What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
69 Comments
- replaysMike, on 03/15/2009, -4/+46Patents are only helping the big companies get richer anyways - patents have long been a chill on innovation without the need for this bill.
- agentsrecord, on 03/16/2009, -8/+44Patents are kind of ***** anyway. You can patent an 'idea' that is completely impossible for you to build... and you never even have to attempt to build it. If 20 years later someone else builds it, you can sue the ***** out of them? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
- junkstuff1, on 03/16/2009, -1/+22Actually, if 20 years later someone else builds it, you can't sure them because your patent has expired (in the US anyway).
- ajwinder, on 03/16/2009, -1/+15This is accurate until you read about patent walling and realize that when a big company likes what a little company is developing, they're going to figure out a way to bury them. You're not going to prevent that by figuring out ways of blocking patent walling, so you might as well just bring everyone down to the same level.
Patents as they're used especially in technology have long hampered innovation. And its good that they're finally looking into it because we can't afford to not lead the world in technical innovation. Its one of the few things we actually still do well in this country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_wall - Nattybumpoe, on 03/16/2009, -3/+16This will not harm innovation because many companies buy patents solely to use them as leverage when another company sues them for infringement. Furthermore, this will help the innocent infringer (since it doesn't matter if you intend to infringe a patent).
I don't think that very many inventors think: "Well... if I make this invention will I be able to sue for statutory damages in the event someone steals my idea? If I can't, then I shouldn't invent this." - minoss, on 03/16/2009, -1/+14Please, big companies owns WAY more patents that small companies. Yes, in certain cases a smaller company will have patent that helps them. But on the large patent law is there as mainly a benefit to large companies.
- MatthewDuke, on 03/16/2009, -0/+12That was in the 1800s, now your specification and disclosure statement count as the working prototype.
- str1fe, on 03/16/2009, -3/+14Kinda reminds me of copyright law.
- junkstuff1, on 03/16/2009, -4/+12Patents are also helping the small companies get into markets. A company of 15 people has no chance of competing with a big company when it comes to capital and economies of scale; the only thing they have for them is their ideas, and patents are protection for that.
Without a patent, if you have a good idea, and maybe even are selling a lot of a product, a big company is going to start producing and selling it for less money than you could. Even with a patent, they might, but then you could make a few million dollars when you sue them. It's not just big guys suing little guys. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -1/+9hello apple, rambus, SCO we mean you.
- Shawn4168, on 03/16/2009, -1/+9Agreed. It reminds me of the all of the frivolous lawsuits against Nintendo that we saw for the Wii remote's design, or the recent lawsuit threat from "Worlds.com" ( http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/siliconalley/b ... ) against Second Life and World of Warcraft.
Allowing patent squatting discourages innovation if anything, because it prevents companies with resources from developing new and innovative products, simply because some bozo with no means of production took a patent out 5 years ago. - dalittle, on 03/16/2009, -1/+9The Patent Reform Bill is a good one. Sounds like the Innovation Alliance Patent Lobbyists are in full PR mode to try and kill it at the US economies expense. The Patent Reform Bill needs to pass.
- CaptMonkey, on 03/16/2009, -1/+8Patents stifle creativity. If there were no patents, many small companies could have gotten into the market by using and improving on ideas made by larger companies. Yeah, in some cases, patents help small companies get their start, but the vast majority of patents are held by large companies.
How many small companies are on the list of the top 10 patent filers each year from 1997-2005? Zero. These are thousands of ideas that smaller companies are being shut out of. If you have an idea of how to make one of these thousands of ideas better you're stuck either paying the ransom to the patent owner or just moving on and thinking of something else. Funny how big businesses hate government intervention unless it's helping them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_St ... - vectorjohn, on 03/16/2009, -1/+7You are supposed to not get past step 1. The problem is, with the complexities of software patents, stupid ***** gets past step 1 all the time. For example, MS has patents on such stupid things as a computer device stuck inside your car, and a computer device giving you driving directions.
- BlakeEM, on 03/16/2009, -1/+6This biggest issue is people patenting things that make no sense. Currently you can patent genetic makeup of living things, generic programming algorithms, and drugs made from stuff that is readily available.
To me the abuse out weighs any positives that you would get from a patent system. With the internet the market for even someone small is huge. Making an innovative product that people want is what breaks you into the mainstream, large company not needed. Many times these large companies are too slow to keep up with innovations of smaller companies.
The company with the best product should be the one to win out however the patent system essentially creates a monopoly of ideas and holds back the real innovations. What if someone came up with a new idea but another guy knows how to improve it to make it far more useful but can't because of the patent system? Patents cause many undesired consequences.
