If the scientists turn this on and the first thing they see is an advertorial for buying planets with nothing down or growing extra tenacles while you sleep, I'm moving to a more quiet planet like Mars.
1. Read GW article on slashdot. Note use of rhetoric in a news piece 2. Post comment. Illustrate:
a. How the other commenters have easily slammed the article's statement of facts
b. How I am not smart enough to make a call on GW
c. How FUD like this would be laughed off of Slashdot if it were about any other subject 3. Receive a reply arguing that GW exists and is anthrocentric. 4. Remind the commenter that I am not arguing GW, I am pointing out the crappiness of this article 5. Receive yet another argument about GW.
I appreciate your addition about "one person's FUD is another's epiphany"
I am not going to argue GW with you! (he says uselessly). It's long, difficult topic even for somebody who is familiar in working in complex topics. But that's the point -- if I read a news article about a fire in a warehouse, I am working under the assumption that the reporter is mostly disinterested in the state of fire department funding. In this case, as you point out, there is an obvious effort to spin us a little, even for a good cause. So I call bullshit. That doesn't mean GW is happening or not happening, it's simply acknowledging the quality of the news article is suboptimal.
I'm open to take all comers on GW offline. My position can most be described as a skeptical environmentalist. Even the people who are correct need to keep their standards up.
For the record, I did not say the article was false, I said it was "total crap" The veracity was not in question.
The point of my comment was that the article was using FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is a really bad method of persuasion used by every con-man and religion from time immemorial.
Aside from your moral posturing -- "we will not get instant gratification from our selfless sacrifice" -- I don't understand what your point is. Something about economics? Yet you make no economic case for anything. We should develop solar because we're going to need to be competitive in solar in ten years? Most businesses I know think strategically ten years out. Perhaps you have some insight or skill that makes you a great business leader. I wish you much success.
My point was that articles of this style and tone are to be treated very suspiciously, no matter what they are selling. You've every right to your opinion on the moral terpitude of America and the illogic of failing to see the light, but that has little to do with what I was saying. In fact, I thought I made it clear that I'm not smart enough to make a call on Global Warming. If you are, you have much to be thankful for!
I understand when you read a comment like mine that may cast some dout (however lightly!) on Global Warming your first instinct is to regurgitate a lot of arguments you've heard, perhaps framing your information for the comment that was actually made instead of the comment you wanted to hear might be a good idea.
First off, sea level increases, assuming the sea level IS rising, is happening in mm per year, not meters. Unless these inhabitants are extremely small, a few extra mm of water is not covering a whole island.
Secondly, it's not unprecedented. In fact, as other posters have pointed out, islands have come and gone for all of recorded history.
Thirdly, the island appears to actually have dissapeared 22 years ago. It's part of a freaking river delta, guys.
I'm not smart enough to make a call on Global Warming. Maybe you guys are. But I do know enough to see that for all of recorded history, there have been large sections of the population that believe the world is ending. In EVERY instance, this is due to some sins of mankind. Repent! Say the believers. Repent now and perhaps we will all be spared! If this same slant was in a technology article, most of you would be calling FUD. Well I call it on this. This article is total crap.
That's not saying GW is false, that's saying that when trying to extrapolate long-term trends from short term inputs in a chaotic system a little humility is in order. Articles like this one make the whole GW movement look like a bunch of knee-jerk idiots. The science deserves better treatment than this. The public deserves a higher level of discussion than stories that can be tossed out after five minutes of inspection. FUD is no way to make a technology buy, or have a serious discussion about science.
So a human-rated ring would be around 700km? So why not people?
Look at the money we've spent on manned spaceflight in the last 30 years and tell me we couldn't build a large enough device for human travel. Plus, unlike the pay-as-you-go, lets-keep-engineering-more-complexity, as soon as you built it, it would immediately start paying for itself. Launches every day or so? Known technology? Simple component pieces? The economics of scale? It's a no-brainer, folks.
How about recharging these uber-cars of the future with microwave lasers? With flat terrain, and the right setup, you could recharge while you drove down the road. It might elminate fuel stops completely.
Although I wouldn't want to be a bird in such a scenario, it sure would look cool, especially at night with the microwaves frying the dust in the air.
Of course, we could just charge the car by using the braking system as a generator, like the hybrid do! Then we wouldn't need to stop anywhere to fuel.
You are correct. In the blog he mentions 1995, which I thought was the date of inception. As you probably know, inception date could be as early as September 1998.
