Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #6738 > unrolled thread

Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 12:59 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-10-24 13:40 -0700
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Paul Gotch <paulg@at-cantab-dot.net> - 2011-10-24 23:20 +0100
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 06:38 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) ashtonrsmiller <rmiller@storm.ca> - 2011-10-25 07:47 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 08:25 -0700
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-10-25 20:21 -0400
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 07:54 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Paul Gotch <paulg@at-cantab-dot.net> - 2011-10-26 13:02 +0100
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 05:36 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Paul Gotch <paulg@at-cantab-dot.net> - 2011-10-26 13:57 +0100
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-10-26 15:33 +0200
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-26 15:15 +0000
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-26 17:16 +0100
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 09:21 -0700
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-26 21:42 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) "langwadt@fonz.dk" <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2011-10-28 10:21 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 07:55 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 21:25 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 05:33 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) ashtonrsmiller <rmiller@storm.ca> - 2011-10-24 20:14 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) "rupertlssmith@googlemail.com" <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-26 07:13 -0700
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 11:27 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) - 2011-10-27 04:21 +0000
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-27 13:54 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-28 00:07 +0100
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-10-28 09:17 +0200
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 12:15 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-10-29 12:20 +0200
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-29 15:10 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-10-29 19:57 +0200
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-29 21:08 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2011-10-30 00:35 -0700
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) clvrmnky <spamtrap@clevermonkey.org> - 2011-10-31 00:51 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-10-29 21:37 +0200
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 22:14 +0100
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-04 00:13 +0100
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-10-31 05:44 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-10-31 01:24 -0500
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-10-31 08:46 +0100
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2011-10-31 00:37 -0700
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:43 -0700
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-31 17:07 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-04 00:13 +0100
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:27 -0700
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-10-31 17:47 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-31 21:33 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 20:36 -0700
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-11-01 04:49 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-11-01 04:05 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-10-31 18:20 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 12:17 -0700
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-10-31 19:18 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-10-31 21:56 +0100
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-11-01 03:54 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-01 05:38 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 09:54 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 09:46 -0700
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-28 17:58 +0100
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 12:07 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-10-29 09:49 +0000
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-29 08:17 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:28 -0700
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:15 -0700
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-02 23:34 +0100
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-03 06:32 -0500
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ          Network) Kulin Remailer <remailer@reece.net.au> - 2011-11-03 14:35 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-03 10:44 -0500
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2011-11-04 19:55 +0000
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-11-04 18:09 -0500
                          Patents [Was: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-05 04:13 -0500
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 16:28 -0700
                          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-11 01:02 +0100
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-10-28 22:15 +0200
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 12:03 -0700
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-10-28 22:50 +0200
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-29 08:23 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:18 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 16:46 -0700
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-06 17:28 +0000
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 11:08 -0800
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 11:34 -0800
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 12:13 -0800
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-07 20:30 +0000
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:04 -0800
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-07 20:18 +0000
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-07 14:41 -0600
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:11 -0800
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-07 17:04 -0600
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-08 01:33 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-07 21:10 -0600
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-08 03:18 +0000
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:07 -0800
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-23 17:27 +0000
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-23 15:09 -0800

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#6749

On Oct 24, 3:59 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak
> regarding the impact of this new law.  Anyone available in the area?

I believe he is retired now but John D. Trudell was a knowledgeable
and active campaigner against the changes made in 1999, which also
favored the corporations at the expense of the individual inventor.
His website isn't being maintained, but hopefully he might be willing
to participate.

http://www.trudelgroup.com/pwars.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6789

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732

Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
software patents.

Rupert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6802

On Oct 26, 7:13 am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
<rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732
>
> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
> software patents.
>
> Rupert

One of the requirement for a US patent are ~not being obvious to
someone versed in the art.

I am hugely biased. The existence/invention of the mouse at PARC and
devices like touch pads and drawing pads pretty much means just about
anything done since is pretty obvious to the point of being
derivative.

*BUT* this kind of stuff has been going on for years. A specific
example would be Atari patented using 4 bits to map an 8 position
joystick for the 2600 VCS. Nintendo was smart enough to design their
own system but Atari successfully sued Sega and IIRC won $10s of
millions years after the fact.

