First small inventors are not without options. They are encouraged by the system to market and sell (or lease) their rights to larger groups that have the money to defend them and the resources to bring them to market. No matter what system you are for, this will always be the case.
The cease and desist letters are not end alls. They are routinely ignored. Mostly they are a tool of the law. Firms have an obligation to warn any potential infringers of their infringment as soon as possible to ensure maximum settlement. That average readers think they carry any actual weight is a product of not informing themselves or hiring someone who is more informed to represent them.
As for Nakamura. He was not working alone is some garage. He was part of a large team of engineers refining LEDs. That he personally was not rewarded is not really a concern for me. Even had he not won the case in Japan, he still would have recieved the cushy professorship and speaking engagements. Bright inventors will always be rewarded for their contributions if they are equally adept at the business side of the transaction.
The company, on the other hand, had been pursing LED tech for some time before and after Nakamura. They continue to lead in R&D in that field, precisely because of the royalties they have earned because of their earlier research. This was the goal of our forefathers. The system is designed to encourage "good" research and direct resources to those firms that perform good research. Nichia, because of thier success has been aforded the ability to gain further success. By the way, US law is different than Japanese IP Law in that companies cannot file for patents. We actually afford greater protection to people like Nakamura.
Capitalism relies on the idea of property. You have to materialize any thing of value so it can be traded and protected. This includes inventive concepts. Patents (limited monopolies) are a way of materializing intellectual properties and thus are solely a product of expanding capatalism. Socialist want an equal playing field at all times and the sharing of resources. Pushing all intellectual pursuits into the public realm allows for this but is certainly not capatalistic.
As for the snipe about lawyers making money for thier work, I certainly hope they do. The more money they make, the better minds we can encourage into that field, and the better our patent system will work.
Do you really believe this? I'm sorry, but it just doesn't ring true to anyone who has browsed through many of these patents and read their contents. The truth is, patent examiners are overworked, underpaid, and under incredible pressure (by those giving the USPTO money for applications) to grant patents. Sure, there is usually the few token rejections and rewrites, but anyone who has gone through the process of obtaining a patent can tell you that persistence usually wins out.
Remind me again what field of employees does not believe they are underworked or underpaid? The average PTO employee is hired out of College as a GS 7 step 10. They make around 54k to start with and are eligible for pay raises starting just 6 months into employment. They can be making over 100k in just 4.5 years and in reality often make much more than that due to overtime. Further a quality private firm search can cost in the range of $10,000 (after competition and free market forces). So what would you rather have? A patent system that weeds out some 90% of bad cases or a system that cost upwards of $20,000 just to file a patent? (a small inventor can get a patent for around $2,000 or so today).
This system is analogous to the courts by the way. Local courts don't have the expertise or time to always reach the best decision in any case of law. However they do well on the majority of cases. In cases in which they error, applicant's can appeal to the next court up. In patent Law, applicants have several options above the patent office (Patent board of appeals, District Court, State Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and Surpreme Court).
This is damning evidence against the patent system. If you'll recall, the great compromise of the patent system was that the government would grant a monopoly if the inventor would publicly disclose how the invention works -- the main impetus was to keep secrets from getting tied up in guilds or going with the inventor to the grave. If it is as you say it is, the patent system is broken by definition, because only lawyers can understand the applications. Us lowly slashdot readers don't have a chance, you imply, because we just are not smart enough.
This doesn't imply the system is broken, just that it is specialized. Nearly every inventor I have met believes that everything they make is novel. I would never leave it up to inventors to decide what is unique and how much protection under the law they should be afforded. The patent office recieved 380k applications last year (the most ever and 8% more than the previous year). Disclosure of inventions certainly is not dead. In that same period the office only allowed about a third of the cases applied for. This is not a patent registration system. Only 20% of all patents are allowed without first being rejected. Patents are legal tools to be used to sue third parties. Of course they should be written in exacting legal language and of course there should be a specialized group of people that have a better understanding of that language than the average person. This is the same for any doccument that needs to be written exactly in the English language (Deeds, Loans, Laws, Constitutions).
