These are great ideas but none of them will see the light of day. Those with the money don't want the system to change. If it works for them, then why change it to make it more fair. Fairness has nothing to do with making money. The goal of a patent is to ensure you can make all the money you can with your idea. If you buy that idea from someone, that is commerce.
Why would anyone want to give up protection by adopting new rules when the current ones serve the rich so well? On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>wrote: > In the fine words of one Mr. George Orwell: > > Patent law is thought crime. > > You think of it when another has patented it, and you're a criminal. > It's a stupid notion that should go the way of the dodo. Yes, there > are clear situations where an inventor should clearly be given some > leverage to control the destiny of 'his' invention. But that's > emphatically not what's happening with patent law today. It starts > with the idea that you need at least $60,000 to set up a proper patent > world-wide, and then another $100,000 or so to start sueing > infringers, which you're obligated to do in some countries to show > that you're actively defending it. > > Which small inventor can drop $150,000+ bucks on merely _attempting_ > to keep an invention safe? Assuming an inventor has allocated a > generous 20% of his total budget of the invention on protecting it > with a patent, that would mean he needs at least $750k budget on his > invention. > > That's completely insane. > > Also, what image is being espoused here? Of a crackpot inventor > yelling EUREKA! at some point? That's not how it works; inventors > build on what has come before; they stand on the shoulders of the > giants of yesterday. > > So, here's the deal, in my opinion: Patent Law has failed pretty > spectacularly. Furthermore, it's on iffy ground to begin with as it > seems to clash with some fairly fundamental rights. It is therefore up > to patent law and its fans to lay out a law that will work. So far > I've heard very few ideas that are feasible and that won't run into > the same problems we have now. This is unfair to inventors that really > do have something that's worth a lot but will be shamelessly copied by > other businesses, but then, there are boatloads of completely unfair > scenarios involving patent law today. Therefore, let's forget about a > theoretical perfect solution, and instead look pragmatically at all > the various options out there and make a reasoned guess as to which > one will cause the LEAST damage. It seems clear to me that the right > answer, in this sense, lies very close to the 'no patents at all' side > of the spectrum (e.g. enforceable only for a year or 2, and far more > specificity required than there is today). > > The main point I keep stumbling over is that to get it right, there's > such a high cost in evaluating the patent that I don't see how they > can be granted in a way that doesn't result in lots of legally binding > but trolling patents, nor in costing a small fortune to register (e.g. > in order to fund a team of experts to evaluate it properly). > > > On Apr 6, 3:53 am, Chris Adamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I thought the guys did pretty well for a heated topic, though they > > were probably a little too quick to interrupt each other. > > > > A couple things I found myself shouting back at the radio as I drove: > > > > * To Joe: How do you feel about the many patent suits against Apple > > (if you own shares, you get a summary of these every year with the > > annual statement). Do you presume that these patents are valid too? > > Come to think of it, whatever happened to AT&T's wide ranging suit > > over MPEG-4 patents? > > * To Tor and Dick: Some of the patents involved seem suitably obvious, > > fine. But what greater standard of ownership is there than the actual > > granting of a patent? You can say "yeah, but" all you like, and > > question the competence of the USPTO, but with the patent officially > > granted, how can you say the holder neither owns nor deserves it? The > > "we just know" test doesn't hold much legal water. > > * To all: on the topic of licensing, it's a shame you didn't bring up > > the idea of compulsory licensing. This exists in several fields, such > > as music publishing. A composer owns the rights to his or her works, > > but must license it in a non-discriminatory fashion for a set price > > through one of a handful of agencies. So there's precedent for what > > Dick wants. That said, I personally agree with what I think is Joe's > > point, that if ownership isn't the right to do with your property as > > you see fit, then what is it, and what good is it? When it comes to > > what I own, why should I give a damn about someone else's idea of > > "fair"? > > * There's s perfectly valid case to be made against software patents. > > Lots of smart people take that position. Tor and Dick seemed to argue > > for patent ownership rights so weak, they might be better off > > officially taking an anti-patent stance. > > > > Typing this on the iPad. It's going to take some getting used to. How > > much for a little bluetooth keyboard? > > > > -Chris > > > > On Apr 5, 2:33 pm, Michael Easter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was disappointed as well, due mostly to the attitude from some > > > corners. Saying things like "you are dead wrong" and street-fight > > > debating tactics like "are you in favor of communism?" were painful. > > > > > I'm no shrinking violet, and I appreciate a spirited discussion, but > > > would such an attitude be welcomed at the Posse Roundup, if it were a > > > guest? I think not. In the same way, it's not welcome on my car > > > stereo. > > > > > It _might_ (not sure on this) be interesting to have a podcast episode > > > with a true expert (e.g. a patent attorney). Though perhaps that would > > > be too far off-topic. > > > > > Michael Easter > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Robert Casto www.IWantFreeShipping.com Find Amazon Filler Items easily! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
