Dude - I agree the system sucks and should be changed. I agree that there are alot of spurious at best applications that get approved. I agree that it's a perversity of the system that companies - mostly in Texas, can buy and hold patents for things they never created, never built, have no plans of building - but simple exist to sue companies that actually make stuff.
That said - I can't and won't take a public stance against any specific patents. Ironic you post this since just today I had to see a patent attorney for three applications with my name on it. The reality is that as long as the system is broke - companies will use it as insurance, and to protect investments in IP. And if other company's are patenting things like the One-Click - and the check box -- then companies are left with no choice but to play the game. As an aside - a number of years ago I worked as an IA for IBM. During my first week - orientation - we were required to attend an intellectual property seminar. We were taught IBM's process for patent applications and uncovering new IP. They have it down to a science there - and no wonder - IBM makes over $5 Billion dollars a year from patent licensing alone. When it comes to creating and patenting ip - IBM is McDonald's. So in answer to your question - there are no doubt many on the list for whom making a public declaration through the IxDA would not at all be a possibility. -- ~ will IxDA Interaction 08 | Savannah <http://interaction08.ixda.org/> ------------------------------------------------------- will evans user experience architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- On 10/4/07, Morten Hjerde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The patent system today is a joke. Its badly broken, and we suffer for it. > Both in our work as IxDs and as private consumers. The most ridiculous and > overly broad patents are granted left and right for claims that are > obviously bogus to anyone with any domain knowledge. Companies are "gaming > the system" as long as the Patent Offices grants monopoly rents to patent > holders that have not, in the end, invented a novel product. > > The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Britain's > Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the European Patent Office has an > initiative to help this sad situation. > Well worth checking out for anyone interested: > http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/index.php > > (Now, for the record: I'm strongly in favor of protecting intellectual > property. Had my own IP been possible to protect, I would probably been a > rich man today.) > > Frankly, I think IxDA should take a stand on this issue, but that may be > wishful thinking. Most of us work at companies that want to, or does > exploit > the system. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, etc. > > > >From the Economist< > http://www.economist.com/search/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9719020> > : > > PATENT examiners, who scrutinise applications for patents and determine > whether they ought to be granted or not, are used to poring over diagrams > of > complicated contraptions. But now the patent system itself, just as > complex > in its own way, is under increasing scrutiny. > > The number of applications has soared in recent years, but patent offices > have been unable to keep up—resulting in huge backlogs and lengthy delays. > Standards have slipped and in America the number of lawsuits over > contested > patents has shot up (see chart). In an attempt to fix these problems, the > United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Britain's Intellectual > Property Office (IPO) and the European Patent Office are evaluating a > radical change: opening the process up to internet-based collaboration. > > > The scheme, known as "Peer to Patent", was created by Beth Simone Noveck, > a > professor at New York Law School. It applies an unusual form of peer > review > to a process which traditionally involves only a patent applicant and an > examiner. Anybody who is interested may comment on a patent application > via > the internet. The scheme was launched as a one-year pilot programme in > America on June 15th. Sean Dennehey of Britain's IPO, who sits on the > project's advisory board, says his organisation will follow suit by the > end > of the year. The project is being supported by big technology firms > including IBM, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard. > > An efficient patent system is essential for the promotion of innovation. > Patents give inventors a temporary monopoly on a new idea in return for > disclosing how it works, so that others can subsequently build upon it. > But > if a patent is granted for something that is not novel (people are already > doing it), or is obvious (any Tom, Dick, or Harry in the field could think > it up), it can hamper innovation by turning a widely used invention or > process into one person's monopoly. The trouble is that examiners cannot > always tell when a patent is unwarranted. > > > > > > > -- > Morten Hjerde > http://sender11.typepad.com > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help > Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe > Questions .................. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe Questions .................. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
