Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Head: Current Patent Litigation Is 'Reasonable'
elashish14 writes "David Kappos, head of the USPTO, today provided a strong defense of the patent system, particularly in the mobile industry. In his address, he implored critics, 'Give the [America Invents Act] a chance to work.' He then went on to proclaim the 'absolutely breakneck pace' of innovation in the smartphone industry and that the U.S. patent system is 'the envy of the world,' though he was likely only referring to the envy of the world's lawyers. Perhaps the most laughable quote from his address: 'The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.'"
David Kappos, you have a new enemy.
of course the boss is gonna say everything is peachy...
Only someone with a vested interest would think it's working great. Seriously.
Where do they find these people?
That lack patent systems but have technology and innovation booms that have outpaced the United States? Surely they exist? Where are these booming economies that don't depend on the United States' patent system?
I mean, he gets paid either way, so it's fine, right?
David Kappos [fingers in ears], "Lalalalalalalala ... everything is fine ... lalalalalalalalala..."
Clearly determined to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
The head of the SEA agrees all current drug laws are spot on and he expects, with his multi billion dollar annual budget, to announce the complete cessation of all illegal drug taking any day now.
... another Bureaucrat defending his corporately lobbied position.
Remember folks: government officials have an interest in securing and maintaining their department's funding, not (unless they're exceptional) in making progress.
The "value" of his job is directly related to how complex the system is. Why should anyone be surprised at this? The last thing he wants is to lessen or even streamline the impact of patent law on doing business -- in terms of either monetary cost or justice itself.
The more complex, ambiguous, and exploitable the law, the more money there is to be made in administration. This applies to the bottom of the pyramid all the way up to the top.
Push your agenda in the comment section, where it belongs. The article summaries should be much more neutral.
The current patent ecosystem, at least in regards to computer technology in general, has incentivized an environment of innovative litigation schemes rather than incentivizing true product innovation. Too many businesses and lawyers making money from schemes that do not produce (and never intended to produce) tangible results other than to sue for money on white paper ideas that never saw (and never expected to see) the light of day until some other entity actually (often unknowingly) puts in the effort of true innovation while tripping over hidden patent traps.
Runesabre
Enspira Online
They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd continue to see a patent office beholden to the interests of multi-national companies... and they were right!
Meaning electrical wires attached to the testicles.
The Ars Technica piece is very slanted, pulling quotes our of context. Here's the full text of the speech itself: http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp
For instance, compare these quotes, which give a very different perspective:
"But it is equally important that patent protection be properly tailored in scope, so that programmers can write code and engineers can design devices without fear of unfounded accusations of infringement. And we know that inconsistency in software patent issuance causes uncertainty in the marketplace and can cause threats of litigation that in turn can stifle innovation and deter new market entrants."
"Software experts have long observed that programming is incremental in nature, with modest improvements not worthy of patent protection. KSR gave us the ability to recognize this valid observation and incorporate it in our examination process."
"Should we just accept the problems, given the importance of the innovation and the illogic of discriminating against great technology that happens to be implemented in software? Of course not. The right point of inquiry is quality. By getting that right, we grant patents only for great algorithmic ideas worthy of protection, and not for everything else. This administration and its innovation agency understand that low-quality patents do no good for anyone. Low quality patents lead to disputes, uncertainty, and lost opportunity. Quality is central to our mission. All of this especially for software."
"One such initiative has already begun crowdsourcing searches for software prior art. It's called Ask Patents and is an online network hosted by Stack Exchange, where software experts engage in robust discussions of possible prior art for given applications, then submit the best prior art along with helpful commentary."
"You know, the history of software patents is not a perfect one, although things are improving. Some of the most troublesome patents have expired; others can be challenged with new post-grant proceedings; and newer patents are quantifiably clearer, and aligned with current legal standards."
