MS's FAT ?

[dragongodz]

just found this little article. i thought it was interesting, so though others may find it so aswell. :)

http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm

[Mug Funky]

excellent :)

[Sirber]

woot woot! :D

[Neo Neko]

Well their fradulent pattent pool is getting "thinner". :D

[Doobie]

As is the custom in the past couple of decades, every little thing, no matter how small or how obvious, is being patented by big companies. There still are a number of patents protecting FAT. Although, the earliest FAT-related patents would have expired by now.

The patent in this case probably is the result of Microsoft engineers spending millions of dollars to come up with the idea of giving files short file names to be compatabile with the old DOS standard of short file names. :rolleyes:

Abstract
An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

[neo75903]

Some interesting links
-----------------------
EU petition against software patent:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en

An example how an webshop can be affected by patents:
http://www.softwarepatenten.be/voorbeeld/webwinkel.html

I personally think there must be some level of commone sense applied to software patent. Some company may have invested millions of dollars for example an unique way of video encoding (multiple movies in 64KB for example ;) ).
That is an situation in which i think justifies software patents.
But things like windows start button is a not obvious case, same for internet links, tabs, etc.

[dragongodz]

i dont think anyone would argue against patents for original ides. the problem is there are so many minor ridiculous claims being made, such as right mouse click bringing up a list of actions to perform on a file etc. this sort of pettiness will only hurt progress of pc's and related business.

i mean look at what MS claimed for FAT
the FAT file system, which Microsoft describes as "the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices."
oh please. :rolleyes:

[Mug Funky]

these spurious patents will (in the long run) undermine the patent system as a whole.

there are already a lot of very good, moral, conscionable (sp?) reasons to ignore patent law - such as providing generic pharmaceuticals (AIDS drugs in Africa), furthering vital research, protecting cultural heritage (same deal with copyright law here)...

if this legal road continues, patent law will become almost totally unenforcable, and i feel this will defeat the original reason patents were created - to protect a person's idea for long enough that the person can see the benefit of the idea (and long enough to remove doubt about who thought of the idea in the first place).

[Doobie]

In case my previous post went over the heads of some of you rocket scientists, MS still controls FAT. The patent MS lost is just about using short file names and long file names together for backwards compatibility.

There shouldn't be any software patents, in the first place. The vast majority of existing patents cover trivial and obvious things that any good programmer could develop on his own in moments, given any need. And, it's not realistic to give patent protection to the tiny minority of significant software inventions without inadvertently giving protection to a mountain of trivial things thus impeding innovation. Unfortuantly, those in Congress are either too stupid or too beholden to Big Business special interests to understand this.

Software developers can protect their work through copyrights and keeping source code secret. Software developers can further enhance their revenue by providing direct services to customers rather than trying to litigate for patent revenues.

To Mug Funky, I would rip to shreds your African argument, but misc. political discussion is off-top here.

[Mug Funky]

doobie: i admit i'm not really in the know on that particular topic. PM me though, cause i'd like to know more :) (remember i'm arguing against these patents... i hope there was no mis-reading)

[anonimitous]

Here is a patent , I know you all will like , the combover patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,022,227.WKU.&OS=PN/4,022,227&RS=PN/4,022,227

Sun micro is also filing For Patent on Software Licensing Method
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/01/2246216.shtml?tid=102&tid=155

The funny thing about this article is this quote "Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities."
Lol , Yea RIGHT , Sounds like P.C. Hogwash to me .
I might as well patent how our company prints out payroll checks . The messed up thing about that is , that it would probably be accepted .

[dragongodz]

In case my previous post went over the heads of some of you rocket scientists
and what brought that on ? try readng the posts after yours and you will see they all agree that spurious(basically claiming the same as a previous patent with different wording for example), trivial, petty, etc etc etc patents are wrong and actually harmful. so i dont see where that attitude was called for.

it's not realistic to give patent protection to the tiny minority of significant software inventions without inadvertently giving protection to a mountain of trivial things thus impeding innovation
i disagree. yes some trivial things would still end up being patented but if the government and patent office were serious about doing their jobs it need not be a mountain. if there was a knowledgable panel(for example) that could draw on experts from the considered patents area, about how original or innovative something is and then if not significantly so then reject it. from what i understand the current U.S. method is a patent is approved unless someone pays to have its validity investigated. thats where a lot of these ridiculous patents are getting through.

Unfortuantly, those in Congress are either too stupid or too beholden to Big Business special interests to understand this.
a world wide problem that is not getting any better.

[Mug Funky]

from what i understand the current U.S. method is a patent is approved unless someone pays to have its validity investigated. thats where a lot of these ridiculous patents are getting through.

this seems to be the main problem - the burden of proving the novelty and originality of a new invention should be on the person applying for the patent, not the other way around. patents should simply be made more difficult to get.

if people are forced rather to disprove a useless patent, either they will fast run out of resources or the motivation to fight an unending and losing battle, or the legal system will simply collapse under the weight of useless litigation.

same deal with overly draconian copyright law - these cases SHOULD NOT be allowed to cram the criminal courts as well as the civil ones - there are much more important cases to be heard.

unfortunately, most politicians seem to keep their balls in their wallets. (wow! that's a pretty cool quote... i might have to say it more often:))

[Doobie]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
doobie: i admit i'm not really in the know on that particular topic. PM me though

PM? Must mean Public Messaging. Okay.

In most of subsahara Africa, most AIDS drugs have no patent protection. Until 2006, these countries aren't even required to recognize international patents. (Not that I recognize any legitimacy of the world government.) In any case, African countries get most AIDS drugs dirt cheap. So, patents can hardly be blamed for African AIDS... even though I know many AIDS activists do blame patents.

There are countries in Africa which simply have no ability to make cheap AIDS drugs. These are countries that might get a huge shipment of drugs for free and because of bureaucracy and corruption, the drugs will be allowed to go bad sitting in a warehouse.

Going beyond the subject of patents, AIDS is a case where an ounce of prevention is worth more than all tons of AIDS drugs in the world (as there's no cure).

Medicine is one place where there should be patent protection. Although, I grant patents are often abused. For example, a company will make a trivial change to one of its drugs just for the purpose of getting a new patent which in effect protects the original drug far beyond what the law intended. Still, the biggest problem with drug prices isn't fat medical company execs getting fater, it's liability.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by Mug Funky this seems to be the main problem - the burden of proving the novelty and originality of a new invention should be on the person applying for the patent, not the other way around.

It's not realistic to expect people to prove a negative (that there is no prior invention). I could claim to have invented the wheel and then claim I've spent a millon dollars trying to find prior evidence of the wheel and found none.

same deal with overly draconian copyright law - these cases SHOULD NOT be allowed to cram the criminal courts as well as the civil ones - there are much more important cases to be heard.

Here, you are right. And, there are solutions. Eliminate software patents. Shorten patent periods and charge for renewals (to free things up faster to the public domain, if they're not profitable to the inventor). Narrowly interpret any existing patent. Etc.

