If are the source of, or user, of GPL property, then the entire FRAND thing is irrelevant for you. If it's open, it's open. Copyrights and patents are granted only the original creators or original works. If the creator wants to make it open, great! The Standards body prefers that, and so do all the users. These two are not in conflict at all. Open source helps patents, because it provides a widely available reference that can trivially be used against anyone who might (purposefully or accidentally) claim any rights to it.

You NEVER pay royalties to a Standards body. You pay them only the owner of the property.

The F in FRAND stands for "fair." FRAND is an approach used for decades by Standards committees that require any participant and any IP involved with a proposed Standard to offer open and uniform patent licensing to everyone (on the planet). This type of licensing is very much NOT the industry practice, where nearly every patent license is otherwise kept a secret and has to be painfully negotiated. There is nothing in FRAND, that I can see, that prohibits open source software or other open IP. In fact, Standards committees -- given a choice -- would far rather build in open IP to closed IP (even FRAND) into a Standard. Can someone knowledgable explain how FRAND in any way harms open source? I have worked extensively on two international Standards bodies, and have two of my own (non-patented) inventions now as ANSI standards.

I filed a patent application for a "smart plug," which overlaps with Sony's idea. I think mine is far better. I hope to have it become an open standard via the RFP process. I posted the application and illustrations where you can download them on my blog: litebulb.org

Non-profits have to file or disclose practically nothing. They have a tiny fraction of the disclosure requirements of public companies. They don't have to disclose how much officers are paid, or revenue sources, or how revenue is spent. They have only to provide a few very broad categories, with lots of wiggle-room even in those categories. They operate under a charter by the state, but there is no adult-supervision, as it were.

Takes effect on the Ides of March, 2012. For new filings after date. Those new filings will start to come out of the Patent Office mill around 2017. Most professionals in the patent field (including me) don't think the new law will change patent practice much.

Like many others in my field, I prefer to call it by its original name, the "Smith-Leahy Act," since it, disappointingly, doesn't provide meaningful improvement in "inventing."

Uh, I forget.

This reminds me of when the Chinese tried to copy a 747. They made it out of wood, and got the center of gravity wrong. Is it a plane?

In the youtube demo, it missed every question.

OK, I concede they are not programmable. They certainly (in my opinion) should be considered computing machines. However, I left off of my "request list" both programmable analog computers and plug programmable punch card equipment. Today's engineers may laugh, but I was able to do some pretty amazing things with both of those types of hardware. You work with the tools you have.

I don't know if these fit his proposed curve or not. I would just like to see the result of thinking about that question.

Not witty at all. Evolution is continuous. For example, one can compare energy costs backwards from nuclear, coal, back to cutting wood. People use energy ... not that hard to make an estimate for slide-rule energy costs. There used to be people who were paid to work 8-hours a day doing calculations by hand (including military ballistic tables). Why would *you* assume that tube-based computers are comparable to an IPad? The fact there there are general "rules" that appear to apply across an extremely wide range of technologies is what makes observations like Moore's Law interesting in the first place. I am an educator. You should not assume that unusual questions are inappropriate. In fact, there was a fascinating TED talk on the cost of light back through the 18th century. Why would observations on the cost of computing not be as valid an area of study as the cost of artificial light?

I would like to see not only the Babbage engine on your curve, but also the abacus and slide rule. Maybe the physical Rod, too, which used to be used in surveying. (Hey, you try calculating property area using pencil, paper, and a deed.)

Anybody who can hack into the communications link (already published -- easy to crack) can tell if you are home or not. Ideal for someone wanting to break in. Also, a working husband can easily track a stay-at-home (maybe) wife's activity.

Senator Maria Cantwell: "This is not a patent reform bill. This is a big corporation patent give away that tramples on the rights of small inventors."

Thanks for asking.

First, you say that patent filing and innovation are unrelated. I think most people would disagree. Perhaps you and I differ on the definition of innovation. You say, “you don’t need to patent.” Protection of intellectual property has been recognized nearly globally for hundreds of years. It costs a great deal more to develop then replicate. Compare, for example, the cost to create a new video game to the cost to duplicate same. If there is no compensation for creators, then innovation would slow to a tiny trickle. Some people are OK with that, but that is not the current system.

The “micro-entity” applies to the first four patents per inventor. Most inventors are prolific, so that isn’t worth much either way. It’s a nice token, however. I doubt there are any effective “single patent” patent trolls. It’s just not economical.

By the way, there is already a new “expedite” option, where for $4000 an applicant is promised a fast track. Since there are no more people in the USPTO (they have had a hiring freeze ordered by congress for a year) this means the “regular” filers will be processed even slower. Big companies don’t care about the $4000 and just pay it. Independent inventors are screwed in a bunch of ways, and this is one of them. Most innovation comes from independents and tiny companies. Cisco, for example, has bought over 150 other companies--that is how they buy other people's innovations and patent portfolios.

I don’t agree with your analysis of a reduction in taxes. If 50% of the country were unemployed, you would say that was a tax reduction. Tax rates are per payer, not per total revenue received.

The fake logbook thing doesn’t happen, in practice. During interference, which will end under the new bill, the Office requires third party proof. Also, the current system is not really “first to invent,” because in order to get that benefit, the “first inventor” is required to “continuously” have worked on the invention. That is generally true for a large company doing product development, but rarely true for independent inventors. In most cases (68%) of interference the “first to reduce to practice” (i.e. build a working product) wins the interference.

Competent polls of patent professionals (I am a patent agent) show a wide split on beliefs as to the “value” of the new bill. Most people agree it will make a negligible difference. It certainly won’t create jobs and won’t reduce litigation. There is some chance it might make the patent office a touch more efficient (or maybe the opposite). It will hopefully reduce the number of bad patents – and everyone agrees that there were too many of those in the past.

The patent office makes a profit -- over $1 billion dollars profit, in fact. Money that goes into the US Treasury for congress to spend how it likes. The patent bill just passed raises patent "fees" by 15% immediately. These are only partially fees, because of the excess. Now there is more excess. This is simply a tax on innovation. There is simply no other way to look at it. Where are all those Republicans who said, "no new taxes?" Where are the democrats who said they support innovation in this country.

When Canada passed the exact same change 10 years ago (changing from first-to-invent to first-to-file) independent inventor applications dropped by 50% and have never recovered. This bill was pushed entirely by large corporations who don't want to pay the real innovators for their inventions.