Slashdot Mirror
Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need For Software Patents
imamac sends this quote from a Reuters report:
"The U.S. judge who tossed out one of the biggest court cases in Apple's smartphone technology battle is questioning whether patents should cover software or most other industries at all. ... Posner said some industries, like pharmaceuticals, had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug. Advances in software and other industries cost much less, he said, and the companies benefit tremendously from being first in the market with gadgets — a benefit they would still get if there were no software patents. 'It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries,' he said. Also, devices like smartphones have thousands of component features, and they all receive legal protection. 'You just have this proliferation of patents,' Posner said. 'It's a problem.' ... The Apple/Motorola case did not land in front of Posner by accident. He volunteered to oversee it."
Johanna Blakley's TED talk
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Why does it need one veteran specialist to see that broken is broken? Everybody else still considers the courts to be, well, like tennis courts. A game is played according to arbitrary rules, and the best specialists win.
What do we need engineers for? The courtrooms are where it is decided who is innovating.
I'm aghast at what this judge is suggesting.
But similarly, any such finding will not be allowed to stand as everyone in IT (IBM, HP, Oracle, etc) has big money wrapped up in patent applications for software.
And that's not to forget all of the engineers that work at said companies that receive a bonus for each patent they successfully lodge.
On one hand, I agree with him. On the other, we have a judge who volunteered apparently just to make a stand in this case. How long before "receptive" judges start volunteering to argue for the other side...
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
This guy, Richard Posner, is my new hero.
Unfortunately, I don't see the current state of affairs changing anytime soon. There are too many people invested in the current system, and campaigning on a platform of IP reform isn't likely to gain much traction with the public at large, at least not without a LOT more *AA lawsuits. I'm sure the *AA realizes this and keeps its lawsuits fairly discreet and under the public's pain threshold, while they work on conditioning people that copying is theft.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Now if only more judges could see the light of day with how much this is hindering innovation. Next on the list is the absurd patents on math equations like what eharmony was granted.
patents, but what about a compromise? What if software patents and electronic patents were only valid for like 2 years, that in the computer world is more than enough time for you to recover your research money without hampering the development of future tech. I would prefer none but I think this would be a fair compromise.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A judge should check whether someone acts within the limits set by the law. A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Still, I agree that our patent system is over-used, and it seems that it often inhibits innovation instead of facilitate it.
The patent office should be manned by qualified(?) staff, who can deny such use less patents. Stone-age man knew to swill the bar to bolt the door.
As a software programmer, if I write an amazing piece of software that nobody has seen before and some big company comes and makes a totally ripped off clone, I'd be pissed and that'd be unfair. So yes, we need software patents but they better be so broad that I don't gain a monopoly on anything moderately simplistic. I mean if I'm the first person to write a library that can transcode an MP3 into one with no background noise automatically without a "silent" sample like audacity needs, good for me but I shouldn't have a monopoly on it because it's so common and similar to existing technology. If I make a software program to take an MP3 and translate it into a delicious dessert recipe, now we've got something. That'd be really unique software using brand new, innovative AI code that's never been seen before. Someone better not rip that off! I think a simple search for "remotely similar prior art" would be sufficient.
Judges should stick to judging, and leave legislating to legislatures. Software patents may be a bad idea, and the modern patent system may be detrimental to innovation, but that is not the concern of judges. Judges are supposed to decide based on legality, they are not supposed to decide the sensibility. The Constitution clearly gives the government the power to issue patents. So it is up to Congress to fix this, and that won't happen until enough voters care.
this judge is visited by patent specialist Moe "the fleshripper" Simms to explain the industries position?
Why should breaking up Big Pharma mean no funding the way it currently happens?
Where do you get the idea that new methods of funding will be required to be discovered if we break up big pharma?
Its starting to sound like Posner had a specific agenda. After all, he volunteered for this one. It would seem that instead of being a judge and enforcing or enacting the law, he used this as his proverbial soapbox and to make a point. I can't wait for Apple to realize this (they probably already have) and appeal for a new trial to go forward thanks to Posner expressing his opinions, etc. The fact is, Posner doesn't make the laws; he interprets and applies them. By volunteering for the case, then shooting it down, then talking about his discontent with technological patents, he's made it pretty clear he has an agenda.
had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug.
