Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pushes For Single Global Patent System
Xerolooper writes "What would the world be like if everyone could enjoy the same patent system we use in the USA? From the article: 'A senior lawyer at Microsoft is calling for the creation of a global patent system to make it easier and faster for corporations to enforce their intellectual property rights around the world.' They have already attracted opposition from the open-source community and the Pirate Party. According to the article, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will be meeting in Geneva on the 17th and 18th of September."
...why does it seem like every nightmare I have relating to patents and copyrights comes true?
How about the companies give us something first - like a push for a global taxation system, so that companies cannot just set up shell offices in tax havens, or threaten to leave a country/state because some other country/state has cheaper taxes?
But that'd be unfair of course. To the companies I mean.
Obviously one system doesn't fit all - unless it's something that benefits the companies.
O, I know! I'll patent the dot. I will get rich sleeping with all people of the world buying licenses from me!
-- Cheers!
I'm sure the current patent system is such a marvel that we need to magnify the effects of it world wide. Think of it: an unknown patent in an unknown country will be worth decades of lawsuits and trillions of dollars, instead of the mere years of lawsuits and millions of dollars we see now.
While we're at it.
- No more than 7 years on a patent. No extensions. No exceptions.
- No patenting of algorithms
- Patents to be awarded to individuals only, not companies
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The Bill Gates as Borg icon was never more appropriate.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
If you reduce software patent terms to 5 years.
Kill. It. With. Fire.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
Any ideas as to what we could do about something like this?
Do I get a representative vote in WIPO?
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
What we should do is have a first to file system (like the rest of the world) instead of the first to invent. This would eliminate thousands of hours scientists spend on notebooks.
This encourages companies to share instead of keeping ideas locked up in notebooks and getting patents later.
... want something that bad? Have you SEEN what our patent office has been doing?
The world would be like hell.
I can't understand how you can live with your patent system and please don't export that shit to us other!
corporations were more sensitive to regional preferences? What if companies respected laws as reflecting regional morals rather than lobbying with all their power for whatever is best for them?
Is this because the Canadian firm (i4i) hit it big on an American company (Microsoft) with their patent trolling?
Do they think this is going to make it better? Now its going to be a MASSIVE convoluted state of patents EVERYWHERE and everyone will be stepping on someones toes. The idea of a Patent Law being forced across the ENTIRE PLANET is ridiculous.
We haven't even reached World Peace, how do you expect to enforce Patent Laws in warzones, 3rd world countries, embassies?
Not exactly the most IP-compliant country in the world, and pretty much has the USA over a barrel economically right now from the look of things.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
What would the world be like if everyone could enjoy the same patent system we use in the USA?
Sadists...
What about non-signatory countries? I mean, good luck extraditing me to the Hague from, say, Uganda. Hell, getting a U.S. citizen extradited to face international justice is a pretty unlikely proposition (unless the U.S. citizen has pissed off the U.S. Gooberment, of course).
Doesn't matter to me, soon I'll be rich. There's this guy over in Nigeria, he's got a bunch of money he has to get out of the country and needs my help . . .
I assume all the same logic applies to global labor laws, a global minimum wage and global tax rate?
At least pick one that works.
and put em were the sun won't shine.
The Pirate Party's opposing it? Well, then, if they're on the case, problem solved. Woohoo!
... with having the same system all over the globe instead of having a multitude of systems ?
The lawyers are coming, the lawyers are coming... I mean this has got to be a near orgasmic dream for the lawyers.
Why bother
But, now crossing the line into cartoonish super-villainy.
If I pinch myself, will I wake up? *OUCH!!!* Nope, still a nightmare.
A unified patent system would actually benefit individual inventors, small businesses, and startups more than established players with deep pockets. Right now if one wants to file for patent protection in every country with a patent system worth the name it costs ~$200,000 in filing fees alone, to say nothing of attorney and translation costs. The lifetime maintenance fees of that single patent will be well into the millions. Even only filing in the 'big three' of the US, Europe, and Japan typically costs well over $100,000 in government fees and attorney fees.
