Do Patents Still Work? 158
"Here is my real question: What if we stopped issuing new patents in the United States: would 'the progress of science and useful arts' suffer? Prior to the advent of the Internet and the success of the Open Source movement, I would have said yes. Now I am not so certain. What do you think?"
Of course, these days, patents are used to prevent innovation more than anything else. I find this rather ironic.
More hilarous than ironic, this gem from Forge illustrates what can happen when the Patent system gets slightly out of control: "Hyperspace communications has been patented and is now my nominee for strangest patent. According to this story on the Register someone has not only "invented" hyperspace but has also figured out how to use it for transmitting data faster than light. My question is, does a fictional work count as "prior art"? To add to this concept Arthur C. Clarke is widely credited with having invented the communications satellite. The infamous band of space in which geostationary satellites orbit is known as "the Clarke Belt" in his honor. However he once said in an interview that he might have patented the idea if it had occurred to him that someone might actually build such devices such a short time after his story."
The big question here is how can you patent something that hasn't been invented yet? It seems that I can conjure up any flight of fancy that might just have a passing chance at becoming truth, patent it and make that idea mine forevermore?
const submitted a question that offers a potential solution: "I'm interested whether the patent madness may be stopped by restricting the number of patents in addition to shortening their time. If only 100 patents will be granted each year for the computing industry, only significant advances will be patented and things like the now infamous one-click patent will not get through the jury of experts in the field. The progressive scheme may be like the following: 1 patent - 10 years; 10 patents - 3 years; 100 patents - 1 year." which would make getting patents more of a competition between implementations, and to compete for the protections offered by patents sounds like a fair way to "promote the progress" in any given market.
Ask Slashdot. (Score:1)
Court challenge (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Okay, this is a joke. But it illustrates what is wrong with patents today, everybody tries to patent everything, even obvious things. This results in the slowdown of progress because anybody who tries to innovate stumbles over a dozen patents from people who are not interested in innovation but just money.
Grtz, Jeroen
Fictional work as prior art (Score:1)
I'm going to need someone to help out with the story from this point on, though because it's hazy in my mind. All I can remember is that someone tried to patent "The Valentine Michael Smith Water Nest" or something like that, and Heinlein won some kind of legal challenge against it. What I don't remember was whether this was based on the prior art aspect of the waterbed itself, or some kind of copyright on the name.
--
Patents are only as effective... (Score:2)
For truly revolutionary and unique ideas, patents are an important protection for the people who create new technologies and industries. However, trying to patent ideas that are or would quickly become obvious to the whole of mankind is counterproductive and harmful to the population and industry as a whole.
Patents are a logical protection under the law for creators, inventors and people of imagination that want to profit from their creation. However, when the law is interpeted too broadly we are stuck in a situation where idiot companies like Amazon can patent technology that is obvious to anyone who is not completely ignorant of the same said technology. Either the patent department needs to catch a clue or the whole set of laws surrounded patents need to be revised on a Federal level. However, ditching the laws wholesale is counterproductive.
Maybe I am too conservative and not reactionary enough for some but the whole idea of throwing babies out with their bathwater is narrowsighted to me.
Patents do work (Score:1)
The thing about patents is that there are an awful lot of them around (see patents.ibm.com [ibm.com]), but that the /. community only ever gets exposed to those which are bad in their view. After all, it doesn't make much sense for Rob and co. to put a story up saying "Company X gets patent for invention they put time and money into", not when they want controversy in order to generate more ad revenue. In this sense, /. has become the Linux zealot's equivalent of the tabloids, which is a pity.
Patents do work, and they work well for a lot of things which /.ers never come into contact with or never think about. They have a valid use in allowing someone to gain the benefits of something they've done, and it is only knee-jerk /. anti-patent opinions that seem to prevent people here from realising this. Sure, there have been a couple of "bad" patents perhaps, but the system works and has worked for a very long time.
Let's face it, the issue is more complicated than the typical narrow /. worldview, in which open source rules supreme and "gurus" like RNS espouse psuedo-socialist hacker ethics to the adoration of the community. The fact is that patents do work for 99% of people, and that the issue requires far more thought than /.ers seem capable of.
Re:Ask Slashdot. (Score:1)
Bestowing qualities (Score:2)
If patents are not intended to bestow upon the inventors any of the qualites of material property, how then do they encourage innovation? Isn't it precisely because they bestow the ability to control and profit from an inovation that they encourage inovations?
The question them becomes, does extending the strength and length of a patent beyond some arbitrary parameters actualy provide more encouragement? Will you spend more time or effort inovating and progressing if you know that you'll control your invention for 75 years rather than, say, 20?
Finally, doesn't protecting uninovative and unprogressive items have the opposite effect? Aren't you likely to put more time and effort into research if you need to show true originality in your concept than if you can patent every flight of fancy which comes your way?
Patents promoting progress (Score:5)
It seems that the patent holder has too much control over how their patents are used. In the past this didn't matter so much. Producing a machine costs money. A small surcharge from the inventor of the machine wouldn't affect this significantly. If the inventor asks for a fair price then everybody's happy.
The system breaks down when the patent owner uses the patent to prevent competition. Either by refusing to let anyone use the technology, or by charging too much to allow certain groups to use it. Because software can be produced on a shoestring budget, the latter is often unintentionally the case.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
And I was only answering his question.....
It's not that patents aren't necessary... (Score:5)
Due to my research, I've looked at patents where they actually make sense; chemicals and chemical processing, in which the patent usually revolves around the composition of the catalyst used. Some of these are very narrow, but some cover huge numbers of possible compositions, as well as large numbers of possible elements to use. (Such as up to 20 metals as catalyst promotors.) This would be all well and good if their provided enough examples of these, but in most cases, only 2 to 3 examples are given, covering only a tiny amount of their 'composition space'. Sure, I know that one can extroplate that if platinum (a noble metal) works, then most likely other noble metals such as palladium will also work, but most of the metal selections don't have rhyme or reason-- they just take as many as possible.
This is part of what needs to de done: the reviewing of the patent. Often I read that the patent office is swapped, and they have to push patents through as fast as possible to achieve their required quota, and furthermore, especially for computer-based patents, the expertise is not there. One solution is to throw more money at the problem and get more patent people in place with more viable skills with newer patents, but that's only half the problem.
The other is the time factor. Earlier this century, when the speed of information transfer was limited to snail mail, telegraph, and the telephone, the disclosure of ideas would take a long time, and thus long times for the delays of patents was necessary. However, as we've got to television, satillite communications, the internet, and whatnot, information moves much much faster, and the same time that was required 100 yrs ago is not really needed. However, one must still considered that there are a considerable number of patents that come out on tangible, real, processes (such as chemical production); if the patent office was to shorten up the time scale too much, a competiting company can design and build a facility (which can take a few years) that uses a patents but turning it on the day after the patent lapses, and benefit from the findings of the other company without paying for it, which is highly uncompetitive to the entire field.
