In some respects, $6 million now buys a lot more than in the mid 1970s. For computer technology, $6 million today could be used to purchase the computing power of a million mainframes from the 1970s. Some things are available now that would cost infinity dollars in the mid 1970s, like the cures for some diseases, or drugs to keep certain diseases in remission (e.g., AIDS, etc). We have the DNA sequences for humans and other species. Anyone can buy a cellular phone; it's easy to forget what a miracle it is. And then there's the Internet! Sure, all of those things cost a lot to develop, but any consumer can now pay a tiny fraction of $6 million and have god-like power compared to the people in the mid 1970s. My computer can emulate 1000 Atari 2600s simultaneously. Could any supercomputer in the world in 1975 compete with the average computer sold to the consumer today? I mean, one can get a 2.6 GHz quad-core CPU and 8 GB of RAM for just a few hundred dollars!
Meanwhile, labor costs have increased dramatically. George Lucas said he couldn't have afforded to make the original Star Wars if he had started production a decade or two later; the labor costs in the film industry increased dramatically over the years. Likewise, the cost of getting a college education made an exponential increase in the 1990s. Medical care is another field with high labor costs.
So, it seems like the PARTS for the Six Million Dollar Man might only cost tens of thousands of dollars, but the LABOR might easily run in to the millions. Heck, it's easy for an ordinary guy to get charged $250K for basic surgery; imagine the costs of replacing sensory organs and limbs with bionics... Hopefully those costs will come down as more medical devices are produced.
I love your proposed definition (expressed as a test). However, I think it would be cool to replace "a bunch" by "an indefinite number". Also, I think it would be cool to replace "a telephone" by "telephones". Finally, I think it would be good to add the phrase "in an indefinite amount of time". Thus:
"If the patent's objective could be accomplished by an indefinite number of people in a room using pencils, paper, and telephones, in an indefinite amount of time, it may not be patented."
Undoubtedly this goes beyond the "reasonable" cases you were imagining -- cases that the common person would recognize as business processes. I'm just thinking it would be cool to expand the definition a little bit so that computing processes (software patents) would be included, too. The people in a room could do any software process -- although it would require a whole continent of people, and a whole lot of telephones, to make some calculations proceed at anywhere near "real time". I just wish software patents could be eliminated as a side effect of eliminating business process patents...
What would be REALLY cool is if this same definition would clobber COPYRIGHT, too! Replace "pencils, paper," with "computers", and the people in the room would be able to produce music, video, and games. (Putting computers in the room makes it easier to cover the "software patents" case, too.) Books, articles, and other forms of writing would have already been covered by the "pencils, paper," case.
You were probably aiming for a practical definition of a business process -- i.e., something that might actually be executed by a bunch of people in a room, with pencils, paper, and a telephone, in a practical (i.e., cost-effective/profitable) manner. But I fantasized about how your definition could be expanded slightly to totally obliterate software patents and copyright...
I hope the system becomes clogged to the point where a new patent application made, say, next year, would theoretically be granted at a time just beyond the time of the anticipated singularity!
Like copyright, patents hold back innovation. Those protections need to be abolished. It's impossible for an intelligent person to create anything new anymore without unwittingly re-inventing the things covered by existing patents.
I wish someone would create software to generate arbitrary, valid patents -- millions at a time -- and pay to submit them all. I think society should essentially wage a "Denial Of Service" attack on the US Patent Office. The "protection" of patents has cost society enough.
