“If patent law had been applied to novels in the 1880s, great books would not have been written. If the EU applies it to software, every computer user will be restricted, says Richard Stallman.
RMS on Patent absurdity
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think it a little sad that the original aricle lead with that quote.
I know that in my case my initial thought was that RMS is off on another planet again.
This is not actually the case.
The article is a pretty good description of the basic concepts of patents using an obviously absurd analogy to demonstrate and make points.
Well worth the read actually, I I don’t say that about a lot of what Richard writes.
Alan.
While oh so many people like to see him as an extremist, shouting “foul” at every occasion, all I see when I read whatever he writes is a considerate, intelligent person, who knows what he’s talking about and is able to communicate that in a very clear and factual way.
Way to go RMS!
(Having said that, the GPL still has an undertone of a socalist polemic) 😉
This is my gripe: “Patents work differently. They cover ideas – each patent is a monopoly on practising some idea, which is described in the patent itself.”
Patents do NOT cover just ideas, but cover implementation of ideas. You should not be able to patent just an idea, but an implementation of that idea. It seems that he knows this fact, so he states patents “cover ideas” and then quickly does a double take and talks about “practising some idea”. Big contradiction there, and the second statement is more correct. This is a classic FUD tactic.
Now, on a related note, if people ARE able to patent just ideas, then that’s either a problem with one aspect of the law (defining the difference between an idea and an implementation) or a problem with how the patent office assesses the patentability of an ‘invention’. Those are fixable problems and certainly do not imply that patents are evil.
Spreading FUD with mis-statements like the above doesn’t help the debate or RMS’s case. I’m all for having a GOOD debate about patents.
Just my 2c.
Please, learn to read.
1. RMS isn’t saying what you accuse him of saying.
2. The text you quoted is in a certain context which you conveniently have ignored, namely to show the distinction between copyrights and patents.
I’m all for debate, but please, debate what actually has been said, not was hasn’t been said.
There are only finite ways of implementing an idea, besides, even if these numbers are high, the most cost-effective ways of implementing an “idea” software-wise will probably be but a few implementations. That leaves us with the problem, if we begin to patent implementations of an idea, eventually free software will be forced to use implementations that are anything but optimum, and this is a good reason to fight patent laws, besides whatever anti-RMSism you feel.
Patents do NOT cover just ideas, but cover implementation of ideas. You should not be able to patent just an idea, but an implementation of that idea.
If Software patents are allowed, it will be possible to get ideas patented, not only implememtations of ideas.
Or at least the patent office drones will initally issue patents on ideas, if cleverly formulated. So small programmers would have to fight those patents.
Fighting patents costs serious money. You think that a hobbyist coder who works on his project for his personal fun has that amount of money?
Do you think a small company has that money?
But you wouldn’t like it if, for example… mplayer or cdrecord would cease to exist, right?
Good read, made me think. We have gotten where we are by building on the ideas of the people that came before us, if we will no longer be able to use those ideas and improve on them then the rate of progress in developing software will slow dramatically.
Imagine if that was applied to everyday life. Only one company would be allowed to make cars, only one company would be allowed to make planes, etc.
Quite silly really.
“Fighting patents costs serious money. You think that a hobbyist coder who works on his project for his personal fun has that amount of money?”
Software patents are an excellent opportunity for wealthy actors to sabotage the economy of a country.
The saboteur just get hold of loads of patents, and then sue the infringers.
There will be no need for terrorists to hi-jack planes. All they need to do to cripple a country’s economy is to use their patents. It wouldn’d even be illegal!
Or if terrorists don’t do it, what about states? A state could easily spend millions of dollars (through a covert company of course) on patents and on enforcing them.
This is exactly what large companies is doing in the US. but their goal is more to hurt their competitors, not to hurt the economy as a whole. Why wouldn’t terrorists or states do it in a larger scale?
Whether your are in favor or against patents or software patents, PLEASE learn the fundamentals before commenting.
The core benefit of patents is to provide sufficient incentive for inventors/investors to put forth resources to solve complex problems AND fully share their solutions with the public in exchange for a temporary monopoloy. Otherwise, inventors/investors would either never tackle the problem OR they would try to keep the details of the solution secret so that nobody else would know how to build it (using trade secret laws).
In other words, patents make the need for activities such as reverse-engineering obsolete because all the relevant info MUST be disclosed in the patent application for all the public to see. If it is discovered that details were left out (such as best use/mode of the invention), then the patent becomes invalid (assuming it was granted in the first place).
Unfortunately, there are implementation problems with patents. Just like software, patents have bugs introduced by humans due to unreasonable workloads and deadlines.
Imagine non-geeks trying to say all software should be abolished because of bugs (instead of trying to help eliminate reasons bugs exist). Once you educate non-geeks about the usefullness of fairly bug-free software, they no longer wish to abolish all software. They still hate buggy software (like I hate stupid patents) but they understand the reasons they exist.
FROM THE US PATENT OFFICE:
What can be patented – utility patents are provided for a new, nonobvious and useful:
* Process
* Machine
* Article of manufacture
* Composition of matter
* Improvement of any of the above
Note: In addition to utility patents, encompassing one of the categories above, patent protection is available for (1) ornamental design of an article of manufacture or (2) asexually reproduced plant varieties by design and plant patents.
