Slashdot Mirror
US Patent Regime Is Absurd
An anonymous reader writes in with an opinion piece in the Economist
about the the effects
of patent trolling on the US economy. The author argues that the
U.S. patent regime is causing the U.S. essentially to harm itself. Things
have gotten so bad that paying for
protection is par for the course.
The idea of patents being bad for the economy is MY intellectual property.
I'm suing the author, the poster (meaning everyone who has ever posted as anon), and Slashdot.
Anything that is a regime is absurd!
Just make things free and democratic okay? Otherwise it's gonna be regime-change time!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Human genes can be legally patented, according to a Federal Appeals court.
Now, the difference here is that the genes are isolated from the body as a whole, but it seems like we're not too far from being in breach of patent every time we get it on.
I am officially gone from
The often-wonderful This American Life show covered this topic quite recently. They tried to find out what the deal was with Intellectual Ventures and their ilk, and made some surprising discoveries. (I don't want to give away any spoilers.)
You can listen to a podcast of the show here:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
You're missing the point. It's not that the patent system in the US is absurd...almost everyone here will acknowledge that. The story here is that a major publication like the Economist is taking that stance. When it's a bunch of nerds in an online forum whining about it, nothing will ever change. When it hits the mainstream, the politicians have to take notice.
The exact extent of how much this can impact an Empire's economy can easily be seen by looking back a little bit into history. A couple of hundred years ago a major world-spanning power had quite restrictive and onerous patent and copyright laws (to the point where certain types of boats could only be constructed in particular home ports), and one of their upstart colonies took advantage of that with much more open and innovation-friendly rules.
The countries in question of course are England and the USA.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
The Wright brothers may have been the first to build airplanes that could be adequately controlled and sure they patented it. However, the Americans were the only nation who didn't have operational airplanes during WWI because the patent protection basically prevented improvements of the flaws in the Wright brother's patent protected design. They ended up buying French airplanes instead.
The US government plainly does not care whether their policies make sense, or help the people they ostensibly intend to. All that matters is that the right people get kickbacks and that politicians get reelected.
See the War on Drug Users. This has always been an absurd effort. There has never been an honest argument in favor of criminalizing drugs, and every effort to define a rational policy(from LaGuardia in 1939 to the present day) has recommended decriminalization. Still, the US has waged war on its own citizens for decades, refusing to even allow serious discussion on alternative policies.
You can expect to see the same here. There will be a war on patent infringers and a war on copyright infringers. They will be devastating to individual liberties, and they will be a drag on our economy. Still, the US will not consider alternatives, and will even put the full force of the US propaganda machine against those who do.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The linked planet Money story is well worth a listen, though it's a bit long. The This American Life that the Planet Money story is based on is even longer, but again fairly entertaining. I actually drove around for an extra 15 minutes Saturday afternoon to continue listening to the whole thing.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
the patent system is good for lawyers, who are disproportionately represented in the pools of elected officials, lobbyists, and political contributors. The current system is extremely good for them, and mildly good for politicians in generals as it helps finance the whole lobbying/contributions rigmarole.
since both parties benefit, and have no balls anyway... things will stay that way.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
It is true that software patents, such as the one mentioned in the article, should never have been allowed in the first place. They have done almost nothing but damage.
But aside from the bad decision of allowing software patents, the big problem has been the apparent incompetence of the Patent Office itself: issuing patents for things it never should have (because of things like prior art for example).
If we want to have rational debate about the matter, we have to distinguish between bad laws (software patents), and bad administration of good laws (just about all the rest).
Other than the software patent ruling, the system per se isn't flawed. It has just been badly administered, and in some cases abused. Those are not the same things.
If you're playing poker, and somebody cheats (or fumbles while dealing the cards), that is not a flaw in the rules of poker. Similarly, the fact that our "patent system" is currently being abused in some cases and badly implemented in others is not a flaw in "the system", per se. It's just failure of the responsible parties to do it properly. There is a rather big difference.
Let's look at two areas of technology: video quality and JavaScript performance.
With video quality, the relevant technologies for modern techniques are patented. This means that competing products are of a poorer quality or are artificially restricted. The companies that hold the patents are less likely to innovate and build on their existing work (except to create more patents), so the state of the art gets held back and is slow to advance.
Now with JavaScript performance, take a look at the competition between Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera and Internet Explorer. All these products are competing against each other without resorting to patents. The net result is that you end up with faster JavaScript on all products, allowing for more advanced and interactive websites to be used. It also makes the competitors (Firefox and Internet Explorer) to improve and advance as the other products compete for user share. The net result is that the users of all web browsers benefit and the technology advances rapidly.
So which one is better for innovation?