So the time of patents does need to be shorted but not too much; 17 yrs is currently too long for the e-commerce patents, but 5 yrs is too short for process patents. Furthermore, you cannot just catagorize patents into "short term" and "long term" ones; while you could easily seperate the patents of today into those two areas, how can you know that in the next few years someone will have a patent that could fall into both because of the thinning of the real and virtual worlds? The nature of the patent should grant it no special privaleges.
At this point I would argue 7 to 10 years for patents. It should be long enough for the patents that were truly put in place to be protected, but fast enough for the new types of patents to disappear quickly. But of course, if combine this with patent reform and a tightening of the review process, few "bogus" patents would be issued, and we would not have to wait 7 to 10 years for that bogus patent to elapse.
Wrong question... (Score:1)
The patenting system was basically put together in it's infancy to stop big corporations from stealing ideas from the shed-in-the-bottom-of-the-garden type inventors, and to ensure that they could profit from their ideas.
These days, the garden shed inventor is a dying breed, and corporations are filing all the patents.
Certainly, in the computing industry, the amount of time it takes for patents to expire is incorrect.
I'd say 10 years is enough for any patent to survive for in any technology involved with data communications and computing machines.
The problem is, all of the corporations have large wads of cash to throw at legislators. And that is the biggest obstacle to reform.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Problems with patent quota system (Score:2)
1) The solution requires that the patent office select the "best" patents. The current US patent problem is mainly due to the fact the the patent office has no clue.
2) Say I submit an application for a patent this year and 99 have been granted already. If you're the patent office do you grant me the patent, thereby barring all further patent applications this year, or do you reject? A sensible decision would require you to know all of the patnet applications you haven't received yet. You're not going to be able to tell.
Imagine the horror of Patent Rush on 1st January each year!
Re:Ask Slashdot. (Score:1)
We do need patents. (Score:1)
I hate the current patent system as much as anybody, but patents are useful. There are some things that would not get invented were it not for patents.
I always like to look at the pharmaceutical industry for an example. They have to spend millions of dollars developing a drug and bringing it to market. Guys in their homes on their computers can't invent drugs for the hell of it like we can software. It is an incredibily long and expensive process. The only way they will get invented is if pharmacetucial company who invested the large amount of money into it can get a very large return. The only way for that to happen is to give them exclusive rights to their invention for a given amount of time (ie. through patents).
I would like to repeat, I do believe that the current system is broken at a fundemental level, but that dosen't mean IP is bad all around, or even not necessary.
Re:Court challenge (Score:1)
What patents are protecting ... (Score:1)
--
Hephaestus_Lee
Patents and Fair Use (Score:1)
As I see it, patents are there so that an inventor can design something new and unique, and not have to worry about getting the credit for his work stolen.
For the world of media, we have copyright and trademark laws. Patents, however, are slightly different as I understand them. To get a patent, you need to have something physical, not just an idea.
Apparently now, if I take an idea I have for, say, a flying car - I design it, I build a prototype, and I want to sell it to people. However, I know that Ford Motors can produce and sell it more efficiently, and use my own ideas to put me out of business. So I take my prototype to the patent office, and I patent it. That way, if Ford DOES come out with flying cars based off my design, I can say "Ahem, look. I patented this, it's legal and official, let's have our lawyers talk."
I'm not certain if that's exactly how the letter of the law reads, but I'm pretty sure it's the gist of it.
ObTechie: If I have a wondrous idea on how to make firewall software more efficient and successful, and I post it on alt.tech-support - then some company goes and releases a "New-and-improved" firewall program that uses my concepts, have I been robbed?
Perhaps by the concept of "intellectual property", yes I have. But morally and ethically, no. If I had a plan for this program, but didn't do anything with it (copyright it, trademark it, or patent it - whichever applies to software), and I told everyone about it, then it's my screw-up for giving away the secret.
It's just like finding a gold mine on unowned land. You'd better buy the mineral rights to the land before going to the bar and bragging about your discovery.
Personally, in this day of new technology popping up left and right, and especially in the cutthroat market we have, more people need to understand the patent system, and the rights they have to their inventions.
Just my 2 pesos. Return with interest.
~Matt
For a limited time (Score:3)
---
Patents = funding model (Score:3)
There are many possible ways of funding research - public money, charity-type organizations, etc. However, the patent system overwhelms other funding models we might try because it creates the potential for such astronomical returns on investment. Other models can't compete.
Here is my alternative: set up a patent tax. It works just like a national sales tax. Any product that makes use of a patent has the patent tax applied to it. the proceeds from the patent tax go to the holder of the patent. In addition, NO ONE is restricted in any way from using patent technology. The patent tax could vary with each patent - that's detail that could be worked out in interesting ways.
I'll give an example of how this works - take the Amazon 1-click patent. If Amazon patents this under this patent tax, then any user who choses to use 1-click must pay the patent tax, whereas if they choose to order normally, they wouldn't. You can see how easily the market would determine the value of this patent - nobody would do it. The only thing Amazon has succeeded in doing by patenting 1-click is ensuring that no one will use 1-click. So, they probably would not have made such a ridiculous patent under this system.
Another example: Someone invents a pill that cures breast cancer. They patent the pill. Now, any company can manufacture the pill and sell it, so it's likely to be cheap, right off the bat, but there's the patent tax, of, say 100%. So, the patent holder makes a lot of money - even though others are allowed to sell their product. It probably makes economic sense for the patent holder NOT to make their own product, as they would make as much money off of others, without having to be a manufacturer.
In any case, I think we could get rid of patents, and we'd, as a society, just have to come up with different funding models. I think we could do that.
What does a patent cost (Score:1)
How about a more significant cost for commercial patents, say 1 million pounds, while some sort of non-commercial patent is free (with suitable definition for commercial and non-commercial). This would stop it being worthwhile for patenting ideas that dont directly make money, allowing anyone to use them.
Or is this directly against what we (the open-source movement) are about.
Are patents *in general* a bad idea? (Score:3)
We, as a community, tend to look at "patent" and see "software patent." A better question, when we talk about patent reform, is whether patents work in general. Yeah, they tend to be a bad idea when it comes to software, but in general, are they a bad idea?
We, as a community, need to take off the rose-colored Open Source glasses, and look at patents in a broader scope. Most of the patents that are issued every year have nothing to do with software. Many of them are not even related to technology. Before we start "reforming" patent law, maybe we should look at other areas that have a lot of patent activity.