For a big company like Microsoft, that's just the cost of doing business. But that $200,000 is a huge amount of money to a startup, to say nothing of an individual garage inventor. Globalization and the internet mean that an inventor can sell an invention to people all around the world for far less than it would have cost 20 or 30 years ago. Protecting that invention all around the world, however, is often prohibitively expensive for all but the most well-funded, established companies.
It's true that companies like Microsoft would also benefit from lower filing costs, but small companies and individual inventors will benefit much more. It will also mean less money wasted on lawyers, as a single attorney in a single country can handle the whole process instead of having to use attorneys all over the world. And of course it will mean less duplication of effort in government as patent offices share resources. Right now there is an enormous duplication of effort as each application in each country is met with the same prior art, which is overcome with the same arguments. This is a tremendous waste of both government and applicant resources.
hhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!!!!
I'm sorry, a world full of countries that won't cooperate on most things is supposed to start because Microsoft wants them to?
Too funny.
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
I agree totally that there whould be one single unified patent system for the entire world! And the US system is NOT the one that it should be based on, instead something that allows fewer things to be patented and allows something similar to fair use as well.
We would be comepletely fucked, especially if Macro$lut, crApple and other malevolent beheamouths such as them manage to get their greedy, rapacious, self absorbede snouts in that particular trough.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wholeheartedly support a correctly implemented patent system in industrialized nations. Although not all inventions fall into this particular category (and we can go on and on all day about those that don't), a number of very valuable inventions require massive investments of time and money to develop and perfect. Without any assurance of the ability to recover for these investments, people would be hard-pressed to engage in them in the first place. Think, most obviously, pharmaceuticals.
A uniform patent system would require poorer countries to adhere to patent norms that would be inherently contrary to their own interests. If you have nothing to protect, and it is absolutely to your advantage to take, why should you be forced to follow along? It makes no sense to ask developing nations and others with no need for a patent system to obey the restrictions earned elsewhere. And, here's the important thing, these two completely different levels of protection can in fact peacefully co-exist. The market will correct. If a poorer country absolutely needs a particular drug developed which no other country needs, maybe then they would find use in patent or patent-like protections. Until then, it's silly to impose our will on others.
No joke, I see the the inevitable end of all this is that the world will be dragged kicking and screaming to an eventual worldwide government. Nobody is going to like it. The masses will fear loosing their voice but will accept it because it will be the only way to have a chance at reining in these huge multi-national behemoths. The corporations will fear being out muscled by an entity even larger than they but will acquiesce because, as in this story, they will see it as the only way to keep from bleeding from a thousand cuts.
Eliminate software patents from the few countries foolish enough to have introduced them. Then the rest of the world can commit to doing nothing, which will also be cheap to implement.
As a compromise, make them last for 5 years, with 1 year before coming into force, during which anyone can submit candidates for "prior use" to help the patent examiners with their considerations.
How about one currency, one set of laws to rule all? How about a world king while we are at it?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
All those national phase entry fees add up. But yes, PCT is already a pretty good system. Not sure what more cooperation we could ask for or expect. Maybe the JPO can issue Office Actions in English? (j/k)
I expect every nation that thinks it is going to host the HQ of any such organisation will be all for it. But not so much when they realise the entire patents system would be controlled by foreign nations. At an individual level, I don't give a shit what is patented in the US. Unless I do something over there, you don't have ANY claim to authority over me. But if my country has chosen to patent that specific thing then OK, I'll respect that, I use my authority as a citizen to grant them that authority over me (by that same token, I quite rightly do not have any say over what is patented in the US).
A patent is an agreement between an "inventor" (sadly, needing to use the term very loosely) and society. The inventor offers details of the invention in return to society granting the inventor specific rights for a specified period of time. Therefore it follows that the society upholding the rights be the one agreeing to it, as closely as practicable.
I see plenty arguments here that favour the inventor, but nothing to restore balance by favouring society - unless you accept "enrich public knowledge" (knowledge that they cannot do much with) or "encourage competition" (competition in submitting patents that is).
Furthermore the national system works quite well in limiting excessive scope. Presently it is only worth an inventor obtaining a patent in a country he has some intention to trade in. With a global system, he would obtain a patent whether he intends to trade there or not.