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6814

Rick  <richardcortese@gmail.com> wrote:

>One of the requirement for a US patent are ~not being obvious to
>someone versed in the art.

Hah.


Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6843

On Oct 26, 10:13 am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
<rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732
>
> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
> software patents.
>
> Rupert

I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the
patent examination process is.  If your primary user interface is a
touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you
unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"?  How bleeding
obvious does the invention have to be to be unpatentable?  I guess
Google could claim they aren't using a touch screen gesture but rather
they are presenting the user with a virtual control which the user
operates... and patent that!

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6852

In article <613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5cc0b@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
rickman  <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 10:13=A0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
><rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732
>>
>> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
>> software patents.
>>
>> Rupert
>
>I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the
>patent examination process is.  If your primary user interface is a
>touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you
>unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"?

By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a
pattern of blobs on-screen.  Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock
bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock
mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability
sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with
slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device.

Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by
definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by
every device?

Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6870

On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote:
> In article<613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5cc0b@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 10:13=A0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
>> <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com>  wrote:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732
>>>
>>> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
>>> software patents.
>>>
>>> Rupert
>>
>> I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the
>> patent examination process is.  If your primary user interface is a
>> touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you
>> unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"?
>
> By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a
> pattern of blobs on-screen.  Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock
> bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock
> mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability
> sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with
> slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device.
>
> Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by
> definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by
> every device?
>

You pay for usability research by doing the research, making a good 
product, and selling more than others because reviewers say "this device 
is easier to use than the competitors".  So what if the competitors copy 
your ideas in their new devices six months later?  The extra sales you 
make during those first six months should pay for the research many 
times over unless you are running your business very badly.

Or are suggesting that it is somehow "fair" that you should get paid 
again and again for that usability research over the next 21 years?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6905

On Oct 28, 12:17 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5c...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> > rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Oct 26, 10:13=A0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
> >> <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com>  wrote:
> >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732
>
> >>> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
> >>> software patents.
>
> >>> Rupert
>
> >> I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the
> >> patent examination process is.  If your primary user interface is a
> >> touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you
> >> unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"?
>
> > By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a
> > pattern of blobs on-screen.  Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock
> > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock
> > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability
> > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with
> > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device.
>
> > Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by
> > definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by
> > every device?
>
> You pay for usability research by doing the research, making a good
> product, and selling more than others because reviewers say "this device
> is easier to use than the competitors".  So what if the competitors copy
> your ideas in their new devices six months later?  The extra sales you
> make during those first six months should pay for the research many
> times over unless you are running your business very badly.
>
> Or are suggesting that it is somehow "fair" that you should get paid
> again and again for that usability research over the next 21 years?

That is only the case for a fast moving industry like the example
given. I did my work in pharmaceutical research and it wasn't uncommon
to take 5 years to get a product to market. The FDA testing and
documentation alone would take a couple of years. Meanwhile half the
people who worked on the project have moved to competing companies and
results of clinical trials are public knowledge. Of course to
compensate the company that bears the actual costs the patent date is
actually moved forward to provide for a few additional years of
protection. They also seem to be VERY sympathetic to CIPs. If you were
to invent the syringe today, you could probably continually patent it
indefinitely every time you came up with a different sized needle.

Unless I miss your point it is ~different inventions warrant different
lengths of protection. Some of this is already in the system but it
could be improved.

But who is the judge who gets more and who gets less. Trivia question:
What do Fredrick's of Hollywood and Howard Hughes have in common? They
both have patents for push-up bras.

Personally I think patents for things like push up bras should run for
30 years to encourage development in that area.<sic>

Patent attorney where I worked once leaned back in his chair and
laughed "I hope people do infringe, the more the merrier! Standard
royalty for patent infringement is 7% so we would make 7% of what
everyone else sells for doing nothing! Great business to be in!"

