UK Judge: Who needs software patents? 237
Glyn Moody writes "C|Net has a surprising story about a seminar given by a top judge at the U.K.'s Court of Appeal who specializes in intellectual-property law. According to the article, he has "questioned whether software patents should be granted, and has criticized the U.S. for allowing "anything under the sun" to be patented." Is the tide turning?"
Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right, a whole lot of people owe William S. Andreas and Jeffery P. Foster of IBM a whole lot of money.
Oh, and this was filed in the U.S. but approved by a European patent office so I don't think it's fair for this judge to bash only us Yanks.
My church had a fundraiser once and I believe they used a progress bar on a website to track their earnings
Say, have any of you Java swing programmers ever typed
JProgressBar [sun.com] myJPB = new JProgressBar [sun.com]();
? Because I was thinking of starting a patent lawyer career, I just need you to reply with your name, contact information and the application you used it on and distributed.
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, using a visual representation of a thermometer to track the progress of a school backing sale to fund the cheerleaders trip to Washington for cheerleading finals would qualify as prior art of the concept at least.
What really stinks is how ideas that have been in use in various forms for years, decades or even centuries are suddenly now new and novel becuase they are used on a computer. The word "non-obvious" has been completey removed as a screening criteria from the patent process.
That type of patenting must be stopped and all previous such obvious patents reversed.
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:5, Funny)
Sir, here at the USPTO we take pride in granting patents without consideration of trifling concepts such as; gross obviousness, unoriginality and indeed patentability itself.
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, when it comes to software, the USPTO has struggled under two logistical problems:
It's true that the USPTO could have done better with the resources at its disposal. But it's possible that it just hasn't been given enough resources to meet its responsibilities.
- David Stein
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the last five decades, the U.S. economy has moved steadily away from physical goods and toward intangible goods - services, culture, music, movies, etc. This includes the development of intellectual property. It is a cornerstone of our economy. That's why the U.S. Congress has steadily increased its support of intellectual property protection. Accordingly, the courts have read federal IP legislation with broadening scope, since this is the plain intention of Congress.
So if you're arguing for the dismissal of U.S. patent legislation, you'll have to suggest a way of recapturing the huge share of our GDP attributable to the export of patent-based intellectual property. Since our trade deficit is already deep in the red, you might not find your state Congresscritters to be very receptive.
- David Stein
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:5, Informative)
The temperature of the oven, yes. The temperature of the food, no. Food doneness is usuallly checked by the temperature in the middle of the food: 140-180F for various meats, and a little over 200F for bread.
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:2)
Such as when making toffie, or beer or any number of other things!
You're trying to tell us that you bake beer and toffee?
He was correct. In almost every case, when baking, the thermometer is used as a measure of doneness.
Just watch who you are calling moron, you more often than not end up becoming one yourself
I'd guess this is one of the "not" cases, eh?
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:3, Informative)
I don't blame you for not wanting to tread through the law - it's pretty marshy and unpleasant. Even IP professionals consider this to be a rather painful trawl through conflicting jurisprudence. H
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:3, Informative)
Like most such citations, you apparently have NOT really read the patent claims (or even disclosure) -- it seems to be much more speicific than you imply. As usual, the patent itself contains a discussion of the related art that says: "Users typically need or desire to know the status of such tasks running in the background. Heretofore, this need has been accommodated by displaying a
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:3, Insightful)
Progress bars with cancel buttons are old hat, as are progress bars in status bars (some of which, I'm sure, have cancel buttons) and progress bars overlaid with text. Just because no-one else has combined all
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I can say it is. I'd tend to agree that it might be open to some question -- but I also think there's a huge difference between something being open to some question, and being clearly bogus.
I'd also note that from the viewpoint of the patent office having done its job, this is a crucial difference. IMO, it's unfortunate, but the current US patent law favors issuing a patent if there's any real room for dou
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, this duty goes much further: applicants are required (1) to have conducted at least a minimal search, (2) to disclose all known prior art that might be relevant, and (3) to assert their reasonable belief that the invention is still patentable in light of this prior art.
Unfortunately, very often, applicants wildly shirk this responsibility. One of the damning factors of current software patent practice is that for many issuing patents - including junk like scrollbars - the applicants disclosed no prior art. You have applicants filing claims for inventions like "selling products over the Internet" and disclosing fewer than three prior art references - as if they simply don't know of many businesses selling products over the Internet. It's deplorable.
This is one of the best suggestions for fixing the USPTO's examination system: start enforcing Rule 56 sanctions, i.e., start punishing applicants (and patent practitioners) who fail to satisfy their due-diligence research and disclosure duties. A few sanctions, including patent license suspension, would prompt a rapid and marked reduction in the number of patent applications being filed, and in the quality of those patent applications.
