Slashdot Mirror


Why IP Laws Are Blocking Innovation

DrJimbo passes along this quote from Groklaw: "The White House is asking us to give them ideas on what is blocking innovation in America. I thought I'd give them an honest answer. Here it is: Current intellectual property laws are blocking innovation. President Obama just set a goal of wireless access for everyone in the US, saying it will spark innovation. But that's only true if people are allowed to actually do innovative things once they are online. You have to choose. You can prop up old business models with overbearing intellectual property laws that hit innovators on the head whenever they stick their heads up from the ground; or you can have innovation. You can't have both. And right now, the balance is away from innovation."

5 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Suggestions by Moryath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Of course, without strong ip laws there's no reason to innovate."

    Really. Interesting - innovation seems to predate "intellectual property law" by at least millenia.

  2. IP Law Results by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It has become disgustingly easy to patent something that really should not be patentable. One result of the fast and loose IP laws is an entirely new method of profit for enterprise: using the court system as a means of revenue (i.e. sue for profit.) In the end, the IP laws have become the United States undoing because how can we be technological innovators and leaders if the would-be inventor is scared off by some superfluous patent over something ridiculous.

  3. For some people, this is very true by Stregano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a web developer by day, and am a software developer by night. I make software so that I can sell it. One of my biggest worries is that I will make a really great piece of software, start selling it, then some big company filled with lawyers starts suing me because it run in Windows, and according to some messed up, obscure patent, I can't do that. I understand that they would not touch me right now since, let's face it, none of you have heard of me (as with the rest of the world). I am not banking hardcore. It is possible that one single program I write will though. That is a very high possibility. I try to program safe and not go too insane with the software I make and sell. If I go insane and make something incredible, these sleazy, douchbag lawyers will want a piece of my pie even though they had nothing to do with it, so they sue me. You should not be allowed to simply buy up a patent. You should be required to have a working model of what the patent is for. If you have a software patent for software that does not exist and you have no proof it exists, why are you allowed to own it? You have nothing to do with the software outside of a small piece of paper saying it. You have no programmers on payroll. You have no engineers on payroll. You are not paying or contracting anybody to make these innovations, you simply own them to say you do. I think it should be revamped to make these people show proof of concept at the very minimum in order to own a patent. Unfortunately, for people like me who make just as much selling software on the side as I do at my normal job (and it is not a small amount, it is just not big either), it is only a matter of time before the "I can retire now" software gets sold off, and then I get sued for some software patent from a company that has nothing to do with software outside of having a piece of paper saying they can. Proof of concept, or you lose it.

    If these patent trolls started losing patents for no proof of concept, that would up the innovation then and there as other big companies would be bringing in people to make a proof of concept so they could own the patent. A 2 for 1 deal and it is super simple. Innovation gets sparked, and patent trolls get smacked in the face. And all we do is force the patent trolls to show proof of concept of every single patent they own.

    --
    The world is how you make it
  4. Re:Remember the vast innovation in the baroque per by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Imagine a world where cooking wasn't covered by IP law you'd never be able to set up your own restaurant!

    Why would a chef ever come up with a new recipe?
    Surely if he came up with a good one then McDonalds would just steal it and include it in their own chain and lock that chef out.

    As soon as you came up with a good idea, theme or dish someone would just swoop in , copy your ideas and push you out of business.

    Nobody would ever even try!
    We'd all be stuck without anything good to eat!

  5. Re:Fanaticism is losing sight of the original goal by yeshuawatso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My two cents:

    From Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution:
    The Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    No where in that line does it state that a patent or copyright is to grant any persons, natural or otherwise, a way to guarantee PROFITS or STIFLE COMPETITION. It specifically says: "...PROMOTE the PROGRESS OF SCIENCES AND USEFUL ARTS."

    PROMOTE != PROFIT