"For those who feel more needs to be done, we encourage you to keep reaching out to us at the USPTO, as well as to other actors who also have an important role to play. The USPTO administers the laws, while Congress and the courts write the laws and interpret them, respectively. Working together, we can find the right balance for software patents. We can find a balance that ensures market certainty, encourages investment and research and product development, and guarantees that patents issued going forward are appropriately tailored."
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us ...
Hmmm. If true, the department of war needs more lawyers. Obviously those generals could do with more innovation and other general-ly stuff. Ideally they won't need soldiers anymore, just lawyers with 'loaded' briefcases.
Somebody patent being a slimy weasel already...
There is no other comment possible here. This is derp.
Everything looks like a nail.
This guy runs the USPTO. What's he going to say? "We've really cocked things up and need to rethink our IP framework." I think not. The real incentive here is for Kappos to give the impression that what his organization is doing makes a positive difference, whether it does or not.
I'm not against IP, I'm against the *insane* IP framework that's in place in the US.
Sadly, we're not likely to see any positive change since our legislators are all firmly in the pockets of the corporations who use our incredibly unfair IP to stifle innovation and ensure fat profits.
This situation reminds me of how Ambrose Bierce, in his superior lexicon, defined an 'alliance':
I submit that this is true in domestic as well as international politics.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Come on, the idiocy of some USPTO issued patents is not a matter of opinion. If you push neutrality over facts you're gonna have a bad time-
Isn't this just another "It isn't a bug, it's a feature!"?
The litigation is going on because everything is in doubt and they are using the legal system to clarify every little detail. The patent system is being abused and the courts should be used for justice, not cleaning up the problems with the patent system.
Come on, the idiocy of some USPTO issued patents is not a matter of opinion. If you push neutrality over facts you're gonna have a bad time-
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one. Are there fundamental problems in the USPTO? Absolutely. Companies with no intention of bringing a product to market should *never* be allowed to litigate. The USPTO definitely lets too much through.
However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.
David Kappos is a failed electrical engineer who turned to law. He made his mark as IBM's IP litigation team. LITIGATION .. mmmmkay? ... and as proven, it is deigned to favor .. LITIGATION ... ...
The things he is promoting are his brainchild more or less
or to be more exact litigation that favors US based companies
He then went on to proclaim the 'absolutely breakneck pace' of innovation in the smartphone industry [...]
In that each smartphone manufacturer is using the patent system in new and innovative ways as a legal bludgeon to break each other's necks, right?
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
The patent system is an exercise in frustration, correct? You can't find anything you're looking for, and when you get sued, it's something that even having a good lawyer on your side protecting your intellectual property, chances are someone somewhere will have invented something similar to what you did so it's an exercise in futility.... What does this have the net effect of doing? Now think carefully on this, and I'll clue you in: IT creates a FREE DISTRIBUTION of your intellectual property. Is this good? I'd argue to say not only is it good. The lawyers have accomplished the impossible. How: They've ensured the continued distribution of ideas freely to other people such as yourself in ways you as a scientist, programmer, or author don't fully comprehend. And here's what's funny. The lawyers GET IT. They understand this much more than you give them credit. Beyond what you can imagine, in fact... I'd argue they are single handedly SAVING this country from themselves, because they're smart enough to take us away from this 'cyclic mindless chasing the money' and making you question - why is this happening over and over again..... Now you 'blame' the lawyers, because of your short-sightedness. I used to do the same thing, until I realized... Something that oddly enough lawyers caught on to some time ago that scientists have yet to catch on to: That reality is created by imagination, Is it any wonder we can't seem to nail down a speed of light constant? It's because we're chasing a number. Is it any wonder we can't figure out if the LHC exhibited particles that were faster than the speed of light? This one project demonstrates clearly those who dont have imagination versus those who do. So think about it this way: Had the ideas for the patents NOT been released, then chances are we'd not have the ideas(since the imagination of others link to us as suggested by quantum theory and entanglement). However, since lawyers are actively pursuing 'releasing' of all 'intellectual property', smartly I might add, the ideas are 'accelerating at a rapid pace'... Think about the ideas of being a byproduct of life. Not a byproduct of your wonderful imagination.... So when someone says "'The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.'" Is it incomprehensible for you to consider, these lawyers are freeing your minds? ... a Morpheus like hmmm.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kappos
Only reason he likes the patent system, imo.
