patents (how they should be) and what is wrong with them today...

[cprofitt]

I am of the opinion that patents are a useful device in a modern society if used properly. To give an example there are roughly 570 patents for barbed wire. The 'winner' of the barbed wire design 'contest' was not determined by the 'first' to patent, but the quality of design.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/barbed-wire/index.html

To get a patent for barbed wire you had to be very specific:

http://0.tqn.com/d/inventors/1/7/1/0/1/barb1.gif

In the case of todays tech industry it seems that patents are granted that are too broad. Compare this that Apple filed for their iPad.

http://www.greatandlittle.com/ebooks/public/blowup-images/tablets/.Apple-iPad-Community-Design_m.jpg

That looks like so many things... and suspiciously like the Padd.

http://moniqueblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/PADDtext.jpg

To be honest I hate seeing large companies 'win' based on who has the best lawyers vs. best technology.

[KiwiNZ]

What does Apples full application look like?

[JDShu]

Patents are written by lawyers to be as broad as possible and yet get past the USPTO, that is just the current reality.

The easiest reform is to get more staff into the USPTO with real experts in the various technological domains so that only truly unique innovations can be patented (as opposed to, say, a linked list with slightly different pointers).

A reasonable reform in software would be to reduce software patents to 3 or maybe 5 years. Practically, there is the difficulty that a decision is not made on a filed patent for 2 years due to the massive backlog, so this goes back to supporting the USPTO more.

An ideal reform IMO, though much more controversial and certainly impossible politically, would be to stop granting patents in general.

[dniMretsaM]

In my opinion, patents today don't work. Patents were originally to be for very specific things, not broad categories. I believe they should exist, but not the way they do now. They should be like they were originally intended. And they certainly shouldn't exist for software. That, however, is a very long story so I won't bother posting it now.

[akand074]

I think the whole patent system should be dropped. Can't we accomplish the same thing via copyright? Protection against copying, not against using a technology that most likely wasn't invented by you but you managed to hold a patent for it. That said, I'm sure there would be small cases where copyright wouldn't be strong enough to protect specific but actual true innovations. If the patent system was to be still used, they should:

A) Only allow patents to true innovations. Things others aren't or haven't been able to create even while trying to. Not mundane things like hyperlinking web pages and phone numbers in text, which Apple apparently won in court against HTC. How ridiculous.
B) Those patents shouldn't prevent anyone from doing anything with them for 20 years. It should be more along 1 year... 2 max just to give them a competitive advantage. But even that is pushing it.

Then again. If something is truly innovative enough that no one else has been capable of making it. Then they still have to figure out how to make it, and make it well enough to compete with yours. So even then, patents wouldn't really be giving much of an advantage.

Basically the way I see it. Patents are just another weapon to use strategically to fight the competition. They aren't actually protecting inventions, like their initial intent. Patents used to be an incentive to innovate. Now they are the largest detriment to innovation.

[JDShu]

Then again. If something is truly innovative enough that no one else has been capable of making it. Then they still have to figure out how to make it, and make it well enough to compete with yours. So even then, patents wouldn't really be giving much of an advantage.


This is an important point. The original purpose of patents was to discourage trade secrets, but especially in the software world where innovation happens constantly and at a rapid pace, this is no longer needed. The overhead of granting a legal monopoly is no longer worth the benefit of less usage of trade secrets.

[KiwiNZ]

An ideal reform IMO, though much more controversial and certainly impossible politically, would be to stop granting patents in general.

The result would be greatly curtailed research and development. Consider this,

Company A wants to develop new Tech device but does not wish to risk the capital, Company B has a similar idea and goes ahead with the R&D , develops and releases the device, Company's A, C, D .... immediately copy the device under cut Company B's price and takes all of their profits.

Research and development is very expensive, I see nothing wrong with protecting that investment. If companies want new products develop them don't cheat and copy.

Drop patents and the consumer will be the loser as we will not get new innovative products. Unemployment would also go up considerably, profit equals employment.

[JDShu]

The result would be greatly curtailed research and development. Consider this,

Company A wants to develop new Tech device but does not wish to risk the capital, Company B has a similar idea and goes ahead with the R&D , develops and releases the device, Company's A, C, D .... immediately copy the device under cut Company B's price and takes all of their profits.

Research and development is very expensive, I see nothing wrong with protecting that investment. If companies want new products develop them don't cheat and copy.

Drop patents and the consumer will be the loser as we will not get new innovative products. Unemployment would also go up considerably, profit equals employment.

There are two assumptions here that I see beeing made.

The first is that copying somebody's tech is easy. This is not necessarily true - copyright laws exist, trade secrets and NDAs can be just as effective as patents. And even if they successfully copy you, being first is it's own advantage. Especially in software, a half of year head start over your opponents is huge.

The second assumption is that patents encourage innovation, when there is a good argument that the opposite can be true. When a tech is patented, you have granted a legal monopoly on it to the company. This means that only that company is allowed to use it and only that company is allowed to build on it and innovate further - less innovation as now only one company can go in that direction. In addition, patents block people from doing the same thing even if it was discovered independently, the more patents that exist, the less motivation I have to create something because it might infringe on an already existing patent.

In the current reality, software companies don't even look at what patents have been filed, because anybody who makes anything significant is probably infringing on some patent somewhere, and it's better to unknowingly infringe than to be ruled to have knowingly infringed, which opens you up to treble damages. So patents don't even do what they're supposed to do - the technology gets published but nobody looks at it.

[kaldor]

Drop patents and the consumer will be the loser as we will not get new innovative products. Unemployment would also go up considerably, profit equals employment.

Did you honestly just say that?

[akand074]

The result would be greatly curtailed research and development. Consider this,

Company A wants to develop new Tech device but does not wish to risk the capital, Company B has a similar idea and goes ahead with the R&D , develops and releases the device, Company's A, C, D .... immediately copy the device under cut Company B's price and takes all of their profits.

Research and development is very expensive, I see nothing wrong with protecting that investment. If companies want new products develop them don't cheat and copy.

Drop patents and the consumer will be the loser as we will not get new innovative products. Unemployment would also go up considerably, profit equals employment.

I think JDShu summed it up well. There are places where patents are useful. But not in technology. Intellectual property is stupid. If someone spent so much time and money to research the ultimate couch. Then somebody looked at the couch and made the exact same thing with their own twist. Well then that makes sense. Copying a couch is easy, you can just rip it apart and look at how it's made. And even then that could be protected by copyright, not necessarily a patent.

Now if you look at software. I can spend so much time and money making the best video editor. Now someone can look at it, and use it and see some great features. Figuring out how to make those features is very difficult. The source code is unavailable, and there's no way you can rip it apart and find the source code. You have to figure out how to make it on your own. By the time you do figure it out and add to it, the original designer has already updated it with even better stuff. So it's not an easy task. The R&D still needs to be done. The features themselves, aren't innovations (most of the time), as most features, ideas etc have been thought of thousands of time. It's a matter of having the time, money, resources, ability to actually make them that's the difficult part.

Dropping patents could damage a lot of businesses, but not in the information technology and most intellectual-based companies. That's why they are intellectual property, because you need intellect! Without it you're useless. You still have to develop your own intellect on the topic, to be able to make the product. So the best course, is a full reform on patents/copyright etc to form one universal system that actually works to protect people where they need protecting, and not damaging innovation where it does not need damaging.