NOT THE RUBBER DUCKY. ANYTHING BUT THE RUBBER DUCKY
Seriously. 97% of all patents never produce any income for the holders. So I can say with certainty that there is a 97% chance I will comply. I will comply! Keep the ducky away from me!
I've been using Groove for over a year now, and it is really cool. It does all that stuff that is in the Visto patent. So does Yahoo, and a bunch of other services. I can see that in 1995, perhaps this was a new idea, but ten years later it is all over the place. Synchronizing files and services by use of a global server? I would bet that even in '95 you could find analogies somewhere -- incremental backups or some such. Wasn't database replication being worked back in 95 as well?
It's unclear from the information provided whether this was a truly new invention that Microsoft is trying to poach (along with half the world of computer development) or it was a day late and a dollar short. Once again, waiting ten years after the patent application is filed makes such analysis almost impossible. Technology is moving very quickly. The patent system needs to be fixed where we are not arguing ten-year old ideas -- by this time it's all old hat.
1) If somebody comes to my online business hosted in CT from New York, why would I have to pay NY taxes? I have no representatives in New York, I am not a citizen of New York, and my business is not incorporated in New York. We have no New York offices or interests, save being taxed. How then, would I have recourse to adjust my taxation from New York? Move there? Payoff a politician from there? Seriously, how is it that a state in which I have no connection with able to impose it's legislative will on me? And if it is allowed to do so, where does it stop? Can they apply extra taxes to out-of-state purchases to allow for more in-state businesses? Tax certain businesses but not others? States are notorious for adjusting their tax systems to have some sort of social impact. Should CA be changing economic conditions in TX?
2) Somebody is going to start doing the math on this one. If I buy big ticket items, it would probably be best to tranship them to a tax free entity (Canada? NH?), deliver them there, then continue shipping to the original destination. For anything with a tax over 30 bucks or so (and a small item) it would be cheaper. (And for those of you who say it would be illegal, please see #1. Illegal where?)
"...You claim patents are needed because they encourage innovation. You also state that, despite having gone through the entire process, the patent provided you with nothing significant to encourage your innovation..." Au Contraire. There is a difference between reward and monetary reward, which I was talking about. I feel very satisfied with the results of my patent journey. I learned a lot, and now I am more wise about the issues involved. Hopefully I can share my experiences with others. I also feel more like using the patent system in the future.
A patent should not be a guarantee of profits. The act of inventing, or teaching a new solution to a problem, is completely different than the (also) very difficult process of taking solutions to market. I can certainly believe in the system to some extent without having to receive monetary rewards myself. It's two different concepts. There is nothing wooly-headed about this at all.
I hear your example about your friend, and I agree that some major changes are necessary. But like I have said, please do not over-reach in your conclusions. A free society should encourage invention as a separate concept than running a business. There are lots of ways to do this.
As for your example of your friend, there is no guarantee of anything from this process. If you want guarantees, do not take risks like getting patents. I would certainly not spend all my time for two years just to work on a patent -- I kept consulting and doing other work while working on the patent in my spare time. And yes, it was a heckuva lot of work to go through. Especially for really nothing but a piece of paper on the wall.
But that is what I learned to expect. 97% of all patents amount to nothing. Worldwide rights are almost impossible to get. Claims can be narrowed to the point they are useless. Extensions can be made to work around patent rights. Patent holders have to pay for their own infringement cases which tilts the scales towards big corporations. A realistic definition of obviousness is desperately needed. "Time has come" is one of those things that always works in hindsight imo. That doesn't mean the system is useless, it means it is complex and broken in places.
There is a great disconnect between what you read in the press (and on places like/.) and what the law really says. Instead of "let's go fix simultaneous invention" we hear "tear it all down!" -- which I don't think helps anybody. In general, though, I believe we agree more than we disagree.
"...The inventor is supposed to benefit from the disclosure of the invention as a patent in order to create incentives for such disclosures; the current patent system fails to do that in many cases..." This is new. I like it -- sounds like you are beginning to make a real argument here. So demonstrate inventors who have not benefitted from their disclosure. And keep in mind that it is a two-way street: society is also supposed to benefit as well.
"...you have obviously invested so much time and money in your business method patent that any such attempt would be pointless..." You seem to know me quite well. I wonder why would you say such a thing? Certainly you are not trying to impeach my character in this matter, are you? LOL. I invest time and energy in a lot of things, some of which don't work out, some of which do. Why would this be any different? If the system is broken let's fix it -- I am not sitting around waiting for royalty checks, and why should I be biased? The patent part of product development is almost useless, as I pointed out to the other poster on this thread, because the system has flaws, as I also stated.