Be seeing you...
He's just making sure he has a job tomorrow ... and for years to come ...
no comment
He's obviously tired of hearing how broken, abused and utterly bukkake'd the patent system is yet he has no intention of fixing any of it. Sounds to me like a guy who's making lots of money off keeping it broken.
I love these quotes:
"The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation,"
The job thing....
"supported the jobs of 40 million American workers, or 27.7 percent of all US jobs."
Really? Which world?
"Our patent system is the envy of the world,"
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one.
There is some evidence to suggest that any monopoly privilege grant, such as patents, will be expanded with time. The benefits to owning monopoly privileges are concentrated amongst the few owners, while the costs of being excluded are diffuse amongst the population at large. Under those conditions, the political incentive will be to expand monopoly rights, regardless of the current state of those rights. The reason is that it pays the benefactors to lobby congress, whereas it's a net loss to individuals to do so, even when they win.
Although it's in a different area, copyrights instead of patents, no doubt this explains why the copyright expiration has been repeatedly extended.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Really, these comments aren't any wilder than the WSJ's story yesterday about Congress wanting to investigate 'patent trolls' as anticompetitive. I'm shocked, shocked that a government-granted monopoly isn't pro-competitive. I can hardly imagine the rage of our good representatives were they to find out, after holding a bunch of hearings, that monopolies don't promote competition.
Now we know where the trouble in the patent system is coming from. A fish rots from the head.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Hmm. Hadn't realized that there were quite that many lawyers in the US.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
and graft does not prepare the US for an increase in innovation, it demonstrates to the world our deep level of corruption.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
circular rotating device used to set the temperature. Yes, a KNOB.
Is Obama better for us where the USPTO is concerned, our would Romney have been better?
What an asshole.
The America we knew and loved is dead...
Fascism has gripped it. And it's all about government/corporate interest, and welcome to the new feudalism.
At these people who enforce software patents, or the ones that think they are "reasonable". Because the reality of the situation is people like David have never had one ounce of original creativity pour through their cold blooded greedy savage veins in their entire life. People like David are left brained indoctrinated types that have shut down their right brain in favor of the memorization of laws and information. That's right, David Kappos and all the others like him, have never fathomed an original creative thought in their life. People and those like him lack a gene, perhaps in our unidentifiable junk DNA that makes them incapable of drawing from the amazing creativity of the life force of the universe to produce original concepts or ideas. The result of this is jealousy and control. You may think I'm flaming or trolling, but this is exactly how and why thing are the way they are. They Mega-rich and their paid off lawyers in government and business are extremely jealous and protective of their precious software concepts, so anyone who tries to out-do them or one up them, they attempt to silence and shut down. If you don't get silenced or shut down, you get bought up by them just so your creativity and possibility never exceeds their liking. It's one big fucking cabal and those out there who have the creativity of the univerise in them reading this, do not sell out so easily, and do not limit your potential.
Software patents are not the devil. "Obvious" software patents are.
However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.
I am a scientist. I use logic and reason to make up my mind. You clearly do not. You believe patents are still needed. I do not. Let us test your hypothesis, that they are still needed? If you are rational you will realize that the only thing to do now is run the experiment. Yes? So, let's abolish the patents and see if they're needed. You have no supporting evidence for your claim that they are needed otherwise. I mean, the Information Age happened, and is rocking the world's economies. Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate either way, no?