[disabledaccount]

Research and development is very expensive, I see nothing wrong with protecting that investment. If companies want new products develop them don't cheat and copy.So... how much money/time/resources did Apple spent to create those 3 "famous" pictures above? - if more than 10$ then they should fire whole R&D dept - 5 years old child can draw such things (no dimensions, unknown scale, nothing defined in fact). This is innovation? please...

[KiwiNZ]

I think JDShu summed it up well. There are places where patents are useful. But not in technology. Intellectual property is stupid. If someone spent so much time and money to research the ultimate couch. Then somebody looked at the couch and made the exact same thing with their own twist. Well then that makes sense. Copying a couch is easy, you can just rip it apart and look at how it's made. And even then that could be protected by copyright, not necessarily a patent.

Now if you look at software. I can spend so much time and money making the best video editor. Now someone can look at it, and use it and see some great features. Figuring out how to make those features is very difficult. The source code is unavailable, and there's no way you can rip it apart and find the source code. You have to figure out how to make it on your own. By the time you do figure it out and add to it, the original designer has already updated it with even better stuff. So it's not an easy task. The R&D still needs to be done. The features themselves, aren't innovations (most of the time), as most features, ideas etc have been thought of thousands of time. It's a matter of having the time, money, resources, ability to actually make them that's the difficult part.

Dropping patents could damage a lot of businesses, but not in the information technology and most intellectual-based companies. That's why they are intellectual property, because you need intellect! Without it you're useless. You still have to develop your own intellect on the topic, to be able to make the product. So the best course, is a full reform on patents/copyright etc to form one universal system that actually works to protect people where they need protecting, and not damaging innovation where it does not need damaging.

Technology is one industry where patents are vital, the cost of development is huge. Have you ever been in IBM's, HP's, Apples R&D units or Labs?

Also profit margins are very tight therefore protection of Intellectual property is vital if profits are to be made, and they mean more R&D, Employment and more products.

If consumers wish to do away with Patents then consumers will need to pay more for the products. It's simple, no return on investment, no investment.

[KiwiNZ]

So... how much money/time/resources did Apple spent to create those 3 "famous" pictures above? - if more than 10$ then they should fire whole R&D dept - 5 years old child can draw such things (no dimensions, unknown scale, nothing defined in fact). This is innovation? please...

Do you really think that is all they do when they develop something?:rolleyes:

It's called ......wait for it...... concept drawing.;)

[disabledaccount]

Reverse engineering of complex applications/software is practically impossible - it would take huge amount of money and time - most probably more than writting it from scratch. The same applies to silicon chips.

Conclusion is that most of (if not all) software patents are not protecting newly invented solutions - it stops others from inventing **similar** or **equivalent** things - software patents are stopping innovation and creating monopoly.

In fact it's even worse: patents are stopping competitive companies from developing something **better** in the same class of software/HW devices.

Patents are protecting few big companies and few smaller patent trolls against others - thus preventing free market competition.

[cprofitt]

What does Apples full application look like?


Good question. I have only seen what has been posted by media sites (from which those drawings come)... I would certainly hope that is not the entire patent application. I am also not sure how one would get the information you seek.

[wormyblackburny]

My older brother has 8 US patents from his time with IBM, the majority of them relating to monitoring systems for Tivoli. None of them are even in production or being developed, they are simply "ideas" of "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could do this....". Fortunately for him IBM has a ton of $$$ and lawyers and pushed through the patents so he has some great resume material. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't get a single penny for his ideas if they were put into use and made IBM a gazillion dollars. Technology patents are extremely complex these days..... and it is damn near impossible to go to war in court against a behemoth corporation with tons of lawyers and money.

[beew]

Drop patents and the consumer will be the loser as we will not get new innovative products. Unemployment would also go up considerably, profit equals employment.


Sure, I can see many lawyers working on patent trolling will be unemployed.

Why is it that only humongous profit for a single company or a handful of companies at the exclusion of others can create employment?

[_d_]

A good read about Thomas Jefferson on his views against patents:

http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/

[akand074]

Technology is one industry where patents are vital, the cost of development is huge. Have you ever been in IBM's, HP's, Apples R&D units or Labs?

Also profit margins are very tight therefore protection of Intellectual property is vital if profits are to be made, and they mean more R&D, Employment and more products.

If consumers wish to do away with Patents then consumers will need to pay more for the products. It's simple, no return on investment, no investment.

That's what I'm saying though. If you didn't have patents, it wouldn't affect anything except your ability to slow down your competitors. Mostly with unrelated things. Just like apple slowing down HTC over Android hyperlinking appropriate text. That has nothing to do with mobile OS, has nothing to do with smart phones, it's not connected to anything in particular. Just a way to slow them down. That's unreasonable.

You're saying that if patents were dropped for technology, then all the money put into R&D would be lost. That's simply not true. You talk as if one company can research and then create a product based on that research and then once it's released anyone else can make it without problem. That's not true. How do you expect the other companies to make similar products? They first have to figure out how to make it (research) and then make it (develop). If the original company released their source code and their manufacturing specs, then that's a whole different story. But they don't. You still have to develop yourself. Take a look at the iPhone. How long was it in the market before anything made could even compare to it? Two years at least, and it's competitors: Android has been in development since before 2005. Windows Phone has been in development for years. It's not like the iPhone came out and everyone was like oh okay people want phones like that, cool take the iPhone and lets break it apart, get all it's info and make our own and boom 6 months later you have competing phones at the same level. No.

If something can be made without their own R&D, then it's not something strong enough/innovative enough to deserve a patent.

EDIT: Let me give you some more examples:

Microsoft Office. How long has it been out. Office 2007 has been out for over 4 years, yet there is no office program in the world that compares to it.
Adobe Creative Suite. How many products match it?

I can go on and on. Just because microsoft released their office suite, it doesn't mean anyone in the world can now make office suites at the same or greater quality, or even worse quality without a significant amount of time and money going into figuring out how to make it and then develop the office suite from scratch. And by then Microsoft has already released their next one which is a huge improvement.

It's not like other industries where all the knowledge, all the research, everything is on the exterior and is easily learned and understood.

[alphacrucis2]

I have a great idea for a patent. I describe it as a "circular rotating device". "Wheel" could be a catchy name for it.

[akand074]

A good read about Thomas Jefferson on his views against patents:

http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/

Very good read. Thank you for this.

[KiwiNZ]

I have a great idea for a patent. I describe it as a "circular rotating device". "Wheel" could be a catchy name for it.

Nothing is gained by reductio ad absurdum. :rolleyes:

[alphacrucis2]

Nothing is gained by reductio ad absurdum. :rolleyes:


A few years ago an "innovation patent" for the wheel was accepted by the patent office in Australia. It was done as a joke by a lawyer to demonstrate how absurd the system was. The patent office excuse was, well it would be struck down in court. So someone has to hire lawyers to get an absurd patent overturned which should never have been allowed in the first place.

[KiwiNZ]

A few years ago an "innovation patent" for the wheel was accepted by the patent office in Australia. It was done as a joke by a lawyer to demonstrate how absurd the system was. The patent office excuse was, well it would be struck down in court. So someone has to hire lawyers to get an absurd patent overturned which should never have been allowed in the first place.