Once again, this rings false. The average cost of defending oneself in court against a patent claim averages around 2 million dollars. That gives the holder of a 'bad' patent incredible leverage -- as long as they ask for something reasonably less than 2 million dollars in licensing fees, the prudent "infringer" will pay up rather than fight. Don't tell us this isn't how it works -- one need only look at how many billion dollars the Lemelson "computer vision" patents brought in before eventually being challenged and invalidated.
Once again this is false. There is no David vs Goliath here. Large companies hire firms or establish large in house shops to manage their portfolios. They buy "quality" patents from sma
Whatever PTO examiners don't know about standard practice is dwarfed by what Slashdotters don't know about Patent Law.
First, as has been explaned numerous times before, each patent is reviewed by someone with training in that select field. For example, a patent for an LCD is reviewed by someone that has reviewed LCD patents, often for as long as LCDs have existed. It's quite common for these specialized examiners to be as adept in the field as any inventor working in that same field. This isn't surprising considering that those examiners will be reading some 1000 or more pages related to the field every day in their searches.
Second, the claims define the patented subject matter. Without sufficient legal background it's impossible to understand the meets and bounds (legal protection) of the claims. Reading out patent titles or parts of the specification is useless to understanding the legal ramifications of the patent itself. There is a reason why nearly all cases brought before the office are by lawyers representing inventors and not by the inventors themselves.
Third, it is in the best interest of the inventor (most of all) to allow good patents. Bad patents cannot be enforced in a court of law and are therefor not valuable to the inventor. As the filing fees for a patent often exceed several thousand dollars (and attorney fees are even more), people who pursue bad patents only harm themselves.
Fourth, just because you have a patent doesn't mean you can use it. A patent on some random element of a flower pot is only useful in that third parties find it useful and without an alternative, and the patent will be upheld upon extensive review by other attorneys.
Lawyers understand the quality of the USPTO far better than the average public. The USPTO is a favorite selection for PCT (Internationally filed Patents) searches primarily because they offer the best quality search and examination in the world today. Here no patent is awarded, and the sole goal is to find the best, most relevant art before filing nationally in other coutries.
Of course, feel free to ingore this or mod it down so you can continue to sound ignorant to those that have bothered to understand the details of Patent Law.
Whatever PTO examiners don't know about standard practice is dwarfed by what Slashdotters don't know about Patent Law.
First, as has been explaned numerous times before, each patent is reviewed by someone with training in that select field. For example, a patent for an LCD is reviewed by someone that has reviewed LCD patents, often for as long as LCDs have existed. It's quite common for these specialized examiners to be as adept in the field as any inventor working in that same field. This isn't surprising considering that those examiners will be reading some 1000 or more pages related to the field every day in their searches.
Second, the claims define the patented subject matter. Without sufficient legal background it's impossible to understand the meets and bounds (legal protection) of the claims. Reading out patent titles or parts of the specification is useless to understanding the legal ramifications of the patent itself. There is a reason why nearly all cases brought before the office are by lawyers representing inventors and not by the inventors themselves.
Third, it is in the best interest of the inventor (most of all) to allow good patents. Bad patents cannot be enforced in a court of law and are therefor not valuable to the inventor. As the filing fees for a patent often exceed several thousand dollars (and attorney fees are even more), people who pursue bad patents only harm themselves.
Fourth, just because you have a patent doesn't mean you can use it. A patent on some random element of a flower pot is only useful in that third parties find it useful and without an alternative, and the patent will be upheld upon extensive review by other attorneys.
Lawyers understand the quality of the USPTO far better than the average public. The USPTO is a favorite selection for PCT (Internationally filed Patents) searches primarily because they offer the best quality search and examination in the world today. Here no patent is awarded, and the sole goal is to find the best, most relevant art before filing nationally in other coutries.
