Next Tech Area To Be Hindered By Patents: Nanotech... And Much Of It Is Funded With Your Tax Dollars
from the step-on-up dept
As with any "hot" technology area, it doesn't take long for a massive, innovation hindering patent thicket to spring up. It effectively makes it impossible to bring anything to market unless you've got a huge patent portfolio yourself and deep pockets. Yet another example of patents harming the smaller players in the market. A new report is suggesting that the latest "hot" area to get patent crazy is nanotechnology.However, the really worrying thing about the report is that it notes that the single largest "patent patron" in nanotechnology... is the federal government. Yes, the government is spending your tax dollars to have these new inventions locked up so you can't use them. We've discussed this before, and no one has yet been able to credibly explain why federally funded research should get a patent. Years back, it was determined that federal documents could not be covered by copyright for this reason, but why doesn't that extend to patents? It's especially disturbing because it's clear what's going to happen. Our tax dollars pay for the research, and then it's transferred over to a private company who uses the monopoly rights to keep it expensive and limit further innovation.
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: federal funding, nanotech, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could actually be a good thing
... Presuming of course that those patents remain free to the public in perpetuity ...
... Which of course they won't ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To assimilate a chicken.
Okay, I got nothing ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dude, she so had plastics done....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: NREL
I doubt they have a plan to license tech to patent trolls, though it obviously could happen. I can find out if these licenses are exclusive, but I don't believe they are (IIRC).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am trying to figure this one out. Are you suggesting the government is gaining patents on things and then purposefully locking them away? They aren't intending in any way to license them out?
What is your source for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which doesn't sound sensible at all, really. The Governmental patents should be public domain, as a service to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just as importantly, if they made things happens years ahead, it means the patent clock also started ticking years ahead. So even IF (unproven) companies buy it and lock it up and never, ever, ever, use it, the patent clock is already running. But that would of course assume that the companies are stupidly spending money just to spite the market, which seems like a very, very huge assumption.
Again, I ask: Is there proof these patents are getting locked up and not used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This does not mean I support Bayh-Dole (I do not express any opinion on the Act), but only that most of the indignation associated with it is based upon a lack of understanding about what the Bayh-Dole Act really says, and how it has been implemented via the FAR.
Quite frankly, my concerns are directed to inventions created solely by federal employees as a part of their ordinary and customary on the job responsibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you did read it you would quickly discover that "sitting on a subject invention" is a "no-no", the USG holds a license under any subject invention for which a private sector participant to a "funding agreement" elects domestic/ international rights, there is one circumstance under which the USG can contract for title to reside in it and not the private sector participant, and the USG reserves "march-in" rights.
These terms are all defined in the cited statutes and regulations, and taking the time to actually read them and assimilate what they say would provide some modicum of education that would give readily demostrate why FUD is an accurate term used to describe much of what is said about inventions funded in whole or in part by the USG.
Knowledge is power. Refusing to acquire knowledge is nothing more that a symptom of laziness.
By your comment you appear to fall within the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theft of
As any truly innovative small entity will tell you, patents don't hinder innovation, but rather the theft of. At least they did when we could enforce them.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for an inventor�s perspective on patent reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]