Links?

[alphacrucis2]

Links?

It was quite a long time ago but I found this BBC article still up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm)

While looking for that I also found this US patent for a method of using a swing.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html)

[mips]

I don't have a problem with patents that are original but the majority of them are a load of BS and all the patent process has done is stifle innovation and create patent trolls.

As for software patents, they should not exist in the first place.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't have a problem with patents that are original but the majority of them are a load of BS and all the patent process has done is stifle innovation and create patent trolls.

As for software patents, they should not exist in the first place.

Can you quantify how the patent process has stiffled innovation ?

[mips]

Can you quantify how the patent process has stiffled innovation ?

First let me be clear and say not all patents, where something is unique and truly new I have no problem but patents today are so broad and vague and rarely novel.

Lets say you hold the patent to making widgets, I know how to make a better widget but it still relies partly on knowledge you used to make your widgets. So I'm kinda screwed unless I pay you royalties and there could be someone out there with an even better idea than mine that would also cut the cost in half for the consumer but due to me having to have to pay you royalties that is not possible. Who looses? The consumer & widget industry as a whole as you effectively have a stranglehold on the market.

I'm not saying all patents are bad, but patenting arbitery stuff like putting an antenna in a keyboard is just bs for example. An antenna can go anywhere and there is nothing novel about sticking it in your keyboard or on your roof.

Then there's also the legal cost aspect which is a potential barrier to smaller players into a market.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/do-patents-encourage-or-hinder-innovation-the-case-of-the-steam-engine/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762450300057X
http://mises.org/daily/4018
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691143218?ie=UTF8&tag=feldwebsite-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0691143218

[aysiu]

Can you quantify how the patent process has stiffled innovation ?
How can you quantify what has been lost? It's like the record companies quantifying how much money they lost in sales because of music piracy--they lost money but any quantifying is pure speculation. You can quantify only what has been achieved, not what has been lost.

I would strongly suggest you listen to this episode of This American Life:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

Patents are great, when they work. Software patents there is almost no compelling case for.

Even for regular patents, the system really seems to reward big corporations that don't innovate, as opposed to the little actual inventors. Example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_kearns

[zekopeko]

Even for regular patents, the system really seems to reward big corporations that don't innovate, as opposed to the little actual inventors. Example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_kearns

You do understand that your example is actually showing why patents make sense? If the guy didn't have a patent he wouldn't have received any money.

Another thing to understand is that the "little actual inventor" is an exception. You will usually have teams of people working to invent something because today's R&D is capital-intensive, especially in high tech industries.

[zekopeko]

I am of the opinion that patents are a useful device in a modern society if used properly. To give an example there are roughly 570 patents for barbed wire. The 'winner' of the barbed wire design 'contest' was not determined by the 'first' to patent, but the quality of design.

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/barbed-wire/index.html

To get a patent for barbed wire you had to be very specific:

In the case of todays tech industry it seems that patents are granted that are too broad. Compare this that Apple filed for their iPad.

That looks like so many things... and suspiciously like the Padd.

To be honest I hate seeing large companies 'win' based on who has the best lawyers vs. best technology.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Barbed wire isn't a design patent while the iPad one is. Design patents cover "ornamental design of a functional item". As such the Star Trek one could never get one because it was simply a prop and not an actual device. I doubt it could have been considered actual prior art because of that.

[Dry Lips]

I think patents on technology in some cases are warranted. However, patents
on chemicals extracted from plants, and patents on genes is close to madness.

You're not patenting ideas or innovation, but you're claiming the ownership of
stuff that has existed for ages in the bosom of mother nature. And the controversy
regarding patents on broccoli and tomatoes? Don't even get me started on that one!
:wink:

[zekopeko]

There are two assumptions here that I see beeing made.

The first is that copying somebody's tech is easy. This is not necessarily true - copyright laws exist, trade secrets and NDAs can be just as effective as patents. And even if they successfully copy you, being first is it's own advantage. Especially in software, a half of year head start over your opponents is huge.

Reverse engineering software and hardware (to a lesser degree) is getting easier and easier. Take any Python or Javascript application and you don't even have to decompile the code, you can just read it.

Minecraft is a good example of how (relatively) easy it is to reverse engineer the code even thought the compiled binary is obfuscated and compiled to bytecode.


The second assumption is that patents encourage innovation, when there is a good argument that the opposite can be true. When a tech is patented, you have granted a legal monopoly on it to the company. This means that only that company is allowed to use it and only that company is allowed to build on it and innovate further - less innovation as now only one company can go in that direction. In addition, patents block people from doing the same thing even if it was discovered independently, the more patents that exist, the less motivation I have to create something because it might infringe on an already existing patent.

You forgot to mention that if you are bared from using that particular way because it was patented you have an incentive to invent another one.


In the current reality, software companies don't even look at what patents have been filed, because anybody who makes anything significant is probably infringing on some patent somewhere, and it's better to unknowingly infringe than to be ruled to have knowingly infringed, which opens you up to treble damages. So patents don't even do what they're supposed to do - the technology gets published but nobody looks at it.

That is a problem because of numerous reasons:

1. Patent application are examined ,on average,for 15 hours over the course of 3-4 years. That means more crappy patents.

2. Patent claims usually involve thick legalese. Harder examine.

3. There isn't a limit to what a patent holder can demand in royalties.

4. Absurdly long protection period for patents.

Possible fixes:

1. could be fixed by having more experts in patent offices.

2. by enforcing clearer descriptions. Since experts would already be granting patents (as per 1.) they could enforce standards so that experts in the fields that the patent covers could understand the patent.

3. Probably best to form patent pools by default that cover specific technologies. You want to build a mobile phone? Buy a license for that patent pool and don't worry about infringing on any patents.

4. Lower the grant time to something more reasonable. Also simplify invalidating a patent.

[zekopeko]

So... how much money/time/resources did Apple spent to create those 3 "famous" pictures above? - if more than 10$ then they should fire whole R&D dept - 5 years old child can draw such things (no dimensions, unknown scale, nothing defined in fact). This is innovation? please...

Apple has been working on the iPad-like device from around 1999/2000. There are probably dozens of never-to-be-released designs of iPad and iPhone in the Apple's labs. To you it might look as a simple sketch but behind it are years of R&D to be able to product an actual product that the sketch represents.


Reverse engineering of complex applications/software is practically impossible - it would take huge amount of money and time - most probably more than writting it from scratch. The same applies to silicon chips.

When you reverse engineer something you don't copy the applications/hardware verbatim. You take specific parts and incorporate them in your product. If you are reverse engineering something for the sole purpose of copying it 1:1 it would make more sense to simply replace the branding and release the unmodified binary as yours (there by infringing on copyright).


Conclusion is that most of (if not all) software patents are not protecting newly invented solutions - it stops others from inventing **similar** or **equivalent** things - software patents are stopping innovation and creating monopoly.

In fact it's even worse: patents are stopping competitive companies from developing something **better** in the same class of software/HW devices.

Patents are protecting few big companies and few smaller patent trolls against others - thus preventing free market competition.

You do understand that patents are actually legal monopolies? And that one of the free market failures are externalities which in the case of inventing something is called a positive externality. Meaning that if you invent something others don't have to. This is Economic Theory 101.

