Suggestion: Engineers Go On A Patent Strike
from the nice-idea,-but... dept
Via Against Monopoly comes an opinion piece from the EE Times suggesting that engineers who recognize how harmful the patent system can be should go on a patent strike:Stop filing patents. Refuse to sign employment contracts that give your employer sole title to your inventions. Don't participate in any due diligence efforts on patent portfolios.Basically, his argument is that most engineers recognize how harmful the patent system is, but are pushed into patenting by lawyers and management, and the only way to get the message out is to stop assisting with anything having to do with patents.
It's a nice idea, and if a lot of folks really got involved it might get some attention, but I have a hard time believing it could actually be effective. While many people do recognize the problems with patents, an awful lot either don't care or don't know enough to care about it -- and they'll just keep patenting away. It's similar to calls to "boycott" RIAA music or similar such things. It sounds good, but it's effectively impossible to make such a process really work in practice.
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
Filed Under: engineers, patent strike, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe not
Is there a way to file for something like a creative commons for patents? Can you file prier art before a patient is issued? Some way of saying: I created this so you can't sue me, but I also won't sue you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe not
Is there a way to file for something like a creative commons for patents? Can you file prier art before a patient is issued? Some way of saying: I created this so you can't sue me, but I also won't sue you.
Yeah: publish it. Publish the invention in a scientific journal, or a business journal, or some sort of publication that allows you to explain what it is and how it works. Patent examiners may look at publications that are not patent documents and use it as prior art. See 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe not
Even better option: Publish a paper on your web site that is open to web crawlers. If you have a lot of papers, an index is nice. Be sure to date the publication. Now, it is dated and in the public domain. Problem solved (assuming someone has yet to patent the idea).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe not
That might or might not work, depending upon whether or not the second someone could produce/create something to say that they invented it before your publication. And if it did work, it would only work in the US with it's "first to invent" system. In the rest of the world it's "first to file" and such a publishing stunt would do you no good whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe not
Any time you do any "inventing" you need to document the work and have it signed and dated by a witness. At this point you can either apply for a patent, or do nothing.
If you do nothing, someone else can build and sell your invention without any recourse by you because you didn't apply for a patent. This person can apply for a patent, but if you have documentation that shows you invented it first, then the patent can not be granted.
This is the way inventions become part of the 'public domain.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe not
Unfortunately it is not common knowledge that a sealed envelope, with a USPS Postmaster's stamp on it, is an official legal document.
As such, if your invention can be sufficiently documented on paper:
1)place ALL such papers in an envelope;
2)mail said envelope to yourself
3)NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER open the envelope
Viola! you have yourself a dated legal document about your invention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe not
Unfortunately it is not common knowledge that a sealed envelope, with a USPS Postmaster's stamp on it, is an official legal document.
As such, if your invention can be sufficiently documented on paper:
1)place ALL such papers in an envelope;
2)mail said envelope to yourself
3)NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER open the envelope
Viola! you have yourself a dated legal document about your invention
This may sound attractive, but this will not prevent someone else from patenting the same invention. By mailing the invention to yourself and never opening it, you've essentially created a trade secret, thereby suppressing the invention from public view. Under 35 U.S.C. section 102(g), this will not be deemed prior art to a subsequent inventor because it was suppressed and never put in the public domain.
Again, if you want to dedicate your invention to the public so that it never gets patented, the cheapest way to do so is publish it in a publication that gets wide circulation. It doesn't matter if it's a paper publication or a internet publication, as long as it gets public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somehow I think the current job market makes this a strategy of FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My department, for example, has a soft patent quota. Our department only gets paid for transfer of patents to the main company, since we arent directly involved in producing the products. So basically, if we dont make patents, my department doesnt get any money to do more R&D.
So , with the patent so totally ingrained into the business, it would be nearly impossible for engineers to simply not comply, without risk of losing their job, or job prospect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much like if the police were paid by the number of tickets they issue... soon you would find people being ticketed for every infraction, and a huge influx of broken tail lights.
I used to work at IBM and the pressure to create patents was ridiculous. Many of us younger engineers would just roll our eyes at the stupid patent applications. But depending on your department, not submitting patents (even if they are rejected) impacts your chances for promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycott - Don't sign
The agreement said all inventions were company property. I asked that it be limited to only inventions within the scope of the company's business. They said they would get back to me, I heard no more on the subject for ten years. They finally laid everybody off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not gonna happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not gonna happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not gonna happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The useful arts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about not
Very well stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rules.
Refusing to use a broken system doesn't fix it. An overhaul of the system from the ground up is the only solution.
So, who has the power to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycutt RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycott patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patentless punks
a bunch of retards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go hungry or support a crappy patent and get a bonus? Its not a tough choice, especially in today's job market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all this crap about patent alternatives
you cannot get a "poor man's patent" by mailing yourself anything. you're confusing it with the "poor man's copyright" which is nearly as bunk. the idea with the poor man's copyright is that if you mail it to yourself, you can prove that the date it was wrapped up was the date it was mailed.
but blocking patents requires publication. if you keep your documentation locked up in a safe forever, it won't block anyone's patent. at the same time, i've never heard of the federal circuit overturning someone's patent because the technology was written about on someone's blog or one of the many free software hosting sites. even if it was, the disclosure on these sites is going to probably be insufficient to constitute a publication of the technology.
unfortunately, the only way to win the race is to either get reform (so it's harder for crap patents to get granted, and so it's easier to challenge junk patents), or patent stuff yourself. most big companies do both -- they patent stuff themselves, while also joining a trade association that lobbies for reform.
the big battle is between tech companies and drug companies. the tech companies don't want patents at all (nothing takes "research" -- it's just coding and testing). the drug companies want ridiculously long patents because it takes them anywhere between a half billion and 1.5 billion to bring a blockbuster drug to market, and they lose a ton of time in pto and fda processing. at the same time, the douchebags try to patent ridiculous and trivial changes like switching the coating to an extended release formulation. one coating should be patentable, but applying an old coating to an old (or new medication) should never yield a new patent. that should always be obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feudal system known as corporate america
masnick, you're lost in a fog. any sober engineer realizes the patent system is perhaps their only way out of the feudal system known as corporate america. it's a chance to own your own business, be your own master. either that, or be a perennial boot licker like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: feudal system known as corporate america
a boot licker and a corporate ass kisser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: feudal system known as corporate america
Wait, since when was there a requirement to own a patent to start a business? There is no such thing. A patent is not at all necessary to start a business, so your entire premise is false.
Thanks for playing, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: feudal system known as corporate america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: feudal system known as corporate america
If the only thing standing between you and "the wolves" (whoever that is) is a patent, you don't deserve to be in business. Simple as that.
You succeed in business by execution, not patents. If you can't execute better than others, than too bad. You deserve to go out of business.
You do not need a patent to go into high tech businesses at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: feudal system known as corporate america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: feudal system known as corporate america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broken?
To all of you who think that simply publishing something will keep others frmo patenting it, bear in mind that improvements and advancements to your invention can be patented as well.
As a general comment, why would your company want to employ you to innovate if they are not able to reap the rewards of that innovation? Innovation costs money. Businesses aren't charities.
Finally, I hope most of you realize that major corporations generally don't care about msot of you and the silly ideas you think are revolutionary.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]