Almost every time there is a story about Microsoft getting/applying for a new patent, I see upmodded comments saying that Microsoft doesn't like patents either, they are just playing along. This seems to suggest otherwise.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The problem is that if a global patent system were devised that were more sane than the US system, the US would say "screw you; we won't tolerate this violation of our sovereignty" and continue with it's own broken patent system.
So a global patent system is guaranteed to be no better than the US system, and likely to be worse.
single = susceptible to corporate manipulation
Here we go again. We don't want software patents. Best harmonisation is scrap it all. Get rid of the overhead, lets just try that for the coming 10 years and see what is best.
It's not just the fees either. Getting patent practitioners who are authorized, and competent, to file at all the national stages has to be a nightmare too. And don't forget translation costs! Google Translate isn't going to cut it.
The Pirate Party's opposed? Gee, Microsoft MUST be shaking in their boots now.
The Pirate Party is going to get a good donation from me to help with this.
Any other good organizations to donate to? Which are the right places to contact to express opposition?
Unfortunately for Microsoft, world is already knows much more about software patent regime currently in power in US. So I really don't see the way how this could be accepted globally. Even WIPO wouldn't help.
In fact, someone has to tell Bill that US is not "standard" anymore. I simply don't see how Russia, EU, China accept this. And those are biggest trade parners for US. Bear in mind that it you can't do this with some "committee stuffing" like they did for OOXML. Usually it requires a goverment agreement, a parlament agreement and withstanding heat from critics which will be very loud.
It sounds more like trying to paint a bike shed, or something for shareholders to explain why they can't sell Word.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Things like this should only be done when the relevant systems are already largely in agreement and having been static for some time.
Moving the patent system into WIPO hands at this point simply makes sure that only those participating in WIPO, generally behind closed doors, will get any say. WIPO participants in general are very pro IP, and thus have no interest in allowing for, just a for instance, the US's constitutional requirement that all IP laws promote progress. You can be sure that any such process will produce treaties that congress will then proceed to implement without considering section I.8.8.
Then we'll have to sue, yet again, to have those treaty-mandated laws nullified.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
i can see it now, they'll change the BSA into the World Patent Police
Good Luck With That.
Lets return to the days when you were required to show up in person with a working prototype and prove you weren't just making shit up.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Brilliant!
By patenting the period, women have to pay a fee for every feminine cycle!
Or is that the patent on Tampons?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We want to scale BACK patents, not make them a friggin global nightmare!
These folks are scary. :-|
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Neither patents nor copyrights nor indeed any other laws would not exist or have any weight without the military might of nations to back them up. For those of you out there who maintain the pleasant fiction of "international law" just remember that at any time a sovereign nation can always appeal to the court of last resort, or as Cicero put it: silent enim leges inter arma. International law is a useful fiction that nations maintain as long as it suits common interests. However, it has no force without the sword, and the willingness to use the sword, to back it up.
When Canada took a look at the US Patent System part of the official review of it was that it was found to be "too much of a joke".
One of the requirements of getting a Patent in Canada is that it cannot be obvious. It also has to be your own creation.
I believe the US system includes that there be no prior implementation, but there have been a few cases in the US where a company created a product and patented the technologies that another company had created years earlier, but not patented the tech. Even with the patent office knowing about prior work the patent was granted to the later company.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The concept of international patents, trademarks and copyright makes a lot of sense. Apply just once, instead of having to understand the rules in each and every country. Not that I support this decision - I hate anything that stiffles innovation and electronic freedoms, but if I were a large corporation, I would deffiantely be pushing for something like this
few countries are going to agree on any treaty that requires all patents to be filed only in English (or French or anything that bans their own legally recognized languages) - that means your patent searches will need to be able to handle Russian, Kangi, ..... and your patent examiners able to read ALL of them
What would the world be like if everyone could enjoy the same patent system we use in the USA?
Innovation would be stifled in the name of monopoly, the computer market would generally stagnate, and law would become a more lucrative field than computer science.
I hereby disapprove of this move by Microsoft on the basis that implementation of the idea would strengthen their monopoly stranglehold on the first-world computer market. That consequence is precisely what needs to be avoided at all costs, because for as long as Microsoft has wielded the power that they do, they have shown time and time again that Microsoft, as a controlling entity, is not a benevolent dictator or benevolent overlord.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One patent to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them!