Let me put it to you this way: The fashion industry is very innovative. Automotive designs are very innovative too. However, did you know that neither the fashion industry or automotive industries are allowed design patents? I now have a very strong data point in my favor for the assertion that patents are not required at all. Now it's your turn... Oh, that's right, you're not a scientist. You don't want to run the experiment. You'd rather us continue running the world on via your hypotheses.
No rational being would agree to be ruled in such a way...
They need to do away with the let's sit back and wait until company A makes billions off the product before suing. Let's setup a scenario where company B holds a patient for a something WiFi related and they learned company A released a product that infringes on their patient. Company B should start the infringement paperwork no later than x months from the time it first found out.
www.moonnext.com
Looks like their pay has just been upped, and it ain't coming from their standard paycheck....
While there may be two sides to every story, I do not believe that they should be presented equally. I would expect someone who insists that the time is a cube to be laughed out of any rational discussion. Equally, I would expect someone who insists that our patent system is the "envy of the world" and that increasing the prevalence of lawsuits are evidence of a well-functioning patent system to be laughed at.
Lets take out a patent on a new patent system with a new patent office and head.
I had a long talk one day with a person that spent a lot of poor years working on solar power solutions. By the time it started to take off, he had several important patents. He found GE using hardware covered under several of his patents and called them on it.
They said "sue us".
He of course said "with what money".
The patent system is useless to the average US citizen. It is the domain of rich corporations for sticking their tongues out at each other and making a circus of the courts.
2 sides? Everyone has an opinion on any story he knows. Try 1000s of sides. Are they all equally relevant/probable? Hell no.
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." That's what was said. Just like the phrase "Bring it on!" And in reality, its not just the incompetence of Brownie, but the one proclaiming Brownies success that are the real issue. In this case, the current US patent system can best be summed up in one word: CLUSTERFUCK!. Its a system where litigation has replaced innovation. Not what the patent system was supposed to do, but where we are. And its idiots in charge like the guy who said its fine, who are part of the problem. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"
Ya, annoys me too. Slashdot isn't the worst, but for as long as it's been around, you would hope editors would clean it up before putting things up on the front page. (they already do clean a lot of stuff up).
To be fair though, if he changes "laughable" to "Interesting", I think it's fine. The thing about the lawyers didn't seem too bad. Lawyer jokes are pretty standard fair even at reputable news sites.
Trade secrets?
Of course scientists will still publish their work, but I would imagine that the publication system might change a bit.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
They must take the most amazing hallucinogens at the Patent Office! I've met drunks at the end of a 2 week binge who have a FAR better grasp of reality than this idiot does!
'The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.'
Should read:
'The exploitation of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for greed.'
Is this really the best we can do? If you have a financial and career interest in some topic then that fact renders you literally incapable of processing reality in any meaningful way. He's not too stupid to understand the issue, but the fact that his department makes money off of a broken system, and the bigger the department the bigger the paycheck of the guy who heads it, is all that matters. It's disgusting, sure but even more, it's depressing. One snort of the money and power coke up their noses and everything else goes right out the window.
evidently David Kappos is a few eggs short of a dozen! Anyone who thinks continuous litigation lawsuits foster innovation is either stupid or a US lawyer making mountains of money :)
The U.S. ignored virtually all foreign copyrights and trademarks until it became in our best interests for other countries to honor ours.
Such is the way of development. One protects ones own and diminishes others until one is a large player that suddenly doesn't want ot be diminished by others.
Business and Economy are war, and all is fair in love and war.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
"David Kappos, head of the USPTO, today provided a strong defense of the patent system, particularly in the mobile industry. In his address, he implored critics, 'Give the [America Invents Act] a chance to work.' He then went on to proclaim the 'absolutely breakneck pace' of innovation in the smartphone industry and that the U.S. patent system is 'the envy of the world,' though he was likely only referring to the envy of the world's lawyers. Perhaps the most laughable quote from his address: 'The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.'"
See people, this is what happens when you legalize Marijuana.
