How many more bullshit patent rulings are there going to be before people realize that patent law is absolutely horse crap…
I know intellectual property law is not exactly sexy news, but this is insane. Its hard to get the man on the street, or the retard in congress, about how dodgy Software patents, and gene patents are. But when their Blackberry doesn’t work you’d think it would twig (expect I beleive congress made sure they would have been exempt :smack:)…
The latest one… Tivo has a patent on ‘a “multimedia time warping system” to pause, rewind or fast-forward live TV programs by recording them on a hard drive’ That is such bullshit.
So you advocate allowing no “reward” - however temporary - for the person who achieves - and registers/ thereby publicizing - a true technological advancement?
b. How is this Congress going to fix the patent mess? Tom DeLay would stick in a last moment rider granting Haliburton the proprietary rights to human respiration.
Heres the Blackberry patent story. Typical modern reporting, can’t find anywhere which actually describes the patents, if anyone else can I’d be obliged.
I think he is talking about overly broad and vague patents especially in terms of high-tech. Patent law hasn’t kept up well at all with new advances. The TIVO example given above is a good example. Putting video content on a hard drive has been done since computers could handle it and the nature of computer files makes it obvious that you could always “time shift” the playback or jump around easily. It is an obvious idea and they didn’t invent it. You shouldn’t be able to get a patent for an obvious or overly broad idea that has been around in common use in some sense for years.
Other patents have been granted for way overly broad things in the computer world like file structures and broad descriptions of graphical user interfaces.
In the case of software or genes, yes. There is no way you can claim ownership of that kind of thing. Software is protected by other IP laws, patents just reduce competition, and make inovation less likely. The actual discovery of the gene is the last stage of a long process, just because you discovered it why should you have any rights over it.
Here is good article that highlights the ridiculousness of the system:
Thanks for the cites.
Now please explain why IYO they establish/support that patent law in toto is bullshit?
Re TIVO - the holder of a validly registered patent contended infringement. Both sides had the opportunity to present their cases before an impartial court, which agreed with TIVO. This is bullshit how? Or is my assessment entirely off base?
I believe the Blackberry dispute was resolved very recently (last month or so) through a settlement. (Not using one, I really didn’t pay much interest, but I recall there was some hue and upcry about the imminent possibility of millions of thumbs being idled.) Are you saying the complainant advanced a bullshit claim in order to force a settlement out of Blackberry who desired to avoid expensive litigation - even though they were confident in their likelihood of winning? If so, such bullshit legal maneuvering is certainly not restricted to patent law.
Alot of reasons one of the main ones, it the concepts involved are complex, and not obvious to a non-technical audience. Alot of lawmakers clearly don’t understand the subelties of it. This is from the Guardian link above (unlike the US, the EU does not yet support software patents, though that may have changed already):
The difference between copyright law and patent law is HUGE. Only the most radical IP-rights campaigner would advocate the removal of copyright law, but there is huge body of opinion that realizes that patent law needs reform.
I think thats the case with alot of laws relating to IT, particularly IP and DRM. Because they are complex and its not as obvious how they relate to every day life, the industry can get laws passed that in other areas would cause an uproar.
You should be able to claim ownership of an algorithm, many of which are not in the least bit obvious. As my algorithms textbook makes clear, having a better algorithm for a job usually confers an advantage over your competitors, and thus is obviously a technology and should be patentable.
The claims are not bullshit. The LAW is bullshit. The idea you can patent ““multimedia time warping system” to pause, rewind or fast-forward live TV programs by recording them on a hard drive’ That is such bullshit.” is absolute bullshit.
The law is sound, however, it’s the application which is suspect. The government should hire more patent examiners. The PTO shouldn’t make it so difficult to be a patent attorney (you need a BS or a ton of science credits; the actual test isn’t nice either, then again, depending on what state you’re from, neither is the bar).
There is of course, a self-correcting mechanism: sue. If you think you’re being infringed, sue their pants off. If you think you’re doing something right, go to court. The injunction should be easily overcome, and is a good indicator if you’re in the clear. (And by “you” I mean the people who are/or about to be embroiled in patent suits).
