"The quality of ordinary, handheld hammers does not vary much, as long as the head stays on the handle."
Actually that's not true, and if you hammered nails for a living you'd know that. Some hammers are superior in material/design to the point that a novice can hammer a straight nail just about every time. Hand him the shit y hammer and the same will not apply. I'm speaking from experience.
Mike, the examination isn't being accelerated, the time until the application is picked up to have the examination started is being shortened by moving them to the front of the line. The exact same amount of time is still spent examining the apps.
All they're doing is letting apps that pass certain guidelines skip in line.
I don't know man, I'm against Quinn in every conceivable way (and am banned from his page for supposedly telling his customers to not hire him), but I'm not convinced of your position. Copying, in the world of manufacturing does actually have value. Significant value. This isn't the world of infinite goods which you are so fond of speaking about and which I more or less agree with you about. This is about actually getting your hands dirty, buying wood, metal and plastic etc. and making things.
It's a different ball game, and I believe that there may still be room for patents to play a useful role in promoting those manufacturing arts.
As an aside let me make you aware that you and Eugene are using "innovation" differently. He uses "innovation" to mean "inventions" generally. You use "innovation" to meant bringing products to market in useful ways and with useful features (so far as I can tell, or something close to that). You need to get your dictionaries straight before you continue to talk to him.
Still, obviously the monopoly is bad for the market as a whole, but that doesn't mean that disclosed inventions weren't advanced. And in manufacturing arts, those disclosures (enabling copying) do actually have significant value in and of themselves, not just because you set up a monopoly rent.
This of course does not hold true as much in software and business methods. And that is one reason why I oppose such patents vehemently.
"what if, for $1,000, you could spend a few hours tackling quests on World of Warcraft with Felicia?"
Exactly. That's the way to bring in the money and it is easy to think of ways to Reason to Buy this particular show. Painfully easy. If I were her I'd be rollin in bank already.
Yeah I had been meaning to cite her to you as a case in point of exactly what you've been saying. Still, she has required corporate sponsorship to keep the whole thing going and to be able to finally pay the cast (a small amount).
Even so, I support her and them. The third season is kinda sux compared to the first, but I'd say it's about to pick up if I know them.
"Didn't say it was clear cut, did I? But it is an interesting way of thinking about things."
No you didn't, and I didn't imply you did. I don't know how "interesting" it is, but to each his own.
"Why?"
That is a highly fact/situation specific question. If you spent a good bit of time around patents you'll see, amongst other things, 1000001 ways to make a transistor. Each of them having their specific benefits and (usually not outright stated in the patent) there own limitations and shortcomings. Yet, they are all transistors. Likewise you will find tens of thousands of ways to make a bicycle. They're all just bicycles.
You might need to expand your view of patents beyond the obvious business methods and computer implemented bullsht to get a better view of some of the actual underlying technical progress made in various technologies.
"Hmm. That falsely assumes that with a lack of patent protection no one would ever think of coming up with the better gas mileage version. Which is ridiculous. People could still come up with that, recognizing that there was a market for more fuel efficient flying cars. Patents have nothing to do with that."
Whether or not they 'could' or not is not the issue. It is whether or not they actually DO come up with it which is the issue.
Furthermore, I'm not assuming that they wouldn't come up with that sans patent protection. They very well may. I'm not using this as a justification of having patents in play, I'm simply stating what very well could happen if the 2nd guy isn't motivated enough to work on the project. Maybe nobody is ever sufficiently motivated to take his place. Maybe they all fail. Who knows? It depends on the situation.
And before you say that it is ludicrous to say they might all fail, you need to guess again. History is literally littered with instances of people having enabled a technology where all others in the field had been failing. It isn't ludicrous, but it is rare compared to your run of the mill "inventions".
"Again, which would be great, but has nothing to do with the point of the article. Without patents, all of that could easily happen. With them... not so much."
Well actually it couldn't happen all that easily, even if I had the technical knowledge to invent in the engine/propulsion art. I would still require funding/time. And when I'm sitting in my grandfather's garage I don't typically have a whole lot of funding. (I live in the city in an apt) I'm also not too sure why you think patents would stop me from developing a completely different propulsion system than a competitor, that is in fact not the case since their claims should not cover my new device so long as I am sufficiently horizontally away from what they were doing.
