That is a terrible idea for two reasons. First, what if you invent something and it takes more than five years to get the resources or the secondary knowledge to build or implement it? It just goes away for free? Second if the patent stays valid as long as you keep making it, you would still be paying royalties on wheels, internal combustion engines, etc.
A co-worker of mine thought he hit the jackpot when he patented an idea. Against another friend's advice, he licensed the patent to a company that made items of that type. The license was exclusive and had no minimum royalty or expiration. The company sat on the patent and made a product that was similar to the patent but did not require royalty payments. In your system, the company could do this for five years and then they and other companies could make items that used the now expired patent without any payment to the inventor.
No sir it is not. Yes, you may have expended effort on it. Yes, you may be able to sell it. But your legal term of ownership is limited unlike real property, the patent has no intrinsic value unlike real property, is not taxed as real property nor treated or valued by businesses as real property. Then there's the issue of proving ownership, in general relatively easy for real property, nearly impossible for patents whose supposed ownership claims are more often than not modified or taken away altogether after the fact if questioned.
Related to that can you imagine the economic disruptions if patents were treated as real property? You want to borrow money to buy some real property and open a factory to produce a suddenly popular type of widget for which you believe you have secured intellectual property rights. Before you close on the real property a title search is done to make sure there are no other claims on the land. Should there be a search for other potential intellectual property claims before the real property purchase can be closed? How would you do an effective ownership search since it seems to be something beyond the reach of even large companies like Apple, Google or ATT? Is the business opportunity lost by the time a thorough search for potential intellectual property challenges is completed?
We're not even getting into the patent-ability of computer-aided software which has only been legally possible since the 80's, and now being reined back in by the courts that made it possible in the first place.
Are you aware that one of the patents in the Apple v. Samsung trial is almost 20 yrs old?
Some things worth having a valid patent recognized for take more than a few years to develop, iterate on, and 'get right'. Putting a time limit on it says you dictate to innovators that anything that requires any more time than such an arbitrary limit isn't worth their investment. As such, it would stifle innovation except the low-hanging fruit. Just try to imagine how many things we wouldn't have if there were a 5-year limit. Ouch. Imagine just the Apple products we wouldn't have if you basically removed their motivation to innovate.
As an aside, along the same lines is the flawed idea that redistribution of wealth is a good idea and will help poor people. Remuneration for doing or creating something of value is correct, regardless of the amount of value created. Undermining that disincentivizes people from working to do things of value, and is an idea that represents a disconnect with reality. (What is incorrect is cronyism.) For a treatment of this, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/08/23/if-you-want-human-progress-to-stop-institute-a-maximum-income/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
The problem there is under that rule, Google and Samsung would be free to copy Apple's data detectors as Apple let that lay dormant for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
True but if there was a time limit, Apple would have been using it all those years in between.
AI recently detailed in a feature how Apple had been working on 'getting it right' more or less all along. And how difficult it was to do so.
This only applies to software patents, which are somewhat of an anomaly anyway in patent law, and for that reason I don't think it would be a big loss if they were abolished altogether. The fundamentals of computer science as we know today were all developed before software patents started becoming popular. You don't have to look over your shoulder every time you sort a list using quicksort, for example. You don't have to pay Donald Knuth royalties to use TeX. Software is mostly about making iterative improvements to existing ideas, and this step-by-step evolution is what software patents hinder in practice.
I haven't seen people crying about the patent system in other fields. It's mostly just software.
Good post. I'm starting to see that point of view as well.
I clung to the initial idea (too long) that patents... even of the software variety... could be beneficial to a little programmer or "thinker"... the "tinkerers of our times", against uncouth Big Business stealing their ideas because they were too small to do anything about it and fight.
That fantasy bubble has come crashing around my ears of late.
Do you suggest simple copyright protections for software and/or implementations of coded ideas?
Why should that be an issue? If you look at the reason the US found a reference to patents to be valuable enough to be included in the Constitution it wasn't simply property rights. The stated purpose of US patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How does getting a software patent, not using it in a product, but trying to prevent anyone else from using it either meeting the founders rational for US patents enshrined in the Constitution?
Patents are not real property and not treated as such, evidenced by separate and unrelated laws for them on US books and separate special mention in the Constitution. What do you think the founders meant by "promote the progress of science" etc. as the stated reason for US patents?
Intellectual property as opposed to real property where your ownership of it doesn't expire after a relatively short period of time. They are not one and the same or have the same rights granted them by the Constitution.
