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.
What are you going on about? :err:
The first part of the sentence speaks to why they will offer intellectual property protection, guaranteed by the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and the useful arts"
And to do that they will allow:
"securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. "
That second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the rationale behind allowing patents. It depends on the first half for it's reason to extend that protection in the first place.
EDIT: I forgot to add that naturally I read your link. I read everything I come across for the most part. I'm wondering if you read it any further than the first paragraph. If you did you why do you think tems like "advance the arts", "promote progress" and "admit the people at large, after a short interval, to the full possession and enjoyment of all writings and inventions without restraint".
If the patent is never used for producing but instead acts to prevent industry from benefitting from discoveries until it's ownership rights have expired how is the stated goal of "promoting the progress of science" met?
Either build and use or build and sell publicly what you have said patent application for within a designated period of time (perhaps 3-5 years) or you lose the rights to the application and any chance of it getting granted. And what's more, if you apply and follow all the rules correctly your granted patent has a limited life. Perhaps 20 years for hardware and 10 years for software.
Something along the lines of this would stop patent trolls in their tracks, would help stop powerful companies using patents as a weapon, and I think this would also help to make clear patent law, even to the layperson.
I agree. Use it or lose it within 5 years or so after patent is granted. As long as you make a product using the patent, it won't expire.
Part of me agrees but then I think this will just lead to myriads of rushed 0.0.1 release products with the express intention of just being first on the block with a trivial and useless device that then only succeeds because they can sue everybody following on with the real deal. Actually, that sounds pretty much where we are now - only worse.
Yes, the bar has to be set somewhere, but must it be set so high that smaller and less resourced companies have to act like amateurish opportunists in a race to beat the clock, then wrestle mega-corps in the courts to defend true innovation whilst vultures circle looking for rich pickings? Again, this sounds pretty much like the situation today - only worse.
Sorry, but time is your only ally. Funding helps but there are never ever, enough truly-productive, fundamental problem-solving days in a year for smaller companies. Larger companies face incrementally bigger restraints.
If 5 years is it, then there must be a mechanism by which a smaller company can top-up, its protection, if they can demonstrate some further, valuable, IP that 'builds' on the initial work. If you cannot and you don't have a releasable product...then you lose it.
The first part of the sentence speaks to why they will offer intellectual property protection, guaranteed by the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and the useful arts"
And to do that they will allow:
"securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. "
That second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the rationale behind allowing patents. It depends on the first half for it's reason to extend that protection in the first place.
EDIT: I forgot to add that naturally I read your link. I read everything I come across for the most part. I'm wondering if you read it any further than the first paragraph. If you did you why do you think tems like "advance the arts", "promote progress" and "admit the people at large, after a short interval, to the full possession and enjoyment of all writings and inventions without restraint".
A patent comes with twofold benefits. First, it provides the inventor(s) or owner(s) with a time-limited monopoly that in turn receives the backing of law for protection from theft or infringement. Second, "society" (however you choose to define that word) benefits from the expiration of the patent at the end of it's time-limited term. It then becomes essentially "free" for any individual or business to use.
Now let's look at the 'opposite of a patent'. An inventor may discover some process or invention or create code that is so valuable that even the application of a patent for their invention could be financially disadvantageous to them. (Examples: Coca-Cola's drink formula, Google's search algorithm.) In both cases, there is no dissemination of knowledge to the public, there are no others who may take advantage of patent information... Just some examples of "property" that are somewhat ephemeral, are not patents, yet have incredible value.
Quote:
If the patent is never used for producing but instead acts to prevent industry from benefitting from discoveries until it's ownership rights have expired how is the stated goal of "promoting the progress of science" met?
Since patents are property, they are free to be used in accordance with the wishes of their owner. If you are an inventor trying to figure out a way around an existing technology or patent, you would directly be advancing technology in so doing, REGARDLESS of whether or not the existing patent is used in a way which you happen to disagree.
Yesterday and today on different threads I mentioned that I think the days of active patent filing and most importantly protection are numbered, and not seen as being worth the trouble to defend even if you're 100% correct. The Apple vs. Samsung case(es) have led to this.
