Overturn Patent Laws

[bogbrush]

I've always been against the widespread use of patents by Corporations to slow down progress and inflate costs, and it seems that the Ventner Institutes development of synthetic life, and the patents they are applying for may help bring this issue forward.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10150685.stm

Without patents there'd be no fraudulent positioning of drugs as breakthroughs when they're not, and massive reduction of cost. Developments would still happen, of course, because that's what top boffins want to do anyway and all they'd need is the opportunity. The Nobel Prize or whatever is worth way more to those guys.

[frozen_out]

The patent system is a mess and a fraud. Particularly the US system, which grants just about anything as far as I can see.

I was discussing this with a guy at work and I said I thought the whole thing was a nonsense and it should probably just be scrapped. He said, and I quote: 'Without patents no one would invent anything'.

Riiiight....

Edit: After reading that link I don't think they'll get the patent simply for political reasons. If it's granted in the US but not in Europe it will drive all the research over here and strangle it over there because no one will have any freedom to operate.

[The Eagle]

Very much agree, patents are a historic legacy that is well past it's 'sell by date' and these days only hinders the adoption of new inventions by artificially creating monopolies.

Copyright laws need to be drastically curtailed too, the content mafia has way to much power.

[Guest absolutezero]

I've always been against the widespread use of patents by Corporations to slow down progress and inflate costs, and it seems that the Ventner Institutes development of synthetic life, and the patents they are applying for may help bring this issue forward.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10150685.stm

Without patents there'd be no fraudulent positioning of drugs as breakthroughs when they're not, and massive reduction of cost. Developments would still happen, of course, because that's what top boffins want to do anyway and all they'd need is the opportunity. The Nobel Prize or whatever is worth way more to those guys.

To some extent I agree but in your professional life do you have a vested interest in the removal of patents?

[BlinkTooFast]

I was discussing this with a guy at work and I said I thought the whole thing was a nonsense and it should probably just be scrapped. He said, and I quote: 'Without patents no one would invent anything'.

Riiiight....

I agree with your guy at work in principle, though of course his generalisation goes a little too far. My employer gives me a large sum of money each year to go invent stuff that is useful for the business and gives us business advantage over our competitors. Needless to say, I patent my inventions. Without the patent system it would make little sense for people to spend resource inventing and developing and would inhibit people from bringing inventions to market, knowing full well that someone else is just going to copy the idea. Thus the inventor would have all the toil of inventing, developing and commercialising, just to have no business advantage.

Developments would still happen, of course, because that's what top boffins want to do anyway and all they'd need is the opportunity.

Let's see. My employer stops funding our research / R&D Team. Do we keep going to work for free and inventing stuff? 'Course not. We go mountain biking / to the beach / sit in the garden / spend time on HPC. Hey-presto. Inventions stop.

You then get some entrepreneur inventing in his garage, and either selling that idea to a big corp (why would they pay? - without patents they can just take one look at it and rip it off, and they sure as hell ain't gonna pay without looking at it) or commercialise it himself, but then he'll discover that his manufacturing and distribution capability reaches a handful of local stores, and a big corp just rips it off in a global roll-out.

So entrepreneurs would stop, too.

That's why we have patents.

[bogbrush]

To some extent I agree but in your professional life do you have a vested interest in the removal of patents?

Very much not; we have a large amount of novel/patentable developments here - indeed that is central to our strategy - but we choose not to patent because imho it's easier to keep a secret if you just don't tell anyone. We aren't stopped from doing anything because of the existence of patents anywhere else, at least we haven't hit that problem yet. To be really honest if I did see a problem within reason I'd probably just carry on and keep it quiet!

My issue with them is three-fold;

- often patents are granted for absurdly obvious things (I saw one given for use of dry air in a process, something we worked out for ourselves years previously and didn't think it clever at all, because it isn't (I can carry on of course, because we precede the invention and the holder would be foolish to provoke the debate. This stops people doing stuff they easily would have thought of themselves and so reduces competition.

- it creates cost without compensating benefit; stuff would still happen because that's what scientist types want to do anyway.

- it runs counter to the principles which have driven the human race on most rapidly; the printing press changed the World because it meant we all stood on the shoulders of our ancestors. Patents potentially retard that process.