But, a planet smart enough to elect me to solve all the world's problems wouldn't have problems for me to solve.

unfortunately, most politicians seem to keep their balls in their wallets. (wow! that's a pretty cool quote... i might have to say it more often:))

Aren't you loyal to whowever it is that lines your pockets?

[adam]

from what i understand the current U.S. method is a patent is approved unless someone pays to have its validity investigated. thats where a lot of these ridiculous patents are getting through.

No that's not true. It costs a great deal to file for a patent and the burden is solely on the applicant to prove that it meets the requirements for patent protection. If the patent is approved then there is a period of time where ANY party can contest its issuance. This challenge costs no money at all. Only after this period do you have to challenge the patent through the courts, which costs as much money as you are willing to invest in the argument. It is very costly and very difficult to get a patent. They are never approved until the PTO officer conducts a thorough search of past "arts" and concludes that it meets all of the patent requirments. There are many very strict rules regarding what you do with your "invention" before filing and it is very easy to waive your right to the patent. All in all, Patents are by far the hardest Intellectual Property rights to obtain and offer the shortest amount of protection.

If these other patents on similar processes (note I said processes NOT software...there is a big difference) did not exist Microsoft would have gotten theirs for sure. The technology itself is a classic example of a patentable process. Its just fails the non-obvious requirement in light of past patents. Someone beat them to it is all. I don't really see MS acting in bad faith in any way. Anyway, the Patent Office came to the correct decision, so this is a good thing.

BTW: right clicking, start button, recycle bin looking like a trashcan, windows styled gui, etc... Those have nothing to do with utility patents. They could possibly be protected under a design patent but those are completely useless. These things would be protected, if anything, by Trademark but Microsoft has already had this issue ruled against it. None of these are capable of protection.

You don't get patents on software....period. You can claim copyright in the source code and you can claim patent on a process used in the software. Maybe I'm splitting hairs with this distinction but so do the courts so its worth mentioning.

Doobie, the situation surrounding patented drugs differs from country to country and from drug to drug. But it is very well accepted that the extreme need for certain drugs is the main argument against the validity of patent protection. I am not particularly familiar with what all drugs are used to treat Aids, or specifically which (all?)African nations you may be talking about when you say they can basically ignore foreign patents...but I do know that what you are talking about is called a compulsory license. In EXTREME situations you can get a compulsory license under an iternational treaty like TRIPS or the PARIS treaty. It essentially assigns the right to the patent to the foreign government, so that they can authorize the manufacture of that particular drug. Basically yes, its a license to infringe on the patent. Such a compulsory license generally only applies during what is considered an epidemic, which I would consider Aids to be in Africa. But this doesn't change the fact that patents on drugs still create massive problems internationally. A US patented drug will sell for 10 times in Africa what it would cost them make it themselves. So if you are an African nation what do you do? Abide by the TRIPS treaty you signed and allow 10 times more of your population to suffer, or infringe the treaty and the patent and basically risk losing foreign protection of your own patents so that you can manufacture the drug yourself and actually address your country's medical needs? Compulsory licenses do address this problem somewhat, but not until its risen to the level of an epidemic, which is pretty heartless.

But of course the alternative isn't much better. If there was no patent protection for drugs you'd see substantially less money invested in medical research.

[dragongodz]

adam - read this post
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=77387
especially where sysKin shows a quote by a US patent office spokesman.

Doobie - PM mean Private Message. at the bottom of each persons post you will see some buttons, one says "pm". thats so you can send that person a Private Message.

Medicine is one place where there should be patent protection. Although, I grant patents are often abused. For example, a company will make a trivial change to one of its drugs just for the purpose of getting a new patent which in effect protects the original drug far beyond what the law intended.
there was a show done on this a while back here. it was because of the Australian governments push for the U.S. free trade agreement. they clearly showed how heaps of spurious medical patents are constantly being filed. basically they change the description etc a bit and stop the release of generics for years and years past the original patent.

[adam]

Originally posted by dragongodz
adam - read this post
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=77387
especially where sysKin shows a quote by a US patent office spokesman.

I assume you are referring to this?

"Lots of bad patents never get revoked because no one can afford the litigation to refute them"

If so I don't understand. Of course many patents get approved that shouldn't, just as many lower court decisions are ruled in a way which is clearly in error. And yes, unless someone has the money or inclination to challenge this, it will stay this way until raised collaterally in another proceeding. You can challenge the issuance of a patent dirctly through the PTO within a certain time frame after its issuance, and its totally free. But its not like they give personal notice of all the patents that have been filed, to all potentially interested parties. There are some publications which cover patents, and the patent immediately becomes public record, but unless you are paying attention you can miss this window of opportunity.

But none of this changes the process of how patents are applied for and granted. You are not granted a patent unless you can show you are are entitled to one, and your initial right to a patent has absolutely nothing to do with how much opposition there may be against it. When you apply for a patent your request form and the submitted documentation must display, on its face, a patentable process or invention. Only after it has been determined that your invention is patentable is it required for a third party to come forward and challenge it.

Originally posted by dragongodz
Doobie - PM mean Private Message. at the bottom of each persons post you will see some buttons, one says "pm". thats so you can send that person a Private Message.[/B]

:) That was a joke. Read up where he told the guy to PM him and he instead posted a "Public Message."

[dragongodz]

no actually i meant the quote right before that one. this one
US Patent Office spokesperson Brigid Quinn says: "[...]If someone can submit prior art, we will re-examine the patent." Such a submission would cost between $3000 and $8000.
it was in response to your
If the patent is approved then there is a period of time where ANY party can contest its issuance. This challenge costs no money at all. Only after this period do you have to challenge the patent through the courts, which costs as much money as you are willing to invest in the argument.

and to quote Doom9 from that post
That's the major problem with patent law these days. The law assumes every submission is valid, and patent offices only perfom a casual check if the content of the application is patent worthy. Due to budget restrictions, that check has become highly unsatisfying
this was shown true on the show i saw about the medical patents. no real effort was made by the patent office to make sure the new patent was not basically a rehash of the old, effectivly extending the old patent beyond its legal limit. they just looked at it, said ok it looks different(basically reworded with heaps of tecno babble but still really meant the same) and approved it.
this is also the type of "thorough" checks they do to start with and thats the problem.

[adam]

The first quote is taken out of context. Like I said, a patent can be challenged at no charge a certain time after its issuance. After that, yes you can still appeal to the PTO and it can cost you money. That quote is simply stating the grounds for such a challenge. I dont dispute that most revocations of patents require the interested party to spend money to fight it. But the PTO does offer a grace period. You can also make a limited challenge to a patent at any time at no charge, but all you can really do is present your evidence to the PTO and ask that they review the patent. Anyway, my main point was just that the initial hurdle in obtaining a patent is always on the filing party, not on some third party to prove why they shouldn't receive the patent.

