UK Inventor To Lord Mandelson: Make Patent Infringement A Criminal Offense
from the yeah,-that'll-help dept
A whole bunch of folks have been sending in the story of how UK inventor Trevor Baylis has written a letter to UK Business Secretary (and sudden fan of kicking people off the internet), urging him to change patent law to make it a criminal offense, using the same old tactic: comparing an "invention" to real property, and noting that stealing a car will get you jail time -- so why doesn't "nicking" a patent? Well, Mr. Baylis, it doesn't get you jail time for a whole host of very good reasons: when someone steals your car, you no longer have your car. If someone happens to come up with the same invention as you do, both of you still have it. Plus, note in that last sentence that patent infringement rarely involves actual "stealing" or "nicking" of ideas, but usually is about multiple people coming up with the same general idea at the same time. Doesn't it seem slightly problematic to think that you might go to jail if someone else just happened to come up with the same invention you did, but got to the patent office a day earlier? Hopefully, Mandelson will explain this sort of thing to Mr. Baylis, but given his confusion over copyright... that seems unlikely.
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: criminal, patents, peter mandelson, trevor baylis, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What a shock....
And another thing, characterizing Trevor Baylis as a UK inventor is innacurate. He WAS an inventor, and in fact made some very useful, wonderful inventions with some truly noble purposes like assisting the disabled (are we still allowed to say that?) and bringing AIDS education to remote parts of Africa.
But now he's a businessman, and his business is licensing agreements for OTHERS inventions. He is advocating for what would benefit his business, and in my mind that is always going to trump the notion that he's advocating for what he thinks is RIGHT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a shock....
Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the concept explored in the 1983 "Trading Places".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a shock....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a shock....
The patent is now expired but using a handle to charge a battery would have circumvented it anyway - provided you didn't use an intermediate clockwork mechanism.
Actually I think his story is rather sad - from focussing on invention he has become increasingly obsessed with the mechanics of protecting invention by the patent system rather like the Wright brothers did. (Ever wondered why you can't name any aeroplane produced by the Wright's after 1906)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a shock....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Database of patent thefts?
I would think that anyone with the breadth of reach of the organisations RJR commands, he would easily be able to develop such a database. It is a simple online application to build and host. Open it to the public and a simple review process to vet out any spammers.
The power of clarifying the air between patent-theft and simultaneous-invention would completely win public appeal for stronger patent regulation...that is, if such a database could actually show significant damages beyond the converse.
I wonder why that has not been thought of before??
(I wonder if anyone has a patent on such a database...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Database of patent thefts?
And hopefully he would use three databases in his implementation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Database of patent thefts?
Inventors are encouraged to do due diligence on prospective licensees by reviewing legal and news data.
Generally it is wise to take inventions to companies who are not the biggest in an industry. The dominate company is virtually always fat, happy and arrogant and if they pay attention at all to the inventor it is usually just to rip them off.
The companies in second, third or fourth place usually desperately want to displace the company at the top and they are more likely to deal reputably.
This is not always the case, in that some industry segments have developed a pervasive and crooked attitude towards inventors. Examples are the auto and telecom industries. Note that both industries are suffering from the ravages of stagnation.
Even companies who start as inventors usually lose the ability to produce significant inventions over time. HP is a good example of this. Intel is another. IBM, quantity over quality.
hat happens to companies who cannot produce the important inventions they need to continue to prosper in their markets who alienate those who are producing inventions? Take a look at the auto industry.
So the answer is that yes, PIAUSA.org has been keeping score about who is and is not likely to be worth approaching.
One more point, this is something which changes depending on who is running a company and also who their patent counsel is. Some companies who were very disreputable have improved over time. Others who make have started out with the best of intentions have evolved to do incredible evil. Why is it that success virtually always leads to disreputable conduct?
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR act PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Database of patent thefts?
I wonder why? Could it just be that the artificial monopoly that comes from patent protection encourages them to sit back and rely on lawyers to earn them money rather than getting off their backsides and innovating.
My feeling is that the ultra-IP brigade aren't really interested in innovation or creativity at all. What they are looking for is the golden goose, the magic ticket that will enable them to sit back for the rest of their lives basking in the glory and spending the royalty cheques.
For most this is a fantasy but the thought that this dream might be taken away scares them more than any real threat. You see this with the musicians who make no more than a few hundred a year in royalties but scream blue murder at the suggestion that they might lose them. Of course it's not the few hundred, its the thought that somehow they might get lucky and the hundreds might turn into millions. They can't bear to give up the dream.
Same thing with the inventors. They hang on to patents, shelling out for the renewal fees even though there is no money coming in because they have to keep believing that someday, somewhere, someone will recognise their genius and the money will start to roll in.
Of course there is a well know psychological process involved in abandoning these fantasies and entering the real world...it's called growing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Database of patent thefts?
- because they are less likely to have the resources for a lengthly court battle.
"Examples are the auto and telecom industries. Note that both industries are suffering from the ravages of stagnation."
- correlation != causation
and RJR continues to spew biased BS, film at eleven
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Database of patent thefts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is really needed
That is the problem that Trevor Bayliss seemed to be worried about when I heard him being interviewed "large organisations, even countries stealing patents", although how you bring the PR of China before a UK criminal court beats me.
