But what people don't understand about the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert.
Sorry but I would strongly disagree that one of the purposes to be served by patents is to impede progress, which is all that patenting a process, describing it as broadly as possible, never intending to incorporate it and preventing others from doing so too accomplishes. I cannot believe you can't understand that.
In addition you keep insisting that a government license to a limited term monopoly is actually property like any other. It is not.
You mistake what the term progress means. It doesn't mean that everyone who wants to can use a patent that another has gotten. Progress means that someone will find a way around that patent—eventually, or that the patent will expire.
Some people think that progress needs to come on a daily basis. That's not correct. It can take years, or decades. We don't "deserve" progress as some think. Progress happens because there are people who work on making it so. But it happens in fits and starts. It's not a smooth curve.
Google has stated publicly, that they should be allowed to use anyone's technology they want to, because those other companies who invented those technologies are impeding progress, while Google, who invented none of it, was in fact, innovating. That's a real joke! They didn't even deny using those technologies. They just felt they have a right to them.
Yes, and you should have expanded upon my comment.
I've expanded on some of the same points as you a half a dozen times or more over the past few days. The posts gets talked around but not directly addressed for the most part. My guess is they include inconvenient questions. I think you and I are more on the same page.
They already do this in house. Staff accessing certain apps on their iPads can choose to use their typed password or a gesture.
So don't brush off that they might include this as an option. Especially as slide to unlock is a different part of the game, so what happens with it is moot.
You mistake what the term progress means. It doesn't mean that everyone who wants to can use a patent that another has gotten. Progress means that someone will find a way around that patent—eventually, or that the patent will expire.
Some people think that progress needs to come on a daily basis. That's not correct. It can take years, or decades. We don't "deserve" progress as some think. Progress happens because there are people who work on making it so. But it happens in fits and starts. It's not a smooth curve.
Google has stated publicly, that they should be allowed to use anyone's technology they want to, because those other companies who invented those technologies are impeding progress, while Google, who invented none of it, was in fact, innovating. That's a real joke! They didn't even deny using those technologies. They just felt they have a right to them.
What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?:rolleyes:
So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.
I've expanded on some of the same points as you a half a dozen times or more over the past few days. The posts gets talked around but not directly addressed for the most part. My guess is they include inconvenient questions. I think you and I are more on the same page.
I just wanted you to say something here about what you thought about my comment, not to link to other posts. It would have been easier to just explain your thoughts. I'm curious about your direct thinking about what I said. These posts are nice, and I read a number of them when first posted, but it's not what I meant.
I just wanted you to say something here about what you thought about my comment, not to link to other posts. It would have been easier to just explain your thoughts. I'm curious about your direct thinking about what I said. These posts are nice, and I read a number of them when first posted, but it's not what I meant.
Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.
FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=1
That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."
With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?
What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?:rolleyes:
So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.
It was the implication of your response that led me to believe that. If I'm wrong in that, I'm happy to be. I've read too many posts on too many sites from people who believe just that.
What I believe is that the founders knew very well that patents must be owned by the inventor, or an entity that the inventor sets up or sells to. In doing that, they gave that inventor sole rights to decide what to do with that patent, which includes licensing to all, licensing to some, using it himself and not licensing it, or not using it al all, in any way, including not licensing it. They were aware of the consequences of those rules.
But, the factor that is so important here is in the public nature of patents. Before patents became important, guilds owned inventions around Europe and the colonies. They kept every factor of their work secret. It took years before an apprentice was allowed to know these secrets, and the penalty for disclosure was severe, often including murder. This kept Europe from advancing for quite some time.
When patents began to come into play, that is, patents that weren't a Crown given monopoly business, but rather for inventions, it changed everything. Now, information about inventions were no longer the property of guilds, but the public. With it being public, anyone could look at the invention, the plans, schematics, or whatever else was there. By doing so, they could figure out if they wanted to license it, if a license were available, or attempt to work around it.
