Supreme Court To Consider Bad Patents Again
from the hopefully... dept
We've been discussing many of the reasons why the patent system is broken for quite some time -- and while a few people who benefit from the system always show up to defend it (usually with tautological arguments that amount to "the system works, because it's the system we have"), it appears that more and more people are recognizing that the system is fundamentally broken. The latest is author Michael Crichton who discusses how the patent system has expanded far too broadly to protect things that should never be protected -- and how it's harming innovation in many ways by making it prohibitively expensive. The focus of his article is on a specific case that is going to the Supreme Court this week, where a company was able to get the patent on the correlation between a certain amino acid and a certain vitamin. They now consider even publishing the details to be a violation of their patent -- even if it's simply factual information. Over the past few decades, patent lawyers have pushed for expansions in what patents can cover, well beyond what the system was ever intended to do. Granting a patent is giving someone a monopoly -- and that should only be done in the rarest of cases where the market has been shown to be insufficient in rewarding innovation. From the earliest days of the patent system, Thomas Jefferson made it clear that there was an inherent downside to patents, and they should only be granted under special circumstances. Why that should include things like correlations or business models (or software) has never been adequately explained.
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
>_>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's obvious - lawers make more money that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh...
This country is seriously in the toilet....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh...
*pssst!* It's Thousand Island Dressing, pass it on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Michael Serious?
Oops. :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean the Mystery Sause? Its "Thousand Islands" Salad Dressing. Not that mysterious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IT IS THE BIG MAC SAUSE U RETARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must have missed that comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a link
This is one area where TechDirt really fails as a website - if you are against patents, fine, but how about doing real research instead of parroting those who agree with you. Just because Chriton says "it's the correlation" doesn't mean that's what the case is really about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a link
2 seconds on Google, and I found http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/10/labcorp_v_metab_1.html
which directly quotes the disputed part of the patent. I also found many other documents about this specific case. While a link in the article would be convenient, this isn't kindergarten, and you can do research on your own. But, I hope this helps you out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me define evil: Any action that actively or potentially hurts the survival or evolution of one's own species.
This is the deepest evil there is. Genocide is along the same lines, although obviously much more severe.
Patents restrict our ability to apply technology to good use. What would have happened if someone patented oxygen masks? fire hydrants? anything that humanity might depend on in any way?
Patents are evil, no matter how small the impact, if even because they are born of greed. You patent because you want credit for having made it or so that only you can profit from the sale of it. Thats greed, even if it's good business practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
greed is good !
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Gordon Gekko
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: greed is good !
Drug companies patent drugs that save lives so that no generics can be made, then hide the results behind trade secrets and release the good reviews.
Greed for money has allowed bad products to continue to be marketed hidden behind trade secrets and caused many deaths. It has allowed "independent" groups to ignore fundamental flaws, and politicians to refuse to help in such situations.
Greed, just as anything else needs to be tempered and controlled to be of value, todays rampant more money at any cost society can not sustain itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In essence the root of all actions are greed (i.e., I want the world to be a better place), but that is no justification. The fact remains that the greedy are just plain narcisistic and that doesn't help anyone but themselves.
"Yes, you are absolutely right, companies hiding behind trade secrets and patents have always helped mankind."
"Drug companies patent drugs that save lives so that no generics can be made, then hide the results behind trade secrets and release the good reviews."
I'm going to try very hard not to insult you.
Generics? What the hell are you talkign about? Who has the right to determine what is "official"? The only thing patents do are create monopolies. If no "Generics" can be made, as you call them, these ill individuals have to pay top-dollar just to get treatments. "Generics", as you call them, are what make Free Market so great. You can get get your drugs from Company A, or if yo ucant afford them, you can go get them from Company B, C, or D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no patents = no new medicine
This is rather sad but 100% correct fact.
Yes, this is about greed.
And I would rather pay monopoly prices but have access to all new medicines out there.
You never know what you might need as you grow older ,
e.g. Viagra, Levitra etc. etc.
Or you might get AIDS or cancer one day, and without patents nobody will do anything to develop new drugs to treat those.
Greed runs the world ! Not altruism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is completely illogical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
happy happy joy joy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent
www.BettorsChat.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]