US Patent Office Fast Tracks Green Patents

eldavojohn writes "A new initiative is being piloted where 'green' patents are given special priority over other patents in the backlogged system. David Kappos (Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO) said, 'Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring green innovations to market more quickly.' The details of how you qualify for a green patent (PDF) are available with patent blogs offering opinions on this initiative."

Comments

Hmm, seems a little weird.

[FooAtWFU]

Seems a trifle off. Something about "equal protection under the law" and not having the institution too subject to the whims of the ruling party and the lobbyists of the week.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[Cryacin]

What? My widget is green! We painted it last week.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[MakinBacon]

What are you talking about?. This is perfectly normal. The Patent Office is just fulfilling its duties of stifling innovation by granting patents for the most obvious of technologies. They know they've gotten a little behind on green technology because companies are starting to make serious advancements, so they're giving green patents a higher priority to make up for lost time.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[Yokaze]

Yes, you are right, why doesn't the porn industry get the same subventions as the crop industry.
How dares the executive to set priorities, instead of spreading the money equally amongst men.

Maybe equal protection has nothing to do with it?

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[Z00L00K]

One way to speed up things would be to dismiss a lot of patents for being too obvious.

And that's something that doesn't need to require too much skill.

Also make sure that any patent dismissed for obviousness can't be refiled.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[thejynxed]

Don't you mean the coal and oil companies are noticing that small startups and individual inventors from all over the world are coming up with all kinds of neat 'green' technologies, so they are rapidly stuffing the patent office with filings for things other people invented?

Oh no, they would NEVER try to kill any tech that threatens their strangle grip on our energy supplies.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[Antique Geekmeister]

A better way would be to stop issuing software patents.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[daem0n1x]

In Soviet Russia, RED patents fast track the USPTO.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[commodore64_love]

This is the part that bother me: "Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs."

I just heard that quote on a Christian radio station not too long ago, but with slight differences: Every day a [missionary work] is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our [souls] and another day lost in [saving the sinners]. More-and-more Greens are looking like they belong in a church, but to hear that style zealotry coming from our own government employees is disconcerting.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[Bigjeff5]

Maybe equal protection has nothing to do with it?

Since equal protection is in the Constitution, it certainly should have something to do with it.

So, if it's like software/internet patents --

[weston]

-- you know, the ones where you can say "a method for conveying stateful customer information ON THE INTERNET -- then pretty much all I'll need to contribute to the progress of the useful arts and sciences and, more to the point, amass a formidable patent portfolio, is add USING SOLAR POWER.

I've already applied for the business method patent, but reasonable licensing is available!

Re:So, if it's like software/internet patents --

[Interoperable]

Every patent will point out that it consumes less energy than it theoretically could have if it had been poorly engineered. It's...greener than the alternative...I guess.

Faster algorithms will qualify. Just tabulate the total energy saved in data centers that will use your green algorithm. New, large hats might reflect more visible sunlight back to space. New oil extraction methods will more efficiently deliver fossil fuels to gas tanks (thereby lowering the price point and generating more emissions), a new method of writing patents can will green-wash them so they generate less paper work in the streamlined process. All will qualify! (Except that the meta-green patent is a methods patent and wouldn't qualify anyway.)

Re:So, if it's like software/internet patents --

[Have Brain Will Rent]

And don't forget guns and ammo! The more people you kill the greater the reduction in the harmful impact on the biosphere by humanity!

Re:So, if it's like software/internet patents --

[Paeva]

Look. It's a *jump to conclusions* mat - that's - *solar powered*.

There's going to be difficulty...

[Interoperable]

sorting out truly green patent applications from ones that have green-washed the terminology. I suspect it will do more to promote the, already abused, usage of the term green than actual environmentally friendly initiatives. Still, promoting less wasteful technology is by no means a bad thing, whatever the motive. Even if the initiative fails to promote green inventions (not that I'm saying it will, just that it will be ambiguous to determine), the ideal of efficiency and conservation will be promoted in the public eye.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[phantomfive]

It doesn't matter. It is merely a political move by this guy to make his boss (or boss's boss) happy.

The fact is, this move will do nothing to increase the speed of technology, because technology in no way depends on the patent system. You don't have to wait for a patent to be processed before you can actually build and market your product. You don't even have to wait to charge royalties until the patent is approved. This new policy will accomplish nothing.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[chaboud]

What it does do is solidify the positions of green IP holders looking to screw companies in less advanced nations by taking their cut of (or limiting production of) the "green" products that will be required to play in the newly-legally-mandated global green economy.

I know it sounds all tin-foil-hat-y, but the prospect that CO2 policy could be used to keep richer nations dominant via IP has been haunting me for some time. If US/Euro companies get their cut of the green economy mandated by their own governments without actually having to produce anything, it could artificially screw with otherwise normal factor-price equalization.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[nametaken]

Muhaha... "the use of materials that can be more easily replenished and/or recycled". Patent Pending... suck it bitches.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[Znork]

Ah, don't worry, IP is mostly used to screw richer nations, and is one of the reasons that western industry is so incapable of competing these days. From a macroeconomic point of view it's the equivalent of a heavy taxation scheme, and a very inefficient one at that, leading to higher costs in industry and workforce and rendering it uncompetitive. It'd be almost amusing to see complaints about high taxes and inefficient government while getting reamed by IP if it just wasn't so sad.