This ability to see the invention and be encouraged to work around it is what gives the public progress. Before, the guilds had little need to progress, as they owned the technology, and anyone who needed it would pay dearly for the results, but not the technology itself, normally. Therefor, often, technology didn't advance for centuries.
It also didn't expire, obviously. Today, we still have some remainder of those old days with trade secrets. They never expire. So a company could invent something, and if that invention's methods could be kept secret, then no one could figure it out. Doesn't work as well today, of course.
But not licensing an invention while not using it, and not licensing it while using it is little different. If Apple used this tech, let us say, and didn't license it, then Google, and others still couldn't use it. No change there, which is why it's so curious that some people think that this is any different than any other case in licensing. It's not.
People who think that companies spend millions or more on inventing things specifically to keep from other companies are watching too many movies. That doesn't happen. It's hard enough inventing things you think you do need, at the time, at least. But even if you don't use it, why should you license it to others? It's not a company's business to worry about overall progress, when that progress is just playing around, and is nothing really significant.
Progress isn't one thing or the other, it's the gestalt of everything that happens in the arts, technology, science, language, etc. thinking that not licensing a patent that isn't being used is halting, or slowing progress, isn't credible.
Our government was interested in making a better life for its citizens, competing with the UK, and hoping that the future would be better than the present. To a large extent, they succeeded. Nothing is perfect though.
Remember that they wanted to encourage learning and the arts as well, which is why the public library system exists.
We have to be careful to balance the rights of the patent owners and the public. I'm always for that. My old company had 43 patents, and we needed to defend some twice. When we sold the company, those patents moved to the new company, which particularly wanted them. Since patents expire, unless the owner can addendum them, all is not lost. But as I said earlier, we think progress needs to happen daily, which is not the case. So many things that seem ever so far away get here, and then the wait is forgotten.
Considering how much longer we live today than in 1800, 20 years is a much shorter period of our lifetimes. If they could wait back then, we can wait today.
I find that most people understand little of the patent system. There is nothing wrong with the patent system in theory. The problems we're seeing these days is that there are so many patents applied for that the system can't keep up. If certain administrations didn't cut the funding so much, the problem wouldn't be as great as it is now.
The other problem is that much of the easy stuff has already been invented in many fields. So now, we get the far more complex stuff to be patented. With the underfunded department, examiners are overworked, and so mistakes are more common. I imagine they have some schedule they need to meet. And as patents become more complex, it's easier to make a mistake in the examination, and possibly grant something that shouldn't have been granted.
In addition, it's far more difficult now to look up a relevant patent than it ever was. So it's easier to grant something that may, in similar form, have already been granted.
The administration doesn't care if there are patent conflicts. They want as many patents as possible. The more conflicts the better. Patent fees generate a pretty good revenue stream but the patent review fees are upwards of $12-20K when there is a challenge. It is not their job to determine if a patent application might be in conflict at the time of application. They let the patent holders and the courts decide. The USPTO is probably one of the few government departments that actually makes a profit.
Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.
FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=1
That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."
With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?
I just posted an answer to you other post which, hopefully helps.
But I don't believe that the courts opinion means exactly what you are promoting. First of all, a patent, by it's very nature, can't hide anything from the public. Trade secrets can, and do.
But not licensing something that isn't being used by the owner really doesn't fit the description by the court. And even if it did, the court decision is never the final word, because the court often reverses itself in later years, at least partly. So, at best, a temporary decision is made. We've seen a lot of reversals made in recent years about almost every area of society, even those that we thought were settled.
Never the less, I will still insist that companies don't have people inventing things that they don't intend to use, and don't intend to license. Well, I suppose it may happen somewhere, but it's certainly not a business method. However, if a company investigates a line, and comes out with a patentable invention, but the company has moved past the point where it will serve them, they may put that invention aside, and not license it. I think that's valid. If the founders believed as you do, they would have required all patents to be used or licensed, and they didn't. They were, however, very specific in stating that the patent owner had exclusive rights to the distribution of that patent, including no distribution, which follows from that.