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6923

On 28/10/11 21:15, Rick wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:17 am, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article<613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5c...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>>> rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>> On Oct 26, 10:13=A0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
>>>> <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com>    wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732
>>
>>>>> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
>>>>> software patents.
>>
>>>>> Rupert
>>
>>>> I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the
>>>> patent examination process is.  If your primary user interface is a
>>>> touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you
>>>> unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"?
>>
>>> By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a
>>> pattern of blobs on-screen.  Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock
>>> bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock
>>> mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability
>>> sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with
>>> slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device.
>>
>>> Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by
>>> definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by
>>> every device?
>>
>> You pay for usability research by doing the research, making a good
>> product, and selling more than others because reviewers say "this device
>> is easier to use than the competitors".  So what if the competitors copy
>> your ideas in their new devices six months later?  The extra sales you
>> make during those first six months should pay for the research many
>> times over unless you are running your business very badly.
>>
>> Or are suggesting that it is somehow "fair" that you should get paid
>> again and again for that usability research over the next 21 years?
>
> That is only the case for a fast moving industry like the example
> given. I did my work in pharmaceutical research and it wasn't uncommon
> to take 5 years to get a product to market. The FDA testing and
> documentation alone would take a couple of years. Meanwhile half the
> people who worked on the project have moved to competing companies and
> results of clinical trials are public knowledge. Of course to
> compensate the company that bears the actual costs the patent date is
> actually moved forward to provide for a few additional years of
> protection. They also seem to be VERY sympathetic to CIPs. If you were
> to invent the syringe today, you could probably continually patent it
> indefinitely every time you came up with a different sized needle.
>
> Unless I miss your point it is ~different inventions warrant different
> lengths of protection. Some of this is already in the system but it
> could be improved.
>

That is certainly part of my point, yes.  Given the newsgroups here, the 
bias of the conversation is towards patents in software and embedded 
systems, and in my post above I was referring specifically to the case 
of swipe-to-unlock.

In fields where "inventions" take a long time and cost much more money, 
then there needs to be more and longer-term protection.  21 years is 
still far too long, and the patent system needs a serious overhaul even 
for long-term industries like the drug industry (maybe in a way that 
makes the whole system faster).  But there is no doubt that a company 
spending 5 years researching a drug should be entitled to more 
protection than someone who thinks "wouldn't it be cool to use a finger 
swipe to unlock a phone?  I think I'll patent that".

> But who is the judge who gets more and who gets less. Trivia question:
> What do Fredrick's of Hollywood and Howard Hughes have in common? They
> both have patents for push-up bras.
>
> Personally I think patents for things like push up bras should run for
> 30 years to encourage development in that area.<sic>

Patents /don't/ encourage development.  That's the problem.  A 30-year 
wide-ranging patent like that stops development - no one can invent a 
"push-up-and-together" bra because of that patent.

>
> Patent attorney where I worked once leaned back in his chair and
> laughed "I hope people do infringe, the more the merrier! Standard
> royalty for patent infringement is 7% so we would make 7% of what
> everyone else sells for doing nothing! Great business to be in!"
>

And there you see who benefits from the modern patent system and its 
usage.  Occasionally, a real inventor will get lucky and make some money 
- but mostly it's an overall loss for the inventor, and a loss for 
others, and as the money flows back and forth between the patent owner 
and licensees, only the lawyers get paid regularly as they grab their cut.


> Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6929

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:20:34 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 28/10/11 21:15, Rick wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 12:17 am, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote:
>>
>> Personally I think patents for things like push up bras should run for
>> 30 years to encourage development in that area.<sic>
>
>Patents /don't/ encourage development.  That's the problem.  A 30-year 
>wide-ranging patent like that stops development - no one can invent a 
>"push-up-and-together" bra because of that patent.

This creates an incentive to find another way to do it.   If the new
way is innovative, it can be patented and provide a benefit to those
who sorted out the new way.   I don't see how patents discourage
innovation or development.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6941

On 29/10/11 17:10, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:20:34 +0200, David Brown
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  wrote:
>
>> On 28/10/11 21:15, Rick wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 12:17 am, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally I think patents for things like push up bras should run for
>>> 30 years to encourage development in that area.<sic>
>>
>> Patents /don't/ encourage development.  That's the problem.  A 30-year
>> wide-ranging patent like that stops development - no one can invent a
>> "push-up-and-together" bra because of that patent.
>
> This creates an incentive to find another way to do it.   If the new
> way is innovative, it can be patented and provide a benefit to those
> who sorted out the new way.   I don't see how patents discourage
> innovation or development.
>