[whiskeylover]

Do you really think that is all they do when they develop something?:rolleyes:

It's called ......wait for it...... concept drawing.;)

And then they went ahead and successfully patented the... wait for it... concept drawing. i.e. a very broad and generic idea, which should not have been granted in the first place.

[zekopeko]

Good question. I have only seen what has been posted by media sites (from which those drawings come)... I would certainly hope that is not the entire patent application.

The pictures are pretty much all there is in the design application. The application refers to the design as a mobile computer or personal computer IIRC.


I am also not sure how one would get the information you seek.

One would google for it with "apple community design ipad" keywords.

[zekopeko]

A good read about Thomas Jefferson on his views against patents:

http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/


Before Thomas Jefferson was appointed our first head of the Patent Office 1790, he argued passionately against patents — he once called them “embarrassments to the public,” and worried that “abuse of frivolous patents is likely to cause more inconvenience than is countervail by those really useful.” Sound familiar? But Jefferson took his job seriously, reviewing and even testing most applications himself, and by the end of his service he had become a strong proponent of patents, saying that the Patent Act of 1790 had “given a spring to invention beyond my conception.”

From: http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/

[zekopeko]

It was quite a long time ago but I found this BBC article still up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm)

While looking for that I also found this US patent for a method of using a swing.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html)

This doesn't actually prove the patents system fundamentally broken. Simply that more examiner (and with better qualifications) are needed.

[mips]

From: Before Thomas Jefferson was appointed our first head of the Patent Office 1790, he argued passionately against patents — he once called them “embarrassments to the public,” and worried that “abuse of frivolous patents is likely to cause more inconvenience than is countervail by those really useful.” Sound familiar? But Jefferson took his job seriously, reviewing and even testing most applications himself, and by the end of his service he had become a strong proponent of patents, saying that the Patent Act of 1790 had “given a spring to invention beyond my conception.”



And that is exactly the situation we sit with today, frivolous patents filed by the second. These things don't get checked or validated any more.

The system needs to be fixed.

[JDShu]

Reverse engineering software and hardware (to a lesser degree) is getting easier and easier. Take any Python or Javascript application and you don't even have to decompile the code, you can just read it.

Minecraft is a good example of how (relatively) easy it is to reverse engineer the code even thought the compiled binary is obfuscated and compiled to bytecode.


And yet there is no good clone of Minecraft. Notch is rolling in money. Did he have no incentive to write Minecraft? Finally, that particular code is protected under copyright already. As another example, the nouveau drivers are nowhere near as effective as the official nvidia binaries even taking into account patented technology.



You forgot to mention that if you are bared from using that particular way because it was patented you have an incentive to invent another one.
Sometimes there is no better way. Take for example floating point textures - we really need them for the open source gfx drivers and there is no alternative no matter how smart you are. In addition, while I am spending time looking for an alternative, company 1 is using their protection time to build on their previous innovation, and patenting the new innovation etc. Other companies are forever a step behind. Without the patent, these other companies can all innovate on the new technology, increasing the total amount of innovation in the society.



That is a problem because of numerous reasons:

1. Patent application are examined ,on average,for 15 hours over the course of 3-4 years. That means more crappy patents.

2. Patent claims usually involve thick legalese. Harder examine.

3. There isn't a limit to what a patent holder can demand in royalties.

4. Absurdly long protection period for patents.

1. could be fixed by having more experts in patent offices.

2. by enforcing clearer descriptions. Since experts would already be granting patents (as per 1.) they could enforce standards so that experts in the fields that the patent covers could understand the patent.

3. Probably best to form patent pools by default that cover specific technologies. You want to build a mobile phone? Buy a license for that patent pool and don't worry about infringing on any patents.

4. Lower the grant time to something more reasonable. Also simplify invalidating a patent.I agree there are some easy and realistic reforms that would make the system a lot better than it is now. However, instead of spending more government resources on a dubiously effective system, it would be even better to get rid of the whole system.

[KiwiNZ]

And then they went ahead and successfully patented the... wait for it... concept drawing. i.e. a very broad and generic idea, which should not have been granted in the first place.

You need to exit the discussion, research the topic and come back .

[whiskeylover]

You need to exit the discussion, research the topic and come back .

Yes, I will exit the discussion. If not voluntarily, then by force, since you've always acted defensively whenever someone called out your pro-Apple bias.

By the way, what I wrote was already pointed out by many on this thread.

[koenn]

What does Apples full application look like?


Good question. I have only seen what has been posted by media sites (from which those drawings come)... I would certainly hope that is not the entire patent application. I am also not sure how one would get the information you seek.


The patent application is slightly more elaborate : it consists of the 9 drawings + the phrase "We claim the ornamental design of an electronic device, substantially as shown and described" (the "description" consists solely of labels to the drawings: "this is front view", "this is seen from the left", ...)


http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=claims#v=onepage&q&f=false

so, yeah ...

[KiwiNZ]

The patent application is slightly more elaborate : it consists of the 9 drawings + the phrase "We claim the ornamental design of an electronic device, substantially as shown and described" (the "description" consists solely of labels to the drawings: "this is front view", "this is seen from the left", ...)


http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=claims#v=onepage&q&f=false

so, yeah ...

I grant you that is brief if used in absentia of other Patents issued for the iPad. It is the broad design Patent only. You would need to look at all Patents related to the device to ascertain full Patent cover.

[koenn]

I grant you that is brief if used in absentia of other Patents issued for the iPad. It is the broad design Patent only. You would need to look at all Patents related to the device to ascertain full Patent cover.

I doubt that.
It's a design patent for "an electronical device'. The way I understand that, any electronical device substantially similar to the patented shape and form factor would be covered by that patent.


IANAL, and you're welcome to provide facts that may indicate or suggest my interpretation is incorrect.

[KiwiNZ]

I doubt that.
It's a design patent for "an electronical device'. The way I understand that, any electronical device substantially similar to the patented shape and form factor would be covered by that patent.


IANAL, and you're welcome to provide facts that may indicate or suggest my interpretation is incorrect.

If I had a vested interest I may take a few hours to do Patent searches. I don't have a vested interest nor do I have the time. I will leave it to Apple and their Counsel to defend their Patents.

[zekopeko]

I doubt that.
It's a design patent for "an electronical device'. The way I understand that, any electronical device substantially similar to the patented shape and form factor would be covered by that patent.

IANAL, and you're welcome to provide facts that may indicate or suggest my interpretation is incorrect.

I think you are correct.


Unlike trade dress law, one can get a design patent regardless of whether the particular product has been successfully marketed. In fact, one can obtain a design patent regardless of whether the protected design has ever been made or sold.

via http://c348.teamholistic.net/tools_design_patent

[akand074]

This is getting argumentative over existing patent disputes. Just to sum it up though. From what I've read, I think everyone is in agreement that the patent system in the present is messed up and does require a reform or at least looking into. Despite arguments on the necessity of the patent system all together.

That said, companies like Google and even Microsoft have been pushing (or at least stating) for patent reforms. I don't think anyone in the world would disagree that their is a problem with the current patent system. Though most would take advantage of it while it remains.

[koenn]

If I had a vested interest I may take a few hours to do Patent searches. I don't have a vested interest nor do I have the time. I will leave it to Apple and their Counsel to defend their Patents.