Of course, feel free to ingore this or mod it down so you can continue to sound ignorant to those that have bothered to understand the details of Patent Law.
It's common practice in Japan, for instance, for the lab head to be listed as an inventor along with the rest of his team. The USPTO has no authority to investigate his actual contribution to the invention, and the Japanese could care less, because in their system the company can file locally for the patent instead of the inventors (The US is unique in requiring inventions be filed by inventors).
Why is it the word patent instantly turns everyone on Slashdot into mindless idiots?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll dispense of the block quotes this time.
First small inventors are not without options. They are encouraged by the system to market and sell (or lease) their rights to larger groups that have the money to defend them and the resources to bring them to market. No matter what system you are for, this will always be the case.
The cease and desist letters are not end alls. They are routinely ignored. Mostly they are a tool of the law. Firms have an obligation to warn any potential infringers of their infringment as soon as possible to ensure maximum settlement. That average readers think they carry any actual weight is a product of not informing themselves or hiring someone who is more informed to represent them.
As for Nakamura. He was not working alone is some garage. He was part of a large team of engineers refining LEDs. That he personally was not rewarded is not really a concern for me. Even had he not won the case in Japan, he still would have recieved the cushy professorship and speaking engagements. Bright inventors will always be rewarded for their contributions if they are equally adept at the business side of the transaction.
The company, on the other hand, had been pursing LED tech for some time before and after Nakamura. They continue to lead in R&D in that field, precisely because of the royalties they have earned because of their earlier research. This was the goal of our forefathers. The system is designed to encourage "good" research and direct resources to those firms that perform good research. Nichia, because of thier success has been aforded the ability to gain further success. By the way, US law is different than Japanese IP Law in that companies cannot file for patents. We actually afford greater protection to people like Nakamura.
Capitalism relies on the idea of property. You have to materialize any thing of value so it can be traded and protected. This includes inventive concepts. Patents (limited monopolies) are a way of materializing intellectual properties and thus are solely a product of expanding capatalism. Socialist want an equal playing field at all times and the sharing of resources. Pushing all intellectual pursuits into the public realm allows for this but is certainly not capatalistic.
As for the snipe about lawyers making money for thier work, I certainly hope they do. The more money they make, the better minds we can encourage into that field, and the better our patent system will work.
Remind me again what field of employees does not believe they are underworked or underpaid? The average PTO employee is hired out of College as a GS 7 step 10. They make around 54k to start with and are eligible for pay raises starting just 6 months into employment. They can be making over 100k in just 4.5 years and in reality often make much more than that due to overtime. Further a quality private firm search can cost in the range of $10,000 (after competition and free market forces). So what would you rather have? A patent system that weeds out some 90% of bad cases or a system that cost upwards of $20,000 just to file a patent? (a small inventor can get a patent for around $2,000 or so today).
This system is analogous to the courts by the way. Local courts don't have the expertise or time to always reach the best decision in any case of law. However they do well on the majority of cases. In cases in which they error, applicant's can appeal to the next court up. In patent Law, applicants have several options above the patent office (Patent board of appeals, District Court, State Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and Surpreme Court).
This doesn't imply the system is broken, just that it is specialized. Nearly every inventor I have met believes that everything they make is novel. I would never leave it up to inventors to decide what is unique and how much protection under the law they should be afforded. The patent office recieved 380k applications last year (the most ever and 8% more than the previous year). Disclosure of inventions certainly is not dead. In that same period the office only allowed about a third of the cases applied for. This is not a patent registration system. Only 20% of all patents are allowed without first being rejected. Patents are legal tools to be used to sue third parties. Of course they should be written in exacting legal language and of course there should be a specialized group of people that have a better understanding of that language than the average person. This is the same for any doccument that needs to be written exactly in the English language (Deeds, Loans, Laws, Constitutions).
