Bringing Transparency Back To The Patent System With 'Innovation Cartography'
from the spreading-the-knowledge dept
As Techdirt has noted many times, the patent system is broken, and in various ways. One major problem is the way it inhibits innovation, rather than promoting it, as its supporters usually claim. Here's why:
The patent system was created to advance societal benefit by encouraging clearly defined public disclosure of inventions, in exchange for a strictly limited monopoly. The intent is that the invention may be used wherever and whenever the patent monopoly is not in force.
That's taken from a page on the site of a new tool called the "Lens". It's the brainchild of Richard Jefferson, probably best known for setting up Cambia, which describes itself as "an independent non-profit institute creating new technologies, tools and paradigms to promote change and enable innovation," and the open-source biology project BiOS. Here's what the Lens is for:
The trouble is that unless information is readily available about whose patents are in force over what technology where, the system doesn't work well. People may unwittingly infringe patents they don't know about, avoid areas of innovation in which they are entitled to be creative, or make poor investments based on incomplete information about which rights are granted and who holds these rights.to create transparency in the patent system, and to serve the public worldwide as a platform to explore, understand and improve its impact on society. The Lens informatics tools can assist the user to determine the boundaries of intellectual property constraints on deliverable innovations, and usable building blocks for future innovations.
As pointed out to us by @gnat, there's an excellent profile of Jefferson in Grist, which explains the larger goal of his new project as follows:
he's trying to radically transform the entire system of innovation to make it more inclusive and local: He wants a system that empowers farmers in Africa to invent their own solutions, rather than looking to multinational corporations for fixes.
The problem is that patents do not promote innovation in those contexts:
the people who need new solutions most, like farmers in developing countries, are isolated in a system that discourages ground-level innovation. Instead, we have a small group of companies in rich countries, with a stranglehold on patents, designing all the solutions to fit their own business models. This system works primarily to bring in money for these companies, to maintain their privilege, and to exclude competition.
More specifically, the problem is that:
the patent system has grown so complex that only a few experts understand it. It's impossible for normal people to navigate the patent thickets to discover the treasures there, or see the dangers. And these days everything from a cellphone to a seed requires dozens of separate patents for the component parts. The solution, he said, is mapping it out: what he calls "innovation cartography."
The rest of the Grist article explores Jefferson's ideas further, and is well-worth reading. It includes a wonderful historical parallel from the 16th century -- involving a different kind of map:
the Iberian peninsula controlled all the information needed to send merchant ships to Asia (and, to a large extent, the New World as well). The Iberians had invested heavily in research and development, sending out De Gama, Magellan, Dias, Columbus, all those explorers to map the world. And because they were the only Europeans with reliable maps of the East Indies -- these maps were state secrets -- the Iberians had a monopoly.
The result was great wealth and power for those that controlled the maps, but also stagnation within their industries, because they had no need to innovate -- the money kept rolling in anyway. The parallels with the present state of the patent system, where large returns are possible without the need to innovate further, are clear.
But back in the 16th century, something happened:
Jan Huyghen van Linschoten was working as a secretary for the Portuguese archbishop in Goa, India. In that capacity, he traveled all over the world. Somewhere along the way, he got his hands on the Portuguese maps, and he copied them.
He not only copied them, he made them freely available, with dramatic effects on the entire world:
Linschoten published the maps in 1596. The British East India Company started in 1600; the Dutch East India Company was founded in 1602. The Dutch East India Company also represented an innovation in financing: It was the first joint stock company, and its formation gave rise to trade in options and derivatives. Once the maps were available and the Iberian monopoly was broken, new ideas flowered, and new investment flowed.
This is how Jefferson thinks the Lens will be used to unleash a new wave of investment and innovation, just as Linschoten's maps did:
Now we have a similar situation, Jefferson said. There is a tremendous opportunity -- not in mapping Asia and the Americas, but in mapping the patent system and all of its related knowledge. anyone can look up patents and grab recipes for creating technologies. This is especially true of the people who need innovation most, because patents don't apply in most developing countries. Patents can only stop use of an invention in the country in which they're granted. An enterprising Ugandan company could look up the instructions for Monsanto's seeds in the patent literature, and build them tomorrow, without breaking the law, Jefferson said. The innovators and entrepreneurs are out there, he said -- they just need the maps to show investors that the technology exists and their plans are legal and feasible.
It's a radical approach: using the patent system to provide both the raw ideas that might help developing countries, as well as key information about where that can be done without running into legal problems. In other words, it's all about putting the missing transparency back into patents.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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: innovation, patents, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wasted effort
The real solution to the patent mess is to abolish patents. End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A nice dream...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fabricated Histories
Fabricated histories are all the rage these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fabricated Histories
Actually, on thinking about it, if you're right then it sort of works as a metaphor for copyright too with big incumbent players locking up previously public domain content...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fabricated Histories
The Portugese were practicing proprietory secrecy, which nowadays is effectively precluded by the regulation of products for public consumption and further by deep espionage by the NSA etc..
It demonstrates the commercial value of secret intelligence.
I don't think the problem is copyright. I think the problem is giant American corporations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
another biased article
All issued patents are published by the USPTO in its Gazette. Further, through its web site anyone can access and search its database of issued patents. There is no excuse for not knowing what has issued. It's called business intelligence. If they don't know their markets and industry, they are to blame. If an infringer is ignorant of developments in their field, it's their fault. In some cases inventors will contact potential jv allies to help fund or develop emerging technologies. It's called business intelligence. Their excuses of not knowing are just that.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are hacks representing themselves as legitimate journalists receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.
For the truth, please see http://www.truereform.piausa.org/
https://www.facebook.com/pi.ausa.5
http://piausa.wordpress.com/
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/142741
http://cpip.gmu.edu/2013/03/15/the-s hield-act-when-bad-economic-studies-make-bad-laws/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And TOO, publishing maps led to massive slavery and exploitation.
So at best, bad example.
And again, the only practicable solution to the patent mess is to return to requiring working physical models (as ended in 1870s when emerging corporations hit on the idea of monopolizing more generally, not just the specific instantion). Automatically rules out software, drugs, broad areas like patenting genes, and incremental tweaks claimed as new.
Economics is the non-science of telling fantasies to flatter plutocrats by omitting the real effects on laborers. It's an easy degree path for the lazy but well-off, requiring skill only at unctuous re-writing.
03:08:37[d-65-1]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An independent invention defense (or something similar) would solve that.
The problem with Lens (or rather, the problem Lens doesn't solve) is that the cost for making patents accessible and useful lies with the public, rather than the patent holders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now we know why those Investor State Relation Clauses in the Treaties are so important...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Fabricated Histories
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey Uganda!
Next thing you know, Uganda is a booming economic powerhouse!
Seriously, only lawyers and historians find valuable information in patent filings. The usefulness of patent disclosures for actually making anything is unproven.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: another biased article
Patents are written to reveal as little actual information as possible, but that aside...
In practice, at least in some fields, it is literally impossible to know what patents your invention might infringe. You can search all day long, but you will still end up getting sued by someone with some overly broad patent, or someone stretching their patent to cover your particular product in an attempt to steal from you.
It has nothing to do with knowing your field or market. It has everything to do with people who use the patent system deceptively as a weapon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And TOO, publishing maps led to massive slavery and exploitation.
Agreed. I once tried to create a working algorithm from the LMZ compression patent and discovered only that it was (and presumably still is) a fraud. Whatever technique is employed in the actual implementations of LMZ, it is not described by the patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]