works, leaving the decisions to the political machinations of others-- ostensibly, well-funded lobbiers and greedy legislators. And the latter hold most of the blame.

You see, the USPTO used to be funded out of the general coffers, leaving the patent fees as a nice little christmas bonus that served mostly to keep people from wasting the PTO's time. Then, our legislators decided that it would make better fiscal sense to let the fees fuel the Office itself rather than shuffling things back and forth. But wait, there's more! The PTO only gets to charge the legislature-set rates, and then its coffers get raided for 10% of their earnings. So now the patent system gets screwed up because our Beloved Congressmen figured out a way to make a bit of money off the deal.

Thus, the PTO has to float itself off of fees-- but can't set the fees to costs, or even hold on to all the money once they've received it. This is why they have to work on a strict quota system; there's no space to make allowances for things like, say, the size of the patent application. A 20-page peanut de-sheller gets the same time as a 200-page biofuels refinery.

Oh, and if the party trying to get the patent appeals a decision? (implicitly, a negative one) That time doesn't get added to the quota. See the problem now? When they have to figure out some giant software patent (or other useless/obvious/previously designed idea), turning it down creates more work that they don't have time for. So the examiners don't have time relative to the size of the claim, nor do they get time allocated for them to go through and fight the appeal when they turn it down. The system naturally leads to allowing exactly the outcome seen here; the Office itself has merely responded to outside pressures and control.

So, if there's anybody who's been most directly screwed with the patent system, it's the PTO (and its stalwart examiners). And it's our fault, because the fundamental, systematic problems came because of greedy, reprehensible legislators riding high on massive voter apathy.

It Helps Secure Venture Capital

[mosb1000]

If you're starting a new business, having a patent goes a long way toward convincing potential investors to become actual ones.

its very simple to me

[SirSlud]

The patent system is a privilege to encourage publication of invention while granting a limited-term monopoly on licensing that invention.

Like the copyright system, it has been twisted by special interested groups into some kind of right whereby creators of art and technology and knowledge deserve some kind of lifetime monopoly. Throw in companies, works for hires, NDAs, etc and suddenly you have the very thing both systems were founded on to combat: a semi-feudal permenant monopoly on inventions and works of art.

I like to think of it this way - most people think it'd be unfair of somebody to be able to create their own Mickey Mouse merchandise. But certainly, Disney has reaped enough benefit from the original artistic creation, and certainly, if the character is so ingrained into our cultural fabric, it seems asinine to say only one company should be legally granted the permission to re-tell/re-interpret the stories? If the laws many companies sought came into effect, they would have been sued out of existence by their own original creations. That's what limited term means. After awhile, its not your story to tell. With respect to patents, it's the same thing - longer term, wider and more vague claims.

Everyone agrees that inventors/authors should be able to protect their work. It's just that when the terms of that protection get too strong, shrewd capitalists just can't resist, and always work on tipping the legal tables in their favor.

And screw the founding fathers - the acknowledgment that patents and copyright can encourage intellectual and cultural progress pre-date the US by centuries. What has been lost is the concept of balance and compromise. It's a political minefield politically within the context of the American Dream. Somewhere along the line, people started confusing right to private property with right to earn.

Software Copyrights is plenty! see Phoenix BIOS

[zQuo]

Copyright should be plenty to protect software. The original IBM PC had a PC BIOS firmware that was the stopping block for creating PC clones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies

Phoenix went through an elaborate clean room process to create a non-infringing BIOS implementation that could be proven to be an original work and not a copy. The effort they went through (and all of us benefit!) was probably more expensive than writing the original BIOS. It was worth it as it led to all the PC clones, but consider the effort involved to overcome just a software copyright.

If they had software patents back then, not only would the clones not have been available, but broad patents on all the ideas implemented in the BIOS would have tied up almost all subsequent BIOS type firmware, so that almost no personal computer could have been built at all! Including the Mac, Amiga, etc. Software is an implementation of an idea, and the ideas should not be patented. Software copyrights are about protecting the implementation, and that is plenty of protection.