Former software engineer; now IP attorney - I have never seen, nor do I ever expect to see, a software patent that should have been granted.
Hopefully the courts will set aside the "presumption of validity" normally accorded to the USPTO for software patents.
I know you get readers by being controversial, but under your reasoning, nothing of much importance in everyday life falls under RICO, so why have it?
In other words, even though I know this is just an off-the-top-of-the-head comment, it does not make you look very good.
Pegging again.
If the POSSIBLE term is 40 years, so what?
If he was SENTENCED to 40 years, massive miscarriage of justice.
If he faces such a term, and then acts in a totally scornful way, continuing on, then maybe 40 years is reasonable.
Pegging on a POSSIBLE term as if it was the sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
Pegging again. Today, everyone seems to be into advocacy (read: self-centered argument) rather than logic.
Many years ago, I was taught in my early days of college that there was a "Yale" experiment. All mention is now gone from the literature, so perhaps it was simply a fiction work (I am not much on conspiracy theories).
A group of gifted students were given a "Khan Academy" style education. The result (in the general population) was a bunch of misfits - high suicide rates, high substance abuse, nothing of any value to society.
So, jumping from education to something completely different might be a disaster - carefully blending it into the system might be a very good thing.
The main thing is to prevent extremists from "out with the old, in with the new" type silliness.
Good article.
I have been thinking about it a lot, and nearly all modern patents, and certainly ALL software patents, should be abolished.
There is no question, in my mind, that patents the way the founders intended for them to work are good, and encourage innovation, but I know of no mainstream patents of today of any type that are not harming the economy.
And I am an IP attorney.
Good article.
I have been thinking about it a lot, and nearly all modern patents, and certainly ALL software patents, should be abolished.
There is no question, in my mind, that patents the way the founders intended for them to work are good, and encourage innovation, but I know of no mainstream patents of today of any type that are not harming the economy.
And I am an IP attorney.
Good for you! If you are sued, count on me to contribute to a defense fund; and if, as I am sure will happen, the Courts award you all costs, you can keep my contribution anyway.
Excellent article until I got to the somewhat idiotic statement "somewhat idiotic and dangerous "presumption of validity," - what would you suggest? Perhaps we shouldn't have a USPTO - I am open to that - but to suggest we have a USPTO, but anything they do is suspect, is to say you shouldn't have it at all.
Or haven't you heard how idiotic it is to tell someone to do something, then assume they did it wrong? Not just demoralizing, IDIOTIC!
WHAT!?!? The REASON Firefox, et al were successful is that the government was successful in getting Microsoft to unbundle (or at least, stop the predatory practices) that were keeping the others from having a competitive posture!!!
To say they were successful in SPITE of Microsoft's actions is to rewrite history in a very naive way.
Microsoft being able to lock out everyone else caused them to stop investing in IE (why should they? They were telling everyone they had to use it!); and their inability to react quickly to the government's actions did open the gates for their competitors, but fluffing off the effect of the government's actions is (politely) extremely naive.
Kudos, Mike, for giving us this.
It is common to pick a minority and invent all sorts of reasons to see them as "evil", usually lawyers, sometimes doctors, sometimes police, etc. Politicians are a frequent target, but Zoe Lofgren is obviously working in our behalf.
"Second, invention by one and only one person or group is exceedingly rare. Far more common are different groups struggling with the same incremental problem, and achieving the same solution at roughly the same time. Ogburn and Thomas conducted the classic study here. They document 148 instances of simultaneous invention. Only rarely, they find, does an inventor come up with an idea that is not developed in similar form by others working independently. Data on litigation tells a similar story; empirical evidence suggests that between 90 and 98% of modern patent lawsuits are against independent inventors, not copiers."
Good argument against patents AS THEY EXIST TODAY, doesn't even consider patents as the founders intended.
Also, a little misleading: merely suing an inventor does not mean an ORIGINAL inventor, more likely to mean a COPIED invention.
Lemley really shoots himself in the foot here:
"Lemley does admit to a few true independent inventions... but, in almost every one of those cases, the invention was more of an accident, such as with penicillin, vulcanized rubber, the pacemaker and film -- all of which resulted from accidents or mistakes, rather than any sort of "individual genius " that needed to be rewarded."
OOPS! Goodyear accidentally discovered vulcanization, but spent a LOT of money testing it and making it useful - money that HE said he would not have spent had he not had patent protection.