I’m not sure if this will apply across the board, but I’m starting to lean towards the view that someone who achieves a true technological advancement has basically two choices.
Publicize the details for the sake of fame and/or altruistic brownie points, in which case you give up any rights to economic reward over the advancement. (Unless you go into business with it yourself and compete with everybody else using the details you’ve publicized.)
Attempt to control the information for the sake of economic reward, sell it to someone who wants to manufacture it, etcetera. If the advancement is that revolutionary, it should be hard for other people to duplicate the work, and thus, people would get the same advantage a patent offers, just by keeping the secret.
That may sound naive I know. But the present patent system only makes sense if it can be administered according to the original requirements, no matter how much technology advances. There are enough stories out there to show that the US system can’t be counted on to perform reliably I think.
Here’s a more modest suggestion… put more of the burden of proof/cost of litigation on the party seeking patent protection. I know that this might have bad consequences too… but maybe it would have helped if the patent office reviewing RIM’s mobile emai application could have filed it under ‘further review needed - no protection granted at this time.’ (With the understanding that if another company used the idea and protection was granted after further review, some sort of court-ordered compensation might be… oh, I give up. This legal stuff makes my brain hurt.)
The problem is not that they are obvious. Algorithms are just ideas, if they are patentable why should any idea not be patentable ? Should I be able to patent a physical theory ? What if Newton had patent the concept of universal gravity, and all reseach that invovled the Theory of Gravity had to pay him a royalty, would we ever have had relitivity ? To use an example from the article above, what if Victor Hugo had patent had idea of “the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and becomes bitter towards society and humankind”, we would not have had “Les Miserables”, or “Papillon”, or “Shoreshank redemption”, or any prision fiction.
Because algorithms are not just any other idea. They’re specifically designed for one task in order to confer some advantage. They’re undoubtedly a technology, whereas a scientific theory isn’t.
Your Victor Hugo analogy is also unhelpful. It would be more like comparing the patening of Hugo’s character schema with the patenting of the schema of all sorting algorithms, as opposed to a single, specific one, which isn’t allowed.
The difference is purely semantic. There only a technology beacause they are defined as such by the law. Conceptually they are identical. The concept of universal gravity certainly confers an advantage.
No the hypothetical storyline patent covers a SPECIFIC storyline, not just a chacter in prison. but a “Character who has been in jail for a long time and becomes bitter towards society and humankind”. This no different to the LRZW or marching cubes patents.
Saying “patenting genes” is misleading. One is patenting the use of that gene for a very specified purpose.
Take something like green fluorescent protein (gfp). *Gfp *is a firefly gene. It’s also patented. Because someone came up with the idea to link it up with other genes to test for gene delivery into cells; any cell that picks up my gene of interest, will also have the *gfp * gene, and the cell will glow green. I can quickly and easily tell if cells have picked up my gene. This invention is used in thousands of labs, and has furthered science greatly.
It’s a great idea, and every bit as much an invention as the lightbulb.
One can’t just pick a gene at random and patent it. We’ve now identified all 30 thousand or so human genes. If one could just patent a gene at random, they all would have been patented by now and the entire biotech industry would be out of business.
I hold one such “gene patent” for work I did in graduate school. My patent covers three genes for VERY specified purposes. Specified enough that my patent is essentially useless, but it looked nice on my resume.
When I read stuff like this the word that comes to mind is ‘moran’. The law says nothing about what constitutes technology. Furthermore, if you were to bone up on patent law, you would understand that it is not the idea that is patentable, it is the application of the idea. If someone has a good idea, figures out a useful application for that and is able to patent it, your only option is to suck it.
If you want to rant about patents without putting in the time needed to understand what is a rather complicated area of the law, go for it. If you want to appreciate what is going on, read the patent, parse the claims, apply the law and figure out what it covers. What you’ll likely find out is that the patent is narrower that you think it is. Furthermore, you’ll likely find out that the patentee was first in line with their invention. If not, perhaps you will put your money where your mouth is and file a re-exam petition. Your assertion that the patent is ‘bullshit’ should be very persuasive.