Yeah, too bad Bayer doesn't make any money at all on acetyl salicylic acid because it hasn't been patent protected for many, many years. What the hell is this argument for drug companies? It becomes hardER to earn a profit once the patent expires, but it's certainly not impossible to do so. You would think that monopoly is the only way to make money, according to them. No, monopoly gets you the $50 pill and the $500 vaccine.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If you RTFA, you'll realise this is not just about software patents. He's going so far as to suggest that patents are suitable for certain industries (e.g. Pharmaceuticals) where the investment to create the products is immense. Software is one of those industries where patents hold back innovation. Software is more about execution.
The problem isn't patents per se. The problem is idiocy in the patent office in collusion with big corporations.
Somebody is going to invent good robots for the house someday. Somebody is going to invent real artificial intelligence. There's a lot of work jamming forward ever more-efficient high speed 3D algorithms and routing algorithms. People are working on robot cars.
These things can and should have protection.
Here's a good rule: If it's just a simulation of something that already exists, and the mechanism is known (note that the I of AI is not yet known) it's not patentable (unless said thing is still under patent, in which case that guy owns it.) This isn't to say that particularly clever implementations couldn't also be patented.
Just thinking, "Hey! We could simulate this -- patent!" just doesn't cut it. And the standard seems much weaker than even that.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Actually he is doing what a Judge should do, he is examining whether software should fall under patent law. This examination and interpretation is under the purview of the judicial branch.
In his defense, if a lot of these patents seem overly obvious (slide to unlock on a TOUCH device? c'mon...) then he should be throwing these lawsuits out.
-SaNo
The judge is not publicly trying to change anything, unless you can show evidence to the contrary. He is merely giving his higly qualified opinion, which as a judge, he's not only entitled to do, but encouraged to do so.
Maybe your just taking your nym to literally... LOL
Some of the sitting supreme court justices have implied they aren't sure Software patents are valid either.
Personally, I think it would be best for both sides if someone took this issue to the Supreme court and got it decided. I have my own opinion of what they should decide, but either way everyone would be better off without the uncertainty.
I have considered getting a patent on some software I have written only once. The program was a music management software somewhat similar to iTunes. It had a unique technology built into it which I still haven't seen in any other program.
I would be perfectly happy with others using the idea and expanding upon it. I feel that software, like ideas, should be free to be copied and evolve naturally. However my concern was that some company would copy the technology, patent it as their own, and turn around and sue me for having infringed on their patent.
I would guess that much of the software patenting going on is for reasons such as this, just to cover your own ass.
A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Huh? A judge should totally try and change the laws, just like any other citizen should. No, he shouldn't do it in the context of his job, but this doesn't appear to be the case. He's not denying the validity of patents in the cases that come before him, but in his office, when he's not behind the bench, he's offering critical opinion of existing law based on his experience as a judge. More power to him! Wish there were more doing the same.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
A judge should check whether someone acts within the limits set by the law. A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Were there laws written specific to allow software patents, or did some judge decide at some point that patent laws applied to software design? If it was decided in a prior case, what is the judge's obligation to follow precedent in this case?
A lot of US law is, in fact, set in precedent in courts. There is a protocol for when judges are supposed to follow precedents, but even so, they can find a way to challenge it if they need to. The real test is whether their challenge will stand up on appeal.
Common law much?
[FUCK BETA]
By the definition of patents, software should be un-patentable.
Math is not patent-able. Math is intrinsic, part of the world and nature around us. We do not invent math, we merely discover it.
Programs can be converted into Lambda Calculus.
Lambda Calculus is math.
Programs are math.
Programs are un-patentable. QED.
Copyright is plenty enough.
"My personal opinion is that algorithms are like mathematics, i.e. inherently non-patentable. It worries me that most patents are about simple ideas that I would expect my students to develop them as part of their homework." - DONALD FUCKING KNUTH
If you think you know more about Computer Science than Donald Knuth, you're wrong.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
Good for the judge. AFAIC all patents and copyrights must be abolished, the less government intervention in the economy the healthier the economy is. Today government is involved in every aspect of economy and we can see the outcomes.
You can't handle the truth.
Several have lambasted the judge for making the statement that he doesn't believe that software patents are necessary, saying that he should confine himself to making judgements on matters of law. However, it's important that a judge make such statements if he observes in the execution of his duties that the application of the law and precedent is not serving the purpose for which it was enacted, or is adversely affecting the court's ability to perform its duty (e.g., something precipitates a flood of lengthy but pointless lawsuits that clog the courts and defer hearing of more substantive cases).
