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."

Comments

nightmares

[blackraven14250]

...why does it seem like every nightmare I have relating to patents and copyrights comes true?

Re:nightmares

[Runaway1956]

How about we clean up the patent system inside the US before we push our system outside of the US?

Seriously, almost everything Microsoft has ever owned or claimed to own properly belonged under COPYRIGHT law. They may hold a small handful of valid patents - like, keyboard and mouse, maybe?

MS needs to shut up and go sit in the corner, or surrender most of their patents as an example of how things SHOULD be.

Re:nightmares

[Stormwatch]

How about we clean up the patent system inside the US before we push our system outside of the US?

You mean, like... abolishing the whole "intellectual property" bullshit?

Re:nightmares

[Anonymous Coward]

there are plenty enough people outside the US who are wise to the ways of The Vole who would keep this from being able to happen on a worldwide basis

You mean like they did with OOXML?

Re:nightmares

[Herby Sagues]

Yes, and going back to the caves to die a painful death. I'm not a particularly ill person, but I still consume two drugs that improve my health every day. They were developed by companies that definitely wouldn't have done it if it weren't for the IP rewards. Your car uses technology that would have never been developed if it weren't for patents. So does the computer you are using, and almost everything else around you. Those opposing patents and IP in general often claim that inventions would still be generated in the absence of IP protection, and that might be true for some inventions, while most require hughe amounts of R&D that simply wouldn't happen if the money wasn't there. There's absolutely zero evidence that the rate of inventions would continue at a similar rate in the absence of patents, and there's plenty of indication of the opposite. The patent system is seriously flawed, as the obviousnless requirement for an invention is generally ignored. Let's fix this and only award patents to creations that actually required serious effort, and not to every troll that wants a patent on how to scratch your butt with both hands.

Re:nightmares

[pthreadunixman]

Your entire post rests entirely on unfalsifiable statements, conjecture and unsubstantiated claims about evidence.

Re:nightmares

[horatiocain]

Those opposing patents and IP in general often claim that inventions would still be generated in the absence of IP protection, and that might be true for some inventions, while most require hughe amounts of R&D that simply wouldn't happen if the money wasn't there.

I think you might be hitting a 'reverse accident' fallacy here. Just because some inventions occured in the presence of IP protection does not imply that, in the absense of IP protection, nothing would ever be invented. Plenty of fields and markets thrive without IP entering into them.

There are conceivable models other than our own. Don't let the haters convince you otherwise.

Re:nightmares

[TheRaven64]

Odd, I regard the grace period, and the first-to-invent system of which it is a side-effect, as some of the worst features of the US patent system. The entire point of patents is to encourage disclosure. If you have already disclosed, then society gains nothing by granting you a monopoly on your invention. This system in the USA means that your best bet is often to keep your invention secret, wait for someone else to invent it independently, and only then file the patent. You can even wait until they file the patent (see TI Vs Intel) and then produce notebooks showing that you thought of it first. If you do this in most of the world, it just invalidates their patent application. If you do it in the USA, you get the patent.

Re:nightmares

[Mongoose Disciple]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have patents expire after the research costs have been recovered?

What if I put money into researching 100 different ideas, but only one of them is a "winner"? If I can recover my research costs for all of them, probably we've got "Hollywood accounting" problems. If I can only recover my research costs for the one, probably it's not worth my money to invest in research.

I think the problem with the patent system in general is that it ends up having to try to straddle similar lines (and fails). It's ultimately good for everyone if research and innovation are financially encouraged, but a flawed patent system can also stifle innovation.

Re:nightmares

[cpt kangarooski]

If I make an album, or write a novel, it's my intellectual property.

Well, that's not really up to you, though. What is and is not property, and who owns or legitimately possesses that property, and what rights such a person or other people have with respect to the property can only be determined one of two ways. The first involves you personally defending it from others by means of force; this only works to a limited extent. The second is consensus opinion. That is, you have to convince everyone else to honor your claim and help you protect it.

