Start at the monetary and fiscal system, whatever you do with the patent system will fall short to the financial jamming coming from the first two. "Phillip H. Zakas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've been away on business and only now started to read this thread, so > sorry for the lag... > > The entire patent system needs an overhaul. I've been personally struggling > with the trade-offs of filing for patents (relating to network routing > technology) vs. keeping the ideas trade secret vs. releasing a subset to the > public domain. My attorneys have suggested filing "blocking patents" as a > defensive strategy to ensure you can continue to use your technology, in the > event a competitor comes up with the same/similar idea. The patents > themselves aren't really earth-shattering, but the fact that one has to file > for patents just to stay in business in case a competitor files competiting > claims in the future is extrememly frustrating, because the patent is > essentially a blueprint for anyone to use the technology for himself. Here > are some observations i've made: > > - Determining patent infrigement of technology patents is extremely > difficult without obtaining the source code of a competitor's product. How > on earth can one determine if one is "borrowing" your routing algorithm or > your mpls variation? This is almost impossible...so where's the patent > protection? > > - patent protection varies across the globe. the best strategy is to file > in the US, Japan and EU. but even then the levels of patent protection vary > in each area, and offer no defense in countries such as India (used for many > outsourced development projects.) > > - I would have preferred it if i could keep an idea a trade secret and > register that trade secret with the USPTO so that it would be considered > prior art and thus block future patent claims already covered by my trade > secret. > > - Biotechnology patents are especially troubling. On the one hand one can > patent a gene sequence discovered to be vaguely related to, say, breast > cancer. On the other hand that gene sequence is usually derived from some > volunteer's dna, but that person has no rights to the resulting value of the > patent! Worse still, claims in biotech are very vague and broad simply > because biotech is an emerging science. I'd bet most of you haven't heard > that proteomics seems to becoming more important than genomics over the last > six months...does this mean a gene sequence, including all of the proteins > it interacts with, are covered by the original patent even though proteomics > was unknown even two years ago?? > > Anyway, this subject is very irritating. As current venture capitalist > (temporary until i launch my own start up) I do understand the protection > patents afford investors and the catalyst patents are for attracting > capital. Without capital there would be no interesting technology or > biotech developments at the rate at which we've enjoyed them over the last > 50 years. However even venture capitalists would prefer my "register trade > secrets" model for high tech projects OVER the current patent system. I > still don't know what the right answer is for biotech patents. > > phillip > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Choate > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: American Bar Association - 1 click patents > > > > http://www.abanet.org/journal/mar01/fstate.html > -- > The Laws of Serendipity: > > 1. In order to discover anything, you must be looking > for something. > > 2. If you wish to make an improved product, you must > first be engaged in making an inferior one. > > Tivoli Certification Group, OSCT > James Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Senior Engineer 512-436-1062 > ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