If patents are allowed to continue, then make it like insurance: The patent holder pays a premium that is equal to 10% of the desired protection amount, EVERY YEAR, for a maximum of 10 years. The patent holder can change the protection amount each year. However, after the patent holder pays a premium for the year, ANYBODY can pay that same premium amount directly to the patent holder to use the patent. Also, ANYBODY can pay 10X the premium amount to forcefully acquire the patent. So, a patent holder is forced to pay to keep a patent alive. If they want to protect themselves from having the patent bought out from under them, they'll make sure they're actually making money from the patent before paying for patent protection. The ongoing payments make it painful to hang on to a patent, while still making confident and profitable ventures continue to be protected for up to 10 years. The ability to buy out a patent based on 10X the patent-holder's desired protection level, combined with the fact the the patent-holder is forced to pay an annual premium that is 10% of the desired protection level, keeps the pressure on the patent-holder to set a protection level that actually reflects their commitment to the patent. There is an annual auction-like quality, but by forcing the patent holder to sacrifice 10% of that auction price to keep the patent we prevent the patent-holder from blocking others from using the patent. If another company has the ability to make significantly more profit on the patent, they can buy the patent outright for a known amount (10X what the current patent holder is willing to pay out each year).
The exponential fee schedule is another promising idea, but the dynamic range of patent values might make it impossible to choose an exponent that is fair for both ends of the dynamic range. Assessing the value of a patent is too likely to lead to corruption.
As far as protecting the "little guy" inventor, I think they should simply keep their idea secret until they can find a buyer. If the buyer is able to clone the idea merely by looking at a prototype, then the idea wasn't worth protecting. If a person can replicate the idea simply by hearing a general description, then the idea was not worth protecting. The little guy inventor should only be protected if the idea cannot be replicated after observing a demonstration of the idea -- and, therefore, the inventor should be able to safely negotiate payment from someone who CAN pay the patent protection money each year. The currently infinite protection, and zero barrier to entry, afforded by today's patent system -- to protect the little guy -- is needlessly costing society a lot.
I don't think society needs patents or copyrights to ensure the continuation of innovation. I think entrepreneurs should shift their focus to producing physical objects and services. It seems like a step backwards from the information age to the industrial age, but information production and transfer is becoming easier. Real manufacturing and services (communication, distributed storage, banking, etc) are immune to copying.
I don't think the inventors and creators of our society feel protected by patents and copyrights. I think the current generation of would-be inventors and creators feel *threatened* and *stif
Slashdot Mirror
In some respects, $6 million now buys a lot more than in the mid 1970s. For computer technology, $6 million today could be used to purchase the computing power of a million mainframes from the 1970s. Some things are available now that would cost infinity dollars in the mid 1970s, like the cures for some diseases, or drugs to keep certain diseases in remission (e.g., AIDS, etc). We have the DNA sequences for humans and other species. Anyone can buy a cellular phone; it's easy to forget what a miracle it is. And then there's the Internet! Sure, all of those things cost a lot to develop, but any consumer can now pay a tiny fraction of $6 million and have god-like power compared to the people in the mid 1970s. My computer can emulate 1000 Atari 2600s simultaneously. Could any supercomputer in the world in 1975 compete with the average computer sold to the consumer today? I mean, one can get a 2.6 GHz quad-core CPU and 8 GB of RAM for just a few hundred dollars! Meanwhile, labor costs have increased dramatically. George Lucas said he couldn't have afforded to make the original Star Wars if he had started production a decade or two later; the labor costs in the film industry increased dramatically over the years. Likewise, the cost of getting a college education made an exponential increase in the 1990s. Medical care is another field with high labor costs. So, it seems like the PARTS for the Six Million Dollar Man might only cost tens of thousands of dollars, but the LABOR might easily run in to the millions. Heck, it's easy for an ordinary guy to get charged $250K for basic surgery; imagine the costs of replacing sensory organs and limbs with bionics... Hopefully those costs will come down as more medical devices are produced.
...sponsored by Zik-Zak!
I love your proposed definition (expressed as a test). However, I think it would be cool to replace "a bunch" by "an indefinite number". Also, I think it would be cool to replace "a telephone" by "telephones". Finally, I think it would be good to add the phrase "in an indefinite amount of time". Thus:
"If the patent's objective could be accomplished by an indefinite number of people in a room using pencils, paper, and telephones, in an indefinite amount of time, it may not be patented."