The less advanced nations aren't likely to get screwed as badly as they're simply not the low hanging fruit for extortion, especially as long as they don't agree to any significant expansions of IP schemes. Still, for the less savoury parts of some economies, branching out from 419 scams to the nearby patent field might not be a bad idea.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[CrimsonAvenger]

the ideal of efficiency and conservation will be promoted in the public eye.

Nonsense! The "public" neither knows nor cares what type of patents are being issued, so they'll not even notice "the ideal of efficiency and conservation" being "promoted".

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[the_womble]

Green patent trolls, green cross-licensing agreements, green blocking of competitors....

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[debrain]

Sir -

The purposes of patents was, among other things, to publicize inventions that would otherwise have remained trade secrets, allow commercialization with the risk of others "stealing" the idea, and to prevent the invention from disappearing when the inventor died (these purposes being long before corporations lived in perpetuity).

In many ways the patent system has succeeded in achieving many of its objects in a way that I feel confident has significantly advanced human society (in ways that would never have been achieved without). Contrast China, which until as recent as just over a hundred years ago was known - to intellectual property historians - for inventing and re-inventing the same ideas. However, the patents system is not without its costs, which costs include reduced competition, barriers to entry, etc. A so-called tax on the system, as you say. The benefits of the patent system ought to be measured against its costs - there certainly seems to be adequate impetus to do so at this time.

On the point of division of harm, I do not believe advanced countries have a greater burden than less advanced nations. In fact, I am quite confident of the opposite. Most countries are bound to TRIPS, an onerous IP treaty that throws up barriers to development (the tax, as you say), where that development infringes upon the intellectual property of so-called "developed" states (the domain of most intellectual property). It should go without saying that the developing- and underdeveloped-world has suffered, at least in the short term since the Uganda round, significant harm from these barriers, to the modest benefit of the developed nations. It's worthwhile to note that TRIPS has been widely regarded as a bit of a coup by the U.S. over the developing- and underdeveloped-world signatories.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[hey!]

Hardly. It's *patents themselves* that makes screwing of the third world possible in things like biotech.

The obvious intent is to increase the number of green tech startups. One of the things on the goody list when somebody buys you out is do you have any licensable IP. It won't make much difference to Dow Chemical, but it will make a difference to some chemist who wants to start a compnay that might be *bought* by Dow. A lot of startups need more money to commercialize an idea than can be found by smashing piggy banks, so the race is to get bring in more money before you burn. There are lots of great ideas that disappear because they couldn't get backing before the cash ran out. Getting some patents earlier could make the difference in many cases.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[5KVGhost]

I know it sounds all tin-foil-hat-y, but the prospect that CO2 policy could be used to keep richer nations dominant via IP has been haunting me for some time.

Well, yeah. Stupid, fraudulent spectacles like Copenhagen illustrate that fairly clearly.

The assumption behind the entire CO2 hysteria is that the rest of the world does not really deserve the comforts that we take for granted. So the assembled carbon racketeers are perfectly happy to forbid the most cost-effective technologies available to the developing world to improve the lives of their citizens. After all, we've got ours.

Hell, many of them would clearly prefer the surplus third-world population of to simply die off. But some people get all squeamish about that, so keeping them poor, sick, and dependent on the charity of the "international community" is the next best alternative.

The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[Afforess]

In a related story, a team of scientists from New Zealand claim to have found a cure to HIV, but that it has been backlogged in the US patent system for years.

In an interview, the lead scientist said "We were waiting for our patent to go through, and we just got this notice 'Your Patent has been moved back in the queue to make room for "greener" energy patents. We hope you understand, as we take part in saving the world'. I thought it was a joke at first, but the 1-800 number at the bottom was for the US patent office".

Yes, the HIV patent, a wonder-drug that could potentially save millions of lives and end suffering all over the world, especially in poorer third world countries, was backlogged to make room for new patents. Some of the recent "green" patents to come out of the US Patent Office was a "Perpetual Energy Machine, 100% Guarantee!!" and a new type of drinking straw that requires 2% less plastic during the manufacturing process than existing models.

The US patent office has refused to comment on this particular incident, but they did say "We're Always doing our part to save the world, one invention at a time! (tm)".

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[moosesocks]

The patent process for pharmaceuticals is (very) different from the regular process. In the US, drug patents are usually applied for and granted 8-12 years before the drug is brought to market, and even a few years before human trials begin.

Purported "HIV wonder drugs" sadly seem to be about as commonplace as perpetual motion devices these days.

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[DustyShadow]

Saving lives is far from "green."

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[Psaakyrn]

Actually, perpetual machines have more stringent guidelines for patent application, where there must be a working prototype first.

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

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourself.

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[baboo_jackal]

*That* however, is very green.

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[mcvos]

Actually, perpetual machines have more stringent guidelines for patent application, where there must be a working prototype first.

I thought all inventions needed a working prototype. That'd be a very sane requirement to stop the flood of silly, stupid and obvious patents that are only based on some fancy idea rather than actual research.

