I just don't like ASP.Net or PHP or JavaScript, i've written small interactive web things in them, but it takes me way longer to accomplish something useful on a website than it does doing a desktop application.
Bingo. It's not just you, and it's not just your imagination. Programming basic web functionality is ten times harder, more time-consuming, more error-prone, and less rewarding than desktop programming. There's no comparison. I posted a few of the many reasons above.
Then i'm glad i don't rely on ajax apps or anything to get work done. While corporate customers enjoy a level of reliability that the average home user doesn't even dream of...
True, having your apps - and data - locally stored is very helpful. I'm sensitive to that - every time MS Office insists on using "Office Online" for my help queries, I silently curse up a storm. It's a perfect example; this is a simple function that used to execute immediately.
But that's only one of a few really key advantages of desktop apps over web apps. I've spent a lot of time designing a lot of apps (as a pro/am enthusiast), and here are just a few of the very many other reasons for preferring the desktop environment to the web environment:
A robust, designer-friendly GUI control set, tightly coupled to a solid visual designer. For me as a developer, this is THE reason why desktop apps kick the digital asses of web apps. Panels, splitters, checkbox lists, picture boxes, tabbed page collections, menu bars, complex ListViews, editable grids, date selections, numeric up/downs, tree view controls, progress bars - all can be installed in a desktop-based form with a single visual-designer mouse click, while AJAX programmers are still struggling to get buttons working. Plus, the desktop versions are much more consistent - there are fewer visual-style-based visibility differences with desktop apps than browser-rendering issues with web apps. Plus they're higher-performing, and much more easily customized. The ease-of-design gap here is astounding.
Comparatively few security issues. I am not claiming that desktop apps are more secure than web apps - not in the slightest. Rather, I mean that as a legitimate programmer, I encounter a whole lot more security obstacles in web programming than in desktop programming. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time debugging web-based security issues: code access security; application pools; file and folder permissions; authentication; impersonation; web-interface/database interface problems; web browser security settings; server- and client-based caching foibles; statefulness issues; cookie policies; code signing and security certification; firewalls; badly configured internet security apps like ZoneAlarm... I've tripped over all of 'em in web programming. It can drive you batshit crazy. Desktop programming has orders of magnitude fewer issues.
A much wider array of readily accessible APIs and tools. In desktop programming, if I want a hashtable, or a font dialog, or a color picker, or a high-performance timer, or a Rijndael encryption algorithm, or an MD5 has, or a bitmap converter - they're all immediately available and easy to program. Web programming... good luck.
Flow layout is stupid. No, seriously. What I mean is: flow layout is fine for reading - desktop publishing, embedded images, all that junk. But it's stupid for a window-based GUI. As a UI designer, I'll take the absolute positioning and "anchoring" models over browser-based flow layouts any day.
Easy-as-pie installers. I can add a desktop installer package to a desktop app project with, like, six mouse clicks. The resulting package is fairly small, quite robust, and has few compatibility issues.
Easy multithreading. Self-explanatory.
Performance. I've coded in DirectX, and I've coded in Java. I'll take DirectX any day.
Again, those are just a few issues. I can come up with a whole lot more.
Face it, people. Web programming is absolutely the future... but at present, it's still a toddler. Web 2.0 is the equivalent of a two-year-old: fussy, colicky, prone to outbursts and temper tantrums. And it's still teething, so when it misbehaves, you end up with bite marks.
I think it'll take a solid six years or so before web programming is as easy as desktop programming. Until then, I'll keep banging out apps for my "antiquated" desktop environment... with ease and a grin.
If you select "Custom", you can pick and choose the updates you want installed.
Right (and that's what I always do), but only if you visit the website. I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the Automatic Updates feature built into the System widget in the Windows XP control panel, which gives you only four options for auto-updating (and "Custom" isn't one of them.)
I suspect that they have more important things to do than snoop random people's names.
I'm not so sure. Microsoft hasn't been very aggressive about piracy yet - their most assertive move has been deactivating (allegedly) illegitimate Windows installs - but they've certainly made enough overtures to put an RIAA-type enforcement scheme within the realm of possibility. And that trend will probably accelerate as their tech portfolio continues to founder (weak upgrade responses to Vista and Office 2K7, etc.)
I think that they're just trying to get an idea of the number of people who won't install it.
Isn't that an awfully intrusive way of gathering that data? I mean, the WGA installer is being pushed from their own webservers... can't they just analyze their own IIS logs? (or Apache, if that's what they're running;) )
I don't understand why they need my computer to generate some kind of coded message and transmit it to MS. Not only is it plainly unnecessary - it's also surreptitious, which is way sketchy - it's like the FBI keeping a dossier on you as a potential dissident.
Also - the user action that generates the message is akin to "Cancel." You'd expect it would do nothing. That's misleading.
And finally, this goes hand-in-hand with some of MS's other crappy anti-consumer, "MS Online" promotion tactics:
Windows Update offers an auto-update option that reads: "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them." When I selected that option, I anticipated that the installer would tell me: "I have the following six updates:... Which ones would you like to install now?" Instead, it tells me: "I'm going to install a bunch of updates now - that's OK, right?"... Not nearly enough granularity or detail to let me make an informed decision. And, of course, that's the point - MS can shoehorn whatever patches they want into your box, right under your nose and with your (un)informed consent.
Office has a preference for running your help queries through its online Office Help database. Of course, this is even more craptacular than prior incarnations: not only do you get the same array of largely irrelevant documents, but now it takes extra time (sometimes a long time) to run the query and respond. Now, you can configure it not to do that: Office has an option to run only offline. That's all well and fine. But mysteriously, this option often reverts to the online version, and Office keeps hitting the damn online site (thus wasting even more of my time.)
A growing number of common features are getting snarfed up by MS's online services. NetMeeting was never anything but crap - but it got even worse when they jammed parts of it into Windows Messenger. So what should've been a decentralized peer-to-peer collaboration tool became rooted in a (crappy) Microsoft online service. Similarly, MS's "CardSpace" feature of.NET 3.0 is a blinkered,overcooked mess of identity and credentialing services (much like every other MS attempt to tackle this field)... and, of course, they offer to simplify this mess by letting you obtain security tokens from their online service.
So, to me, this looks like just another one of MS's tricks to push people forward - first into the DRM-blighted Vista, and next into the online software rental model (see also Hailstorm.) The more they push, the more trust they lose with me. And I've run every Microsoft OS since MS-DOS 3.2 (which I cut my PC teeth on at the age of 14.)