It's precisely this feedback which should be informing legislators and prosecutors on how to reform legislation and prioritize enforcement efforts.
In the case of software patents, there's quite a bit of legal, historical, and practical arguments as to why software patents should not exist (at least in the form that device patents do), but there's been very little formal challenge to the idea, and the USPTO and the courts are substantially and adversely impacted by it (not to mention the industry).
If you put it like that, you have a good point (sorry, can't mod you up).
I read it as if the judge proposed to change the law so that software no longer falls under the patent law.
I read the article again, and it's still not clear to me which of the two is the case here.
And if a judge wants to consider that several patents are overreaching the patent law, or wants to consider the interpretation of the law, he can.
You don't know the first thing about the law system, don't go telling judges what to do. Seriously.
IANAL, and neither are you. Come back when you get a law degree, and then tell me what judges can and can't do.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
If you had copyright you'd be stuffed: they'd lock you in court until you were bankrupt. If you had patents, you'd be found in violation of 1000s of theirs.
And why are these companies going around "nicking" your ideas anyway? Don't they employ people to do that?
For any patent to be granted a list of expenses in developing the patent is also submitted. Then they have patent protection for 10x the expenses in revenue. They will submit an annual report, and any kind of falsification will have the patent terminated. The people who want to use the patent for free will verify the reports to find any falsification. For devices that integrate multiple patents they are allowed to be summed accordingly on a prorated basis.
This way, there is still incentive to do the R&D, because you'll be able to get multiples of your investment back. But the world gets your patents potentially sooner. If you want to delay the world from getting your patents, then set your prices very low, so ti take a long time to recover them, . Or set your prices high and move onto the next thing. This way everyone wins. They either get really cheap inventions or the patent protection runs out fast. It's a great balance.
This not only fixes drug patents but software patents too, as most software patents would only costs thousands to develop and would get paid 10x back in a very short time.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
A judge should check whether someone acts within the limits set by the law. A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws, just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
Still, I agree that our patent system is over-used, and it seems that it often inhibits innovation instead of facilitate it.
Yes, this is exactly right. In this particular case, Judge Posner repeated ignored both the law and legal precedence to make his rulings. In many of those rulings, he stated that the Federal Circuit was wrong, was stupid, etc.
First of all, the Federal Circuit was created specifically to have appellate jurisdiction over things like intellectual property cases in the United States and has been around for 30 years as well. Second, this is the first software patent case Judge Posner has ever seen. Third and perhaps most important, if either Apple or Motorola/Google appeal any of the rulings in the case, the appeals will be heard by the Federal Circuit! That's right, the Federal Circuit will have to decide whether the Federal Circuit is stupid and wrong.
This case would have been done last month and will now drag on for years. It will waste taxpayer money and it will waste Apple/Motorola/Google money.
Nice job, Judge Posner.
.... closer!!!
There are some things you cannot patent: Physical Phenomenon, Natural Law, Abstract ideas. And of these also mathematical algorithms. ..... is himself made up of the ship and crew. Interesting how the Oracle and Morpheus were the only survivors from the original considering what the represent in the world of abstraction. Simply put, it is we who create our world of abstractions that constrain what the users of that world can do..... out of all that is possible. see concept #3 http://threeseas.net/vicprint/vic-concepts.html
All these are what software is of and then there is the identified physics of abstraction: http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php
It even inspired a known movie trilogy "The Matrix" http://threeseas.net/vicprint/VIC-basic.html only you can't kill off the crew or ship in real life and of course Smith loses because he has no choice but to realize he being the second of three agents of Input, Processing and Output,
The point is: Software Patents are acts of fraud. And maybe that is a hard thing for the courts to accept, considering it was one of their's who started this mess of software patents in the U.S. In some back alley courtroom decision.
SCOTUS has been doing exactly that with Obamacare and Arizona's illegal immigrant enforcement, as well as many other laws throughout its history. State courts also do the same thing with state and county laws.
The court system cannot create law, but it can scuttle law(s) that it finds egregious or unconstitutional. Posner is well within his jurisprudence with his actions.