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
And then restart from clean.
After years patenting the OK button and search box, now they want the world to pay for their genius.
A Single Global Patent System is a good idead, whenever its not the usa Patent System, that is one of the worst of the world!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are already conventions in place allowing any patent that could be recognized in the country to be enforced. All this would do would be the US (and microsoft) forcing their own broken and idiotic patent system on everyone else.
...a cosmocracy, that is. For the last several years I've felt this way. We're a global society now, and the average guy from wherever just doesn't seem to give a care.
"The man that is not moved at what he reads,
That takes not fire at their heroic deeds,
Unworthy of the blessings of the brave,
Is base in kind, and born to be a slave."
-Cowper
IMO, if we ever are globally-governed 100%, it's going to be born out of our "need" for security from the likes of the Taliban (organized crime, basically).
Didn't we get the answer to this in an earlier article today?
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/02/0518231
Let US implode alone, please do not export your incompetence.
Just another example of a huge corporate entity using their power and influence to try and do end-runs around governments, thereby subverting the will of the people in democratically elected nations.
That is much of what international trade law is designed to do: remove barriers that prevent industry from having to respect the will of the populace they are either a) exploiting via cheap labor and substandard environmental practice, or b) selling overpriced nonessential garbage made at the expense of people thousands of miles away to.
New world order, same as the old world order. Power is king, and they know what's best for you. Now shut up and be happy.
I'm not suggesting that any country do away with a translation requirement. I'm just pointing out that it is one of those costs that adds up really quickly. It's also one of those things that would be a significant barrier to a highly harmonized international patent system.
One possible compromise would be to allow patent applicants to submit translations of only the claims. But that doesn't work out too well given that the meaning of claims often can't be determined without reading the specification (e.g., if a claim includes something like "means for X" or if the applicant especially defined a claim term in the specification).
stored data? Or Turing on The Turing Machine?
My browser's drop down menu giving the RSS titles of recent slashdot articles read "Microsoft Pushes for Single Global Patent..."
Why was I totally prepared to accept that as the totality of title and totally unsurprised that Microsoft should be doing this?
IF Microsoft gets its way with their proposal.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I sometimes feel people forget the original purpose of the patent system. The alternative to patents is NOT that everything is free and open. The alternative is that companies keep things super-secret. The reason the patent system was invented is because people felt keeping inventions secret was a BAD thing for the society. A patent is just a deal between an inventor and the government that says "if you agree to share your work immediately, we will help you enforce an excluse right to use it for some period of time". It is a good deal for the society, because everyone immediately can see the idea. It is a good deal for the inventor, because enforcing the patent is typically cheaper/easier than maintaining secrecy.
The solution is NOT to get rid of the patent system. If you think no patents will result in openess, you are really naive. Quite the opposite - companies would immediately clamp down tight, and corporate spying would take off. The patent reform we need is really raising the bar of what counts as an invention, especially in the software domain. Oh, and I am writing this as someone who has several dozen software patents, some of which I feel are genuine inventions, others of which are merely interesting ideas.
For the record, you don't really get a streamlined examination in the US by filing your application under the PCT.
They have already attracted opposition from the open-source community and the Pirate Party.
Oh good, I can really see those groups charming the pants off legislators the world over.
It's the only way.
Bah, what a silly claim. There's really very little point in talking about military might in connection with patent law or any other international law.
If Europe does not agree with the US on software patents, and we don't, is the US going to attack? No, it would not lead anywhere.
In fact they only real power today is financial. Tit for tat and boycotts. You blocked my exports? I'll block your imports.
Microsoft? FUCK YOU!
Aaahhh, looking on how the US has its hands around EU flight data, I guess we're going back to war then...
"Jahahaaa! Wuunderbaar!"
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Get in line! Considering the way msft handed out bribe money for the ooxml scam, I'll bet the bribes will be even bigger this time.
Maybe Microsoft just wants to willfully infringe upon global patents, rather than US-only patents?
We should let them explore their inner pirate!
HAHAHAHA!!
Good one!