No sir it is not. Yes, you may have expended effort on it. Yes, you may be able to sell it. But your legal term of ownership is limited unlike real property, the patent has no intrinsic value unlike real property, is not taxed as real property nor treated or valued by businesses as real property. Then there's the issue of proving ownership, in general relatively easy for real property, nearly impossible for patents whose supposed ownership claims are more often than not modified or taken away altogether after the fact if questioned.
Related to that can you imagine the economic disruptions if patents were treated as real property? You want to borrow money to buy some real property and open a factory to produce a suddenly popular type of widget for which you believe you have secured intellectual property rights. Before you close on the real property a title search is done to make sure there are no other claims on the land. Should there be a search for other potential intellectual property claims before the real property purchase can be closed? How would you do an effective ownership search since it seems to be something beyond the reach of even large companies like Apple, Google or ATT? Is the business opportunity lost by the time a thorough search for potential intellectual property challenges is completed?
We're not even getting into the patent-ability of computer-aided software which has only been legally possible since the 80's, and now being reined back in by the courts that made it possible in the first place.
While the document you point to was a very important part of what helped make America into what it is today, I doubt very (very!) much that even the collective genius that wrote it some 220+ years ago could envision what the country they fought for has become.
Maybe that document is due for some small alterations... not only for patent reform. Just sayin'.
Some things worth having a valid patent recognized for take more than a few years to develop, iterate on, and 'get right'. Putting a time limit on it says you dictate to innovators that anything that requires any more time than such an arbitrary limit isn't worth their investment. As such, it would stifle innovation except the low-hanging fruit. Just try to imagine how many things we wouldn't have if there were a 5-year limit. Ouch. Imagine just the Apple products we wouldn't have if you basically removed their motivation to innovate.
[SIZE=9px]As an aside, along the same lines is the flawed idea that redistribution of wealth is a good idea and will help poor people. Remuneration for doing or creating something of value is correct, regardless of the amount of value created. Undermining that disincentivizes people from working to do things of value, and is an idea that represents a disconnect with reality. (What is incorrect is cronyism.) For a treatment of this, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/08/23/if-you-want-human-progress-to-stop-institute-a-maximum-income/[/SIZE]
AI recently detailed in a feature how Apple had been working on 'getting it right' more or less all along. And how difficult it was to do so.
5 yrs may be too short but there should be a limit. You shouldn't be able to patent things if you can't eventually use it. While future companies shouldn't be able to patent it either, you shouldn't be allowed to sit on it until someone violates it.
I did read the ADD article. Apple did use it until Jobs came back.
5 yrs may be too short but there should be a limit. You shouldn't be able to patent things if you can't eventually use it. While future companies shouldn't be able to patent it either, you shouldn't be allowed to sit on it until someone violates it.
I did read the ADD article. Apple did use it until Jobs came back.
Sometimes the inventor can't use his own indentation, and needs a company to either purchase it or license it. The best example being Robert Kearns who invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism. The Big Three rejected his proposal in 1964 yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969. There was absolutely no way for him to implement it on his own.
Sometimes the inventor can't use his own indentation, and needs a company to either purchase it or license it. The best example being Robert Kearns who invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism. The Big Three rejected his proposal in 1964 yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969. There was absolutely no way for him to implement it on his own.
He didn't want to license or sell his patent. His dream was to build the units himself in his own factory and sell a finished product to the auto manufacturers.
While the document you point to was a very important part of what helped make America into what it is today, I doubt very (very!) much that even the collective genius that wrote it some 220+ years ago could envision what the country they fought for has become.
Maybe that document is due for some small alterations... not only for patent reform. Just sayin'.
While the document you point to was a very important part of what helped make America into what it is today, I doubt very (very!) much that even the collective genius that wrote it some 220+ years ago could envision what the country they fought for has become.
Maybe that document is due for some small alterations... not only for patent reform. Just sayin'.
Oh, definitely not. I guarantee this already ignored and abused document would be gutted wholesale if left to the politicians. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee the protection of individual rights and to restrain out of control federal power. On both counts there have been massive frontal assaults by Washington and I'm not convinced it will survive the next several presidential elections.
No sir it is not. Yes, you may have expended effort on it. Yes, you may be able to sell it. But your legal term of ownership is limited unlike real property, the patent has no intrinsic value unlike real property, is not taxed as real property nor treated or valued by businesses as real property. Then there's the issue of proving ownership, in general relatively easy for real property, nearly impossible for patents whose supposed ownership claims are more often than not modified or taken away altogether after the fact if questioned.