- David Stein
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:2)
It sounds like KMail infringes this. When a task is running (e.g. moving a bunch of messages from one folder to another on an IMAP server), a progress bar is displayed in the status bar in the bottom right of the window. Clicking the button to its side with the up arrow on it lists exa
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:2)
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:2)
Unfortunately the EPO and its Board of Appeal have been making up their own rules and approving patents on IP which should not be patentable according to the law establishing the EPO. Last night (EST) Groklaw carried this story [groklaw.net] about the European Parliament's recent rejection of the Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive. The essay has many quotes from a British j
Re:Pay for the Progress Bar You Use! (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I can't deny this fact but I would like to point a situation so weird that in comparison, US legal system would seem clean.
It is pretty clear according to the EU laws that a software or an algorithm can not be patented. It is written, it is a binding law of the European patent office. Despite of this, this office delivers software patent. Just like
I think this is a good thing (Score:3)
Here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think this is a good thing (Score:3, Informative)
Presuming that "here" = Europe, I think that you're not understanding the full meaning of the European Articles in question. It's a common misconception.
You have to read both Article 52(2) (which prohibits patents on "software" and "methods of doing business") and Article 52(3) (which, specifically and literally, limits the exclusion in 52(2) to pate
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Judges aren't The Borg. One judge's opinion (and that's little-o opinion, not an opinion handed down) is hardly a watershed event.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
But this Judge's opinion is quite representative of the concerns of many in Europe. Remember that the EU software patent directive was rejected [eu.int] by a margin of over 600 votes.
If the concerns of people such as Sir Robin Jacob are well publicised, this can only help educate the public at large and inform the MEPs who vote on such matters.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
And? Here in the US our government is about to confirm a candidate to the Supreme Court who has been clear in his opinion that the courts of the United States should not look to courts in other parts of the world as barometers of jurisprudence.
All of Europe could decide software patents are invalid and that would have little bearing on the granting or enforcement of such patents within the United States.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bear in mind that the margin of defeat does not represent the true level of opposition. The pro-Patent lobby suddenly switched at the last minute and told their cronies and shills in the EU parliament to vote against the directive.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they knew they couldn't win, and by voting for the proposal that had no chance, they would have hampered their further chances later on. They still weren't going to win; apparently even they realised that.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
I don't think the courts are the problem. The vast majority of software patents are invalid, and most judges competent in that area, and the lawyers who prepare patents, know that perfectly well. They just don't share their little-o opinion about it very often.
The problem is patent law. Patents are valid until proven otherwise in court. They can be abused for intimidation of smal
Is the tide turning? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the patent process actually changes, THEN you can say the tide is turning. Until then, the tide is just growing, like it has been for a long time ...
Re:Is the tide turning? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
MS on patent reform (Score:4, Informative)
Sure it does account for no patents at all on software. It does call for better patent quality, a faster and more open system.
Re:Is the tide turning? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is the tide turning? No. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is the tide turning? No. (Score:2)
Erm... We don't want the process to change over here. Right now, software patents are of dubious value at best here in Europe, and one of the few things our European overlords have got right recently is kicking out the attempt to change that.
There are a few good patents as well (Score:4, Interesting)
Rank 'Em (Score:2, Insightful)
Judges don't understand technology and generally give the patent office the benefit of the doubt if they don't get something or are confused. A rating system will allow them more leeway to turn down questionable stuff.
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:4, Insightful)
To put it succinctly, if you don't like patents, simply say so. If you're going to be grabbing for excuses not to like certain kinds of patents, you're not helping the problem.
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not?
From a patent perspective, a toaster could be claimed as:
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:3, Interesting)
You're missing the point. Claim #3 doesn't mention "software." It could be embodied as software, or as a circuit, or as the moving parts of the toaster. It is claimed solely as a "method," and is protected no matter how it is implemented. At the end of the day, it's just a method.
For many years, U.S. courts tried exactly what you propose: disallowing patents for "software" methods, but allowing patents for "othe
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:2)
An explanation or a description of a thing is not the thing. There is nothing that can't be explained or described in English, either, but that does not make books patentable. You are confusing the use of math as a language used to describe and invention with the treatment of the math as an invention.
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:2)
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:2)
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:2)
It took lots of work by 3 very very clever people and if you honestly believe that YOU could have done it then by all means don't grant that patent.