As a guy from Germany pointed out. The inventor holds the patent by law. It's the stupid "IP" agreement you have to sign as a condition of employment that says you "agree" to assign it to the company. Now oddly, in Germany he says the company is required to pay you yearly for the duration of the patent - he said 1000 to 20000 Euro depending on the quality of the patent. When I got one, I had to split $500 with another guy who somehow got his name on it. So that's why I don't play even though our system (by law) should be better for me....
a shill from an american corporation ripping americans off, called for enforcement of their shitty patent robbery system to entire world.
i have 5 words from europe for you : shove it up your ass
Read radical news here
...Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause....
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
I'm a patent examiner in the U.S. When we finally get to the 371 (national stage filing of a PCT application) the "search" is complete. I placed the term "searched" in quotes because the standards for PCT searches are crap. Which means I have to do the search all over again.
Now it is true for a smaller country sees a PCT search which states there is no prior art the case will be allowed quickly. But in the big 4 (Korea, Japan, US, EU, probably should add China to the list) the search will likely be done again.
Other countries should ask for solid proof that heavy-handed patents improve economies. Instead, we just get wishy-washy brochure-talk from big companies who want to protect their bully-based interests.
Table-ized A.I.
"...easier and faster for corporations to enforce their intellectual property rights around the world."
Corporations - that says it all: to exclude lone inventors.
They just want the ability to build patent firewalls around their products, so that no upstart inventor can threaten them. Basically, they want to make it impossible for anyone to start a company around a new idea. They want big corporations like Microsoft to be the only ones who can have products. Everyone else will be crushed by their attorneys.
That is how "IP" is used today.
Why don't we send all of Microsoft to Mars (please see article One-Way Trip to Mars) and then Microsoft can have their global patent system ... all for themselves ... on Mars!
The trolls that does nothing except buy up patents for future extortion.
Make patents non-transferable, or TAX the transfer of patents, heavily. Like, at 100%, unless an exchange of patents is involved.
This would create considerable obstacle for the lawyer companies that game the system.
Who wouldn't want a global monopoly that can be used to force artificial scarcity on an otherwise abundant good?
Sure, the masses endure high prices, low quality, and few choices. But the wealthy watch their profits soar like a noble eagle. That makes global IP laws the new Holy Grail.
To those fools who believe that patents and other IP laws protect the little guys against the corporate behemoths, I say only this: your utterly fictitious ideals keep the poor poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty
Does MS really think its going to get better than that?
That's the attempt. Even with the PCT, there are some glaring differences between patent practice around the world. Even ignoring the issue of software - in the US and most other countries, if you want to file more claims in an application, you pay extra fees for the added time to examine them. But in Europe, if you want to file more claims in an application - say, three method claims, or three machine claims - you're screwed. You have to file another application. Which means that your patent portfolio for the exact same invention may end up as 1 US patent, 1 Chinese patent, 1 Hong Kong patent, 1 Japanese patent, and 6 European patents. That's obnoxious. Which one did someone infringe? Which one do people look at when they decide whether they're infringing? It's just overly complicated, particularly when they all started from a single application.
Pfizer to pay $2.3 Billion to Settle Marketing Case. Still No Cure for Cancer.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Anyway, I am not worried. Pigs will fly before this ever happens, you just need to use the fact that this will effectively raise medicines' prices worldwide as a great way to prevent this from ever happening... But whatever, Imaginary solutions to protect imaginary property...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Oh ya. That's what the world needs. The US pushing it's ideas and laws on the entire world for the sole purpose of "protecting" some imaginary persons so called rights.
Get over yourselves. Your laws aren't wanted in the majority of the world and if truth be known, the American citizen isn't even liked in most of the world.
Go Home, Shut Up and leave everyone alone. We'd all be better off without you.
If they choose to invalidate all of them, oh well.
As several posters have pointed out, the present patent system is biased against small inventors and more.
The kind of benefits conferred by the present patent and copyright system are a destructive mix where a little technological improvement is revealed. In return the patent game is to block others, charge money, and cross license to save the game for the few big players only.
So it is a toxic soup of some small social benefits and a few trolls hoping to make big money from legal fees and settlements and a very large fabric of cross-licensing deals that can be a tax free way to drive most of the players off of the playing field.
