Users who Dugg This
Chip Etier
2723 Followers
Nerd Of NerdsMagazine.com
2376 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Shawn-ITC518
5176 Followers
timthetaxmanMar 30, 2011
Charging higher fees based on complexity or for priority will allow large companies to speed up the process and create more difficulties for smaller rivals. We have already seen this with FDA approvals with drugs than can be accelerated by paying more. It is very difficult for smaller drug companies to comply with the onerous regulations and makes them dependant on the large drug companies.
These types of changes are always benefiting the entrenched class under the guise of making it safer or better for the public. Corporations and government are not enemies and it is important to read between the lines and see who really benefits from these types of changes.
If you want real change, eliminate the entire idea of patents. They are a net loss for the economy and create artificial scarcity.
poofayMar 30, 2011
Sure eliminating patents would be a drastic change, but as you mentioned, patents are to protect the individual inventor and small businesses as much as they are to protect the large ones. Eliminating patents would hugely shift the power to the "entrenched class" that you are worried about.
Large companies would be able to copy small companies' or inventor's ideas without ever giving them a dime, completely kicking them out of the competition. Why would I ever want to try to create something new and original for people other than myself if I could never get anything out of it?
timthetaxmanMar 30, 2011
There are certain advantages to being the innovator. You are first to market (which is huge everyone else is playing catch up) and you gain a reputation as an innovator.
There is little evidence that patents are necessary to be successful. Look at the clothing industry. No one can patent a “look” yet there are hundreds of successful designers out there.
poofayMar 30, 2011
Yes there are advantages to being the innovator, only if the innovator is a medium to large corporation. If the innovator is an independent inventor, who is he going to market to? How is he going to raise capital to produce his product? If he goes to a corporation that already has the necessary capital, with no patent laws they can take his idea and kick him out the door.
Without even talking about individual inventors specifically, anyone or any company that spends millions of dollars in R&D to develop a product doesn't want to share their designs with the rest of their industry for free. Sure they can hide their designs as best as they can, but reverse engineering technology is getting easier and employees can be bribed.
Being able to protect your idea better promotes innovation than having no way to protect your work. But that's only my perspective when I patent my work.
jedi1196Mar 30, 2011
The "small inventor" is a myth created by the ruling class to dupe the masses into handing over yet another means for large corporations to bully the small inventor.
The problem of "marketing" winning out over "innovation" is not one that should be solved by the Patent office.
Genuinely difficult problems that can't be solved by some random practicioners are the sorts of things that merit a 17 year monopoly. Patents on trivial and non-inventive things only serve to place a burden on the genuinely innnovative and allow large corporations to suppress competition.
Any patent should be worth what it actually represents: a 17 year burden placed on the rest of the industry.
darkmatter911Mar 30, 2011
And if you believe this crap I have a bridge to sell you. The patent systems around the world have gotten out of control and do more to stop innovation and kill jobs than anything.
Look at all the stupid lawsuits. Look at the fact that companies have been allowed to patent genes and no one can work with them, test for them, etc. without permission (e.g. paying money). Look at the huge increases in drug prices due to the award of retroactive patents.
caseycooldMar 30, 2011
Invent something worthwhile. Get an engineering degree.
Then tell me whethyer patents are needed or not.
timthetaxmanMar 30, 2011
Typically the company you work for gets the patent not you. Virtually all employers require you to sign an agreement that requires you to assign all patent rights to them even if it is invented on your personal time as long as it is related to the business your company is in.
If on the off chance you are self-employed, there is nothing stopping you from bringing that invention to the market first and having a period of 100% market share while your competition plays catch up. Further, there is nothing stopping you from offering your invention to a corporation where you could demonstrate it under a non-discloser agreement.
poofayMar 30, 2011
Moving from a "first to invent" to "first to file system" is a huge mistake in terms of protecting the rights of independent inventors and small businesses. The article states that the average cost to file a patent is $15,000. This means that if I can't afford a patent application right after I invent a new product, but I still want to market it to corporations, I would be safe under the "first to invent" system. Though under the "first to file" system, if I show off my idea to a corporation without first paying $15,000, they can legally copy the documents I gave them and claim it as their idea.
The article is right when it states that the cost to defend a patent for individual inventors will go down because the individual inventor won't be able to pay for the application, or their invention will be stolen by a larger business. Thus, there won't be a lawsuit for the individual inventor to pay for anyway!
"But an analysis by the USPTO concluded that of the last 3 million patent filings, only one was from an independent inventor who would have been harmed in that manner if a first to file rule were in place at the time."
So under the new system, the rights of one out of 3 million inventors will be infringed, but it's okay because it's a small number? That's pathetic. Over 2 million of those patents were probably filed by large corporations in the first place.
The old system is slow, and there are some flaws. However, it doesn't specifically legalize the infringement of individual inventor's rights.
tbttfoxMar 30, 2011
The cost to have a lawyer write your patent plus all other legal fees is $15,000. The actual cost of a patent is much much less.
Then, the cost to file a provisional patent is like $300 or so, that way you can say "patent pending" and then shop around for buyers (at least that's my understanding)
langfordMar 30, 2011
A backlog of patents isn't preventing new jobs, patent squatting is. Nobody should be receiving a patent for something that they can't, or don't intend to, prototype. If you didn't physically invent a functioning example, filing a patent application should not entitle you to claim it. Also, software should not be patentable, and should be a copyright matter instead.
jacleseauMar 30, 2011
Good, a patent office job can open up for the next Einstein (since they are cutting funding for research and higher education...).
rickslickMar 30, 2011
FINALLY. Glad to see this is actually getting some attention.
michaimMar 30, 2011
Its about time the Patent process goes back to the general public and not the corporate conglomerates. I hope the first step is to simplify the necessary legal jargon.
sux4buxMar 31, 2011
Imo, limited IP patents are all that should exist for any length of time. Patents for anything technological just need to be eliminated except for a short term period for independent inventors to use or sell their idea. There's just always going to be motivation to advance technology to gain temporary competitive advantage. Just keep the manufacturing process secret as long as possible. With current laws all we get are monopolies and corporate power creating permanent barriers that stifle technological progress.
At the very least the ability to patent genes and organisms needs to go immediately. There's seriously no logical thought process that could bring you to the conclusion that anyone should be able to patent sections of the human genome. Other than exploitation for profit of course.