Once again this is false. There is no David vs Goliath here. Large companies hire firms or establish large in house shops to manage their portfolios. They buy "quality" patents from sma
Once more with proper formatting:
Whatever PTO examiners don't know about standard practice is dwarfed by what Slashdotters don't know about Patent Law.
First, as has been explaned numerous times before, each patent is reviewed by someone with training in that select field. For example, a patent for an LCD is reviewed by someone that has reviewed LCD patents, often for as long as LCDs have existed. It's quite common for these specialized examiners to be as adept in the field as any inventor working in that same field. This isn't surprising considering that those examiners will be reading some 1000 or more pages related to the field every day in their searches.
Second, the claims define the patented subject matter. Without sufficient legal background it's impossible to understand the meets and bounds (legal protection) of the claims. Reading out patent titles or parts of the specification is useless to understanding the legal ramifications of the patent itself. There is a reason why nearly all cases brought before the office are by lawyers representing inventors and not by the inventors themselves.
Third, it is in the best interest of the inventor (most of all) to allow good patents. Bad patents cannot be enforced in a court of law and are therefor not valuable to the inventor. As the filing fees for a patent often exceed several thousand dollars (and attorney fees are even more), people who pursue bad patents only harm themselves.
Fourth, just because you have a patent doesn't mean you can use it. A patent on some random element of a flower pot is only useful in that third parties find it useful and without an alternative, and the patent will be upheld upon extensive review by other attorneys.
Lawyers understand the quality of the USPTO far better than the average public. The USPTO is a favorite selection for PCT (Internationally filed Patents) searches primarily because they offer the best quality search and examination in the world today. Here no patent is awarded, and the sole goal is to find the best, most relevant art before filing nationally in other coutries.
Of course, feel free to ingore this or mod it down so you can continue to sound ignorant to those that have bothered to understand the details of Patent Law.
Whatever PTO examiners don't know about standard practice is dwarfed by what Slashdotters don't know about Patent Law. First, as has been explaned numerous times before, each patent is reviewed by someone with training in that select field. For example, a patent for an LCD is reviewed by someone that has reviewed LCD patents, often for as long as LCDs have existed. It's quite common for these specialized examiners to be as adept in the field as any inventor working in that same field. This isn't surprising considering that those examiners will be reading some 1000 or more pages related to the field every day in their searches. Second, the claims define the patented subject matter. Without sufficient legal background it's impossible to understand the meets and bounds (legal protection) of the claims. Reading out patent titles or parts of the specification is useless to understanding the legal ramifications of the patent itself. There is a reason why nearly all cases brought before the office are by lawyers representing inventors and not by the inventors themselves. Third, it is in the best interest of the inventor (most of all) to allow good patents. Bad patents cannot be enforced in a court of law and are therefor not valuable to the inventor. As the filing fees for a patent often exceed several thousand dollars (and attorney fees are even more), people who pursue bad patents only harm themselves. Fourth, just because you have a patent doesn't mean you can use it. A patent on some random element of a flower pot is only useful in that third parties find it useful and without an alternative, and the patent will be upheld upon extensive review by other attorneys. Lawyers understand the quality of the USPTO far better than the average public. The USPTO is a favorite selection for PCT (Internationally filed Patents) searches primarily because they offer the best quality search and examination in the world today. Here no patent is awarded, and the sole goal is to find the best, most relevant art before filing nationally in other coutries. Of course, feel free to ingore this or mod it down so you can continue to sound ignorant to those that have bothered to understand the details of Patent Law.
Only if the patent isn't assigned to a third party, which in nearly all cases regarding foreign inventors, it is.
It's common practice in Japan, for instance, for the lab head to be listed as an inventor along with the rest of his team. The USPTO has no authority to investigate his actual contribution to the invention, and the Japanese could care less, because in their system the company can file locally for the patent instead of the inventors (The US is unique in requiring inventions be filed by inventors).
Why is it the word patent instantly turns everyone on Slashdot into mindless idiots?