"Uh, yeah, ok. I love it when people tell me what I'm not allowed to talk about. "
I didn't say you aren't allowed to talk about it. But you are precluded (not by me, but by yourself) from discussing it intelligently. You can feel free to babble nonsense all you please, I won't even try to stop you. I will however suggest to you that you might like to try to become more aware of the topic about which you are speaking than you currently are. I can also decline to have further discussions with you until you do so.
I'm allowed to talk about fine arts and ballet, but I won't really be able to converse at a meaningful level, but that won't be because anyone is stopping me.
First off these nice neat categories that you guys just lumped "inventions" in as horizontal and vertical don't really exist as clear cut boundaries in the real world. And they don't exist as clear cut boundaries in the patent world either.
For instance, what you will often see in the course of examining a patent is a claim (i.e. the "invention") to a device/method that is both a parallel invention and which also has a new element added to it.
Second, we benefit from both of the two "types" of "inventions" which the guy above describes, and we benefit probably in equal amounts from each. And even if it is not equal you could never do a study to find out which is "better". They both have a role to play. For instance, taking your flying car example, what if the flying car technology that the first guy came up with ends up being far inferior to the second technology in terms of gas mileage (or etc)? If the second guy never came along and invented his second type of propulsion then we'd be stuck with the gas hogs of the former category, maybe forever. This would be "horizontal" to you. At the same time, it is blatantly obvious to anyone that we need to improve on the first technology (and second) to improve whatever have you, performance over salt water (etc) and that would be "vertical" to you. And then take the guy 6 who comes along, and, seeing both tech's comes up with a third propulsion tech, which happens to be inherently great at operating over sea water. I just "diagonally" invented according to your designation.
And before we (you and me) can discuss the issue properly you're simply going to have to familiarize yourself with patents Mike more than you already are. All this broad lumping of "technologies" and "innovations" doesn't get into the technical details nearly enough. You can start by revisiting that claim about using databases with 3 different criteria you wrote about the other day. When you can understand that simply dismissing things as obvious isn't going to cut it in front of a judge (or if you're an examiner) then we can begin to have a discussion.
Mike you need to sit down and write a detailed paper, not a blog entry, on reasons to buy. Why they're important, why they're the only way forward, what they are, examples, relevant crowds, etc. In depth.
Then publish it. And promote it just the same way you advise others to do.
Not if the claim says that the nose, ear or leg must be isolated. My nose, ear and leg are not isolated, they are attached to my body. I do not infringe.
The problem here is that you are uneducated and don't know how the system works.
"In my thinking the original multi-million dollar pieces of, ahem, equipment probably should've been able to be produced for much less. Your thinking is a black hole of circular logic."
You sir have no exposure to industry. A simple shop lathe will run you 30 thousand dollars. What of the machines PM USA has that make 4 million cigarettes in an hour? Trust me, there is a reason these machines cost millions. And there is a reason their development cost millions as well.
Coming up with the content of an enabling disclosure for multi million dollar pieces of equipment can be about 10 million apiece. How does that factor into your thinking?
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the current patent system incourages too many things that only tangentally resemble an "invention" or "innovation" as we now understand the word. The law takes time to catch up. Talk to the judiciary. And talk to congress for any statutory changes you might suggest.
"What is of value is applying those ideas in useful ways."
Funny enough, all "valid" patents are for "an application of an idea", or a physical object/composition.
You are simply far out of touch with the subject on which you are commenting. I understand that you're dismayed with some of the decisions that have been made as to what the system should protect. I am as well. But we must persuade the judiciary or the congress on solid grounds and not muddy the waters with red herrings like this one you are presenting.
"And if they can do that better than you, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?"
Well that depends. I do know that there are many instances where someone has gone through the time and trouble to demonstrate that something can be done, and once they have done it then everyone wants to join up. But, without that first person taking a risk, none of them would have done it. Without a financial reward for the first person, why would they take the risk? You can tell me, I don't know the answer. Being first to market isn't always that big of a financial incentive, how much do we want to incentivize? A little, or just the minimum? It's a public policy question.
Now, like I've said, there are still plenty of issues to deal with, but the notion of patents as a whole may have some use to it and cannot just be dismissed out of hand.
Dave, at the risk of putting words in his mouth I believe he means to suggest that your company is not efficient enough to compete selling your product without protection.
I don't think he has any idea how much money goes into making some "inventions". Sure, some could be dreamed up and scribbled down on paper and be enabled and fully patentable. And this is where the current laws, in large part, fail the current age. There is however, a class of inventions which requires a lot of capital and man hours to figure out. You don't usually read about these particular patents in the news, and many people presume that they are a minority (which they may well be) and that this is bad (perhaps, perhaps not) or they are ignorant of these inventions development entirely.