The second quote is obviously just his opinion, and some may agree or disagree. I am not licensed as a patent lawyer because I do not have an engineering background, but I still deal with the litigation side and with the clients in general. It has been my experience that the PTO office does a VERY extensive check of your application. They typically take up to a year to respond, and often its more like two or three. I can only speak for the US patent Office but in my experience, their check is anything but casual. If you want to read just how much time, research, and critique goes into patent approvals then read some patent denials or some holdings in the Patent Court.

Our clients very often have to wait years to learn that their patents have been rejected and that they are out ~$10,000. Its really a very unfair process, but what can be said for absolute certain is that patents require a much more extensive showing then any other intellectual property right. Copyrights just subsist in original works, and trademarks are extremely easy to get registered. Neither are held to a standard anywhere near that of patents.

this was shown true on the show i saw

Well if its on tv it has to be true right? Just kidding. There's obviously lots of people on both sides of the fence on this issue. From what I've seen, the patent process is far from efficient, but it is nevertheless effective. Also keep in mind that medical patents are a whole area of law unto themselves.

[Mug Funky]

@ dragongodz: which show was this? i'd have liked to have seen it.

guh... if Howard gets in again, i'm moving to New Zealand. couldn't stand another 3 years of that old fart.

btw, thanks to the quotes and counter-quotes, i really AM confused about the patent system now. hmm... i knew a patent lawyer way back when. all i learnt from her is just how much it costs to hire a patent attourney :)

hmm... as far as the africa situation goes, the issue is beyond any of us here, for sure. the topic should probably be dropped (or taken up by a doom9 member who lives in africa and actually knows a little about what's happening).

[dragongodz]

Our clients very often have to wait years to learn that their patents have been rejected
maybe its the type of patents they are filing, i dont know. i do know atleast for medical patents they are not doing thorough checks, if they were a vast amount of reworded(called evergreening) patents would not be granted.
also doesnt the fact it takes years sort of suggest the possability they dont have the staff or resources to operate efficiently ?

Mug Funky - it was on four corners. as you would know this is not a sensationalist show like a current afair etc.
you can read the transcript here
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1167518.htm

if Howard gets in again, i'm moving to New Zealand. couldn't stand another 3 years
highly doubtful it would be 3 years. peter costello would make his bid for leadership before that. imagine if he then made tony abbott his 2IC. we would have abbott and costello running the country. :D

[Doobie]

Originally posted by adam
[B]It costs a great deal to file for a patent and the burden is solely on the applicant to prove that it meets the requirements for patent protection.

What is the nature of this proof? Paying for a patent search?

It is very costly and very difficult to get a patent.

The triviality of most patents seems inconsistent with your claim that they are very difficult to get.

Patents are by far the hardest Intellectual Property rights to obtain and offer the shortest amount of protection.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Inventions occur almost naturally, by force, through the accumulation of knowledge. Back in Edison's day, a dozen people were probably ready to invent the first practical light bulb. And, until the light bulb was invented, the number of people ready to invent the light bulb would have grown exponentially until it gets invented.

A copyrighted work, on the other hand, does not occur by force of nature. Anything from the great books of the Bible to the pedestrian doggrel excrement that one must step over are unique and personal creations. If any copyrighted work were uncreated, it would never be created again.

A US patented drug will sell for 10 times in Africa what it would cost them make it themselves. So if you are an African nation what do you do?

"Researcher Amir Attaran, an adjunct lecturer in public policy and a researcher at the Center for International Development, examined the status of patents on anti-AIDS drugs and found that, in fact, most such drugs were not patented in African nations. Looking at the patent status of 15 drugs in 53 African countries, they found only 172 actually existing patents for such drugs out of the 795 patents that might exist. In fact, in several African countries there were no patents on any existing HIV drugs -- and, therefore, no legal barriers to using generic versions of patented AIDS drugs -- but almost no treatment of AIDS patients with those antivirals." South Africa spoils the curve. Some companies, like Bristol-Myers have pointed out that they have no patents in black Africa, and even sell their AIDS drugs below cost to Africa. BTW, the same is true not just of AIDS drugs. But, the vast majority of all kinds of drugs have no patent protection in black Africa.

These black African countries aren't hindered by patents, they're hindered by their own inability to make generics. The only time the patent issue comes up in black Africa is when someone wants to import generic versions of patented AIDS drugs.

[adam]

Originally posted by Doobie
What is the nature of this proof? Paying for a patent search? Paying for the patent review process is one part of the difficulty yes. You've also got to pay your lawyer. But the Patent Office does not just roll over after you pay your fees. All patents are subjected to the same standard of review. They must be novel, non-obvious, and useful. You present all the necessary specs and samples that an expert in the field would need to physically create your invention, and the Patent office gets their "expert in the field" to ensure that your invention meets patent requisites. It is actually a very intensive review and you can get an idea of just how intensive it is when you get a rejection letter or when you read an opinion of the Patent Court.

But please, don't take my posts out of context. The only thing I was trying to convey was that patents are not just given out and then held out for others to challenge, as was suggested earlier. You must pass the Patent's office review process before receiving your patent. The difficulty in passing this review, and the burden of proof required are of course relative to other types of reviews, so maybe you would find the process trivial, but I can assure you that it would inevitably still be relatively expensive. Have you ever filed for a patent? What are you basing your statments on? I find the patent approval process to be a nightmare personally.

Originally posted by Doobie
The triviality of most patents seems inconsistent with your claim that they are very difficult to get. Most? I don't even know how to respond to such a generalization. It would take many lifetimes to review enough patents to qualify that statement. By making such a statement I can only assume that you are against patent protection in general. If so you are indeed in good company, so I can't fault you for that. But please be reasonable. You can't just say that most patents are trivial so therefore they must be given out like candy. What patents are you referring to? What makes them trivial? Also keep in mind that, much like with caselaw, you only hear about the bad apples.

Originally posted by Doobie
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Inventions occur almost naturally, by force, through the accumulation of knowledge...A copyrighted work, on the other hand, does not occur by force of nature..I'm a lawyer, not a philospher. I never commented on the difficulty in creating various forms of intellectual property, or the inevitability of their creation. I only stated the varying difficulties in obtaining legal protection of that intellectual property. Patents are the hardest IP protection rights to obtain and they expire the soonest. This is simply a legal fact.

How you do you get a copyright? The copyright merely subsists in an original work. The second you create it, whether you ever show it to anyone or not, you obtain your copyright...for free. If you want to enforce that copyright then you do have to register with the Copyright office but this costs a nominal fee and there is no need for a lawyer. Copyrights last for life plus 70 years.

Trademarks are a use based system. Your right is as strong as your use of it. Trademarks is the only IP right where the common law still trumps Federal statute on a daily basis. If you've built good will and secondary meaning into your trade or service mark, which you do just from conducting business, then you've got some amount of protection right there. Filing is of course a good idea and does require a lawyer but its still less expensive then filing for a patent and the review is less stringent, because all you must show is a non-utilitarian mark and use in trade, which you would have engaged in anyway just from doing business. Trademarks last as long as you use them and keep up your registration fees and section 8 or 10 filings. So they are potentially infinite.