Perhaps this will change in the future, and then I'd be happy to revisit the issue. But for now, we need to get rid of software patents.
How can you fix something after you've relegated it to the scrap heap? It's more likely that it'll just stay there. If you think it needs some kind of "fixing," then suggest a way of tweaking the system as it currently stands.
Expression, in the copyright context, doesn't mean that there has to be some sort of emotional value or whatnot. It doesn't even have to be good.
Correct. But it does have to be intended, at least, for recording or communicating some kind of message. The task of programming a computer does not qualify - you're not trying to tell the computer anything; you're trying to solve a problem or create a functionality.
The confusion over this issue began many years ago, when it was ruled (quite correctly) that code CAN BE expression - e.g., when I write some code for the purpose of showing you how to do something. And of course that's logical and sound; in that case, my purpose is to communicate something to you.
Yet, people misconstrued this ruling as deciding that all code is expression, which it isn't. This usage expands the term "expressive" to include virtually any human action, which is just illogical. Frankly, "code as expression" is the rare case. 99% of programming = configuring a machine for a task... which is not an expressive act.
Perhaps that's exactly what needs to change then. Implementing a patented idea without making a novel improvement should be breaking patent law, instead of the current method.
:shrug: All of technology can be improved in some novel way. It's not even hard to do that, in most cases: just think up some new feature or widget, and glue it onto the current model.
If that's all you have to do to avoid everyone else's patents, then the protection offered by the patent system will break down. As a result, no one will use it any more, and everyone will keep their stuff as trade secrets. The public and the progress of science will suffer from the sudden drought of technical teachings about the art.
Fortunately NO! Actually I've been wondering what OS platform would be best for me to try to learn, AJAX, Python, Ruby on Rails, or what. I'll work on Java and PERL, I'd been working on a web programming degree and they both were required but not the others, but I have no idea which ones.
For what it's worth, my sense is that Python is like Visual Basic was eight years ago. It's a simple, hacked-together scripting language - but because it's simple and stupid and wasn't really intended as a robust platform, its potential is limited. My guess is that in eight years, people will regard Python as we regard COBOL today.
Ajax and Ruby seem like tweaks on existing hacks. I know that a lot of sites are built on them today - not because they're inherently sound, but because everything else out there is even worse.;) Again, I wouldn't bank on either technology as a long-term career platform.
Java is probably going to stay around for a while, so that's safe.
Frankly, web programming is in such a sorry state - it's a balkanized mess of disjointed technologies. I think (and hope!) that someone comes out with a really nice, consistent, well-designed, robust, universally compatible web programming platform - but it just hasn't happened yet.
I had to drop out of college for financial reasons. I'm on disability, don't work, and don't get financial aid. Now I am hoping I can break into photography and developing websites for other pro photographers.
I'm sorry to read about your misfortune, Falcon. Life took some unexpected turns for me, too, and I started my actual career a few years later than I would've liked. Really, good luck getting things turned around and breaking into the photography business - my sense is that it's a rewarding one. And thanks for the fun conversation.:)
Yes, but ActiveX was repurposed for the task of making a mess of the Netscape plugin system:
The plaintiffs in the antitrust case claimed that Microsoft had added support for ActiveX controls in the Internet Explorer web browser to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator, which used components based on Java and Netscape's own plugin system. The plaintiffs also accused Microsoft of using an "embrace and extend" strategy with regard to the Java platform, by omitting the Java Native Interface from its implementation and providing J/Direct for a similar purpose. According to an internal communication, Microsoft sought to downplay Java's cross-platform capability and make it the "latest, greatest way to write Windows applications." Microsoft paid Sun US$20 million in January 2001 to settle the resulting legal implications of their breach of contract.
And it was successful at that. Ever try creating an ActiveX component and plugging it into these architectures? I have, and I still have mental scars from the experience.
Patents aren't needed to protect open tech standards. Two examples are Linux and Apache. That is that I know of, I don't know that either has patents, copyrights but not patents. And MS's Embrace, extend and extinguish hasn't been able to get rid of them.
I wouldn't call Linux an open standard - quite the opposite: Linus maintains very tight control over the Linux kernel. That is the key to its interoperability.
Ditto Apache. Notice - "The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, consensus based development process and an open and pragmatic software license. Each project is managed by a self-selected team of technical experts who are active contributors to the project. The ASF is a meritocracy, implying that membership to the foundation is granted only to volunteers who have actively contributed to Apache projects. Among the ASF's objectives are to provide legal protection to volunteers working on Apache projects, and to prevent the Apache brand name from being used by other organizations without permission."
Neither one of these endeavors is an open standard, which is principally characterized by "allowing anyone to obtain a standard and create a product based on it increases compatibility between related components that are compatible with the same specification." And that's probably why Microsoft hasn't "embraced" (in the "extend and extinguish" sense) either one yet. It has opted to continue competing with Windows and IIS.
I'll give you a counterexample, though. In fact, the very term "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was invented to describe MS's tactic of destroying the ActiveX platform in order to throttle one of Netscape's best features. Worked very well, too - ActiveX is a swamp of crappy technology that no one really wants to touch.
To test for good patents, you send out a description of the patent to a dozen people in the field. If any of them comes up with a solution that is basically comparable to your solution within a reasonable period of time, the patent should be rejected with no possibility for appeal.
Well written. I like alternatives.:) Usually makes for good conversation.
However, your proposal has a lot of problems.
1) Who gets to write a summary of the patent? Doesn't the summary stand a good chance of suggesting the answer? "Can you envision a way to make use of the friction energy generated by automobile brakes?" "Uhhhh... sure... I guess you could, uh, charge an electric battery..." (patent)
2) In some cases, recognizing that there even is a problem is the brunt of the invention. "Let's say you have a telegraph. And let's say you have two people who want to communicate in both directions using that telegraph. How might you do that?" (patent)
3) Is this really a good way of determining novelty and non-obviousness? Maybe you just have twelve really stupid or unimaginative reviewers.;) And what happens if the invention is in such a niche field that you can't find a full 12 experts to review it? What if you can't even find one?
4) Even if you can find twelve reviewers, and even if they do a good job - can you imagine the expense involved? And the delays?