However the patent system doesn't do much for that problem - for an inexperienced lone inventor the patent system is a bit like keeping a gun by your bed to defend against burglars - there is a high risk that the burglar will use the gun on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Would Go Further
After all, like terrorism, it strikes at the very foundations of our society—indeed, at the very viability of our existence on Planet Earth. This sort of thing must be stamped out, no matter how great the cost. It is vital that our security agencies are given carte blanche to do so. Anybody who disagrees is clearly psychotic and needs to be put away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually making patent infinging criminal might be just the wake up call patent lawyers needs. Raising the level of proof of law and a trial by a jury of peers ?
Watch the lawyers scatter ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making patent infringement a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jail time & Contributory Infringement
I have a reading assignment for you. Study Farnsworth and the way Sarnoff used the resources of RCA to persecute Farnsworth for decades. Then see if you can write an unbiased account about them for TechDIRT.
Incidentally, inducing others to infringe is actionable, it is called contributory infringement.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR act PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail time & Contributory Infringement
Ronald, pray tell, how do you "steal profit"? Back here, where I live, in the real world, that's normally called competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail time & Contributory Infringement
For profit incarceration
Early release due to lack of funds
And you suggest making things worse - brilliant !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just gonna past Pamela Jones's take of Groklaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent No. 4,022,227, Method of Concealing Partial Baldness.
(or rather it was - expired now)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK lets examine your arguments then.
"The identical invention argument is wrong and distracting."
This is an assertion supported by no logic or evidence.
Identical inventions do happen all the time and to make the difference of a few hours in filing a patent into grounds for criminal liability is clearly unjust.
Examples of inventions that were simultaneously invented by several different people include the high pressure steam engine (Hornblower and Watt) the light bulb (Edison and Swann) the telephone, radio, television. I could go on and on - it's actually harder to find things which have a single inventor than those that have many.
"Yes, there are large corporations who infringe on some patent rights especially on rights own by small individual entities, who cannot afford adequate legal defense. Such infringement undermines trust in the legal system and the public looses out."
And there are large corporations who use questionable patents to persecute small individual entities. I'm sure these corporations would just love to have their work done for them by the police and criminal justice system at public expense. I'm also sure that such misuse of the patent system undermines public trust in the system even more than infringement does.
" A country can loose its edge in technology at first and its capability to defend herself at second."
By that argument each country should ruthlessly steal every other country's technology without paying and keep its own a secret as happens in wartime. Also note that in wartime intellectual property tends to be steamrollered in the interests of the war effort and corporate heads get knocked together as happened to the US aircraft industry in WW1. Oddly, contrary to patent orthodoxy, technological progress seems to accelerate at such times.
"Super-crime is not far fetched after all."
At this point I began to wonder is this was a serious post or just super-ironic.
"The intellectual property is the same as any other property."
No it isn't. Intellectual property is a monopoly concession by the government. As such it is a right to prevent others from doing something anywhere and using any instance of a physical object as opposed to physical property which relates to a specific physical object or location.
As such it is possible to infringe an intellectual monopoly concession (in your words to steal a piece of intellectual property) in one's own home using one's own physical property. In the case of patents it is possible to do this without being aware that one is doing it. There are several million active patents in the US alone, many more in the world. Have you read and understood them all? Without having done so it is impossible to engage in any kind of manufacturing trade and be certain that you are not breaking the law.
"If it is stolen, it lost its value to the owner."
Clearly it doesn't lose all it's value. Whether it loses any significant value is disputable.
"It is not true that now both the victim and the thief has it."
Well clearly they do so this statement is simply incorrect. Again whether the original owner and the thief now have something of lesser value than what the original owner had is a moot point. Arguably if the value to each is >50% of the original then the net result is a positive to the wealth of the community as a whole.
"New laws have proponents and opponents based on sense of justice or perception of being future beneficiaries or not."
But clearly when laws are passed based on the latter, even if a majority support them, then the result will be injustice. For examples of such laws see Germany in the period 1933 - 1945, South Africa 1950-1989 etc etc.
"Comments shall be judged accordingly."
This seems to contradict your first point. Do you admit that motivation matters?
" There is nothing wrong with promoting one's business interest as long it dos no harm and make sense on its own, regardless who proposed and why."
That's an awfully big if. Arguably these proposals will do some harm and don't make sense so they should be rejected.
Actually knowledge of the background from which a proposal comes does help in the process of analysing it. For example the revelation that Trevor Bayliss is now primarily a patent "lawyer" rather than an inventor may make it easier to analyse his arguments - although the conclusion reached would not be any different. Also, changes in intellectual monopoly law seem to arrive like buses (in groups) and whereas the first one may seem innocuous the combined effect can be more significant. Knowing the background of the proposer can be useful in determining what the next(as yet unrevealed) proposal is going to be - which may help in the fight against the first one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also note that in wartime intellectual property tends to be steamrollered in the interests of the war effort
Anyway, it would be morally fairer to say that ONLY after someone had been warned that they were accused of infringing and had been given a reasonable time to cease, THEN perhaps you could start talking about whether it is right to make FURTHER infringement a crime.
If MicroSoft writes to a 1 man software outfit and asks him to stop infringing (as the law is now), he probably will (they have bigger lawyers) - the law change won't affect that. But if little guy writes to MS, MS currently wouldn't stop. The proposed new law might actually level the playing field.
Question is, who at MS is going to go to jail if they lose ?
Maybe damages should be levied as a percentage of the loser's turnover...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also note that in wartime intellectual property tends to be steamrollered in the interests of the war effort
Dude, they should already be in jail
Their top pig Stevie can use some jail diet to shed some weight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's perfect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UK Inventor To Lord Mandelson: Make Patent Infringement A Criminal Offense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does somebody have a patent
Anybody ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does somebody have a patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does somebody have a patent
He wants $100M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]