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[TrancePhreak]

Some inventions are prohibitively costly to produce, so no working prototype is necessary.

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[Bigjeff5]

I think you missed the satire in the GP's post.

Uhhh

[moosesocks]

"Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring green innovations to market more quickly."

I'd consider myself a reasonably strong environmentalist, but cannot for the life of me comprehend that quote. Aren't products released to market all the time with a "Patent Pending" status? Wouldn't environmentalism benefit from weaker patents surrounding green tech?

The same logic has been applied to drug patents, which only last 7-12 years in the US, purportedly to widen availability of generic drugs, as well as to keep the industry on its toes. (As the law of unintended consequences goes, this makes non-generics outlandishly expensive, and makes pharma a very high-risk industry, given the incredibly high R&D costs of developing/testing new drugs)

Re:Uhhh

[Culture20]

Wouldn't environmentalism benefit from weaker patents surrounding green tech?

That is the biggest question, and the answer is a resounding yes. If everyone can make the greenest FOO, it will less expensive. If it's less expensive, it will be more likely to replace existing non-green FOO. I know I might buy more CFLs if they would cost less than Incandescents.

Re:Uhhh

[moosesocks]

That is the biggest question, and the answer is a resounding yes.

Then it's not much of a question, is it?

Even though I agree with you on a basic level, I'm not sure I agree with the principle. Without patents, what drives innovation to produce the newest and greatest green FOO? The R&D expenses for some of this stuff can be quite high.

(Also, how many lights do you have that CFLs are a cost-prohibitive option? I replace them one by one as they burn out. A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart. Still about 3x the cost of the same number of incandescents, although the CFLs last a lot longer, and use sufficiently less energy to pay for themselves over their lifetime)

Re:Uhhh

[timmarhy]

But your so wrong, patents are the road block with innovation, because there's no point in investing in RnD when some patent troll already has some board patent on what your working on. the patent Troll won't ever produce the invention, they are just going to suck the life out of anyone doing the RnD. So no one produces anything new because most stuff is covered under ridiculous patents.

to me the best solution is either force them to produce a prototype or limit the patent to 3 years if nothing is brought to market. to me if you can't produce a atleast ONE unit in 3 years, then your just squandering the oppertunity that someone else could actually do something with.

Re:Uhhh

[scdeimos]

A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart. Still about 3x the cost of the same number of incandescents, although the CFLs last a lot longer, and use sufficiently less energy to pay for themselves over their lifetime

As good little consumers I know that's what we're supposed to think, but:

1. my experience has shown that CCFL's need replacing much more frequently than incandescents ever did.

2. they only consume less energy if they're left on for long periods (> 30 mins or so) as they have quite high start-up currents until they come up to operating temperature (1-5 minutes).

3. they output much higher levels of UV than incandescents, aggravating some skin conditions and causing retinal damage with some people.

4. they also contain hazardous chemicals such as mercury, complicating their disposal - our local city council has no *legal* means of CFL disposal yet, with most people just throwing them in with the regular refuse.

I think that our (Australian) federal government having "phased out" incandescent bulbs is a premature action. I'd rather see LED lighting get traction but, again, hazardous chemicals.

Re:Uhhh

[Dahamma]

I'm not usually a grammar fascist, but - are you drunk, or really trying to make a serious argument with that incomprehensible run-on?

Funny thing is I actually AGREE with your second statement about producing a workable implementation, otherwise limiting the patent length. But I totally disagree (I think, it's hard to tell ;) with your first, that patents inherently block innovation. I guarantee you that 90% of the modern drugs in use would not exist if they were not patentable. And most USEFUL patents in general are not trollable - just the obvious ones, which should never have passed the patent review in the first place.

Re:Uhhh

[Shakrai]

A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart.

I'm going to rant here....

The delay in reaching full brightness irks me to no end with CFLs. It's not a big deal when you are talking about a room where you turn the light on and leave it on for several hours (my living room) but it drives me up the fucking wall when you consider rooms that you breeze in and out of (the bathroom, closets, etc.). By the time the damn things reach a decent level of light output you've already moved on to the next household chore.

Then there's the Hg content. I wonder how much mercury is going to enter the environment as a result of improperly disposed-of and/or broken CFLs? It also bothers me that I can't find a single CFL made in America. They all come from China. I can still buy incandescent bulbs made in America. In a few years I won't even be able to do that -- Congress can't find the political will to balance the budget but they can tell me what kind of light bulbs I can buy? WTF?

Re:Uhhh

[timmarhy]

I'm not going to apologise for not proof reading something i posted on slashdot 50 times to avoid grama nazis, i just don't care ok (plus it's funny when you point the finger and then include such gems as a ;) )

that aside, i'd like you to provide some examples of modern drugs that wouldn't exist without patents. I hear this kind of defence for patents, but never any actual examples to back it up. again my proposed 3 year limit to bring it to market would protect these anyway.

Re:Uhhh

[nametaken]

"Wouldn't environmentalism benefit from weaker patents surrounding green tech?"

I think the idea is that strong patent protection encourages research and development by offering a limited monopoly to the patent holder.

Re:Uhhh

[clarkkent09]

That is the biggest question, and the answer is a resounding yes. If everyone can make the greenest FOO, it will less expensive. If it's less expensive, it will be more likely to replace existing non-green FOO.