The fallout and so called fact discovery process leading to internal operations being laid open for the public to peruse and tear apart at will; the brand taking a major hit due to so very many people not understanding the process nor the patents; even more people that should have the sense to understand why there are patents in the first place and refuse to support them for whatever reason... leads me to believe that even Apple is throwing up it's hands and asking "why should we ever go through with this again"? What did it gain in the end and what was it's ROI, other than to satisfy an egocentric geniuses desire for revenge? Was this really "good for Apple"?
I supported SJ and Apple in just about everything they have ever done, even when they (to me) were obvious mistakes afterwards. I think we're all expected to learn from our mistakes or times when things didn't go as planned. This is one of those times to reassess, and try not to repeat the past, regardless of right and wrong.
It's a free-for-all out there and the courts and Wall Street are justifying theft. Hunker down, make the best products money can buy, and continue to stay focused on improving them and innovating/creating new ones. This is a fight (patents) that is rigged and can't be won... so don't play it.
If the courts had applied justice, none of this would be an issue. As a result of the court's refusal to apply justice, Samsung has shown that stealing works. What you propose is that innovation is worthless. Truly, we live in an abhorrent age.
A patent comes with twofold benefits. First, it provides the inventor(s) or owner(s) with a time-limited monopoly that in turn receives the backing of law for protection from theft or infringement. Second, "society" (however you choose to define that word) benefits from the expiration of the patent at the end of it's time-limited term. It then becomes essentially "free" for any individual or business to use.
Now let's look at the 'opposite of a patent'. An inventor may discover some process or invention or create code that is so valuable that even the application of a patent for their invention could be financially disadvantageous to them. (Examples: Coca-Cola's drink formula, Google's search algorithm.) In both cases, there is no dissemination of knowledge to the public, there are no others who may take advantage of patent information... <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Just some examples of "property" that are somewhat ephemeral, are not patents, yet have incredible value.</span>
Since patents are property, they are free to be used in accordance with the wishes of their owner. If you are an inventor trying to figure out a way around an existing technology or patent, you would directly be advancing technology in so doing, REGARDLESS of whether or not the existing patent is used in a way which you happen to disagree.
In the first paragraph you say patents are simply a license to a monopoly. In the last one you claim it's property, presumably similar to any other and with the same rights. Actually you had it right the first time IMO:
A patent is at it's heart just a temporary government granted monopoly over an original invention or design and not a piece of property with full rights of ownership. That's the way the founders considered them, drawn from British law based on the doc you linked earlier. (see section 1147) If as you believe it is truly a piece of property that the owner has full and complete control of to do with as he wishes then under what authority does the government take those rights away after a short period of time? The power to seize private property is very limited, and rightly so. No, a patent is more akin to a license, in this case to a monopoly right to practice, than a piece of property. That's where the right to limit the term comes from.
If the courts had applied justice, none of this would be an issue. As a result of the court's refusal to apply justice, Samsung has shown that stealing works. What you propose is that innovation is worthless. Truly, we live in an abhorrent age.
No... I'm not proposing it. See your first line, "If the courts had applied justice". I'm bowing to reality and throwing up my hands in despair and disgust.
As I understand it at this point, a judge will be making that determination. How can that be? If Apple doesn't want to license their IP and sets a price that is prohibitive for that very reason, how can a company just steal it and then have a judge decide how much it is worth after the fact?
If you make an offer to purchase my car, and I refuse or set a "priceless" tag due to what ever reason I want to (maybe I procreated the first time in the back seat) should a judge determine the value of the car AFTER you decide to just steal it? Should the judge apply the principle that 1000's (millions?) of cars have been used for the very same purpose thru out history of the automobile, and determine my "priceless tag" is worth no more than a few cents? Reasoning being that "backseats" are a "standard" and not wanting to inconvenience the competition or you to install bucket seats in the back... which BTW... I could care less, but not in MY CAR!
Fact also remains that I do NOT want to sell my car or even rent it to you, and I believe I should have that right. You owe me for stealing the car and depriving me of using it to further my Mid-life Crisis Therapy at my leisure... which again... I deem "priceless"... but would still like to be compensated so that no one else gets the stupid idea you had to just steal it.