What cannot be patented:
* Laws of nature
* Physical phenomena
* Abstract ideas
* Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office.
* Inventions which are:
* Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
* Offensive to public morality
Invention must also be:
* Novel
* Nonobvious
* Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)
* Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms
SUMMARY: utility patents have to describe an invention that produces a useful result, must be novel (no prior art), must be nonobvious (related art doesn’t anticipate the invention), must be fully described/enabled so others can actually build the invention, and the language of the claims must not be so broad as to cover existing inventions or too specific to enable others to easily bypass the patent.
“…utility patents are provided for a new, nonobvious and useful”
-/ new
How do you define new? Progress bars have existed for decades. (eg when you fill up your tank) If new just means “.. but now it on a computer!”, the term new loses all meaning.
-/ nonobvious
How do you define nonobvious?
“click on something to buy it…” Wow, who’da thunk it!
I just want to indicate that the formulation is so vague (new, non-obvious,…) that it is in fact meaningless
Just stating what it should do is miles away from what it actually does.
Just a suggestion..
If you live in the EU, don’t post here. Take out the few minutes you would do that, and phone, or contact your MEP. I think there are forces in the EU who are intent to pass this, no matter what, its going to take everyone joining in the effort to at least make a fight of it.
If you have any interest in OSnews, or computers in general, by now I guess you’ll know its all hanging in the balance…
UglyMike,
I understand your opinion because I used to think exactly the same way about patents.
But an attempt to characterize a patent by reading one line from it is the same reading one line of source code from a complex software application to describe its features. And then criticizing the entire application using only one or two lines doesn’t make any sense.
I remember laughing at the spectacle of an old lady suing McDonalds after spilling coffee on herself. I bitched about it and repeated the 30-second soundbite to dozens of people–then I ran into one person that actually looked into the case. Boy was I embarrassed because my perception was so distorted by oversimplification and misportrayal of the case by the media.
I think one of the greatest gifts we have as human beings is the ability to recognize our mistakes and change our minds when presented with facts that directly refute our false assumptions.
Right now, the patent system is under attack by mega-corporations. Small businesses and independent inventors are about to get screwed if the Patent Reform Act of 2005 passes with the caps on damages for WILLFUL and even FRAUDULENT violation of patents. The caps are $1 million and $5 million–too small to be a deterrent for corporations ignoring small companies’ patents, yet big enough for small companies to avoid litigation. The biggest backer of this is you-know-who that was found guilty of antitrust violations. Having no patent system is better than having one with caps that benefit only a small group–and that is frightening because having no patent system creates a huge void for inventors/investors that were previously willing to take chances risking substantial resources to create new inventions.
Yes please do educate yoursef.
Now you know the definintions go look at the tens of thousands of software patents out there.
Apple is currently being sued for the Interface of itunes.
Is a software interface nonobvious, Novel?
How about Eolas’s plugin patent, which was broad enough to describe ANY type of plugin that has exsisted for decades.
All software is an Abstract Idea, a mathamtical algorythm. yet it has tens of thousands of patents on those abstract Ideas.
Now compare what you said with reality. The patent system is broken. Software by definition isn’t patentable, yet they grant those patents daily.
http://www.brent.gov.uk/Democracy.nsf/97adad6ff206607c8025663c0065c…
Contact your MEPs today! We are in the last chance saloon to try and mount a defense.
I must say, while I’m undecided on software patents, that quote up there is resoundingly illogical. “If patent law had been applied to novels in the 1880s, great books would not have been written. If the EU applies it to software, every computer user will be restricted”
The biggest difference I can note is that source code is quite unlike novels – source code’s main purpose isn’t to be read by the end user. Even so, placing patents on writing style, prose and language is significantly different from software techniques and processes. For example, there can be patent violations even if the violating software is written in a different programming language on a different platform for a different market. If language can be patent, it is difficult to see how its reach can extend so far. Just say, someone patents the word, “like whateva!” – it is difficult to seek royalties from the equilevents in other languages like “apa-apa sahajalah” [Malay].
@peragrin: “The patent system is broken.” Indeed it is. And it isn’t just for software patents that it is broken, but for all other sectors. The patent system ought to be reformed so that only true inventions and innovations, backed with proof, and the processes behind it, can be patentable. Patents today, especially but not limited to software patents, are too broad.
Getting rid of patents may not be the answer. Software isn’t quite like literary work. Literary work’s main purpose isn’t to function in a manner such as to ease production or to facilitate a process directly, unlike software. Just because software is written as opposed to being knocked and banged into existance doesn’t negate the fact that it isn’t quite the same as novels and newspaper articles and the like.
Am I correct in thinking that you cannot patent mathematical equations? Surely that is all that ALL software programs are – implementations of mathematical equations in varying combinations – and therefore they should not be subject to any patent laws.
Copyright covers software implementations. In the US Software Patents have only covered ideas. Want some examples?