Since it is difficult to write a novel and make money from it while, for example, using a shotgun to make sure no one makes a copy, you're going to have to rely on the second method.

So please feel free to convince me to respect your claim. But don't just make an assertion.

Also, FYI, the term 'intellectual property' can only possibly refer to things like copyrights or patents, but not the works or inventions to which they pertain. So your statement would need to be 'If I make an album, or write a novel, the copyrights pertaining to those are my intellectual property' in order to make any sense.

I should expect to have some reasonable right to be the only one selling this new creative work for a certain period of time.

Why? I would also like to sell that creative work, and compete with you. Convince me why I should not also sell the work (provided I can get a copy to begin with), and why I should have to pay you to get a copy of the work if I could have gotten a copy by some other means. I have an open mind about this, so I'm not charging you with some impossible task. But I warn you, just as I suspect you are acting from self-interest in wanting to monopolize the trade in copies of the work (which are commodities, each copy of a work being the same as another), I too am self-interested. Therefore, you are going to have to convince me that it is in my self-interest to tolerate your monopoly, and all that comes with it.

And since governments can only act legitimately when empowered by the will of their people, and since democracy of various sorts is quite popular, just saying 'it's a law' isn't a valid argument. A legitimate law would involve showing that it is in the self-interest of all of the people to respect your claim, and convincing them (perhaps by a proxy, such as an elected official) that it is a good idea.

So tell me, why should you have a copyright which other people respect? What's in it for the rest of us?

Re:nightmares

[Draek]

Why invest in expensive and high risk research at all? just let universities take care of research, and delegate production to for-profit businesses.

Yeah, we may (note: may) get a slower pace of advancement, but in return we'd get much, *much* wider availability, a worthy trade-off in my mind.

Re:nightmares

[walshy007]

No, I think that math that is actually expressed in an instruction set and explicitly requires the processors, memory and circuits that you admit are patentable is also patentable.

You just said no, then essentially repeated what I said in agreement... odd, you just said that you think maths that is expressed in an instruction set is patentable. The only addition being it MUST be tied to the hardware, You don't seem to get that the instruction set is moot, it's merely a language to express the maths in. Also randomly, I can read x86 hex code(slowly).. does that make me a computer and patentable? (/sarcasm)

so, you really don't see the difference between hardware and software running on that hardware do you? (also, the hardware could only be patented if they did something funky and new, most likely something in the way it was constructed or some such)

what you described in your example would never be accepted as a patent, it would basically cover the storing of anything in memory which computations could be done on, too vague, and it wouldn't even be patenting the software, just patenting a method of loading and executing software.

When it comes down to it, when you patent software, you are patenting maths behind the function of the thing that is being patented, or if the patent holder is really lucky, even the idea that something can be done (example, 1 click purchasing patent).

Re:nightmares

[sqldr]

"if I come up with a truly original idea, I feel that I should be permitted to make money from it,"

What if you came up with that idea whilst trying to solve a problem, only to find that someone solving the same problem came up with the same idea, patented it, but then didn't personally phone you to point out that solving that problem is now illegal, and just sues you for doing the world a favour?

Re:nightmares

[gtall]

I think you miss MS's position. Being dragged into court doesn't bother them, it is part of their cost of business. What bothers them is not being able to intimidate or drag others to court. FOSS is a wild card that MS's business plan cannot contain...unless there is a global patent regime where they can enforce their will upon non-corporate entities outside the U.S. Corporate entitles can be bought, intimidated, stabbed in the back, dragged though lengthy legal proceedings, forced to accept dumb formats, etc. Governments can be lobbied, bought, sold, bribed, etc. What can they do to dispersed organizations whose only goal appears to be to make software free of restrictions....a software model with which they cannot compete unless they are able to apply they kind of pressure they themselves cannot. The only entities able to do that are governments, hence MS must give the governments a structure within which MS can force FOSS to work. Embrace, extend, extinguish...you didn't think it only applied to software's bits and bytes, eh?