So let that be a warning to y'all: keep your hands off of my car!
PS. I don't have the slightest idea where I came up with this analogy......?!... but you did mention, "Truly, we live in an abhorrent age" and I was transported back to a far simpler time of my life... :smokey:
EDIT: BTW... the backseat was standard, but the tiger-print upholstery in my school colors was definitely unique (allbeit corny!)... and an ice-breaker. Innovation comes from the most mundane and apparently stupid and obvious ideas.
No... I'm not proposing it. See your first line, "If the courts had applied justice". I'm bowing to reality and throwing up my hands in despair and disgust.
As I understand it at this point, a judge will be making that determination. How can that be? If Apple doesn't want to license their IP and sets a price that is prohibitive for that very reason, how can a company just steal it and then have a judge decide how much it is worth after the fact?
If you make an offer to purchase my car, and I refuse or set a "priceless" tag due to what ever reason I want to (maybe I procreated the first time in the back seat) should a judge determine the value of the car AFTER you decide to just steal it? Should the judge apply the principle that 1000's (millions?) of cars have been used for the very same purpose thru out history of the automobile, and determine my "priceless tag" is worth no more than a few cents? Reasoning being that "backseats" are a "standard" and not wanting to inconvenience the competition or you to install bucket seats in the back... which BTW... I could care less, but not in MY CAR!
Fact also remains that I do NOT want to sell my car or even rent it to you, and I believe I should have that right. You owe me for stealing the car and depriving me of using it to further my Mid-life Crisis Therapy at my leisure... which again... I deem "priceless"... but would still like to be compensated so that no one else gets the stupid idea you had to just steal it.
So let that be a warning to y'all: keep your hands off of my car!
PS. I don't have the slightest idea where I came up with this analogy......?!... but you did mention, "Truly, we live in an abhorrent age" and I was transported back to a far simpler time of my life... :smokey:
EDIT: BTW... the backseat was standard, but the tiger-print upholstery in my school colors was definitely unique (allbeit corny!)... and an ice-breaker. Innovation comes from the most mundane and apparently stupid and obvious ideas.
Nice reply! I did in fact initially think you were throwing your hands up in disgust, but you were being quite logical about it, so I misinterpreted your tone. Thanks for the clarification.
The licensing issue is ridiculous, isn't it? Why should Apple be forced to licence? Samsung should pay a prohibitive penalty and have the infringing devices banned.
Nice reply! I did in fact initially think you were throwing your hands up in disgust, but you were being quite logical about it, so I misinterpreted your tone. Thanks for the clarification.
The licensing issue is ridiculous, isn't it? Why should Apple be forced to licence? Samsung should pay a prohibitive penalty and have the infringing devices banned.
To tell you the truth, it's not the patents that I'm most concerned with. No one understands them, least of all the average consumer. They just want something "like an iPhone/iPad" and in most cases (mine experience anyway) don't have the wherewithal to pay for the privilege. We ARE in an instant gratification society whether we like it or not.
However, it was the first trial (and the one in England) over Trade Dress that really has me ticked. Because Samsung straight-up cloned the iPhone (and later the iPad) visuals to cheat and mislead consumers... the very people that the courts are saying they are protecting in this trial over the patents. That's just plain BS... or at least the different courts haven't synchronized their argumentation yet.
The first trial should have called for forfeiting of all income derived from the devices that were found to violate Apple's trade dress, and any other devices on the market confiscated and destroyed. This is what they do in other industries like fashion... why not with technology?
That would have woken up the industry really fast, and we would be on our way (hopefully) to meaningful reform rather than discussing this childish "I was first; that's not worth anything; just rounded-corners and simple hyperlinks; I-was-thinking-about-this-on-the-toilet-in-'95"... um... crap!
You might enjoy my recent post of what I see happening behind the scenes if this... um... crap... doesn't get sorted out but soon.
let's see, YOU spend money developing software, then try to sell it (yourself or to the market), and GOD help you if it doesn't sell to the market because then you have to try to resell it to someone, ANYONE who will buy it and then they will sell it in the marketplace. See how fast you change your minds about IP law. See how fast you go running to companies to BUY your software!