It conceivably creates an incentive to find a totally different way to 
do it.  But that requires the inventor to find a completely way new way 
to solve the problem, /and/ to be able and willing to file his own 
patent - which costs a lot of time and money, /and/ to be willing to 
fight off claims of infringement from the original patent owner, /and/ 
to be willing to fight future infringements in court.  It's a huge 
investment in time and money, and is more about being a lawyer and a 
cut-throat businessman than about being an inventor.  You can only avoid 
it by cross-licensing deals and other arrangements with existing patent 
holders.

Successful invention and innovation today is about steering clear of 
everything patent-related and hoping for the best, or being part of a 
huge company with an army of lawyers, and accepting that you will spend 
a much larger budget on legal fees, lawyers, and licensing deals than 
you will on actually developing new products or researching new ideas.


Nowhere in this is there a place for someone coming up with a good idea 
to improve an existing patent.  Nowhere is there a place for the "little 
guy", no matter how brilliant his idea is.  It is all about the big 
companies being able to maintain the status quo, and the lawyers getting 
their fees.



I am not sure that patents need to be totally abandoned (except for 
software patents, which should never have been allowed in the first 
place).  But there needs to be a complete re-think to get back to 
something that actually encourages innovation and invention, gives 
/appropriate/ reward to people doing research and coming up with good 
ideas, works for individuals and small companies as well as large ones, 
allows for improvement on existing ideas, and minimises the bureaucracy, 
legal costs, and wasted time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6946

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:57:32 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 29/10/11 17:10, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:20:34 +0200, David Brown
>> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/10/11 21:15, Rick wrote:
>>>> On Oct 28, 12:17 am, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think patents for things like push up bras should run for
>>>> 30 years to encourage development in that area.<sic>
>>>
>>> Patents /don't/ encourage development.  That's the problem.  A 30-year
>>> wide-ranging patent like that stops development - no one can invent a
>>> "push-up-and-together" bra because of that patent.
>>
>> This creates an incentive to find another way to do it.   If the new
>> way is innovative, it can be patented and provide a benefit to those
>> who sorted out the new way.   I don't see how patents discourage
>> innovation or development.
>>
>
>It conceivably creates an incentive to find a totally different way to 
>do it.  But that requires the inventor to find a completely way new way 
>to solve the problem, /and/ to be able and willing to file his own 
>patent - which costs a lot of time and money, /and/ to be willing to 
>fight off claims of infringement from the original patent owner, /and/ 
>to be willing to fight future infringements in court.  It's a huge 
>investment in time and money, and is more about being a lawyer and a 
>cut-throat businessman than about being an inventor.  You can only avoid 
>it by cross-licensing deals and other arrangements with existing patent 
>holders.

It's usually easier than you make it sound.   Finding workarounds to
existing patents is not uncommon at all, and it is up to the developer
of the new method whether to file a new patent or just keep it a trade
secret, or even publish the new method.  

If a patent can't be worked around, then kudos to the folks who
figured out the great way to do whatever it is that's being done and
for writing a thorough patent.  Life is a two way street: if you want
to be rewarded for your own work you have to be prepared to reward
others for theirs.  People who grouse about not having access to
patented technology usually change their tune when they have something
of their own that they want to protect.

>Successful invention and innovation today is about steering clear of 
>everything patent-related and hoping for the best, or being part of a 
>huge company with an army of lawyers, and accepting that you will spend 
>a much larger budget on legal fees, lawyers, and licensing deals than 
>you will on actually developing new products or researching new ideas.

That's a pretty narrow and gloomy view of the world.   I can say that
I don't share that view, and I hope that your situation improves
enough or you have enough success that you see the better side of
things.

>Nowhere in this is there a place for someone coming up with a good idea 
>to improve an existing patent.  Nowhere is there a place for the "little 
>guy", no matter how brilliant his idea is.  It is all about the big 
>companies being able to maintain the status quo, and the lawyers getting 
>their fees.

