Mod parent up (just exhausted all my mod points). I know a lot of people won't like this, but it's true. Not that there's anything wrong w/ either, but it's just that it then translates into ground facts, such as women are more interested in nursing than men are, while men are more interested in cars, planes, computers and all other things (not people) that one can think of.
Nursing was originally a male-only profession. Unless you're seriously suggesting that we've undergone a drastic evolutionary shift in the past few hundred years, then no, there's nothing genetically innate about that interest.
... the idea of "hate crimes" still seems silly to me...something is a crime or it's not, we can't legislate hate IMO.
We don't legislate "hate". "Hate crimes" are not the criminalization of "hate", but sentencing enhancements applied based on motive or intent. And you understand that we do punish different crimes differently based on intent, right? For example, premeditated murder is usually punished more severely than heat-of-the-moment murder, which is punished more severely than accidental homicide or reckless "manslaughter", which is punished more severely than negligent manslaughter, etc. If I swing my arm without paying attention and bop you in the nose, that's bad, but it's not as bad as if I intentionally bop you in the nose... and we as a society have decided that that is not as bad as if I intentionally bop you in the nose because you're a member of a minority group I dislike.
Or, to look at it another way, if I bop you in the nose because I dislike you, that harms you, and I should be punished for that single instance of harm. But if I bop you in the nose while ranting about people of your religion/race/gender/etc., I'm doing it to terrorize or intimidate other people of that religion/race/gender/etc. - I'm physically harming you and sending a message to others like you that they should beware because I'll try to harm them in the future. Accordingly, I should be punished for that increased harm.
And remember, there has to be evidence of that intent. If I bop you on the nose because you're a member of group X, but I never say a word about that, then I'm not going to receive an enhanced sentence simply because you're X and I'm Y. It's only when I take the additional action of letting my intent be known - and as noted above, I would do that because I'm trying to intimidate other X's.
So, in short, we're not criminalizing "hate", we're criminalizing domestic terrorism. And I'm fine with that.
Combining A+B and C may not be easy, but it is obvious. This is actually the main problem I see with software patents: idea C is "with a computer", and A+B is some existing invention. Newspapers - on a computer! Alarm clocks - on a computer! Bank transactions - on a computer! Sure it was hard to program them. It's still obvious. But if securing the bank transactions requires new innovations in security technology to glue the pieces together, those innovations could merit patent D. Does not and should not prevent anybody else from making their own secure bank transactions with a different security method because somebody got an A+B+C patent covering the obvious part.
Definitely, and that should be the answer to those: "Alarm clock, on a computer!"
"That's obvious. Alarm clocks and computers both exist."
"But this was difficult because [intricate problem that's different with computer clocks] and we had to do [intricate solution]."
"Then put that in the patent claims."
Good patent examiners currently do that, but there's a bunch of terrible stuff out there.
Really not understanding your point about pharmaceuticals. How is the benzene ring different from "including a library or function in a program [which] should have an absolutely predictable result"?
Combine a program and a library and even before hitting compile, you should be able to tell exactly what the result is. Combine a benzene ring and a hydroxide compound and even if you done it at one position, move it someplace else and it could have the opposite effect. It's unpredictable.
I do agree though that pharmaceuticals are a bit different than other patent issues, but for a different reason: selling a drug requires round after round of expensive clinical trials because of the FDA. Without exclusivity, there may not be enough incentive for drug companies to pay for those trials if a generic manufacturer can reverse engineer the same drug and sell it on the cheap without paying for the trials. Maybe the FDA should have its own special exclusivity granting system so we can peel off one of the complications of patent law.
True. Pharmaceuticals don't really seem to mesh with patent law anyway - right now, a company will defend their patent application as I did above, saying that the result of any compound is absolutely unpredictable, so therefore, nothing is ever obvious in drugs... and then when they get the patent and some competitors makes a biosimilar drug, that first company will leap up and say it's just an obvious variation on the patent and is covered under the doctrine of equivalents.
In short-- dont let me stop you if you want to look into steak and beer as potential causes of telomere shortening-- but unless theres substantive results there, Im not going to start panicking yet.
Or, as I suggested, we could actually do science and do a whole bunch of tests changing or removing one variable at a time: try cola and then try clear cola, rather than your suggested "try cola, try steak, gosh, different effects."
So, if the invention claims "A+B+C" and one piece of art teaches A+B and the the other teaches C, then A+B+C is obvious. That's not very subjective at all.
I disagree here. Sometimes the non-obvious part is that C can be combined with A+B in a useful manner in the first place.
That's actually the counter-argument: reference 1 teaches A+B, reference 2 teaches C, so they're obvious? No, because combining them is a biatch and raises additional problems, or combining them is unforeseeable because they're so widely different that they result in an unpredictable result, etc., etc.:)
That argument generally works better on the pharmaceutical side, where some benzene ring with a hydroxil component may be beneficial if it hangs off the first carbon, really beneficial if it hangs off the second, and absolutely toxic if hangs off the third. Doesn't work as well on the high tech/software side, where including a library or function in a program should have an absolutely predictable result. So, instead, it's better to argue that neither reference actually teaches "B" or something.