Patents do cover ideas. Originally they were extremely specific ideas (well sort of). This is especially true in the engineering realm. I don’t see any patented blue-prints out there; the patents seem to generally be in text indicating an idea and not a specific implementation. But this is necessary, as competition could just redisign and make it a millimeter larger!
The biggest problems come into effect when the idiots at the patent office don’t know when an idea is far too broad; that or it’s an idea that anyone with twice their intelligence (most people) could come up with!
Go check slashdot and see what some guy patented in 1996 as a mucic player/device interface.
This “free” story made the UK Guardian yesterday (at least the UK edition) I wouldn’t be surprised if a few more papers pick up on it. It will hopefully raise awareness about this issue amongst non-tech-news-savvy people and the odd politician.
Please educate yourself about not towing the USPTO line…
“Imagine non-geeks trying to say all software should be abolished because of bugs.”
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that suggested of Windows98/95/ME and not from geeks (I expect it from geeks, in fact you’re not a software geek if you can stand any of those three). Of course your comparison of all software to our patents is much closer to saying we are against all IP; but in reality most software patent objectors are as close to copyright defenders as to anti-ip.
Apologies, that should be: …(at least the Internet edition)…
The biggest difference I can note is that source code is quite unlike novels – source code’s main purpose isn’t to be read by the end user.
I would say a novel’s purpose isn’t to be read, but to impart information, be that a story, a philosophy, recount of a historical event, etc. Some software patents (in the current form at the USPTO) are far too broad. In literary form, “Story involving a boy and girl: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy find girl again.”.
Then when movies come along, someone else patents the same thing, but now it’s, “Movie involving a boy and girl…”
all one needs to do is read a patent application to see how rediculous they are. they are general, broad, non-specific BS to try and grab as much ground as they can. They are nothing more than tools for lawsuits….
———here ya go——-
… a hierarchically ordered graphical user interface are provided. A first order, or home, interface provides a highest order of user selectable items each of which, when selected, results in an automatic transition to a lower order user interface associated with the selected item. In one of the described embodiments, the lower order interface includes other user selectable items associated with the previously selected item from the higher order user interface.
———
is it just me or are they simply describing a media playlist and library ….
So for the pro-patent people, you all think that you should have to pay this guy to simply implement a media library and playlist???? So this is truly a revolutionary idea and a accompnaying implementation and not anything more than just a common sense approach to offer people a list of music (library) and a list of selected songs (playlist)….
The flip side of this arguement is that while the ‘literary patents’ that RMS creates for the sake of illustration will expire. Once the patent has expired, authors would be free to use the patented story elements without fear of legal action. Of course, the ‘literary patent writers’ would also be free to write derivitive patents which would be expensive to unserstand and to fight. As RMS points out, as long as the claims are different, you can get a patent. Even if you have ‘only’ 50 distinct literary elements, the number of combinations of 10 or fewer claims would be staggering (50 + 50*49 + 50*49*48 + … + 50*49*48*47*46*45*44*43*42*41) which easily exceeds the number of patents in the world. So, people could be filing these sorts of patents for generations, causing authors no end of grief. Of course, you could rather easily write a program to combine these cliams in all possible combinations. (Patents often have more than 10 claims, and I am sure that there are more than 50 distinct literary ‘devices’, so this back-of-the-envelope estimate is only a lower bound.)
The effect would be that we would loose a generation of writers as they wait for the patent to expire. After that, author would be free to use any of these original 50 ‘literary claims’ in a work. In the ‘real world’, this corresonds with loosing a generation of programmers and locking in existing software for a generation of users. This is not the end of software development, but it will definantly slow progress. This is antithetical to the justification of patents, namely that they promote the practical arts.
here is one from M$
“A method and system translating instant messages between users who communicate in different languages”
WOW, how revolutionary is that. How long did they work on that to come up with that one. Translation – what a novel idea, glad someone finally got the brains to come up with that…
The bad part here is what they’re patenting. They aren’t patenting a way to translate; they’re patenting translating with a computer…
what about translating with a phone, a pda, a can and string, a pda connected to a laptop, heck define computer….
i see the whole thing as absurd! one click shopping! heck, where is the patent on one-click posting…
damn, i gotta get to the patent office i would RULE the net then!!!
I have a number of problems with software patents. The foremost being that it’s very often that a piece of code is shelved for practical reasons: the performance of hardware is not up to snuff, the approach would take more RAM or disk than is expected to be available, there’s no business infrastructure to support it yet, or it would generate a dependency on a second expensive system. Moreover, sometimes you don’t even go down the obvious path because current technology provides an obvious obstacle.
However, with time, CPUs are beefier, disks larger, RAM more voluminous, new applications appear, and new business develop. As obstacles evaporate, the old discarded code has a new chance — unless someone patents it, and there’s the rub. 100% of the software patents the patent office today are obvious and simply an implementation of a very old idea that wasn’t practical to implement when it was conceived (back when you couldn’t patent such things anyway). One-click shopping — I did that for a database class in college (1992?) using a slightly patched NCSA Mosaic, Oracle, and my roommates own hand-coded web server. It was obvious then (albeit clunky), and easy enough for a biology student to cobble together (with the help of the CS student who wrote the web server) over the course of an academic quarter. I should mention that at least 2 other teams (we worked in pairs) in the class came up with a nearly identical system. Do I still have the code? Of course not. Was it worth anything at the time? No.