Your logic is flawless assuming that somebody bothers to invent the greenest FOO in the first place. Where will you find investors to finance your R&D if they know that the moment your invention is proven to work everybody will copy it and sell it at a lower price than you (since they don't have to recoup those R&D costs)? Without patents, the smart money is on waiting and copying, not inventing.

Re:Uhhh

[cbope]

Except that in the US, the *marketing* budgets of the major pharma's far outweigh their R&D budgets. One of the major reasons why drugs are so expensive in the US is due to the marketing of drugs directly to consumers. This is something that has really bothered me a long time. You should never buy a drug based on the marketing of that drug by the manufacturer, e.g. TV ads. You should buy a drug that is selected by your doctor based on your illness, among other factors. Of course if you're in the US, hopefully your doc is not in bed with a pharma company, otherwise you are screwed. Another sad topic...

When I moved out of the US, I really noticed the lack of pharma advertising. No viagra ads on TV, no XYZ drug of the week ads, etc. Here in the EU pharma advertising is regulated, as it should be. And our drugs are far cheaper.

Re:Uhhh

[jonbryce]

The additional coal burned to power an incandescent bulb will release a lot more hg into the atmosphere.

Re:Uhhh

[Com2Kid]

The delay in reaching full brightness irks me to no end with CFLs.

Stop buying dirt cheap CFLs.

I have seen cheap CFLs that take a 3+ minutes to reach full brightness. Then there are the ones I am using that take all of 10 seconds or so. Maybe less, since they are so bright to start off with, unless you are paying really close attention you can't really notice the difference.

Then there's the Hg content.

*sigh*

Wikipedia has some very well cited numbers showing that CFLs result in less mercury emissions than incandescent.

If you recycle your CFLs properly (and there are many CFL recycling programs around, your local power companies web page may have a listing, if it doesn't yell at them to make one!) they may very well end up emitting next to or no mercury at all.

Congress can't find the political will to balance the budget but they can tell me what kind of light bulbs I can buy? WTF?

Balancing the budget is a bit harder than "plz use more efficient lighting kthxbye". Other things the very same government advises: Avoid child toys containing lead. Contaminated meat is bad. Asbestos is not good for your lungs.

See, figuring out what to deny us is easy, figuring out what to deny themselves is a bit harder. ;)

Re:Uhhh

[BlueStrat]

People are more worried about the Hg splashed in their bathroom sink next to their toothbrush / kitchen next to their cutlery than the Hg spread around the atmosphere of the planet.

Those selfish SOBs! What's a little brain and central nervous system damage & psychosis to them and their kids/pets as compared to the will of the one true Gore?

Besides, I'm sure that at this very moment there's a new EPA CFL/Hg Spill Taskforce being planned behind closed doors to solve this health and environmental threat. They'll monitor residential areas by drone for Hg spills (among other things), swoop in, clean it up, and deliver the federal paperwork on the toxic spill costs & fines to the victi...err...owners of the CFL-upgraded property, and meanwhile deliver the drone surveillance recordings to interested police/drug enforcement agencies & TLAs. Make the surveilled help pay for their own surveillance! Brilliant!

As dime-store-novel as such a plot seems, the scary part is in these times with such blatant disregard the government exhibits toward citizens, it's nearly believable.

Strat

Re:Uhhh

[Khyber]

1. PL-L CFLs need the replacing more often - they way they're designed is absolutely horrible and they burn themselves out because of it. I bought a 3-pack of regular spiral CFLs from Albertsons for $1 (thanks to a then-running Edison Electric sponsored special) and so far these have outlasted every PL-L that my apartment complex uses (all bathrooms use PL-L fluorescents and the new spotlight outside my stairs uses PL-L, and while my CFLs are a year old already, the PL-L tubes aren't even three months old, and they've already blown out.

Apparently, this is a common issue with PL-L lamps, as my apartment, and other apartment complexes around us that use PL-L, suddenly do not have any in their inventory. They've been replacing them so often they've exhausted what was supposed to be a year's supply in less than three months.

I'd really just love to move to something like T2VHO micro linear fluorescents. (Don't exist, YET) I like my T5HO lights. Great workshop, horticulture, and general lighting.

2. Newer designs effectively eliminate this by using a new electrode and ballast type.

3. Incandescents do not output UV. The gas that surrounds the filament MIGHT produce it, depending on the gas type. Halogen? Absolutely. Oxygen/nitrogen? Nope. Fluorescents, by their design, are UV lamps that have UV shifted to visible wavelengths by rare-earth phosphors coating the inside of the tube. While the tube BY LAW does filter out UV, it doesn't filter it all out (nor should it, as UV, specifically UVB, is needed in small amounts by humans for vitamin D production, a good thing for us indoor types that don't get much sun.) As long as people aren't right up on the bulb (as they would be in a tanning salon) this is an absolute non-issue. After one meter the uW/m-2s-1 of UVB is negligible as far as damage goes.