By that standard, almost every advance in science for the last couple of hundred years should be patentable. I fail to see how you can make a distinction between pure research in physics and
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:2)
Re:There are a few good patents as well (Score:2)
I can find references which talk of the existence of exceptions, although without clearly identifying them. E.g. [vaslaw.com]
Re:There are a few good patents as well (No!) (Score:3, Insightful)
For some reason, people are more willing to accept a patent on an encryption algoritm. But, it is basically the exact same thing. Some math, and a descri
santa (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems to me that the purpose of the USPTO is not to grant patents but to make money from applications etc
i could probably patent my ass if i tried to
Re:santa (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:santa (Score:3, Funny)
I'm still not sure if i can believe this, because if it is true then i think i would explode
Re:santa (Score:2)
I love the quote:
Re: santa (Score:5, Funny)
But would anyone pay you royalties for it?
Re: santa (Score:5, Funny)
Re:santa (Score:2, Funny)
You, sir, are in violation of my patent (PT #9546812321687987651321) on your ass! Please send a Paypal payment of $5 per subsequent viewing of your comment.
Thank you,
The Law Offices Of Conniving, Deceptive, and Crook, Ltd.
Re:santa (Score:5, Funny)
Rejected - too broad
Re:santa (Score:2)
No you can't, but never worry - you have copyright on its imprint.
Re:santa hat perfectly legitimate DESIGN patent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:santa (Score:2)
Isn't that hat patent prior art?
Turning tide (Score:5, Funny)
| the tide. Turning the tide is patented |
| by Microsoft and is not implemented |
| yet. Shall I call the police? Feds? |
\ BSA? /
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
No (Score:5, Funny)
No.
This subversive will be dealt with quickly and harshly. Already the muck rakers are fervently searching for mud to fling at this commu-terrorist.
We are the IP companies. Fire your lawyers and prepare to be sued. We shall add your intellectualy distictive property portfolio to our own. Justice is futile.
This message brought to you in association with: "The USPTO. For a more prosperous, litigious future."
Re:No (Score:2)
No, I'm afraid that basking in my verve has already been patented.
Re:No (Score:2)
I almost forgot, I patented newsletters. Assuming you have one in circulation, I would need 15% of the gross in licensing fees.
Jib's still good though.
The tide isn't turning (Score:5, Informative)
The EU Commission are trying to push through software patents again. There's a write-up on Groklaw [groklaw.net]. I think their idea is to keep trying again and again until we get sick and tired of protesting it.
Re:The tide isn't turning (Score:4, Insightful)
That's exactly it. The IP companies only need to get lucky once, the rest of us have to be lucky time and time and time again. Eventually, they'll get through, and then we'll be stuck with software patents forever, as to atempt to dislodge them would be "theft" of IP rights.
Re:The tide isn't turning (Score:2)
Any thoughts on the opening salvo?
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123 [ourmedia.org]
Tings - NaNoWriMo 2005 winning novel - first draft
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license
(think copyleft)
Re:The tide isn't turning (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is a PDF, you read it, write your answers separately and send them all to an email address.
I just read the damn thing and it's basically HEAVILY BIASED towards companies... Seeing that, I'm not sure my answer would do anything, but I'll do it anyway... take for instance this introductory exert from from the PDF:
Strange, I was under the impression that patents were there to protect INVENTORS, not businesses.
Pisses me off (pardon my french)
tides? (Score:3, Funny)
Silly slashdot editor... the moon controls the tide.
The sun don't do nothing.
Re:tides? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:tides? (Score:2)
Just to be a pain in the butt, I'd like to put out that the sun actually does affect the tide. It is much less noticeable then the moon, because it is so far away, but it does have an impact on the tides (and a technically measurable one at that).
Re:tides? (Score:2)
Getting pretty badly off-topic, but as-stated, that doesn't seem (to me) to make a lot of sense.
I'd think the tide would be maximized at new moon, and minimized at full moon. The sun and moon are aligned in both cases, but during full moon, the moon and sun are on opposite sides of the earth, so the gravity from the sun and moon are in direct opposition to each other. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like that shou
US patent system doesnt work (Score:4, Insightful)
--------------
www.kybe.com
^its an adult text and image search engine i'm working on.
Re:US patent system doesnt work (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't.
A process is not a tangible thing. It does not operate on specific components. no matter how specific you make it, a process is not a tangible, "hold in your hand" item. It doesn't do anything, not by itself at any rate. A process is an abstract concept, and patenting abstract concepts used to be disallowed.
It would be bad enough if the process was well defined, but with half the process patents out there, what was originally meant to be applied to computer chip manufacture is so vauge taht it could just as easily be used to sue a kid selling lemonade to passers by.