Copyright isn't absurd the way software patents are.
Pretty much everyone, including OSS software developers, desire the benefits of copyright. The way that the MPAA/RIAA goes about enforcement is definitely out of control, but the fundamental issue is okay.
Software patents, on the other hand, are (at least) well in the the grey area surrounding "what should be patentable". A business process, a mathematical formula, a procedure, an idea? How ethereal can something be and still be someone's property?
The MAFIAA are trying to change the rules to suit their own interests. Patent trolls, on the other hand, are functioning just fine with the rules the way they are.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
The point of the Economist's article is not that Patents are inherently completely useless. It is that patents, as they currently work, slow innovation. They point out that innovating individuals are no longer able to proceed with their inventions because they are being attacked with patent infringement lawsuits as soon as they prove they have a viable product.
One of the interesting points they bring up is the inherent fallacy in the "defensive patent". Since patents are by definition supposed to be given only for things which take unique insight to develop, if your opponent is infringing on your patent by accident, it did not take unique insight to develop it.
I guess my point is, the Economist is advocating Patent Reform, not abolishment of patents. While I am not associated with them, I believe they would likely advocate Copyright Reform, but not copyright abolishment.
-- "The Price of Freedom of Speech, of Press, or of Religion is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."
There is no problem with having multiple patents covering the same idea.
Guess again! I have a patent on multiple patents covering the same idea.
Pay up bitches!
Maybe thats the new paradigm, grant a Troll say 20% of future revenue of any patent in exchange for them defending it. Not much different from insurance. Such an arrangement might make someone else think harder before infringing.
And sorry for using the word 'paradigm' in an open forum.
I have four issued software patents myself, all in areas where the existing technology didn't work but mine did.
So your software did ONLY new things, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that someone else did before?
You invented a completely new data storage system, display system, input system, processing system, operating system, help system, feedback system, purchasing system, and so on, and you still only managed to get 4 patents?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Spotify, which is yet another streaming music service.
They're being sued the original streaming service, right? The one that had the original idea, original implementation, based on never-before seen algorithms, data structures and math? Right?
Hulu,
See above.
Rovio,
See above.
Come up with something new, and you have far fewer patent problems.
Wrong. Come up with something new, and hope that you have deeper pockets than anyone threatened by your patent.
I have four issued software patents myself, all in areas where the existing technology didn't work but mine did.
Unless you used new math, you copied many, many ideas while creating your software. The only reason no one has sued you over those patents is because they're either not used, not in areas anyone cares about, or no one cares that you have the patents.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I have a patent on ideas coming from you. Give me all of your money, and don't even think of trying to get out of it.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
The story here is that a major publication like the Economist is taking that stance. When it's a bunch of nerds in an online forum whining about it, nothing will ever change. When it hits the mainstream, the politicians have to take notice.
Interestingly enough, the DOJ is sticking its nose into the patent trolling arena. Some press reports indicate that the DOJ is asking explicitly if the patent portfolios are going to be used to go after Android. Others suggest the DOJ already realizes the arms race in acquiring huge patent arsenals to challenge virtually ANY emerging technology is counter productive to the very reason patents were created in the first place, and may be contemplating anti-trust action.
If true, or even if it appears to be true, this sets a new tone in Washington. The current mess is starting to have significant effect on the economy, and the idea that Apple might be blocked from importing their own iPhones due to (alleged) patent violations is probably the trigger for this. Apple has a lot of friends in the current administration.
The best that could be hoped for in the current mess is that the DOJ will put its weight behind forced licensing (in return for a patent, the patent holder must license at reasonable rates; no more arbitrary blocking). The only way that more-or-less obsolete patent libraries from bankrupt companies like Nortel are worth 4 billion dollars is due to the potential for blocking competitors from producing anything. If the patents had any commercial value, Nortel would't be bankrupt.
However, I doubt forced licensing will happen. There appears little legal foundation to impose that.
Further, no administration is likely to change the patent laws any time soon. It would be all out war to attempt that.
The rantings of the Economist aside, in the short term the most likely outcome is anti-trust action to prevent that construction of yet more huge patent libraries.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The Wright brothers may have been the first to build airplanes that could be adequately controlled and sure they patented it. However, the Americans were the only nation who didn't have operational airplanes during WWI because the patent protection basically prevented improvements of the flaws in the Wright brother's patent protected design. They ended up buying French airplanes instead.
This is wrong in almost every way. The Wright brothers had patents in France. And the Americans had operational airplanes during WWI both from the Wright brothers and from the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company. Now, sure, the Americans bought airplanes in France for WWI... because, y'know, the war was in France, and they didn't exactly have transatlantic aircraft carriers or flights then.