When a certain drug, whose active ingredients were asprin and something else, had its patents about to run out the maker "invented" a new durg that was the same except that the replaced asprin with aceteminophen. Patented that. and then withdrew the original from the market.
Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid or 2-(acetyloxy)benzoic acid. Acetaminophen is N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethanamide. It's an entirely different chemical. They didn't "invent" a new drug - they actually did invent a new drug.
And as you note, the two have different effects. Acetaminophen can be particularly bad for livers in high doses.
And finally, your timeline is off. The patents on aspirin expired in 1917. Acetaminophen was released in 1956. Aspirin was widely available at that time, with many different manufacturers competing.
The problem is, what is prior art? It's highly subjective and as such, the law is complicated.
It's anything in the art that was published or available to the public prior to the filing date of the application. There's nothing subjective at all about it. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. UNIVAC is prior art for the Macbook Pro.
What you seem to be referring to is anticipatory prior art - that is, art that includes every element of a claimed invention. But even that is not subjective - either it describes the claimed features or it doesn't.
What you really want to be referring to is "what is obvious?" And that's a little more subjective, but not as highly subjective as you think - under the current law, if no one reference describes everything in the claimed invention, nothing anticipates it or it is "new", but if a combination of references teach everything in it, then it's obvious. So, if the invention claims "A+B+C" and one piece of art teaches A+B and the the other teaches C, then A+B+C is obvious. That's not very subjective at all.
There is no reforming the current system. We need an entirely new system. As is, an inventor has basically no change to win. If he invents something, lawyers find a way to subtly change it to produce it without permission.
In other words, lawyers (or other engineers) find a way to invent around it. The public ends up with two ways to accomplish the same thing. Innovation is increased. Hooray!
Likewise, if they have something patented they again get lawyers to find a way to change it and extend that patent into perpetuity.
In other words, lawyers (or the inventor) find a way to invent around it, or come up with an improvement. The public ends up with two ways to accomplish the same thing, or a better way to accomplish the thing. Innovation is increased. Hooray!
Patents should be rare. Almost everything should be covered by short term copyright and trade secrets. Patents should only cover truly new and innovative tech. Smartphones are battery powered computers... there shouldn't be anything in them that's patentable.
What about the better batteries? What about wireless charging, fast charging, new battery management techniques that extend battery life, etc.? What about new transmission and data compression techniques that make that new smart phone able to communicate ten times faster, over ten times the distance, as the old model?
A new form of Fusion reactor? Ok... that's patent. I'd even propose that someone applying for a patent should have to get a court to approve the patent before it being granted.
But let's say we go with your suggestion... No patents since they'd be way too expensive if you have to go through an entire trial just to get exclusivity before you even start making your product. Instead, "short term copyright and trade secrets".
Well, copyright doesn't apply to that smart phone, because when your competitor makes one, they're making a new one, not copying yours. In fact, copyright only really works when you're copying the exact thing - rip a DVD of Harry Potter and you've committed copyright infringement. Film the Mockbuster production Larry Kotter, and you haven't. Dream Heights isn't an infringement of Tiny Tower. GIMP isn't an infringement of Photoshop. A Nissan Leaf isn't an infringement of a Toyota Prius. As a result, copyright doesn't work when people care about the implementation, but not the exact thing. It's fine for movies and music and books, but not for software or hardware.
So, we turn to trade secrets. Great, now you have to sign a contract with every piece of software or hardware you buy. And those contracts can last a lot longer than the limited term of a patent - they can be lifetime contracts. Don't like it, don't buy the software or hardware - but without patents, every
If it does, we need to look at steak, beer, and caramel too.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look at any effect consumption of those have on telomeres? Unless I'm reading your sarcasm wrong there, it seems that in two posts you've flipped from a pro-science, anti-ingredient-scaremongering position to an anti-science, can't-study-anything position.
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring?
1) Caramel coloring is generally not required to be specially labelled (can be listed as "artificial coloring") because its literally caramelized carbohydrates.
2) HFCS and sucrose are basically indistinguishable other than trace additives once your body metabolizes them; the sucrose becomes a mix of fructose and glucose.
And does consuming a high dose of caramelized carbohydrates or a mixture of approximately 50-50 fructose and sucrose cause telomere shortening?
Simply saying "well, X ingredient is really Y" doesn't mean that Y (or X) has no effect.
I think that this one ingredient, (which is also in many juices) would explain most of this. That is why they are starting to phase it out in many pop formulations.
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring? Study needs to be done with seltzer, diet cola, diet clear soda, regular cola, regular clear soda, etc.
On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it.
