Slashdot Mirror
Patent Trolls In Biotechnology
GNUman writes "A news story in this week's Nature Journal talks about patent trolls attacking biotech companies. They cite a case in which the U.S. federal court of appeals upheld 'a patent that covered the idea of trying to link infant vaccination with later immune disorders.' The news story also references an interesting article from researchers at Boston University School of Law (Bessen, James E. et al, 2011, 'The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls'), in which they analyze the effect of litigation on the wealth of the defendants via their stock's value before and after litigation, and given that such loss minimally translates into an increment in the wealth of the inventor, they determine that patent litigation harms society and removes incentives for innovation."
Patent litigator harm society and remove incentive for innovation?!!! That goes against everything I've ever heard about the patent process!!! Why would our government allow such a thing to be?
why we are letting the government allow patent trolls to exist? They are a leech to the tech and innovation world. Here's a thought, you can only have claim in court to a patent infringement if you currently have or have significant evidence of working on a product that uses that patent. This would get rid of patent trolls that just sit on patents to sue people and companies.
I wonder if all those polling companies (Gallup, Rasmussen, etc...) have their ducks in a row, because I'm about to go medieval on their asses.
"Process for the use of inquiry to determine prevailing public opinion on a manner of issues relevant to the interests of various media interests including but not limited to advertisers, news agencies, and political organizations."
Pay up, bitches.
You know, it's one thing to troll companies and other entities who's sole purpose is to make money off the backs of customers, but this is just...ugh...
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I believe that monsanto might be considered under the category of biotechnology. They are the biggest patent troll I know of; holding patents on life its self.
Patents are supposed to incentivize inventors to release documentation of their invention to the public domain. Yes, the patent system is horribly broken and in desperate need of real reform, but public knowledge would suffer a severe setback if patents disappeared entirely (replaced by trade secrets, no doubt).
Trade secrets would be preferable. At least then you could use whatever you can learn from reverse-engineering.
Very few trade secrets have ever been kept successfully for long. Some inventions might be locked up indefinitely, but most would probably be re-discovered or reverse-engineered long before a hypothetical patent would have expired.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Well, "OH THE COINCIDENCE!", really.
Except, ads are targeted, so "OH THE CORRELATION!" is more like it.
Is he claiming to have caused Immune Disorder diseases like Rheumatoid Arthritis? If not I say we give him credit for creating them for getting such an absurd patent.
That implies that trivia reverse engineering should be added to the list of disqualifications on patents. Why should society pay such a hefty price for readily available information. It's like buying gourmet tap water.
I'm going to patent the concept of patenting vague things that can't be possibly invented yet, much less by my company and/or self. this way i will get loyalties every time one of these trolls files such a patent. further, the patent will include the concept of sueing those who actually manage to create the concept so that i get to skim a little of the top of each lawsuit :)
So companies wouldn't get sued for patent infringement, but invidual engineers for causing loss of profits by leaking secrets. Expect to see even worse NDA and noncompete clauses in employeed contracts.
They find that litigation is a net financial loss, but they aren't including the attorney's fees, which probably balance it out to a net zero. However, an analysis of the movements of money is not sociologically interesting.
What is more interesting, is an analysis of the movements of wealth. First there is the matter of squandered wealth on the court proceeding itself, because that is a lot of manhours spent in producing useless arrangements of words on paper. And then there is the more serious question of who is using the wealth-behind-the-money more effectively... i.e. what was the defendent spending the money on versus what does the plaintiff end up spending the money on? Do plaintiffs invest their settlements into something comparably productive?
Remember, money is not wealth. Money is control of wealth. Moving money from wise hands into profligate hands is usually a net social loss.
Also, the article's implication is a non-sequitur. While it is true that patent trolling is a financial drag on the system, it does not follow that removing patents is a win. Without patents there would be problems with espionage, and the useless dissipation of wealth in protecting trade secrets. However, the implication does not follow; it is NOT true that ending patents would
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
What does it mean to be sued for one's patents?
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I never said anything about "leaking" trade secrets. Even if everyone adheres to their NDAs, it is still likely that the invention will be rediscovered independently or reverse-engineered by someone with no privileged inside information.
Anyway, NDAs and non-compete clauses are standard even with patents. No one puts all the details in the patent application if they can avoid it.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
It should be noted that the CAFC case mentioned above was narrowly confined to the issue of patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings concerning enforceability relative to prior art (among other things). The defendant was hoping for a quick and cheap resolution, but it looks like that won't happen in this case.
No, trade secrets would not be preferable. If I must reverse engineer something before I can understand it, then I must first acquire one or more samples of the item I wish to reverse engineer. That may not be much of an obstacle in the case of trinkets and toys - but it could be a severe obstacle if I'm trying to design a better automotive engine, or a better suspension system. And, aviation? I can't afford a single jet engine, let alone an aircraft.
Patents are great - as they existed in the first half of the twentieth century. By the 1960's, things had started downhill, and by the 90's patent law was in the toilet. Today, the toilet is stopped up, and can't even be flushed.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
LMAO - as a nation, we DO pay for gourmet tap water! Take a serious look at all the bottles of water sitting on your grocer's shelves, and at the convenience stores. Many of them come from city water supplies.
And, of those bottlers that actually have a spring(s) or an aquifer or whatever, many of those are in no way superior to common well water.
Damn, you just pointed out how stupid Americans really are!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Anyone designing something expensive, as in your examples, will need the resources to construct prototypes (probably many prototypes) for testing, if the design is to advance beyond the theoretical stage. If you can afford to have prototypes built you can probably afford a model already in production as well. Anyway, it's not like you have to keep the model after you're done studying it—buy it used, and sell it afterward in essentially the same condition.
Not to mention, of course, that people tend not to design improvements for things they've only read about in patent applications. They mostly enhance what they already have access to.
Patents are unjust to the core, and always have been. Inherent to the concept of the patent is the application of physical coercion via the law to punish someone for using what knowledge they have, whether independently discovered, taught, or leaved through reverse-engineering. So far as I am concerned, the use of physical coercion for any cause short of a response to deliberate harm is clearly wrong, however noble the intent.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
They have one major advantage to tap water: they are often available in places where you can't get tap water. If I'm rushing for a train, I can hop into a shop, grab a bottle of water and get on the train. Sadly, my local friendly city authorities have decided that publicly usable taps == evil socialist communism.
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Have you ever actually been part of a company with something you think is unique and valuable and are trying to protect from reverse engineering?
A much bigger concern than a competitor buying your unit directly is one of your legitimate customers being on friendly terms with a competitor and giving them access to borrow the device for a weekend or send some engineers by to prod at it. If you're intending to be in the $FOO industry, you'd best have a network of contacts there, after all, or how would you expect to sell your device or get customer feedback even if you built it?
Yes, and no. Every production document that I've ever handled says "confidential" on it. We're not supposed to take pictures at work. There are a lot of "secrets" involved in our production. But - our items are sold across the nation - actually around the world. China actually produces some of our stuff, other things have been produced there, and pulled from there, back to the states. Other items have been produced in Europe, before being sent to us for production.
Whatever "trade secrets" we have, have been passed around like the most popular girl in slut school. Not very "secret" at all, really.
As for reverse engineering our stuff - anyone with a good camera and CAD setup could do it. The most expensive part of the job would be producing the molds, with which to produce the various parts we make. Assembly is nothing, of course - the market is flooded with semi-skilled labor.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br