A two or three year duration is the absolute maximum reasonable time for a software patent. Twenty years is laughable. Outside of obscure specialty software like banking systems, twenty years from now, no piece of software that is currently in use will still be in use in any identifiable way.
Yeah! Like that MP3 algorithm - no one uses that any more. (many patents)
Or RSA public-key cryptography - nobody uses that old thing. (patent)
But this assertion has an even bigger problem than being factually incorrect: it's impossible to apply it. There is no bright-line test for "software" vs. "hardware" vs. "biotech," etc. In fact, many inventions cross these boundaries - that's what's cool about technology. What patent term would you afford to a patent for a hardware circuit that implements a bioinformatics algorithm?
Defensive patents aren't really fo rprotection, instead they are a blunt billyclub to hit someone else other the head with if they try release a product made using the mechanism patented.
Wrong. Notice the term "defensive." What you (colorfully) describe is an ordinary offensive use of a patent.
A defensive patent is one that properly covers one of your inventions, but that you don't use except as return fire against someone who accuses you of violating their patent. Sure, you could publish your invention instead of defensively patenting it - but then you have none of this leverage.
Patents are used in all sorts of ways. Offense is one; defense is another. Here's a third: to protect an open technology standard: you can allow people to use a protocol so long as they don't wreck it. That is a very effective shield against "embrace, extend, and extinguish" tactics. You support that, don't you?
I love the way you let your software patents take credit for the current success of the software industry...
My point here wasn't to "take credit" for it. Rather, I asserted that patents aren't stifling the system, because even in their presence we have an astounding amount of innovation.
...when they did not exist through most of its growth and while most of the innovation was taking place.
Software patents have been around for 20+ years. For instance, the patents for MP3 technology were sworn back to 1986-1988 and have begun to expire. Yet, I dare say that we've had quite a lot of innovation in the last 20 years - and more specifically, in the last 10 years.
In the past, you could have an idea, but you could only patent a particular realization of that idea. Others could take the exact same idea, implement it in a sufficiently different or novel way, and receive an equally-valid patent.
Of course! If your invention is "novel" (and "non-obvious") in light of the predecessor invention and patent, you can patent the improvement. That was true 200 years ago, and is true today.
However, this fact doesn't allow you to use your improvement. Holding a patent on an improvement does not give you the right to use the base invention. It only gives you the right to stop others (including the inventor of the base invention) from using your improvement. Again - that concept has not changed in 200 years.
I understand your argument, though. You are asserting that until recently, patents were narrowly construed to cover your preferred embodiment - e.g., inventions that resemble the model submitted to the USPTO with the application.
But you are incorrect. The "doctrine of equivalents" is a very old concept that construes the patent as covering all "equivalents" - all inventions that don't fit the literal definition of the patented invention, but are still basically the same thing. In modern parlance (Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products (1950)), a patent covers all embodiments that "perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to reach substantially the same result." But this concept long predates the 1950 case - Graver Tank hearkened back to Winans v. Denmead from 1855 - which cited the same concept as a long-standing principle.
In short: The doctrine of equivalents has been a mainstay of the U.S. patent system for well over 150 years. So it's incorrect to state that patents only covered the inventor's implementation - it has never been so.
The GP's #2 used the term "useful" in describing "novel and non-obvious". "Useful" is one of those loaded jargon words and only applies to the 101 rejection (GP's #1) regarding statutory subject matter. I know what the GP meant, but "useful" isn't a 102 or 103 issue, but a 101 issue instead.
Heh. Nitpicking is welcome and well-taken.;) Fair enough.
I wanted to address the question about how something is dubbed "innovative" enough to merit a patent award. "Innovative" has no defined meaning in the art, but I got his question - how do examiners decide that a technology is patentable? I figured I would generally answer his question with the general criteria (without going into the nitpicky stuff, like best mode.)
Software is "booming"? Yeah I guess if you're measuring it by quantity of output. The software industry is mostly the endless recycling of a small number of concepts.
I'm sorry that we haven't invented quickly enough to satisfy you. I'll email the folks at Google and tell them to be more clever.
But just in case you've forgotten, here are some novel software concepts and applications from the last few years:
The web OS
iTunes
BitTorrent
The mobile ad-hoc wireless network
Voice over IP (as a decentralized, "no one owns the network" concept - much different from telecoms)
Massively multiplayer gaming, with thousands of people simultaneously participating
The Onion Router (Tor), and other anonymizing network concepts
YouTube, as a large, free host of user-generated video
Consumer-grade GPS
GPS-based traffic analysis and routing
I could go on, but I think my point is manifest. These things are qualitatively different than precursors from a decade ago. Characterizing these things as tepid rehashes of age-old ideas is the height of dismissive cynicism.
For instance, the bayesian spam filtering we all know and love is patented by Microsoft.
You do realize that patents have characteristics like "scope," right? That Microsoft might have patented its particular implementation of a Bayesian filter, but that it hasn't (and can't) patent the general notion of Bayesian logic?
A hundred years ago, Samuel Morse applied for and was (rightfully) granted a patent on the telegraph. But he also tried to patent the general concept of "sending alphanumeric characters via electromagnetism." This was rejected as impossibly broad. Today we would still deny such an application on several grounds (lack of "enablement," an inadequate "written description," etc.)
Showing thumbnails in online auctions? Patented by eBay.
Yeah, it sucks that uBid can't show thumbnails for its auctions. Oh, wait - it does.
And it sucks that Amazon Auctions can't show thumbnails, either. Whoops - it does, too.
Can you at least double-check these claims before you post them?
All these companies have a huge arsenal at their disposal, and they can direct it at anyone they like. They don't usually direct it at little guys because there's no money, and they usually don't direct it at big guys because of mutually-assured destruction.
Thank you. You have just shot down many arguments against the patent system.
Many of the criticisms of patent law are completely unsupported by the realities of the system. In my experience, most doom-and-gloom forecasters are pretty unenlightened for the actual workings of the system. They just read a brief snippet about it and shoot from the hip.
Did you notice how IBM counter-sued SCO for patent infringement?
And that is a completely legitimate and well-known use of patents. It's defensive patenting. What's wrong with that? A gun can be used to commit cold-blooded murder, or it can be used for self-defense.
When you boil it down, software patents are just a tax.
STAC Electronics. Ever hear of them? No? How about Stacker? Still no? Does DoubleSpace sound familiar?