If the idea requires a level of effort to implement that only those large companies can provide, then it's probably something deserving of getting paid for. That implementation is protected by copyright. If, on the other hand, it's simple enough that other people can implement it without a great deal of work, then eventually a free (gratis) implementation will rise up.
The free (gratis) implementation would not infringe the copyright on the large company's implementation, since it would be separately created and not a copy. This is why copyright is great when the original item is what's desired - Harry Potter, rather than Larry Kotter; World of Warcraft, rather than Troll-Human MMO Saga; the Hulk movie rather than the Strong Green Man movie from Bollywood, etc. It's terrible when the implementation is what's desired, but not the specific copy - for example, Photoshop vs. GIMP vs. Sketch vs. Paint.Net; or SimTower vs. Dream Heights vs. TinyTower vs. Hotel Simulator, etc. Basically, it only works with software when the software is a de facto standard, and particularly if it fights interoperability, which is something geeks should be opposed to generally.
Those patents disclose algorithms. Basically, applied math.
35 USC 101 allows patenting a process, which is an algorithm. And the judicial exception carves out mathematical algorithms, not applied math. In fact, applied algorithms are probably exactly what we want patents to cover, rather than the abstract mathematics themselves.
Which should have never, ever been allowed as claims in a patent since they are antithetical to the compromise between the inventor's and society's benefit the patent system was designed to facilitate.
In what way? The patent discloses the invention, so society benefits over the inventor keeping it a trade secret. In return for the disclosure, the patent owner gets a limited monopoly. That's exactly the compromise.
So, if they install a wheelchair ramp for a disabled employee at your company, do you demand they spend the same amount on amenities for everyone else? If they employ an on-site councillor to help employees deal with stress but you never use the service, do you demand they employ someone to mow your lawn instead?
No, GP poster insists that they break his kneecaps and install random flashing lights in his cube so that he can take advantage of the same benefits.
That's two seperate events, and the one you're talking about was where domestic violence victims were trying to speak about being turned away from shelters or threatened with arrest. You just shot yourself in the foot bringing that up.
Me: Do you have a citation for your claim?
You: No! And you just shot yourself in the foot by bringing up another event!
Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. If you can't support your claim when called out, no amount of deflection is going to hide that fact.
Yes, actually, considering that men who don't conform to that gender role are attacked using slurs like "neckbeard" and "dudebro".
I don't think "guys who communicate their feelings" are the ones being called neckbeard or dudebro.
In fact feminists went so far as to commit felonies to shut down a suicide prevention conference because hey fuck men.
Well, I'm sure you have a valid citation for that, and not, say, a link to a video of protesters at a speech on "men's issues and the double standards of feminism" (rather than a "suicide prevention conference") cheering when someone random pulls a fire alarm.
This is not a problem exclusive to women.
As a man you can also get your life disrupted by death threats, unordered pizzas/taxis/products and doxxing.
It's probably easier to get singled out for it as a women, but if you are subject to it as a man you'll get much less support to cope with it. This is reflected in the offline world too as a MUCH higher suicide rate for men compared to women. Trying to construct this as some purely misgyonistic issue is just reinforcing the gender bias of men as some disposable soldier caste and is likely to aggrevate misgyonistic tendencies overall in society.
And who do you think is out there telling men to keep their feelings bottled up until they explode? Women? Misogyny hurts men, too.
It also is not cool the way the government went after him.
Or technically, it was not cool the way the government went after him for the wrong crime. If they had pursued his ass for the stalking and harassment, that'd be just fine.
I'm no physicist myself, but from what I can tell, David Weber's Honor Harrington series of novels does a pretty good job of getting the physics right. Most battles are missile duels, energy weapons are powerful, but short-range, and when they develop a means of giving missiles multi-stage drives, it changes the game significantly, as they no longer have a single burst of maneuvering speed and then come in ballistic; they can accelerate at their target, burn out the first stage, coast in ballistic for many thousands of kilometers, and then activate the second stage for final maneuvering.
It's a good concept on the surface, but Weber destroys the physics with his own lust for large numbers: ships are not fighting at "short-range" of a kilometer or two... they're at "short-range" of a hundred thousand kilometers. "Long" range stretches out to tens of millions of kilometers. Of course, he has to, when he has ships that can accelerate at hundreds of Gs, and missiles that can accelerate at 96 thousand G's.
I love the series, but Weber's constant need to go from "a ship firing 10 missiles at a broadside... no wait, 10 thousand missiles at a broadside! And they zoom off at a kilometer per secon- no, wait, a million kilometers per second!" is more than little silly, and certainly not a "pretty good job" of getting the physics right.
It's a resource allocation problem. There is enough food on earth right now to sustainably feed everyone, the problem lies with the people on the path from the food to the hungry mouths. Increasing food production increases the wealth of the people in the middle, who now have more resources to allocate, but does not necessarily reduce the number of hungry people.