Related to that can you imagine the economic disruptions if patents were treated as real property? You want to borrow money to buy some real property and open a factory to produce a suddenly popular type of widget for which you believe you have secured intellectual property rights. Before you close on the real property a title search is done to make sure there are no other claims on the land. Should there be a search for other potential intellectual property claims before the real property purchase can be closed? How would you do an effective ownership search since it seems to be something beyond the reach of even large companies like Apple, Google or ATT? Is the business opportunity lost by the time a thorough search for potential intellectual property challenges is completed?
We're not even getting into the patent-ability of computer-aided software which has only been legally possible since the 80's, and now being reined back in by the courts that made it possible in the first place.
The value of something is determined between at least two parties, so it is up to the patent holder to exploit their property. In some cases, a patent may be more valuable if it is NOT implemented. That's a determination left to the property holder to decide.
It is imagination made real. It is the ownership of dream, an idea, an improvement, an emotion that we can touch, see, hear, and feel. It is an asset just like your home, your car, or your bank account.
Just like other kinds of property, intellectual property needs to be protected from unauthorized use. There are four ways to protect different types of intellectual property:
PATENTS provide rights for up to 20 years for inventions in three broad categories:
Utility patents protect useful processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter. Some examples: fiber optics, computer hardware, medications.
Design patents guard the unauthorized use of new, original, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. The look of an athletic shoe, a bicycle helmet, the Star Wars characters are all protected by design patents.
Plant patents are the way we protect invented or discovered, asexually reproduced plant varieties. Hybrid tea roses, Silver Queen corn, Better Boy tomatoes are all types of plant patents.
TRADEMARKS protect words, names, symbols, sounds, or colors that distinguish goods and services. Trademarks, unlike patents, can be renewed forever as long as they are being used in business. The roar of the MGM lion, the pink of the Owens-Corning insulation, and the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle are familiar trademarks.
COPYRIGHTS protect works of authorship, such as writings, music, and works of art that have been tangibly expressed. The Library of Congress registers copyrights which last the life of the author plus 50 years. Gone With The Wind (the book and the film), Beatles recordings, and video games are all works that are copyrighted.
TRADE SECRETS are information that companies keep secret to give them an advantage over their competitors. The formula for Coca-Cola is one of the most famous trade secrets.
If you are an intellectual property owner, you should protect your rights. If you are a user, you should respect them. It is just as wrong to steal intellectual property as it is to break into a home, steal a car, or rob a bank."
The value of something is determined between at least two parties, so it is up to the patent holder to exploit their property. In some cases, a patent may be more valuable if it is NOT implemented. That's a determination left to the property holder to decide.
I'd still like your opinion on what you believe the founders meant by "promote the progress of science"? The other questions I put to you probably aren't as important.
I'd still like your opinion on what you believe the founders meant by "promote the progress of science"? The other questions I put to you probably aren't as important.
What did they mean by that? They meant the works of artists and inventors were property that belonged to THEM, not to a king or government.
Oh, definitely not. I guarantee this already ignored and abused document would be gutted wholesale if left to the politicians. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee the protection of individual rights and to restrain out of control federal power. On both counts there have been massive frontal assaults by Washington and I'm not convinced it will survive the next several presidential elections.
Ya... you're probably right there. Better to just leave it alone.
However some things seem to go too far, causing unforeseen future complications that I seriously doubt the framers could have remotely considered... again... no matter how intelligent and visionary they were. It's so close to perfection, that you truly have to be in awe of the accomplishment for it's time.
To be honest... I also hate the way it has been bent and twisted by politicians and the justices that they've nominated since. Also the way GatorBoy was repeatedly pointing to it as a defining reason to his argument. There surely must be a better way to buttress an argument than to pointing to the US Constitution, which there happens to be only one of, for one country.
In this day and age of globalism, it doesn't necessarily garner the respect it should demand, but it's also not so inclusive of the world community sensabilities either. For assorted good and bad reasons that are not appropriate on this board to get into.... I'll leave it at that.
Ya... you're probably right there. Better to just leave it alone.
However some things seem to go too far, causing unforeseen future complications that I seriously doubt the framers could have remotely considered... again... no matter how intelligent and visionary they were. It's so close to perfection, that you truly have to be in awe of the accomplishment for it's time.
To be honest... I also hate the way it has been bent and twisted by politicians and the justices that they've nominated since. Also the way GatorBoy was repeatedly pointing to it as a defining reason to his argument. There surely must be a better way to buttress an argument than to pointing to the US Constitution, which there happens to be only one of, for one country.
In this day and age of globalism, it doesn't necessarily garner the respect it should demand, but it's also not so inclusive of the world community sensabilities either. For assorted good and bad reasons that are not appropriate on this board to get into.... I'll leave it at that.