"...You were trying to portray yourself as a small inventor whose invention is being properly rewarded through the patent system..." Wrong answer. I was protraying myself as a small businessperson who has learned about and went through the process of getting a patent. I made no claim that I have received any reward at all. If you have to know, I'd like to have something to hang on the wall. That's it. I invented this first and I have a piece of paper to prove it. So as you can see, if you have suggestions to make the system work better let's go for it. But it seems in my humble opinion that every one of your posts has been aimed at character attack -- I am making none of the claims you say I am, and I certainly feel very open to the idea of patent reform. Why wouldn't I? You keep trying to come back to my particular patent. Beats me why. I was trying to offer advice on the system because I had been there recently. I thought that was what I was supposed to be doing.
Now I remember why I never reply back to people. It is too easy to smear someone and name-call than it is to engage in reasoned discussion, and if you get into a mud-slinging contest both of you are bound to get muddy. Have a nice day, and thanks for your thoughts. I really appreciate the web site feedback and I will make changes to make sure the idea is presented clearer.
I'm not sure if you are trying to persuade me or insult me, but I'll give it one more shot.
First: there are no good and bad guys. Life is not like a TV show. If you want to sling mud, go for it. You'll do so by yourself. I will not particpate. If you have an open mind, then read on. \
"...I have come up with half a dozen "unique, novel, and useful inventions". The patent system has been useless in benefitting from any of them..." The patent system is not supposed to benefit from them, your fellow man is. Patents are first and foremost a teaching device. Let's say I traveled back in time from a thousand years from now. Wanting to make a few bucks, I patent how to create machine intelligence -- true computer sentience. Those ideas are just thoughts and bits on a disk somewhere -- they have no value. But by teaching others how to create smart machines, I have done society a great favor and have helped my fellow man. Our patent system says that society owes me something in return.
So obviously it is possible to conjecture that certain software patents are useful and benefit society, just the way inventing a new type of electric razor might. As our economy moves more towards less physical items instead of tangible ones, it follows that the new way society will be taught will be through patents of this type. Once again, the purpose is to encourage the common man to discover new ground and teach it to society. In return, he is given some sort of limited ownership. This has been a pretty good way of spawning creative solutions for some time.
Does that mean I support Amazon's "one click" button, or this MS one? Probably not in today's context, although I took a look at the MS patent in question (did you?). It seems very inventive for the year 1991.
This is not a yes-no issue. Few issues seldom are. Is the patent system broken? Beyond a doubt. Are there frivolous patents on things that should never be patented? Absolutely. But I've found that to get an honest patent you really have to be breaking new ground. As we both know, most anything to do with computer code does not qualify. But that is not an absolute statement. It can't be.
If you have some reasoned argument, I'd like to hear it. I'm open to the idea of throwing out software patents if it makes any sense. But I can't figure out how that would work practically for either the inventors or society.
You've asked a question that has a very long and complicated answer. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, patents are generally worthless, and you'll never get into the market without execution intelligence from a highly competent team.
That's the bad news. If you can accept that, then there are all sorts of reasons for going forward. I would be glad to help you for free, offline, if you like. Personally, I try to help people -- that's my value system. So if you have something that helps people, and helping people is important to you, then I would encourage you to take some steps to do this. But it's a long, hard, journey and you have to be prepared for it to amount to nothing. I hate sounding like somebody from that Kung Fu TV show, but if the journey is worthwhile (and fits your values), I'd say go for it.
Actually, in re-reading your post, you bring up something that is mostly overlooked when talking about patents -- the description in the press of the patent may bear little resemblence to the invention itself.
This is due to a lot of factors, the primary being that companies don't sell inventions, they sell solutions to people's problems. The word "solution" means market-tested and directed to a certain audience. You may have patented a handheld thermonuclear reactor, but you may be selling an automatic pocket warmer.
In addition, many patents are drawn much more broadly than they need to be. My invention has nothing to do with surveys, but it can be used as a survey (sorry for not making that clear on the page). Since it might I had to research all sorts of survey patents. It was unbelievable. There were guys who were claiming that any kind of survey done on any computer anywhere -- they invented it. And these were patents from 2001! I got very disgusted.
I got into a long discussion with my patent attorney (at some kind of rate, let me tell you) and the basic thrust was "the system might be screwed up but we have to make sure your patent is not." I had no desire to play this game of overpatenting -- in my opinion it is unethical. And I have a unique, novel, useful invention which makes it unecessary anyway.