In short, his off hand comment should be taken for what it was, nothing.
"If you can't compete without a patent portfolio, you're inefficient."
What if all his company does is dream up new chemicals? Is his company inefficient at doing that? How would his inability to compete at selling bulk amounts of chemicals to the mass market indicate that?
I might agree with you Tucker if you said that as a matter of policy we don't need "think tanks" that aren't a part of manufacturing facilities to provide the fruits of those tanks. However, I'm not 100% convinced of that.
"OK, Here's a challenge to ANYONE from the USPTO...tell me WHY patents for already-existing things (such as human DNA which has prior art going back MILLIONS of years (or thousands if you're a creationist)) can be patented unless someone somewhere high up in the USPTO is accepting bribe money?"
I'll be 100% honest with you in that I have issues with gene patenting as well, along the same lines as your own. However, it was decided by a court, a long time back, that the ISOLATED gene does not occur in nature. If you can show that it does, then by all means, have a court invalidate the claim, set a precedent, and we will follow suit. As a side note, I don't think we patent DNA itself, we allow patenting of genes however, so I presume that is what you are referring to.
"Its pretty much the ONLY explanation why they allow pathetically obvious patents to continue."
The much better, and real, reason is that there are stringent legal requirements to invalidate a claim.
Nobody in this thread has yet to provide me with art on the claim posted above. I'm still waiting. Since it is so easy, and I'd have to be an idiot not to be able to invalidate this claim as obvious, by all means, provide me with the references and the exact wording that an examiner should supply to invalidate it.
Keep in mind that your response must hold up under judicial scrutiny and comply with all the precedents.
"You know you create change? By making people aware of bad results such as this one. Yet, you're the one insisting that we shouldn't be writing about it... Funny..."
You can't just say "it's a bad result" without telling them 1. The law is messed up and we should demand for the courts to change it or 2. There is a lawful case against this patent under the current law.
Make up your mind. It appears you're trying to say 2 in your article, but you don't provide the necessary meat to substantiate it.
If you want to say 1 then by all means, add in some things about how the judiciary needs to change things. Don't just leave them out.
They are the ones with POWER. They are the ones that need to make the changes. And no amount of "public awareness" is going to change that. The judges on the CAFC/BPAI are appointed, not elected. And the USSC rarely weighs in on these issues (and even they are not elected). The elected district court judges (in the rare event that they were elected) have little to no power to set precedent that could change the system.
On the post: Guy Who Makes Simple Caller ID App For Android Forced To Shut Down Due To Patent Threat
Fact is he probably doesn't infringe, but doesn't have the time/money/knowledge to fight the suit.
On the post: ICanHasLawsuit? Pet Holdings Sues Other Site For Framing Failbooking With Better Domain Name
Does Copyright Law Promote
Creativity? An Empirical Analysis of
Copyright’s Bounty
http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/11/Ku-et-al.-Does-Copyright-Law-Promote-C reativity-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1669-2009.pdf
Copyrights as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1515964
Real Copyright Reform
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1474929
And you might want to add some of them to your favs.
On the post: ICanHasLawsuit? Pet Holdings Sues Other Site For Framing Failbooking With Better Domain Name
Does Copyright Law Promote
Creativity? An Empirical Analysis of
Copyright’s Bounty
http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/11/Ku-et-al.-Does-Copyright-Law-Promote-C reativity-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1669-2009.pdf
Copyrights as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1515964
Real Copyright Reform
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1474929
And you might want to add some of them to your favs.
On the post: Dilbert Explains Why Just Copying Others Is A Dumb Business Model
Actually that's not true, and if you hammered nails for a living you'd know that. Some hammers are superior in material/design to the point that a novice can hammer a straight nail just about every time. Hand him the shit y hammer and the same will not apply. I'm speaking from experience.
On the post: Patent Office Decides To Rush On Green Tech Patents, Rather Than Give Them Scrutiny They Deserve
All they're doing is letting apps that pass certain guidelines skip in line.
6
On the post: Last Call For Techdirt DMCA Takedown Shirt
6
On the post: Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation?
It's a different ball game, and I believe that there may still be room for patents to play a useful role in promoting those manufacturing arts.
As an aside let me make you aware that you and Eugene are using "innovation" differently. He uses "innovation" to mean "inventions" generally. You use "innovation" to meant bringing products to market in useful ways and with useful features (so far as I can tell, or something close to that). You need to get your dictionaries straight before you continue to talk to him.