I was at the CAP event this morning, and I wouldn't say the Ars story is that slanted. Did Kappos say that there is absolutely no improvement to be made to the US patent system? No. Are there some positive things going on at the patent office? Yes. However, he frankly came off as a total hack. Here is why:
He led off with a statistic about how "IP intensive industries" account for 40 million jobs, and 35% of GDP. Even if you accept the methodology behind those numbers, the vast majority of the jobs and GDP come from trademark intensive industries (e.g., retail) rather than patent intensive industries (or copyright). I called him on this in the Q&A, and he gave a politician's response (e.g., a non-answer).
He kept mentioning how "critics" don't have the "facts" but failed to even once suggest why high-profile innovative companies like Google are critical of software patents.
He claims that "Our founding fathers enshrined patent rights in our Constitution, an affirmative right here, that in other countries is only issued grudgingly. It’s one of the few, if not only, clauses in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to create personal property." This is inaccurate. The Constitution mentions that Congress has the power to secure to inventors their discoveries for limited times. It does not say that this must be done through patents, and it certainly does not analogize whatever method Congress chooses to property.
He claimed that "our IP system is the envy of the world." Well, I've actually talked to European Commission officials about what they think of our patent system, and they don't share his view. Actually, much of the world doesn't want our ultra-strong IP laws. Maybe he meant to say our "economy" is the envy of the world (although that's also a hard sell). He also seemed to think that our system was best because it was strongest... shockingly, I think there are a lot of people who don't think that strongest = best, yet he doesn't address this.
Essentially the bulk of his logic boils down to a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy: The U.S. has software patents, the U.S. has software innovation, therefore the software innovation must come from the software patents. This is logically false, and I would also argue empirically false.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
David Kappos: "ka-ching... everything is fine ... ka-ching ka-ching..."
"If fleas could speak, you could hear them talking to each other about how beneficial they are to dogs."
(I recently picked that one somewhere on the Web)
When someone says that a system like this is reasonable they've obviously lost all sense of reason.
Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one.
There is some evidence to suggest that any monopoly privilege grant, such as patents, will be expanded with time. The benefits to owning monopoly privileges are concentrated amongst the few owners, while the costs of being excluded are diffuse amongst the population at large. Under those conditions, the political incentive will be to expand monopoly rights, regardless of the current state of those rights. The reason is that it pays the benefactors to lobby congress, whereas it's a net loss to individuals to do so, even when they win.
Although it's in a different area, copyrights instead of patents, no doubt this explains why the copyright expiration has been repeatedly extended.
On the contrary, while your analysis is correct with regard to copyright (few owners with $$$ to lobby congress vs. population at large with little political pressure), it's incorrect with regard to patents. With copyright, the copyright owners have a strong interest in protecting (and extending) their rights on their own works - hence the RIAA and MPAA lobbying for ever longer terms. They don't care about seizing each other's works, however... Disney has more interest in making Cars 4: The Search for more Oil than they do in making Scream 8. Sony Records has its own artists and doesn't need to copy BMG's stuff. They all care about piracy however, so they're united in - and able to throw all of their money to - extending copyright.
This doesn't apply to patents... Apple may want to extend its own patent rights, but they have just as much interest, if not more, in having IBM and Microsoft and Samsung and HP's patents fall into the public domain. Same for all of the others. So, it's not [few owners] vs. [public], but [owner] vs. [owner] vs. [owner], etc. As a result, there's no unified push to extend patent terms, and there never has been.
There's a slight tweak to this, which is pharma - there, there's a huge push by pharma companies to extend patent term... But there's also a huge push by generic manufacturers to shrink patent term. The money comes out pretty equally, so neither can effectively lobby congress for an increase.
In summary, while you're right regarding the pressures for extending copyright term, this analysis simply doesn't apply to patents, where the rights owners are not unified with a common interest.
who really pays his salary.
For software patents the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy doesn't even apply, since monumental software innovation came before the court decisions that authorized software patents.