I didn't ask for you to do an elaborate patent study, I was merely asking if you knew of any cases, facts, ... that indicate that one "would need to look at all Patents related to the device to ascertain full Patent cover" rather than let it stand by itself.

Since you admit at not having such information, I assume that your opinion was not based on knowledge or fact.

[koenn]

@zekopeko: awsome ninja edit !

[zekopeko]

@zekopeko: awsome ninja edit !

I had to because the article is slightly contradictory: first is talks about making an actual product then it talks how you don't need an actual product to use the patent.

Which is interesting considering Apple made it a point to compare actual competitor products to their own in the lawsuits.

[KiwiNZ]

I didn't ask for you to do an elaborate patent study, I was merely asking if you knew of any cases, facts, ... that indicate that one "would need to look at all Patents related to the device to ascertain full Patent cover" rather than let it stand by itself.

Since you admit at not having such information, I assume that your opinion was not based on knowledge or fact.

Didn't say I didn't have the knowledge, just not prepared to waste my time finding teh written data online.

[KiwiNZ]

This is getting argumentative over existing patent disputes. Just to sum it up though. From what I've read, I think everyone is in agreement that the patent system in the present is messed up and does require a reform or at least looking into. Despite arguments on the necessity of the patent system all together.

That said, companies like Google and even Microsoft have been pushing (or at least stating) for patent reforms. I don't think anyone in the world would disagree that their is a problem with the current patent system. Though most would take advantage of it while it remains.

I agree and have said previously that the Patent System needs rejigging and to bring it into the twenty first century. However until the Legislators do this the participants need to play according to the rules in place now.

[cprofitt]

Can you quantify how the patent process has stiffled innovation ?

I am curious if you can quantify how the patent process has encourage innovation?

[cprofitt]

The pictures are pretty much all there is in the design application. The application refers to the design as a mobile computer or personal computer IIRC.

I would not mind the design patent if for instance it was specific. The exact dimensions, the bezel width, etc. From the images in the press it looked rather generic.

[cprofitt]

I grant you that is brief if used in absentia of other Patents issued for the iPad. It is the broad design Patent only. You would need to look at all Patents related to the device to ascertain full Patent cover.

We are discussing the 'design patent' though or so I thought. Did the courts rule on other items?

[beew]

I am curious if you can quantify how the patent process has encourage innovation?
Good come back. It is the age old double standard, for those who are already too fat you need to entice them with more food to get them productive, that is called incentive; for those who are already malnutrition you have to keep them hungry lest they slack off if they have a full stomach.

Yeah, and apparently employment can only be provided if one company making huge profit by keeping out competitors, apparently profit for the competitors don't create jobs.

[KiwiNZ]

I am curious if you can quantify how the patent process has encourage innovation?

It provides certainty that your design will not be stolen when you release it into the open. This certainty helps venture capital to be obtained. It also assists return on investment, this in turn provides funds for further research and development.

It also provides funds for employment, salaries and food on the table.

Additionally if ones design is stolen on release it provides legal recourse to stop or gain compensation for this again assisting with the above.

It is a fact that venture capital is very hard to come by and R&D funding is also hard to obtain, providing an eliminate of security for these funds is important. Of course the final product needs to merchantable or there will be no return on investment, a recent example the HP Touch Pad.

[beew]

Imagine where physics and math would be today if Newton patented the calculus.

[KiwiNZ]

Good come back. It is the age old double standard, for those who are already too fat you need to entice them with more food to get them productive, that is called incentive; for those who are already malnutrition you have to keep them hungry lest they slack off if they have a full stomach.

Yeah, and apparently employment can only be provided if one company making huge profit by keeping out competitors, apparently profit for the competitors don't create jobs.

Samsung are capable of making good products, they did not need to cheat. By cheating they risk the employment of not only their own work force but the work force from whom the cheat.

[akand074]

Samsung are capable of making good products, they did not need to cheat. By cheating they risk the employment of not only their own work force but the work force from whom the cheat.

Point is the same though. You're arguing that if a company lost the money they spent in R&D then jobs would be lost. Which isn't entirely accurate. The accurate situation is that, THAT company lost jobs, but a competitor would have gained jobs. The net job loss would be 0. Because money lost by one is gained by another in their competitive field. So the only loss is to the company. Consumers would actually win due to more competition.

Regardless of that case though. Although I'm confident there has been many legitimate patent infringements. I have yet to hear about a single litigation over a patent infringement that, in my view, has been legitimate. And Samsung certainly never cheated. At least as far as all the patent litigation against them that I've heard about.

[KiwiNZ]

Point is the same though. You're arguing that if a company lost the money they spent in R&D then jobs would be lost. Which isn't entirely accurate. The accurate situation is that, THAT company lost jobs, but a competitor would have gained jobs. The net job loss would be 0. Because money lost by one is gained by another in their competitive field. So the only loss is to the company. Consumers would actually win due to more competition.

Regardless of that case though. Although I'm confident there has been many legitimate patent infringements. I have yet to hear about a single litigation over a patent infringement that, in my view, has been legitimate. And Samsung certainly never cheated. At least as far as all the patent litigation against them that I've heard about.

In no industry does employment loss at one company mean employment gain in another, if that was the case there would be zero unemployment.

I also have to ask are you a Lawyer? how do you determine that the claims litigated have been invalid? Several independent Courts have found in favor of the Patent owners especially the Apple v Samsung situation.

[akand074]

In no industry does employment loss at one company mean employment gain in another, if that was the case there would be zero unemployment.

I also have to ask are you a Lawyer? how do you determine that the claims litigated have been invalid? Several independent Courts have found in favor of the Patent owners especially the Apple v Samsung situation.

I'm not saying that's in all cases. I'm saying in the particular case that you suggested that one company cheats another. For example lets say hypothetically Apple spent a whole lot of R&D to make a tablet, then Samsung "copied" it without spending much on R&D. This resulted in a lot more Samsung tablets being sold and not as much Apple tablets. The money spent specifically on tablets just moved from one company to another. Higher revenues for Samsung results in job growth, lower revenues for Apple results in lower job growth to job loss. In cases where you're talking about exact same product field, it makes sense.

As to your second question. I am not a lawyer. I'm not talking about "legally" what is valid. I'm talking about rationally what is valid based on what I believe constitutes a worthy patent. And I wouldn't be surprised if over 90% of patents issued are not actually patent worthy.

That said, the courts ended up only agreeing with Apple on the patent involving the user interaction in their gallery app. Which is actually an Android application, not a Samsung one. So the only thing the court ended up agreeing Samsung infringed was actually a Google application. So courts did not actually find Samsung as a "cheat". And of course they side with the patent owner, unless it seems completely ridiculous. I bet most of those "lawyers" and "judges" haven't a clue what they are talking about when it comes to intellectual property. They just side with the patent owner unless the opposition happens to be able to convince them otherwise.

[Dry Lips]

Israeli firm claims patent on URL shortcuts

Summary: When you type a company name into a URL field and
it resolves to an actual domain name … we’ve patented that says Israeli firm.