[bogbrush]

Let's see. My employer stops funding our research / R&D Team. Do we keep going to work for free and inventing stuff? 'Course not. We go mountain biking / to the beach / sit in the garden / spend time on HPC. Hey-presto. Inventions stop.

You then get some entrepreneur inventing in his garage, and either selling that idea to a big corp (why would they pay? - without patents they can just take one look at it and rip it off, and they sure as hell ain't gonna pay without looking at it) or commercialise it himself, but then he'll discover that his manufacturing and distribution capability reaches a handful of local stores, and a big corp just rips it off in a global roll-out.

So entrepreneurs would stop, too.

That's why we have patents.

Not true; serious passionate scientists do stuff to advance knowledge, get their names in journals and win Nobel prizes. Or do you think they'd choose to dig roads instead? Did we invent nothing before patents?

And the commercial advantage comes from being first (and keep your secrets, as we do).

[OnlyMe]

To some extent I agree but in your professional life do you have a vested interest in the removal of patents?

Have you ever tried to patent anything and get it through to production stage?

[Bloo Loo]

I agree with your guy at work in principle, though of course his generalisation goes a little too far. My employer gives me a large sum of money each year to go invent stuff that is useful for the business and gives us business advantage over our competitors. Needless to say, I patent my inventions. Without the patent system it would make little sense for people to spend resource inventing and developing and would inhibit people from bringing inventions to market, knowing full well that someone else is just going to copy the idea. Thus the inventor would have all the toil of inventing, developing and commercialising, just to have no business advantage.

Let's see. My employer stops funding our research / R&D Team. Do we keep going to work for free and inventing stuff? 'Course not. We go mountain biking / to the beach / sit in the garden / spend time on HPC. Hey-presto. Inventions stop.

You then get some entrepreneur inventing in his garage, and either selling that idea to a big corp (why would they pay? - without patents they can just take one look at it and rip it off, and they sure as hell ain't gonna pay without looking at it) or commercialise it himself, but then he'll discover that his manufacturing and distribution capability reaches a handful of local stores, and a big corp just rips it off in a global roll-out.

So entrepreneurs would stop, too.

That's why we have patents.

I guess counterfeiting doesnt go on, even though there is a law against it.

laws dont cure a problem.

they put off the casual.

[ken_ichikawa]

So you want a Chinese free for all where copyright patents etc are not respected?

It is like the hyperinflation problem, i.e. you can get away with it once or twice in paying people with worthless paper, the problem is getting them to come back to work tomorrow or the day after when they realise they have been duped.

Patents don't last all that long anyway for certain things, I remember in the 1990s Viagra was first touted it was around 1998 as there was a bloke smuggling them into the country at college, by 2008 the patents ran out and you can buy cheap generic copies which according to Jake smuggles a tin back every time he returns fom Macau

[jimmythefinger]

If you remove patents then how will you protect the small inventor from the large corporation? Any good idea will be stolen before the creator has chance to benefit. I also agree in general that patents increase the price and slows down the introductions of useful ideas but to remove them completely seems dangerous. And what about copyright? - this has a similar function.

[ken_ichikawa]

Not true; serious passionate scientists do stuff to advance knowledge, get their names in journals and win Nobel prizes. Or do you think they'd choose to dig roads instead? Did we invent nothing before patents?

And the commercial advantage comes from being first (and keep your secrets, as we do).

Sure things were invented before patents Chinese inventions like paper and silk for example, Glory is all nice and well, but people have to eat and put a roof over their head.

[The Eagle]

Sure things were invented before patents Chinese inventions like paper and silk for example, Glory is all nice and well, but people have to eat and put a roof over their head.

And why do you think that wouldn't be possible without patents?

[frozen_out]

Did we invent nothing before patents?

That was EXACTLY my response to him.

What came first, patents or inventions?

I agree with your guy at work in principle, though of course his generalisation goes a little too far. My employer gives me a large sum of money each year to go invent stuff that is useful for the business and gives us business advantage over our competitors. Needless to say, I patent my inventions. Without the patent system it would make little sense for people to spend resource inventing and developing and would inhibit people from bringing inventions to market, knowing full well that someone else is just going to copy the idea. Thus the inventor would have all the toil of inventing, developing and commercialising, just to have no business advantage.