The discoverer of penicillin (name escapes me) got a lot of money from (essentially) VCs to test it thoroughly - money he would NOT have gotten without patent protection.
I believe the same is true of the other inventions, but I know less about them - however, there is every reason to believe that NONE of them would have moved forward if the technology could have been stolen and exploited by others!
Even so, most patents today should never have been granted. I spend more time explaining to potential clients why they may not want to apply for a patent than otherwise.
Also, I absolutely refuse to do software, business, or so-called "broad" defensive patents.
GREAT article and idea! Of course, even though I am an IP attorney, I refuse to do "defensive" or software patents. I have come to the conclusion that while there have been isolated cases in the past where defensive patents made a little sense, the problems FAR outweigh any benefit.
When I am asked to do software, business, or defensive patents, I offer to help them find an attorney that will help them - I won't.
It costs me a lot of money, but I sleep well at night.
Good article. It would have been a great article if it had not been so biased.
ALL defensive patents (the only type IV has) are bad; we all know that. I suspect IV knows it, but likes the money.
ALL patents (indirectly quoting both sides in the argument) are:
1. NOT defensive, and
2. NOT bad or "disruptive".
Actually, this type of patent started with patents that were so obscurely written that it was unclear what was covered; then expert witnesses were retained (actually, "bought") to "explain" what they meant. The idea was to make the process so expensive that no one would want to encroach on your turf - bad? Of course, terrible - against innovation to protect a business model.
Relatively recently they "morphed" into obviousness; even worse.
Yes, ALL defensive patents are bad - so naturally, the vast number of "morons in a hurry" hear "ALL patents are bad" - which is definitely not true.
No one can seriously argue that the patent system as it exists is NOT doing serious harm to our economy (and the world as a whole). No one can argue that the US government selling out to big entertainment, et al, is not a serious concern.
But it is almost the definition of "moronic" to be so extremist! First, someone says "patents as they exist are so bad we would likely be better off without the present system", which is definitely true. Then person two jumps up and says ANY kind of system is bad!MORONS!
I am really disturbed by this extremist point of view; it is like Congress, and "don't tax the wealthy" policies that are destroying us.
Video games do have some influence; shown again and again. Saying there is NO evidence of this merely displays ignorance.
To say there is an acceptable influence (like saying, cars create an acceptable danger to pedestrians) is fine; to say "none" simply reduces the argument to biased reporting.
On the post: Silver Linings: Bilski Ruling Does Seem To Be Limiting Some Software Patents
Software patents
Hopefully the courts will set aside the "presumption of validity" normally accorded to the USPTO for software patents.
On the post: Should Doctors Who Put Their Names On Ghostwritten 'Journal' Articles For Big Pharma Be Sued For Fraud?
Big Pharma
In other words, even though I know this is just an off-the-top-of-the-head comment, it does not make you look very good.
On the post: What's In A Name: The Importance Of Pseudonymity & The Dangers Of Requiring 'Real Names'
Anonimity
On the post: Spamford Wallace Surrenders To The FBI; May Finally Go To Jail
"Spamford" Wallace
If the POSSIBLE term is 40 years, so what?
If he was SENTENCED to 40 years, massive miscarriage of justice.
If he faces such a term, and then acts in a totally scornful way, continuing on, then maybe 40 years is reasonable.
Pegging on a POSSIBLE term as if it was the sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
On the post: When Innovation Meets the Old Guard
Khan Academy
Many years ago, I was taught in my early days of college that there was a "Yale" experiment. All mention is now gone from the literature, so perhaps it was simply a fiction work (I am not much on conspiracy theories).
A group of gifted students were given a "Khan Academy" style education. The result (in the general population) was a bunch of misfits - high suicide rates, high substance abuse, nothing of any value to society.
So, jumping from education to something completely different might be a disaster - carefully blending it into the system might be a very good thing.
The main thing is to prevent extremists from "out with the old, in with the new" type silliness.
On the post: Google Being More Aggressive About Bad Patents; But Should It Go Even Further?
Patent reform
I have been thinking about it a lot, and nearly all modern patents, and certainly ALL software patents, should be abolished.
There is no question, in my mind, that patents the way the founders intended for them to work are good, and encourage innovation, but I know of no mainstream patents of today of any type that are not harming the economy.
And I am an IP attorney.