Also, most patents are of interest to no one other than the patent holder, so this doesn't come up as often as you may think. And it's fairly easy to have an approximate work-around to many patents. It may not be quite as good, or efficient, but it will work. And if not, then in a few years, the patent will expire.
Back to progress. Progress has to be measured over some reasonable span of time, decades is usually a minimum time, centuries is more common.
Considering that most patents are relatively trivial, such as the ones concerning "feel", I don't see why anyone is getting upset about it.
The administration doesn't care if there are patent conflicts. They want as many patents as possible. The more conflicts the better. Patent fees generate a pretty good revenue stream but the patent review fees are upwards of $12-20K when there is a challenge. It is not their job to determine if a patent application might be in conflict at the time of application. They let the patent holders and the courts decide. The USPTO is probably one of the few government departments that actually makes a profit.
Never the less, I will still insist that companies don't have people inventing things that they don't intend to use, and don't intend to license. Well, I suppose it may happen somewhere, but it's certainly not a business method. However, if a company investigates a line, and comes out with a patentable invention, but the company has moved past the point where it will serve them, they may put that invention aside, and not license it. I think that's valid. If the founders believed as you do, they would have required all patents to be used or licensed, and they didn't. They were, however, very specific in stating that the patent owner had exclusive rights to the distribution of that patent, including no distribution, which follows from that.
And just like that we're back in agreement. That's exactly what I pointed out in posts 6 and 14. Apple at some point considered using at least some of the patents claims. Their intent was not to simply block competitors and the public by filing one.
The reason patents are written in such a way as to be as vague as possible is so that it is nearly impossible to determine if they are in conflict or not and to provide a legal advantage if someone else patents something similar. If the patent office had to guarantee that there were no conflicts at the time of application, they would be sued by thousands of patent holders and applicants if any of their patents were challenged or refused. Besides, patents contribute to what makes America great. People invest in research and new inventions, create new technology which creates jobs, tax revenue, and increased gdp. Why wouldn't the USPTO want more patents?
What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?
So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.
When you have a few minutes Mel read thru this and let me know your personal opinion of the authors views.
You keep paraphrasing that entire paragraph from the Constitution and you've repeatedly insisted that your 'to "promote progress"' spiel is the entire intent, when it clearly is not.
Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.
FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts."
That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."
With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?
You are misquoting the Copyright Clause from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The most important part of that quotation is the "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right..." part, because private property is an American right. A right... not a suggestion.
You are misquoting the Copyright Clause from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The most important part of that quotation is the "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right..." part, because private property is an American right. A right... not a suggestion.
Exactly per description. It's more a license not property. That's why it expires, unlike ownership of private property. If you insist on thinking of it as property then you should consider it a lease of property actually belonging to the public, the lease document being the patent.
It's more a license not property. That's why it expires, unlike ownership of private property. If you insist on referring to it as property then you should consider it a lease of property that will end up belonging to the people.
It is in fact property, as I continue to note, because the author/inventor of the property in question is free to apply for a patent or not. If they apply for and receive a patent, they receive the financial or other legal benefits associated with patent ownership. If they choose not to apply for a patent, they give up a number of the legal protections available to patent holders, but they also retain their exclusive knowledge which may be competitively advantageous (so long as that knowledge is not developed in parallel by another party who may subsequently choose to apply for a patent...and in that case, the existence of well-documented secret information could conceivably be used to invalidate a patent. That part is debatable since the US changed to "first to file" status).
Having said all that, you may dislike the notion that a company could ever be granted patents that might "fence in" a competitor. I assure you that some individuals/companies do nothing but this all day, but it is nothing to fear or be so concerned that the entire USPTO should be burned to the ground to satisfy the baying of tech pundits (or shills paid to appear as if they were "normal" members of the public).
It is in fact property, as I continue to note, because the author/inventor of the property in question is free to apply for a patent or not.