I don't intend this as a flame! We hear about software patents all the time but there is definitely more to the patent picture.
darren
Cthulhu for President! [cthulhu.org]
Re:Fictional work as prior art (Score:1)
However, I can certainly see where he would have an objection and probably legal standing over someone using the name Valentine Michael Smith on something, as that would make it appear that RAH had something to do with it.
--
Patent Law Reform (Score:1)
The spirit of the patent law is that, If there's something useful that someone created, make sure we all get it. But to be sure that it would be shared, make it worth the innovator's while to share it.
But the spirit of corporate litiganous patents is that, we get patents for as many things as we could create, and then get patents for as many things that we could patent that we couldn't create, and then we patent things that our competitors will potentially want to patent, and sit back as we watch them fall into our trap.
Regardless of the influence of lawyers and corporatism, the patent laws are still functioning as they need to, which is, as raised earlier, to promote and encourage innovation so that we can all benefit from such innovation.
Of course, we now have patents that cover fictional inventions that we don't even have the capability to implement yet. But that's ok. Because if it's too far beyond the current capabilities of anyone to make the invention a reality, then it just won't happen, not within the time that the patent covers to protect the so called 'innovator'. In that case, it's just as well for all of us, because now we have the ideas that we can work on (if they are not impossible to implement), and by the time we accomplish them, they'll be royalty free.
Welfare for Lawyers (Score:2)
That said, the biggest problem with the patent system seems to be the extreme overload of the system from gazillions of applications, plus the lack of patent examiners who are remotely familiar with the fields they're working with. "Prior art" nowadays seems to mean looking in the patent system database and nowhere else.
We definately need some new laws to tighten up the requirements for "novelty" and "usefulness". We also need a way of getting the real experts in the fields involved to look at patent applications. Could an "open source" arrangement work? Publish applications on the Web and let everybody make comments? (I rather suspect not; there are just too many applications.)
One reform that the US patent system needs is to move from the "first to invent" system used only in the US to the "first to file" system used everywhere else. "First to file" is trivial to determine -- just look at the postmark on the application. "First to invent" is just another playground for lawyers.
Another reform would be to tighten up the time between publication of an idea and filing for a patent. This is one of the problems with the LZW patents used in GIFs. Unisys filed the patent well after the article describing LZW compression was published. None of the authors of the paper, BTW, had any connection with Unisys. At the very least, any publication of the idea should contain an "intent to file" statement.
But it won't happen. The lawyers in Congress aren't going to do anything that would cut down on their colleagues' incomes, and the Big Money likes things confusing. Neither Congress nor Big Business cares squat about "promoting the progress of science and useful arts".
patent "problem" is part of something much bigger (Score:5)
But these problems should be seen as part of a larger challenge facing intellectual property protections. The Napster and DMCA and DeCSS problems are all related to copyright - another form of intellectual property protection, which is challenged by our new information technologies' ease of dissemination.
Some people have called for major revisions to our copyright laws [techreview.com], and others (like Jeff Bezos and the people in the introduction above) have suggested that the patent system should face strict reforms.
These are sometimes extremely good suggestions, but we would do well to keep in mind the following:
2. We cannot just tinker with these systems, but must treat them with profound respect (even if they are broken [salon.com]) because huge amounts of money and acclaim could end up going to people who don't deserve them, while innovators who do deserve them could get screwed.
3. If we think of copyright and patent problems as parts of a larger set of intellectual property issues that need consideration, it will actually help avoid confusion -- and we will be more likely to convince others (read: legislators) that these issues deserve attention.
For more background on the patent problem, see James Gleick's superb piece, Patently Absurd [around.com] (NY Times, 12 Mar 00).
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Washington, D.C.
Re:Wrong question... (Score:1)
--
Re:What does a patent cost (Score:1)
I think it would be possible to make all patents free until they start producing revenue. At this point they should charge a proportion until a set limit is reached (Say about $5000). What we really need for this to work is a way to prevent companies from using patents to stifle competition. Some sort of enforced licencing. Okay, this needs some more thought because I can't think of a way of preventing ludicrous licencing fees (e.g. $100 000 000 000 per use).
Re:I want my OS free (Score:1)
What was I thinking of? Moderators with a sense of humour?...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Re:It's not that patents aren't necessary... (Score:1)
Make the length of a patent decided on a case-by-case basis. A panel would review each patent and assign it a length based upon (1) the amount of time to develop said technology, and (2) the amount of time required to recoup money spent in developing said tech (this would require a specific outline by the patentor on how he plans to make money with it). One may also propose a second panel to extend patents in the case that the patentor wasn't able to recoup investment. (But NOT because they sat on the patent, stifling innovation!)
This widens the patent's office's burden, but at this point we need to throw out the entire office and start over. This allows things like biotech companies, who may spend 10 years developing a DNA sequencing machine and spend billions doing it to recoup their investments. It also makes "obvious" patents impotent since they will have a very short lifetime. A patent based on an idea developed by someone sitting on their couch eating cheetos should live no longer then 6 months.
I think this accomplishes all the constitution's requirements: rewarding inventors and encouraging innovation, while not allowing stupid patents to damage an industry.
--Bob
Re:Why? (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:1)
--Bob
... the time IS a problem (Score:2)
As noted, communications developments from the telegraph onwards have greatly accelerated the flow of information. This permits much quicker commercial exploitation of novel ideas and products.
But there are other changes. The market is much larger, increasing the rewards of new ideas. There are also many more potential inventors, so the cost of "first to file" is much higher. The likelihood that something would remain uninvented with weaker patents is much lower. Even 5 years is not likely to slow innovation. It would slow filings.
This applies in most areas, but not all. Pharmaceuticals are extremely expensive to develop, and slow to market due to government action (FDA). Some process patents (Unipol for plastics) take a long time (3 years) to build a plant, and need some time to pay back. 17 years might remain apporpriate for them.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Patents never worked (Score:1)
Oh, of course, lots of people (the racketeers that make money with patents, and their lackeys), will tell you that all research would stop without patents. As if research had ever waited for patents so as to begin! Yeah, some people even pretended that without a monopoly, there would be no trade between Europe, Asia, and America; but their tea ended in the sea near Boston.
Patents have ALWAYS been a way to STIFFLE, not ENCOURAGE, coopetitive creation. Witness these Quotes [mit.edu] from the LPF.
Free Software [tunes.org]! Free Information [tunes.org]!
-- Faré @ TUNES [tunes.org].org
Re:Welfare for Lawyers (Score:1)
We definately need some new laws to tighten up the requirements for "novelty" and "usefulness". We also need a way of getting the real experts in the fields involved to look at patent applications. Could an "open source" arrangement work? Publish applications on the Web and let everybody make comments? (I rather suspect not; there are just too many applications.)