Still, obviously the monopoly is bad for the market as a whole, but that doesn't mean that disclosed inventions weren't advanced. And in manufacturing arts, those disclosures (enabling copying) do actually have significant value in and of themselves, not just because you set up a monopoly rent.
This of course does not hold true as much in software and business methods. And that is one reason why I oppose such patents vehemently.
On the post: Felicia Day Building Acting Success The Entrepreneurial Way
Exactly. That's the way to bring in the money and it is easy to think of ways to Reason to Buy this particular show. Painfully easy. If I were her I'd be rollin in bank already.
On the post: Felicia Day Building Acting Success The Entrepreneurial Way
Even so, I support her and them. The third season is kinda sux compared to the first, but I'd say it's about to pick up if I know them.
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Re: Re:
No you didn't, and I didn't imply you did. I don't know how "interesting" it is, but to each his own.
"Why?"
That is a highly fact/situation specific question. If you spent a good bit of time around patents you'll see, amongst other things, 1000001 ways to make a transistor. Each of them having their specific benefits and (usually not outright stated in the patent) there own limitations and shortcomings. Yet, they are all transistors. Likewise you will find tens of thousands of ways to make a bicycle. They're all just bicycles.
You might need to expand your view of patents beyond the obvious business methods and computer implemented bullsht to get a better view of some of the actual underlying technical progress made in various technologies.
"Hmm. That falsely assumes that with a lack of patent protection no one would ever think of coming up with the better gas mileage version. Which is ridiculous. People could still come up with that, recognizing that there was a market for more fuel efficient flying cars. Patents have nothing to do with that."
Whether or not they 'could' or not is not the issue. It is whether or not they actually DO come up with it which is the issue.
Furthermore, I'm not assuming that they wouldn't come up with that sans patent protection. They very well may. I'm not using this as a justification of having patents in play, I'm simply stating what very well could happen if the 2nd guy isn't motivated enough to work on the project. Maybe nobody is ever sufficiently motivated to take his place. Maybe they all fail. Who knows? It depends on the situation.
And before you say that it is ludicrous to say they might all fail, you need to guess again. History is literally littered with instances of people having enabled a technology where all others in the field had been failing. It isn't ludicrous, but it is rare compared to your run of the mill "inventions".
"Again, which would be great, but has nothing to do with the point of the article. Without patents, all of that could easily happen. With them... not so much."
Well actually it couldn't happen all that easily, even if I had the technical knowledge to invent in the engine/propulsion art. I would still require funding/time. And when I'm sitting in my grandfather's garage I don't typically have a whole lot of funding. (I live in the city in an apt) I'm also not too sure why you think patents would stop me from developing a completely different propulsion system than a competitor, that is in fact not the case since their claims should not cover my new device so long as I am sufficiently horizontally away from what they were doing.
"Uh, yeah, ok. I love it when people tell me what I'm not allowed to talk about. "
I didn't say you aren't allowed to talk about it. But you are precluded (not by me, but by yourself) from discussing it intelligently. You can feel free to babble nonsense all you please, I won't even try to stop you. I will however suggest to you that you might like to try to become more aware of the topic about which you are speaking than you currently are. I can also decline to have further discussions with you until you do so.
I'm allowed to talk about fine arts and ballet, but I won't really be able to converse at a meaningful level, but that won't be because anyone is stopping me.
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
For instance, what you will often see in the course of examining a patent is a claim (i.e. the "invention") to a device/method that is both a parallel invention and which also has a new element added to it.
Second, we benefit from both of the two "types" of "inventions" which the guy above describes, and we benefit probably in equal amounts from each. And even if it is not equal you could never do a study to find out which is "better". They both have a role to play. For instance, taking your flying car example, what if the flying car technology that the first guy came up with ends up being far inferior to the second technology in terms of gas mileage (or etc)? If the second guy never came along and invented his second type of propulsion then we'd be stuck with the gas hogs of the former category, maybe forever. This would be "horizontal" to you. At the same time, it is blatantly obvious to anyone that we need to improve on the first technology (and second) to improve whatever have you, performance over salt water (etc) and that would be "vertical" to you. And then take the guy 6 who comes along, and, seeing both tech's comes up with a third propulsion tech, which happens to be inherently great at operating over sea water. I just "diagonally" invented according to your designation.