4. A full 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom household (assume 3 in living room, 2 in each bedroom, three in each bathroom, maybe six for a small kitchen, couple in the garage, one in the attic, a couple for the back porch and a couple for the front porch, so 28 bulbs,) using nothing but pure CFL lighting has less mercury in all their bulbs combined than in an older house's mercury-based switch in the thermostat control. The average CFL has 4-5mg of mercury, so 28*5 = 140mg. I can get a full gram or two of mercury out of the thermostat control switch, depending upon age. Most houses still use these switches.

Disclaimer: I just entered the industry as a professional consultant (LEDs) but for most of my horticultural purposes I use purely T5HO, and I use pure CFL around my apartment (2bd 2bth.) Total amount of mercury is 114mg, including my T5HO lighting. While we can't replace mercury yet, we can use less of it in combination with other amalgams to achieve the same results.

Re:Uhhh

[Khyber]

"LED's : I don't think they contain that much dangerous chemicals."

If the word ARSENIDE is present in the diode formulation (such as an indium-gallium arsenide emitter,) then yes, there is a toxic substance. But still, pretty tiny amount.

Re:Uhhh

[the_womble]

1. Not in my experience.
2. The only study I know said break even was five mins.
3. A few watts of US is going to do significant damage?
4. You may have a point.

Re:Uhhh

[tyrione]

Not all CFLs are equal. I'd rather see LED get traction, but first in Municipality lighting for highways, downtowns, stadiums, corporations, etc., to help drive down the cost with them absorbing the R&D tariff.

Re:Uhhh

[russotto]

"The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn't see any dramatic difference in brightness.

That shouldn't be surprising. First of all, it's hard for people to judge small differences in brightness; your eyes and brain automatically adjust for light levels to a large degree. Second, apparent brightness is also related to color temperature; a colder (higher temperature, oddly) light tends to look brighter.

And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light."

I'm calling bullshit. There are objective ways to test quality of light, and on those, CFLs never make it above 90 (Color Rendering Index), and are usually much lower. Incandescents score 100, and HIRs score in the high 90s.

Re:Uhhh

[moosesocks]

We're drifting dangerously offtopic here, but I should point out that the TV spots don't make up a terribly large portion of the budget. Most pharma marketing can be broken down to two categories

1) Patient awareness -- The original sales projections for Viagra were way off, because ED was originally believed to be far less common than it is. Most men weren't going to talk to their doctor about something that was embarrassing and didn't have a cure. Most TV spots fall under this category.

2) Doctor awareness -- Educational materials for doctors preaching the benefits of New Drug X over Old Drug Y (mostly citing clinical trials and the like -- the FDA won't approve a drug that's less effective/more dangerous than an existing one). For a myriad of reasons, doctors are very busy people, and this approach tends to require patience. A consequence of a private healthcare system is that the pharma industry bears part of the burden of keeping doctors up to date on this part of their education.

(Diisclaimer: I used to work for a pharma company, but not in marketing. I don't believe everything the industry does is golden -- just that they unfairly get a bad rap for struggling to maintain what is a very difficult business. Also consider that a product's R&D budget doesn't include the R&D budgets for the 9 other products that didn't make it to market.)

Re:Uhhh

[moosesocks]

CFLs contain 3-5mg of mercury, which is roughly the same amount as is found in 10 6oz cans of tuna.

"Low-mercury" CFLs are making their way to market, which have only 1mg of Hg in them -- the equivalent of 2 cans of tuna.

As long as you're not eating broken lightbulbs, I'd say that a week's worth of tuna sandwiches is far, far worse for you.

Re:Uhhh

[polar red]

what you're saying is : a/the incandescents have better numbers. and b/those numbers don't matter, because we can't judge the difference.

Re:Uhhh

[Culture20]

The question presupposed that the greenest FOO had already been invented, and did not ask what would drive the best innovations to help protect the environment. Instead, it focused on what would be the best means of spreading green tech. I suppose a possibility might be that if a patented invention is so world-shatteringly good, a government could declare eminent domain and either force the production or provide free licenses to anyone who wants to produce the green FOO. Inventor still makes some money (government has to pay to cover loss with eminent domain), and there is always a risk that making something too good means a loss of potential profits, but since inventing is a gamble anyway (tons of great things never make it to market), it's not like it's a really big loss.

Re:Uhhh

[ravenshrike]

Your drugs are cheaper because we subsidize them.

Re:Uhhh

[MobyDisk]

This is the usual set of fictional arguments against fluorescent bulbs, and it comes up on every Slashdot discussion. I don't know why it got modded-up this time.

1. CCFLs last longer. There's no research anywhere that says otherwise. I'm sorry you got some bad ones.

2. Fluorescent lights do not have a higher startup current.

3. Never heard of this one before, and I can't find anything about it either way. It seems unlikely to be true since fluorescent lights put out more visible light and less "other" light than incandescent bulbs -- that's the very reason they are more efficient.

4. There is an insignificant and irrelevant amount of mercury in fluorescent bulbs.

Various Slashdot discussions on this

The mercury thing comes up on every Slashdot discussion of fluorescent lights, all because of one particularly overblown story. Fluorescent lights can be disposed of in normal trash.

Re:Uhhh

[Dahamma]

"again my proposed 3 year limit to bring it to market would protect these anyway."