I disagree, completely. If you know that your competitor could produce goods/products via the same method IF they managed to reverse engineer your product then you're incentivised to increase your rate of innovation and reduce your development cycles. Reverse engineering isn't a simple process, we have technology that's 20 years old, published in patents and other people still can't make it as good as we can.

There's also a massive advantage in being first to market with something.

[frozen_out]

If you remove patents then how will you protect the small inventor from the large corporation?

How do you do this WITH patents?

I have a modicum of experience with the patent industry and to me it appears to do precisely the opposite. particularly in the US.

[ken_ichikawa]

If you remove patents then how will you protect the small inventor from the large corporation? Any good idea will be stolen before the creator has chance to benefit. I also agree in general that patents increase the price and slows down the introductions of useful ideas but to remove them completely seems dangerous. And what about copyright? - this has a similar function.

10-15 years seems a decent figure to use, to allow companies and people to recoup their investment. It didn't do Norman Hassock any good though, he presented his Hassock invention in 1981 to BMW using a K100 BMW as a test bed. BMW told him they were not interested and waited for the patent to expire.

They then copied it and renamed it the telelever suspension system and then for some reason put it on the backs of bikes too and called it the duo lever suspension system.

A variation was used on the Britten V1000 and the V1000 raped every other bike in its class as it used some genious tech.

Double wishbone hassock suspension.

Radial brakes

Radial dampers,

Complete separation of steering and shock absorber

Ceramic engine plates

ram air ducted air flow.

[ken_ichikawa]

That was EXACTLY my response to him.

What came first, patents or inventions?

I disagree, completely. If you know that your competitor could produce goods/products via the same method IF they managed to reverse engineer your product then you're incentivised to increase your rate of innovation and reduce your development cycles. Reverse engineering isn't a simple process, we have technology that's 20 years old, published in patents and other people still can't make it as good as we can.

There's also a massive advantage in being first to market with something.

Econimic free rider problem sort of? I.e. if you can be a big corporation, and simply rather than pay for it yourself you wait for somebody else to develop the technology then steal it.

Since both parties just wait for somebody else to produce it effectively nothing gets made, Japan did this in the 1980s with British motorbike frames, they could make incredibly powerful engines but used 1950s technology to make bike frames 70mph on a CBX1100 6 cyl monster is scary. They went to Spondon engineering and copied the twin spar design, but then again they were never patented.

[porca misèria]

If you want evidence on patents, try this entry in Eric Brechner's blog.

Eric writes as a senior Microsoft boffin with a number of patents to his name. He does a pretty good job here of speaking for people who innovate (as opposed to lawyers who prey on innovation):

When using existing libraries, services, tools, and methods from outside Microsoft, we must be respectful of licenses, copyrights, and patents. Generally, you want to carefully research licenses and copyrights (your contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can help), and never search, view, or speculate about patents. I was confused by this guidance till I wrote and reviewed one of my own patents. The legal claims section — the only section that counts — was indecipherable by anyone but a patent attorney. Ignorance is bliss and strongly recommended when it comes to patents.

He couldn't understand his own patent!

For a real-life example of the damage patent pirates can do, look at NTP vs RIM. The pirates held the entire existence of the Blackberry (at the time, pretty much the only mainstream smartphones) in the USA to ransom, and won $612.5 million. Subsequently the last of the patents in question was declared invalid, but the damage had been done. RIM had lost a huge sum in the ransom and of course legal fees, and pretty-much lost its lead in its market (where it is now just one of many players).

[Laughing Gnome]

Developments would still happen, of course, because that's what top boffins want to do anyway and all they'd need is the opportunity. The Nobel Prize or whatever is worth way more to those guys.

I will not dispute your other points as I don't know about the issue.

However, as you are very much in favour of low tax for the rich, because we "need" them and genius must be incentivised,

why do you think that companies should invest in R&D only to have their products copied and genuinely clever and creative

people should be content to work for a pat on the back?

[Laughing Gnome]

Not true; serious passionate scientists do stuff to advance knowledge, get their names in journals and win Nobel prizes. Or do you think they'd choose to dig roads instead? Did we invent nothing before patents?