Let me tell you a story. Back in the early 90's, hard drive space was still pretty small - you could fill up your hard drive by writing a bunch of documents. Sure, you could compress them, but that was a pain in the ass, because you had to do it manually.
Enter STAC Electronics. They invented an automated system for compressing data on your hard drive. The files look and work the same to you (except for a small access delay), but you have a lot more hard drive space.
It was gee-whiz cool, and it helped a lot of people. The p
You're conflating possession with ownership. 'Their' may imply either of the two, and sometimes both, but not necessarily both.
I understand your point and the distinction. But in this case, the distinction is moot. The framers clearly intended to attribute inventions and writings to the creators of such works, and to grant rights to them - in order to provide an incentive for further work. That is fully half of the purpose of the patent system.
Indeed, the history for this stuff is quite a bit longer than 200 years.
But we're talking about the "modern" patent system, which was really created with the Patent Acts of 1836, 1870, and 1952. The defining characteristics gelled incrementally over the course of these revisions. What we had before - both the pre-1836 federal system (pure registration), and the scattered pre-1790 state systems (mostly political awards) - can most generously be characterized only as precursors or prototypes (and dysfunctional ones, at that.)
The US economic system (and most any western European economy) is a mix of pure capitalism and socialism.
Right, and that's how it must be. Antitrust and securities laws exist with good reason. (In fact, the weakening of these bodies of law, and the regulatory institutions tasked with enforcing them, is a sociological tragedy that will only be fully understood in retrospect.)
But many, especially many Slashdotters, oppose the whole notion of "owning ideas," as if it's some kind of fascist thought-police tactic. I like to remind people that ownership isn't inherently dirty - it's the basis of our economy.
I think that hardware patents should be allowed because if I invent the op-amp I want to get paid for it. Without a hardware patent I'm SOL. There is no copyright protecting hardware (which should be the major IP protector for software)...
Copyrights and patents are very different concepts. You can't equate them.
Let's say you invent a new method of compressing data, and you write a codec that does it. Now, you can patent that, and the patent will cover the overall method of compressing data in the way that you devised. The copyright, though, will only cover the exact program that you wrote to perform it - and then only if someone actually copies it. Others can release software that does exactly the same thing, so long as they wrote the software themselves (e.g., by analyzing the compressed data and figuring out the method.)
Copyright doesn't protect innovation - not in software or elsewhere. It only prevents the copying of a particular body of software. It doesn't encourage the advancement of computer science or research. And that's not its purpose, anyway: copyright only protects "expressions," which, frankly, software is not. The notion of software as an "expression" is a legal fiction being propped up by the software industry.
A reader contacted me to point out that Thomas Jefferson did not write the US Constitution, so he did not in fact write the langauge enabling copyrights and patents "for limited times". He was in France at the time, and James Madison is the one who is primarily credited with the language in the Constitution.
Jefferson was, however, quite opinionated about this subject and several others embodied in the Constitution, and he wrote several commentaries on it. It's probably also safe to say that he was quite influential on the ideas that went into the Constitution.
There is also some information here (and in the lengthy law review article that it references) indicating that Jefferson and Madison corresponded at length about patent rights during Madison's formulation of the Constitution.
In previous era's the monarch owned the entire country: lands, writings, inventions, whatever you can name. You wouldn't call that capitalism, right? We're now slowly turning into a society where corporations own everything: land, writings, inventions, whatever you can name. And CEO's are their high-priests. Maybe capitalism, but efficient? That has yet to be seen.
Actually, I agree with you. The modern corporate entity is a new beast,and its control over the economy and society is deeply ominous. I don't like it or trust it, and I foresee bad things ahead. There are good reasons to mistrust this model.
However, this argument doesn't really pertain to the patent system - it pertains to the sizes and growing powers of corporations. Yes, these entities are having a powerful influence on patent law - but also on tax law, employment law, securities law, the economy, politics, etc., etc., etc. You can't lay the troubling features of the corporation entity on the doorstep of the USPTO.
So by your logic, because innovation still occurs, innovation is not being stifled.
I guess by your logic, if you think innovation could be faster, it's obviously being stifled. Q.E.D.
The evidence is on my side. Look around! Software is booming like no industry before it has! Innovation is everywhere. How deep is your cynicism that you can look at all of the awesome developments around us and say, "Well, it could be better?"
Web 2.0 apps are only happening because nobody has started suing in that area. If another Amazon one-click patent bit users of AJAX, we'd see a major chilling effect outside of the corporate space.
It hasn't happened yet because the patent system doesn't always devolve into mutually assured destruction. It has many uses. Until your armageddon scenario actually develops, your arguments are FUD.
Again, the historic evidence is against you. Thirty years ago, the exact same arguments were raised - about patents in the biotech industry. "We can't allow people to patent organisms and proteins and genes," they said, "because it will cripple the biotech industry! There shall be no more innovation!" Thankfully, no one listened to those naysayers... and the biotech industry is booming, along with the rates of curing disease.
Linux distros? IBM defending themselves from SCO.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. That's copyright law.
Microsoft claiming that Linux infringes on their patents.
Yes, it's such a shame that Linux collapsed under the weight of the threats and closed up shop... oh, wait, they didn't, they have continued unabated.
And then, there are the lawsuits over MP3. Bets on whether either of those impact Ogg Vorbis, anyone?
You mean lawsuit, right? Singular? The one from last week? And if it hits MP3 as hard as you foresee, don't you think that will push a lot of people to open and free standards like OGG - isn't that what you want?
But it's largely moot. The patents in question were sworn back to 1986/1987/1988, and are expired or due to expire soon. These suits are going to be very short-lived.
How much other software that you use every day took longer to release because they had to spend extra effort to avoid some BS patent?
Freedom-to-operate clearance is usually a very quick process. It's usually done in parallel, too: the tech transfer people work on that while the developers develop.
Show me evidence that delaying the process. Go ahead. I'll wait. Until then, you're just speculating and FUDding.
Something I've never quite understood is how it is determined that an invention is "innovative".... Is it voted upon? Or is it a single guy, following some guidelines?
It's guidelines-based - but those guidelines go back to the first patent act, passed in 1790. (This was a short three years after the adoption of the Constitution, so IP obviously held a very high priority for our first federal government.)
The guidelines are, essentially, three:
The invention has to be one of the statutory classes - according to the first patent act, an "art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device." This summary has stood virtually intact for 217 years: today's version (35 USC 101) reads: "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." If it's not one of those, then it's not useful and not patentable.
