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.
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.
I'm sure from one of the many fine firms that supply patent attorneys.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
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.
They get nominated by the people you vote into office.
Kappos was vice president and assistant general counsel of intellectual property law, for IBM Corporation. (wikipedia) So he is a patent lawyer. He was nominated by the Whitehouse for the position in 2009. So he is one of Obama's Nominations.
I am all for baring lawyers from holding public office. It is a conflict of interest to put a lawyer in charge of making laws or running a government agency that has regulatory authority over anything.
china makes US patented stuff mostly on contract by US companies
Yet one could argue that China's current economic boom owes quite a bit to simply ignoring IP law. Much as the whole reason that New York City is today a major publishing center can be traced back to the 1800s and folks in the US simply ignoring IP law.
Emerging economies do best when they ignore the artificial barriers put in place by the current incumbents, not least as those barriers are often there solely to protect those incumbents. Comparing the patent-laden high-tech sector to the likely equally fast-paced yet patent-less fashion sector strongly suggests that patents and innovation are, at best, orthogonal.
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-
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.
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.
Nearly all the lawyers I know are quite unattractive. I am decidedly against baring them in public, office or no.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
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...
I'm not aware of any major countries that *lack* patent systems - even China has one, though it's remarkably friendlier toward patents from internal companies - but there are definitely a lot of countries with more *sane* patent laws which are doing just fine.
To take the smartphone example, the majority of cellular phone technology patents appear to be owned by Motorola (now Google), Samsung, HTC, Nokia, Ericsson (who manufactures phones in cooperation with Sony), and a handful of companies that just make the radios, not complete devices. Of those, only Motorola is a US company.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Yep, has quite a history with IBM I believe.
Here to save the Erf!
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.
He has a degree in law and a degree electrical and computer engineering.
He has worked with IBM both as an engineer and as a lawyer.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
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...
I am not saying they don't benefit, EVERYONE is saying they would benefit a whole lot more if the US patent system was even slighly saner. Plus, almost everyone else disallows patents of software and business methods.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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