And before we (you and me) can discuss the issue properly you're simply going to have to familiarize yourself with patents Mike more than you already are. All this broad lumping of "technologies" and "innovations" doesn't get into the technical details nearly enough. You can start by revisiting that claim about using databases with 3 different criteria you wrote about the other day. When you can understand that simply dismissing things as obvious isn't going to cut it in front of a judge (or if you're an examiner) then we can begin to have a discussion.
On the post: Forrester Plan For 'Saving' The Music Industry: Annoying Windowed Releases?
Then publish it. And promote it just the same way you advise others to do.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
Not if the claim says that the nose, ear or leg must be isolated. My nose, ear and leg are not isolated, they are attached to my body. I do not infringe.
The problem here is that you are uneducated and don't know how the system works.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
You sir have no exposure to industry. A simple shop lathe will run you 30 thousand dollars. What of the machines PM USA has that make 4 million cigarettes in an hour? Trust me, there is a reason these machines cost millions. And there is a reason their development cost millions as well.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
Coming up with the content of an enabling disclosure for multi million dollar pieces of equipment can be about 10 million apiece. How does that factor into your thinking?
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the current patent system incourages too many things that only tangentally resemble an "invention" or "innovation" as we now understand the word. The law takes time to catch up. Talk to the judiciary. And talk to congress for any statutory changes you might suggest.
"What is of value is applying those ideas in useful ways."
Funny enough, all "valid" patents are for "an application of an idea", or a physical object/composition.
You are simply far out of touch with the subject on which you are commenting. I understand that you're dismayed with some of the decisions that have been made as to what the system should protect. I am as well. But we must persuade the judiciary or the congress on solid grounds and not muddy the waters with red herrings like this one you are presenting.
"And if they can do that better than you, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?"
Well that depends. I do know that there are many instances where someone has gone through the time and trouble to demonstrate that something can be done, and once they have done it then everyone wants to join up. But, without that first person taking a risk, none of them would have done it. Without a financial reward for the first person, why would they take the risk? You can tell me, I don't know the answer. Being first to market isn't always that big of a financial incentive, how much do we want to incentivize? A little, or just the minimum? It's a public policy question.
Now, like I've said, there are still plenty of issues to deal with, but the notion of patents as a whole may have some use to it and cannot just be dismissed out of hand.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
I don't think he has any idea how much money goes into making some "inventions". Sure, some could be dreamed up and scribbled down on paper and be enabled and fully patentable. And this is where the current laws, in large part, fail the current age. There is however, a class of inventions which requires a lot of capital and man hours to figure out. You don't usually read about these particular patents in the news, and many people presume that they are a minority (which they may well be) and that this is bad (perhaps, perhaps not) or they are ignorant of these inventions development entirely.
In short, his off hand comment should be taken for what it was, nothing.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
What if all his company does is dream up new chemicals? Is his company inefficient at doing that? How would his inability to compete at selling bulk amounts of chemicals to the mass market indicate that?
I might agree with you Tucker if you said that as a matter of policy we don't need "think tanks" that aren't a part of manufacturing facilities to provide the fruits of those tanks. However, I'm not 100% convinced of that.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
I'll be 100% honest with you in that I have issues with gene patenting as well, along the same lines as your own. However, it was decided by a court, a long time back, that the ISOLATED gene does not occur in nature. If you can show that it does, then by all means, have a court invalidate the claim, set a precedent, and we will follow suit. As a side note, I don't think we patent DNA itself, we allow patenting of genes however, so I presume that is what you are referring to.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
The much better, and real, reason is that there are stringent legal requirements to invalidate a claim.
Nobody in this thread has yet to provide me with art on the claim posted above. I'm still waiting. Since it is so easy, and I'd have to be an idiot not to be able to invalidate this claim as obvious, by all means, provide me with the references and the exact wording that an examiner should supply to invalidate it.
Keep in mind that your response must hold up under judicial scrutiny and comply with all the precedents.
Go ahead hotshots. Get right on it.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
You can't just say "it's a bad result" without telling them 1. The law is messed up and we should demand for the courts to change it or 2. There is a lawful case against this patent under the current law.
Make up your mind. It appears you're trying to say 2 in your article, but you don't provide the necessary meat to substantiate it.
If you want to say 1 then by all means, add in some things about how the judiciary needs to change things. Don't just leave them out.
They are the ones with POWER. They are the ones that need to make the changes. And no amount of "public awareness" is going to change that. The judges on the CAFC/BPAI are appointed, not elected. And the USSC rarely weighs in on these issues (and even they are not elected). The elected district court judges (in the rare event that they were elected) have little to no power to set precedent that could change the system.
Next >>