Yeah, that's part of the problem. I'm not going to go bother looking it up examples right now, but most drugs take longer than 3 years from initial R&D, multiple phases of trials, FDA approval, and launch.

That process can cost many millions (or in some cases billions) of dollars, and require many years to recoup those development costs. Without patent protection, who in their right mind would invest that much in highly experimental drug development only to be undercut by others taking advantage their investment and making cheap generics?

Re:Uhhh

[Bigjeff5]

There is a current cholesterol drug on the market that took 17 years to make it from concept to sellable product. If we started their patent clock from the day they applied (probably 10-12 years before they made it to market, in order to protect their investment), or if they had a 3 year limit, the drug would not be sold today because nobody would have bothered in the first place. They'd get a couple years of patent protection and then it's fair game, hardly enough to make the almost 20 years of work worth it.

To make inventions, particularly new drugs, happen you can't just give people enough to recoup their costs from inventing the thing. They need to see a significant return on their investment (double, triple the investment, at least) in order to make it worth it. The hope is that we are essentially paying them in advance for the next invention, while putting their inventions out there in great detail so new people can innovate based on what the original inventor designed.

That's the whole point of the patent system, to get the designs for those new methods and innovations out to the public. If they think they can make some great new use for it, wonderful! They pay the original guy a royalty and off they go!

I'm starting to believe the real problem is the buying and selling of patent rights. Not right to use, but ownership rights. There is a grey area where I think there is some justification for some companies to own patents that their employees produce, particularly if that were the entire purpose of their employment and it was spelled out in a contract well before the discovery was made, but I don't think the patents should be able to be sold to a third party that had no involvement in the original disocovery/innovation.

That would solve a lot of problems, I think, but certainly not all of them by any means.

Re:Uhhh

[Bigjeff5]

3. Never heard of this one before, and I can't find anything about it either way. It seems unlikely to be true since fluorescent lights put out more visible light and less "other" light than incandescent bulbs -- that's the very reason they are more efficient.

That's simply ignorance of how flourescent's work. The plasma in the flourescent bulb produces UV light pretty much exclusively. A coating of phosphors line the tubes which "flouresce" when hit by UV light, causing them to glow in the visible spectrum. That's why flourescent bulbs are never clear - you'd never see anything if they were, their light is invisible to us. Check the wikipedia entry for more about flourescence.

The glass tubes filter much, but not all, of the UV light that gets past the phosphorous coating.

Re:Uhhh

[Bigjeff5]

As long as you're not eating broken lightbulbs, I'd say that a week's worth of tuna sandwiches is far, far worse for you.

But nowhere near as tasty!

Re:Uhhh

[MobyDisk]

That's simply ignorance of how flourescent's work.

Why do people on the internet insist on calling people ignorant at the drop of a hat? I sit a few cubes away from a Ph.D. in optical engineering who is writing articles on fluorescence.

I know full well how white fluorescent light works. They are designed to minimize the amount of UV leakage (and other spectrum of leakage, for that matter) so I find it unlikely that they would put out more UV than an incandescent bulb, which leaks all over the spectrum.

Anyway, all of this discussion is irrelevant, because it still doesn't say anything about the amount of UV that gets through the phosphor coating. The entire point of my post was citations, and you provided nothing helpful except yet more uninformed speculation.

So, finally, I did find a link on this, although it doesn't say how much.
Ultraviolet light radiation from fluorescent lights is not dangerous

Re:Uhhh

[russotto]

No, I'm saying the numbers (CRI, color temperature, and lumens) do matter, but _small_ differences in brightness don't matter.

Re:Uhhh

[polar red]

I still like cfl's better than incandescents: you don't get the full blast the first 2-3 seconds(less blinding ...), and the light is much relaxer.

Here'e mine

[formfeed]

An apparatus for the sequestration of carbon dioxide in liquids, such as well water or tap water, removing harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and allowing the possibility of selling the liquid with the carbon dioxide therein as healthy and refreshing drink to Europeans and East-Coast Yuppies.

Overkill

[ShakaUVM]

Looking around my hotel room here, there's no less than:
Green shampoo and conditioner
Green shampoo bottles (made from corn!)
Green soap (no soap in the middle of the bar - less waste!)
Green soap box (it's brown! it must be good for the enviroment!)
Save the environment sign with a panda bear, telling me to reuse my towels. (If you don't, the panda will eat you?)
Another sign explaining just how green the green soap is (and the green soap is actually branded "Green Natura"), including the use of soy products for the ink.
Green facial soap.
Sign telling me not to smoke unless I can breathe backwards.
Sign by my bed, telling me I need to place it on the bed if I want my sheets changed.

My fucking lord - you want MORE green products? Where will they go?

Re:Overkill

[wizardforce]

Most of the "green products" you've just mentioned in all likelihood have little actual environmental benefit. Alternative energy technology on the other hand may very well serve us well economically and environmentally. Even if you don't care one bit about the environment, you've ot to admit that at some point we're going to grow beyond what fossil fuels in of themselves are capable of providing.

Re:Overkill

[Shakrai]

you've ot to admit that at some point we're going to grow beyond what fossil fuels in of themselves are capable of providing.

