Microsoft The Latest To Try To Patent An Entire Bio Industry
from the just-what-Jefferson-intended dept
Microsoft's Bill Gates once famously pointed out that if software patents had been used back in the early days of Microsoft, the personal computer revolution almost certainly never would have occurred. But, over the last few years, Microsoft has become quite aggressive in the patent space, not just working hard to acquire as many patents as possible, but also waving them around at times and threatening other companies with them. Now, some will point out that, in the software space at least, many feel the need to stockpile patents, just for the sake of having something to use to threaten those who threaten you with patent infringement (the nuclear stockpiling theory).However, now it seems that Microsoft may be trying to stockpile outside of its core industries, and it has some folks up in arms. A bunch of folks sent in the story about how Microsoft is trying to patent clustering phylogenetics methods (here's the application) that supposedly are quite common in the evolutionary biology industry. Of course, it's just an application -- so one would hope that, if it's so widely used, that the examiner will knock it out with plenty of prior art. But, the Patent Office isn't always known for doing such a good job on these sorts of things. And just the fact that such a patent is being attempted should be troubling enough.
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: clustering phylogenetics, patents, stockpiling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Question: How can that possibly be true?
Let us take your example of the pharmaceutical industry. You claim that pharmaceuticals are not innovating much (which seems to belie your earlier statement that "...intellectual property completely stops innovation;"). Yet, pharmaceutical patents have an effective life of about 14 years. So, after 14 years the drug described by the patent is available for innovation.
In fact, Teva and several other generic manufacturers make it their business to "innovate" drugs on which patents have expired. The focus of Teva is not invention, they leave that to others, but producing low-cost generic drugs. You could say that Teva's existence is enabled by the creation of patented drugs.
As for your other statement, it is beyond silly. Electronics have gotten patents since there were electronics. However, invention and innovation in electronics continues at an exponential rate, as pointed out by an article on this web site not long ago. How could there be exponential invention and innovation in electronics if "...intellectual property completely stops innovation"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You claim that pharmaceuticals are not innovating much (which seems to belie your earlier statement that '...intellectual property completely stops innovation;'"
You're basically arguing that innovating just a little is completely incomparable to not innovating at all, when the difference between them in inherently small.
"You could say that Teva's existence is enabled by the creation of patented drugs."
No, Teva's existence would be enabled by the creation of drugs--whether the drugs are patented or not is completely beside the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, Teva's existence would be enabled by the creation of drugs--whether the drugs are patented or not is completely beside the point.
I apologize. I missed some words.
Many drugs owe their existence to patents. The nominal rate of return without patents would have reduced the likelihood that those drugs would have been invented. Teva has capitalized on the existence of drugs that were enabled by patents by producing those drugs cost-effectively after the patents expired.
While Teva might have existed (a debateable point without the existence of patents) without patented drugs, their ability to become the low-cost producer of formerly patented drugs has led to Teva becoming the largest generic manufacturer in the world, as well as one of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for copyright, that has nothing to do with Teva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
Everybody can use the patented knowledge to develop a product and PAY for its use. What is at stake is that NOBODY want to SHARE the profits!
I am an example of a simple average Joe that used a Microsoft patent developed a solution, hired a DIME A DOZEN lawyer to talk to their MILLIONS A YEAR ones got my one time only fee paycheck and went home happy.
Pharmaceuticals are a totaly different ball game you crash a computer no prbblem, crash a mice test and back to drawing board and another 10,000 mices will endure tests, not to mention CHINESE experimenting with real people.
Come on guys patent is OK GREED and unautorized use is NOT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents
Excuse me, but you can not patent knowledge.
In addition, software should not be patentable and it wasn't for a long time. Software is protected under copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents
Compare that to how it is used today!