Why not use a system like that used for research journals in academia? The patent system selects a group of people in a field (chosen from academia and business) to whom the patent is sent for review. This should be considered federal service, like jury duty. It is absurd to think that the patent office contains all the expertise in all the fields necessary to review any idea that crosses its desk.
--Bob
Patents - the Corporate Goldmine (Score:1)
concerned that my ideas/technology will be
taken from me, even with the patent.
As we all have seen in the recent past, a patent
is only as good as the amount of money you can
throw at it defending your "property" rights
in court. Many corporations peruse the patent
lists looking for good ideas to rip-off. And if
a corporation, say Micro$oft, was to produce a
product that clearly is "supposed" to be protected
by a patent, there would be no way for a garage-inventor
to back a long-term legal action
against such a giant. The corporation in question
could tie up the whole proceedings in court indefinitely
while making $$ off of the original
idea.
Patents may be nothing more than a good way to
get to see a judge in person. But then again.....
Question (Score:2)
If a corporation uses its patents solely for the purposes of bullying other people and corporations around, wouldn't that be evidence of the non-positive nature of the patent?
I'm sure that LZW compression (of GIF fame) would have been invented whether or not the incentive of temporary monolopy was present. (The remainder of the GIF spec cannot possibly be considered innovative by even the daftest of morons. If anything, animated GIFs are the scourge of the bandwidth-challenged.)
Donny
Re:Court challenge (Score:1)
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:1)
Re:Welfare for Lawyers (Score:1)
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:1)
Amazon's competitors.
Re:patent "problem" is part of something much bigg (Score:1)
1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.
The article cited does a good job of putting forth the argument that "The patent system has been broken for a long time, and survived". Just because it was broken 100 years ago, and is still broken today does not mean that it doesn't need reform. It's never too late to improve our situation.
--Bob
Re:Patents are only as effective... (Score:2)
Seth Shulman at Technology Review [techreview.com] gives a good, fairly even overview [techreview.com] of the situation. He quotes a patent lawyer who, I think, makes a particularly interesting point, "when there has been enough perceived inequity in the patent system, industry has revolted and other mechanisms have kicked in." In the case of e-commerce patents, he predicts "the courts will probably step in. Congress may have to step in. But you have to remember that all these forces, including broad societal forces, come together in a confluence that creates the law."
I think the reaction and outcry to this issue have been, at the same time, excessive and necessary. Excessive in the sense that I think it will ultimately be resolved: I think it will ultimately be seen that this sort of patent defeats the purpose of the patent system. Necessary in the sense that, in situations like this, excessive reaction is necessary in order to drive the needed changes.
--
Answer? (Score:1)
I swear it's true (Score:1)
It allegedly worked by bending gravity-waves. Since they don't actually travel, it was instantaneous.
Like I said, just thinking about this drove him crazy. Then one day he disappeared while going to pick up a business associate at an airport. There was all kinds of speculation, the russians kidnapped him (like tesla), aliens, roscotarians, you name it.
There was even an America's Most Wanted segment on it (although it wasn't as good as Unsolved Mysteries recreation of Rollin's best friend getting shot)
Last year they found his van at the bottom of a cliff. His body was in it. He probably killed himself.
P.S. Random 'quotes' make anything 'sound' like a 'conspiracy'
A patent that would aid progress (Score:1)
Economics of IP (Score:1)
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:2)
Regarding bureaucracies - millions of lawyers and courts doesn't at all strike me as being efficient. A national patent sales tax could easily be implemented relatively efficiently, especially given our level of technology these days.
Re:Are patents *in general* a bad idea? (Score:1)
Re:We do need patents. (I'm not so sure) (Score:1)
Re:Patents promoting progress (Score:2)
errrr... wasn't GIF based on the LZW algorithm? And in any case, the stimulation of development of other algorithms is definitely one of the means by which patents were intended to promote innovation.
At least LZW is in the public domain, so people can build on it. If you get rid of patents, then people will protect their intellectual policy using trade secrets. And that's a much worse state of affairs than the current.
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:2)
And, by the way, you can't "pass on" the cost of a sales tax! Think about it.
Re:Patents and Fair Use (Score:1)
To get a patent, you need to have something physical, not just an idea.
Wrong. It is possible to patent a "business model", or a even a software algorithm (MP3, anyone?) - both are ideas, and neither are physical
This is what people here are bitching about - (among other things) it shouldn't be possible to patent the non-physical.
You seem to understand this with your firewall example - but you miss the point that if you word it technically enough, you'd probably get a patent on it. Try it, and let me know how it goes.
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:1)
-- Faré @ TUNES [tunes.org].org
Re:Patents do work (Score:1)
Re:Welfare for Lawyers (Score:1)
Re:Patents promoting progress (Score:1)
Computational Complexity is the Key (Score:1)
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:1)
This would solve the big company vs. small company problem, but it would not solve the OSS problem, so we need another reform for open poducts. Specifically, if you want to give a product away for free then your *users* bear the responcibility of paying for the patent. This would mean that Linus dosn't need to pay anyone shit to use a patent in the Linux kernel, but VA must pay for distribution rights to distribute the kernel. Universities and pure research institutions might recienve even stronger freedom from patents.
Also, a patent's cost is determined by it's cost in products for end users. Example: Assume I am an end user of a free product which uses a patent microsoft uses in windows. This means I must pay microsoft the percentage of windows value which comes from the patent. Clearly, the percentages of value from diffrent patents must not add up to more then 100%..
Anywho, the point is to break the monopolies that patents create. I suppose it woul be simpler to just make it a criminal offence to abuse patents, but we all know that criminal law dose not really apply to heads of big companies very effectivly.
The article is online (Score:1)
Re:Court challenge (Score:1)
Some of you sound like idiots! (Score:1)
Measure patents and copyrights in net years (Score:2)
Get with the program! (Score:2)
Patents are the modern, high tech way to deal with monopolies- make everyone a monopoly! For example, I myself have patented the word "the"- and am rolling out plans to charge a $3 licensing fee for every use of the word the. You may even have heard about my forth comming IPO- the dot com. "It's _the_ place to invest!" It'll be the biggest IPO to hit since Redhat's prehistoric IPO! It'll make billions! It'll make Sagans! (Billyuns and Billyuns)
And any insinuation that I, rightfull patent holder of the word the, might not be in the best interest of the society as a whole, is obviously instigating a communist plot to topple the markets, bankrupt millions of daytraders, encourage the illegal international piracy of the word the, cast the whole of civilization down into the depths of dispare and poverty and maybe even rend the fabric of this most noble country called The(tm) United States of America. For beautiful and sacred lies, for never ending gain... Opps, sorry, little flash back there.
Where was I? Oh, yeah, Natalie Portman- Naked and Petrified...