We've had the technology to displace fossil fuels since the 50s. We just moved away from it because of a handful of loud NIMBYists/greenpeace'ers and a whole lot of FUD.

Re:Overkill

[ShakaUVM]

>>Most of the "green products" you've just mentioned in all likelihood have little actual environmental benefit.

But... but... they say GREEN in huge letters on the boxes! Surely they must be good for the environment! My lord, man, my soap has a giant hole in the middle of it! If that doesn't save the pandas, I don't know what will.

But yeah, seriously. Nuclear power.

Re:Overkill

[Tom]

My fucking lord - you want MORE green products? Where will they go?

Uh, we're talking about patents here, dude. You know, that thing which originally was intended for ideas that nobody else has had so far?

Re:Overkill

[ShakaUVM]

To invent more pointless crap that is vaguely environmentally friendly?

Maybe now is the time for me to patent my oil-leak caps, which would be positioned on all the leaking fissures off the coast of California, to stop the earth from polluting itself with all that crude oil.

Never thought off-shore drilling could be so environmentally friendly, eh?

Re:Overkill

[cas2000]

Uh, we're talking about patents here, dude. You know, that thing which originally was intended for ideas that nobody else has had so far?

wrong. patents are not for ideas that no-one has had before. they are for inventions that no-one has made before.

patents do not cover ideas, they cover specific inventions. there's a HUGE difference.

Re:Overkill

[Tom]

Yes, I know. But it would've ruined the punchline to insist on the differentiation. :-)

Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents "Green One-Click Checkout"

Politicizing the patent office

[doug141]

More suggestions:
*fastrack patents that "help the poor"
*fastrack patents that will "create jobs"

This is just to broaden options for repaying campaign contributions.

Re:Politicizing the patent office

[White Flame]

Who will fast track patents that patents track fast will who?

Fixed that for you.

Re:Politicizing the patent office

[selven]

Fixed that for you for that fixed

Fixed that for you for that fixed

Patent Pending

[TapeCutter]

As a fellow "greenie" I agree, the statement is full of political buzzwords "green business", "green jobs", "significant savings", "green inovations", "to market more quickly".

He is simply trying to justify his departments existence with an obvious lie, either that or he has no idea what his department actually does.

Government actions occur for political gain

[Kohath]

This is yet another example. When businesses decide things, they make choices to maximize financial gain. When governments decide things, they make choices to maximize political gain. Therefore, anyone who trusts the government to act in their interests had better be damn certain they never lose an election or fall out of political favor. If you're not directly in power, you're just "the little people" and that power will be wielded against you. You'd best hope those are limited powers.

BTW, this story is essentially an admission by the Patent Office that they're corrupt. It's just that their mission has been corrupted by an ideology rather than any sort of direct monetary payments. Maybe next week the Patent Office will start putting Mormons or their personal friends or people who donated money to John McCain ahead of everyone else.

Re:Government actions occur for political gain

[idiotnot]

Mod parent up. This is political payback to the civil lawyer lobby who heavily fund Democrats. When they talk about "green jobs," they're obviously talking about cases for the trial lawyers to litigate.

You can also bet that "green" products won't have a statutory limit on liability claims from injured people anytime soon. Even if one of these products turns out to have health effects worse than asbestos.....

Re:Government actions occur for political gain

[WCMI92]

Mod parent up. This is political payback to the civil lawyer lobby who heavily fund Democrats. When they talk about "green jobs," they're obviously talking about cases for the trial lawyers to litigate.

You can also bet that "green" products won't have a statutory limit on liability claims from injured people anytime soon. Even if one of these products turns out to have health effects worse than asbestos.....

Of course. Look at the government takeover of healthcare that is being misnamed "reform". Everyone is expected to take a hit, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, the citizens, etc, in the form of less payment, higher taxes, higher premiums, etc. The only group left out, are, you guessed it, the trial lawyers.

I think lawsuits over the mercury in CFL bulbs are going to be the "asbestos" lawsuit bonanza of the next 20 years. The democrats don't care enough about this to ban them, the 100 watt bulb must DIE to "save the planet" from (fradulent) man made global warming! They don't care because the trial lawyers are the single biggest contributor to democrat campaigns, more than even the unions.

Better idea

[shentino]

Hire more examiners and make sure a good part of them have degrees.

How do we pay them?

How about a royalty tax? ...and that includes on the ridiculous settlements exacted by patent trolls.

Re:Better idea

[gandhi_2]

How about every denied patent becomes a granted patented which is the property of the examiner?

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think every examiner in the PTO has at least a BS degree and many have advanced degrees - patent examiners make pretty good money and the job leads to lucrative careers in the law after leaving the PTO.

We pay them through all the fees that the patent office charges for prosecution. In fact, the PTO makes so much off of fees that it turns a profit every year for the U.S. government.

Re:Better idea

[shentino]

Immediate conflict of interest.

Which may have been your point though.

Re:Better idea

[shentino]

Then it seems the patent office isn't competing hard enough for the talent it needs.

Considering all the bullshit patents coming out there's obviously a deficiency of some sort.

If the PTO is making a profit, then perhaps more of the fees need to go into the paychecks of the examiners instead of the treasury.

Green Tech and Trolls

[The Redster!]