Many patents and new innovations are improvements on existing patents,
often by "little guys".   I have a number of granted patents from
working for a large company and a pending patent of my own.   Several
close friends and associates have done well with patents that they
filed on their own as an individual or as part of a very small
company.   I recently did an evaluation for an independent individual
inventor on a pretty innovative, new way to do things in an
established, mature field.  There are plenty of success stories that
are example proofs that counter your argument.

That's not to say that the system favors small inventors, just that
it's still very much possible for a small company or an individual to
benefit from the process.

>I am not sure that patents need to be totally abandoned (except for 
>software patents, which should never have been allowed in the first 
>place).  But there needs to be a complete re-think to get back to 
>something that actually encourages innovation and invention, gives 
>/appropriate/ reward to people doing research and coming up with good 
>ideas, works for individuals and small companies as well as large ones, 
>allows for improvement on existing ideas, and minimises the bureaucracy, 
>legal costs, and wasted time.

Often when a VC or investor looks at a new small company one of the
first questions is whether they've patented their technology or not.
That wouldn't be the case and wouldn't be important if small companies
couldn't play in the patent arena.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6960

On Oct 29, 11:08 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> ...
> Often when a VC or investor looks at a new small company one of the
> first questions is whether they've patented their technology or not.
> That wouldn't be the case and wouldn't be important if small companies
> couldn't play in the patent arena.

Not much if any experience with patents - nor with VC, for that - but
on the few occasions I have talked to such the question has been asked
of sheer adherence to "the standard". I would guess that the whole
patent system is designed simply to protect the big ones, if small
guys are left to get some crumbs every now and then it is only
for the sake of the systems credibility/public acceptance.

My way is for things I have done and believe are worth something
I just keep them non-public. If someone is smart enough to overtake
me by seeing what I have done then he deserves to do that, this is
what life/evolution has been all about, for as long as we can look
back anyway.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6985

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:35:36 -0700, dp wrote:

> My way is for things I have done and believe are worth something I just
> keep them non-public. If someone is smart enough to overtake me by
> seeing what I have done then he deserves to do that, this is what
> life/evolution has been all about, for as long as we can look back
> anyway.
> 
Actually, human cultural evolution has been about wide-spread sharing of 
tools and techniques since the earliest days. "Intellectual property" is 
a very modern notion.

And even in the modern era, those places and times we associate with the 
greatest variety of invention (Scotland during the era of Watt, et al, 
Southern Germany in the late 18th century, Central England at the height 
of the steam age) were marked by almost no patent protection, or patent 
laws that were tacitly ignored.

This is a complex subject, and the law tends to be the bluntest of 
instruments.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6943

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> This creates an incentive to find another way to do it.   If the new
> way is innovative, it can be patented and provide a benefit to those
> who sorted out the new way.   I don't see how patents discourage
> innovation or development.

Well, maybe.  But the history shows that it is otherwise.  E.g. take the 
"innovation" of the steam engine by James Watt.  What he really did was 
an improvement (the condensor) over existing steam engine.  The 
condensor is a vital part for any improved steam engine, and because 
James Watt wanted his monopoly badly, there was no further improvement 
on steam engines for 20 years.  After that, all those who were waiting 
to build better steam engines were collaborating together, and didn't 
patent their particular improvements.  Efficiency and deployment of 
steam engines skyrocketed.

There is already an incentive to be innovative: Make products and sell 
them, people like innovative products.  Run faster than your copy-cat 
followers.  I've been working for a copy-cat company for two years 
(haven't applied there, they bought the complete company I was working 
for before, and then sold our team to another bunch of idiots who 
couldn't deal with innovations), and I can assure you: me-too-product 
companies don't copy immediately.  They wait to see you succeed, and if 
you do so, they will start development - no earlier.  And then they can 
only sell by the price - you have to be significantly cheaper to get 
into a marked already owned by someone else.  They were successful with 
their strategy for long-running very simple devices (the company is 
called "Diodes" for good reasons ;-), but they weren't for the more 
complex devices, which our group built.

Patent pools are there for ridiculous fights between large companies, 
which harm everybody, except the lawyers involved.