I also have a problem with the concept of patenting a process reduced to practice in software. Software is a very flexible thing and the development of code is a really a creative exercise of composing a series of events from prepackaged components to achieve an effect. To me, patenting software systems make no more sense than allowing patents on all the various configurations of Lego blocks.
“If patent law had been applied to novels in the 1880s, great books would not have been written.”
Software is not a novel, it is a tool that performs a function; it’s not just words that form to tell a story. If a piece of software uses truly new processes or techniques to accomplish what it does, then it should be as patentable as a weed-eater. It is intellectually dishonest to use the software :: novel analogy just because they share a few traits (i.e. easily reproducible and can be written on paper).
so all i needed to do was come up with
—-
method by which natural growth is removed using a rotating device
—–
and sit back and collect my profits from all the people actually going to the trouble of manufactoring weed eaters???
heck i can come up with general crap like that all day long, anyone want to fund some patent inventions? as in i will be inventing patents but not inventing anything…
so all i needed to do was come up with
—-
method by which natural growth is removed using a rotating device
—–
and sit back and collect my profits from all the people actually going to the trouble of manufactoring weed eaters???
Are you being facetious or are you just stupid?
Things that are common these days were not always so. The first weed-eater was certainly a new invention at the time it first appeared, just as a microwave oven or the flush toilet.
guess i am just stoooopid
i understand common! i dont understand how something so general would be allowed to be patented. So now no one could create a lawn mower without infringing? could possibly be applied to a tiller as well, heck tractor hay cutter…
heck you could even argue it applies to electric razors….
yes, i am stooopid that I think a company should get rich on offering a damn good product, that lasts and is built with quality and offers great support instead of coming up with a general idea and that is all…
there is a difference between something being a new invention and something being a general idea that can be applied cross the board — rotating blade, cuts grass, OH NO and weeds OH NO and HAY, oh no and HAIR, and chop, slices, dices vegetables…
but i am always accused of thinking that things I consider common obvious ideas other people see as innovative amazing inventions, so I guess it just depends on your intelligence level and whether you can recognize innovation or just the same idea applied to a different set of circumstances…
so who holds the patent on the assembly line anyway?
Say what you want about RMS, this is one of the reasons why he’s so valuable.
This analogy is very very hard to improve on and hard to argue against.
It is a difference between patenting the concept of “weed eaters” or patenting a specific implementation of the concept, “the machine”.
Concepts should not be patentable, implementations should (but only new ways of doing things).
For computer software, copyright is enough to protect the creator. Copyright prohibits any competing coders to just copy the code. No one can make an exact copy of yout code. Isn´t that enough? It protects the implementation.
“No one can make an exact copy of yout code. Isn´t that enough? It protects the implementation.”
Nicely put!
————–
Asking for more than this is crazy. Sounds good if you are thinking from the perspective of person applying for the patent but what happens when next week you are on the other side trying to come up with something to do XYZ and you cannot do it because someone else has already VAGUELY come up with it… makes no sense…
So you think that the idea of destroying weeds with a mechanical device is patentable?
See how quickly this goes downhill?
Getting rid of patents may not be the answer. Software isn’t quite like literary work. Literary work’s main purpose isn’t to function in a manner such as to ease production or to facilitate a process directly, unlike software. Just because software is written as opposed to being knocked and banged into existance doesn’t negate the fact that it isn’t quite the same as novels and newspaper articles and the like.
True, but then again software isn’t quite the same as other types of patentable processes and inventions either.
The goal of software patents is no longer to foster innovation, but rather to serve as weapons in large corporations’ legal arsenals.
The fact is that, in order to protect something, you first need to show that there is a significant threat to it. Software patents shouldn’t just be taken for granted (like they have been in the States). Instead, the case should be made that not having patents would be detrimental to the software industry and individual engineers with thorough case studies. If it is found that the absence of patents does not pose significant risks to software innovation (which can adequately be protected by copyrights), then there’s no reason for them to exist in the first place. It would give a much-needed bread to the USPTO and overall there’d be less money wasted on legal matters.
Again, just because something is common today and seems obvious today does not mean it was always so.
Take circular saws for example. Before the idea of making a round blade was invented 150 years, all people used were straight saw blades. Sounds crazy to think that a circular saw was at one time innovative, but it was.
The same thing with a auger drill bit. This is another invention that had only existed since the 1800’s. These days, people would say the idea is so obvious, but that wasn’t the case when it was first created.
Now, back to the Weed Eater. If using a spinning plastic wire to cut grass was such a common idea, then it wouldn’t have taken until 1972 for somebody to actually invent it.
See US patent 3708967 by George Ballas.
The idea of destroying weeds with a rotating flexible string on a rotating hub was patented. This is an interesting example, becuase it looks like the author had a terrible time enforcing his patent but was quite sucessful with the ‘Weedeater’ trademark.
