The patent system.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: The patent system.
(04-11-2013 02:40 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 02:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh so that "just threw up their hands and stamped everything 'approved' ", must be the reason it actually takes more than two years to get the first action on any patent filed in the US. Of course it does. Yup . Sure.

It took 2 years because they're lazy bureaucrats. But, yes, they just stamped 'approved' with little thought. Consider patent 5,576,951, by Pangea Intellectual Properties see this article. They got a patent for conducting sales over the internet. Yeap, if you sell something on the internet, you've broken their patent. And they were able to collect shitloads of money from all sorts of businesses that didn't have the resources to fight a long, multi-million dollar patent battle. It was only when a bunch of the victims pooled their resources that after a few years they were able to fight it in court and get the patent thrown out.

You're seriously defending the PTO for issuing such a patent? You don't see it as a rubber-stamp 'approved'?

How many of these "lazy bureaucrats" have you actually observed in action. Or do you just make up shit, and expect people to take it in faith, because you said it.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/...s_stat.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 04:12 PM
RE: The patent system.
(04-11-2013 01:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 01:16 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Because I think it's a discussion worth having on it's own. (and because I didn't read everything said on the topic in the other thread).

In my opinion the patent system is outdated and flawed.
It's abused by big corporation and people after a quick buck (ie: getting a patient on someone else's patent in a different country and waiting for that person to come to your country and than have to fight you (in court) for legal rights to use their own bloody product..) alike. It worked great in the 1800's but not today.

In fact if anything it's probably hindering innovation and progress. If you give a company exclusive rights to produce something for 10, 25, 50 years than they have a monopoly on that product (which is bad) and no progress is made towards improving that product as they have a monopoly and there's no need.

If you do away with the patient system than it opens up designs to be really refined and made as best as possible because only the best version of the product will win out.
And example of this would be Chas's software. No doubt Chas is a supporter of the patent system (all assumption here) because he uses it for his software.
BUT what if Chas's software is of low quality (not saying it is)?
If he has a patent on it than customers are forced to use his low quality software.
Whereas without the patient system, competition can arise and take Chas's concept and improve it and sell a higher quality version of Chas's product.
This forces Chas to ensure that his product is of sufficient quality to begin with or for him to improve his product.

IMO, copyright and trade mark law is sufficient. Copyright law would stop people just flat out coping Chas's software, but it wouldn't stop competition and thus improve quality.
There's also several other factors that IMO would keep the market inventing new things (with the biggest scare of getting rid of the patent system being that noone will invent anything new). One being 'first to market advantage'.

Opinions?

S'not quite coherent yet, muffs.

You say patents are out... and yet you explicitly provide for guarantees of intellectual property in some form (copyrights and trademarks).

So you'd have to be much clearer on the issues you have with the existing body of patent law specifically as opposed to intellectual property rights in general, before you'd really have a thesis going.

Yes because there still needs protection for things like brand image because reputation is very important in business (how the public perceive you. ie: Coke has a reputation of good quality soft drinks.) and if you don't protect brand image than fraudulent people can tarnish someone's brand image and ruin their reputation etc..
Copyright mostly covers intellectual property, artwork, music, literature etc.. which obviously is very important to protect. Without copyright law you could just take someone elses music and sell it as your own.

Where this differs from patent law is in regards to what patent law covers.
Taking a book for example. Copyright law would protect someone's book that they wrote. BUT with patent law I could get a patent on all mystery books for example and so anyone that wanted to write a mystery would have to pay me royalty.
Obviously I couldn't get a patent on a certain style of writing today, but the principles are exactly the same for things people do get patents on.

Books would be very boring if there was only 1 mystery book ever written.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't protect the idea such as mystery as a style of writing, we should protect the individuals take on that idea, ie: the mystery book they write.
This way you don't get 1 mystery book because someone's refusing to allow people to write mystery books or is charging too much in royalties. You get many many different takes on the mystery book and the customers than can decide what author they want to spend their money on.

Books is a bit of a shit example, but you get what I mean.


Quote:My first patent was for laptop security. It involved using trapdoor functions for encryption in a novel fashion. It neither hampered competition nor hindered competition. There were competing products and the research into encryption hasn't slowed.

My latest patents are for methods for managing and moving data on networks. There is plenty of competition and innovation.

Your argument isn't convincing.

Than why do you bother with a patent?

Also, I'm not too familiar with copyright law in relation to software but you might find your code, specifically the unique novel way you've done whatever it is you've done, is covered by copyright law. Much the same as a book is copyrighted because of the certain way the words are aligned.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: The patent system.
(04-11-2013 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How many of these "lazy bureaucrats" have you actually observed in action. Or do you just make up shit, and expect people to take it in faith, because you said it.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/...s_stat.htm

There are 542,000 patent applications last year, divided among 6,500 patent examiners, so each examiner had a total of 83 patents. Assuming an average work 240 day/year work period, they had almost 3 full days to evaluate every single patent.