Re:nightmares

[Anonymous Coward]

Although there are some valid points in the above post, it is nonetheless a gross misstatement of the U.S. patent law in general.
Please check 35 USC 102(g)(2) and cases interpreting that section.

It is certainly true that a dishonest applicant or assignee may manufacture false evidence of conception or diligence that could work under U.S. law but would not work under EPO law. However, the first to conceive must show continuous diligence from the point just before the conception by the other to actual or constructive reduction to practice. Constructive reduction of practice is the filing of a proper patent application. Thus, it is not as easy to get a patent in this situation as is intimated by the previous poster

Also, I agree with one of the other previous posters that the one year grace period is valuable for marketing, market testing, etc. In addition, it is somewhat of a safe harbor for a naive individual inventor who may be trying to raise funding prior to filing a patent application.

Global patent system?

[MartinSchou]

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.

Re:Global patent system?

[ArsonSmith]

Or, how about drop corporate income tax and just tax the real payers directly. Why do corporate incomes have to be double taxed? Tax the corporation, then tax the individual who actually takes home the income.

Re:Global patent system?

[Tanktalus]

And here I thought that the whole idea of "no taxation without representation" would mean something. Corporations are being taxed, but do not get to vote. In many countries, that may make sense. But in the country whose existence was catapulted by the Boston Tea Party(*), there does seem something untoward going on.

(*) Yes, I know that wasn't "the" deciding factor, nor the final act. But, as wikipedia says, it was a key event, and the reasons for it seem apropos for mentioning in this context.

Re:Global patent system?

[Trepidity]

There are plenty of people who're taxed but not able to vote. Non-citizen permanent residents, those under 18, convicted felons, etc., all must still pay taxes. Do you propose exempting them all from taxes as well?

Re:Global patent system?

[xigxag]

And furthermore, corporations do get representation through their right to hire lobbyists and establish political action committees. Let's not kid ourselves. In any reasonable interpretation of the notion, any major corporation gets far more "representation" than the average natural person, despite being barred from voting.

Push for proper patent reform

[syousef]

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

Re:Push for proper patent reform

[gnupun]

- No more than 7 years on a patent. No extensions. No exceptions.

That will only work for toy inventions. It takes 3 to 5 years to simply build a 1.0 product. By the time the product is out the door, you have only 2 to 4 years to make any profit.

No patenting of algorithms

Say goodbye to a lot of software inventions. Why should other fields of technology enjoy patent protection, but not software?

Patents to be awarded to individuals only, not companies

Or at least 10% of the returns of a patent must go the inventor. That's a whole lot better than the $1,000 to $3,000 inventors make today.

Re:Push for proper patent reform

[vadim_t]

That will only work for toy inventions. It takes 3 to 5 years to simply build a 1.0 product. By the time the product is out the door, you have only 2 to 4 years to make any profit.

Tough. The field moves fast, get used to it.

Personally I'd rather abolish patents completely.

Say goodbye to a lot of software inventions. Why should other fields of technology enjoy patent protection, but not software?

We don't have software patents in europe currently, and are doing perfectly fine anyway, thank you very much.

As a programmer who ostensibly might benefit from them, I don't want them. I don't think it would do me, nor the industry any good. It would just create more stupid lawsuits along the lines of Microsoft is involved in right now. And I don't see where's the benefit of wasting money on litigation, when useful coding could be getting done instead.

Re:Push for proper patent reform

[0xdeadbeef]

Say goodbye to a lot of software inventions.

And say hello to the far greater number of inventions so far unrealized because of the legal expense and danger.

Re:Push for proper patent reform

[techno-vampire]

Once it is in a usable state, your patent lasts at most 1-2 years.

The main point of a patent is to give the inventor a chance to recover the development costs and make a profit from their hard work before anybody else is allowed to copy them. If you think that this can be done in such a short time, you have a very simplistic idea of the costs of research and development. Before coming up with any more unrealistic suggestions, I'd advise you to learn a little bit about how the Real World(TM) works.

Re:Push for proper patent reform

[Timothy Brownawell]

"Companies" don't invent things. People do.