The Constitution of the US does not extend to the rest of the world. There is no global government and I am not convinced there is a need for any such body.
So you just ignore the words "promoting progress"?
I wonder if your definition of "progress" meshes with the Constitutional one? Have you bothered to read the link? I don't believe you have, because the actual quote is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Lifting words (not even an accurate quote, by the way) out of context is dishonest and completely undermines what you seem to be arguing.
The Constitution of the US does not extend to the rest of the world.
I stated that.
There is no global government and I am not convinced there is a need for any such body.
Are you absolutely sure about that statement? UN and certain trade bodies as well as worldwide financial institutions would probably disagree with you. Not saying they're good or bad, but I would rather have them operate in the open under democratic principles than be an underground cartel.
In my post I was rather vague about worldwide sensabilities, but I was meaning it to be in regards to trade agreements and the subject of this post, patents and patent protection. I don't believe the USPTO or any countries governed body should be in the business of handing out patents or its justice department be the final arbiter in disputes. I think there should be a worldwide body made up of international experts and patents put up for peer review. This seems to work out quite well in other scientific disciplines, why not tech and software?
Comments
That is a terrible idea for two reasons. First, what if you invent something and it takes more than five years to get the resources or the secondary knowledge to build or implement it? It just goes away for free? Second if the patent stays valid as long as you keep making it, you would still be paying royalties on wheels, internal combustion engines, etc.
A co-worker of mine thought he hit the jackpot when he patented an idea. Against another friend's advice, he licensed the patent to a company that made items of that type. The license was exclusive and had no minimum royalty or expiration. The company sat on the patent and made a product that was similar to the patent but did not require royalty payments. In your system, the company could do this for five years and then they and other companies could make items that used the now expired patent without any payment to the inventor.
Related to that can you imagine the economic disruptions if patents were treated as real property? You want to borrow money to buy some real property and open a factory to produce a suddenly popular type of widget for which you believe you have secured intellectual property rights. Before you close on the real property a title search is done to make sure there are no other claims on the land. Should there be a search for other potential intellectual property claims before the real property purchase can be closed? How would you do an effective ownership search since it seems to be something beyond the reach of even large companies like Apple, Google or ATT? Is the business opportunity lost by the time a thorough search for potential intellectual property challenges is completed?
We're not even getting into the patent-ability of computer-aided software which has only been legally possible since the 80's, and now being reined back in by the courts that made it possible in the first place.
Oh boy. Here we go.
No I meant towards you. I agreed with Evilution's response to jungmark.
Are you aware that one of the patents in the Apple v. Samsung trial is almost 20 yrs old?
Some things worth having a valid patent recognized for take more than a few years to develop, iterate on, and 'get right'. Putting a time limit on it says you dictate to innovators that anything that requires any more time than such an arbitrary limit isn't worth their investment. As such, it would stifle innovation except the low-hanging fruit. Just try to imagine how many things we wouldn't have if there were a 5-year limit. Ouch. Imagine just the Apple products we wouldn't have if you basically removed their motivation to innovate.
As an aside, along the same lines is the flawed idea that redistribution of wealth is a good idea and will help poor people. Remuneration for doing or creating something of value is correct, regardless of the amount of value created. Undermining that disincentivizes people from working to do things of value, and is an idea that represents a disconnect with reality. (What is incorrect is cronyism.) For a treatment of this, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/08/23/if-you-want-human-progress-to-stop-institute-a-maximum-income/
The problem there is under that rule, Google and Samsung would be free to copy Apple's data detectors as Apple let that lay dormant for a long time.
True but if there was a time limit, Apple would have been using it all those years in between.
AI recently detailed in a feature how Apple had been working on 'getting it right' more or less all along. And how difficult it was to do so.
Good post. I'm starting to see that point of view as well.
I clung to the initial idea (too long) that patents... even of the software variety... could be beneficial to a little programmer or "thinker"... the "tinkerers of our times", against uncouth Big Business stealing their ideas because they were too small to do anything about it and fight.
That fantasy bubble has come crashing around my ears of late.
Do you suggest simple copyright protections for software and/or implementations of coded ideas?
While the document you point to was a very important part of what helped make America into what it is today, I doubt very (very!) much that even the collective genius that wrote it some 220+ years ago could envision what the country they fought for has become.
Maybe that document is due for some small alterations... not only for patent reform. Just sayin'.
5 yrs may be too short but there should be a limit. You shouldn't be able to patent things if you can't eventually use it. While future companies shouldn't be able to patent it either, you shouldn't be allowed to sit on it until someone violates it.