I have mixed opinions about software patents. People spend a lot of time and money developing something new and useful, like file compression. I believe it is appropriate that they are rewarded by the market in some way. By eliminating software patents you make the playing field tilted even worse towards the big guys in the market, and that hurts us all. There should be some ownership for invention itself, outside of marketing and running a business. That's what the patent system is supposed to be doing, right?
As a "little guy", I've just spent the last two years researching, developing, and filing a patent application.
While the system is flawed, there has to be some mechanism to allow creative people rewards from the market. Yes, there are a lot of junk patents, and a lot of patents filed by the big corps are completely bogus. It is in our best interests to foster true invention by as many people as possible. You'll get a lot more value from a million of us little guys working on problems than you will from a few dozen dinosaurs like Microsoft.
The problem I see here is that the patent has been contested for freaking 12 years. Like some other posters have said, at the TIME it was probably new, exciting, and innovative. By now it seems like old hat.
If anything is broken, it is that a) technology is moving very much faster than the U.S. Patent Office, and b)Big corporations can patent totally obvious inventions because they have large buildings full of eager litagators. These problems will get worse rather than better.
Poor software? It costs over 200 Billion a year (sorry no link). You have to put these numbers in perspective. When you are dealing with 300 million folks or so, and the world's largest free market, any kind of estimate for anything is going to be big. The common cold costs over $30 Billion a year.
Just keep it all in perspective. The internet economy will blow right through this obstacle if it gets in the way of sales
As a software process expert, I can give you the secret three best practices that every programmer must follow:
1) Find someone to blame for failure. Usually it's the new guy. Keep him stupid and drop hints to the project manager that he might be messing up the code
2) Try to make your programming complicated. Hey, if anybody can do it they are liable to hire some Indians to do it at three bucks an hour. Try using ancient Egyptian for your comments. Name all your variables something like A1 and A2. Catch and throw away your errors -- you don't make mistakes anyway. Let the calling code bomb, not yours
3) Get a week ahead on your status reports. What did you accomplish this week? Put that as your goals for next week. Every week you'll hit your targets dead on. The other guys will flail. Try to be sympathetic to them. Offer to help out with their programming.
This confusion in terms drives me nuts. P2P is technology, not crime, and darknets are simply ways of communicating with your peers that some other person doesn't know about.
Should everything you do at work be inspectable by your boss? Normally the answer would be "no" -- you certainly can write a political protest letter during your lunch hour. But with the ways the courts have been ruling, it seems the assumption is that corporations have to know everything you are doing, if it involves a computer. This is completely unenforceable, in my opinion, and will go the way of the Dred Scott decision.
I had two A-1000s when they first came out. I remember writing AD&D character generators and dungeon programs using that Microsoft Basic that came with them.
The Amiga was an awesome box. Too bad Commodore wasn't able to keep innovating. They had a real shot at long-term market share, and blew it. The accompanying article is a great lesson on how NOT to run a technology business.
This is the old "push versus pull" marketing discussion. Are people tired of push communications, where their email inboxes fill up with garbage? Absolutely. But the real question is how to enact a "pull" distribution system that also sells stuff. The author seems to make the point for directly replacing newsletters and other corporate communications with RSS feeds. sounds good, but I don't think it's the complete picture. The basic problem is one of personality -- most corporate communications are about as personable as a TV commercial. Impersonal works great when you're mass-distributing the message, but from a pull standpoint I think the format and method of content creation will need to change, not just the technology. My two cents.
I'm not sure what the point is. Sure, people read stuff and feel like they have it. The same thing has been happening to doctors for decades. Regular people too -- only in small batches. Now that there is more stuff for people to read, there is more stuff to believe. Assuming that doctors aren't some highly evolved lifeform from the planet Xerox, I think people will get along just fine, just like the docs.
After all, isn't this really about education? I mean, do you really fight something like smoking by making it illegal, moaning about how stupid people are to buy into the "cool factor", or by education? Seems to me that as long as you have an "Urban Legends" site, you teach somebody to go there and boom! No more email hoaxes. Same for medicine, right? We just need to have authoritative sources and tell people about them. Interestingly enough, this is also a problem of the MSM, which tends to exaggerate things in order to get ratings. People buy into the "panick of the week" mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
If the scientists turn this on and the first thing they see is an advertorial for buying planets with nothing down or growing extra tenacles while you sleep, I'm moving to a more quiet planet like Mars.
I think the proper name for people who live in Qatar is quaternions.
Oddly enough, most are really good at math.
Let's review our progress, shall we?