Patents are currently expensive and a pain in the ass to get, large companies have an easy time hording them while the little guy is ***** out of luck. Right now almost all patents are owned by large companies. If these were gone a little guy could then use these ideas to make more innovated products. - Thue, on 03/16/2009, -1/+6I will bet you 10 to 1 that the "Innovation Alliance" mentioned is mainly supported by patent trolls and huge companies.
- rheaume, on 03/16/2009, -0/+5Have you heard of Apple?
- mimigins, on 03/16/2009, -0/+5That's not even a remotely related analogy.
- Nattybumpoe, on 03/16/2009, -1/+6@GaltShrugged
Under patent law, if someone independently invents a patented invention or something covered under the doctrine of equivalents, they are foreclosed from utilizing their invention because someone else already has the patent. Thus, if someone invents something, and does not know about the patent, and markets the invention, the subsequent inventor could get into serious trouble. - Alphabet, on 03/16/2009, -0/+5reading comprehension fail.
The bill looks at how important the patent is to the product, not your contribution to the patent. - veridiac, on 03/16/2009, -0/+4Do you have any idea how patent law works? The VAST majority of patent infringement is not some company finding a patent and then stealing it, its when they come up with the same idea independently, they just didn't know someone else did it first. Usually the one that came up with it first didn't do anything with it either, they just patent things and sit on the patents until someone ELSE does all the work for them, and then they sue them. Its absurd.
Patents are of course vital, but basing damages on how significant the patent is rather than how much money they made from the entire product makes MUCH more sense. - postal21, on 03/16/2009, -1/+5I dont see any "trolls" in this article.
I want pictures of said "trolls". - slicemaster101, on 03/16/2009, -1/+5Create is such a vague idea to start with…I mean how many ways can you reinvent the wheel before it becomes idiotic. Apple and multi touch technology come to mind, I mean really, the technology for multi touch has always been there, they just happened to implement it in their interface first and then patented the entire idea…to me that’s *****, and something needs to be done to stop companies from patenting vague umbrella ideas that stop innovation. All the major touch phones have the hardware and in some cases the software to support multi touch interfaces but its not enabled because they are afraid of getting sued…
Example of the ludicrousness of apples blanket multi touch patent and others like it….Ok, I now own the patent of a button you push with your finger/body part/other object physical or imaginary on any device, now world give me all your money.
Bottom line: there needs to be patent law reform to stop companies and individuals from halting innovation.
Slice - veridiac, on 03/16/2009, -0/+4Did you read the article? They aren't getting rid of patents, they are going to award damages based on the contribution of the patent to the product, instead of the products value.
Which makes more sense to you? - Bloodwine, on 03/16/2009, -0/+4It's all moot, you probably won't ever see a dime. Your company will take it all.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/16/2009, -1/+4@MartthewDuke: In theory, that's true, but, as vectorjohn already pointed out, things like software patents have become so complex that a lot stuff slips through that isn't supposed to.
I think many of your underestimate just how horribly broken the patent system has become. It's a 19th century system trying to deal with 21st century problems, and it just doesn't work anymore. It's needed a complete overhaul for some time now. - Enlightenment, on 03/16/2009, -2/+4>>US patent bill a 'chill on innovation'
Likely source is the trolls! - Dumbledorito, on 03/16/2009, -3/+5This is why "the free market" is often a scam. I've seen various bills like this involving orphaned works, product safety, and mass mailing all come up for votes, and they start out sounding pretty good. However, thanks to lobbying by megacorps, "orphaned works," which were meant to be books out of print and the copyright holder is dead or missing became to mean something along the lines of "if Huge Company X uses something owned by someone on DeviantArt, as long as they never find out, Huge Company X gets to keep it and maybe even sue the DeviantArtist for infringing Company X's new claim on the work."
I wish these greedy ***** could be excluded from this kind of legislation; they're such short-sighted morons who can't create anything themselves, so they just legalize appropriation of other people's works and then make their claim on it immortal. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2Your company probably owns all the work you did for them.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2Hey, you seem to think a lot about child rape...
- veridiac, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2Yeah if you develop something for a company, they generally own it completely even if you have your name on it for "credit" purposes.
- isunktheship, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2didn't some ***** copyright "The year 2000"?
- teemingvoid, on 03/16/2009, -0/+2Thats not what the bill is about! its about "inventors" who patent somethign that they never intend to make and wait until some company tries to implement something similar. That way, they get tons of money without doing any work short of filing for a patent. (ie Sony's DualShock lawsuit from Immersion Corp) This would be a great bill if there only was a way to implement it by seeing what peoples' actual intentions were..