Utilitarian inventions can only be protected by a utility patent. Until you receive the patent from the Patent office your invention has no common law protection whatsoever. It is impossible to get a patent without hiring a lawyer, and the entire process is generally pretty expensive. Again, price is a relative concept but a patent filing will always be much more expensive then a copyright registration, and will almost universally be much more expensive then most trademark registrations. You must disclose all necessary details to the Patent office for them to reduce your invention to physical form, and like I said they do perform a very thorough analysis not just to confirm that it is novel (no existing patents) but that it is also non-obvious and useful. Patents only last 20 years and once your patent has expired you are precluded from attempting to seek trademark protection on any non-utilitarian aspect of your invention.

Originally posted by Doobie "Researcher Amir Attaran... most such drugs were not patented in African nations... But, the vast majority of all kinds of drugs have no patent protection in black Africa.

These black African countries aren't hindered by patents, ..That's nice but I don't see how its particularly relevant to this discussion. First of all, we are of course referring to those drugs which are patented. Secondly, whether or not the drug is patented under African law is irrellevant. If you read my posts you will see that I am referring to patents granted by a foreign country and enforced in Africa, or another nation, under an international treaty like TRIPS. Under TRIPS, I could obtain a medical patent on a drug under US law and enforce it in Africa. This means I could charge an African nation whatever cost I wanted to and they would be precluded from manufacturing that drug themself. So if it is an essential drug their only option under TRIPS is to import it at a substantially inflated price or request a compulsory license which are only granted for epidemics. Other then that they would have to seek a private trade agreement between my country and theirs, which would of course require that they give something up in return.

When were those statements made by the way? It makes all the difference in the world whether they were post or pre TRIPS, and even if that research was done during years like 94-2000, that is still a while before the effects of international patent protection has really become pervasive. It wasn't until this year that the TRIPS signatories released an interpretative statment addressing the effects of TRIPS on essential AIDS drugs in Africa. If it is not yet a problem, as your research suggests, it is most certainly still a major concern. But just from those short quotes, it doesn't seem that the research even addressed foreign patents at all.

Again, I am not at all knowledgeable about AIDS medications, or the specific effects that TRIPS has had in Africa, but I do know that patents on drugs has universally been the strongest objection to international enforcement of patents and against patent protection in general. The AIDS crisis in Africa was the number one objection to TRIPS. You can read the convention debates and see for yourself. The enforcement of foreign medical patents on essential drugs is still the primary reason listed by lesser developed nations for their refusal to sign TRIPS or even the ancient Paris Treaty.

Its really an elementary concept. A patent, by definition, is literally a government provided monopoly of limited duration. Whenever you start granting monopolies in something that is essential for the treatment of diseases, then you run into human rights concerns. This is of course exasperated when the monopoly is granted by a foreign government, to a foreign company, and is being exploited in your own country to the detriment of your own people and economy.

[MfA]

Paying money is pretty much all there is too it, whether you call it trivial when it is expensive is a bit of a matter of taste. Sure they can send it back a couple of times, but time and time again it has been shown you can get obvious patents issued. Time and money is all it seems to take, with possibly a little luck involved.

Personally I wouldnt mind if you just had to pay money to the patent office to get a patent issued ... lets cut out all the middlemen who do nothing usefull. Not the attourneys, which have turned patents into unreadable tripe, and certainly not the patent examiners. Anyone who is faced with a patent claim will do a far better search for prior art than you could expect from them, and obviousness they are in no place to judge to start with.

Defacto nothing would change, apart from patents being issued sooner, but at least what patents are would then be visible to everyone.

[adam]

Can you guys post some examples of some patents which you think are trivial or obvious? I have no idea what patents you are even referring to. The only patent I see mentioned in this thread is the one sought for MS Fat, which was denied.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by adam
[B]You can't just say that most patents are trivial so therefore they must be given out like candy. What patents are you referring to? What makes them trivial? Also keep in mind that, much like with caselaw, you only hear about the bad apples.

This thread is about a MS patent that consists of using DOS-compatible file names for DOS file name compatiblity in Windows. That's trivial. And, I can't think of anything more obvious. The patent has apparenly been thrown out, but why was it granted in the first place?

Pick up a package of disposable razors at the grocery store and look at the long list of patents on them. How could any of those be anything other than trivial?

Not being an expert, I suspect that about the only reason that any patent is rejected is because it is found to not be original. Trivality and obviousness don't hardly play a role.

It is impossible to get a patent without hiring a lawyer, and the entire process is generally pretty expensive.

It might be expensive for myself. But, to a big company that is granted patents daily, like IBM, I doubt it is very expensive (economy of scale). But, it's not the price that concerns me here, it's that I don't have any real reason to think that any patent is rejected for triviality or obviousness, aside from maybe the most crass (such as if I wanted to patent the use of game software on 128-bit CPUs). If my observation is wrong, is there some place you can lead me to which would help?

Under TRIPS, I could obtain a medical patent on a drug under US law and enforce it in Africa. This means I could charge an African nation whatever cost I wanted to and they would be precluded from manufacturing that drug themself.

But, the point is that most AIDS drugs are not registered in many African countries. Brazil is in violation of international patent law for making AIDS drugs. But, Congo could produce any AIDS drug without being in violation.

If it is not yet a problem, as your research suggests, it is most certainly still a major concern. But just from those short quotes, it doesn't seem that the research even addressed foreign patents at all.

In the future, yes. But, for now, the patent issue with AIDS in Africa is more smoke than fire.

[MfA]

One of the earliest patents to annoy me was LakeDSP's patent on cascading FFT based filters with straight FIR filters to get efficient low latency convolution. Mostly because I thought up the concept myself reading my first DSP book (was implementing overlap-add FFT based filtering ... for which latency was an issue, although I just kept the impulse response short). I dont consider myself that smart, and seeing as someone else independently discovered the algorithm and wrote a paper on it before he was even aware of the patent I just dont think it was non obvious.

Independent discovery is more prolific than anyone learning anything from patents, at least as far as algorithms are concened ...

[adam]

Originally posted by Doobie
This thread is about a MS patent that consists of using DOS-compatible file names for DOS file name compatiblity in Windows. That's trivial. And, I can't think of anything more obvious. The patent has apparenly been thrown out, but why was it granted in the first place?

It is only obvious in light of prior patents. The technology itself is far from trivial and falls clearly within the protection of Patent law. The reviewer dropped the ball and the patent was thrown out on reexamination. These things happen, and like I said, you only seem to hear about the patents that shouldn't have been granted. "Valid patent granted and nobody minds" just doesn't seem to sell newspapers.

Originally posted by Doobie
Pick up a package of disposable razors at the grocery store and look at the long list of patents on them. How could any of those be anything other than trivial??

Have you actually gone and looked up what the patents are for? They are public record. The patents are not on the style of the razors, or the number of blades, or their shape or size, or anything else that would be visible to the consumer. This is obvious because you can look to your right and left and see other manufacturers who have produced identical looking razors. Any patents that exist on a razor will fall within two categories. Either they are a patent on a process used to make the razor or they are a design patent on a non-utilitarian aspect of the product, basically the patent equivalent of a copyright. Maybe such a utility patent sounds trivial to some, but its certainly not trivial to the company. They probably spent millions of dollars refining the machines which make the razors. Without a patent someone could just reverse engineer the manufacturing process or obtain the specifications (leak) and make use of the process without investing any money themselves. The patent just gives the original creator the right to exploit the patent, ideally only long enough to recoup their investment. But since razors themselves are obvious, there is nothing to stop anyone else from making their own razors...they just have to find a way to create their own machines to use for manufacturing, or use technology existing within the public domain.

Originally posted by Doobie
Not being an expert, I suspect that about the only reason that any patent is rejected is because it is found to not be original. Trivality and obviousness don't hardly play a role.
Well you are right about triviality not playing a direct role, that is not a patent requirement. But obviously if a patent is sought for a trivial improvement on existing technology then it will likely fail the non-obvious test. As for the other patent requirements I mentioned, I can only suggest that you actually read patent law. The requirements for patent approval are provided by statute. It is the law and the three general requirements to obtain a patent are "novelty", "non-obviousness", and that it be "useful" or "utilitarian." This is the general test provided by Legislature, and I can assure you that the Patent Office analyzes each application extensively for compliance. You can read the most relevant portions of Patent Law here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/patent.overview.html

Originally posted by Doobie
If my observation is wrong, is there some place you can lead me to which would help?

Refer to the link I posted above. Again, those are the legal requirements for obtaining a Patent. To suggest that the Patent Office ignores things such as the obviousness of the invention, is to accuse the reviewers of literally ignoring and violating Federal statute. Now of course this can happen, but I don't see any evidence to take such a cinical stance that the Patent Office as a whole violates Federal guidlines as a matter of general practice. Obviously the goal is to weed out trival applications and only grant ones worthy of protection. Its not like the US Government wants to grant unqualified patents. They have a direct negative impact on the economy for the period of their duration. The only reason patents are provided are to promote invention, such that society and the economy benefit in the long run.

Originally posted by Doobie
But, the point is that most AIDS drugs are not registered in many African countries. No that is not at all the point. Whether a drug of any kind is registered with Africa's Patent office is absolutely meaningless to a foreign patent holder. Under International Treaty a patent can be enforced in Africa that is not registered under African law. It is a massive problem, and once again it is the number one complaint against international enforcement of patents. Just this year the TRIPS signatories issued their statement on the issue, specifically regarding essential Aids drugs in Africa. The entire point of the issuance is that TRIPS could be used to deprive AIDS patients in Africa from receiving necessary treatment, and that steps must be taken to prevent large and powerful countries from overexploitation of their domestic patents at the expense of foreign countries suffering from Aids and other diseases at an epidemic level.

This was a very hot topic back in 2000-2001 because alot of countries were producing generics and violating TRIPS. The US sanctioned the hell out of some of them and embargos were placed. Alot of this is just smoke now because the US and some other large countries have their hands tied. Its not exactly good foreign policy to take Aids treatment out of the hands of a terminally ill child. And like I mentioned from the very start of this thread, AIDS in Africa has reached epidemic proportions and thus the effect of foreign patents has been alleviated to a large extent through the compulsory licenses provided for under TRIPS. I'm not trying to suggest that you are trivializing the problem, I am simply explaining that drugs patented in a foreign country can be sold at astronomical prices in a foreign country under TRIPS, and anyone who tries to bypass this markup violates the patent and the international treaty and is subject to sanctions and embargos....and yes this DOES apply to AIDs medication and it DOES apply to African countries.

[adam]

Originally posted by MfA
One of the earliest patents to annoy me was LakeDSP's patent on cascading FFT based filters with straight FIR filters to get efficient low latency convolution. Mostly because I thought up the concept myself reading my first DSP book (was implementing overlap-add FFT based filtering ... for which latency was an issue, although I just kept the impulse response short). I dont consider myself that smart, and seeing as someone else independently discovered the algorithm and wrote a paper on it before he was even aware of the patent I just dont think it was non obvious.

Independent discovery is more prolific than anyone learning anything from patents, at least as far as algorithms are concened ...

Do you live in the United States, and do you have any evidence of your discovery which you can date to a point in time prior to the granting of that patent? If so then you may be able to invalidate the patent and obtain some amount of protection yourself.

The US, unlike most other countries, sets priority according to discovery date not registration date. If two people independantly discover an invention then whoever can prove they discovered it first is entitled to the patent.

The fact that multiple people come to identical discoveries over time does not make that discovery obvious. As Doobie eloquently noted, and I agree, the creation of most inventions are inevitable as overall knowledge and technology advances. But we reward the patent protection to the vigilant. If you aren't willing to exploit your discovery and put it in the marketplace then there is no reason to grant you protection because it won't help anybody. But if you are willing to put up your own capital to place the invention in the marketplace then the government will grant you a relatively short monopoly to recoup your investment and earn some return for your idea.

[shevegen]

"But we reward the patent protection to the vigilant."
You _can_ gain new patents by buying(devouring...) companies quite easily, and I know that it is very much the case in the USA that you can create new patents from already existing ones (Affymetrix).
(Some have been approved, some not). So, if you are a big company with a lot of financial backup, your portfolio will steadily grow, and you have an easy time to use this as a weapon. So it's still a handy tool to use as lever against other companies, but it
can also be used against you, and it can become costly.

If you ask me, the patents are becoming really cumbersome on general development altogether - they seem to freeze down on their monopoly, and this stinks. Just look at the pseudo inventions... mouse click events?
Or see what foul offspring it can produce. Kary Mullers PCR(method, invention more or less) was really nice, but it was purposely praised as a flawless tool for pretty every situation (which he said was not).


"Valid patent granted and nobody minds" just doesn't seem to sell newspapers."

Well, frankly, there are many good patents. Many good inventions.
Fine for me.

But there exists pseudo-science and pseudo-inventions, and these shouldnt be defended with arguments on how important patents are - for pseudo stuff isnt important IMHO.

[dragongodz]

It is actually a very intensive review
this is the main area we disagree on. the fact that patents that should never have been granted to start with are suggests it is not as intesive as you think. maybe for your field of experience it is, i dont know, but it is not for all.

The only patent I see mentioned in this thread is the one sought for MS Fat, which was denied.
it was only rejected after it was challenged though. it should not have been granted to start with if the initial review had been as thorough as you think it is.
as for other patents, i provided a link to a transcript of a tv show. in their investigations they found many medical patents were infact evergreening. that is rewording an old patent and the effect of the drug involved. they then got a new patent granted effectivly extending their control for years past the original patents limit.

