The problem with getting rid of patents in general is that with the
current structures patents seem to be necessary in some areas such as
pharmacy. The reason being that those areas need long trial phases to
bring a product to market, the cost of which far exceed $750k. I believe
that at least to some extent patents are designed to cover for clinical
trials and similar things.
But I am still in favour of getting rid of all patents in the long run.
And the argument clearly does not apply to your average software where
the product is the test. But for pharmaceuticals and some traditional
engineering new ways of funding the trials might be needed. Or maybe
patent protection should be proportional to the cost of necessary trials.
Peter
On 07/04/10 15:08, Reinier Zwitserloot 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].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