Blatantly obvious patents, like PanIP's patent on all e-commerce, still get approved, even though it should take 10 minutes to see the patent is bogus and they have 3 days to do it. So, yes, I call that lazy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 04:28 PM
RE: The patent system.
@Chas,

We're getting nowhere because the issue being debated is if X > Y, and you insist that because X > 0, therefore X > Y. No, no, no. You need to know the value of Y. If you ignore that Y even exists, you can't prove shit.

earmuffs and I accept that there are many cases where patents encourage innovation (X). What we're arguing is that there are also many cases where patents hinder innovation (Y), and that we believe Y > X.

However, you don't even acknowledge that Y exists. I post examples like PanIP's patent on e-commerce, and it goes in one ear and out the other. YOu don't address it and say that it (Y) is a small number. Rather you just pretend that it doesn't exist, and you insist that if you can show even 1 case where patents do encourage innovation (ie where X > 0), that you've won the debate.

I've referred to analysis comparing X and Y, which show that Y is greater. You just keep insisting that X>0 (that patents encourage innovation) and refuse to even acknowledge that Y exists (that they also hinder innovation).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
04-11-2013, 04:34 PM
RE: The patent system.
frankiej and frankksj liking the same muff post? Dis shit is gettin' crazy... and confusing. It is too much for my wee high brain.

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankiej's post
04-11-2013, 04:41 PM
RE: The patent system.
(04-11-2013 04:24 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How many of these "lazy bureaucrats" have you actually observed in action. Or do you just make up shit, and expect people to take it in faith, because you said it.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/...s_stat.htm

There are 542,000 patent applications last year, divided among 6,500 patent examiners, so each examiner had a total of 83 patents. Assuming an average work 240 day/year work period, they had almost 3 full days to evaluate every single patent.

Blatantly obvious patents, like PanIP's patent on all e-commerce, still get approved, even though it should take 10 minutes to see the patent is bogus and they have 3 days to do it. So, yes, I call that lazy.

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2010/07/s...-does.html
And just how many patents have YOU ever examined ? None I suspect, yet you think you get to call people who work overtime, with no OT compensation "lazy".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 04:44 PM
RE: The patent system.
(04-11-2013 04:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Chas,

We're getting nowhere because the issue being debated is if X > Y, and you insist that because X > 0, therefore X > Y. No, no, no. You need to know the value of Y. If you ignore that Y even exists, you can't prove shit.

earmuffs and I accept that there are many cases where patents encourage innovation (X). What we're arguing is that there are also many cases where patents hinder innovation (Y), and that we believe Y > X.

However, you don't even acknowledge that Y exists. I post examples like PanIP's patent on e-commerce, and it goes in one ear and out the other. YOu don't address it and say that it (Y) is a small number. Rather you just pretend that it doesn't exist, and you insist that if you can show even 1 case where patents do encourage innovation (ie where X > 0), that you've won the debate.

I've referred to analysis comparing X and Y, which show that Y is greater. You just keep insisting that X>0 (that patents encourage innovation) and refuse to even acknowledge that Y exists (that they also hinder innovation).

Do you even read my posts?

I have said there are problems with the system and that some patents should never have been issued.

The answer is to fix the system, including voiding patents that should never have been issued.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-11-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: The patent system.
(04-11-2013 04:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://blog.patentology.com.au/2010/07/s...-does.html
And just how many patents have YOU ever examined ? None I suspect, yet you think you get to call people who work overtime, with no OT compensation "lazy".

Of course I wouldn't be commenting here if it wasn't a subject I knew well. I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of patents end to end, and have my own patents too. And it certainly didn't take 3 days to read PanIP's patents on e-commerce and realize that it failed for prior art and obviousness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: The patent system.
(04-11-2013 04:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have said there are problems with the system and that some patents should never have been issued.

The answer is to fix the system, including voiding patents that should never have been issued.

But, the government DID try to fix the system when it passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 2 years ago. This was the biggest reform to the patent system since 1952. And it was a huge step backward, going in the wrong direction, and making the problem only worse.

Since it took 55 years to this legislation passed, don't count on seeing any other "patent reform" bills for another 55 years, and if you do, I imagine they ALSO will be a step back.

Therefore, saying "reform the patent system" is like telling the cancer patient "just get rid of the cancer". Well, duh. But since that's not an option, the question we have to ask is if the existing system more often encourages or hinders innovation. Every study I've read says it's the latter, and that we'd better off with NO patent system than with this fucked up one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 05:22 PM
The patent system.
(04-11-2013 04:24 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How many of these "lazy bureaucrats" have you actually observed in action. Or do you just make up shit, and expect people to take it in faith, because you said it.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/...s_stat.htm

There are 542,000 patent applications last year, divided among 6,500 patent examiners, so each examiner had a total of 83 patents. Assuming an average work 240 day/year work period, they had almost 3 full days to evaluate every single patent.

Blatantly obvious patents, like PanIP's patent on all e-commerce, still get approved, even though it should take 10 minutes to see the patent is bogus and they have 3 days to do it. So, yes, I call that lazy.

I think 3 days on average is not bad. Some may take 10 minutes to figure out, but then the examiner still has to write
a detailed report I presume to justify the rejection. Other patents take longer because a lot of research has to be done
to see whether an idea is new, especially with patents that are very technological.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: