WTF patents

US patents don't do anything to prevent non-US companies from doing things in non-US places. If the non-US company wants to sell in the US, then they are treated the same as a US-based competitor would be. That's fine with me.

I think the interesting question is whether there is some sort of inherent "right" to the exclusive commercial benefits of one's ideas, or whether the protection of a patent is something that the government confers only because it results in net benefit. I believe it's the latter -when someone else uses an idea that I came up with, it's frustrating and annoying and perhaps hurts my business, but it doesn't violate my rights.

(By contrast, I think I do have an inherent right to reap whatever profits I can from my idea: if the government forced me to divulge all my ideas, for instance, or if the government forced me to sign over all patent rights for my inventions to some governmental agency, that would be a clear violation of my rights.)

In article , Zak wrote: [...]

I think it must be because you can patent an improvement to someone else's patent thing.

That's not answering the question I asked.

Ian

I think that this is correct. But that doesn't mean that some limited protection against a competitor copying your work can't be provided. Something along the lines of a copyright (which is close to what a design patent gives you, if I understand them correctly).

That's a valid point. In fact, patents are intended to encourage people to divulge the results of their R&D so that others can build upon them. If all you want to do is to keep technology out of the hands of your competitors, keep your work secret. The moment you patent (or publish), everyone else can see your work and is immediately brought up to your technological level. If you keep it to yourself, you can build upon your own work and create a larger lead over your competition.

A positive result for one (or both) companies or for consumers as a whole? The current problem, not so much with patents, but with the way that they are being used, is that companies with portfolios of patents are actively colluding in their cross licensing agreements to exclude other manufacturers, rather than just using their patent rights for gain through licensing fees. Both companies involved gain, but consumers suffer.

This works, to an extent. But accepting gov't funding can place some restrictions on a companies ability to restrict subsequent access to the R&D results by other companies. Unfortunately, given our current economic environment, many companies place a very high value on developing monopoly control in their markets. Aside from the (obvious) Microsoft example, look at how hard Boeing and Lockheed are pushing for the right to combine their satellite launch businesses. This is a market in which the 'customer' is (or should be) well informed as to the down side of having a single source for their needs.

The other side of gov't funding, particularly in the defense industry, is that the resulting market for that technology can be restricted. If the R&D is privately funded and conducted by foreign subsidiaries outside the reach of arms regulations, then it is possible to sell the resulting products in a much larger market.

Of course you can _use_ it: it's a public document, after all. You just aren't allowed to make a profit from it unless you make a deal with the inventor.

Cheers! Rich

Okay, I think I see what you're driving at, perhaps. Since the thrust of my argument is that laws should benefit citizens, then I should be concerned not with the wellbeing of company A and competitor B, but rather with the wellbeing of the citizens of the country where A and B are competing. If R&D protection benefits A (staffed by US citizens) but hurts B (staffed by Chinese citizens), the question suggests, then I should favor it because on the net it benefits US citizens.

But as it turns out, I'm not really very nationalistic; I'm more individualistic. I basically think that if I can figure out how to do something, then I should be allowed to do it unless there is some very compelling benefit from preventing me; and likewise everyone else, regardless of their nationality.

So yes, I would still hold the same view.

-walter

Unless the idea is something that's self-revealing, in which case disclosure happens as soon as you make the product available to consumers. If someone comes up with a flat-proof tire rubber, they should be able to patent the formula for the rubber; but they shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a flat-proof tire, or even the idea of flat-proof tire rubber.

And indeed I think that's how patents are supposed to work. But it seems that the patents I've been reading are more about patenting ideas, rather than mechanisms.

Obviously the line is not well-defined. Is the idea of putting a rechargeable battery in a musical instrument, and charging it via the same jack that the signal comes out of, an idea or a mechanism? I'm arguing that it's an idea; there's nothing difficult about the implementation, anyone on this forum could design it in under an hour, I expect. What's the "R&D investment" that's being protected?

Another patent I recently griped about was for an adapter to put a small pickup in a too-large hole. Literally, they're patenting the idea of a hunk of plastic shaped like a big hole, with a small hole in it that the small pickup fits in.

Quite so. My confusion. See answer to Ian's post.

-w

Actually it is a bit broader than that, infringing use is any use for profit.

So all that's needed now is enough money to pay the lawyers while the case spends 5 years in court proving that the patent is invalid. You'll get that in costs at the end anyway, assuming the judge knows enough about small plastic widgets not to decide in their favour, and of course assuming they aren't bankrupt by then.

Paul Burke

Bingo. The existence of an infringeable patent, be it obviously flawed or not, effectively prevents a small business from product development. I'd be wiped out by a legal battle even if I won it.

Sorry, I don't know what DRMA is?

That's how understood them as well. But that's where software patents will run into trouble. Software, a.k.a. source code, given sufficiently intelligent compilers and other tools, may be nothing more than the expression of an idea. The compiler takes it from there and produces the executable.