/Rickard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First non-final rejection...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if you're a big corporation why not lobby for the patents you apply for to last 100 years, what harm does it do to you? and there is incentive for patents that you currently do have not to expire any time soon no matter how old the patent is being that you maybe generating revenue on the patent now meaning it contributes more to your current present value (even if the patent is 100 years old, the current money you generate from it now contributes largely to the present value). This explains why corporations always try to lobby for intellectual property extensions.
Also, one has to realize that in twenty years from now many of the corporation's executives and members and employees (ie: CEO, COO, CFO, etc...) would probably be either retired or working for another corporation and many of the stock holders are going to be different people (ie: stocks are bought and sold every day). Sure some current stockholders still may have stock in the corporation in the future (but again, what's the present value of the future amount of a patent twenty years from now to an investor vs the money he could get now by simply having less money put into current R&D. Doesn't seem there is much incentive to add that much more money into R&D now being that the present value to an investor of that money is worth more than the future amount generated by the patent twenty years from now) but the corporation may have many new stockholders and many of the old stockholders may not even be with the corporation by then. Many many things could also happen in twenty years, the invention could be rendered obsolete by newer technology even, the economic conditions or some other changes (ie: political) might make the patent twenty years from now irrelevant, meaning that some investors and executives probably aren't even really thinking twenty years down the line in terms of that patent right now, they're thinking more of how they can make a fast buck with the patents they have now. I mean how often does the average American change jobs even, how many years? Many things would change in twenty years rendering the revenue generated from the patent twenty years from now irrelevant to many of the current investors and corporate employees and executives. and this is ESPECIALLY true for copyright which lasts much longer than 20 years even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isnt Star Trek on somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bill gate is not intelligent...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Controlling Hurricanes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
World renowned hurricane expert William Gray, who's been studying and predicting the storms for a half-century, also doubts whether the proposal would work.
"The problem is the storms come up so rapidly," said Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. "You only get two to three days warning. It's very difficult to bring up enough cold water in two to three days to have much effect."
The idea itself isn't groundbreaking, according to Gray, who said it could only be feasible if the barges were put into place at the beginning of hurricane season with the idea that storms will come.
"But you might do all that, and perhaps no storms would come. That's an economic problem," Gray said.
Even if the technology does work, Gray said it won't completely halt a hurricane.
"There is no way to stop it. The storm might weaken in the center, but the outer areas wouldn't be affected much."
And flooding and storm surges are determined by these outer winds, Gray said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All that being said, and responding as a mere neophyte in the field of hurricanes, unlike the "world renowned hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray; I would like at this time, to address a couple errors I see in Dr. Gray's philosophy. First and foremost, nothing is "impossible", given inspiration, meditation and perspiration. He says, even if the technology were workable, there is No Way to stop the hurricanes from reforming and gaining strength. To this, again I say, you have defeated yourself without ever even getting in to the fray. When one says, it is impossible, or there is no way, or any number of other positively negative statements, immediately their spoke word places a barrier in the path of said technology, if only in his or her own mind. The more Renowned and Respected that person is, the more power his or her spoken word has, simply because more people who hear or read their positively negative statements, believe them, hence placing that same road block or log jam in that person's reality as well. That is why the spoken, written and musically sung WORD is the most powerful and creative force in the Universe. cg@
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed and Control of the Planet
Keep it up - and soon he and his cronies will own the air we breath.
When will people wake up and see that the Constitution of the United States and the people who control our Government still follow the advice of Sun Tzu's, the Art of War fom 500 b.c All warfare is based on Deception.
Keep the majority ignorant and fearful and he can bring this whole planet down.
Wake up fellow humans. Let us join hands and restore this country as the beacon of hope for the whole planet.
If we don't clean up the mess here in own country first, how can we expect the rest of the world to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gates and Huricanes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gates and Huricanes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill is right. We need to be able to control our environment
and shoot it at the eye of the hurricane or tornado to disperse it's
force? After Karina, there is no question that we have to control our
environment. They probably all laughed at Christopher Columbus too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]