The thing that the people playing the patent game all want is the unlimited, unregulated and untaxed privilege to withhold licensing of a patent or re-production of a copyrighted work except under terms of the patent owner's choosing.
Think of the patent and copyright process is a "game" in the sense of game theory. I think we should re-tune the inputs and outputs of the patent game to eliminate the unfettered monopoly aspect of the patent benefit. Instead, reward the widest possible sharing and communication of the patented or copyrighted object. Provide for a statutory license fee of about 2%.
Any patents or copyrights you use, list them in the header text of your software product. Have a 4% Value Added Tax on all products and publications containing patented or copyrighted material.
The Govt takes the 4% and distributes the 2% share to the patent holders and copyright holders named.
Then, "tuning" the patent system would be a matter of changing the duration of patents, the allocation of patent tax revenue, and the percentage kept by government.
It is my conjecture that progress toward effective electric automobiles is being held up by a combination of business secrets and patent holders that have not cross licensed several key battery technologies yet.
Remember the years of Xerox copier monopoly? There was nobody out there with something equal to the Xerox patents to do a cross license deal.
I say, a 2% vat at the wholesale level is a good economic exchange where "automatic licensing" replaces the unstructured monopoly of existing patents and copyrights.
Automatic licensing changes the thrust of the "intellectual property" game to an information type process where the more products that use your patents and copyrighted material, the more money you get.
Another income stream with this kind of Patent licensing would be consulting and certification services for users of patents. Suppose an African country wanted to make their own aids drugs. Can they brew the stuff in an old Soviet vodka factory? Good consulting job, it might pay more than 2% too.
And everyone in the world will happily agree with the American way, no discussion. This reminds me of Bush's line that " Iraq will send shockwaves of democracy in the middle east" yeah right!
Seriously the world cannot agree on smaller issues or on more important ones so this is just an irrelevant MS troll if you ask me.
I don't need this to encourage myself to write software. But apparently Microsoft does.
Then we'd all be able to focus energy on invalidating a patent once, instead of once per country.
The grace period can be made to work if it only counts for the party who made the first public disclosure, and does not override a patent that was filed before the disclosure. This way, it can also work in a first-to-file system. In detail:
If both company A and company B publish an invention, but A's publication was earlier
-A can use the grace period and file a patent afterwards. B cannot.
-If B had already filed a patent before A's publication, the patent stands and A is out of luck.
This said, first-to-invent is a problem but not the biggest problem of the US patent system.
The extremely low standard for the inventive step is worse, because it leads to huge numbers of trivial patents that only serve to extort license fees from others, without making a meaningful contribution to the state of the art.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Secretary of Defense is calling for the creation of a global missile system to make it easier and faster for U.S. Army to deliver their nuclear warheads around the world. They have already attracted opposition from some sissy hippies and retarded commies who refuse to accept worldwide U.S. domination and justified slavery of unworthy nations.
Suffer more likely. Why all Americans think the world spins around them?
I can think about PageRank [wikipedia.org] all day long and accomplish nothing. But if I apply PageRank to pages on the internet and use it to optimize searches, then it becomes a patentable invention [google.com].
So you're only restricted from using it if you actually use it?
What is patentable is, according to the Federal Circuit, the use of an algorithm tied to a particular machine to accomplish a useful result.
From what I hear, "a general-purpose computer" counts as a particular machine. Maybe if you implement a patented algorithm in mechanical logic using a contraption of wood blocks, water buckets and strips of wire in your back yard it won't count, but any useful implementation...
What if companies respected laws as reflecting regional morals rather than lobbying with all their power for whatever is best for them?
You're a funny person, I like that :)
But to sincerely answer your questions, I would go down into my basement, grab all the cages, put them out on the street, and unleash my genetically engineered winged pigs.
For a software company, I can see the benefit of a global patent. Then again, if I invent a new fence to keep the kangaroos of my cattlestation, I'd prefer to file for a cheaper Australian patent instead.
If this happens, the faster the world becomes a monoculture completely controlled by few large companies who make society into a single police state.
This is a business decision that only benefits Microsoft. It would allow Microsoft to create monopolies without having to interact with things like the European Union anti-trust.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Can't can you.
"Algorithms are already unpatentable."