Companies pay people to invent things. Patents are not meant to provide riches & fame to holy Inventors, they are meant to increase innovation. Please explain how companies will be able to hire R&D departments in your scenario, where the employees will just individually patent and keep all the work they were hired to do.

I'd actually go a step further, and say that patents cannot be bought not sold, period, not at all, no exceptions.

That is really, really stupid. Should we also abolish all forms of money and go back to a barter system?

That would, hopefully, put the kibosh on most of the patent trolls. Y'know, people who don't do any work, but like to profit off of other people's work.

No, people like Matt Katzer seem able to cause trouble just fine without being a corporation or buying patents.

Patents are a ridiculous idea in this modern age, anyway. With global communications a reality, it's nearly a given that any idea out there will be rapidly assimilated, reverse engineered and eventually done better than the inventor. This is a good thing. It benefits everybody.

That's been the case for quite a long time, even before modern global communications.

The patent system as it stands is an obstruction to the overall development of the human species and should be abolished.

Yes. But the way to do that is not to replace it with an even more broken system. As long as patents do exist, they have to be sellable and belong initially to whoever took the risk of doing/funding the research. Otherwise they're mostly useless but still just as dangerous, and would make it rather silly for companies to invest in R&D.

Re:Push for proper patent reform

[syousef]

I'd love to see the economics research behind that number. Must have been a lot of work determining the optimal patent term. I suspect it'll be no trouble getting published. Or, as is more likely, was that arbitrary number pulled out of the air?

Just as arbitrary as the current numbers, you troll.

As for 'no extensions. no exceptions,' what about delays brought about by the patent office? Surely you wouldn't penalize the inventor for bureaucratic incompetence?

So in your model bureaucratic incompetence is inevitable. Fantastic.

This is already the case in the US. Patents can be assigned to companies, but only individuals can apply for and receive them. ...and plenty of employment contracts stipulate that you MUST assign them. Effectively the company owns the patent, which should never be the case.

Algorithms are already unpatentable. An algorithm, alone, is not useful, and so it fails the requirement of utility. What is patentable is, according to the Federal Circuit, the use of an algorithm tied to a particular machine to accomplish a useful result. I suspect the Supreme Court will probably overrule the Federal Circuit and allow the patenting of the practical application of algorithms.

Are you done defending a system that gave us patents on such brilliant algorithms as "one click"?

I suppose you meant that companies should be prevented from owning patents at all, but that would be pointless. Employees would simply be required to license the invention to the company exclusively. It would only add transaction costs.

Unless of course you make such exclusive licensing illegal.

Borg

[orzetto]

The Bill Gates as Borg icon was never more appropriate.

Deal.

[FlyingBishop]

If you reduce software patent terms to 5 years.

Re:Deal.

[FlyingBishop]

And no grandfather clauses.

Re:Deal.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you reduce software patent terms to 5 years.

With the recent Bilski ruling, it seems like the term on software patents has been reduce to 0 years.
My money is on that ruling being the motivator for MS to make this call for "global harmonization" - as they are one of the largest holders of software patents they are looking for a way to get Bilski invalidated through the backdoor.

Cause and Effect?

[Monkeedude1212]

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?

Good Luck with China

[lobiusmoop]

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.

Enjoy?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would the world be like if everyone could enjoy the same patent system we use in the USA?

Sadists...

Global laws

[Fractal Dice]

I assume all the same logic applies to global labor laws, a global minimum wage and global tax rate?

If you're going to have a global patent system

[99luftballon]

At least pick one that works.

One Size Fits All

[Throtex]

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.

Sure, if my country controls it

[DaveGod]

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.

Ugh.

[dskoll]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Advantages for Inventors and Small Businesses

[marco.antonio.costa]

What makes you think that a global system would be cheaper?

Bigger bureaucracy == more expensive bureaucracy.

There is a Little Problem Called Sovereignty

[CodeBuster]

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.

Get rid of patent holding companies first

[Wolfier]

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.

Big heads

[jandersen]

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.

Flippin Ridiculous

[cfriedt]

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.