From a google search…
…..I speak from the experience related to me by George Ballas, inventor of the WeedEater. His patent turned out to be an albatross. He spent millions on pond scum and got nowhere. However, his trademark and his copyrights were worth their weight in gold. The WeedEater name brought an undisclosed amount and the logo went for a mere $15million to Emerson. George danced away the blues over the patent farce, and simply wrote a book to warn and advise other inventors.
Tim Jung, Internet Chat Room, 2003
So, this seems to validate that patents are not a panacea for inventors, but that the current patent system is quite useful to larger corporations and laywers. As such, it seems all but inevitable that software patents will be enacted, even if they are not in the public interest.
a circular saw…..not really innovative because the IDEA behind it isnt that innovative
spinning a blade to cut something, spinning being nothing more than moving a blade in a circle, we ALMOST already did that, we swung a size or a scicle to chop weeds, we swing our arms back and forth it only makes sense to progress it to that point. and the problem is the SAME idea has TONS of uses in other circumstances/devices so NO that idea should not be patentable…
I might not have a problem if you want to patent you EXACT device but then again copyright protects a EXACT duplicate so why bother…
as far as the weedeater, if he wanted to patent a specific device then that may be fine, no reason to do it but fine anyways. but applying for a patent that is as general as something like –method by which natural growth is removed using a rotating device– is crazy! And if you have ever read patent apps you KNOW that is the way they are worded!
“using a spinning plastic wire to cut grass” that is a device you are talking about not the IDEA behind it and I assure you someone will patent the IDEA, the PROCESS and not use words anywhere near as focused as those you wrote….
It is impossible to write software today (in the US) without violating a bunch of patents. If your software is successful, the patentholders will come after you (or your money).
Can somebody explain how this is supposed to increase innovation? Or is it all about giving large corporations more power to squeeze small companies?
I for one wouldn’t work hard coding software if I knew that most of the potential profits would go to damage settlements or lawyers.
The only ones that benefit from software patents are multi-billionaire corporations. Do they really need the extra protection of software patents?
method by which something is moved by something so that other things may or may not be attached to the moving something….
method by which something is in some way contacted with another something causeing transfer of material from one something to another something
so did i patent sandpaper? toilet paper? papertowels? temporary tattos ??? who knows, what i do know is that anyone who wants to amke those things has to think twice about my “contact transfer” patent…
a circular saw…..not really innovative because the IDEA behind it isnt that innovative
Again… and this is becoming tiresome… you are speaking as somebody who lives in the year 2005.
Go back to the year 1800 when two men in a saw pit were the only way logs were sawed into usable boards and tell me how common the idea of putting saw teeth on a spinning disc was at the time.
And your comparison of a circular saw blade or Weed Eater to a scythe is rather silly.
so where is the patent on the “wheel”? and do you see how a patent on a “wheel” would be devastating to not only auto, motorcycle, manufacurers but every conveyor belt, roller skate, heck almost everything uses a round shape device that does not have corners and allows it to roll….
“so did i patent sandpaper? toilet paper? papertowels? temporary tattos ??? who knows, what i do know is that anyone who wants to amke those things has to think twice about my “contact transfer” patent…”
Maybe you should try to patent “method of making idiotic posts on a forum which do nothing to prove the point attempted to be made.”
“so where is the patent on the “wheel”? and do you see how a patent on a “wheel” would be devastating to not only auto, motorcycle, manufacurers but every conveyor belt, roller skate, heck almost everything uses a round shape device that does not have corners and allows it to roll….”
Well, since the “wheel” has existed for thousands of years, it is not something that could be patented. Again, you continue to make the most foolish arguments.
yes it is tiresome because you keep thinking in terms of devices…
NO ONE PATENTS A DEVICE! ok….
well they did manage to go from a ax to a toothed saw so I wonder who patented the teeth on the saw and the back and forth action….
heck teeth on a blade might be about the only innovation for the devices you have spoke of, a new way to mmove the blade is not innovative…
let me repeat – a DIFFERENT WAY TO MOVE A BLADE IS NOT INNOVATION…
so i guiess you think it is innovation when they made the razor with two blades and was in shock and awe at the innovation of adding a third…. lord help you will cream your britches when they come out with four blades wont ya…
“since the “wheel” has existed for thousands of years, it is not something that could be patented.”
using your own words….
“Again… and this is becoming tiresome… you are speaking as somebody who lives in the year 2005.”
“Again, just because something is common today and seems obvious today does not mean it was always so.”
… a DIFFERENT WAY TO MOVE A BLADE IS NOT INNOVATION…
So the first incandescent light bulb wasn’t an innovation? After all, it’s just another way to produce “artificial sunlight,” which they had been doing for quite some time already with gas light.
so i guiess you think it is innovation when they made the razor with two blades and was in shock and awe at the innovation of adding a third…. lord help you will cream your britches when they come out with four blades wont ya…
No, I would say it’s more marketing than innovation, even though three blades does seem to work better, in my experience, than just a single blade.
“since the “wheel” has existed for thousands of years, it is not something that could be patented.”
using your own words….
“Again… and this is becoming tiresome… you are speaking as somebody who lives in the year 2005.”
“Again, just because something is common today and seems obvious today does not mean it was always so.”