Notice to appear (Score:5, Funny)
Hardly. This judge is in the UK, and is clearly in violation of U.S. Patent #15648663245877954-5468, "Method for Citizens of Foreign Countries to Criticize the United States on Matters of Intellectual Property," filed by my company, Litigious Bastards, Inc., on November 3, 2002. He will be hearing from our lawyers shortly.
Is the tide turning? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is the tide turning? (Score:3, Funny)
Unless we lobby Congress to put things right!!
Re:Is the tide turning? (Score:3, Insightful)
And thats where the problem arises. No matter how much you care about lobbying congress, a company with a few million to spare on lobbists and campaign funds is going to get further.
Re: Is the tide turning? (Score:2)
Geeks don't exercise; no one would show up.
Immediately thereafter ... (Score:5, Funny)
Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with software patents is not that patenting is ill-suited but rather that discovery of prior art and laziness by the PTO have resulted in questionable patents being issued. Even this isn't a problem, because when challenged and scrutinized those patents that are bad are discarded and those that are good are upheld. The problem lies in the cost to litigate this - essentially ensuring that the "little guy" must bow to the pressures of the multi-national corporation.
Instead, maybe the PTO should adopt a cheap ex-parte reconsideration procedure (to my knowledge only the applicant can request reconsideration for a patent that is denied) that lasts for the lifetime of a patent where the challenger only needs to present some evidence of a patent-destroying issue. This would eliminate the huge costs of trying the patent in a court of law and make the process a little more fair. If there is evidence of non-obviousness or prior use for a "progress bar" the patent will destroyed, otherwise, why shouldn't the patentee be rewarded for his new and novel invention (it should be to his benefit that such an invention is widely used!)
Re:Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:3, Funny)
All software programs are mathematical algorithims.
Ergo, software programs cannot be patented.
Disclaimer: The above relies on the issuing patent body being in some way competant. Does not apply to USPTO.
Re:Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:2)
Software adapts mathematics (be it simple boolean operations or complex searching and sorting algorithms) to a specific form and function. If an adaptation was sufficiently unique, non-obvious and usefull, then it might be reasonable to patent it.
Now, I don't support software patents, mostly becuase of the inept patent system we have.
Re:Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:2)
A microchip is a physical assembly of circuits, transistors and silicon. It performs a physical function. Like everything else its operation is based on physical and mathematical laws. But it is not a mathematical algorithim.
Software adapts mathematics (be it simple boolean operations or complex searching and sorting algorithms) to a specific form and function. If an adaptation was sufficiently
Re:Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that most sol
Re:Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the opposite tends to be true. The bad publicity associated with suing "little guys" tends to prevent big companies from suing. By contrast, lots of the little guys sue big companies all the time -- and quite a few make a good (sometimes almost unbelievable) living out of it too.
If you want a serious example, look up "Jerry Lemelson". In case, you want to see a serious example of how badly wrong Wikipedia can get things, look him up there to start with (if you know anything about him, it'll give you a good laugh).
Though he got hundreds of patents (and they may still be issuing) the only thing he ever invented (and I'm not sure he invented it, but he certainly used it a lot) was the submarine patent -- he'd keep patents "in the system" for years, often even decades. He'd write an initial patent that was exceptionally broad and vague, but then keep writing amendments to it for years at a time. Then, when somebody invented something roughly similar, he'd rewrite his old patent (that was still in the system) to cover what they invented, and claim he invented it decades earlier.
Just for one obvious example, he originally wrote a patent on a computer system. Later, when TI invented the microcontroller (i.e. CPU and peripherals on one chip) he rewrote his old computer system patent by basically adding "and...uh...all of that is on one chip." It took quite a long time, but eventually this did get sorted out in court -- the court fuled that his rewritten patent was invalid because the original application showed no evidence that he'd originally even contemplated what was really the important part of the invention -- moving the peripherals onto the same chip as the CPU.
TI did the right thing, fighting this all the way through court to get a bogus patent invalidated. Most companies, however, won't do that -- if the patent holder offers to settle for (say) half what they'd have to pay for the patent litigation itself, they'll just pay the money, and move on.
Given that a patent case will usually cost millions of dollars, it's pretty easy for "little guys" to go and basically blackmail big companies into giving them a few hundred thousand dollars (or so) with even a thoroughly bogus patent. The afore-mentioned Jerry Lemelson did exactly this to the tune of billions of dollars. Despite the money he made (and his estate still makes, as I understand things) he did stay a little guy in terms of (complete lack of) integrity though.