This also would help the hungry mouths grow their own food, faster, with less space, in damp areas that were previously prone to rot (one of the things discussed in the video is that through faster germination, less of the crop rots before harvest). This doesn't change increase the wealth of the people in the middle, but opens new areas to farming by hungry people.
A detailed description of a process in a textbook is also enough for any skilled programmer. For Alice and Bilski you can find the steps to perform the process in any finance book. Pseudocode and flow charts don't teach anything when the process is well known. Chances are finance books have charts in them as well.
Sure, and completely stipulated. The "do something well known and described in finance books" and "on a computer" stuff shouldn't be patentable... Rather, it's new processes (that are nonetheless, done on a computer):
If your talking about a brand new process then your not talking about a software patent. Your patenting a new business method.
What if it was a brand new process or business method, never been done before, on a computer. Like, say, calculating the value of some strange multidimensional factorial required to teleport yourself twenty feet to the left and six hours into the future? Certainly new, but let's assume it can be done with a TI-83. Should that be patentable?
Patents don't disclose source code. So they don't teach a programmer how to "put the bits of plastic together".
Pseudocode and detailed* flow charts should be enough for any skilled programmer. You shouldn't need C+ code - and if you do, what happens in 5 years when you say "I don't know C+, I only know Swift" or whatever the next language is? Conversely, what about art from the 60s or 70s - if it had COBOL code would you know how to use that? No, pseudocode and detailed* flow charts should be enough of a disclosure, because from them, you can implement the program in any language.
*Many patent applications do not have detailed flow charts, but rather "flow charts" that just show a single series of steps in a line, as Prof. Lemley noted in one of the interviews linked from another comment. You're right - those are total crap and don't teach anyone anything.
Patent examiners can do their thing. Alice gives them a tool now too.
Yes, and no... Patent Examiners are bound under the requirements of due process to present a prima facie case for why an application is not patentable, as the initial burden rests on the Office. How do you provide a prima facie case that an idea is abstract? It's a conclusion, not an argument supported by evidence, as the Courts have admitted when their evidence is "I know it when I see it".
How do you define "actually inventive"?
Here are the questions I ask when contemplating patent filings, post-Alice, for a software method (or computer implemented method):
* Can I reasonably determine the bits and pieces you put together a specific solution to a specific problem based on your claims? should avoid a 101 issue.
* Do the claims give me all of the pieces of the puzzle or does it give me a flowchart?
* And, to entirely avoid an Alice question, are you using generic bits of technology for their ordinary purpose to solve an old problem the old way?
"Good" answers to these questions should avoid a 101 issue.
Quite possibly, though it fails to answer my question about your definition of "actually inventive". It also points to part of the problem with Alice, since your first question is really about 112 written description, your second question is really about 112 enablement and unclaimed essential matter, and your third question (as you note) is really about 103 obviousness. Now, I agree, that if you meet 103 and 112, Justice Thomas would likely not "know an [abstract idea] when he sees it" and find the application invalid under 101, and maybe that's a fine answer from a pragmatic standpoint, but it's a terrible one from a jurisprudence standpoint.
Section 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The supreme court has over the last century defined what the words in that statement mean.
The word "abstract" is just shorthand for "not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or new and usefull improvement thereof"
The supreme court has a very narrow and limited definition of "process" for this statute.
Which is a shame, because Congress has already defined it in Section 100:
The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
So, for example, a new use of a known machine - like, say, a new business method performed on a known computer - would fall under that statutory definition.
I think this procedural aspect is critically important. Patent litigation is incredibly expensive. Defendants generally expect to spend >4 million dollars to defend against allegations of infringement. Post-Alice, judges have been ruling on the issues very early in litigation and cutting of those costs and timelines. As Theaeteus mentions, the problem with this approach is that it is generally done without full development of evidence. As a policy-matter, it remains unclear which approach is better (we don't know how good judges are at making the 101 determination (knowing it when they see it)).
They've been great in the two major 101 cases, Bilski and Alice. Hardly anyone thought those claims were (or should have been) valid, as the methods were old and well known... But that's also like going back to the old obscenity cases and having your "test case" be Two Girls, One Cup. The old saying "bad facts make bad law" is true primarily because everyone agrees with the outcome based on those bad facts... but then it's used as precedent in cases where the facts aren't nearly so bad.
As an aside, patents have a historic tie to property law, hence things like permanent injunctions and willful infringement damages... but maybe that's not such a good thing, as they're primarily economic instruments. It leads naturally to equity-based judgements rather than concrete tests and rules... people would be outraged if judges were routinely invalidating contracts as a matter of law on a "I know it when I see it" justification.
If we did away with the property tie and abandoned permanent injunctions and what are effectively punitive damages, in exchange for compulsory licensing and reasonable royalties, a lot of the issues people have with trolls would go away, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up (just exhausted all my mod points). I know a lot of people won't like this, but it's true. Not that there's anything wrong w/ either, but it's just that it then translates into ground facts, such as women are more interested in nursing than men are, while men are more interested in cars, planes, computers and all other things (not people) that one can think of.