Undoubtedly this goes beyond the "reasonable" cases you were imagining -- cases that the common person would recognize as business processes. I'm just thinking it would be cool to expand the definition a little bit so that computing processes (software patents) would be included, too. The people in a room could do any software process -- although it would require a whole continent of people, and a whole lot of telephones, to make some calculations proceed at anywhere near "real time". I just wish software patents could be eliminated as a side effect of eliminating business process patents...
What would be REALLY cool is if this same definition would clobber COPYRIGHT, too! Replace "pencils, paper," with "computers", and the people in the room would be able to produce music, video, and games. (Putting computers in the room makes it easier to cover the "software patents" case, too.) Books, articles,
and other forms of writing would have already been covered by the "pencils, paper," case.
You were probably aiming for a practical definition of a business process -- i.e., something that might actually be executed by a bunch of people in a room, with pencils, paper, and a telephone, in a practical (i.e., cost-effective/profitable) manner. But I fantasized about how your definition could be expanded slightly to totally obliterate software patents and copyright...
I hope the system becomes clogged to the point where a new patent application made, say, next year, would theoretically be granted at a time just beyond the time of the anticipated singularity!
Like copyright, patents hold back innovation. Those protections need to be abolished. It's impossible for an intelligent person to create anything new anymore without unwittingly re-inventing the things covered by existing patents.
I wish someone would create software to generate arbitrary, valid patents -- millions at a time -- and pay to submit them all. I think society should essentially wage a "Denial Of Service" attack on the US Patent Office. The "protection" of patents has cost society enough.
If patents are allowed to continue, then make it like insurance: The patent holder pays a premium that is equal to 10% of the desired protection amount, EVERY YEAR, for a maximum of 10 years. The patent holder can change the protection amount each year. However, after the patent holder pays a premium for the year, ANYBODY can pay that same premium amount directly to the patent holder to use the patent. Also, ANYBODY can pay 10X the premium amount to forcefully acquire the patent. So, a patent holder is forced to pay to keep a patent alive. If they want to protect themselves from having the patent bought out from under them, they'll make sure they're actually making money from the patent before paying for patent protection. The ongoing payments make it painful to hang on to a patent, while still making confident and profitable ventures continue to be protected for up to 10 years. The ability to buy out a patent based on 10X the patent-holder's desired protection level, combined with the fact the the patent-holder is forced to pay an annual premium that is 10% of the desired protection level, keeps the pressure on the patent-holder to set a protection level that actually reflects their commitment to the patent. There is an annual auction-like quality, but by forcing the patent holder to sacrifice 10% of that auction price to keep the patent we prevent the patent-holder from blocking others from using the patent. If another company has the ability to make significantly more profit on the patent, they can buy the patent outright for a known amount (10X what the current patent holder is willing to pay out each year).
The exponential fee schedule is another promising idea, but the dynamic range of patent values might make it impossible to choose an exponent that is fair for both ends of the dynamic range. Assessing the value of a patent is too likely to lead to corruption.
As far as protecting the "little guy" inventor, I think they should simply keep their idea secret until they can find a buyer. If the buyer is able to clone the idea merely by looking at a prototype, then the idea wasn't worth protecting. If a person can replicate the idea simply by hearing a general description, then the idea was not worth protecting. The little guy inventor should only be protected if the idea cannot be replicated after observing a demonstration of the idea -- and, therefore, the inventor should be able to safely negotiate payment from someone who CAN pay the patent protection money each year. The currently infinite protection, and zero barrier to entry, afforded by today's patent system -- to protect the little guy -- is needlessly costing society a lot.
I don't think society needs patents or copyrights to ensure the continuation of innovation. I think entrepreneurs should shift their focus to producing physical objects and services. It seems like a step backwards from the information age to the industrial age, but information production and transfer is becoming easier. Real manufacturing and services (communication, distributed storage, banking, etc) are immune to copying.
I don't think the inventors and creators of our society feel protected by patents and copyrights. I think the current generation of would-be inventors and creators feel *threatened* and *stif