The reviewer dropped the ball and the patent was thrown out on reexamination. These things happen, and like I said, you only seem to hear about the patents that shouldn't have been granted. "Valid patent granted and nobody minds" just doesn't seem to sell newspapers.
of course. why would someone doing their job properlly sell newspapers ? the problem is the patent office is underfunded and dropping the ball many more times than we know or are ever likly to hear about.

If you ask me, the patents are becoming really cumbersome on general development altogether - they seem to freeze down on their monopoly, and this stinks. Just look at the pseudo inventions... mouse click events?
its not patents per se but the modern mentality that anything and everything should be patented, copyrighted or locked away ina big safe just incase someone else does something similar. then you can sue their ass. this is especially true of big multi-million/billion dollar companies.

[dragongodz]

Mug Funky - got your plane ticket yet ? :D

[adam]

Originally posted by dragongodz
this is the main area we disagree on. the fact that patents that should never have been granted to start with are suggests it is not as intesive as you think. maybe for your field of experience it is, i dont know, but it is not for all.

Ridiculous. You expect the patent approval process to be perfect? Why must this be so black and white? Why can the review process not be intensive, even to an extreme degree, and still grant some patents on unqualified inventions? It is enevitable that some patents will be granted unjustifiably, just as it is enevitable that some cases will be tried improperly. Its called being human. That is why we have a multi-level system of review; to attempt to correct those mistakes that are inherant in any system subject to human error. You can't take a minority of mistakes and use it as evidence that the whole system is flawed. There are good patents and there are bad patents, and some patent reviewers do their job better then others. Its as simple as that.

I am not even trying to defend the patent system here, because I know it has many problems. I am simply taking offense at some of the blatant generalizations in this thread.

[Trahald]

semi off-topic.. but i just wanted to thank you guys for providing interesting reading on this topic while keeping the debate polite and non-personal.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by adam The reviewer dropped the ball and the patent was thrown out on reexamination.

Patents deserving to be thrown out seems to be a common event, as are multi-million, even multi-billion dollar lawsuits flying around. This can only be a hindrance to progress. And, the only thing keeping this mess from being worse is that there are companies that aren't being more aggressive with using patents to keep down competition.

For example, someone did a study concluding that Linux may infringe on scores, or hundreds, of patents. I've concluded that it's impossible to produce any meaningful software without violating patents. And, it is only because Microsoft doesn't (or hasn't yet) sued Linux companies for gazillions of dollars over the 27+ patents of Microsoft's that Linux might infringe that Linux exists (Micrsoft is already restrained by past issues of anti-competitiveness).

What I find especially offensive is companies that buy patents and then sue for everyone for amounts of many vastly greater than those patents cost them. It's impossible for them to have been harmed, even if there is a "patent violation" (any damage would have lowered the value of the patent before it was purchased). These and other a-hole companies (can we say SCO) exist just to exploit the insane patent office activities.

The fashion industry has no patent protection, yet they seem to do just fine. I'm sure that the patent office could start including clothing. I doubt if given patent protection, the artificial monopolies and multimillion dollar lawsuits would do anything beyond raising the cost of clothing and maybe keeping new and creative people out of the business.

I can appreciate patents for something like the discovery of a new record-high temperature superconductor a new drug that cures the common cold, but I can't appreciate 95% of software patents I'm familiar with which are not so much inventions as they are obvious ideas that took two seconds to think of (even if much longer to implement).

There wasn't any money needed for someone at Microsoft to come up with the idea of DOS compatible file names for DOS file name compatibility. The only two reasons why Microsoft is the one to get a patent on this is because if someone else already was doing it, they thought it too trivial to patent (e.g. a file utility from a 3rd party) and because until Microsoft came out with long file names for Windows, there was no need to backward compatibility and by that time, Microsoft had already filed for the patent.

I don't see this as an unavoidable problem with necessary patent law. I see it as a product of lawmakers indebted to companies with deep-pockets, companies that use patent protection not so much to fund R&D but to keep out new competitors. Patents are the currency to play in the big leagues. If you don't have a fat portfolio, you can't afford to join the oligopoly.

[NobbyNobbs]

Here is a little something Bill Gates have said about Software patents:


Here’s perhaps the most concise and compelling account of just why software patents will harm new innovators (that’s you Europe) and benefit old innovators (that’s America), written in 1991 by Mr. Gates:

“If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. The solution . . . is patent exchanges . . . and patenting as much as we can. . . . A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.” Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars 170-71 (NY: Wiley 1994).
Perhaps the F/OSS sites should take more advantage of this unique opportunity for them to quote the wisdom of Mr. Gates.


Quoted from: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001447.shtml

[dragongodz]

Ridiculous. You expect the patent approval process to be perfect?
of course not, dont be ridiculous yourself.

You can't take a minority of mistakes and use it as evidence that the whole system is flawed.
1. who said it was a minority of mistakes ? there are roughly 4 patents applications per week by the big drug companies and the MAJORITY of these are passed even though they are evergreening and shouldnt be.
2. i didnt say the whole system is flawed. i said underfunded and underresourced so they can not do the job as good as they should.

I am simply taking offense at some of the blatant generalizations in this thread.
and what are you doing ? according to you "in general" its all fine. so please dont start getting stroppy. :)

[adam]

dragongodz, I don't believe I have generalized at all. I view patents on an individual basis, as they should be analyzed. I do not believe the patent system is "generally fine" just as I do not believe it is "generally f'ed up" like so many on this board do.

I don't know what else to say. There are good patents and there are bad patents, there are companies who make bonified use of their patents and there are those who use them to stronghold others in the industry.

There seem to be many people in this forum who lash out at any form of IP protection. While I am with these people in spirit, I don't see any reason why there can't be some compromise between intellectual property rights and consumer rights. What is with all the cynism? Maybe I'm just naive but I handle litigation on both sides of the argument, infringement and defense, and I see jerks and gentlemen indiscriminately.

The fashion industry has no patent protection, yet they seem to do just fine. I'm sure that the patent office could start including clothing

I don't mean to harp on you Doobie but this is exactly what I am talking about. While you are entitled to your views, and I can see that you do research these types of issues, alot of your arguments are rooted in simple misunderstandings of the law, and I think alot of the anger directed toward IP protection in general is based at least in part on similar misunderstandings.

Utility patents have nothing to do with design at all, they have to do with function. By definition a fashion design could never be afforded utility patent protection because it is not utilitarian. The fashion industry in fact has MUCH greater intellectual property protection then inventions because fashion designs qualify for copyright and trademark protection. As I mentioned earlier, those last much longer then patents.