The other side of the coin (Score:3)
I will point out that even in our current system the megacorp will always win. I've personally worked at smaller companies that have had valid patents that were infrindged on by very large companies. All that happens is a bunch of lawyers sit in a meeting room and basically say "Yeah, we're pissing on your Patents, but we've looked at your finacials and you do not have the backing to sue us. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
When you are a large company and have lawyers on staff it isn't hard to wage a patent war. If you're a small company you will be sucked dry by the lawyers.
It doesn't matter if you scrap the current system or keep using it. Money speaks in judicial system.
Original Patent System (Score:3)
In the 1700s, only a handful of patents were granted each year. The bestowing of a government monopoly was considered such an exceptional event that the Secretary of State personally approved each patent application.
As well, copyrights lasted for a relatively brief period of time, had to be registered by depositing an archival copy of the work, and had to be renewed or the copyright would expire.
Copyright (Score:2)
The problem is that extending copyright retroactively doesn't encourage the arts -- the work has already been produced, quite often by somebody who is already dead! And, since the constitution allows Congress to institute copyright to encourage the arts, retroactive copyright extension doesn't do it.
Important for things like project Gutenburg.
Theory vs Reality. (Score:3)
Furthermore, the mere fact that the government grants a "monopoly" on the idea for 17 years, does not mean the holder enjoys any such protection. In the vast majority of cases, competitors come out with equivelent products without having to go through the patent. So, if the effective life of the patent is only 5 years (actually quite high in many areas), it is all that much more important that the inventor ramp up his profits at the outset. To provide a smooth (or flat) "patent tax" tax, or one that is set arbitrarily by the government, might prove harmfull in two ways. If reward (read: tax x usage) are too low at the outset, this will lower the incentive for the inventor. Second, if it is too low, it may discourage the competing companies from trying to come up with unique alternative solutions of their own. Instead, they just "license" it as your "reasonable" fee. All in all, it would create a pretty apathetic system...perhaps not quite as bad as no IP, but significantly worse than what we have now.
In closing, the patent system is more necessary than it ever was. Sure, there are some abuses, but it is blown out of proportion by slashdot users. Slashdot confuses the mere existence of a patent, with the ability to profit and enjoy that protection. The patent office has been flawed for years, but the test is not the patent office, it is the courts. In other words, the granting of a patent does not mean it holds up in the real world, so to blow a few odd patents up as proof that "innovation" is now impossible is simply not true. [Yes, I agree the patent office has serious flaws,
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:2)
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:2)
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:2)
Anyway, if the end product is free, then a percentage of that is 0, right? So, I don't understand your example with Windows. If a free product uses a windows patent, you don't pay a tax based on the cost of windows, you pay a tax based on the cost of the product, which was free. This would essentially make software patents useless, which is good.
Re:public domain (Score:2)
priorart.org?? (Score:2)
Thus, my idea is this: why don't we have a website (priorart.org?) where you can go whenever you have a cool idea that you don't have the time, money, inclination or expertise to implement, and post that idea to the public domain? That way it ought to be trivial (or as trivial as the law gets) to invalidate a patent using one of the ideas posted there: just show that the idea is the same, and that the timestamp at the website was before the date of the patent submission. By submitting your idea to the site, you'd be placing it in the public domain, but you'd have the advantage of all the other people who read the site responding to it and possibly improving on it to the point where it's actually feasible to implement. On the whole, it sounds like a way to fight the patent system that's a whole lot more broad, less time consuming and less expensive than trying to maintain a GPLed patent portfolio (although I think that's a good idea too).
Of course (and this just demonstrates my point! Sort of.) I think there's prior art on the priorart idea. Or, at least, there are 16 websites with "priorart" in their names. priorart.org is taken, but I timed out when I tried to go there; I didn't take the time to check out all the other ones, so I dunno if they're using my idea or not.
But it's a good idea, though, isn't it? Isn't it?? What do you guys think??
Re:We do need patents. (Score:2)
Rather, the *DO* have to share, but nobody else is allowed to do anything with it. They would get sued.
Of course, I could say that as a chemist, I'm making your drug X, to save my friend's life, and if you sue me for making this compound, I will charge you with murder.
Re:I swear it's true (Score:2)
Patents and Open Source have the SAME GOAL (Score:2)
Re:Some of you sound like idiots! (Score:3)
judge: ignorance is no excuse. It is every man's duty to understand and obey the law.
me: Well judge.. let's get on with the trial.
judge: No. First, you must get a lawyer, as only a lawyer can truly understand the law.
Intellectual Property has the same goal (Score:2)
Re:priorart.org?? (Score:2)
http://members.axion.net/~enrique/invention.htm
and it is a release early, release often place for ideas. Every idea which can be expressed as code is under the GPL, everything else is under the Open Content License. The bolded links are ideas which are largely complete, the rest are going to be worked on over the next few months. People are welcome to ideas, comments or requests for inventions. Posting on the message board leaves a record with a time and date to establish that the idea was developed by a certain time.
As I've added ideas to the site, I noticed that hardware ideas can be thought up as fast as software ideas, you just can't implement most of the hardware ideas in a short time. In my opinion, the only reason to have patents on hardware inventions is so that the inventor could get the capital to bring them to market, there's no need to encourage the initial idea because that happens relatively often without financial incentive.
Doesn't work... (Score:2)
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
Your plan, like many, sounds fine in theory. The inventors get "rewarded" for their efforts. Whoopie. However, you are ignoring the very important relationship of risk and return.
Currently, the reward a company gets is market driven - via a government protected monopoly. A patent tax is no less market driven - how much "reward" you get is based on the demand for the product and the tax level assigned to the patent. The more people want the product, the more revenue the tax will generate. So, I can't agree with your assessment that the tax plan here. You assert the monopolies is a very efficient way to provide a high degree of return. I'm not interested in providing high degrees - I'm interested in providing a return based on the market value of the patent.
Your assuming the current system doesn't get "set" by the gov.? How do you control the cost a monopoly charges for a needed product? Say, a product that saves people's lives? What's to stop them from charging an infinite price? Insurance companies and government. A tax system that I'm suggesting could give the patent holders the choice of tax rate they want applied to their patent. The government might simply set some limits on that tax rate.
In the vast majority of cases, competitors come out with equivelent products without having to go through the patent
So, the patent is effectively worthless. No different in my system. Probably the patent holder would choose to "drop" their patent, or the tax rate.
If reward (read: tax x usage) are too low at the outset, this will lower the incentive for the inventor
I suggest the inventor set the tax rate, so it's as high or low as they choose/need.
Second, if it[the tax] is too low, it may discourage the competing companies from trying to come up with unique alternative solutions of their own. Instead, they just "license" it as your "reasonable" fee.
Hmmm, interesting fear. I'm not sure I'd be worried about this. It would thus encourage the sharing of technology and knowledge, and would still provide substantial benefit to innovation.
