Former Patent Office Director Doesn't Understand The Purpose Of Patents
from the no-wonder-the-system-is-so-messed-up dept
News.com is running an overview piece looking at questions related to patent reform. It covers the basics, without going too deep into any particular area. However, among the more interesting quotes is one from former Patent Office director, James Rogan, who says that there's nothing wrong with companies patenting something and then refusing to do anything with it. That's an interesting position -- and one that seems entirely contrary to the original purpose of the patent system -- which is to promote innovation. The tradeoff in creating a patent is supposed to be that you're publishing the information for others to use, but doing so in a way where the inventor gets compensated. People don't have to patent something if they don't want it to get out. They can just do nothing and not tell anyone about it. Patenting something and then not doing anything with it other than suing companies who actually do innovate completely goes against the purpose of the patent system. Meanwhile, the article also includes quite a quote from the man looking to take patent hoarding big time, Nathan Myhrvold, saying that anyone who complains about patents being too vague is just rationalizing his or her dislike of patents. So his response to the vagueness complaint -- which can be seen in plenty of patents -- is to completely generalize? That's credible. He then goes on to say: "The stock market has stocks of companies that are flaky and questionable, right? But does that mean we should just avoid all public security markets?" Yes, but that's why we have things in place to help people avoid being tricked and scammed by questionable companies. There's no such equivalent in the patent system. On top of that, of course, the purpose of the stock market and the patent system are entirely different, so the analogy barely seems to make sense at all. As we noted recently, even those who originally created the patent system realized that giving an unrestricted monopoly to a single entity was risky and should only be used under very special circumstances. That doesn't seem to support the idea that "vague" patents are legit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The worst patents are the ones where people sit around and come up with, "A generic mechanism enabling a video game sent as an email attachment to notify the sender when game objectives have been reached" and clutter up the system with junk like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's value in patenting something and not using
I could have chosen to keep my discoery secret since I'm not going to follow up on it, and society might not benefit.
- Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's value in patenting something and not u
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I helps to have a working model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oups
yesterday I thought of it again,then built a Working model of it tried & tested.
Then went to the U.S. patent office ,you know it, there it was covered 5 ways past sunday !!
So I go looking for it sence they where all done around 2000
NO where to be FOUND for SALE !! NottA
Here is one I thought up in 1991 when I got my pool,,then a year ago I thought to look for it !! found it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGpXA6qhH_Q
But he does not own,,I looked up the patent owned by someone else!! of couse not on the market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
got power yet !! ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]