Any innovation today consists of 99% readily available technology, and a 
1% adder, which is new.  If the 99% are covered by patents, forget about 
any progress.  Just imagine that Berner-Lee could have patented the web.  
Now, 20 years later, this patent would be about to expire.  Do you think 
this would have caught on?  Not the slightest.  The reason why the 
Internet and the Web did succeed was that they were open, for anyone to 
use, for anyone to improve.  Competing network protocols were comvered 
with patents, and they all failed, for good reasons: Nobody else would 
have used them as basis to innovate on.  If there were no free networks 
around to build on, and everybody had protected their claims, we would 
still have stone-aged AOL-like walled garden networks.

Anyway, big incentives are the wrong idea.  Small incentives are much 
more effective, they strive people to continue to work, because they get 
the money they need, and they don't accumulate enough money to stop 
working, and just relax and spent what they have earned.  Economy is not 
about getting rich, it's about using resources efficiently.  Inventors 
are resources, they are indeed rather scarce, use them efficiently.  Let 
them collaborate, give them just enough money to make a descent living, 
bot don't count for their greed - many don't have that; they will stop 
working once they have accumulated enough money.

If you are motivated by greed only, go to Wall Street, and ruin the 
world.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6947

On 29/10/2011 20:37, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> This creates an incentive to find another way to do it.   If the new
>> way is innovative, it can be patented and provide a benefit to those
>> who sorted out the new way.   I don't see how patents discourage
>> innovation or development.
>
> Well, maybe.  But the history shows that it is otherwise.  E.g. take the
> "innovation" of the steam engine by James Watt.  What he really did was
> an improvement (the condensor) over existing steam engine.  The
> condensor is a vital part for any improved steam engine, and because
> James Watt wanted his monopoly badly, there was no further improvement
> on steam engines for 20 years.  After that, all those who were waiting
> to build better steam engines were collaborating together, and didn't
> patent their particular improvements.  Efficiency and deployment of
> steam engines skyrocketed.
>

[...]

A lot of this ground is covered in a book called 'Sex, Science & 
Profits' by Terence Kealey (I don't know why sex is in the title as it 
is hardly mentioned in the book). As well as saying and justifying that 
patents are bad he also claims, with evidence, that government funded 
research is much less effective than just letting industry fund it 
themselves.

-- 
Gerry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7112

Gerry Jackson wrote:
> A lot of this ground is covered in a book called 'Sex, Science &
> Profits' by Terence Kealey (I don't know why sex is in the title as it
> is hardly mentioned in the book). As well as saying and justifying
> that patents are bad he also claims, with evidence, that government
> funded research is much less effective than just letting industry fund
> it themselves.

Of course, the government is not a good investor, because they have no 
incentive to be a good investor.  I've seen government funded projects, 
they are typically just there to milk the government.  The government 
better should get out of the way, which it does both by funding and by 
granting patents.

The main conclusion of this book is that small is beautiful, i.e. a 
thriving economy has many small players rather than a few large.  
Naturally, large corporations have many difficulties that makes them 
easy to beat on the market.  However, they have a huge advantage when it 
comes to lobbying and bribing, so often large companies concentrate on 
making business with the state or similar entities, where bribing is 
essential to get a contract.

Granting monopolies like patents on ideas allows it big corporations to 
extend their market to ordinary customers, who would be much better 
without them.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6989

eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote in news:4eac16c9.325269432
@www.eternal-september.org:

> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:20:34 +0200, David Brown
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>>On 28/10/11 21:15, Rick wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 12:17 am, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally I think patents for things like push up bras should run for
>>> 30 years to encourage development in that area.<sic>
>>
>>Patents /don't/ encourage development.  That's the problem.  A 30-year 
>>wide-ranging patent like that stops development - no one can invent a 
>>"push-up-and-together" bra because of that patent.
> 
> This creates an incentive to find another way to do it.   If the new
> way is innovative, it can be patented and provide a benefit to those
> who sorted out the new way.   I don't see how patents discourage
> innovation or development.
> 
> 
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communications
> www.anchorhill.com
> 

Patents do not necessarily encourage innovation. I filed my only patent 
application when I was a junior in EE (about 30 years ago). I received it 
several years later.