Nursing was originally a male-only profession. Unless you're seriously suggesting that we've undergone a drastic evolutionary shift in the past few hundred years, then no, there's nothing genetically innate about that interest.
... the idea of "hate crimes" still seems silly to me...something is a crime or it's not, we can't legislate hate IMO.
We don't legislate "hate". "Hate crimes" are not the criminalization of "hate", but sentencing enhancements applied based on motive or intent. And you understand that we do punish different crimes differently based on intent, right? For example, premeditated murder is usually punished more severely than heat-of-the-moment murder, which is punished more severely than accidental homicide or reckless "manslaughter", which is punished more severely than negligent manslaughter, etc. If I swing my arm without paying attention and bop you in the nose, that's bad, but it's not as bad as if I intentionally bop you in the nose... and we as a society have decided that that is not as bad as if I intentionally bop you in the nose because you're a member of a minority group I dislike.
Or, to look at it another way, if I bop you in the nose because I dislike you, that harms you, and I should be punished for that single instance of harm. But if I bop you in the nose while ranting about people of your religion/race/gender/etc., I'm doing it to terrorize or intimidate other people of that religion/race/gender/etc. - I'm physically harming you and sending a message to others like you that they should beware because I'll try to harm them in the future. Accordingly, I should be punished for that increased harm.
And remember, there has to be evidence of that intent. If I bop you on the nose because you're a member of group X, but I never say a word about that, then I'm not going to receive an enhanced sentence simply because you're X and I'm Y. It's only when I take the additional action of letting my intent be known - and as noted above, I would do that because I'm trying to intimidate other X's.
So, in short, we're not criminalizing "hate", we're criminalizing domestic terrorism. And I'm fine with that.
Combining A+B and C may not be easy, but it is obvious. This is actually the main problem I see with software patents: idea C is "with a computer", and A+B is some existing invention. Newspapers - on a computer! Alarm clocks - on a computer! Bank transactions - on a computer! Sure it was hard to program them. It's still obvious. But if securing the bank transactions requires new innovations in security technology to glue the pieces together, those innovations could merit patent D. Does not and should not prevent anybody else from making their own secure bank transactions with a different security method because somebody got an A+B+C patent covering the obvious part.
Definitely, and that should be the answer to those:
"Alarm clock, on a computer!"
"That's obvious. Alarm clocks and computers both exist."
"But this was difficult because [intricate problem that's different with computer clocks] and we had to do [intricate solution]."
"Then put that in the patent claims."
Good patent examiners currently do that, but there's a bunch of terrible stuff out there.
Really not understanding your point about pharmaceuticals. How is the benzene ring different from "including a library or function in a program [which] should have an absolutely predictable result"?
Combine a program and a library and even before hitting compile, you should be able to tell exactly what the result is. Combine a benzene ring and a hydroxide compound and even if you done it at one position, move it someplace else and it could have the opposite effect. It's unpredictable.
I do agree though that pharmaceuticals are a bit different than other patent issues, but for a different reason: selling a drug requires round after round of expensive clinical trials because of the FDA. Without exclusivity, there may not be enough incentive for drug companies to pay for those trials if a generic manufacturer can reverse engineer the same drug and sell it on the cheap without paying for the trials. Maybe the FDA should have its own special exclusivity granting system so we can peel off one of the complications of patent law.
True. Pharmaceuticals don't really seem to mesh with patent law anyway - right now, a company will defend their patent application as I did above, saying that the result of any compound is absolutely unpredictable, so therefore, nothing is ever obvious in drugs... and then when they get the patent and some competitors makes a biosimilar drug, that first company will leap up and say it's just an obvious variation on the patent and is covered under the doctrine of equivalents.
In short-- dont let me stop you if you want to look into steak and beer as potential causes of telomere shortening-- but unless theres substantive results there, Im not going to start panicking yet.
Or, as I suggested, we could actually do science and do a whole bunch of tests changing or removing one variable at a time: try cola and then try clear cola, rather than your suggested "try cola, try steak, gosh, different effects."
So, if the invention claims "A+B+C" and one piece of art teaches A+B and the the other teaches C, then A+B+C is obvious. That's not very subjective at all.
I disagree here. Sometimes the non-obvious part is that C can be combined with A+B in a useful manner in the first place.
That's actually the counter-argument: reference 1 teaches A+B, reference 2 teaches C, so they're obvious? No, because combining them is a biatch and raises additional problems, or combining them is unforeseeable because they're so widely different that they result in an unpredictable result, etc., etc. :)
That argument generally works better on the pharmaceutical side, where some benzene ring with a hydroxil component may be beneficial if it hangs off the first carbon, really beneficial if it hangs off the second, and absolutely toxic if hangs off the third. Doesn't work as well on the high tech/software side, where including a library or function in a program should have an absolutely predictable result. So, instead, it's better to argue that neither reference actually teaches "B" or something.
