Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Skeptical of Computer-Based Patents
walterbyrd (182728) writes "The case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, poses huge risks for both sides. If the court upholds the patent or rules only narrowly against it without affecting most others, the problem of too many patents — and patent lawsuits — will continue. In that case, Justice Stephen Breyer said, future competition could move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer.'"
COULD move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer'?
What COULD? How about we accept the reality it's already happened?
That would spur innovation and business far more than upholding them could.
I doubt the authors of the constitution ever foresaw the risk of patent trolling.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Actually, I thought everything in our court system boiled down to "who has the best lawyer".
Proverbs 21:19
"I doubt you've looked past your own selfishness and actually seen the big picture,"
... only to have someone else like Facebook or Zynga copy it, market it, and put you out of business?"
but you also said: "Really? How many times are you going to spend years of your life creating something awesome
Now, who is selfish? The person who wants information to be free or the person who wants to be the sole profiteer?
I beg to differ. I create things all of the time and have realized that, even with a patent, I'm not rich enough to litigate it.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
I create software on a daily basis, for a variety of purposes. I've done work on some systems which have turned out to be very revolutionary and the concept of patenting them seldom came up - one employer, when I posed the question of IP, replied, "We're not an intellectual property company." Which effectively meant, it a competitor saw our system at work, copied it and patented it we'd probably be willing to pay them a license fee just to get off our backs - shocking, but probably the case.
As for Microsoft and Zynga, they're both standing on the shoulders of giants. If various methods of performing tasks within an operating system or performing collision detection and tallying scores existed, neither company would be around today - having been soundly thumped by Sperry, IBM, DEC, CDC, Activision, EA, etc.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I should add, the only people who think patents should be abolished are people who don't create anything.
It only takes a single example to reveal how untrue that statement is. To say that no authors can disagree with you is incredibly arrogant.
It's also a mere ad hominem, so it's not even logical. Even if someone doesn't "create" anything, that doesn't make their arguments wrong.
Anyone who creates has a different opinion.
Well, how nice of you to decide what everyone else thinks. I'm a software developer and 100% against patents. Am I not a "creator"? Are you going to resort to a No True Scotsman now?
but ranting around about getting rid of them just makes you look ignorant.
I rant about getting rid of them because I value real private property rights (the ability to use your own resources to accomplish some goal, which at present may infringe upon some patent) over monopolies over procedures enforced by worthless government thugs.
I should add, no human being disagrees with me. If you disagree, you're not a True Human.
[End Of Line]
Which effectively meant, it a competitor saw our system at work, copied it and patented it we'd probably be willing to pay them a license fee just to get off our backs
Prior art, surely?
You still have to hire a legal defense to plead Prior Art. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's attorney has already done enough research to tell them how much to hit you for licensing, if they don't want to outright kill you (with an injunction) but are happy to just bleed you to death, while they take the proceeds and fund more IP research to see whomever else they can bully - thus limiting competition - so they don't have to perform better service or offer a superior product. Quite contrary to the spirit of the patent clause in the Constitution, I assure you.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The biggest problem here isn't the question of software patents. It's patents on things that are obvious, or are an obvious progression from something that's already common (eg. taking the manual process of balancing a checkbook and having a computer perform the exact same steps). It's just that software is the field where it's taken root the most, I think because people treat computers as some sort of magic that transforms the ordinary into something extraordinary.
The most straightforward way to deal with it might be to take computers out of the picture. Start by asking the question "If we replaced the computer with a trained monkey who could slavishly follow instructions, would this be patentable?". If the answer is "Yes.", then the patent's valid. If the answer's "No.", then the burden should be on the patent-holder to explain why the application of a computer to this problem is so non-intuitive, so non-obvious, that someone familiar with the problem and computers would not think of letting a computer handle the chore. And "Because nobody's done it before." is not a valid response. Someone always has to be the first one to try to solve a problem. Counter-intuitively, the patent-holder should have to show that they were not the first, that doing this was so non-obvious that there's a large number of other people who knew what they were doing who tried this and could not figure it out. That the first person to try it immediately found this solution should be considered support for the idea that this was an obvious solution and thus not eligible for patent. That is, after all, almost the dictionary definition of "obvious": the first thing you think to try when faced with a problem?
