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.
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
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.
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.
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-
I put "IP" in quotes. This is because these items are not property. It abuses the word property. Only one person can own a piece of property and billions can have the same idea. It's the wrong term to use for these items. There needs another term coined.
The whole thing needs to be rethought. Throw out the term "Intellectual Property" and go back to the constitutional reasoning behind why it was created in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kappos
Only reason he likes the patent system, imo.
Be seeing you...
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.