- KeeperofDreams, on 03/17/2009, -0/+2Hi, I am an inventor and work as an engineer for a fortune 500 company. I hold no patents though and here is why and the truth behind patent law.
1.) If I attempted to patent anything, my company would own the patent, not me thanks to a few decisions stating that my idea was a product of my environment, namely the work environment.
So, I will have to patent through the company so
2.) When I asked the patent review board to apply for a patent on a new machine I invented and several processes to create a fuzzy logic system to automate alarm severities of vibration systems.They informed me that patents are used only for leverage (what nattybumpoe first said) ,and they had enough patents in vibration analysis to hold off any law suits. They as a fortune 500 company do not go suing other companies for patent violation because in all likely hood they are violating just as many as they might be and it's a wash for large companies to do this. They then told me to write a white-paper on the topic so they could not be sued in turn if in a year or so someone else invents what I made.
3.) I asked a man who held 15 patents in my company for advice since I was slightly disappointed in the outcome. He spent a little while telling me to pass along his ideas to him when I suspected he was trying to con me I worked on his experiences, he eventually admited that 0 of his patents he invented. That all of them had his name on them only because of his position in the company allowed him to leverage the patent review board, they were actually invented by other engineers.
So there you have it, from where I am sitting patents are a joke and this legislation is but a small step in the right direction - EvilJon, on 03/16/2009, -2/+4The best place I've found for thoughtful analysis of patent issues around technology is TechDirt --> http://www.techdirt.com/
They also do a hell of a job with technology and the music industry. - mlavergn, on 03/16/2009, -1/+3That's why you patent obvious things that are already in use but not yet patented. The steps are as follows:
1) Patent things / processes that are already in use
2) Wait a few years (the submarine technique)
3) Threaten to sue "infringers" unless they license from you
4) "Infringers" cry prior-art
5) You say "see you in court"
6) "Infringers" decide it's not worth the "risk"
7) "Infringers" buy license / pay royalty
8) Profit!
(rinse, repeat)
This happens all the time. The trick is that the courts put the onus to disprove the patent on the defendant, not the patent holder (obviously). That means it gets VERY expensive for the defendant to go through the steps and still risk the chance the judge will not overturn the patent. - bshock, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1Any bill that stops short of abolishing the US patent system is a chill on innovation. "Intellectual property" is a lie told by the wealthy.
- SocialPoison, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1TechDirt is a good site, though sometimes Mike is off the mark with his points...
- RedLTeut, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1You can't make a better one - I'll try to explain in my own post.
- FyberOptic, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1The only way to fix the patent system is to abolish the patent system (and all patents therein) and make a better one which doesn't allow this ***** to happen from the start. Seriously, whoever all is in charge of approving patents is doing a freaking terrible job. All this crap that gets passed through which covers hugely broad descriptions of things is just ridiculous. And patenting "common sense" ideas that anyone can have is just as bad.
- vectorjohn, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1Why the hell do people sign their comments on digg?
- MatthewDuke, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1There are already maintenance fees that add up to over 10k during the 20 year life of a patent.
- grimacebrown, on 03/16/2009, -1/+2I especially liked the part where it asked me if I liked what I just read... and when I realized the article was nowhere near as long and involved as I had hoped.
- daronicus, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1If one really wants to fix patent law, in my opinion, they only need to do one thing: set a development date. If say in 3 years or some similarly relatively short period after filing a patent, the inventor has not started development or use of said patent, it is void. If they do, then they can have the full 20 years. This eliminates all forms of trolls--both from small and large companies.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 03/16/2009, -2/+3Hello, people who didn't RTFA. DeFex, we mean you.
- kevinsboy, on 03/17/2009, -0/+1Yeah I was just being kinda hypothetical the second half I know all that
- Dumbledorito, on 03/16/2009, -0/+1From what I've read, it generally indicates an older netizen who started out posting on boards that didn't always show one's nick.
-Pie - sodoh, on 03/16/2009, -1/+2"You can patent an 'idea' that is completely impossible for you to build"
Actually that isn't true.
The disclosure actually has to be something that can be created and shown to work (if challenged). In the case of some disclosures the patent office won't even allow a them without a fully working device to prove it. (eg. Time travel devices, perpetual motion machines).
The main problem with the patent office is they hire interns to do the processing, are 5 years behind their reviews and some companies are gaming the system.
Oh and to file one is not cheap at all. Your looking at around $4K-$15K. - SeekerDarksteel, on 03/16/2009, -1/+2Wait, wait, wait. Your primary complaint about why the free market is a scam is that the government passes laws that violate the principals of a free market?
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is