When a certain drug, whose active ingredients were asprin and something else, had its patents about to run out the maker "invented" a new durg that was the same except that the replaced asprin with aceteminophen. Patented that. and then withdrew the original from the market.
Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid or 2-(acetyloxy)benzoic acid. Acetaminophen is N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethanamide. It's an entirely different chemical. They didn't "invent" a new drug - they actually did invent a new drug.
And as you note, the two have different effects. Acetaminophen can be particularly bad for livers in high doses.
And finally, your timeline is off. The patents on aspirin expired in 1917. Acetaminophen was released in 1956. Aspirin was widely available at that time, with many different manufacturers competing.
The problem is, what is prior art? It's highly subjective and as such, the law is complicated.
It's anything in the art that was published or available to the public prior to the filing date of the application. There's nothing subjective at all about it. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Roadster. UNIVAC is prior art for the Macbook Pro.
What you seem to be referring to is anticipatory prior art - that is, art that includes every element of a claimed invention. But even that is not subjective - either it describes the claimed features or it doesn't.
What you really want to be referring to is "what is obvious?" And that's a little more subjective, but not as highly subjective as you think - under the current law, if no one reference describes everything in the claimed invention, nothing anticipates it or it is "new", but if a combination of references teach everything in it, then it's obvious. So, if the invention claims "A+B+C" and one piece of art teaches A+B and the the other teaches C, then A+B+C is obvious. That's not very subjective at all.
There is no reforming the current system. We need an entirely new system. As is, an inventor has basically no change to win. If he invents something, lawyers find a way to subtly change it to produce it without permission.
In other words, lawyers (or other engineers) find a way to invent around it. The public ends up with two ways to accomplish the same thing. Innovation is increased. Hooray!
Likewise, if they have something patented they again get lawyers to find a way to change it and extend that patent into perpetuity.
In other words, lawyers (or the inventor) find a way to invent around it, or come up with an improvement. The public ends up with two ways to accomplish the same thing, or a better way to accomplish the thing. Innovation is increased. Hooray!
Patents should be rare. Almost everything should be covered by short term copyright and trade secrets. Patents should only cover truly new and innovative tech. Smartphones are battery powered computers... there shouldn't be anything in them that's patentable.
What about the better batteries? What about wireless charging, fast charging, new battery management techniques that extend battery life, etc.? What about new transmission and data compression techniques that make that new smart phone able to communicate ten times faster, over ten times the distance, as the old model?
A new form of Fusion reactor? Ok... that's patent. I'd even propose that someone applying for a patent should have to get a court to approve the patent before it being granted.
But let's say we go with your suggestion... No patents since they'd be way too expensive if you have to go through an entire trial just to get exclusivity before you even start making your product. Instead, "short term copyright and trade secrets".
Well, copyright doesn't apply to that smart phone, because when your competitor makes one, they're making a new one, not copying yours. In fact, copyright only really works when you're copying the exact thing - rip a DVD of Harry Potter and you've committed copyright infringement. Film the Mockbuster production Larry Kotter, and you haven't. Dream Heights isn't an infringement of Tiny Tower. GIMP isn't an infringement of Photoshop. A Nissan Leaf isn't an infringement of a Toyota Prius. As a result, copyright doesn't work when people care about the implementation, but not the exact thing. It's fine for movies and music and books, but not for software or hardware.
So, we turn to trade secrets. Great, now you have to sign a contract with every piece of software or hardware you buy. And those contracts can last a lot longer than the limited term of a patent - they can be lifetime contracts. Don't like it, don't buy the software or hardware - but without patents, every
If it does, we need to look at steak, beer, and caramel too.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look at any effect consumption of those have on telomeres? Unless I'm reading your sarcasm wrong there, it seems that in two posts you've flipped from a pro-science, anti-ingredient-scaremongering position to an anti-science, can't-study-anything position.
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring?
1) Caramel coloring is generally not required to be specially labelled (can be listed as "artificial coloring") because its literally caramelized carbohydrates. 2) HFCS and sucrose are basically indistinguishable other than trace additives once your body metabolizes them; the sucrose becomes a mix of fructose and glucose.
And does consuming a high dose of caramelized carbohydrates or a mixture of approximately 50-50 fructose and sucrose cause telomere shortening?
Simply saying "well, X ingredient is really Y" doesn't mean that Y (or X) has no effect.
Sodium benzoate
I think that this one ingredient, (which is also in many juices) would explain most of this. That is why they are starting to phase it out in many pop formulations.
Sure - is it that, or the HFCS, or the sugar generally, or the carbonic acid, or something in the caramel coloring? Study needs to be done with seltzer, diet cola, diet clear soda, regular cola, regular clear soda, etc.
On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it.
If the idea requires a level of effort to implement that only those large companies can provide, then it's probably something deserving of getting paid for. That implementation is protected by copyright. If, on the other hand, it's simple enough that other people can implement it without a great deal of work, then eventually a free (gratis) implementation will rise up.
The free (gratis) implementation would not infringe the copyright on the large company's implementation, since it would be separately created and not a copy. This is why copyright is great when the original item is what's desired - Harry Potter, rather than Larry Kotter; World of Warcraft, rather than Troll-Human MMO Saga; the Hulk movie rather than the Strong Green Man movie from Bollywood, etc. It's terrible when the implementation is what's desired, but not the specific copy - for example, Photoshop vs. GIMP vs. Sketch vs. Paint.Net; or SimTower vs. Dream Heights vs. TinyTower vs. Hotel Simulator, etc. Basically, it only works with software when the software is a de facto standard, and particularly if it fights interoperability, which is something geeks should be opposed to generally.
Those patents disclose algorithms. Basically, applied math.
35 USC 101 allows patenting a process, which is an algorithm. And the judicial exception carves out mathematical algorithms, not applied math. In fact, applied algorithms are probably exactly what we want patents to cover, rather than the abstract mathematics themselves.
Which should have never, ever been allowed as claims in a patent since they are antithetical to the compromise between the inventor's and society's benefit the patent system was designed to facilitate.
In what way? The patent discloses the invention, so society benefits over the inventor keeping it a trade secret. In return for the disclosure, the patent owner gets a limited monopoly. That's exactly the compromise.
So, if they install a wheelchair ramp for a disabled employee at your company, do you demand they spend the same amount on amenities for everyone else? If they employ an on-site councillor to help employees deal with stress but you never use the service, do you demand they employ someone to mow your lawn instead?
No, GP poster insists that they break his kneecaps and install random flashing lights in his cube so that he can take advantage of the same benefits.
You: "Oh I know exactly the event you're talking about...
... as evidenced by the fact that I asked about it, and confused it for something entirely different!"
Me: "So not only do you know exactly what I'm talking about..."
I see that you're having an argument with your own imagination, and losing. Sad.
That's two seperate events, and the one you're talking about was where domestic violence victims were trying to speak about being turned away from shelters or threatened with arrest. You just shot yourself in the foot bringing that up.
Me: Do you have a citation for your claim?
You: No! And you just shot yourself in the foot by bringing up another event!
Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. If you can't support your claim when called out, no amount of deflection is going to hide that fact.
Yes, actually, considering that men who don't conform to that gender role are attacked using slurs like "neckbeard" and "dudebro".
I don't think "guys who communicate their feelings" are the ones being called neckbeard or dudebro.
In fact feminists went so far as to commit felonies to shut down a suicide prevention conference because hey fuck men.
Well, I'm sure you have a valid citation for that, and not, say, a link to a video of protesters at a speech on "men's issues and the double standards of feminism" (rather than a "suicide prevention conference") cheering when someone random pulls a fire alarm.
This is not a problem exclusive to women. As a man you can also get your life disrupted by death threats, unordered pizzas/taxis/products and doxxing.
It's probably easier to get singled out for it as a women, but if you are subject to it as a man you'll get much less support to cope with it. This is reflected in the offline world too as a MUCH higher suicide rate for men compared to women. Trying to construct this as some purely misgyonistic issue is just reinforcing the gender bias of men as some disposable soldier caste and is likely to aggrevate misgyonistic tendencies overall in society.
And who do you think is out there telling men to keep their feelings bottled up until they explode? Women? Misogyny hurts men, too.
It also is not cool the way the government went after him.
Or technically, it was not cool the way the government went after him for the wrong crime. If they had pursued his ass for the stalking and harassment, that'd be just fine.
I'm no physicist myself, but from what I can tell, David Weber's Honor Harrington series of novels does a pretty good job of getting the physics right. Most battles are missile duels, energy weapons are powerful, but short-range, and when they develop a means of giving missiles multi-stage drives, it changes the game significantly, as they no longer have a single burst of maneuvering speed and then come in ballistic; they can accelerate at their target, burn out the first stage, coast in ballistic for many thousands of kilometers, and then activate the second stage for final maneuvering.
It's a good concept on the surface, but Weber destroys the physics with his own lust for large numbers: ships are not fighting at "short-range" of a kilometer or two... they're at "short-range" of a hundred thousand kilometers. "Long" range stretches out to tens of millions of kilometers. Of course, he has to, when he has ships that can accelerate at hundreds of Gs, and missiles that can accelerate at 96 thousand G's.
I love the series, but Weber's constant need to go from "a ship firing 10 missiles at a broadside... no wait, 10 thousand missiles at a broadside! And they zoom off at a kilometer per secon- no, wait, a million kilometers per second!" is more than little silly, and certainly not a "pretty good job" of getting the physics right.
It's a resource allocation problem. There is enough food on earth right now to sustainably feed everyone, the problem lies with the people on the path from the food to the hungry mouths. Increasing food production increases the wealth of the people in the middle, who now have more resources to allocate, but does not necessarily reduce the number of hungry people.
This also would help the hungry mouths grow their own food, faster, with less space, in damp areas that were previously prone to rot (one of the things discussed in the video is that through faster germination, less of the crop rots before harvest). This doesn't change increase the wealth of the people in the middle, but opens new areas to farming by hungry people.
A detailed description of a process in a textbook is also enough for any skilled programmer. For Alice and Bilski you can find the steps to perform the process in any finance book. Pseudocode and flow charts don't teach anything when the process is well known. Chances are finance books have charts in them as well.
Sure, and completely stipulated. The "do something well known and described in finance books" and "on a computer" stuff shouldn't be patentable... Rather, it's new processes (that are nonetheless, done on a computer):
If your talking about a brand new process then your not talking about a software patent. Your patenting a new business method.
What if it was a brand new process or business method, never been done before, on a computer. Like, say, calculating the value of some strange multidimensional factorial required to teleport yourself twenty feet to the left and six hours into the future? Certainly new, but let's assume it can be done with a TI-83. Should that be patentable?
Patents don't disclose source code. So they don't teach a programmer how to "put the bits of plastic together".
Pseudocode and detailed* flow charts should be enough for any skilled programmer. You shouldn't need C+ code - and if you do, what happens in 5 years when you say "I don't know C+, I only know Swift" or whatever the next language is? Conversely, what about art from the 60s or 70s - if it had COBOL code would you know how to use that? No, pseudocode and detailed* flow charts should be enough of a disclosure, because from them, you can implement the program in any language.
*Many patent applications do not have detailed flow charts, but rather "flow charts" that just show a single series of steps in a line, as Prof. Lemley noted in one of the interviews linked from another comment. You're right - those are total crap and don't teach anyone anything.
Patent examiners can do their thing. Alice gives them a tool now too.
Yes, and no... Patent Examiners are bound under the requirements of due process to present a prima facie case for why an application is not patentable, as the initial burden rests on the Office. How do you provide a prima facie case that an idea is abstract? It's a conclusion, not an argument supported by evidence, as the Courts have admitted when their evidence is "I know it when I see it".
Here are the questions I ask when contemplating patent filings, post-Alice, for a software method (or computer implemented method):
* Can I reasonably determine the bits and pieces you put together a specific solution to a specific problem based on your claims? should avoid a 101 issue.
* Do the claims give me all of the pieces of the puzzle or does it give me a flowchart?
* And, to entirely avoid an Alice question, are you using generic bits of technology for their ordinary purpose to solve an old problem the old way?
"Good" answers to these questions should avoid a 101 issue.
Quite possibly, though it fails to answer my question about your definition of "actually inventive". It also points to part of the problem with Alice, since your first question is really about 112 written description, your second question is really about 112 enablement and unclaimed essential matter, and your third question (as you note) is really about 103 obviousness. Now, I agree, that if you meet 103 and 112, Justice Thomas would likely not "know an [abstract idea] when he sees it" and find the application invalid under 101, and maybe that's a fine answer from a pragmatic standpoint, but it's a terrible one from a jurisprudence standpoint.
Section 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The supreme court has over the last century defined what the words in that statement mean. The word "abstract" is just shorthand for "not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or new and usefull improvement thereof" The supreme court has a very narrow and limited definition of "process" for this statute.
Which is a shame, because Congress has already defined it in Section 100:
The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
So, for example, a new use of a known machine - like, say, a new business method performed on a known computer - would fall under that statutory definition.
I think this procedural aspect is critically important. Patent litigation is incredibly expensive. Defendants generally expect to spend >4 million dollars to defend against allegations of infringement. Post-Alice, judges have been ruling on the issues very early in litigation and cutting of those costs and timelines. As Theaeteus mentions, the problem with this approach is that it is generally done without full development of evidence. As a policy-matter, it remains unclear which approach is better (we don't know how good judges are at making the 101 determination (knowing it when they see it)).
They've been great in the two major 101 cases, Bilski and Alice. Hardly anyone thought those claims were (or should have been) valid, as the methods were old and well known... But that's also like going back to the old obscenity cases and having your "test case" be Two Girls, One Cup. The old saying "bad facts make bad law" is true primarily because everyone agrees with the outcome based on those bad facts... but then it's used as precedent in cases where the facts aren't nearly so bad.
As an aside, patents have a historic tie to property law, hence things like permanent injunctions and willful infringement damages... but maybe that's not such a good thing, as they're primarily economic instruments. It leads naturally to equity-based judgements rather than concrete tests and rules... people would be outraged if judges were routinely invalidating contracts as a matter of law on a "I know it when I see it" justification.
If we did away with the property tie and abandoned permanent injunctions and what are effectively punitive damages, in exchange for compulsory licensing and reasonable royalties, a lot of the issues people have with trolls would go away, too.