On the post: Google Being More Aggressive About Bad Patents; But Should It Go Even Further?
Patent reform
I have been thinking about it a lot, and nearly all modern patents, and certainly ALL software patents, should be abolished.
There is no question, in my mind, that patents the way the founders intended for them to work are good, and encourage innovation, but I know of no mainstream patents of today of any type that are not harming the economy.
And I am an IP attorney.
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
Wolk
On the post: Planet Money Continues To Show How Damaging Software Patents Are To Innovation
Software patents
Good article.
On the post: Patent Loving Court Strikes Again: CAFC Orders USPTO To Reconsider NTP Patents It Had Rejected
CAFC
Or haven't you heard how idiotic it is to tell someone to do something, then assume they did it wrong? Not just demoralizing, IDIOTIC!
On the post: Is Google Antitrust Investigation Simply A Repeat Of Wasteful Microsoft Antitrust Effort?
Google Investigation
To say they were successful in SPITE of Microsoft's actions is to rewrite history in a very naive way.
Microsoft being able to lock out everyone else caused them to stop investing in IE (why should they? They were telling everyone they had to use it!); and their inability to react quickly to the government's actions did open the gates for their competitors, but fluffing off the effect of the government's actions is (politely) extremely naive.
On the post: House Committee Approves 'Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act of 2011'
Ridiculous and dangerous legislation
It is common to pick a minority and invent all sorts of reasons to see them as "evil", usually lawyers, sometimes doctors, sometimes police, etc. Politicians are a frequent target, but Zoe Lofgren is obviously working in our behalf.
On the post: Misleading Scientific American Report On Traffic Cameras
Red Light Cameras
On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System... Is A Myth
Arguments against patenting
Good argument against patents AS THEY EXIST TODAY, doesn't even consider patents as the founders intended.
Also, a little misleading: merely suing an inventor does not mean an ORIGINAL inventor, more likely to mean a COPIED invention.
On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System... Is A Myth
Patenting again
"Lemley does admit to a few true independent inventions... but, in almost every one of those cases, the invention was more of an accident, such as with penicillin, vulcanized rubber, the pacemaker and film -- all of which resulted from accidents or mistakes, rather than any sort of "individual genius " that needed to be rewarded."
OOPS! Goodyear accidentally discovered vulcanization, but spent a LOT of money testing it and making it useful - money that HE said he would not have spent had he not had patent protection.
The discoverer of penicillin (name escapes me) got a lot of money from (essentially) VCs to test it thoroughly - money he would NOT have gotten without patent protection.
I believe the same is true of the other inventions, but I know less about them - however, there is every reason to believe that NONE of them would have moved forward if the technology could have been stolen and exploited by others!
Even so, most patents today should never have been granted. I spend more time explaining to potential clients why they may not want to apply for a patent than otherwise.
Also, I absolutely refuse to do software, business, or so-called "broad" defensive patents.
On the post: Could The Supreme Court Invalidate Software Patents?
Software patents and the Supreme Court
When I am asked to do software, business, or defensive patents, I offer to help them find an attorney that will help them - I won't.
It costs me a lot of money, but I sleep well at night.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures' Response To This American Life: Oh Those Crazy Reporters Don't Understand Disruption
IV and patenting
ALL defensive patents (the only type IV has) are bad; we all know that. I suspect IV knows it, but likes the money.
ALL patents (indirectly quoting both sides in the argument) are:
1. NOT defensive, and
2. NOT bad or "disruptive".
On the post: By Definition, A Defensive Patent Is A Bad Patent
A little history on "defensive" patents
Relatively recently they "morphed" into obviousness; even worse.
Yes, ALL defensive patents are bad - so naturally, the vast number of "morons in a hurry" hear "ALL patents are bad" - which is definitely not true.
On the post: Google Finally Speaking Up About Problems With Patent System
Patent reform
But it is almost the definition of "moronic" to be so extremist! First, someone says "patents as they exist are so bad we would likely be better off without the present system", which is definitely true. Then person two jumps up and says ANY kind of system is bad!MORONS!
On the post: And Here Comes The Video Game Backlash Due To The Norway Tragedy
Extremism
Video games do have some influence; shown again and again. Saying there is NO evidence of this merely displays ignorance.
To say there is an acceptable influence (like saying, cars create an acceptable danger to pedestrians) is fine; to say "none" simply reduces the argument to biased reporting.
Next >>