The invention has to be new - it has to be novel and non-obvious. If it's just a rehash of known technology, then it's not "useful" enough to warrant a patent.
The invention has to be complete, to the point where the description can teach others how to apply it. The used here is that it must be "described in sufficient detail to permit a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention without undue experimentation." (Long-winded, yes, but it's a good concept.)
So that's a pretty good level of guidance as to what's "useful." The only tweak on all of this is that, according to the Supreme Court (Diamond v. Chakrabarty), these limitations are to be read expansively; i.e., the patent system should err on the side of breadth. In their (unusually eloquent) rhetoric, the Court held that the system is intended to include "anything under the sun that is made by man" in its scope. So you should be able to get a patent on anything that meets, at least basically, these requirements.
That's the theory. The practice is even more rigorous, because the patent process is onerous: expensive, protracted, somewhat uncertain. The pragmatic answer is that "useful" is partially determined by the inventor's subjective assessment of its value. The inventor makes a value judgment: is the invention sufficiently "useful" to warrant the hassle and cost?
Thus, at least in the United States, patents exist for the express purpose of "promoting the progress of Science and the Useful Arts".
You're correct that the patent system is intended to promote science and technology. Half of the reason for the patent grant is to compel inventors to release a broad, detailed technical description of the invention to the public.
But the patent system is also intended to protect the rights of inventors and authors, by granting them property rights to inventions and creative works. Hence the use of the term THEIR in that same constitutional passage. This implies possession and ownership. And this is the other half of the reason for the patent system: to reward inventors and artists - as a way of encouraging further invention and authorship.
Throughout its 200+ year history, the U.S. patent system has granted private ownership rights to abstract ideas. Some people don't like that notion. It's understandable - even Thomas Jefferson was opposed to it at first. But he warmed to the idea, and became its proponent, when he realized the boost that science would get from this incentive system.
Look, people - ownership rights = capitalism, which is still the most efficient economic system that history has yet devised. The patent system certainly needs some reform. But if you're opposed to the general notion of ownership rights, then your arguments are 220 years overdue.
IMHO the biggest problem with the current state of the patent office is the rubber stamping of obvious and trivial inventions.
Your opinion is well-founded. I wouldn't exactly call it rubber-stamping, though. The problem is that examiners aren't being given enough resources to do their jobs. In particular, examiners are being hugely pressured with productivity metrics: they have to turn around (x) applications per year, or they get reprimanded or even fired. And one of the key proponents of this system is the very same Jon Dudas. The result is that patent examiners are demoralized and overburdened, so examination suffers - which hurts everyone (including the patentee.)
A better patent examination system will help everyone. This requires giving examiners more resources so that they can do their jobs better... and, perhaps, some more respect, so that their morale remains high.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. It's not just you, and it's not just your imagination. Programming basic web functionality is ten times harder, more time-consuming, more error-prone, and less rewarding than desktop programming. There's no comparison. I posted a few of the many reasons above.
- David Stein
True, having your apps - and data - locally stored is very helpful. I'm sensitive to that - every time MS Office insists on using "Office Online" for my help queries, I silently curse up a storm. It's a perfect example; this is a simple function that used to execute immediately.
But that's only one of a few really key advantages of desktop apps over web apps. I've spent a lot of time designing a lot of apps (as a pro/am enthusiast), and here are just a few of the very many other reasons for preferring the desktop environment to the web environment:
Again, those are just a few issues. I can come up with a whole lot more.
Face it, people. Web programming is absolutely the future... but at present, it's still a toddler. Web 2.0 is the equivalent of a two-year-old: fussy, colicky, prone to outbursts and temper tantrums. And it's still teething, so when it misbehaves, you end up with bite marks.
I think it'll take a solid six years or so before web programming is as easy as desktop programming. Until then, I'll keep banging out apps for my "antiquated" desktop environment... with ease and a grin.
- David Stein
Right (and that's what I always do), but only if you visit the website. I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the Automatic Updates feature built into the System widget in the Windows XP control panel, which gives you only four options for auto-updating (and "Custom" isn't one of them.)
- David Stein
I'm not so sure. Microsoft hasn't been very aggressive about piracy yet - their most assertive move has been deactivating (allegedly) illegitimate Windows installs - but they've certainly made enough overtures to put an RIAA-type enforcement scheme within the realm of possibility. And that trend will probably accelerate as their tech portfolio continues to founder (weak upgrade responses to Vista and Office 2K7, etc.)
I think that they're just trying to get an idea of the number of people who won't install it.
Isn't that an awfully intrusive way of gathering that data? I mean, the WGA installer is being pushed from their own webservers... can't they just analyze their own IIS logs? (or Apache, if that's what they're running ;) )
I don't understand why they need my computer to generate some kind of coded message and transmit it to MS. Not only is it plainly unnecessary - it's also surreptitious, which is way sketchy - it's like the FBI keeping a dossier on you as a potential dissident.
Also - the user action that generates the message is akin to "Cancel." You'd expect it would do nothing. That's misleading.
And finally, this goes hand-in-hand with some of MS's other crappy anti-consumer, "MS Online" promotion tactics:
- Windows Update offers an auto-update option that reads: "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them." When I selected that option, I anticipated that the installer would tell me: "I have the following six updates:
... Which ones would you like to install now?" Instead, it tells me: "I'm going to install a bunch of updates now - that's OK, right?" ... Not nearly enough granularity or detail to let me make an informed decision. And, of course, that's the point - MS can shoehorn whatever patches they want into your box, right under your nose and with your (un)informed consent.
- Office has a preference for running your help queries through its online Office Help database. Of course, this is even more craptacular than prior incarnations: not only do you get the same array of largely irrelevant documents, but now it takes extra time (sometimes a long time) to run the query and respond. Now, you can configure it not to do that: Office has an option to run only offline. That's all well and fine. But mysteriously, this option often reverts to the online version, and Office keeps hitting the damn online site (thus wasting even more of my time.)
- A growing number of common features are getting snarfed up by MS's online services. NetMeeting was never anything but crap - but it got even worse when they jammed parts of it into Windows Messenger. So what should've been a decentralized peer-to-peer collaboration tool became rooted in a (crappy) Microsoft online service. Similarly, MS's "CardSpace" feature of
.NET 3.0 is a blinkered,overcooked mess of identity and credentialing services (much like every other MS attempt to tackle this field)... and, of course, they offer to simplify this mess by letting you obtain security tokens from their online service.