Let me give a better example, if you don't mind me going off topic... Remember back when the MPAA pushed for legislation which allowed individuals to make a citizen's arrest if they caught someone illegally filming in a movie theatre? Everyone made such a stink about how the MPAA was attempting to deputize people and use them as their henchmen. And I am not even really talking about this board, but all the other forums dedicated to these types of issues. What people didn't realize is that the "citizen's arrest" portion of that statute is as mundane and trivial as legislation can be. It is nothing more then an evidenciary necessity, and it pops up in virtually all federal legislation regulating activity conducted on private property. The fact is that federal agents cannot police theatres. So the only method of enforcing the legislation is to allow ushers or the local authorities to do it, but most states do not allow unwarranted arrests (unwarranted in the sense that there is no actual warrant,) unless you fall under a statutory exception. Well...this is the statutory exception! If that portion was not included in the law then every single time someone was arrested for violating the statute the film they shot would be suppressed at trial. How do you prove someone illegally filmed something if you can't use the film as evidence? It would literally be virtually impossible to ever prosecute anyone under the statute. This same language appears in all kinds of other legislation (did you know that YOU yes YOU personally can arrest someone if you see them driving while intoxicated?) but as soon as a big bad entity like the MPAA (I don't mean that sarcastically, I really do think they are big and bad)gets behind the bill, everything about it suddenly becomes ominous.

[dragongodz]

I don't believe I have generalized at all. I view patents on an individual basis, as they should be analyzed. I do not believe the patent system is "generally fine" just as I do not believe it is "generally f'ed up" like so many on this board do.
when talking about how the whole patent system is running you need to talk in a more general term. its unrealistic to try and discuss every single patent. we would be here for yeeeeeears. :D
i used the medical/drug patents as an example since that has been investigated by a reputable tv show and shown to not be working.
saying "not generally f'ed up" is the same as saying "generally fine". its either mostly working or it isnt, there is no third option for that type of question.

There seem to be many people in this forum who lash out at any form of IP protection.
i agree there are but not everyone. when someone says to you that they do not have a problem with the idea of patents except when they are being abused you cant accuse them of being such a person though.

I don't see any reason why there can't be some compromise between intellectual property rights and consumer rights.
and most people here would agree. the problem is the push is on(and has been for quite some time) by big business it strip any and all rights people have. is it any wonder people start to get angry when all they see is things being taken from them and no give back ?

when the MPAA pushed for legislation
as soon as a big bad entity like the MPAA (I don't mean that sarcastically, I really do think they are big and bad)gets behind the bill, everything about it suddenly becomes ominous.
it is ominous because government and laws become about protecting big business rights over the individuals rights. government is meant to be for the people by the people. when a government starts to allow peoples rights to be removed or repressed on the say so of big business there is a major problem.

[MfA]

The measure for obviousness is always going to be a huge stumbling block ... especially with jury trials it turns the whole thing into a lottery.

Only the likes of Microsoft can avoid being burned by the patent system by going outside of the usual judicial channels after they loose the lottery. Not everyone can buy that much political leverage though.

The fact that multiple people come to identical discoveries over time does not make that discovery obvious.

It is as good a measure as any, they are all arbitrary after all. At least it is one which can be quantified, which cant be said for the one courts use.

As Doobie eloquently noted, and I agree, the creation of most inventions are inevitable as overall knowledge and technology advances. But we reward the patent protection to the vigilant.

That is one way to put it, but eloquence doesnt make it right.

This is eloquent too :

"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts.
It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.
(Atlantic Works v. Brady, 1017 U.S. 192, 200(1882))."

But if you are willing to put up your own capital to place the invention in the marketplace then the government will grant you a relatively short monopoly to recoup your investment and earn some return for your idea.

Really? Might want to tell that to Rambus/Forgent/Eolas ... or even microsoft and all the other big companies taking out most of their patents for anti-competitive aims and as a defense against patent suits (mr. Gates agrees it seems).

[adam]

Originally posted by MfA
It is as good a measure as any, they are all arbitrary after all. At least it is one which can be quantified, which cant be said for the one courts use.

I'm still trying to understand why something that is inevitable is obvious. I personally think that we will invevitably travel outside of our galaxy one day. But I do not think that the means to do so is at all obvious today. When someone does find the technology that allows us to make that journey I assure you that it will result in multiple patents. Without the promise of those patents there would be less incentive to invest money into this pursuit.

So I guess basically what you are saying is that if multiple individuals independantly come to the same creation over time, that they should effectively cancel each other out and neither should receive any protection. Regardless of the merits of such an approach, (personally I think that would apply to every invention ever made) wouldn't it kinda defeat the purpose of patent law? We want to promote invention and advancement of technology. If someone fears that their current project is not quite innovative enough then there is very little incentive to continue the work since there is a great risk that someone else will reach the same discovery. The result would be that everyone would try to recreate the wheel. Even the search for the cure for cancer would not be innovative enough, since there are surely many labs all working independantly towards a solution, and it is entirely probable that, given enough time, multiple labs would find the cure without relying on data from the other.

Hmm, maybe this would be a good thing, but nevertheless the patent system attempts to promote any significant advancement, not just the absolute most radical discoveries. Also, waiting around for that other guy to come forward makes the patent approval process completely retroactive. Wouldn't that result in the exact system that is being opposed in this thread? ie: you get your patent until someone comes forward and shows that they reached the same result themselves, and thus your patent is obvious.

Anyway I will admit that it is a creative approach to an very broad intellectual property concept, and that can never be a bad thing. I just don't think it would be very workable. Patents are viewed in light of what we know at the time of application. In light of all known discoveries at that time, unless the patent request is something completely new (the wheel) or it is a significant improvement on an existing techology, then it fails the non-obvious test. Yes, this requires a great amount of discretion on the part of the reviewer, just like most other legal rules of analysis. That is why we have appeals processes, because people make mistakes.

Originally posted by MfA

This is eloquent too :

"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts.
It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.
(Atlantic Works v. Brady, 1017 U.S. 192, 200(1882))."

Eloquent but quite out of context don't you think? Just one sentence before that the court said this:

The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention, which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. Such inventors are worthy of all favor.

Naturally even the most well intentioned laws can be used for nefarious purposes. If you'd like I could pull several dozens quotes stating how Fair Use should not be used, but I don't think anyone on this board would argue that the Fair Use doctrine is as fundamentally flawed as the patent system.

Look, if you get right down to it I doubt any of our opinions really differ that much. Are you asking me to admit that the patent process is used, abused, and tattooed on occasion? I would wholeheartedly agree with that, and I'd also expect you to admit that the patent process has resulted in some significant discoveries that have benefitted all of mankind...at least on occasion...right? So our disagreement is a matter of degree then. You seem to suggest that most patents that are approved are a step backward in a sense, and I view the glass a little fuller then that. As my favorite law professor used to always say in justification for the jury system, "on some issues, reasonable minds will differ."

Originally posted by MfA
Really? Might want to tell that to Rambus/Forgent/Eolas ... or even microsoft and all the other big companies taking out most of their patents for anti-competitive aims and as a defense against patent suits (mr. Gates agrees it seems).