1. Read GW article on slashdot. Note use of rhetoric in a news piece
2. Post comment. Illustrate:
a. How the other commenters have easily slammed the article's statement of facts
b. How I am not smart enough to make a call on GW
c. How FUD like this would be laughed off of Slashdot if it were about any other subject
3. Receive a reply arguing that GW exists and is anthrocentric.
4. Remind the commenter that I am not arguing GW, I am pointing out the crappiness of this article
5. Receive yet another argument about GW.
I appreciate your addition about "one person's FUD is another's epiphany"
I am not going to argue GW with you! (he says uselessly). It's long, difficult topic even for somebody who is familiar in working in complex topics. But that's the point -- if I read a news article about a fire in a warehouse, I am working under the assumption that the reporter is mostly disinterested in the state of fire department funding. In this case, as you point out, there is an obvious effort to spin us a little, even for a good cause. So I call bullshit. That doesn't mean GW is happening or not happening, it's simply acknowledging the quality of the news article is suboptimal.
I'm open to take all comers on GW offline. My position can most be described as a skeptical environmentalist. Even the people who are correct need to keep their standards up.
For the record, I did not say the article was false, I said it was "total crap" The veracity was not in question.
The point of my comment was that the article was using FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is a really bad method of persuasion used by every con-man and religion from time immemorial.
Aside from your moral posturing -- "we will not get instant gratification from our selfless sacrifice" -- I don't understand what your point is. Something about economics? Yet you make no economic case for anything. We should develop solar because we're going to need to be competitive in solar in ten years? Most businesses I know think strategically ten years out. Perhaps you have some insight or skill that makes you a great business leader. I wish you much success.
My point was that articles of this style and tone are to be treated very suspiciously, no matter what they are selling. You've every right to your opinion on the moral terpitude of America and the illogic of failing to see the light, but that has little to do with what I was saying. In fact, I thought I made it clear that I'm not smart enough to make a call on Global Warming. If you are, you have much to be thankful for!
I understand when you read a comment like mine that may cast some dout (however lightly!) on Global Warming your first instinct is to regurgitate a lot of arguments you've heard, perhaps framing your information for the comment that was actually made instead of the comment you wanted to hear might be a good idea.
First off, sea level increases, assuming the sea level IS rising, is happening in mm per year, not meters. Unless these inhabitants are extremely small, a few extra mm of water is not covering a whole island.
Secondly, it's not unprecedented. In fact, as other posters have pointed out, islands have come and gone for all of recorded history.
Thirdly, the island appears to actually have dissapeared 22 years ago. It's part of a freaking river delta, guys.
I'm not smart enough to make a call on Global Warming. Maybe you guys are. But I do know enough to see that for all of recorded history, there have been large sections of the population that believe the world is ending. In EVERY instance, this is due to some sins of mankind. Repent! Say the believers. Repent now and perhaps we will all be spared! If this same slant was in a technology article, most of you would be calling FUD. Well I call it on this. This article is total crap.
That's not saying GW is false, that's saying that when trying to extrapolate long-term trends from short term inputs in a chaotic system a little humility is in order. Articles like this one make the whole GW movement look like a bunch of knee-jerk idiots. The science deserves better treatment than this. The public deserves a higher level of discussion than stories that can be tossed out after five minutes of inspection. FUD is no way to make a technology buy, or have a serious discussion about science.
So a human-rated ring would be around 700km? So why not people?
Look at the money we've spent on manned spaceflight in the last 30 years and tell me we couldn't build a large enough device for human travel. Plus, unlike the pay-as-you-go, lets-keep-engineering-more-complexity, as soon as you built it, it would immediately start paying for itself. Launches every day or so? Known technology? Simple component pieces? The economics of scale? It's a no-brainer, folks.
How about recharging these uber-cars of the future with microwave lasers? With flat terrain, and the right setup, you could recharge while you drove down the road. It might elminate fuel stops completely.
Although I wouldn't want to be a bird in such a scenario, it sure would look cool, especially at night with the microwaves frying the dust in the air.
Of course, we could just charge the car by using the braking system as a generator, like the hybrid do! Then we wouldn't need to stop anywhere to fuel.
You are correct. In the blog he mentions 1995, which I thought was the date of inception. As you probably know, inception date could be as early as September 1998.
NOT THE RUBBER DUCKY. ANYTHING BUT THE RUBBER DUCKY
Seriously. 97% of all patents never produce any income for the holders. So I can say with certainty that there is a 97% chance I will comply. I will comply! Keep the ducky away from me!