Either build and use or build and sell publicly what you have said patent application for within a designated period of time (perhaps 3-5 years) or you lose the rights to the application and any chance of it getting granted. And what's more, if you apply and follow all the rules correctly your granted patent has a limited life. Perhaps 20 years for hardware and 10 years for software.
Something along the lines of this would stop patent trolls in their tracks, would help stop powerful companies using patents as a weapon, and I think this would also help to make clear patent law, even to the layperson.
I agree. Use it or lose it within 5 years or so after patent is granted. As long as you make a product using the patent, it won't expire.
Why even wait 5 years?
Patents are for implementations not ideas. If the patent holder can't provide a working implementation at the time they sue someone then the patent should be invalid. Given that the group being sued has come up with a working implementation in order to be sued then the idea can't have been very novel in the first place.
Comments
What are you going on about? :err:
The first part of the sentence speaks to why they will offer intellectual property protection, guaranteed by the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and the useful arts"
And to do that they will allow:
"securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. "
That second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the rationale behind allowing patents. It depends on the first half for it's reason to extend that protection in the first place.
EDIT: I forgot to add that naturally I read your link. I read everything I come across for the most part. I'm wondering if you read it any further than the first paragraph. If you did you why do you think tems like "advance the arts", "promote progress" and "admit the people at large, after a short interval, to the full possession and enjoyment of all writings and inventions without restraint".
If the patent is never used for producing but instead acts to prevent industry from benefitting from discoveries until it's ownership rights have expired how is the stated goal of "promoting the progress of science" met?
Part of me agrees but then I think this will just lead to myriads of rushed 0.0.1 release products with the express intention of just being first on the block with a trivial and useless device that then only succeeds because they can sue everybody following on with the real deal. Actually, that sounds pretty much where we are now - only worse.
Yes, the bar has to be set somewhere, but must it be set so high that smaller and less resourced companies have to act like amateurish opportunists in a race to beat the clock, then wrestle mega-corps in the courts to defend true innovation whilst vultures circle looking for rich pickings? Again, this sounds pretty much like the situation today - only worse.
Sorry, but time is your only ally. Funding helps but there are never ever, enough truly-productive, fundamental problem-solving days in a year for smaller companies. Larger companies face incrementally bigger restraints.
If 5 years is it, then there must be a mechanism by which a smaller company can top-up, its protection, if they can demonstrate some further, valuable, IP that 'builds' on the initial work. If you cannot and you don't have a releasable product...then you lose it.
What are you going on about?
The first part of the sentence speaks to why they will offer intellectual property protection, guaranteed by the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and the useful arts"
And to do that they will allow:
"securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. "
That second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the rationale behind allowing patents. It depends on the first half for it's reason to extend that protection in the first place.
EDIT: I forgot to add that naturally I read your link. I read everything I come across for the most part. I'm wondering if you read it any further than the first paragraph. If you did you why do you think tems like "advance the arts", "promote progress" and "admit the people at large, after a short interval, to the full possession and enjoyment of all writings and inventions without restraint".
A patent comes with twofold benefits. First, it provides the inventor(s) or owner(s) with a time-limited monopoly that in turn receives the backing of law for protection from theft or infringement. Second, "society" (however you choose to define that word) benefits from the expiration of the patent at the end of it's time-limited term. It then becomes essentially "free" for any individual or business to use.
Now let's look at the 'opposite of a patent'. An inventor may discover some process or invention or create code that is so valuable that even the application of a patent for their invention could be financially disadvantageous to them. (Examples: Coca-Cola's drink formula, Google's search algorithm.) In both cases, there is no dissemination of knowledge to the public, there are no others who may take advantage of patent information... Just some examples of "property" that are somewhat ephemeral, are not patents, yet have incredible value.
Since patents are property, they are free to be used in accordance with the wishes of their owner. If you are an inventor trying to figure out a way around an existing technology or patent, you would directly be advancing technology in so doing, REGARDLESS of whether or not the existing patent is used in a way which you happen to disagree.
If the courts had applied justice, none of this would be an issue. As a result of the court's refusal to apply justice, Samsung has shown that stealing works. What you propose is that innovation is worthless. Truly, we live in an abhorrent age.