Umm, can you show me where there were systems of government and patents back when the wheel was invented? You cannot patent something 10,000 years after it was first created.
I have just concluded that you are indeed an idiot.
electricity as opposed to a flame… yea i see some innovation there
i see a totally different idea with the same end result, spinning a blade instead of moving it back and forth…. nah…
uh but can you apply the same thought about the wheel to other things and realize the same devastating effect could occur….
nah, didnt think so…
“Ok…. but systems of government and patents do exist now. Which means that it is now possible to patent something which may be as important to mankind as the wheel was.”
Well, since coming up with a *new* idea which is “as important to mankind as the wheel” is so easy, I’ll go ahead and wait here for you to come up with one…
If you actually do, feel free to patent it and I’ll support you. Well? Or is it not so easy?
What *is* easy is to look at the inventions of the past and conclude that anybody should have been able to think of something so obvious… just because it is now commonplace.
“Well, since coming up with a *new* idea which is “as important to mankind as the wheel” is so easy, I’ll go ahead and wait here for you to come up with one… ”
thats just it, we DONT KNOW! i mean the wheel was probably dismissed for the longest time as something just silly and useless until someone thought up a buggy and then a car and needed it…
we dont know what ‘something’ is going to be important and a HUGE building block to our whole way of life so if we protect peoples work but leave the idea open then when someone invents a car they do not have to worry about what to put on it to allow it to roll…..
I think that the problem with patents are that they are fundementally an artificial construct born out of man’s short-sighted, greedy desire to hold onto, control and profit.
Nature, the universe – reality – works because it’s an open playing field. You don’t see the laws of physics being monopolized by a star or solar system. You don’t see evolution being monopolized by any one single organism. What are human ideas and implementations other than laws of physics and evolution? Leave it to mankind to concoct some notion so absurd such as claiming “mine!” to the process of discovery and evolution and human progress.
Leave it to silly mankind to create and use artificial “laws” – backed up by an institution of force of course – to help promote, foster and facilitate selfishness and greed.
Nothing is ever done in a vacuum. Nothing is ever done without learning from, refering to, utilizing, observing and experiencing from the progresses and errors that have already taken place.
I”m sure there will be responses pointing out how patents somehow encourage invention, because without the protection that a patent offers, who would ever invent anything? To them I say that’s a myth, and a rather weak one at that – apparently then, to take such an argument to heart, one would have say that before patent law, the human race didn’t invent very many useful things. Gosh, just think of how advanced we could’uve been if only patent law was established 2 thousand years ago!
Absurd.
You are aware that patents do expire don’t you? No invention is locked up perpetually for the sole use of its inventor.
monad has gone nomad and M$ hasnt got gonads… thought that would prove i wasnt a idiot
“Well, since coming up with a *new* idea which is “as important to mankind as the wheel” is so easy, I’ll go ahead and wait here for you to come up with one…”
I didn’t say it is easy. I didn’t even imply that it was common. No need to wait around.
“If you actually do, feel free to patent it and I’ll support you.”
I’m glad the wheel was never patented. But by this statement you made, it sounds as if you would support such folly?
Well, since “silly mankind” doesn’t have the advantage of big teeth, claws or horns to survive, we are stuck using the only advantage we have over the rest of creation: our minds. In order to live in our society it is necessary to acquire the means to do so by trading goods and providing useful services to others. If a person creates an invention, it is right that he should be able to profit from that invention; since he is the one who came up with it in the first place.
ok, you are right…. i give….
“I’m glad the wheel was never patented. But by this statement you made, it sounds as if you would support such folly?”
Well, I’m sure it would have expired quite some time ago. hmph…
Now, if there had never been such a thing as the wheel and we had heretofore gotten along just fine without it, there is no reason why a patent wouldn’t be valid for it if tomorrow some guy came up with the revolutionary idea for something called the wheel.
“You are aware that patents do expire don’t you?”
20 years is simply way too long. Especialy in this day and age.
I personally think a decent and reasonable compromise that would put the whole patent issue at rest, would be a much shorter expiration. Say, 5 years tops. This would provide a decent enough time span for an inventor to be first-to-market, and to get a stable foothold in the industry – before having to compete. Such would be in the best interest of industry as a whole ( competition is good ), and in the best interest of human-“progress” as well ( building and extending/enhancing past inventions soon as possible is good ).
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10942
feel free to rant on that thread toooo…
“In order to live in our society it is necessary to acquire the means to do so by trading goods and providing useful services to others.”
I totally agree with you.
“If a person creates an invention, it is right that he should be able to profit from that invention; since he is the one who came up with it in the first place.”
I also agree that if a person ( or a company ) creates an invention, that nothing should prevent profit from being generated.
However, if patent law were to suddenly cease to exist, people would not somehow suddenly cease making profits from their inventions. They would merely have to act quicker on them, and more intelligently/creatively in order to maintain the edge. It’s good and natural that once a novel way of doing something has been seen in the wild, that it will ( often sooner than later ) be mimicked and then enhanced in other novel ways.
A free market ( I get an impression that you an advocate of free markets ( as am I ) – please correct me if I’m mistaken ) would exist and prosper just fine without patent law – in fact, I would say that it would be even more prosperous; as a free market cannot truly exist so long as there remains any form of government intervention – which is what paten law is.