So, to me, this looks like just another one of MS's tricks to push people forward - first into the DRM-blighted Vista, and next into the online software rental model (see also Hailstorm.) The more they push, the more trust they lose with me. And I've run every Microsoft OS since MS-DOS 3.2 (which I cut my PC teeth on at the age of 14.)- David Stein
How can you fix something after you've relegated it to the scrap heap? It's more likely that it'll just stay there. If you think it needs some kind of "fixing," then suggest a way of tweaking the system as it currently stands.
Expression, in the copyright context, doesn't mean that there has to be some sort of emotional value or whatnot. It doesn't even have to be good.
Correct. But it does have to be intended, at least, for recording or communicating some kind of message. The task of programming a computer does not qualify - you're not trying to tell the computer anything; you're trying to solve a problem or create a functionality.
The confusion over this issue began many years ago, when it was ruled (quite correctly) that code CAN BE expression - e.g., when I write some code for the purpose of showing you how to do something. And of course that's logical and sound; in that case, my purpose is to communicate something to you.
Yet, people misconstrued this ruling as deciding that all code is expression, which it isn't. This usage expands the term "expressive" to include virtually any human action, which is just illogical. Frankly, "code as expression" is the rare case. 99% of programming = configuring a machine for a task... which is not an expressive act.
- David Stein
If that's all you have to do to avoid everyone else's patents, then the protection offered by the patent system will break down. As a result, no one will use it any more, and everyone will keep their stuff as trade secrets. The public and the progress of science will suffer from the sudden drought of technical teachings about the art.
- David Stein
For what it's worth, my sense is that Python is like Visual Basic was eight years ago. It's a simple, hacked-together scripting language - but because it's simple and stupid and wasn't really intended as a robust platform, its potential is limited. My guess is that in eight years, people will regard Python as we regard COBOL today.
Ajax and Ruby seem like tweaks on existing hacks. I know that a lot of sites are built on them today - not because they're inherently sound, but because everything else out there is even worse. ;) Again, I wouldn't bank on either technology as a long-term career platform.
Java is probably going to stay around for a while, so that's safe.
Frankly, web programming is in such a sorry state - it's a balkanized mess of disjointed technologies. I think (and hope!) that someone comes out with a really nice, consistent, well-designed, robust, universally compatible web programming platform - but it just hasn't happened yet.
I had to drop out of college for financial reasons. I'm on disability, don't work, and don't get financial aid. Now I am hoping I can break into photography and developing websites for other pro photographers.
I'm sorry to read about your misfortune, Falcon. Life took some unexpected turns for me, too, and I started my actual career a few years later than I would've liked. Really, good luck getting things turned around and breaking into the photography business - my sense is that it's a rewarding one. And thanks for the fun conversation. :)
- David Stein
And it was successful at that. Ever try creating an ActiveX component and plugging it into these architectures? I have, and I still have mental scars from the experience.
- David Stein
I wouldn't call Linux an open standard - quite the opposite: Linus maintains very tight control over the Linux kernel. That is the key to its interoperability.
Ditto Apache. Notice - "The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, consensus based development process and an open and pragmatic software license. Each project is managed by a self-selected team of technical experts who are active contributors to the project. The ASF is a meritocracy, implying that membership to the foundation is granted only to volunteers who have actively contributed to Apache projects. Among the ASF's objectives are to provide legal protection to volunteers working on Apache projects, and to prevent the Apache brand name from being used by other organizations without permission."
Neither one of these endeavors is an open standard, which is principally characterized by "allowing anyone to obtain a standard and create a product based on it increases compatibility between related components that are compatible with the same specification." And that's probably why Microsoft hasn't "embraced" (in the "extend and extinguish" sense) either one yet. It has opted to continue competing with Windows and IIS.
I'll give you a counterexample, though. In fact, the very term "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was invented to describe MS's tactic of destroying the ActiveX platform in order to throttle one of Netscape's best features. Worked very well, too - ActiveX is a swamp of crappy technology that no one really wants to touch.
- David Stein
Well written. I like alternatives. :) Usually makes for good conversation.
However, your proposal has a lot of problems.
1) Who gets to write a summary of the patent? Doesn't the summary stand a good chance of suggesting the answer? "Can you envision a way to make use of the friction energy generated by automobile brakes?" "Uhhhh... sure... I guess you could, uh, charge an electric battery..." (patent)
2) In some cases, recognizing that there even is a problem is the brunt of the invention. "Let's say you have a telegraph. And let's say you have two people who want to communicate in both directions using that telegraph. How might you do that?" (patent)
3) Is this really a good way of determining novelty and non-obviousness? Maybe you just have twelve really stupid or unimaginative reviewers. ;) And what happens if the invention is in such a niche field that you can't find a full 12 experts to review it? What if you can't even find one?
4) Even if you can find twelve reviewers, and even if they do a good job - can you imagine the expense involved? And the delays?
A two or three year duration is the absolute maximum reasonable time for a software patent. Twenty years is laughable. Outside of obscure specialty software like banking systems, twenty years from now, no piece of software that is currently in use will still be in use in any identifiable way.
Yeah! Like that MP3 algorithm - no one uses that any more. (many patents)
Or RSA public-key cryptography - nobody uses that old thing. (patent)
But this assertion has an even bigger problem than being factually incorrect: it's impossible to apply it. There is no bright-line test for "software" vs. "hardware" vs. "biotech," etc. In fact, many inventions cross these boundaries - that's what's cool about technology. What patent term would you afford to a patent for a hardware circuit that implements a bioinformatics algorithm?
- David Stein
Wrong. Notice the term "defensive." What you (colorfully) describe is an ordinary offensive use of a patent.
A defensive patent is one that properly covers one of your inventions, but that you don't use except as return fire against someone who accuses you of violating their patent. Sure, you could publish your invention instead of defensively patenting it - but then you have none of this leverage.
Patents are used in all sorts of ways. Offense is one; defense is another. Here's a third: to protect an open technology standard: you can allow people to use a protocol so long as they don't wreck it. That is a very effective shield against "embrace, extend, and extinguish" tactics. You support that, don't you?
