OSNews

Good! Let them sue each other and let them kill each other off. Sometimes a fire has to run rampent to clear the way for new growth to spring up, and it's about time most of the big tech companies burned.

A cleansing controlled brush fire may help but that's assuming the Gov won't step in and extinguish it with torrents of money.. sort of like the Banks that should have burned themselves out. (did any of the bank executives not get there bonus even though they'd run the industry into the ground?)

this only from skimming news articles... some financial or bailed-out executives gave up their salary (for a year), but kept the other forms of income. i don't think any execs accepted anything near as low as (equivalent of) $20k/yr

Am I the only one who believe there will be no fixing of the patent problem? Even after the eventual Patent War what guarantee is there that things will get fixed?

I don't want to cynical but I mean Patents (and Copyright) have been around a long time and it seems that despite the lack of any evidence (proof, data) of them actually promoting the progress of science and useful arts, even after centuries of their existence, we still have them. You'd think in a free country that by now the laws would be abolished in favor of citizen rights. In fact their scope and terms have only increased.

As much as I hope you are wrong, I think you are right.

The only way I see is that it becomes a really big topic in media and stuff.

the only sure solution that comes to my mind is if 2012 prediction would come true.

although, still someone might sue nature that total world catastrophe is in his intellectual portfolio

such a *novel* idea

No you are not the only one. There just does not seem to be a spark under the pants of the gov't to take a look at this and see what can be done.

foreshadowing ? http://j.mp/b20oCU

If I had to defend the patent system, I'd say that while it's easy to show when it doesn't work, it's hard to show when it actually works. That because patents are supposed to act as a motivation, a hardly measurable data. First for researchers and engineers (because they may get financially rewarded for their work). Second, what's more important, for the executives above them (R&D is a risky investment, patents make it potentially more profitable).

If we got rid of patents altogether, chances are that companies would spend even less money in R&D that they currently do. So maybe just fixing the patent system would be a better idea.

There are many problems in the patent system, and I bet several can be easily fixed.
* People at patent offices have ridiculously short delays to make a decision. A relative who works at the European Patent Office told me that they've got... two days !!! Try to make some serious work in those conditions Obvious fix : longer delays (I think one month is the bare minimum)
* Patents last too long. 20 years was okay for slowly-evolving technology, but several piece of techs today can have an interval of less than 2 years between two releases, and hence 10 generations of products before a patent expires sounds too long. Obvious fix : reduce this to 5 years.
* We award too vague patents. With things like Apple recently patenting a rounded parallelepiped and Allen patenting "browser use for navigating through information", there's clearly something wrong. Sadly, this one sounds difficult to fix, because the concept of "vague" can hardly be translated in legalese, so I don't think we can do anything about it.
* Patents are transferable. This is probably one of the biggest mistake ever made in industry laws. It does nothing to help innovation, and it's the direct source of existence of patent trolls. If a company wants a patent, it should have to hire all the alive inventors of the patented device first Obvious fix : remove this clause from the law.

Edited 2010-08-28 08:40 UTC

A company could still become a patent troll by creating some and then releasing thir R&D staff and just keep the laywers.

I think an important additional rule would be that the patent holder is explicitly required to actually make use of the patented technology within a certain time period, e.g. two years.

Failure to do so should invalidate this patent's protection.

The base idea of patents is to allow inventions to be used for competitive advantage while still having the involved improvement published.
If a patent holder is clearly incapable or unwilling to actually make use of the improvement, they should no longer be allowed to keep others from trying.

DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

By making no other changes to the system than this, we can ensure that patents are used for their intended purpose. No need to even touch the Constitution, as this is completely in line with its intended purpose.

Bad patents are a bug, and this is a simple, elegant fix.

DING DING DING!! We have a winner! By making no other changes to the system than this, we can ensure that patents are used for their intended purpose. No need to even touch the Constitution, as this is completely in line with its intended purpose. Bad patents are a bug, and this is a simple, elegant fix. "

What would you define as a making use? Do you have to have a product, prototype, drawings, research or what? If you have a product, does it have to be competitive or can I sell a quantum computer that can only add 1+1 while I work out the bugs (which may take a few years)

Edited 2010-08-30 16:06 UTC

I imagine that the reason it's hard to show that patents work is because they don't work. Patents are supposed to promote progress, and progress is measurable. There is no historical data suggesting that Patents have increased progress when introduced to countries and industries, however there is some data suggesting that it might have reduced progress.