You're free to apply for a driver's license or not. Does that make it property too? Both have specific requirements and several conditions to meet before getting one and both are term-limited. Sure walks more like a license, talks more like a license. . .
Of course a liquor license might be even more comparable. You can transfer those. Thank goodness you can't do that with a DL.
Comments
This^
You mistake what the term progress means. It doesn't mean that everyone who wants to can use a patent that another has gotten. Progress means that someone will find a way around that patent—eventually, or that the patent will expire.
Some people think that progress needs to come on a daily basis. That's not correct. It can take years, or decades. We don't "deserve" progress as some think. Progress happens because there are people who work on making it so. But it happens in fits and starts. It's not a smooth curve.
Google has stated publicly, that they should be allowed to use anyone's technology they want to, because those other companies who invented those technologies are impeding progress, while Google, who invented none of it, was in fact, innovating. That's a real joke! They didn't even deny using those technologies. They just felt they have a right to them.
Yes, and you should have expanded upon my comment.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178184/apple-opts-out-of-latest-patent-acquisition-fund-from-intellectual-ventures#post_2514704
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178184/apple-opts-out-of-latest-patent-acquisition-fund-from-intellectual-ventures#post_2514841
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178184/apple-opts-out-of-latest-patent-acquisition-fund-from-intellectual-ventures/40#post_2514972
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178204/samsung-calls-on-android-exec-in-patent-trial-to-prove-certain-features-were-created-by-google-not-apple/40#post_2515480
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178184/apple-opts-out-of-latest-patent-acquisition-fund-from-intellectual-ventures/40#post_2515631
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178500/apple-tech-uses-wi-fi-access-points-for-indoor-navigation-3d-positioning#post_2516878
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178204/samsung-calls-on-android-exec-in-patent-trial-to-prove-certain-features-were-created-by-google-not-apple/40#post_2515383
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178204/samsung-calls-on-android-exec-in-patent-trial-to-prove-certain-features-were-created-by-google-not-apple/40#post_2515335
So don't brush off that they might include this as an option. Especially as slide to unlock is a different part of the game, so what happens with it is moot.
What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?:rolleyes:
So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.
When you have a few minutes Mel read thru this and let me know your personal opinion of the authors views.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/progress.html
I just wanted you to say something here about what you thought about my comment, not to link to other posts. It would have been easier to just explain your thoughts. I'm curious about your direct thinking about what I said. These posts are nice, and I read a number of them when first posted, but it's not what I meant.
Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.
FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=1
That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."
With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?
It was the implication of your response that led me to believe that. If I'm wrong in that, I'm happy to be. I've read too many posts on too many sites from people who believe just that.
What I believe is that the founders knew very well that patents must be owned by the inventor, or an entity that the inventor sets up or sells to. In doing that, they gave that inventor sole rights to decide what to do with that patent, which includes licensing to all, licensing to some, using it himself and not licensing it, or not using it al all, in any way, including not licensing it. They were aware of the consequences of those rules.
But, the factor that is so important here is in the public nature of patents. Before patents became important, guilds owned inventions around Europe and the colonies. They kept every factor of their work secret. It took years before an apprentice was allowed to know these secrets, and the penalty for disclosure was severe, often including murder. This kept Europe from advancing for quite some time.
When patents began to come into play, that is, patents that weren't a Crown given monopoly business, but rather for inventions, it changed everything. Now, information about inventions were no longer the property of guilds, but the public. With it being public, anyone could look at the invention, the plans, schematics, or whatever else was there. By doing so, they could figure out if they wanted to license it, if a license were available, or attempt to work around it.
This ability to see the invention and be encouraged to work around it is what gives the public progress. Before, the guilds had little need to progress, as they owned the technology, and anyone who needed it would pay dearly for the results, but not the technology itself, normally. Therefor, often, technology didn't advance for centuries.
It also didn't expire, obviously. Today, we still have some remainder of those old days with trade secrets. They never expire. So a company could invent something, and if that invention's methods could be kept secret, then no one could figure it out. Doesn't work as well today, of course.