(disclaimer: I am a IP patent holder)
I've been using Groove for over a year now, and it is really cool. It does all that stuff that is in the Visto patent. So does Yahoo, and a bunch of other services. I can see that in 1995, perhaps this was a new idea, but ten years later it is all over the place. Synchronizing files and services by use of a global server? I would bet that even in '95 you could find analogies somewhere -- incremental backups or some such. Wasn't database replication being worked back in 95 as well?
It's unclear from the information provided whether this was a truly new invention that Microsoft is trying to poach (along with half the world of computer development) or it was a day late and a dollar short. Once again, waiting ten years after the patent application is filed makes such analysis almost impossible. Technology is moving very quickly. The patent system needs to be fixed where we are not arguing ten-year old ideas -- by this time it's all old hat.
My Blog
Couple points:
1) If somebody comes to my online business hosted in CT from New York, why would I have to pay NY taxes? I have no representatives in New York, I am not a citizen of New York, and my business is not incorporated in New York. We have no New York offices or interests, save being taxed. How then, would I have recourse to adjust my taxation from New York? Move there? Payoff a politician from there? Seriously, how is it that a state in which I have no connection with able to impose it's legislative will on me? And if it is allowed to do so, where does it stop? Can they apply extra taxes to out-of-state purchases to allow for more in-state businesses? Tax certain businesses but not others? States are notorious for adjusting their tax systems to have some sort of social impact. Should CA be changing economic conditions in TX?
2) Somebody is going to start doing the math on this one. If I buy big ticket items, it would probably be best to tranship them to a tax free entity (Canada? NH?), deliver them there, then continue shipping to the original destination. For anything with a tax over 30 bucks or so (and a small item) it would be cheaper. (And for those of you who say it would be illegal, please see #1. Illegal where?)
Town Attacked By Giant Snowman (on my blog)
"...You claim patents are needed because they encourage innovation. You also state that, despite having gone through the entire process, the patent provided you with nothing significant to encourage your innovation..." Au Contraire. There is a difference between reward and monetary reward, which I was talking about. I feel very satisfied with the results of my patent journey. I learned a lot, and now I am more wise about the issues involved. Hopefully I can share my experiences with others. I also feel more like using the patent system in the future.
/.) and what the law really says. Instead of "let's go fix simultaneous invention" we hear "tear it all down!" -- which I don't think helps anybody. In general, though, I believe we agree more than we disagree.
A patent should not be a guarantee of profits. The act of inventing, or teaching a new solution to a problem, is completely different than the (also) very difficult process of taking solutions to market. I can certainly believe in the system to some extent without having to receive monetary rewards myself. It's two different concepts. There is nothing wooly-headed about this at all.
I hear your example about your friend, and I agree that some major changes are necessary. But like I have said, please do not over-reach in your conclusions. A free society should encourage invention as a separate concept than running a business. There are lots of ways to do this.
As for your example of your friend, there is no guarantee of anything from this process. If you want guarantees, do not take risks like getting patents. I would certainly not spend all my time for two years just to work on a patent -- I kept consulting and doing other work while working on the patent in my spare time. And yes, it was a heckuva lot of work to go through. Especially for really nothing but a piece of paper on the wall.
But that is what I learned to expect. 97% of all patents amount to nothing. Worldwide rights are almost impossible to get. Claims can be narrowed to the point they are useless. Extensions can be made to work around patent rights. Patent holders have to pay for their own infringement cases which tilts the scales towards big corporations. A realistic definition of obviousness is desperately needed. "Time has come" is one of those things that always works in hindsight imo. That doesn't mean the system is useless, it means it is complex and broken in places.
There is a great disconnect between what you read in the press (and on places like
My Blog
"...The inventor is supposed to benefit from the disclosure of the invention as a patent in order to create incentives for such disclosures; the current patent system fails to do that in many cases..." This is new. I like it -- sounds like you are beginning to make a real argument here. So demonstrate inventors who have not benefitted from their disclosure. And keep in mind that it is a two-way street: society is also supposed to benefit as well.
"...you have obviously invested so much time and money in your business method patent that any such attempt would be pointless..." You seem to know me quite well. I wonder why would you say such a thing? Certainly you are not trying to impeach my character in this matter, are you? LOL. I invest time and energy in a lot of things, some of which don't work out, some of which do. Why would this be any different? If the system is broken let's fix it -- I am not sitting around waiting for royalty checks, and why should I be biased? The patent part of product development is almost useless, as I pointed out to the other poster on this thread, because the system has flaws, as I also stated.