In the first paragraph you say patents are simply a license to a monopoly. In the last one you claim it's property, presumably similar to any other and with the same rights. Actually you had it right the first time IMO:
A patent is at it's heart just a temporary government granted monopoly over an original invention or design and not a piece of property with full rights of ownership. That's the way the founders considered them, drawn from British law based on the doc you linked earlier. (see section 1147) If as you believe it is truly a piece of property that the owner has full and complete control of to do with as he wishes then under what authority does the government take those rights away after a short period of time? The power to seize private property is very limited, and rightly so. No, a patent is more akin to a license, in this case to a monopoly right to practice, than a piece of property. That's where the right to limit the term comes from.
No... I'm not proposing it. See your first line, "If the courts had applied justice". I'm bowing to reality and throwing up my hands in despair and disgust.
On this recent thread Florian Mueller backs Samsung legal strategy of trivializing Apple's technology, it is being debated how much worth the current patents Apple is suing over should be.
As I understand it at this point, a judge will be making that determination. How can that be? If Apple doesn't want to license their IP and sets a price that is prohibitive for that very reason, how can a company just steal it and then have a judge decide how much it is worth after the fact?
If you make an offer to purchase my car, and I refuse or set a "priceless" tag due to what ever reason I want to (maybe I procreated the first time in the back seat) should a judge determine the value of the car AFTER you decide to just steal it? Should the judge apply the principle that 1000's (millions?) of cars have been used for the very same purpose thru out history of the automobile, and determine my "priceless tag" is worth no more than a few cents? Reasoning being that "backseats" are a "standard" and not wanting to inconvenience the competition or you to install bucket seats in the back... which BTW... I could care less, but not in MY CAR!
Fact also remains that I do NOT want to sell my car or even rent it to you, and I believe I should have that right. You owe me for stealing the car and depriving me of using it to further my Mid-life Crisis Therapy at my leisure... which again... I deem "priceless"... but would still like to be compensated so that no one else gets the stupid idea you had to just steal it.
So let that be a warning to y'all: keep your hands off of my car!
PS. I don't have the slightest idea where I came up with this analogy......?!... but you did mention, "Truly, we live in an abhorrent age" and I was transported back to a far simpler time of my life... :smokey:
EDIT: BTW... the backseat was standard, but the tiger-print upholstery in my school colors was definitely unique (allbeit corny!)... and an ice-breaker. Innovation comes from the most mundane and apparently stupid and obvious ideas.
Nice reply! I did in fact initially think you were throwing your hands up in disgust, but you were being quite logical about it, so I misinterpreted your tone. Thanks for the clarification.
The licensing issue is ridiculous, isn't it? Why should Apple be forced to licence? Samsung should pay a prohibitive penalty and have the infringing devices banned.
To tell you the truth, it's not the patents that I'm most concerned with. No one understands them, least of all the average consumer. They just want something "like an iPhone/iPad" and in most cases (mine experience anyway) don't have the wherewithal to pay for the privilege. We ARE in an instant gratification society whether we like it or not.
However, it was the first trial (and the one in England) over Trade Dress that really has me ticked. Because Samsung straight-up cloned the iPhone (and later the iPad) visuals to cheat and mislead consumers... the very people that the courts are saying they are protecting in this trial over the patents. That's just plain BS... or at least the different courts haven't synchronized their argumentation yet.
The first trial should have called for forfeiting of all income derived from the devices that were found to violate Apple's trade dress, and any other devices on the market confiscated and destroyed. This is what they do in other industries like fashion... why not with technology?
That would have woken up the industry really fast, and we would be on our way (hopefully) to meaningful reform rather than discussing this childish "I was first; that's not worth anything; just rounded-corners and simple hyperlinks; I-was-thinking-about-this-on-the-toilet-in-'95"... um... crap!
You might enjoy my recent post of what I see happening behind the scenes if this... um... crap... doesn't get sorted out but soon.
Patents are for implementations not ideas. If the patent holder can't provide a working implementation at the time they sue someone then the patent should be invalid. Given that the group being sued has come up with a working implementation in order to be sued then the idea can't have been very novel in the first place.