“I’m glad the wheel was never patented. But by this statement you made, it sounds as if you would support such folly?”
Well, I’m sure it would have expired quite some time ago. hmph…
True. But that lengthy period of time in which it had not yet expired would have been nothing other than an artificial and unnecessary detriment to the development of mankind.
( regarding an earlier point: And, who says a crucial invention has to be difficult? Sometimes somethings just pop into our minds, and seem immediately clear and obvious. )
Yes, I am a proponent of a laissez-faire style market; however, I do see the benefits of patents to inventors. I would agree that the period should be shortened, but maybe not to five years; as in some industries it can take that long just to go from a prototype to a sellable product. I also am not foolish enough to make the statement that patents are necessary to promote innovation, but recognize that truly inventing something is not an easy task and don’t mind if a brief advantage is given to an inventor.
i think gilette should go after the veggiechopper2000 since it uses “moving blades to cut growth” since that is the same thing their razor would do if you stuck it on a carrot!
I submit that if an invention or process can be reasonably expected to be successfully reverse engineered within the span of a year or so, it should be held to fail the obviousness requirement. I futher submit that not one single patent issued by the USPTO in the course of its entire history would pass this test.
Of course, if you haven’t guessed, I’m not a supporter of patents in any form, software, business method, or otherwise. That said, my proposed test is directed at undermining the ostensible purpose for the existence of patent law as it is spelled (or rather as it has long been interpreted) out in the US Constitution: 1) to encourage the furtherance of the useful arts and sciences by rewarding disclosure, and 2) to incent the the development of new technologies by means of a limited monopoly.
As regards the first purpose, I find it a highly dubious claim that any invention, actual or even humanly possible, is so far beyond the state-of-the-art that disclosure is necessitated to guard against that technology being lost.
As regards the second purpose, I have yet to see a convincing (or even plausible) demonstration that any technology brought to market during the course of last century required a economic incentive beyond that offered by being in first-to-market position. Pharmaceuticals are the common rejoinder to this claim of mine, but it should be noted that the significant cost associated with bringing a pharmacuetical product to market has precious little to do with discovering novel chemical compounds or their potential uses and everything to do with enormous market inefficiencies introduced by state regulation in the form of the FDA (eg., an average of 8 to 10 years of a series of limited trials required to get a drug certified for use on humans). Now, I’m not suggesting that we do away with the FDA and allow snake oil salesman free reign to peddle their wares without oversight, but if we as a society accept the need for regulating pharmaceuticals, dealing with the market inefficiancies introduced should be accomplished by means of a targeted remedy tailored to specifics of situation (eg., the use of exclusive FDA approvals to achieve limited monopolies with the US market).
“I also am not foolish enough to make the statement that patents are necessary to promote innovation, but recognize that truly inventing something is not an easy task and don’t mind if a brief advantage is given to an inventor.”
Agreed.
Keyword there in my mind though is brief… basically, a “shit or get off the toilet” clause to patent law would seem to be a perfectly reasonable and fairly sufficient enough reform.
And you’re right about how different industries move at different paces – thus a sort of floating expiration, based upon the market for which the invention is most closely relevant, would seem appropriate. Again, though – brief; better for some slow movers ( or incompetents ) to sometimes be stressed on time, than for innovation as a whole to all society be stiffled.
I mean, since when was the market, or business, ( or nature ), ever kindly and patient toward stragglers? Let alone down right nurturing, as is current patent law.
“Oh, you need a little more time to wrap things up… sure, no problem – we’ll hold off until you’re confident that you have a sufficient foot in the door, before we start competing with you. It’s ok, take your time now. We’ll just be here sitting on our thumbs. You did come up with the invention afterall.”
Have you ever spent hours or days pondering the answer to a riddle only to realize how obvious the solution was after you conceded defeat and ask somebody else for it?
The point is that most things usually become obvious to us only after we are made aware of them… not beforehand.
Well said eric – excellent post.
:thumbsup:
“The point is that most things usually become obvious to us only after we are made aware of them… not beforehand.”
Yes, but I think that would be the purpose of the whole reverse engineer test that eric postulated.
Approximating how quickly/easily can something be “figured out” ( backwards engineered after the fact ) is the best ( only? ) way to ever come close to judging an invention by some measure of “obviousness”.
If it’s just a matter of putting two and two together ( as many/most “inventions” often are ) – then whatever claim to being a “discovery” is pretty thin… someone could concievable have come up with it at any time; therefore… it’s obvious ( even though noone had yet finally put it together ).
It will always be a trivial matter to deconstruct something that has already been created, compared to the act of originally creating it.
His test is designed to be failed.
“It will always be a trivial matter to deconstruct something that has already been created, compared to the act of originally creating it.”
Sure… with an expensive lab, a team full of engineers, the proper specialized equipment, and the necessary amount of time…
Such would be the measurements for the determination of the ease of backwards engineering, thus the “obviousness” of the invention can be determined.
“One-click purchasing” is obvious – ie, can be backward engineered with the most minimal amounts of equipment, time, manpower and specialized knowledge.