As for appearances of an agenda, Posner is hardly the first. I'm surprised no one has shone the spotlight on Obama appointee SCOTUS justice Elena Kagan for not recusing herself from the Obamacare case.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
when he's not behind the bench, he's offering critical opinion of existing law
Posner's critical opinions could be used by patent maximalists to show bias in an attempt to force Posner to recuse himself.
Where, for your example, is your proof of that proposition?
It isn't the task of a traffic court judge to question the law, but it sure as hell IS the responsibility of a Federal judge in Posner's possition to evaluate laws (and their effect) on their constitutional merit. What he is doing is consistent with the intent for the legal system in the country.
"I'm surprised no one has shone the spotlight on Obama appointee SCOTUS justice Elena Kagan for not recusing herself from the Obamacare case."
Or good ole worthless Clarence Thomas (whose wife lobbied professionally against the ACA), right?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Some companies (Genzyme is one example) do a lot of work in the orphan-drug area. Diseases that inflict small portions of the world population. Indeed, rare conditions.
These are often very expensive drugs, since the market is small, they often cost a patient tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for the rest of their lives. These drugs often get extra patent protections and fast-tracking to the market.
These drugs are not created by accident.
Most of what drug companies make doesn't really help people, it just has a statistically proven effect to lessen some of the symptoms of some disease. I'm not saying all medication is snake oil, but the more promotion a medicine needs, the less it usually helps people or fills a niche that is not already filled by other medications. I think that most of the promotion money spent by big pharma is actually to promote medication that already has competitive products that are just as functional, or for medication that does not really cure anything important.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
This judge is realizing some of the very real problems with our patent system. Pinch me i must be sleeping. It would take alot more than 1 judge realizing there is a problem for anything to ever be done about it but this is a good step. If this judge was able to realize this, then whats wrong with all the other judges that havent?
http://interserver.net/
Normally that would be true, but if a law is being used to abuse the legal system, then it becomes the problem of the judge. Corporate warfare is not supposed to be conducted in public courts.
Personally, I think it would be best for both sides if someone took this issue to the Supreme court and got it decided.
I don't think the Supreme Court likes to issue rulings that are broader than necessary. Look at how little guidance came from Bilski .
The pharma companies are not "profiting frm others' pain." They are profiting from the alleviation of pain. They did not cause this pain (as that would be evil), and they do incur real per-unit production costs.
There is nothing evil about making money. There is nothing evil about providing a highly-desired good. There is something evil about introducing artificial scarcity into a market, and the pharma companies are *very* guilty of that, and very evil because of that. But that accusation is very different than the one you made, which frankly makes no sense at all.
Forcing people to work for free, which is what you seem to be getting at, would also be evil.
To my knowledge, Congress never passed any laws regarding software being patentable. As such, as a bunch of mathematical algorithms, they shouldn't be... but we never stopped it back in the 80s/90s when companies started filing patents on software, so here they are now.
So, literally, this would be reaffirming something that was already decided (math can't be patented).
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're under the impression that only private pharmaceuticals do anything by way of funding the drug discovery process.
Were there laws written specific to allow software patents, or did some judge decide at some point that patent laws applied to software design? If it was decided in a prior case, what is the judge's obligation to follow precedent in this case?
It was a conspiracy of unforeseen consequences by the Courts and the Patent office.
For those who aren't in the know, Judge Richard Posner is one of the most well-respected and prestigious judges/academics in the country. A leading academic in the Law & Economics movement, a lecturer at one of the top universities in the country (Chicago), a very important and influential judge at one of the most important courts in the US (Seventh Circuit), widely published, even more widely cited. He has the rare gift of being brilliant and a talented writer.
When he opines, people tend to listen.
Did Elena Kagan write "Obamacare"?
Was her only conflict of interest having been appointed by the same guy who was president when it passed?
That isn't even remotely a conflict of interest and nothing even remotely sufficient to even hint at recusing for.
Stop drinking the koolaid.
In the US system, you don't stop being a citizen when you become a judge.
Clearly, judges should not adjudicate cases based on their preferred policy outcomes in place of the laws in force, but it makes no sense to argue that judges shouldn't publicly advocate for changes to the law.
A judge publicly advocating for a change in the law isn't analogous to a politician intefering in the operation of a legal case to produce a conviction. Its more the legislative analog of an elected legislator filing a civil lawsuit for damages in a court -- its someone who has an official position in one branch of government relating to another branch of government in exactly the way every citizen is entitled to under the law.