But that's not where we are at presently. Even if working models are not required, the description of the patented device often is not sufficient to use as the basis of creating one. Take the 'faster than light propulsion system patent' (essentially a description of the Star Trek Warp drive) as a good example of this.

The first implementation of this might have been patentable. But once that's on the market, just replacing the noun 'cell phone' or 'handheld GPS' with 'musical instrument' doesn't warrant a new patent. I have both of these devices with the single connector interface that predate the subject patent. In fact, my brother had a bass guitar that incorporated an internal battery powered preamp about 25 years ago. It had both a standard phone jack output, plus a second multipurpose connector that provided separate signal outputs for each pickup plus a DC power input (not to recharge the batteries, just as alternate power).

I'd buy that as a design patent, but not a utility patent. If someone does the research to establish ranges of common hole sizes, for example, you shouldn't just copy them. But if you measure the hole and make your own, that shouldn't be an infringement.

He seemed to be more concerned with differentiating between US and non US companies (if I got the right post). Not an easy task, IMHO. Do you differentiate between a company with facilities within our borders but majority foreign ownership? How exactly do we identify which multinationals fall into each category? I think that any tests of economic benefits should look only at the consumer. Corporations are an artificial creation of the state and certainly shouldn't be granted rights that compete with individuals on an equal footing. They should certainly not have rights superior to those of the individual's (the consumers).

That's fine. So you are against DRMA then?

Ian

Wherein Don argues the $12M to $40M sale territory is a necessary threshold for an adequate return on a patented product. That's too high to make a patent approach viable for the "million-dollar" idea admired by inventors. Perhaps I can address this subject, having developed over a half-dozen "million-dollar" products at my company. As I've often stated, my successful products did not have, not did they need, the benefit of patent protection (while my name is on a number of patents, that's because clients wanted it that way -- I didn't patent the inventions I did for myself.) My products succeeded because of their quality in the field, the "brand" reputation they developed, and good customer relations, all of which outweigh patent protection.

WRT Don's $40M threshold, clearly this assumes a court fight, in which case his numbers may well be too low. So, whatever Don's critics may have to say about the issue, I think he's certainly on target with respect to patenting ideas worth under say $100M. Counter arguments are that a patent still can act as a deterrent, may be important to other investors, or to potential product or company buyers, etc. This are issues an inventor can evaluate.

Ah, DMCA, the "digital millennium copyright act". Yes, I think that's primarily an expression of panic on the part of the traditional record companies; I certainly don't believe it is in the best interest of the general public.

But I actually do believe in the idea of copyright - though at least in the music world I think it is being severely challenged these days by the ease of copyrighting and the relative difficulty of doing what feels like the right thing as a consumer. I believe in individual ownership of creative expression, I think. (I haven't really studied the issue so it's possible that if I dug deeply enough I'd end up convincing myself otherwise.)

The only thing I'm griping about (in this thread) is patents that attempt to prevent people from using ideas that are obvious as soon as one sees or hears of the product being protected. Why is that not a copyrightable idea? To stick with the example of the patent I'm harping on, if I were to make my own musical instrument electronics with a rechargeable battery, I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference between whether I'd invented it myself or copied the other fellow's. The idea is too simple; it does not contain enough features to be identifiably unique.

That criterion of "containing enough features" is why copyright infringement can be based on a minimum amount of content: it's okay to copy a bar of someone else's melody, it's not okay to copy eight bars. In fact, you can't even *tell* if you've copied a bar of someone else's melody; it's virtually impossible to write a unique bar of listenable notes that someone else hasn't already written.

Ironically, although I think a lot of software patents are utterly bogus, I think that some software might be about the best example of why patents are worthwhile and useful.

Google probably has patents on their search algorithms. (I don't know, I don't compete with them.) They could easily keep them as trade secrets, and nobody would be able to reverse-engineer them. Since people have thought very deeply about search algorithms and published the results (read Knuth, for instance), any new algorithm is just about guaranteed to *not* be obvious. Whatever Google is doing is worth knowing about, and could be helpful for many folks, even folks not directly competing. But if they reveal it, they lose their competitive edge. Perfect case for a patent: they disclose, academic researchers can leap-frog, competitors can license, net gain for the world.

IF their patent actually can be implemented. Which I know is the legal requirement, but IME there can be many man-years between knowing an algorithm and being able to successfully implement it in a commercial software product.

And IF their algorithm actually is novel, instead of being something that they found in Knuth and figured out how to apply to the web. I think that's what the problem with a lot of software patents is.

It is certainly true that patent litigation is only for those with deep pockets. The best way for a small business to profit from this is to offer their patent to the all the big competitors for it. If it provides true competitive advantage they will want it, pay well for it and pay for its protection.

Ian