eh. You guys clearly have never had a 64-bit box. An int is 32-bits on most 64-bit archs.
main(){ printf("My computer is %d bits\n", sizeof(void*) * 8); }
Re:patent "problem" is part of something much bigg
on
Do Patents Still Work?
·
· Score: 1
1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.
The article cited does a good job of putting forth the argument that "The patent system has been broken for a long time, and survived". Just because it was broken 100 years ago, and is still broken today does not mean that it doesn't need reform. It's never too late to improve our situation.
That said, the biggest problem with the patent system seems to be the extreme overload of the system from gazillions of applications, plus the lack of patent examiners who are remotely familiar with the fields they're working with. "Prior art" nowadays seems to mean looking in the patent system database and nowhere else.
We definately need some new laws to tighten up the requirements for "novelty" and "usefulness". We also need a way of getting the real experts in the fields involved to look at patent applications. Could an "open source" arrangement work? Publish applications on the Web and let everybody make comments? (I rather suspect not; there are just too many applications.)
Why not use a system like that used for research journals in academia? The patent system selects a group of people in a field (chosen from academia and business) to whom the patent is sent for review. This should be considered federal service, like jury duty. It is absurd to think that the patent office contains all the expertise in all the fields necessary to review any idea that crosses its desk.
How is your proposal different from the "licensing fee" model currently used by patent holders, and enforced by the courts? Would you propose more bureaucracy just to implement the patent tax, duplicating all the efforts already in the courts?
Make the length of a patent decided on a case-by-case basis. A panel would review each patent and assign it a length based upon (1) the amount of time to develop said technology, and (2) the amount of time required to recoup money spent in developing said tech (this would require a specific outline by the patentor on how he plans to make money with it). One may also propose a second panel to extend patents in the case that the patentor wasn't able to recoup investment. (But NOT because they sat on the patent, stifling innovation!)
This widens the patent's office's burden, but at this point we need to throw out the entire office and start over. This allows things like biotech companies, who may spend 10 years developing a DNA sequencing machine and spend billions doing it to recoup their investments. It also makes "obvious" patents impotent since they will have a very short lifetime. A patent based on an idea developed by someone sitting on their couch eating cheetos should live no longer then 6 months.
I think this accomplishes all the constitution's requirements: rewarding inventors and encouraging innovation, while not allowing stupid patents to damage an industry.
The idea that someone could create a plague that could potentially wipe out humans is not far fetched. I mean, Anthrax has been around for a very long time now. But with all these new tools (genetics, nanotech), will come the ability to expand ourselves in ways that we may not be able to imagine now.
The first sentient machine may very well be a person, whose body, consciousness, and mind are replaced by bionics, or uploaded to a computer. For this reason I do not think it will be possible to wipe out humanity. Like the mosquito, with ready access to this technology, we too will mutate. The paranoid may mutate to protect themselves from plagues, but the rest of us will mutate to expand ourselves. Palmpilots will evolve into wearable computers will evolve into biologically embedded microchips will evolve into direct brain interfaces, all not at big brother's request, but our own, in our perpetual quest to improve ourselves. We will wipe out our own diseases, and incorporate interesting traits from animals. (Personally, I want wings, a tail, and the ability to re-grow severed limbs).
Humanity will never be wiped out. We are too dynamic, too creative, too stubborn. In 100 years, would we even recognize some of our descendents as human?
And hey, if you don't like my argument, this is a great reason that we need to get our asses on Mars and the Moon ASAP.
Slashdot Mirror
eh. You guys clearly have never had a 64-bit box. An int is 32-bits on most 64-bit archs.
main(){
printf("My computer is %d bits\n", sizeof(void*) * 8);
}
1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.
The article cited does a good job of putting forth the argument that "The patent system has been broken for a long time, and survived". Just because it was broken 100 years ago, and is still broken today does not mean that it doesn't need reform. It's never too late to improve our situation.
--Bob
We definately need some new laws to tighten up the requirements for "novelty" and "usefulness". We also need a way of getting the real experts in the fields involved to look at patent applications. Could an "open source" arrangement work? Publish applications on the Web and let everybody make comments? (I rather suspect not; there are just too many applications.)
Why not use a system like that used for research journals in academia? The patent system selects a group of people in a field (chosen from academia and business) to whom the patent is sent for review. This should be considered federal service, like jury duty. It is absurd to think that the patent office contains all the expertise in all the fields necessary to review any idea that crosses its desk.
--Bob
How is your proposal different from the "licensing fee" model currently used by patent holders, and enforced by the courts? Would you propose more bureaucracy just to implement the patent tax, duplicating all the efforts already in the courts?
--Bob
Good ideas...how about this:
Make the length of a patent decided on a case-by-case basis. A panel would review each patent and assign it a length based upon (1) the amount of time to develop said technology, and (2) the amount of time required to recoup money spent in developing said tech (this would require a specific outline by the patentor on how he plans to make money with it). One may also propose a second panel to extend patents in the case that the patentor wasn't able to recoup investment. (But NOT because they sat on the patent, stifling innovation!)
This widens the patent's office's burden, but at this point we need to throw out the entire office and start over. This allows things like biotech companies, who may spend 10 years developing a DNA sequencing machine and spend billions doing it to recoup their investments. It also makes "obvious" patents impotent since they will have a very short lifetime. A patent based on an idea developed by someone sitting on their couch eating cheetos should live no longer then 6 months.
I think this accomplishes all the constitution's requirements: rewarding inventors and encouraging innovation, while not allowing stupid patents to damage an industry.
--Bob
The idea that someone could create a plague that could potentially wipe out humans is not far fetched. I mean, Anthrax has been around for a very long time now. But with all these new tools (genetics, nanotech), will come the ability to expand ourselves in ways that we may not be able to imagine now.
The first sentient machine may very well be a person, whose body, consciousness, and mind are replaced by bionics, or uploaded to a computer. For this reason I do not think it will be possible to wipe out humanity. Like the mosquito, with ready access to this technology, we too will mutate. The paranoid may mutate to protect themselves from plagues, but the rest of us will mutate to expand ourselves. Palmpilots will evolve into wearable computers will evolve into biologically embedded microchips will evolve into direct brain interfaces, all not at big brother's request, but our own, in our perpetual quest to improve ourselves. We will wipe out our own diseases, and incorporate interesting traits from animals. (Personally, I want wings, a tail, and the ability to re-grow severed limbs).
Humanity will never be wiped out. We are too dynamic, too creative, too stubborn. In 100 years, would we even recognize some of our descendents as human?
And hey, if you don't like my argument, this is a great reason that we need to get our asses on Mars and the Moon ASAP.