I haven't filed another one since, even though I have had many ideas that I 
think would qualify. When I see an individual with many patents, I don't 
assume that the person is brilliant or creative, I just assume that he has 
worked for large companies.  

I have owned small businesses for most of my career. I don't file patents 
because they are expensive to file and maintain and impossible for a small 
company to defend. Today we have bidding wars on bankrupt companies just so 
that the large companies can threaten each other and keep anyone smaller 
than Fortune 500 out of the game. 

All a big company needs to do is threaten a small company, and they win. It 
will bankrupt most small companies if they fight even when they have a 
strong patent. Not all small companies want to be sold to larger entities.

I do look at patents from time to time and I am often amazed at how obvious 
many of them are. Many are rehashed prior art that I already know about 
(and I'm sure many others do as well). Patent examiners are rarely design 
engineers, most don't have any real idea if something is new or not. 
Software patents are even more absurd since most prior art exists as trade 
secrets embedded in code.

No one is required to license a patent. If I had a patented method that 
could cure cancer, I could let everyone die for the next 20 years or so if 
I didn't want to share.

One of the worst things about patents is that no one knows how silly a 
patent application is until in becomes a patent. This is why we have so 
many junk patents.  

If Congress actually wanted to do something useful, they would make the 
expiration date for most patents about 5 years and speed up the actual 
review process. Twenty years is almost forever in technology. 

I don't think that first to file is an advantage. I just means that we will 
see even more junk patent applications that haven't been thought out, just 
filed to make sure someone else isn't first. 

Most of the ideas that I have had that I think were patentable came from 
trying to solve a new problem. Novel solutions can be easy when looking at 
a problem the first time. The catch is that several people may be looking 
at the same problem at essentially the same time. No one really remembers 
the second guy who discovers something (or the second guy who files). This 
gives the first guy more than a head start, it can be the game changer. 

I have read many people say that the holder of the patent gets reasonable 
royalties from licensing. That assumes that they want to license. I will 
never understand the Polaroid/ Kodak case. Polaroid was basically granted a 
permanent patent by constantly tweaking their existing patent and not 
letting anyone else in the game. Digital cameras were the only way to kill 
the Polaroid monopoly.

Thanks for reading my rant,


Al Clark





   



 







  




 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6990

Al Clark wrote:


> If Congress actually wanted to do something useful, they would make the 
> expiration date for most patents about 5 years and speed up the actual 
> review process. Twenty years is almost forever in technology. 

I agree. The reform isn't really changing anything.
They could make a patent support fee significant sum of money; say, 
$100k per year. That would invalidate many worseless patents; leaving 
only the important and actually working ones.  Set a requirement that 
the original inventor could waive the fee if he makes profit from his 
patent within 3 years, either by making product or by licensing; 
otherwise the patent goes into public domain.

VLV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6992

On 31/10/2011 07:24, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Al Clark wrote:
>
>
>> If Congress actually wanted to do something useful, they would make
>> the expiration date for most patents about 5 years and speed up the
>> actual review process. Twenty years is almost forever in technology.
>
> I agree. The reform isn't really changing anything.
> They could make a patent support fee significant sum of money; say,
> $100k per year. That would invalidate many worseless patents; leaving
> only the important and actually working ones. Set a requirement that the
> original inventor could waive the fee if he makes profit from his patent
> within 3 years, either by making product or by licensing; otherwise the
> patent goes into public domain.
>
> VLV

Alternatively, the fee could gradually increase with time.  The first 
year would be a relatively cheap $10,000 - enough to avoid most time 
wasters, but cheap enough that a small company with a good idea can 
afford it.  Jump to $100,000 for the next year, and increase 
geometrically each year after that.  Patents that really are worthwhile, 
and generate substantial licensing fees, would be kept for longer.  Most 
would be kept long enough to give the inventor a head-start over the 
competition, then released to the public domain.

It may make sense for the increase factor to depend on the field - it 
should be high (such as 2) for patents in fast-moving fields such as 
electronics, but lower (maybe 1.25) in slower fields such as medicine.

Of course, for many actively used patents, this system exists already - 
it's just that the steadily increasing fees are paid to lawyers and 
other legal fees, rather than to patent offices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web