And the commercial advantage comes from being first (and keep your secrets, as we do).

So why do cheif executives have to be massively rewarded. Presumably because they have no passion, they just don't care about their jobs?

[slacker]

You could have a short window for the patent.

For instance 2 years for a technical patent, 4 years for a medical one.

Innovation would improve tremendously if this was opened up. It is right that companies should be able to profit initially from a discovery, but too long and it becomes a drag on everyone else.

[OnlyMe]

How do you do this WITH patents?

I have a modicum of experience with the patent industry and to me it appears to do precisely the opposite. particularly in the US.

Any big company can use a slight slight in one of their patents to effectively block other patent applications, all backed by lots of money and inhouse legal team. To be fair a lot fo other large companies file patents so that they themselves are not locked out of the market that they discovered/created. Many Chinese manufacturers simply ignore patents and carry on regrdless - difficult or impossible to squash their companies. So the whole system really isn't doing what is intended in the current environment. A bit like the legal profession, once ingrained it becomes an end in itself. To propoer;y protecct an idea costs 10'000's when all the work is done, most small outfits simply don't have the money.

[frozen_out]

Any big company can use a slight slight in one of their patents to effectively block other patent applications, all backed by lots of money and inhouse legal team. To be fair a lot fo other large companies file patents so that they themselves are not locked out of the market that they discovered/created. Many Chinese manufacturers simply ignore patents and carry on regrdless - difficult or impossible to squash their companies. So the whole system really isn't doing what is intended in the current environment. A bit like the legal profession, once ingrained it becomes an end in itself. To propoer;y protecct an idea costs 10'000's when all the work is done, most small outfits simply don't have the money.

Exactly. So patents don't protect small inventors at all. They protect big corporations with lots of money and big legal teams.

I'm doing a patent search right now, as it happens. This is a passage from one I've just put down:

Calcining the material can be performed at a temperature between about 450[deg.] C. and about 900[deg.] C., more preferably between about 500[deg.] C. and about 850[deg.] C., still more preferably between about 600[deg.] C. and about 850[deg.] C. Alternatively, calcining can be performed at a temperature between about 500[deg.] C. and about 800[deg.] C. or between about 500[deg.] C. and about 775[deg.] C. or between about 550[deg.] C. and about 850[deg.] C. or between about 500[deg.] C. and about 750[deg.] C. Yet in another alternate embodiment, calcining can be performed at a temperature between about 900[deg.] C. and about 1600[deg.] C. or between about 1000[deg.] C. and about 1500[deg.] C. or between about 1100[deg.] C. and about 1400[deg.] C.

What good is that to anyone? Patents in general are an impenetrable mess. A lesson in obfuscation and the stifling of genuine innovation.

[The Eagle]

You could have a short window for the patent.

For instance 2 years for a technical patent, 4 years for a medical one.

Innovation would improve tremendously if this was opened up. It is right that companies should be able to profit initially from a discovery, but too long and it becomes a drag on everyone else.

No 2 or 4 years, patents need to be abolished completely. The company that invented something will profit the most anyway as it will be first to market, no need for patent protection.

The abolition of patents would improve competition and innovation (without patent protection you have to innovate to stay competitive, with patents you can just rest on your laurels of earlier patents).

[OnlyMe]

Calcining the material can be performed at a temperature between about 450[deg.] C. and about 900[deg.] C., more preferably between about 500[deg.] C. and about 850[deg.] C., still more preferably between about 600[deg.] C. and about 850[deg.] C. Alternatively, calcining can be performed at a temperature between about 500[deg.] C. and about 800[deg.] C. or between about 500[deg.] C. and about 775[deg.] C. or between about 550[deg.] C. and about 850[deg.] C. or between about 500[deg.] C. and about 750[deg.] C. Yet in another alternate embodiment, calcining can be performed at a temperature between about 900[deg.] C. and about 1600[deg.] C. or between about 1000[deg.] C. and about 1500[deg.] C. or between about 1100[deg.] C. and about 1400[deg.] C

What good is that to anyone? Patents in general are an impenetrable mess. A lesson in obfuscation and the stifling of genuine innovation.

Laughable, except it isn't funny.