I've waffled between being against them or pushing for reform; currently, I'm against them. Here's why:
1. If you're being trolled, they're bad.
2. If you're a troll, you're not creating anything other than lawsuits.
3. If you created something and are small business (don't retain an in-house lawyer or thirty), you can't afford to defend your patent anyway -- its only value is to be part of a portfolio to boost your value if you sell out to someone with lots of money (here, your invention isn't what's valued, but your patent and its war chest strength).
4. If you created something and are a big business, you have the choice of being mired in the current patent sinkhole, or competing purely on how mobile your company is -- innovation and all that, which is what patents were supposed to supprot.
So any way you look at it, the current system is bad. I'm starting to think that it has got to the point where it is almost totally detrimental.
Note that I'm talking about the patent system as it pertains to software patents, not physical inventions. THAT patent system just needs reform.
And yes, I'm a creator in many fields, and even have my name on a patent or two.
From TFA:
Translation: OOH SHINY!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Really? How many times are you going to spend years of your life creating something awesome ... only to have someone else like Facebook or Zynga copy it, market it, and put you out of business?
Why not go ask Linus Torvalds what he thinks of them doing that? You see, I'm not a dumbass. I don't work for free. Artificial scarcity is stupid. I don't buy into the copyright and patent futures market. So, I ask for the money to do my work or research or create things UP FRONT, and I ask for enough to cover the work and the profit I need for it, then I "give it away for free" since the work has been paid for. If I want more money I DO MORE WORK. This is how the free and open source model works. This is how Mechanics work too. The benefits from the mechanic's labor are unbounded. Instead of putting a coin-slot on the steering wheel so they can benefit in perpetuity from the work they do once, they recognize folks will bypass the artificial restrictions and instead negotiate a price up front and you pay for the entity of the unbounded benefit their work provides. This is a proven model. This is how the Burger Joint works. This is how every labor market works, except "ideas" and "information".
The problem is that with a patent system in place the Artificial Scarcity can be leveraged to cheat the researcher. Instead of paying a fair price for the inventor or creator's labor the corporations cherry-pick among what becomes a success. It takes the same effort to discover a success as it does to rule a solution out. Many discoveries are found in unrelated research. X-Ray radiation was discovered by accident. Without patents to create artificial scarcity of otherwise unbounded and infinitely reproducible ideas and information we'd have a more stable market where people charge what the need for their labors instead of accept less pay up front and gamble their effort in the imaginary property futures market.
What, you think demand is going to disappear if patents do? No, the demand for innovation will still exist, and it will be met. Look at the fashion and automotive industries. They are not allowed copyrights or design patents, and yet they are very lucrative and innovative and sell primarily on design. It wasn't until the 80's that software could even be patented. Oh NO! Your assumptions are shattered! Now what? You could just ignore that we made it all the way past the dawn of the personal computer before greedy dipshits like you decided artificial scarcity is somehow required for anything but stifling progress?
OK, I'll give you that I don't know exactly what will happen if we ban all patents. However, I just gave you two or three examples of markets where patents were not required for innovation. So, if you're a rational minded person, then you've got to ask yourself: Where is the evidence that patents are promoting the sciences and useful arts? Where's the evidence that patents are not harmful? Where's the evidence that patents are beneficial?! THERE IS NONE. So if you're not insane then you'd think: Hey, wouldn't it be fucked-up to run the world's economy of innovation and creativity based on an untested and unproven hypothesis?! I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume you want to end "piracy", right? OK.
Assuming you're not an absolute moron, you now agree we should do the experiment and abolish all patents and find out if patents are beneficial. What if they're holding us back needlessly? What if they're very harmful? I'm pretty sure you'd at least like to try and find SOMETHING to support your stance before continuing to believe in baseless assumptions without any evidence? RIGHT?! You don't and won't have a leg to stand on otherwise. I mean we only have evidence for the null hypothesis: Patents are not necessary for innovation or profit. Now the burden of proof is to PROVE patents are MORE beneficial than not having them. I would put it to you that copyright should
which has nothing at all to say about patents
Article One, section 8, clause 8
The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
You can challenge it with the PTO. But that has next to nothing to do with the lawsuit they bring. The judge will assume you plea is going to fail and you will have to litigate things in front of a judge or in front of a jury.