They seem to think that some panel of "experts", is a better decider of "value" than the market. Yet, if you talk to most any proven entreprenuer/inventor, they scoff at the idea of academics deciding value
Yes! Let the market decide - not "experts", not academics, and not a monopoly!
. Lastly, one need look no further than the massive amounts spent by large and small companies alike to conclude that the _actual_ IP system works decently
One should also keep in mind the number of technologies left to languish under patent protection, and the number of technologies left to languish because there's no way to recoup the research costs. There are illnesses they know how to cure, but don't because it would cost a lot, and only 500 people a year die from them, so, why bother? The system we have is not efficient, and there's nothing wrong with developing new ways of dealing with the problem. My ideal is that there'd be multiple funding models in place, but the current patent system really discourages people from using other models.
Re:Welfare for Lawyers (Score:2)
The current system of patent secrecy encourages the filing of questionable patents. A company has nothing to lose besides the costs of preparing and filing the patent. If the patent is granted, the company obtains a monopoly. If the patent is not granted, the application is not disclosed, and the company retains the trade secret status on their idea.
A system where patent applications were disclosed would deter companies from filing these "trial balloon" patents. A company would have to make the hard decision whether to give up their trade secret in exchange for a chance at a patent. Instead of just writing up a patent application and filing it, a smart company would perform a prior art search first, and if obvious prior art came up, they would not file for the patent, figuring that if they found the prior art, someone else probably will too. This would reduce the number of trivial patent applications, and reduce the USPTO's work load.
I think that there is a strong public interest in studying pending patents. I believe that both companies and the general public would participate in such a system. Companies would participate both to keep up with the state of the art, and in order to prevent their own publically disclosed, non-patented inventions from being patented by rivals, and individuals would participate because studying patents is educational and interesting, and an excellent way to keep current with the state of the art in one's fields of interest.
I would support the idea
Real reason for Patents (Score:2)
Re:patent "problem" is part of something much bigg (Score:2)
The "problem" with this case is that if the judge were to accept the premise of the suit -- that retroactive extension of copyright is in and of itself unconstitutional -- then logically, ALL retroactive extensions of copyright would be also unconstitutional. Removal of all retroactive copyright extensions would place all works created prior to 1944 in the public domain, and restart the currently-stopped copyright clock, with tremendous political consequences, since the most powerful and influential corporations in the world are film studios, record companies, and especially media corporations, which obtain much of their power and income from their extensive copyright holdings.
In other words, he tossed the hot potato to the appeals court. I fully expect this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Patents don't always promote innovation (Score:2)
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
BTW, if preview wasn't buggy, maybe I'd actually use it. As it is, it strips out all HTML from my post.
Your plan, like many, sounds fine in theory. The inventors get "rewarded" for their efforts. Whoopie. However, you are ignoring the very important relationship of risk and return.
Currently, the reward a company gets is market driven - via a government protected monopoly. A patent tax is no less market driven - how much "reward" you get is based on the demand for the product and the tax level assigned to the patent. The more people want the product, the more revenue the tax will generate. So, I can't agree with your assessment that the tax plan here. You assert the monopolies is a very efficient way to provide a high degree of return. I'm not interested in providing high degrees - I'm interested in providing a return based on the market value of the patent.
Your assuming the current system doesn't get "set" by the gov.? How do you control the cost a monopoly charges for a needed product? Say, a product that saves people's lives? What's to stop them from charging an infinite price? Insurance companies and government. A tax system that I'm suggesting could give the patent holders the choice of tax rate they want applied to their patent. The government might simply set some limits on that tax rate.
In the vast majority of cases, competitors come out with equivelent products without having to go through the patent
So, the patent is effectively worthless. No different in my system. Probably the patent holder would choose to "drop" their patent, or the tax rate.
If reward (read: tax x usage) are too low at the outset, this will lower the incentive for the inventor
I suggest the inventor set the tax rate, so it's as high or low as they choose/need.
Second, if it[the tax] is too low, it may discourage the competing companies from trying to come up with unique alternative solutions of their own. Instead, they just "license" it as your "reasonable" fee.
Hmmm, interesting fear. I'm not sure I'd be worried about this. It would thus encourage the sharing of technology and knowledge, and would still provide substantial benefit to innovation.
They seem to think that some panel of "experts", is a better decider of "value" than the market. Yet, if you talk to most any proven entreprenuer/inventor, they scoff at the idea of academics deciding value
Yes! Let the market decide - not "experts", not academics, and not a monopoly!
Lastly, one need look no further than the massive amounts spent by large and small companies alike to conclude that the _actual_ IP system works decently
One should also keep in mind the number of technologies left to languish under patent protection, and the number of technologies left to languish because there's no way to recoup the research costs. There are illnesses they know how to cure, but don't because it would cost a lot, and only 500 people a year die from them, so, why bother? The system we have is not efficient, and there's nothing wrong with developing new ways of dealing with the problem. My ideal is that there'd be multiple funding models in place, but the current patent system really discourages people from using other models.
Flip it back over- was: the other side of the coin (Score:2)
Did they purchase patent insurance? There are policies that the Insurance company pays all of your lawyer fees, but gets to recover their costs, plus a percentage of the damages.
It seems much less likely that the big company is going to infringe in such a situation...
LetterRip
Re:patent "problem" is part of something much bigg (Score:2)
It seems to me that the Constitution is quite vague about the power it gives Congress with respect to copyright. What is a limited time?
It doesn't explicitly give Congress the power to retroactively extend copyright terms, but it doesn't explicitly prohibit it either. You have any idea how the courts have looked at this kind of thing in the past? Doesn't it mean that the power goes to the states if it isn't specifically given to Congress by the Constitution? Or have they used the "interstate commerce" wildcard again? Btw, I've forgotten what amicus briefs are. Fill me in?
Question (Score:2)
Patents are only supposed to be awarded for inventions that would not be obvious to an expert in the field. Doesn't that mean that every patent should be REQUIRED to be reviewed by an EXPERT in the field, as well as having a prior art check done? Seems like all they do now is a quick prior art check and then award the patent. This goes entirely against what the patent system was supposed to do for us. We're now being prohibited from using obvious techniques and business methods. This is part of what is so screwed up about the patent system.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
Perhaps, but if the rate is set arbitrarily, it may (and probably would) be less than what the risk takers currently make, so you're less apt to see investment like that.
You might not be interested in it, but you can be sure the risk takers are. There are many fields where even with today's "monopolies" they hardly break even on R&D. The more you cut potential reward, the less profitable you make it, the more you increase the aggregate risk. Do not forget that these inventors rely on external capital. So even if one sucessfull firm returns 10x what was invested, the outside investors need atleast that to break even on expected value, because they investors aren't necessarily able to improve their odds--they don't know who the winners are going to be. This is especially true with bio and med tech firms.