Read the article here:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/israeli-firm-claims-patent-on-url-shortcuts/5516

[Dry Lips]

The following article is a bit dated, but it demonstrates that
fortunately there is some decency left in the judicial system:

BT loses hyperlink patent case
BT has lost its controversial bid to sue Prodigy Communications over
a patent that it claimed covered the use of hyperlinks.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strategy/2002/08/23/bt-loses-hyperlink-patent-case-2121257/

[Merk42]

If patents are supposed to be a temporary monopoly to recoup R&D costs, and the iPad is insanely popular, shouldn't it be assumed Apple has already recouped said R&D costs at this point so the patent(s) should be expire?

[zekopeko]

If patents are supposed to be a temporary monopoly to recoup R&D costs, and the iPad is insanely popular, shouldn't it be assumed Apple has already recouped said R&D costs at this point so the patent(s) should be expire?

Actually patents were meant to move trade secrets from companies to the public. The monopoly period is there as an incentive to do so. Recouping R&D costs is simply a side effect of that.

EDIT: This is a pretty good read: http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/

[Merk42]

Actually patents were meant to move trade secrets from companies to the public. The monopoly period is there as an incentive to do so. Recouping R&D costs is simply a side effect of that.

EDIT: This is a pretty good read: http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/Too bad they never go to the public now.

So we've gone from not knowing how the competition does something, to knowing but being illegal to do so.

[akand074]

If patents are supposed to be a temporary monopoly to recoup R&D costs, and the iPad is insanely popular, shouldn't it be assumed Apple has already recouped said R&D costs at this point so the patent(s) should be expire?

The patent length is 20 years. Apparently a monopoly for 20 years is what is required to recoup R&D costs.

[JDShu]

Too bad they never go to the public now.

So we've gone from not knowing how the competition does something, to knowing but being illegal to do so.

Exactly. Something that all the pro patent people refuse to acknowledge in this thread.

[greatandlittle]

Hello All,
I've noticed that the image of the ipad drawing is hotlinked from a blog entry (http://www.greatandlittle.com/ebooks/index.php?post/2011/08/15/The-Tablet-Wars-Google-Makes-a-Move) I had made about a similar topic and I just wanted to mention something that I had mentioned in that post. I don't believe this picture is from an Apple patent, but rather from a Community Design Document issued by the European Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, which seem to be more of a trademark office than a patent enforcer. So unlike a patent, which has claims against which you protect some piece of intellectual property, this is more like a trademark where Apple appears to be claiming the Galaxy tab just looks too much like the ipad in its physical appearance. I don't know if we have anything like this in the States which is why I believe you can buy the Galaxy here (if that is true). But this in itself is interesting as Apple had to resort to the way the Galaxy looked, which is much easier to change, than the way it works (ie, IP inside), to get the Galaxy pulled. This suggests it should be more or a temporary setback for ipad competitors. My own post was how I would prefer the Android tablets to try to be less ipad-like anyway.

Anyway, thanks for letting me post.

[Dry Lips]

Hello All,
I've noticed that the image of the ipad drawing is hotlinked from a blog entry (http://www.greatandlittle.com/ebooks/index.php?post/2011/08/15/The-Tablet-Wars-Google-Makes-a-Move) I had made about a similar topic and I just wanted to mention something that I had mentioned in that post. I don't believe this picture is from an Apple patent, but rather from a Community Design Document issued by the European Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, which seem to be more of a trademark office than a patent enforcer. So unlike a patent, which has claims against which you protect some piece of intellectual property, this is more like a trademark where Apple appears to be claiming the Galaxy tab just looks too much like the ipad in its physical appearance. I don't know if we have anything like this in the States which is why I believe you can buy the Galaxy here (if that is true). But this in itself is interesting as Apple had to resort to the way the Galaxy looked, which is much easier to change, than the way it works (ie, IP inside), to get the Galaxy pulled. This suggests it should be more or a temporary setback for ipad competitors. My own post was how I would prefer the Android tablets to try to be less ipad-like anyway.

Anyway, thanks for letting me post.

Hi and welcome to the forum. A trademark is certainly
a completely different beast from a patent.

[KiwiNZ]

Too bad they never go to the public now.

So we've gone from not knowing how the competition does something, to knowing but being illegal to do so.


I am sure I have seen the iPad in the public domain.

[koenn]

I don't believe this picture is from an Apple patent, but rather from a Community Design Document issued by the European Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, which seem to be more of a trademark office than a patent enforcer.

it's both. Apple submitted those "designs" in Community Design Document and holds a patent with (hardly anything else than) the same drawings at the US patent office.




http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=claims#v=onepage&q&f=false

[krytorii]

I am reminded of Amazon patenting the one-click system, where you don't have to click again to make a purchase. Barnes and Noble actually had to go around this by adding a confirmation button (therefore making it 2 clicks).

I am tempted to patent a system for approving patents, and then seeing if I can license it to any governments...

[akand074]

I'm tempted to patent the if statement. Then I rule the world...

[donkyhotay]

I am reminded of Amazon patenting the one-click system, where you don't have to click again to make a purchase. Barnes and Noble actually had to go around this by adding a confirmation button (therefore making it 2 clicks).

I am tempted to patent a system for approving patents, and then seeing if I can license it to any governments...

I know I read a webcomic somewhere that joked about doing that very thing during the time one-click came out.

//edit: of course if people really dislike bad patents you should check out the EFF's patent busting project (http://w2.eff.org/patent/).

[zekopeko]

Too bad they never go to the public now.

So we've gone from not knowing how the competition does something, to knowing but being illegal to do so.

Having a time limited monopoly of 14-20 years is bad? Sharing knowledge that after the protection expires is freely available to anyone free of charge or legal obligations is bad?

In plenty of cases the patent owner sells licenses so you can use the technology in your own product without having to invest in R&D.

[zekopeko]

The patent length is 20 years. Apparently a monopoly for 20 years is what is required to recoup R&D costs.

The fixed time length is the problem. It makes sense for pharmaceuticals since there is plenty of R&D costs but for computer related patents it should be far,far less probably from 3-5 years.

Patents should have different time lengths depending on what it covers and how broadly it impacts the economy.

[zekopeko]

Exactly. Something that all the pro patent people refuse to acknowledge in this thread.

So you are in fact arguing that instead of giving time limited incentives for people to share their knowledge and invest in acquiring new knowledge we should favor people keeping it to themselves. How very anti-social.

[JDShu]

So you are in fact arguing that instead of giving time limited incentives for people to share their knowledge and invest in acquiring new knowledge we should favor people keeping it to themselves. How very anti-social.

How is knowing a method but being unable to use it better than not knowing it and being able to discover it? The only argument you can put forward is that people can use it after the patent period, but the rate of increase in total knowledge is accelerating, so these days the chances of people figuring out the same "unique" method is very high. A blunt instrument like giving a company a legal monopoly is just as likely to stifle innovation as it is to encourage it.

[KiwiNZ]

How is knowing a method but being unable to use it better than not knowing it and being able to discover it? The only argument you can put forward is that people can use it after the patent period, but the rate of increase in total knowledge is accelerating, so these days the chances of people figuring out the same "unique" method is very high. A blunt instrument like giving a company a legal monopoly is just as likely to stifle innovation as it is to encourage it.

That is not logical, the pace of Technological change has been fast for most of the 20Th century and the last decade. Is there appreciable evidence that it has been slowed by the Patent laws?