Ok, let's get the exceptions out of the way first: Manhattan Project. Apollo. Maybe a couple of others.
The government can, in rare circumstances, put together a creative team and get the hell out of the way. It works, briefly. However, in the end, the bureaucracy eats the soul of the scientist. Look at what happened to NASA: It is now many times the size it was in the 1960s, and is completely incapable of replicating its own successes of 40 years ago.
Imagine the government doing pharmaceutical research. Maybe it would start off well, but within a few years all you will have is yet another monstrous bureaucracy filled with mediocre scientists.
Maybe the profit motive looks ugly to you, but it's the best tool we have. If you will forgive me for borrowing from Winston Churchill: Capitalism is probably the worst way to run a society, except for all the others that have been tried.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
that's really not for the judge to decide. That's what Congress is for. STFU Mr. Judge and do your judicial branch work.
Show me the patent that a farmer has on tomatoes, potatoes, corn, or any other food. Maybe Monsanto has patents on seeds, but food itself is not patented and anyone can grow it.
Drugs are not the same. Patents are used to prevent competition that would allow the free market to set the price for drugs at a level where there are people who can no longer afford the drug.
:(){
You seem to misunderstand what people like me mean when we say "profiting from others pain" - while your pain is relieved, the profit premium can make drugs unaffordable to some others. If you could afford the drug without profit, but cannot afford it with profit, then Big Pharma is profiting from your pain.
Consider the case in India regarding a compulsory license for a kidney and liver cancer drug.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/02424818071/putting-lives-before-patents-india-says-pricey-patented-cancer-drug-can-be-copied.shtml
"For the first time since re-instating patents on pharmaceuticals, India has granted just such a compulsory license, covering a kidney and liver cancer drug marketed under the name Nexavar. Indian generic drug company Natco requested a license, noting that Nexavar was in short supply in India and exceptionally expensive. A typical dosage costs around $70,000 per year in India -- something Bayer says is necessary to recoup the drug's R&D costs. However, reports show that it cost less than $300 million to develop this drug (not to mention that the US government subsidized the process) and Bayer has already made billions selling the drug around the world."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/03175119032/generics-drive-down-drug-prices-india-tpp-trying-to-stop-that.shtml
"Cipla, another Indian manufacturer of generics, has announced that it too is coming out with a version of Nexavar, pricing it at $125 for 120 tablets. That's even cheaper than Natco's price of $163, to say nothing of Bayer's $5,128 for the same course."
5128 / 125 = 41.024. That means that Bayer was charging over 41 times as much for a drug that had already recouped all development costs multiple times over.
Tell me with a straight face that Bayer is not trying to profit from kidney and liver cancer at the expense of treating people who are sick.
:(){
... but it's a policy problem that should be solved be the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial branch.
Generic drugs are almost always cheaper than name brands. Drop the patents, let the NIH and NSF fund drug research (and drop the war on drugs crap too -- let researchers have the freedom to research drugs without having to worry about political correctness or right-wing drug policies), and let pharmaceutical companies produce the drugs that researchers discover in a competitive market. It is not that markets have no place at all here, it is that research should not be market-driven.
Palm trees and 8
Ok maybe going little overboard, but if not president how about the head of the Patent office!
Every intellectual aspirant that encounters an idea, or physical manifestation of it, should do everything in their power to deconstruct, learn, and communicate their understanding to everyone they possibly can.
Intellectual property claims seem like objections to high-resolution communication. You might have thought of it first, you might have understood it first, and the universe thanks you for that. If you think your ego and sense of entitlement will deny humanity, you are wrong.
If people read Euclid, Tesla, Marconi, or da Vinci and believe, as a result of understanding, they own the ideas, I think they are mistaken. You might own them until the moment they spill forth from your mental ether. Once your ideas leave your mind, entering the world, they become property of the universe.
Wireless Technology: "Marconi was on to something.... but if I encase the antenna in plastic... patent!"
"Well if I add a second antenna... patent!"
Writing: "I learned a language. If I order the words they have emotional resonance, but I must not let others grasp this without paying me! Copyright!"
Every person interested in knowledge should copy, internalize, and synthesize every word, sentence, equation, and conception they possibly can and use them all to construct new creations. Advance humanity, not your bank account. If you object to humans communicating all ideas they encounter, you are a blight upon us.