- David Stein
My point here wasn't to "take credit" for it. Rather, I asserted that patents aren't stifling the system, because even in their presence we have an astounding amount of innovation.
Software patents have been around for 20+ years. For instance, the patents for MP3 technology were sworn back to 1986-1988 and have begun to expire. Yet, I dare say that we've had quite a lot of innovation in the last 20 years - and more specifically, in the last 10 years.
- David Stein
Of course! If your invention is "novel" (and "non-obvious") in light of the predecessor invention and patent, you can patent the improvement. That was true 200 years ago, and is true today.
However, this fact doesn't allow you to use your improvement. Holding a patent on an improvement does not give you the right to use the base invention. It only gives you the right to stop others (including the inventor of the base invention) from using your improvement. Again - that concept has not changed in 200 years.
I understand your argument, though. You are asserting that until recently, patents were narrowly construed to cover your preferred embodiment - e.g., inventions that resemble the model submitted to the USPTO with the application.
But you are incorrect. The "doctrine of equivalents" is a very old concept that construes the patent as covering all "equivalents" - all inventions that don't fit the literal definition of the patented invention, but are still basically the same thing. In modern parlance (Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products (1950)), a patent covers all embodiments that "perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to reach substantially the same result." But this concept long predates the 1950 case - Graver Tank hearkened back to Winans v. Denmead from 1855 - which cited the same concept as a long-standing principle.
In short: The doctrine of equivalents has been a mainstay of the U.S. patent system for well over 150 years. So it's incorrect to state that patents only covered the inventor's implementation - it has never been so.
- David Stein
The GP's #2 used the term "useful" in describing "novel and non-obvious". "Useful" is one of those loaded jargon words and only applies to the 101 rejection (GP's #1) regarding statutory subject matter. I know what the GP meant, but "useful" isn't a 102 or 103 issue, but a 101 issue instead.
Heh. Nitpicking is welcome and well-taken. ;) Fair enough.
I wanted to address the question about how something is dubbed "innovative" enough to merit a patent award. "Innovative" has no defined meaning in the art, but I got his question - how do examiners decide that a technology is patentable? I figured I would generally answer his question with the general criteria (without going into the nitpicky stuff, like best mode.)
- David Stein
I'm sorry that we haven't invented quickly enough to satisfy you. I'll email the folks at Google and tell them to be more clever.
But just in case you've forgotten, here are some novel software concepts and applications from the last few years:
I could go on, but I think my point is manifest. These things are qualitatively different than precursors from a decade ago. Characterizing these things as tepid rehashes of age-old ideas is the height of dismissive cynicism.
For instance, the bayesian spam filtering we all know and love is patented by Microsoft.
You do realize that patents have characteristics like "scope," right? That Microsoft might have patented its particular implementation of a Bayesian filter, but that it hasn't (and can't) patent the general notion of Bayesian logic?
A hundred years ago, Samuel Morse applied for and was (rightfully) granted a patent on the telegraph. But he also tried to patent the general concept of "sending alphanumeric characters via electromagnetism." This was rejected as impossibly broad. Today we would still deny such an application on several grounds (lack of "enablement," an inadequate "written description," etc.)
Showing thumbnails in online auctions? Patented by eBay.
Yeah, it sucks that uBid can't show thumbnails for its auctions. Oh, wait - it does.
And it sucks that Amazon Auctions can't show thumbnails, either. Whoops - it does, too.
Can you at least double-check these claims before you post them?
All these companies have a huge arsenal at their disposal, and they can direct it at anyone they like. They don't usually direct it at little guys because there's no money, and they usually don't direct it at big guys because of mutually-assured destruction.
Thank you. You have just shot down many arguments against the patent system.
Many of the criticisms of patent law are completely unsupported by the realities of the system. In my experience, most doom-and-gloom forecasters are pretty unenlightened for the actual workings of the system. They just read a brief snippet about it and shoot from the hip.
Did you notice how IBM counter-sued SCO for patent infringement?
And that is a completely legitimate and well-known use of patents. It's defensive patenting. What's wrong with that? A gun can be used to commit cold-blooded murder, or it can be used for self-defense.
When you boil it down, software patents are just a tax.
STAC Electronics. Ever hear of them? No? How about Stacker? Still no? Does DoubleSpace sound familiar?
Let me tell you a story. Back in the early 90's, hard drive space was still pretty small - you could fill up your hard drive by writing a bunch of documents. Sure, you could compress them, but that was a pain in the ass, because you had to do it manually.
Enter STAC Electronics. They invented an automated system for compressing data on your hard drive. The files look and work the same to you (except for a small access delay), but you have a lot more hard drive space.
It was gee-whiz cool, and it helped a lot of people. The p
Keep your dirty laws off of my thetans. ;)
- David Stein
I understand your point and the distinction. But in this case, the distinction is moot. The framers clearly intended to attribute inventions and writings to the creators of such works, and to grant rights to them - in order to provide an incentive for further work. That is fully half of the purpose of the patent system.
Indeed, the history for this stuff is quite a bit longer than 200 years.
Heh. Yes, I know. ;)
But we're talking about the "modern" patent system, which was really created with the Patent Acts of 1836, 1870, and 1952. The defining characteristics gelled incrementally over the course of these revisions. What we had before - both the pre-1836 federal system (pure registration), and the scattered pre-1790 state systems (mostly political awards) - can most generously be characterized only as precursors or prototypes (and dysfunctional ones, at that.)
The US economic system (and most any western European economy) is a mix of pure capitalism and socialism.
Right, and that's how it must be. Antitrust and securities laws exist with good reason. (In fact, the weakening of these bodies of law, and the regulatory institutions tasked with enforcing them, is a sociological tragedy that will only be fully understood in retrospect.)
But many, especially many Slashdotters, oppose the whole notion of "owning ideas," as if it's some kind of fascist thought-police tactic. I like to remind people that ownership isn't inherently dirty - it's the basis of our economy.
- David Stein
Copyrights and patents are very different concepts. You can't equate them.
Let's say you invent a new method of compressing data, and you write a codec that does it. Now, you can patent that, and the patent will cover the overall method of compressing data in the way that you devised. The copyright, though, will only cover the exact program that you wrote to perform it - and then only if someone actually copies it. Others can release software that does exactly the same thing, so long as they wrote the software themselves (e.g., by analyzing the compressed data and figuring out the method.)