[Merk42]

Sharing knowledge that after the protection expires is freely available to anyone free of charge or legal obligations is bad?
No

The fixed time length is the problem.
Yes


Also I wouldn't be surprised if software patents became like copyright where every time they were going to expire the company would complain and get it extended (re Disney)

Admittedly, that's all conjecture, so as of right now, yes, 14-20 years is way too long for technology.

[JDShu]

That is not logical, the pace of Technological change has been fast for most of the 20Th century and the last decade. There is appreciable evidence that it has been slowed by the Patent laws.

What is not logical? And what appreciable evidence?

[akand074]

I have been convinced. Patents are actually the better way to go, but only if they are well regulated. And by well regulated I mean:

- Varying time length for varying patents based on the strength of the innovation and the cost of R&D that went into the patent.
- Regulated monopoly over the technology. That is, the patent should not be allowed to be used abusively (only giving licenses to organizations that benefit you and not your competitors as well should they ask to purchase it). This reason basically for the sake of sharing of knowledge to increase the rate of it's development and further innovation.
- If a non-patent holder decides to actually do their own R&D and develops a similar technology or product completely on their own. The patent holder should not have the power to limit or stop that organization's innovations unless there is obvious specific copying.
- Only patent requests worth actually patenting should be accepted. That is, every patent should be reviewed by someone who actually understands it so that no patents that are mundane or things that anyone could do or very broad or generic things are being patented.

A properly regulated patent system would be better than the drop all together. Point is patents should not prevent or damage innovation and progress. But actually protect and motivate innovation and progress.

[zekopeko]

Also I wouldn't be surprised if software patents became like copyright where every time they were going to expire the company would complain and get it extended (re Disney)

This however didn't happen. US copyright was extended a number of times during the past century while patents weren't.


Admittedly, that's all conjecture, so as of right now, yes, 14-20 years is way too long for technology.

It is too long for fast moving technology like computers. For pharmaceuticals it might even be too short since it takes years to develop it at great expense and with little to no guarantee that you will get your investment back.

[JDShu]

I have been convinced. Patents are actually the better way to go, but only if they are well regulated. And by well regulated I mean:

- Varying time length for varying patents based on the strength of the innovation and the cost of R&D that went into the patent.
- Regulated monopoly over the technology. That is, the patent should not be allowed to be used abusively (only giving licenses to organizations that benefit you and not your competitors as well should they ask to purchase it). This reason basically for the sake of sharing of knowledge to increase the rate of it's development and further innovation.
- If a non-patent holder decides to actually do their own R&D and develops a similar technology or product completely on their own. The patent holder should not have the power to limit or stop that organization's innovations unless there is obvious specific copying.
- Only patent requests worth actually patenting should be accepted. That is, every patent should be reviewed by someone who actually understands it so that no patents that are mundane or things that anyone could do or very broad or generic things are being patented.

A properly regulated patent system would be better than the drop all together. Point is patents should not prevent or damage innovation and progress. But actually protect and motivate innovation and progress.

There are more problems with this than you would expect. For example:

- You don't know how much money needs to be spent on an innovation. Patents are generally issued before research is done.
- Only the courts can determine whether patents are used correctly. This gives the advantage to the lawyered up companies.
- How do you know when a non-patent holder is developing on their own or if they are copying?
- What is worth patenting and what isn't? No matter how hard you try, some things are going to slip past which people in the field consider obvious. Now I agree that we need better people to make the current system work better, but i argue that the system itself is flawed and impossible to regulate properly.

[akand074]

There are more problems with this than you would expect. For example:

- You don't know how much money needs to be spent on an innovation. Patents are generally issued before research is done.
- Only the courts can determine whether patents are used correctly. This gives the advantage to the lawyered up companies.
- How do you know when a non-patent holder is developing on their own or if they are copying?
- What is worth patenting and what isn't? No matter how hard you try, some things are going to slip past which people in the field consider obvious. Now I agree that we need better people to make the current system work better, but i argue that the system itself is flawed and impossible to regulate properly.

That's not my job to figure out. But if it was, I'm sure I'd do it very well. Information isn't difficult to find, you just have to look for it. Thing is government workers, courts, lawyers, they are all exactly like everyone else. They don't want to do more work then they have to. This is why things like this happen. Think about it. There are millions and millions of patents. Imagine having to actually fully read, comprehend, and verify all of them. It would take ages. It's easier to just accept them all and deal with the damages later. If they started becoming a lot more strict and perhaps even punished or gave companies incentive to stop trying to patent every little thing they can, then their work load could be cut down and they can focus on actually reviewing each patent well and then monitor them afterwards.

I'm not saying this is an easy task. I'm just saying that is the only "fair" way to do things without damaging innovation.

[JDShu]

That's not my job to figure out. But if it was, I'm sure I'd do it very well. Information isn't difficult to find, you just have to look for it. Thing is government workers, courts, lawyers, they are all exactly like everyone else. They don't want to do more work then they have to. This is why things like this happen. Think about it. There are millions and millions of patents. Imagine having to actually fully read, comprehend, and verify all of them. It would take ages. It's easier to just accept them all and deal with the damages later. If they started becoming a lot more strict and perhaps even punished or gave companies incentive to stop trying to patent every little thing they can, then their work load could be cut down and they can focus on actually reviewing each patent well and then monitor them afterwards.

I'm not saying this is an easy task. I'm just saying that is the only "fair" way to do things without damaging innovation.

The problem is that no matter how you make the laws, there will be an uncertainty about where your invention is patentable. Uncertainty that was created from the existence of patents. For example, let's say you heavy penalized companies that used patents "incorrectly", then companies wouldn't bother with patents at all since trying to use them could be more detrimental than trying to protect your IP. It's not worth the risk. So now you have effectively no patent system, but are paying government workers to sit in an office.

The reason for my stance is relatively simple: Whether patents increase innovation is unknown, and there are arguments on both sides. (For many people, it is simply a matter of faith: "I know it increases innovation, and there is no need for me to find data, because it is obvious". More rational people know that it is much more complex than that.) Now if whether patents improve innovation is unknown, then we shouldn't have the government interfere, and in particular, it shouldn't do something as blunt as favoring particular groups of individuals and create a market that is undeniably inefficient.

[akand074]

The problem is that no matter how you make the laws, there will be an uncertainty about where your invention is patentable. Uncertainty that was created from the existence of patents. For example, let's say you heavy penalized companies that used patents "incorrectly", then companies wouldn't bother with patents at all since trying to use them could be more detrimental than trying to protect your IP. It's not worth the risk. So now you have effectively no patent system, but are paying government workers to sit in an office.

The reason for my stance is relatively simple: Whether patents increase innovation is unknown, and there are arguments on both sides. (For many people, it is simply a matter of faith: "I know it increases innovation, and there is no need for me to find data, because it is obvious". More rational people know that it is much more complex than that.) Now if whether patents improve innovation is unknown, then we shouldn't have the government interfere, and in particular, it shouldn't do something as blunt as favoring particular groups of individuals and create a market that is undeniably inefficient.

I don't think patents are as much designed to increase innovation as it is to make the business men happy. The problem you're talking about is really the biggest universal problem. Which is "it's too hard, so there's no point doing it". Yes anything proper is generally going to be very, very difficult. That only means you need to work that much harder, not give up and find an easier solution.