"...You were trying to portray yourself as a small inventor whose invention is being properly rewarded through the patent system..." Wrong answer. I was protraying myself as a small businessperson who has learned about and went through the process of getting a patent. I made no claim that I have received any reward at all. If you have to know, I'd like to have something to hang on the wall. That's it. I invented this first and I have a piece of paper to prove it. So as you can see, if you have suggestions to make the system work better let's go for it. But it seems in my humble opinion that every one of your posts has been aimed at character attack -- I am making none of the claims you say I am, and I certainly feel very open to the idea of patent reform. Why wouldn't I? You keep trying to come back to my particular patent. Beats me why. I was trying to offer advice on the system because I had been there recently. I thought that was what I was supposed to be doing.
Now I remember why I never reply back to people. It is too easy to smear someone and name-call than it is to engage in reasoned discussion, and if you get into a mud-slinging contest both of you are bound to get muddy. Have a nice day, and thanks for your thoughts. I really appreciate the web site feedback and I will make changes to make sure the idea is presented clearer.
I'm not sure if you are trying to persuade me or insult me, but I'll give it one more shot.
First: there are no good and bad guys. Life is not like a TV show. If you want to sling mud, go for it. You'll do so by yourself. I will not particpate. If you have an open mind, then read on.
\
"...I have come up with half a dozen "unique, novel, and useful inventions". The patent system has been useless in benefitting from any of them..." The patent system is not supposed to benefit from them, your fellow man is. Patents are first and foremost a teaching device. Let's say I traveled back in time from a thousand years from now. Wanting to make a few bucks, I patent how to create machine intelligence -- true computer sentience. Those ideas are just thoughts and bits on a disk somewhere -- they have no value. But by teaching others how to create smart machines, I have done society a great favor and have helped my fellow man. Our patent system says that society owes me something in return.
So obviously it is possible to conjecture that certain software patents are useful and benefit society, just the way inventing a new type of electric razor might. As our economy moves more towards less physical items instead of tangible ones, it follows that the new way society will be taught will be through patents of this type. Once again, the purpose is to encourage the common man to discover new ground and teach it to society. In return, he is given some sort of limited ownership. This has been a pretty good way of spawning creative solutions for some time.
Does that mean I support Amazon's "one click" button, or this MS one? Probably not in today's context, although I took a look at the MS patent in question (did you?). It seems very inventive for the year 1991.
This is not a yes-no issue. Few issues seldom are. Is the patent system broken? Beyond a doubt. Are there frivolous patents on things that should never be patented? Absolutely. But I've found that to get an honest patent you really have to be breaking new ground. As we both know, most anything to do with computer code does not qualify. But that is not an absolute statement. It can't be.
If you have some reasoned argument, I'd like to hear it. I'm open to the idea of throwing out software patents if it makes any sense. But I can't figure out how that would work practically for either the inventors or society.
Thanks for the kind words.
You've asked a question that has a very long and complicated answer. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, patents are generally worthless, and you'll never get into the market without execution intelligence from a highly competent team.
That's the bad news. If you can accept that, then there are all sorts of reasons for going forward. I would be glad to help you for free, offline, if you like. Personally, I try to help people -- that's my value system. So if you have something that helps people, and helping people is important to you, then I would encourage you to take some steps to do this. But it's a long, hard, journey and you have to be prepared for it to amount to nothing. I hate sounding like somebody from that Kung Fu TV show, but if the journey is worthwhile (and fits your values), I'd say go for it.
My Invention
Actually, in re-reading your post, you bring up something that is mostly overlooked when talking about patents -- the description in the press of the patent may bear little resemblence to the invention itself.
This is due to a lot of factors, the primary being that companies don't sell inventions, they sell solutions to people's problems. The word "solution" means market-tested and directed to a certain audience. You may have patented a handheld thermonuclear reactor, but you may be selling an automatic pocket warmer.
In addition, many patents are drawn much more broadly than they need to be. My invention has nothing to do with surveys, but it can be used as a survey (sorry for not making that clear on the page). Since it might I had to research all sorts of survey patents. It was unbelievable. There were guys who were claiming that any kind of survey done on any computer anywhere -- they invented it. And these were patents from 2001! I got very disgusted.
I got into a long discussion with my patent attorney (at some kind of rate, let me tell you) and the basic thrust was "the system might be screwed up but we have to make sure your patent is not." I had no desire to play this game of overpatenting -- in my opinion it is unethical. And I have a unique, novel, useful invention which makes it unecessary anyway.
I have mixed opinions about software patents. People spend a lot of time and money developing something new and useful, like file compression. I believe it is appropriate that they are rewarded by the market in some way. By eliminating software patents you make the playing field tilted even worse towards the big guys in the market, and that hurts us all. There should be some ownership for invention itself, outside of marketing and running a business. That's what the patent system is supposed to be doing, right?