Once again,I cannot defend any given monopolistic or ill-intentioned act of any given company. But are you really suggesting that these things are representative of the patent system, simply because such companies have taken advantage of that system? If so then you'd have to find fault with the software licensing system, accounting methods, you name it. Let's face it, a company with monopolistic aspirations is going to use anything at their disposal. Blame the abuser, not the abused.

[dragongodz]

Blame the abuser, not the abused.
we do but on the same hand the abused should be given protection from abuse as much as possible aswell. if that protection is not adequite in someones opinion then why shouldnt they say so ?

read the last section of my last post aswell.

[adam]

Originally posted by dragongodz
we do but on the same hand the abused should be given protection from abuse as much as possible aswell. if that protection is not adequite in someones opinion then why shouldnt they say so ?

I never suggested anyone should refrain from expressing their concerns over problems with the patent system. What I did suggest is that people should maintain some perspective. You can't condemn the whole system because Microsoft only just now had one of their patents revoked. There are obviously valid patents out there as well.

Originally posted by dragongodz
read the last section of my last post aswell....it is ominous because government and laws become about protecting big business rights over the individuals rights. government is meant to be for the people by the people. when a government starts to allow peoples rights to be removed or repressed on the say so of big business there is a major problem.

Agreed. That still doesn't change the fact that you think this is a pervasive problem with patents and I don't.

You are talking about something much more fundamental then patents. As long as officials are elected they are going to have various ties to deep pockets, and there is always that risk that they will allow the money to do their talking. I don't like it anymore then you do, but I still prefer to assume legislation is valid until I actually see evidence to the contrary. From my experience, the patent system works well as a whole. Can't we maybe just chalk this up to different personal experiences? Can you really fault me this much for being optimistic?

[MfA]

Ugh sorry for the line by line rebuttal, quoted way too much ... Ill clean it up tomorrow if there is no reply, but first to sleep.

Originally posted by adam
I'm still trying to understand why something that is inevitable is obvious. I personally think that we will invevitably travel outside of our galaxy one day. But I do not think that the means to do so is at all obvious today. When someone does find the technology that allows us to make that journey I assure you that it will result in multiple patents. Without the promise of those patents there would be less incentive to invest money into this pursuit.

They didnt get you to the moon either.

So I guess basically what you are saying is that if multiple individuals independantly come to the same creation over time, that they should effectively cancel each other out and neither should receive any protection.

I dont think in areas where research is not investment intensive (such as algorithms) something which is independently developed before publication deserves a patent no.

Regardless of the merits of such an approach, (personally I think that would apply to every invention ever made) wouldn't it kinda defeat the purpose of patent law?

A lot of people have the opinion that patent law is already defeating it's stated purpose for software ... it is serving a purpose, but not progress.

We want to promote invention and advancement of technology. If someone fears that their current project is not quite innovative enough then there is very little incentive to continue the work since there is a great risk that someone else will reach the same discovery.

If the investments are low enough being first to market is profitable enough.

Even the search for the cure for cancer would not be innovative enough, since there are surely many labs all working independantly towards a solution, and it is entirely probable that, given enough time, multiple labs would find the cure without relying on data from the other.

Well I dont know enough about medicine myself, but given how little money they actually spend on R&D I wouldnt be surprised if a slight bit of collectivizing and some form of compulsory licensing wouldnt benefit society more.

Im a red bastard though, but dont worry ... international treaties make it impossible to even try.

Hmm, maybe this would be a good thing, but nevertheless the patent system attempts to promote any significant advancement, not just the absolute most radical discoveries. Also, waiting around for that other guy to come forward makes the patent approval process completely retroactive. Wouldn't that result in the exact system that is being opposed in this thread? ie: you get your patent until someone comes forward and shows that they reached the same result themselves, and thus your patent is obvious.

Patents can only be proven when contested anyway.

Yes, this requires a great amount of discretion on the part of the reviewer, just like most other legal rules of analysis.

Their discretion lies in filtering out the worst dross, and even at that they are far from full proof. Their opinion outside of the dross is meaningless, there is more prior art than they can hope to weed through ... and obviousness can only be judged by those skilled in the arts.

Eloquent but quite out of context don't you think?

What you said about inevitability is very close to his statement on natural and spontaneous occurrence, so no.

Look, if you get right down to it I doubt any of our opinions really differ that much. Are you asking me to admit that the patent process is used, abused, and tattooed on occasion?

No, I would like you to say software patents serve lawyers and market encumbents ... and prevent more progress than they promote. As a second best I just said it myself though :)

If so then you'd have to find fault with the software licensing system, accounting methods, you name it.

Patents are more like taxes ... mostly evil, and only partly necessary.

Let's face it, a company with monopolistic aspirations is going to use anything at their disposal. Blame the abuser, not the abused.

Which is to say any sufficiently large company, blaming them accomplishes nothing ... only the system can be changed.

[adam]

Maybe some of this looong disagreement is the result of some simple misunderstandings. Mfa you seem to mostly be arguing against software patents, which I am not particularly fond of either. And dragongodz, you seem to be most concerned about medical patents, for which I have already expressed my mixed feelings. Me, I'm just trying to explain the method to the madness; how an overall good system can still produce some bad patents.

Its made for some interesting reading I hope, but I don't think any of us is going to budge, so maybe we should just stop pushing?

Take care.

[dragongodz]

you think this is a pervasive problem with patents and I don't.
no this is what i have tried to explain. i do not have a problem with patents but with the abuse of them and the failing of protection(through lack of funding etc) from said abuse.
lets say someone found a revolutionary cure for cancer and patented it. i dont have a problem with that. infact i would say well done for the discovery.
however if when the original patent was due to expire(thus letting cheaper generics become available) the person/company then used bogus patents to effectivly stop that then i have a problem. the problem is both with the person/company and also with the patent office not doing its job properly. this is happening right now with many medical/drug patents.

You are talking about something much more fundamental then patents. As long as officials are elected they are going to have various ties to deep pockets, and there is always that risk that they will allow the money to do their talking.
yes its fundamental, the patenting system and controls thereof is a part of it. instead of making sure companies are following the rules governments are more busy with sound bytes and lining their pockets.

You can't condemn the whole system because Microsoft only just now had one of their patents revoked. There are obviously valid patents out there as well.
yes there are valid patents aswell, i never said there wasnt. what i did say was there are many more invalid patents which are not being denied to start with, which is when they should have been, through lack of investigation because of lack of resources/funds/etc.

dragongodz, you seem to be most concerned about medical patents, for which I have already expressed my mixed feelings
i use the medical patents as an example since that has been investigated. to think that it would be the only area being highly abused is, i am afraid, wishful thinking.

Can you really fault me this much for being optimistic?
only if the optimism doesnt let you see things going on around you. i am a bit more pragmatic but it takes all types. :)

Its made for some interesting reading I hope, but I don't think any of us is going to budge, so maybe we should just stop pushing?
thats fine with me. it has been an interesting debate and for a change one without mud slinging or name calling. thats been a nice change aswell. :D