Cold fusion is not so obvious – ie, would require specialized knowledge, expensive labs and equipment, time and a staff of brilliant scientists/engineers.
Well, if you were to use this “obviousness” test, even inventions such as the phonograph would probably have failed; because within a year somebody else, having seen an already working model, could have figured out how to make one of their own.
As I said, the test is designed to be failed.
Have you ever spent hours or days pondering the answer to a riddle only to realize how obvious the solution was after you conceded defeat and ask somebody else for it?
Of course. What’s important though is that this reality doesn’t at all demonstrate that a temporary monopoly is thereby necessitated to achieve the supposed purposes which patents aim to achieve. If it is obvious after the fact there is simply no chance that it will be lost without disclosure as the simple existence of the invention is evidence enough of how it was accomplished. The second purpose for patents, which satisfies a percieved economic requirement to incent the development of new technology, isn’t met either as an a-ha moment is quite obviously not a capital intensive discovery; it’s plain fortuitousness.
Well, if you were to use this “obviousness” test, even inventions such as the phonograph would probably have failed
Exactly. It has never been demonstrated that patenting the phonograph (or the telephone, the lighbulb, the airplane, etc..) was beneficial to anyone except the holder of the patent. The US Congress is authorized to issue patents not to benefit inventors, but to benefit society as a whole; the benefit to patent holders is only a means to that end.
Bravo.
The purpose of patents is:
1.) Spur innovation.
2.) Open Industry Secrets.
Number 2 is actually far more important than 1. 1 will happen all on it’s own; just to get people to buy more stuff: People won’t buy what they already have.
Number 2 though is where patents are better than other forms of IP. Because patents force you to “put up or shut up.” You should be providing good implementation material for a patent to be solid. That means that Edison couldn’t patent a lightbulb until he had a lightbulb; and that should mean Joe Blow can’t patent a program until he’s prototyped it (and then when the patent expires his prototype becomes…you guessed it: basically MIT’ed).
This is how patents spur competition. They get people to give up their designs; show their trade secrets.
Software patents aren’t doing this, and they shouldn’t.
Why?
Because software is also protected by copyright law; and it should be. An individual can control the entire software process:
1.) Code idea
2.) Prototype
3.) Market
4.) Implementation (should come before 3, but often doesn’t)
5.) Production (who’s got a cd burner and media-mail; I do!)
So it’s protected under the protection for individual works of art: COPYRIGHT.
And so, software patents aren’t about designs, systems, implementations; because that’s all protected already! Software patents are for “ah-ha” style ideas; which no one ever wanted to patent anyway: Because they’re the sort of thing that are immediately plainly obvious. The light bulb for example. Had Edison not had a patent how long would it have taken for others do discover his filament? But if he patents it, they can just read his patent.
Now, is an incandescent light-bulb worth much? No, it has always been a pretty bad solution: They’re unreliable, junk and we all get sick of changing them. That’s why you rarely see them outside of people’s homes (not to mention efficiency, quality of light, etc). Should Edison have gotten rich off his assistants hard work? No. This is the guy, afterall, who wanted to push DC power distribution on us all while others said: AC! AC! AC!
egin{rant}
Software patents are a threat to home-grown good ideas. They’re a threat to Open Source, they’re a threat to freeware, they’re a threat to web-startups, they’re a threat to everyone with a compiler, some patience, and a love for solving problems and sharing the solutions. There’s no fence here folks; there’s no accepting the other side; there’s your rights and people attacking your rights. I demand the right to share my ideas and not be attacked for it; and that should be inalienable.
You people sound like market analysts.
end{rant}
It messed up my latexian style rant tags!
Someone should be allowed to profit from their invention. yes , and this is the problem with patents. If someone else independantly, without even knowing about the other inventor comes up with the same idea, they get sued for breaching a patent, yet they came up with exactly the same idea, should they not be allowed to profit from their invention?
Good point, now pick a better name :-p. Or maybe associate a website with your use of anonymous; maybe gnu.org or something? That way we can tell you from all the other anonymae…
A big stumbling block that many people can’t get around is the idea that “people should make a profit”.
Actually, there is no a-priori reason why someone should or shouldn’t make a profit from inventions (their own, or someone else’s).
These people bring moral issues into the debate, and they place those prejudices on the same level as more basic questions (like: patents are, and will be more and more, unenforceable), or they fail to take into account other contrary prejudices, just as legitimate (like: what if 2 people have the same idea? Grant to the first? Grant to the one who pays more?).
We should recognise that patents and copyrights are totally unenforceable on a practical basis, have no reason to exist on principle, and have no positive effects whatsoever.
If you understand anything about economics and freedom (or history, for that matter), it is easy to conclude that innovations will always be valued, regardless of questions of profit.
Patents and copyrights define a new area of property called “intellectual property”. Since there is no end to what could be considered intellectual property, it is all too easy to go overboard and start legislating without forethought. Also, since these concepts are totally artificial, they represent necessarily an economic inefficiency versus the alternative (the free market). Whatever arguments are used in defense of patents, these arguments are not valid in the long run (centuries, millenia).