My Blog
Sorry you didn't understand the invention. My fault for not making a better web page. Thanks for the feedback.
As a "little guy", I've just spent the last two years researching, developing, and filing a patent application.
While the system is flawed, there has to be some mechanism to allow creative people rewards from the market. Yes, there are a lot of junk patents, and a lot of patents filed by the big corps are completely bogus. It is in our best interests to foster true invention by as many people as possible. You'll get a lot more value from a million of us little guys working on problems than you will from a few dozen dinosaurs like Microsoft.
The problem I see here is that the patent has been contested for freaking 12 years. Like some other posters have said, at the TIME it was probably new, exciting, and innovative. By now it seems like old hat.
If anything is broken, it is that a) technology is moving very much faster than the U.S. Patent Office, and b)Big corporations can patent totally obvious inventions because they have large buildings full of eager litagators. These problems will get worse rather than better.
My Blog, My invention
That's a lot of bucks, but studies like these are easy to take in isolation instead of looking at the big picture.
The U.S. economy is what? About 12 Trillion dollars a year? In 1999 the internet economy was closing in on 150 Billion, by now it has to be through the roof.
Poor software? It costs over 200 Billion a year (sorry no link). You have to put these numbers in perspective. When you are dealing with 300 million folks or so, and the world's largest free market, any kind of estimate for anything is going to be big. The common cold costs over $30 Billion a year.
Just keep it all in perspective. The internet economy will blow right through this obstacle if it gets in the way of sales
My Blog
As a software process expert, I can give you the secret three best practices that every programmer must follow:
1) Find someone to blame for failure. Usually it's the new guy. Keep him stupid and drop hints to the project manager that he might be messing up the code
2) Try to make your programming complicated. Hey, if anybody can do it they are liable to hire some Indians to do it at three bucks an hour. Try using ancient Egyptian for your comments. Name all your variables something like A1 and A2. Catch and throw away your errors -- you don't make mistakes anyway. Let the calling code bomb, not yours
3) Get a week ahead on your status reports. What did you accomplish this week? Put that as your goals for next week. Every week you'll hit your targets dead on. The other guys will flail. Try to be sympathetic to them. Offer to help out with their programming.
This is my blog
This confusion in terms drives me nuts. P2P is technology, not crime, and darknets are simply ways of communicating with your peers that some other person doesn't know about.
Should everything you do at work be inspectable by your boss? Normally the answer would be "no" -- you certainly can write a political protest letter during your lunch hour. But with the ways the courts have been ruling, it seems the assumption is that corporations have to know everything you are doing, if it involves a computer. This is completely unenforceable, in my opinion, and will go the way of the Dred Scott decision.
This is my blog
I had two A-1000s when they first came out. I remember writing AD&D character generators and dungeon programs using that Microsoft Basic that came with them.
The Amiga was an awesome box. Too bad Commodore wasn't able to keep innovating. They had a real shot at long-term market share, and blew it. The accompanying article is a great lesson on how NOT to run a technology business.
Tougher Rules Needed For Airpsace Incursions?
This is the old "push versus pull" marketing discussion. Are people tired of push communications, where their email inboxes fill up with garbage? Absolutely. But the real question is how to enact a "pull" distribution system that also sells stuff. The author seems to make the point for directly replacing newsletters and other corporate communications with RSS feeds. sounds good, but I don't think it's the complete picture. The basic problem is one of personality -- most corporate communications are about as personable as a TV commercial. Impersonal works great when you're mass-distributing the message, but from a pull standpoint I think the format and method of content creation will need to change, not just the technology. My two cents.
Robot Soccer Champions by 2050?
I'm not sure what the point is. Sure, people read stuff and feel like they have it. The same thing has been happening to doctors for decades. Regular people too -- only in small batches. Now that there is more stuff for people to read, there is more stuff to believe. Assuming that doctors aren't some highly evolved lifeform from the planet Xerox, I think people will get along just fine, just like the docs.
After all, isn't this really about education? I mean, do you really fight something like smoking by making it illegal, moaning about how stupid people are to buy into the "cool factor", or by education? Seems to me that as long as you have an "Urban Legends" site, you teach somebody to go there and boom! No more email hoaxes. Same for medicine, right? We just need to have authoritative sources and tell people about them. Interestingly enough, this is also a problem of the MSM, which tends to exaggerate things in order to get ratings. People buy into the "panick of the week" mentality.
Shuttlecraft For Sale, Buy Today!
Want to write a time travel game. Or maybe I already did.