But not licensing an invention while not using it, and not licensing it while using it is little different. If Apple used this tech, let us say, and didn't license it, then Google, and others still couldn't use it. No change there, which is why it's so curious that some people think that this is any different than any other case in licensing. It's not.
People who think that companies spend millions or more on inventing things specifically to keep from other companies are watching too many movies. That doesn't happen. It's hard enough inventing things you think you do need, at the time, at least. But even if you don't use it, why should you license it to others? It's not a company's business to worry about overall progress, when that progress is just playing around, and is nothing really significant.
Progress isn't one thing or the other, it's the gestalt of everything that happens in the arts, technology, science, language, etc. thinking that not licensing a patent that isn't being used is halting, or slowing progress, isn't credible.
Our government was interested in making a better life for its citizens, competing with the UK, and hoping that the future would be better than the present. To a large extent, they succeeded. Nothing is perfect though.
Remember that they wanted to encourage learning and the arts as well, which is why the public library system exists.
We have to be careful to balance the rights of the patent owners and the public. I'm always for that. My old company had 43 patents, and we needed to defend some twice. When we sold the company, those patents moved to the new company, which particularly wanted them. Since patents expire, unless the owner can addendum them, all is not lost. But as I said earlier, we think progress needs to happen daily, which is not the case. So many things that seem ever so far away get here, and then the wait is forgotten.
Considering how much longer we live today than in 1800, 20 years is a much shorter period of our lifetimes. If they could wait back then, we can wait today.
I find that most people understand little of the patent system. There is nothing wrong with the patent system in theory. The problems we're seeing these days is that there are so many patents applied for that the system can't keep up. If certain administrations didn't cut the funding so much, the problem wouldn't be as great as it is now.
The other problem is that much of the easy stuff has already been invented in many fields. So now, we get the far more complex stuff to be patented. With the underfunded department, examiners are overworked, and so mistakes are more common. I imagine they have some schedule they need to meet. And as patents become more complex, it's easier to make a mistake in the examination, and possibly grant something that shouldn't have been granted.
In addition, it's far more difficult now to look up a relevant patent than it ever was. So it's easier to grant something that may, in similar form, have already been granted.
The administration doesn't care if there are patent conflicts. They want as many patents as possible. The more conflicts the better. Patent fees generate a pretty good revenue stream but the patent review fees are upwards of $12-20K when there is a challenge. It is not their job to determine if a patent application might be in conflict at the time of application. They let the patent holders and the courts decide. The USPTO is probably one of the few government departments that actually makes a profit.
I just posted an answer to you other post which, hopefully helps.
But I don't believe that the courts opinion means exactly what you are promoting. First of all, a patent, by it's very nature, can't hide anything from the public. Trade secrets can, and do.
But not licensing something that isn't being used by the owner really doesn't fit the description by the court. And even if it did, the court decision is never the final word, because the court often reverses itself in later years, at least partly. So, at best, a temporary decision is made. We've seen a lot of reversals made in recent years about almost every area of society, even those that we thought were settled.
Never the less, I will still insist that companies don't have people inventing things that they don't intend to use, and don't intend to license. Well, I suppose it may happen somewhere, but it's certainly not a business method. However, if a company investigates a line, and comes out with a patentable invention, but the company has moved past the point where it will serve them, they may put that invention aside, and not license it. I think that's valid. If the founders believed as you do, they would have required all patents to be used or licensed, and they didn't. They were, however, very specific in stating that the patent owner had exclusive rights to the distribution of that patent, including no distribution, which follows from that.
Also, most patents are of interest to no one other than the patent holder, so this doesn't come up as often as you may think. And it's fairly easy to have an approximate work-around to many patents. It may not be quite as good, or efficient, but it will work. And if not, then in a few years, the patent will expire.
Back to progress. Progress has to be measured over some reasonable span of time, decades is usually a minimum time, centuries is more common.