Troll:
Would you grant them for some dough?
Would you grant them for some blow?
Would you grant them for B-Ho?
Will you grant them, yes or no?

Locke:
Yes, we will grant green tech to trolls!
They'll make us look good for the polls!

Bubble

[Citizen of Earth]

Green-tech: the next big stock-market bubble. Just remember to bail out when the feeding frenzy starts to feed on itself.

Re:Bubble

[Khyber]

Some of us are in it to stay because we have actual products, expertise, and technology to contribute - most everybody else is full of shit.

At the very least...

[istartedi]

...there should be compulsory licensing for all the green patents. In other words, you have to license the technology. To make that practical, I'd also stipulate that you have to license it at a reasonable rate and I'd base that on a fixed percentage of the sales price of the items made by the licensees.

This would also lay to rest all the "big oil companies bought the patent on the green tech so they could suppress it" conspiracies.

Actually, I think there should be compulsory licensing on ALL patents (ie, no suppressive patents), but we have to start someplace, and if this turns out to be more trouble than it's worth for some reason, it's good to start with just a subset of patents so it's easier to step back.

I hate patents!

[crhylove]

Patents are stifling battery technology. Further in the case of environmental and health concerns, there should be no patents at all. Additionally, greater minds than mine, such as Benjamin Franklin, a pioneer in the nascent field of electricity and electrical technology suggested that patents IN GENERAL were immoral, selfish, and that innovation should be contributed "For the Greater Good".

But whatever, let's rush the patents on stuff that we need for the planet faster, so that these greedy corporations can charge you more sooner!

It's asinine. We need patent and copyright reform ASAP. I suggest a 10 year limit on any technology or piece of art. If you can't contribute something useful again once a decade, or save your earnings from that decade and live off of that, TOO FUCKING BAD, FUCK YOU!

Dammit!

[crhylove]

You stole my idea for a "green" suppository!!

Re:I have to file my patent quickly!

[Scannerman]

If only this was a troll!

Unfortunately this idea, if properly written up, would probably get granted a patent. The level of examination now seems to be absolutely zero.

A few days ago I was handed a copy of a patent that was recently granted (to a large airplane company based in the NW USA) it contains a long list of reference documents, reading of which should be sufficient to show the examiner that it contained nothing much original.

A guy I know had a patent granted which contained the wording (from memory) "This method represents a digital implementation of a standard analogue approach" . These guys know they are trying it on, and are being fairly honest about it.(they are engineers, don't like this system anymore than we do, but do what the boss says)

None of this seems to stop patents being granted.

Patents do NOT on balance encourage innovation

[Mostly a lurker]

Say, you have an idea for improving the efficiency of solar panels. Commercializing it will cost many millions of dollars, but there is a healthy expanding market. Why not? Well, if there are several patents held by other organizations on inferior solar panels, but including necessary aspects of your better design, this severely restricts future profits from sale of the improved panels, and the viability of development.

Unfortunately, this is not just theoretical. It is the what happens time and time again. Often, the obvious aspects of some technology get patented early which makes it uneconomic to do the necessary optimization of the process for a decade or more.

Re:Patents do NOT on balance encourage innovation

[jgtg32a]

So Patent it and sell it to the company that has the other Patents

Patent trolls...

[MancunianMaskMan]

are green with envy. Do they qualify?

Re:I have to file my patent quickly!

[I cant believe its n]

Cynical and possibly venomous, but not a troll.

I am glad

[Stumbles]

the Patent Office is laying the ground now to keep our future lawyers employed. This fast tracking is going to open the doors to a lot of lawsuits. It is not like the PO has a stellar track record anyway when it comes to granting patents.

Faster green patents..

[Khyber]

Hopefully this will apply for those with an actual product and not some half-cocked theory without any real testing to back it up.

Wishing in one hand, the other hand is beneath my asshole.

more patent abuse

[kwikrick]

I'm skeptical. Big coal and oil companies are already patenting the hell out of every possible green tech, without any plans to actually implement this. Fast-tracking patents is likely to hinder innovative green startups, which cannot afford to patent everything, nor lawyers to hold off the bad guys. Rather depressing. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Strike the word "green".

[Nihixul]

It seems that Mr. Kappos's statement would have been perfectly fine without the word "green":

"Every day an important tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating businesses and jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring innovations to market more quickly."

Fast track

[Idiomatick]

Does this mean it will only take 1 year for the patent to go through?

nothing will kill green jobs faster

[Dan667]

than a bunch of patents.

Re:Good, I like this

[WCMI92]

ROFL, troll moderation. I guess we have a slashdot mod who can't tolerate any criticism of his/her religion of man made global warming, and it's prophet, Algore.

Re:I have to file my patent quickly!

[kimvette]

OK how exactly was I a troll? I'm making fun of the USPTO, which damn well deserves it given all of the non-invention/"discovery" patents it has granted (such as the human gene sequence), and issues patents for devices which are obvious to those skilled in respective trades, and so forth. I was shooting for "funny" but my post is all too close to the truth.

Re:There's cyanide in your boogers.

[Khyber]

If there were cyanide in your mucous, the result would be BLUE, not the green which is caused by bacterial waste products and mold growing in your sinuses.

CYANide