Of course not; every day the new structuralists working on hammering bills into readability (and often enough, back out) in the capitals get discouraged that way. But then they work against it a bit.

As it is we have no consistent set of laws; but we try to enforce one and encourage people to make decisions they can be happy with. What Paul Allen's doing endorsing an attorney to enforce '90s ebullience (undo my stock un-backdating!) I don't know. All that's missing is the GigaOM pic of Allen saying COMMON SENSE. I OWNZ IT.

You're a joke. IBM patents the concept of patenting the concept of patenting, for every thought they call R&D.

They filed probably 10x more patents, per year than the top 9 following behind them.

Apple's not even close to them. But just keep dreaming it's not true and Apple is the king of patenting.

Then you should have no problem posting a list of all the patent-related litigation that IBM has initiated, along with Apple's list for comparison. Of course we both know that list wouldn't support your Apple apologetics, otherwise you would have already posted it.

http://taylorflatt.instablogs.com/entry/ibm-remains-us-patent-leade...
"IBM, for 16 straight years, has dominated in most patents per year."

Patents != initiating patent-related litigation.

IBM does file the most patents, but they largely use those patents for defensive purposes only.

If IBM ever went belly up, the IP alone would be worth a fortune.

I partly agree with you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708412/quotes

Perhaps he simply wants a "piece of the action."

I don't want to hear anything bad about Microsoft on this matter. If you have a problem with Paul, have a problem with Paul and leave it at that.

Sorry you don't want to hear it, but Microsoft is a major part of the whole patent problem (not just this case specifically). Since the 1980s, they've lobbied hard to bring us this whole rotten software patent system. Microsoft was one of the key companies (but not the only one) that forced software patents onto Japan and Australia. They tried (but fortunately failed) to ram software patents down the throat of the EU. If Microsoft had used its considerable lobbying power to fight software patents (rather than promote them) it's possible this whole f*cked-up system wouldn't exist.

I admit that Microsoft isn't the only villain in the patent wars. However, they've probably done more damage to America's intellectual property laws than any other single corporation. Every single software patent lawsuit has Microsoft's fingerprints on it (along with IBM's, another notable patent troll). Ditto for Apple, Oracle, Nokia, Lexmark, Intel.

This was quoted by Fred Warshofsky in "The Patent Wars" of 1994. The text is from an internal memo written by Bill Gates to his staff. Part of has appeared in another Gates memos.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."

Given their tendency to fine Microsoft, it doesn't seem like the EU would want to do them any favours.

The only problem I see with this is that the general populace will foot the bill. Less R&D, less progress, more expenditure on lawsuits and slower progression of the state of the art.

All in all, the patent wars will be very costly, for everybody.

Two words: open source.

Patent torpedos only work with the following prerequisites:

a) a single entity to sue
b) a legal framework in which to bring a suit

Because of this, there's nothing keeping a collaborative, distributed, international project from implementing whatever they feel like, completely immune from the threat of lawsuit and dissolution.

This is true in the same sense as the following statements:

- copyright laws can't kill piracy
- drug laws can't kill international drug trafficking.

Open source is not meant to be some seedy operation on the fringe of legal establishment, done by "rebels" in their mothers basements. It's a honorable activity, often funded by companies paying real money for development, and should be recognized by legal system as such.

If I was an IT manager that had to choose between an open source project with unclear legal status and a proprietary project with an (apparently) clear one, I'd choose the proprietary one.

Actually, all of the innovation will just move out of the US and into countries that aren't crippled by the software patent system.

You're already starting to see this sort of problem due to outsourcing software development, and the same thing happened with manufacturing in the 70s and 80s.

I keep hoping that this stupidity will torpedo software patents, but companies keep paying up or cross-licensing. And you can't cross-license with a patent troll because they don't actually make anything or do anything useful.

i own the patents on hell

Actually, two big fixes; Amazon is left out too, and from the description in the article, it seems like this law suit should be all over them.

The article mentions that he's still a big MS shareholder, but only mentions that Amazon is based in his home town... does he show up on Amazon's list of major shareholders?

Selective enforcement of patents should make them invalid.