Re:Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
For each instance where this is true, there are an equal number of instances where the "little guy" is strong-armed by the big guys. In any event, the point of the original post remains true - the cost of litigating patent validity between parties is high; it makes more sense to offload those costs to the PTO which has the internal mechanisms in place to make review more efficient.
If the costs to litigate
Re:Why NOT allow Software Patents (Score:2, Interesting)
he did stay a little guy in terms of (complete lack of) integrity though.
By this argument, is there anything BUT little guys?
Patents aren't the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Innovative work expressed in software (a virtual machine) should have the same protection as any innovative work expressed in mechanical form (a physical machine). It is the non-obvious innovative work part that the patent office seems to not understand when it comes to software as well as they do when it comes to physical machines.
IMHO, what is needed are stricter rules, guidelines and use of software experts to review software patents.
I disagree -- software patents may not be needed (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. The costs are different.
Patents are designed to deal with the realities of physical goods.
It is expensive to produce many plows. It takes a while to produce a
Tide not turning (Score:2)
Yes, the tide is definitely turning. (Score:3, Interesting)
A year ago, this would have been considered ludicruous and impossible. Now it's for real.
Re:Yes, the tide is definitely turning. (Score:3, Interesting)
If Piratpartiet *does* get into parliament and get any kind of influence (could happen), it would most likely be because they are the Ny Demokrati of the year. Most people have no clue about or opinion on such complex matters as intellectual property. Also, no other party would form a coalition with them.
I *do* share their goals of abolishing intellectual p
Who needs patents? (Score:2, Interesting)
Me: Who needs patents?
I'll admit I know zero about IP, but as far as I can tell a software patent is simply a subset of patents, so if you can answer the second question, you'll have you answer for the first. Is the patent really the problem?
Why should anyone be able to patent anything? What differentiates a piece of hardware from a piece of software, aside from the medium in which it is presented?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cheese-Eating Overturn Monkeys! (Score:2)
Re:Fat, Ignorant American Assholes (Score:5, Informative)
Yeesh (Score:5, Insightful)
In every discussion like this there is always somebody who don't know the difference between patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.
Addressing your actual point, up till now the development of computer algorithms has progressed very nicely without much patent protection. It's a bit like saying, "without patent protection, where's the incentive to develop new physics?"
Re:Incentive (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't patent code -- you can patent (for exmaple) an article of manufacture that embodies the code, a method of operating a computer that happens to depend on code, etc.
That, however, is more or less beside the real point. The point of the patent system isn't primarily to encourage research, inventions, etc. Its point is to encourage people to publish their inventions, and to place them into the public domain in return for exclusive rights to them for a short time.
For those who've pointed out that software technology progressed before patents were allowed on software, I'd point out that while this is at least partly true, there are other things to keep in mind. At that time (up through about the seventies or so) software mostly wasn't an industry in itself. Most software was developed by hardware companies like IBM as what they had to do to sell their hardware. Since they saw the hardware as the real product, and the software as having no real value in itself, it was pretty easy for coders to publish what they did.
If there weren't patents today, I'm reasonably certain the situation would be a whole lot different. IBM (to reuse the previous example) has a software business that makes billions of dollars in itself. If they couldn't patent their inventions in this area, my guess is that they would not just publish them and given them away to everybody. Instead, they'd keep them secret.
The patent system is basically an investment on the part of the public. We don't have to put in money (directly) up-front, but we give the inventor some value, and in return we get full rights to their invention (eventually).
As far as bogus patents go: it's true that there are quite a few patents that are basically nonsense. Many aren't really original, and some don't even work at all (e.g. there are currently some in faster-than-light communication). That's more or less par for the course in investments though -- people diversify investments largely because they know at least some things they invest in are going to be complete losers. In addition, keep in mind that what we've given up is the value of the patent for a period of time -- if the patent has no value in the first place, we've given up exactly nothing. In fact, we get even a slightly better deal than that -- the patent office is profitable, so every time a completely bogus patent gets issued, our tax burden (and gov't debt) is reduced by some tiny fraction of a percent.
Admittedly, if you're in the position of the EU (for one example) you're pretty much getting the best of both worlds -- since most real inventions will be patented in the US anyway, you get the benefit of it being published, but without having to give the inventor anything in return.
Given that what we're investing is a limited period of exclusive rights, the real question (IMO) is mostly whether we're investing the right amount of time. This is basically a balance -- if the period of a patent is too short, the inventor is more likely to maintain something as a trade secret instead of patenting it. If the period is too long, we're increasing the cost, and decreasing the payoff. The question is how soon the invention is likely to become obsolete -- if most are obsolete before their patents expire, we're getting a lousy deal.