Considering that most patents are relatively trivial, such as the ones concerning "feel", I don't see why anyone is getting upset about it.
Ah, no. I can't possibly agree with that.
And just like that we're back in agreement. That's exactly what I pointed out in posts 6 and 14. Apple at some point considered using at least some of the patents claims. Their intent was not to simply block competitors and the public by filing one.
The reason patents are written in such a way as to be as vague as possible is so that it is nearly impossible to determine if they are in conflict or not and to provide a legal advantage if someone else patents something similar. If the patent office had to guarantee that there were no conflicts at the time of application, they would be sued by thousands of patent holders and applicants if any of their patents were challenged or refused. Besides, patents contribute to what makes America great. People invest in research and new inventions, create new technology which creates jobs, tax revenue, and increased gdp. Why wouldn't the USPTO want more patents?
What?? How did you read that understanding as mine from anything i actually wrote?
So my question to you sir would be what did the founders mean when the rationale they offered for patents is to "promote progress". How does impeding it by blocking access to a solution you have no intention of incorporating yourself nor allowing anyone else to either by sale or license fit with that goal? The founders don't say that everyone has a right to use it for free. That's a red herring. On the contrary they specify that the creator of the invention/writing be entitled to reap the fruits of their creativity for an appropriate time, a limited license to a monopoly, but still for the benefit of the common good. I believe that's a point you made prior to this particular post.
When you have a few minutes Mel read thru this and let me know your personal opinion of the authors views.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/progress.html
You keep paraphrasing that entire paragraph from the Constitution and you've repeatedly insisted that your 'to "promote progress"' spiel is the entire intent, when it clearly is not.
Not entirely sure what you meant then, or whether we're in disagreement on any of the other posts I linked.
FWIW I don't believe the intent of the Patent and Copyright Clause was to make the advances from invention and innovation unavailable to the public. IMO patenting an implementation of an idea simply to keep it from being utilized is a result of greed being judged more important than the progress of the art to improve the human condition. That's a view held even by the Supreme Court who opined in Graham v. John Deere in 1966 that patents should not be granted "without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby" or "whose effects are to remove information from the public domain or to restrict free access to materials already available." In general SCOTUS wrote the the US patent system must "promote the Progress of...useful Arts."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=1
That's similar to the point I thought you were trying to make when you said "the concept of patents is that it's supposed to be for the public good AND the patent owner's good. The two must act in concert. Once one has more power over the other, they system fails."
With your comments in Post 23 now I'm not sure just what your intent was. Could you clarify?
You are misquoting the Copyright Clause from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The most important part of that quotation is the "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right..." part, because private property is an American right. A right... not a suggestion.
It's more a license not property. That's why it expires, unlike ownership of private property. If you insist on referring to it as property then you should consider it a lease of property that will end up belonging to the people.
It is in fact property, as I continue to note, because the author/inventor of the property in question is free to apply for a patent or not. If they apply for and receive a patent, they receive the financial or other legal benefits associated with patent ownership. If they choose not to apply for a patent, they give up a number of the legal protections available to patent holders, but they also retain their exclusive knowledge which may be competitively advantageous (so long as that knowledge is not developed in parallel by another party who may subsequently choose to apply for a patent...and in that case, the existence of well-documented secret information could conceivably be used to invalidate a patent. That part is debatable since the US changed to "first to file" status).
Having said all that, you may dislike the notion that a company could ever be granted patents that might "fence in" a competitor. I assure you that some individuals/companies do nothing but this all day, but it is nothing to fear or be so concerned that the entire USPTO should be burned to the ground to satisfy the baying of tech pundits (or shills paid to appear as if they were "normal" members of the public).
You're free to apply for a driver's license or not. Does that make it property too? Both have specific requirements and several conditions to meet before getting one and both are term-limited. Sure walks more like a license, talks more like a license. . .
Of course a liquor license might be even more comparable. You can transfer those. Thank goodness you can't do that with a DL.