[JDShu]

I don't think patents are as much designed to increase innovation as it is to make the business men happy. The problem you're talking about is really the biggest universal problem. Which is "it's too hard, so there's no point doing it". Yes anything proper is generally going to be very, very difficult. That only means you need to work that much harder, not give up and find an easier solution.

Doing it "properly", could mean getting the government to spend billions on the system. In contrast, having no patent system at all would ensure that there is no artificial inefficiency that we then need to solve with more money.

[KiwiNZ]

Doing it "properly", could mean getting the government to spend billions on the system. In contrast, having no patent system at all would ensure that there is no artificial inefficiency that we then need to solve with more money.

It currently costs Governments very little. These are Civil cases.

[zekopeko]

Doing it "properly", could mean getting the government to spend billions on the system. In contrast, having no patent system at all would ensure that there is no artificial inefficiency that we then need to solve with more money.

Except "artificial inefficiency" in this case is a positive externality. As such inventing something allows others to use the invention without incurring the R&D costs. That means the price of a product that uses that invention isn't reflective of actual costs since the non-inventor can have a free ride on the inventor's expense thereby making it a free market failure.

You are also forgetting that you have to pay application fees to actual try and register a patent or maintain it so part of the cost is on the inventor and not society at large.

[JDShu]

It currently costs Governments very little. These are Civil cases.

And we agree that the system as it is doesn't work


Except "artificial inefficiency" in this case is a positive externality. As such inventing something allows others to use the invention without incurring the R&D costs. That means the price of a product that uses that invention isn't reflective of actual costs since the non-inventor can have a free ride on the inventor's expense thereby making it a free market failure.

Monopolies are inefficient. Your argument is that the inefficiency due to a monopoly is offset by the correction of the inefficiency due to positive externality. But we have no idea what the scale of that positive externality is, and in fact there are studies by notable economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Maskin#Software_patents) that even suggest that patents stifle innovation. So granting patents is essentially creating a known inefficiency in response to an unknown one.



You are also forgetting that you have to pay application fees to actual try and register a patent or maintain it so part of the cost is on the inventor and not society at large.The USPTO is underfunded and the application fees are not funding them enough to do their job properly. To make the system better while still keeping a patent system, we have to fund it more. Also, as long as society at large is paying part of the cost, then that is inefficient.

[KiwiNZ]

And we agree that the system as it is doesn't work





No I don't agree it does not work. It needs fine tuning, but I agree with Patents.

[JDShu]

No I don't agree it does not work. It needs fine tuning, but I agree with Patents.

I was talking about the patent system that we have right now. The one where software firms don't look at patents to avoid treble damages. The one that makes any significant piece of software guaranteed to infringe on a patent somewhere. The one that people are arguing just needs to be fixed, and all will be well - reasonable, although I disagree. The current patent system does not work. I really don't think this is disputable at this point.

[KiwiNZ]

I was talking about the patent system that we have right now. The one where software firms don't look at patents to avoid treble damages. The one that makes any significant piece of software guaranteed to infringe on a patent somewhere. The one that people are arguing just needs to be fixed, and all will be well - reasonable, although I disagree. The current patent system does not work. I really don't think this is disputable at this point.

It seems very logical to me that before one releases a new product that employing a Patent Attorney would be part of the development and release process.

I would argue that it is not the process that does not work, it is some that use it that are not being diligent in their own processes.

[JDShu]

It seems very logical to me that before one releases a new product that employing a Patent Attorney would be part of the development and release process.

I would argue that it is not the process that does not work, it is some that use it that are not being diligent in their own processes.

It may sound logical to you, but there is near unanimous consensus among software developers that this is not how it works. For an introduction, you might enjoy Paul Graham's article on software patents (http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html). He doesn't even advocate taking down the patent system entirely, but outlines the problems with it right now.

[KiwiNZ]

It may sound logical to you, but there is near unanimous consensus among software developers that this is not how it works. For an introduction, you might enjoy Paul Graham's article on software patents (http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html). He doesn't even advocate taking down the patent system entirely, but outlines the problems with it right now.

unanimous, I don't think so.

[JDShu]

unanimous, I don't think so.

Thank you for the sound bite.

[tyler_l]

This reminds me a bit of a discussion I had recently on an alternate forum. My objection to the existing patent system isn't so much a rejection of the principles, but rather the fact that patents issued today (and software patents are the biggest offenders) are, in a word, terrible.

I wrote up an explanation and stuck it here on my own personal space -- http://tylerl.com/patent-nonsense/ -- but this gist is this: many of the more influential and widely discussed patents today aren't patents of a mechanism or device or invention of any sort, but rather a patent that encompasses ALL inventions that would solve a given problem -- such as the 1-click patent. Instead of patenting a specific method of processing 1-click orders, the patent is so general that it covers *every* implementation.

If the rules of the system were actually followed, patents wouldn't be the problem they are today.

[zekopeko]

It may sound logical to you, but there is near unanimous consensus among software developers that this is not how it works. For an introduction, you might enjoy Paul Graham's article on software patents (http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html). He doesn't even advocate taking down the patent system entirely, but outlines the problems with it right now.

So your answer to software patents (which are only part of the patent system) is to lobby for dismantling the entire patent system. Makes perfect sense. While you are at it we should dismantle the justice system because, hey innocent people go to jail at times.

[mips]

It seems very logical to me that before one releases a new product that employing a Patent Attorney would be part of the development and release process.


By the time the lawyers have sat down and gone through all possible patents in all territories you want to sell your product many years would have passed. You would have incurred mega $$$ in lawyers fees, grown old and just given up.

[JDShu]

So your answer to software patents (which are only part of the patent system) is to lobby for dismantling the entire patent system. Makes perfect sense. While you are at it we should dismantle the justice system because, hey innocent people go to jail at times.

You read my answer to one simplistic statement and totally ignore my response to your argument. Nice.

[kaldor]

Just to chime in here about something a little bit off topic, but if it weren't for patents, my GPU would work a hell of a lot better under Linux. How is it that patents help deliver better quality products again?

[zekopeko]

You read my answer to one simplistic statement and totally ignore my response to your argument. Nice.

I'm sorry but you have been talking about completely dismantling the patent system based on frivolous patents, focusing on software patents and completely ignoring other kinds of patents. Let me quote you:


However, instead of spending more government resources on a dubiously effective system, it would be even better to get rid of the whole system.


[...] but i argue that the system itself is flawed and impossible to regulate properly.

[zekopeko]

Just to chime in here about something a little bit off topic, but if it weren't for patents, my GPU would work a hell of a lot better under Linux. How is it that patents help deliver better quality products again?

Your GPU would work better under Linux if the vendor would support Linux properly with a working driver as happens in both Windows and OSX.

[JDShu]

I'm sorry but you have been talking about completely dismantling the patent system based on frivolous patents, focusing on software patents and completely ignoring other kinds of patents. Let me quote you:

How about you bring something up in particular? Making a sloppy analogy is not an argument. You still haven't responded to my answer to your point on positive externalities and monopolies.

[JDShu]

Your GPU would work better under Linux if the vendor would support Linux properly with a working driver as happens in both Windows and OSX.

He's referring specifically to s3tc and floating point textures, patents that prevent the open source drivers from implementing much needed features even if the vendor wanted to.