First off, most patents aren't this "necessary". There are normally other alternatives available. Second, empirically speaking, there is simply no evidence of this. Hundreds of life saving inventions have been invented in the US alone, and not one case. Third, the companies only want to maximize profits, the maximum price is not the way to go about this. Fourth, the law can always intervene in truely extreme cases. Fifth, these limits are extremely dangerous for previously mentioned reasons (e.g., risk and return). It may be better from a utilitarian perspective to allow a couple people to die as the result of economic concerns, if the alternative is killing the thing that is saving even more lives.
Not worthless, just the effective life of most patents is not nearly as long as most slashdot juniors believe.
If the inventor sets the rate, it would be the same as today's system for all intents and purposes. Companies license their technology ALL the time. In fact, unlike you alluded to, few companies will sit on patents which are worthwhile. If they can't make use of them, they'll generally sell or license them. There is a market for them.
If a company cannot gain a competetive advantage by spending millions of dollars on R&D, they simply won't. Your system might allow already existing technology to be commercially shared, but that does not mean future technology will come out (and thus will not be shared at all).
What market?!?! If the inventors determine their percentages, it might as well be today's system. If not, then you're depending on a more arbitrary system to determine how much is "fair". What a "good" technology is. You come to depend on a bunch of academics who decide what to do..
The system is efficient. There has never been a time in history, or a place, which pars the level of effort or result into developing technologies. The technologies that "languish" are generally obselete and worthless. Any decently managed company which is aware of any usefull technology would sell it or use it if they thought it was dooable. Lastly, look at the profitability of almost any of these companies. You can claim they have monopolies all you want, but on the aggregate none of them are making a killing. R&D is very very expensive and risky. I can't stress this enough.
...What "multiple funding models"? Sounds like abstract and poorly developed concept.....
anyhow, office is shutting down...apologies in advance for spelling, gramatical, typos, html, etc. errors.
Re:Non-obviousness is not very obvious (Score:2)
People in the patent office trying to apply it to individual patent applications must be so perplexed that they are easily swayed by factors other than the law.
I think that's what I'm getting at. The people in the patent office aren't qualified to be making the decisions they're making. An expert in the field is the only one who can make the call on whether something is obvious or not. There are probably damn few experts in any field employed by the patent office. They can usually get better jobs elsewhere.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
Uh, no. It'd be quite different. Or are you telling me your railing against my idea so strongly, but really, it's no different from the current system which you apparently view as perfect?
I suppose this goes hand in hand with your assertion about the efficiency of the current system. And abuses of the system don't happen. Patent lawsuits really aren't happening.
Re:Patents = funding model (Score:2)
To respond, I don't think free software should have to pay for patents, if the cost is 0, and I don't see that as a problem. Software has only recently become patentable, and I think it's a crock.
Secondly, your system of compulsory licensing - I had thought about that, but when push comes to shove, and you have to enforce that, what price to you make the patent holder "accept" for their patent? Who determines the value? The government?
I'd rather that price be set in a more natural, market oriented way. Which is why I came up with this. Besides, the tax way, the licensing is taken care of for everyone - not just those who sign a licensing agreement.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
The problem is that your assertion that your "system" would necessarily solve issues such as overpriced medicine is utterly incoherant with the above. If it is entirely up to the owner, they can price it prohibitively high. In other words, companies that don't want to share, won't. Companies that do, will. This is how it is today, the same for all intents and purposes. The only other alternative is to formally administrate, with academic types, who don't know the first thing about business.
Read above, goes hand in hand with it.
Having been behind many sucessfull high tech companies, I can tell you that the vast majority of these "alternative" (read: non-profit) models are a joke. They are run by academics almost by definition. This is not a market based system, it's nearer to central planning (read: communism). In addition, these organization are almost by definition going to have burn through money like nothing else. Who is going to foot the bill? Right now, you have a few organizations which can scrounge up a little change (e.g., the NIH, NSF, NASA, ADA, AMA, etc.) But this system would not work on a large scale, a little charity here and there does not fuel our economy. It would require serious tax dollars. Not that i'm entirely opposed to government investment, but generally speaking I think it's not a replacement for genuine capitalist motivations for investment (read: de-centralized).
Umm, no. The patent office has serious flaws. They could be improved somewhat. But it is the courts where the power truely lies, the patent office has always operated as more of a filling service than anything out (granted, they do some filtering, but not much more). I do not envision anyway to really change this all that much for the better. Many of these legal fights are inevitable, even necessary. Assuming you could ever hire the "best" people to be patent examiners, there is no way you can insure that they are honest or accurate. Intellectual property protection is by its very nature highly complex. It's really not cut out for one guy to summarily grant or dismiss everything...thus we rely on the courts. I don't think it's "perfect", but I don't see a more optimal solution...certainly not yours.
I don't think risk and reward can be understated. Since you are making noise about reducing "costs" or "profits", the curbing of rewards, and hence reducation innovation cannot be ignored. I don't see way how this system could drive down the base price significantly, while allowing innovation to remain constant (read: preserving rewards). The costs in most of these products involve the R&D costs, the initial outlays, marketing, etc.... Where you see increased costs is where companies will charge a premium for a new product...which is part of their reward....which is what you say you're going to try preserve.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
If the tax system is unrestricted, then you argue that it's the same as we have now, and costs would not be any better than they are now. Here are my two main points:
Thus, one of our complaints is resolved - the technology is allowed to flourish and be used freely. Under the current system, it's common for a few licenses to be signed, and everyone else locked out. Or, in the case of medicine, for a monopoly to be held as long as possible.
Those patents that deserve maximum compensation and reward can still get it. Those patents that are worth a small amount get that. And those that are worthless, like the 1-click, really would be worthless.
I believe these are our main complaints about patents - the restrictive nature of them, and that even silly things can be patented and enforced.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
I would hardly say a system which is burdened with the same or more economic bagage than today is "unrestricted." The "sharing" you discuss would be heavily contigent on the "tax" the inventor sets. So it is not as if alternative companies could cherry pick the best patents and idea. For instance, if I spend 500m inventing an artificial pancreas, and I know the market for my product is only so big (e.g., diabetics), and that my patent is not going to be worth much in 2 years, I would be sure to set my per unit tax up such that I collect atleast 2000 dollars on every sale. Thus, when the competition comes along, they have variable costs of atleast 2000 dollars plus materials and labor, not to mention the fixed costs of setting up a plant, buying the machinery, etc. So what we have in a product that sells for at least 6000 dollars, quite possibly more expensive (because I set the tax) than my operation. What little other benefit provided to the consumer through "sharing" is soon lost too. If the competition wishes to add other IP protected features from other companies, say, a 10 year life battery, they're going to have to pay, say, 4000 here....so this mixing, matching, and building upon other things quickly can become prohibitably expensive.