If you claim to be Christian and you "own" a copyrighted bible, I don't believe you understood a single word. Share EVERYTHING.
Humans 1:1 Don't share, horde. (copyright, trademark, patent) ... (Everyone died from poisoning, disease, and pollution because they horded their ideas, hampering their power to overcome their problems)
Humans 1:2 Cash is King! Praise Dollars!
Humans 1:3 Eat dyed necrotic flesh, flavored objects, and warmed dust instead of food.
Humans 1:4
There's your bible.
c tm $ - There's your mark of the beast, the religious symbols solidly fixed in the mind of every wrong-hearted person. Pay you for your ideas? Gladly, that's all the reward you shall ever have. If you believe the meaning of life is to die with the most horded ideas, gold-lined possessions, and least contributions to the world, I have confidence you will achieve all your measures of success.
"But... I give much to charity!"
You throw slivers of dead trees at the needy but horde the things in life you find most valuable. You think that is generosity? If the money you gather seems so meaningless you can give it away, then your gesture is equally meaningless.
You can distribute money with barely a thought. $700b given to GM as easily as throwing a penny in a well, and humanity gained nothing for it. How much food would $700b worth of greenhouses produce? Sharing knowledge takes effort, patience, and wisdom. Teaching one person the periodic table of elements rewards humanity far more than giving away one quadrillion dollars. What would you do with a quadrillion dollars? Feed the hungry? With what food to buy if no one knows how to grow it? (Monsanto - We Copyrighted Plants)
You were told to teach people to fish, not to buy them fish, but you do neither. Instead, you learned how to fish and warned others away from the ocean, claiming ownership of fishing and the sea. And when you die and drop your rod, the next person picks it up and acts as you acted, threatening all others away from the sea. You created a cycle of greed, now that may become your only legacy.
The universe will let humans HAVE everything, but you may not OWN any of it. You want flying cars? Share the knowledge that will lead to them. Teleporters? Space ships? Cures for all diseases? Share the knowledge! You want to have those things without sharing them? TOO BAD. Nothing for you then, die alone in the universe with your rusted pipes, crumbling structures, and toxic water. If you want another planet, restore and care for the one you have. Until you figure out how to fix Earth, the closest you'll ever get to having another planet is to marvel at the scant samples of rocks and dust you scoop from them.
The Doctor
Tim, I love ya, guy. Someday I truly hope to understand what you mean.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The cost of checking a drug against a target enzyme was $.10, and they expected that to fall by another factor of 10 in the near future. A panel of chemicals so tested is 30K -> 100K, so the lab costs for the initial screen are $3K to $10K. True, it starts getting expensive when you do the tests of the selected dozen or so drugs in tissue cultures, animals. But comparing it to software, hardware or system development, there is no serious expense until Clinical Trails. That is a series of hoops concocted by the FDA to 'ensure drug safety'. OF course, it does no such thing, and also the huge costs mean that the FDA and drug companies are corrupted, as shown by the Merck Vioxx scandal ( an extra 100K deaths / year for 5 years, where was the CDC which detects every increase in flu deaths in every city?) and another 3 or so of those that I know of. The side-effect of a lot of laws, rules, regulations is corruption, of course. We had a perfectly adequate testing approach 'in the old days'. The first people who received the drug were those with the most to gain (fatal disease), and the least to lose (fatal disease, near eol). If it was effective and didn't have serious side-effects, then the MDs began using it on less ill patients. That system could be much more effective given the internet, databases and web interfaces.
are you fucking nuts?
These people forget that they are not lawmakers they are judges their job is to make judgements based on LAWS not feeling. Any judgement he makes for cases of patents he must excuse himself he is biased. He has a complaint write a congressman just like we have to do.
Jack of all trades,master of none
your comment in the Subject line. Thank
--
you!
http://books.google.no/books?id=KgRR12F0RPAC&hl=no&source=gbs_book_other_versions
Cheers!
Keyword: hustles
Normally, I'd agree with this sentiment, but I think it's important to remember that software patents were more or less created by the judiciary not the legislature. They are not found in statute. The patent office only started granting them because they lost too many court cases telling them they had to. Algorithms are math and math is not suppose to be patentable.
I love how 1 comment can cause the article's comment to be redirected. Freaking Fox News stays more on topic that /. anymore, and I hate Fox News.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.