Copyright doesn't protect innovation - not in software or elsewhere. It only prevents the copying of a particular body of software. It doesn't encourage the advancement of computer science or research. And that's not its purpose, anyway: copyright only protects "expressions," which, frankly, software is not. The notion of software as an "expression" is a legal fiction being propped up by the software industry.
- David Stein
Actually, it didn't work for the iPod, because Apple didn't rely on first-mover advantage. It patented the iPod interface.
In reality, the iPod's success owes little to both the first-mover advantage and the patent system. The iPod has succeeded for three other reasons:
- Excellent design - it is still one of the best user-interface experiences on the market.
- Network effects - leveraging iTunes and tight integration with the Apple platform.
- Goodwill - the Apple brand.
All are very sound business realities, and Apple deserves all of the kudos that it has received.- David Stein
From here:
There is also some information here (and in the lengthy law review article that it references) indicating that Jefferson and Madison corresponded at length about patent rights during Madison's formulation of the Constitution.- David Stein
Actually, I agree with you. The modern corporate entity is a new beast,and its control over the economy and society is deeply ominous. I don't like it or trust it, and I foresee bad things ahead. There are good reasons to mistrust this model.
However, this argument doesn't really pertain to the patent system - it pertains to the sizes and growing powers of corporations. Yes, these entities are having a powerful influence on patent law - but also on tax law, employment law, securities law, the economy, politics, etc., etc., etc. You can't lay the troubling features of the corporation entity on the doorstep of the USPTO.
- David Stein
I guess by your logic, if you think innovation could be faster, it's obviously being stifled. Q.E.D.
The evidence is on my side. Look around! Software is booming like no industry before it has! Innovation is everywhere. How deep is your cynicism that you can look at all of the awesome developments around us and say, "Well, it could be better?"
Web 2.0 apps are only happening because nobody has started suing in that area. If another Amazon one-click patent bit users of AJAX, we'd see a major chilling effect outside of the corporate space.
It hasn't happened yet because the patent system doesn't always devolve into mutually assured destruction. It has many uses. Until your armageddon scenario actually develops, your arguments are FUD.
Again, the historic evidence is against you. Thirty years ago, the exact same arguments were raised - about patents in the biotech industry. "We can't allow people to patent organisms and proteins and genes," they said, "because it will cripple the biotech industry! There shall be no more innovation!" Thankfully, no one listened to those naysayers... and the biotech industry is booming, along with the rates of curing disease.
Linux distros? IBM defending themselves from SCO.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. That's copyright law.
Microsoft claiming that Linux infringes on their patents.
Yes, it's such a shame that Linux collapsed under the weight of the threats and closed up shop... oh, wait, they didn't, they have continued unabated.
And then, there are the lawsuits over MP3. Bets on whether either of those impact Ogg Vorbis, anyone?
You mean lawsuit, right? Singular? The one from last week? And if it hits MP3 as hard as you foresee, don't you think that will push a lot of people to open and free standards like OGG - isn't that what you want?
But it's largely moot. The patents in question were sworn back to 1986/1987/1988, and are expired or due to expire soon. These suits are going to be very short-lived.
How much other software that you use every day took longer to release because they had to spend extra effort to avoid some BS patent?
Freedom-to-operate clearance is usually a very quick process. It's usually done in parallel, too: the tech transfer people work on that while the developers develop.
Show me evidence that delaying the process. Go ahead. I'll wait. Until then, you're just speculating and FUDding.
- David Stein
It's guidelines-based - but those guidelines go back to the first patent act, passed in 1790. (This was a short three years after the adoption of the Constitution, so IP obviously held a very high priority for our first federal government.)
The guidelines are, essentially, three:
- The invention has to be one of the statutory classes - according to the first patent act, an "art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device." This summary has stood virtually intact for 217 years: today's version (35 USC 101) reads: "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." If it's not one of those, then it's not useful and not patentable.
- The invention has to be new - it has to be novel and non-obvious. If it's just a rehash of known technology, then it's not "useful" enough to warrant a patent.
- The invention has to be complete, to the point where the description can teach others how to apply it. The used here is that it must be "described in sufficient detail to permit a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention without undue experimentation." (Long-winded, yes, but it's a good concept.)
So that's a pretty good level of guidance as to what's "useful." The only tweak on all of this is that, according to the Supreme Court (Diamond v. Chakrabarty), these limitations are to be read expansively; i.e., the patent system should err on the side of breadth. In their (unusually eloquent) rhetoric, the Court held that the system is intended to include "anything under the sun that is made by man" in its scope. So you should be able to get a patent on anything that meets, at least basically, these requirements.That's the theory. The practice is even more rigorous, because the patent process is onerous: expensive, protracted, somewhat uncertain. The pragmatic answer is that "useful" is partially determined by the inventor's subjective assessment of its value. The inventor makes a value judgment: is the invention sufficiently "useful" to warrant the hassle and cost?
- David Stein
You're correct that the patent system is intended to promote science and technology. Half of the reason for the patent grant is to compel inventors to release a broad, detailed technical description of the invention to the public.
But the patent system is also intended to protect the rights of inventors and authors, by granting them property rights to inventions and creative works. Hence the use of the term THEIR in that same constitutional passage. This implies possession and ownership. And this is the other half of the reason for the patent system: to reward inventors and artists - as a way of encouraging further invention and authorship.
Throughout its 200+ year history, the U.S. patent system has granted private ownership rights to abstract ideas. Some people don't like that notion. It's understandable - even Thomas Jefferson was opposed to it at first. But he warmed to the idea, and became its proponent, when he realized the boost that science would get from this incentive system.
Look, people - ownership rights = capitalism, which is still the most efficient economic system that history has yet devised. The patent system certainly needs some reform. But if you're opposed to the general notion of ownership rights, then your arguments are 220 years overdue.
- David Stein
Your opinion is well-founded. I wouldn't exactly call it rubber-stamping, though. The problem is that examiners aren't being given enough resources to do their jobs. In particular, examiners are being hugely pressured with productivity metrics: they have to turn around (x) applications per year, or they get reprimanded or even fired. And one of the key proponents of this system is the very same Jon Dudas. The result is that patent examiners are demoralized and overburdened, so examination suffers - which hurts everyone (including the patentee.)
A better patent examination system will help everyone. This requires giving examiners more resources so that they can do their jobs better... and, perhaps, some more respect, so that their morale remains high.
- David Stein