That is non sequitur. Amazon, under your system, is still entitled to charge whatever they please. So long as they hold the one-click patent, and it holds up in court (which I doubt it will today), they could charge all of their competitors a fee which would allow them to charge less than the competition. The competitors who wish to use the technology still must pay whatever Amazon desires, just like today (again, assuming the courts support amazon which I doubt). Amazon's theoretical patent protection is worth quite a bit in actuality, but they did not create this value. Your system simply doesn't fix this.
Furthermore, your statement that the return of a patent would be contingent on its value is meaningless. Holding a patent today, in and of, itself does not bring the inventor any return. People must buy or utilize the patent in order to have any hope of return. Thus, worthless patents are worthless. Worthwhile patents are worth a lot. Your system does not change this.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
I disagree. I don't think you've thought it through. If Amazon patents the 1-click under the tax idea, and applies, say, a 5% tax on it. Competitors will simply opt not to use it, because end users will opt not to pay it. End users will simply decide, "well, if I use the slightly longer method to buy my products, I avoid this stupid 5% tax", and thus, the users have determined the "value" of the patent. Amazon would have to drop the tax to nothing basically for something so useless. As it is now, other companies can opt not to use the 1-click, but it may put them at a disadvantage, or they can fight a big huge expensive very inefficient court battle, and maybe win, maybe lose.
Your pancreas example seems flawed.
For instance, if I spend 500m inventing an artificial pancreas, and I know the market for my product is only so big (e.g., diabetics), and that my patent is not going to be worth much in 2 years, I would be sure to set my per unit tax up such that I collect atleast 2000 dollars on every sale. Thus, when the competition comes along, they have variable costs of atleast 2000 dollars plus materials and labor, not to mention the fixed costs of setting up a plant, buying the machinery, etc. So what we have in a product that sells for at least 6000 dollars, quite possibly more expensive (because I set the tax) than my operation
The cost for anyone to manufacture the pancreas is essentially the same. Normally, if you had a monopoly, you'd set the price to say $2000 above cost. So, the end price comes to $6000, as in your example, but the manufacturing cost was only $4000. You're making a 33% profit. If you set up a 33% tax under my system, others can then manufacture and sell the pancreas at a base price of their choosing, and you get 33% extra from each sale. If someone out there develops better manufacturing techniques than you, then we have some savings.
And I disagree the tax system would necessarily be burdensome. It would take some clever programming to make a system that runs smoothly, but I would take full advantage of large, powerful databases and the internet to store all the information and make it easily retrievable, so that costs and tax per product can be looked up and found very easily by retailers.
Thus, worthless patents are worthless. Worthwhile patents are worth a lot. Your system does not change this.
It would appear that most companies think all patents are worthwhile, since they don't hesitate to patent anything and everything they can think of. Given my Amazon example, I think my system would discourage frivolous patents.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
Your above argument is incoherant. In both the present and the proposed situation, the pricing, and thus the effective control of the usage, is entirely up to Amazon. They may or may not sell anything at the specified price, but it is the same in both situations. The only difference being that your proposal says: "You must license your technology, but you can choose the price". For all intents and purposes though, this gives Amazon the ability to stop anyone from using it. The power to determine the pricing lies in Amazon's hands in both situation. Whether the usage comes from today's licensing fees or your proposed "tax", buyers' (read: market) strength is the same.
My example, in case you did not understand, was: 2000 (monopoly rents) + 4000 (manufacturing and administrative costs) = 6000 (selling price). The point being that the power to reduce prices really does not rest in the competitions hand, as the price is mainly a function of monopoly rents, not manufacturing costs. You might have an argument that they could reduce manufacturing costs slightly, but this is nominal. In fact, I would say that the propensity of the inventing company to overcharge would more than overtake whatever savings the competitors are able to generate (almost by definition). Thus, prices would not be reduced. The pharma-company with the "life saving" medication can still determine the selling price.
This doesn't follow either.
Re:Theory vs Reality. (Score:2)
Your above argument is incoherant
You keep saying that. Let's see you show it, in detail. To me, it's clear you aren't really thinking about my Amazon example.
In both the present and the proposed situation, the pricing [is controlled by Amazon]
Only the tax is controlled by Amazon...
and thus the effective control of the usage, is entirely up to Amazon
No, usage is not under Amazon's control. Anyone can use the 1-click, if they choose. The only condition, is that the tax is paid each time.
They may or may not sell anything at the specified price
There is no specified price. There is a specified Tax. There's a difference there you need to consider. Amazon can't make all their products cost the same whether or not 1-click is used. The tax only applies to 1-click, and so it boosts the price after the price of the item is determined. Amazon could give a discount for all 1-click purchases, but then the 1-click simply has the effect of reducing their profits.
For all intents and purposes though, this gives Amazon the ability to stop anyone from using it. The power to determine the pricing lies in Amazon's hands in both situation
Not pricing - tax! Again, think about the difference. Amazon can, in practice, stop anyone from using 1-click, by assigning a tax of 50% to it (no user would ever use it, so no retailer would use it). But, Amazon also would not be able to use the technology, since the tax would apply to them as well, and the users would simply bypass the 1-click, or go elsewhere if you were forced to use 1-click at Amazon's site. So, yes, Amazon could patent it and put the tax ridiculously high, and no one could use it. But Amazon would also get no benefit, and they would, without doubt, bow to public pressure to remove or reduce the tax rate in such a situation.
My example, in case you did not understand, was: 2000 (monopoly rents) + 4000 (manufacturing and administrative costs) = 6000 (selling price). The point being that the power to reduce prices really does not rest in the competitions hand, as the price is mainly a function of monopoly rents, not manufacturing costs.
Do you not really read stuff I'm writing? It seems obvious that I understood your breakdown of 2000 and 4000. It also is clear you're still talking about price, and not understanding the concept of tax. A tax is a percentage. Their is no fixed $2000 price. I translated this to a tax rate of 33% in my reworking of your example. This seems to make it clear that competitors have a great deal of control over the final cost of the product. A 50% reduction in the base manufacturing price ($4000 reduced to $2000), reduces the final cost to $2666, less than half the original $6000.
The pharma-company with the "life saving" medication can still determine the selling price.
Yeah, basically, they can. Minor manufacturing cost savings could result, but overall, the pharmaceuticals are going to be good at predicting likely prices and at fixing a tax rate to their benefit. So? You like the present tax system for pharms-companies, and my system doesn't seem to harm their chances. That's a good thing. But it does make tech open. It forces patents to truly be worthwhile to the end user. And, it would avoid a lot of costly, inefficient court battles.