I did read the ADD article. Apple did use it until Jobs came back.
Sometimes the inventor can't use his own indentation, and needs a company to either purchase it or license it. The best example being Robert Kearns who invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism. The Big Three rejected his proposal in 1964 yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969. There was absolutely no way for him to implement it on his own.
He didn't want to license or sell his patent. His dream was to build the units himself in his own factory and sell a finished product to the auto manufacturers.
Right you are sir.
Oh, definitely not. I guarantee this already ignored and abused document would be gutted wholesale if left to the politicians. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee the protection of individual rights and to restrain out of control federal power. On both counts there have been massive frontal assaults by Washington and I'm not convinced it will survive the next several presidential elections.
The value of something is determined between at least two parties, so it is up to the patent holder to exploit their property. In some cases, a patent may be more valuable if it is NOT implemented. That's a determination left to the property holder to decide.
http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/opa/museum.jsp
"What is Intellectual Property?
It is imagination made real. It is the ownership of dream, an idea, an improvement, an emotion that we can touch, see, hear, and feel. It is an asset just like your home, your car, or your bank account.
Just like other kinds of property, intellectual property needs to be protected from unauthorized use. There are four ways to protect different types of intellectual property:
PATENTS provide rights for up to 20 years for inventions in three broad categories:
Utility patents protect useful processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter. Some examples: fiber optics, computer hardware, medications.
Design patents guard the unauthorized use of new, original, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. The look of an athletic shoe, a bicycle helmet, the Star Wars characters are all protected by design patents.
Plant patents are the way we protect invented or discovered, asexually reproduced plant varieties. Hybrid tea roses, Silver Queen corn, Better Boy tomatoes are all types of plant patents.
TRADEMARKS protect words, names, symbols, sounds, or colors that distinguish goods and services. Trademarks, unlike patents, can be renewed forever as long as they are being used in business. The roar of the MGM lion, the pink of the Owens-Corning insulation, and the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle are familiar trademarks.
COPYRIGHTS protect works of authorship, such as writings, music, and works of art that have been tangibly expressed. The Library of Congress registers copyrights which last the life of the author plus 50 years. Gone With The Wind (the book and the film), Beatles recordings, and video games are all works that are copyrighted.
TRADE SECRETS are information that companies keep secret to give them an advantage over their competitors. The formula for Coca-Cola is one of the most famous trade secrets.
If you are an intellectual property owner, you should protect your rights. If you are a user, you should respect them. It is just as wrong to steal intellectual property as it is to break into a home, steal a car, or rob a bank."
I'd still like your opinion on what you believe the founders meant by "promote the progress of science"? The other questions I put to you probably aren't as important.
What did they mean by that? They meant the works of artists and inventors were property that belonged to THEM, not to a king or government.
Read this: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_319.htm
Ya... you're probably right there. Better to just leave it alone.
However some things seem to go too far, causing unforeseen future complications that I seriously doubt the framers could have remotely considered... again... no matter how intelligent and visionary they were. It's so close to perfection, that you truly have to be in awe of the accomplishment for it's time.
To be honest... I also hate the way it has been bent and twisted by politicians and the justices that they've nominated since. Also the way GatorBoy was repeatedly pointing to it as a defining reason to his argument. There surely must be a better way to buttress an argument than to pointing to the US Constitution, which there happens to be only one of, for one country.
In this day and age of globalism, it doesn't necessarily garner the respect it should demand, but it's also not so inclusive of the world community sensabilities either. For assorted good and bad reasons that are not appropriate on this board to get into.... I'll leave it at that.
The Constitution of the US does not extend to the rest of the world. There is no global government and I am not convinced there is a need for any such body.
So you just ignore the words "promoting progress"?
I wonder if your definition of "progress" meshes with the Constitutional one? Have you bothered to read the link? I don't believe you have, because the actual quote is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Lifting words (not even an accurate quote, by the way) out of context is dishonest and completely undermines what you seem to be arguing.
I stated that.
Are you absolutely sure about that statement? UN and certain trade bodies as well as worldwide financial institutions would probably disagree with you. Not saying they're good or bad, but I would rather have them operate in the open under democratic principles than be an underground cartel.
In my post I was rather vague about worldwide sensabilities, but I was meaning it to be in regards to trade agreements and the subject of this post, patents and patent protection. I don't believe the USPTO or any countries governed body should be in the business of handing out patents or its justice department be the final arbiter in disputes. I think there should be a worldwide body made up of international experts and patents put up for peer review. This seems to work out quite well in other scientific disciplines, why not tech and software?