Uh, business patents are algorithms. RSA ***ALGORITHM*** was patented. MPEG compression ***ALGORITHM*** is patented. etc
"This is already the case in the US."
Wrong.
If that were true, then the profits from the patent would go to the owner of the patent who would then pay the company for their work in the manufacture and return on investment fronted up.
What would the world be like if everyone could enjoy the same patent system we use in the USA?
You ARE joking right ? There are patents being awarded today that have absolutely no merit, and are patently (excuse the pun) prior art. I'm not sure "enjoy" is the correct word ... tolerate ? endure ? grind teeth at ?
And MS want the world to all use the same system, when they have patents on such things as pressing a button on a mouse and other equally trivial bullshit ? Nah, think the rest of the world will pass on that one.
Plenty of posters wondered why people were cheering the i4i patent ruling over microsoft...
This is exactly why, if they get screwed enough by the current system in the us then maybe they will stop trying to push that same flawed system on other people.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
To begin with, you can always make money on your idea with first mover advantage. What most patentees want is to have residual income from their work, you know, like multilevel marketing. In other words, they should be able to sit back, relax and watch the checks roll in. Patents have a strong tendency to replace R & D efforts, especially in large organizations (see Bessen and Hunt, 2004).
The problems with patents are many, but mainly attributable to the fact that human insecurity and greed get in the way. The book, "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michelle Boldrin and David Levine, details an incredibly unflattering history of our many attempts to get it right with both patents and copyrights. And Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers of our Constitution, had serious reservations about patents, almost 200 years ago. His observations still hold true to this day.
The same problems seen then, are seen now. No one can say for sure what is patentable. Lawyers will always write claims so broad it takes a court to figure it out. And patentees will always seek stronger enforcement without providing a clear way to give notice to everyone that they own a particular idea. Worse, they devise submarine patents to let others work until there is enough money to sue for. The only cure is to remove patents altogether and watch innovation take off (inventors would rather tinker than to search for patents). As far as I can tell, the notion that "patents encourage innovation" is an assumption made by economists and nothing more. There are no studies that show conclusively, that patents actually encourage innovation. None.
The fugitive fermentations of a brain belong to no one and are shared by all once divulged, for their inspirations come from all of us. Patentees need to read up on the word Ubuntu, which means I am me because of all of you. And considering the size and quantity of problems facing the human race, cooperation and collaboration is a lot more important than claiming the prize while our Earth dies.
So there.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Intellectual property is the only "property right" that allows me to tell other people what they cannot do with their property. That is, in a way, slavery, perhaps even murder. Intellectual Property is a privilege, not a right. And it is a problem often missed or conveniently left out by IP proponents.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
I'm okay with reducing their tax liability to the extent that their limited liability is waived. If they assume complete personal liability as stockholders, then taxes fall to near zero. No personal liability? 90% tax.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
I think it is rather bigheaded of people to think that the world would automatically opt for an American model - other countries have a view on these matters too, you know. We can be very sure that China will weigh in heavily on this matter.
What would you do if a country refused to enforce such a patent law? Invade them?
"sudo rm -rf your-face"
They seem to love them when they're talking about Linux stealing their IP.
I get the impression Ballmer loves them, but maybe others don't?
How about:
1) legal system. You can't have a global patent system without having the same concepts of law and the same laws.
2) paychecks.
3) prices. It goes with #2. Right now, companies take their business elsewhere because they are cheaper to operate. If everything was at the same price and paychecks were similar, there would not be an incentive to do so.
Of course the above ain't gonna happen soon or ever. So I don't see how the patent system can be globalized...
Sorry, this is flipping ridiculous.
Assuming that they are interested in patenting software or business methods, Microsoft is making the very poor assumption that the 99% of the countries in the world who don't support software or business method patents would suddenly change their minds.
There is a reason that software patents are only valid in the U.S. and Japan. Plainly, most of the rest of the world would rather not have them.
Get real Microsoft.
There shouldn't be "intellectual property" at all because there's no such thing as "original idea".
Can it be good for you?
They should get to sued in every new country which adopts the USA patent system for every patent infringement they were found guilty already.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
M$ can't use it as I've already patented it.
Here is my problem with patents and copyrights:
I have a necessity. Something I want to do and build. The technology is available to make what I want to build. I can buy all the parts from different vendors and build the product I want, however I can't finish the product because it would violate someone else's patents and possibly some copyrights. This is for my personal use, but because someone else thought of it to and applied for a legal document saying that only they can supply this product I can not have it.
Now please explain to me why that is ok? If they made a better product I would just buy it from the patent holder, but since they don't I can't create a better product because they will sue me for infringement. They also refuse to lease the rights to the product. There is nothing I can do to stop them, and they have a right to make money off their "invention" even though it is somewhat obvious once the underlying technologies where created.
I have about 8 things off the top of my head that I want for my car and my home that fall into this category.
Ok, now this is a science fiction example, but it is exactly why patents and copyrights are wrong:
If you've seen the movie "Iron Man" he develops a power source that powers the suit. It is proprietary and he has the sole right to produce, sell and license the product. If he chooses not to allow anyone to use it, its within his rights. Now lets say that that power source, once discovered is fairly obvious, it just wasn't until he "discovered/invented" it. So Joe Schmo can build it, but he'd need a company and a few $100,000 to do it. Joe Schmo has this great idea that is dependent on the power source, lets say it is private Mars colonization. Well he can't because the the company that owns the technology for the power source won't sell him the rights, nor will they produce and sell him one to use with his invention which is Dependant on the prior work.
Technology has been effectively been halted by copyrights and patents. Information moves to quickly to believe that once a technology is created that 100's of people if not 1000's of people come up with novel uses, however only 1 of them gets the patent/copyright for it.
Lets also now say that the guy who first invents it and holds the patent does a crappy job in producing it. Yet someone else figures out how to make a much better version of it, but can't because the first inventor sues and therefore stops the better product from making it to market. Now everyone suffers because of the patent. Any delay on getting the better implementation to market stops all future technology based on the original work.
Anyway, so I hate patents and copyrights and I don't see there purpose. What matters is the quality of the product you bring to market, not the idea for the product. If you invent the mousetrap, and I can build a better one, I should be able to. With patents and copyrights I can't and your product is shit and we have to live with it.
Sorry about the rant but currently I'm trying to find a product that used to exist but has been discontinued by all vendors because of copyright and patent violations and nobody, not even the patent holder produces the product anymore.
lol....as if!
We (the rest of the world) know that the US patent system stinks, and is commonly used as a litigation device to only raise funds for pathetic leeches who claim anything over everything.
Get lost MSoft!!
I agree, since I suggested something similar except I gave a 30-day time limit to re-invent instead of 1 year; we'll save that for another discussion.
Another item in my suggestion was that those alternative designs also get published, and get put in the public domain. After all, the point of these alternative designs is to show that the invention is trivial/obvious, and the very act of submitting them is tantamount to the inventor (of the alternative design) saying, "This should not be patentable since even someone like me can quickly come up with a design."
The advantage is that, even if the patent goes through, the alternative designs are available. Example: suppose you come up with this amazing innovation called "MP3" and submit it for a patent. I say, "That's obvious! Here's my invention, called 'Ogg THEORA'." The patent office says, "That's not the same thing! MP3 is better! Patent granted to MP3!" But someone who needs to use MP3 can now look up the patent and say, "Hey, even though I can't afford to pay the MP3 patent license fees, someone came up with an alternative called Ogg THEORA, so I'll use that instead!"
If your MP3 is significantly better than my Ogg THEORA, then people will pay you to use the patent license, but you wouldn't be able to charge an exorbitant amount since that would just drive more people to use Ogg THEORA. If your MP3 sucks, then you're out of luck: you get the patent but no one will want to pay for the license.
Agree with the rest of your post about greatly shortening the lifetime of the patent.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
"What would the world be like if everyone could enjoy the same patent system we use in the USA?"
The word enjoy must have been used in a very, very sarcastic way here... How on earth anybody even thinks about that given the all known facts with this business and innovation crippling monster? Oh yes - the patent trolls will be happy, of course.
I've started a page to document this concept on the swpat.org wiki:
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Just what we need. Let's ban children the world over from infringing on a Method of swinging on a swing.
Let's make sure it doesn't suck before we try to impose it on the rest of the world.
Porquoi?