Well, there's a basic position entrenched in pirates that they won't pay, so what YOU call "the public" are not "customers". I know you claim otherwise, that pirates actually buy more than other people, and they're promoting, and so on, but it's highly significant how you phrased that.
There has been plenty of studies on that topic and you will find several if you search Techdirt. Most consumers, but not all, will pay if there is a convenient legal service. The problem is that in many cases the available legal services do not even try to give the customers what they want. They all lack in content, usability, features, convenience, price and/or quality. Each of which may be enough to force potential customers away from the legal services and on to other alternatives.
Stop treating the customers as criminals by annoying and limiting them and give them what they want. Then you'll find that most will gladly pay.
Also, if you refuse to sell to a particular audience, don't come back claiming you lost any money, when they use other alternatives.
I think the incentive should be to deny the patent applications, to make sure the examiners make a thorough job at analyzing the claims and finding prior art. That would give better quality in both applications and approved parents.
Give them bonus for the number of denied applications! Of course the denial must be properly motivated
I think the incentive should be to deny the patent applications, to make sure the examiners make a thorough job at analyzing the claims and finding prior art. That would give better quality in both applications and approved parents.
Give them bonus for the number of denied applications! Of course the denial must be properly motivated
The specific method is the idea and the implementation is the source code.
I've never heard of anyone including the source code in the patent. The text typically generalize the idea (specific method) into uselessness to cover as much ground as possible.
> It could also be carried out by writing it on a bit of paper, in that form it is no longer abstract and lives in the real world.
The idea is still abstract. All you have is an instance of the idea applied on paper.
> I could carve it into a length of wood and hit you over the head with it, it's THAT REAL.
You are hitting with a piece wood, whether carved or not.
> an algorithm that can be implemented is by definition NOT abstract. Just because you say it is does not change that fact.
The implementation is just an instance of the idea. The idea may be implemented in many different forms due to the different physical limitations of the operating environment.
The patent is typically on the idea and not on the implementation, because the latter is much more narrow and easily circumvented.
You are assuming there is no middle ground. I find it very unlikely that many respondents wouldn't pay if better offers were available to them.
As many (all?) studies have shown, people are perfectly willing to pay if they can get what they want in a way that the like it. So, all I read from the reasons stated is that the respondents are dissatisfied with the legally available options. And they provide a good summary of what needs to be addressed in order to get them to pay.
1) If what you say is true, then there should be many examples. Maybe you'd enlighten us with one?
Maybe you should compare to the the BRIC countries, which the fastest growing markets right now and see if they really have stronger patent legislation.
2) Where does trolls fit in this? They are neither inventors, nor manufacturers.
3) I agree, "People get patents because they want to protect their investment". This is contradictory to (1), where you hold that patent lead to more innovation, rather than simply protecting what has been.
4) Patents are nothing like property rights. You cannot have any property rights over my property, even if I copied yours. That is what copyright or patents are for. You might argue that it is an extension of property rights, but then you should really look it up in the history books and see where all those rights originate from. I think that will prove most enlightening.
For what it's worth, here are a few suggestions of my own, for the things I see as the most problematic areas:
5. Require usable documentation.
6. Require utilization.
7. Patent Office licensing.
The actual usage of the patent should be described in such detail that others can reproduce the result. The scope of the patent is in how it is actually utilized and all other uses are non-infringing, and may be patented separately by the one using it in that way. Therefore non-practicing entities cannot hold patents.
Licensing terms (including cost) and conditions should be determined by the patent office and not the patent holder, so that anyone can reasonably make use of the patent. This should include provisions for non-commercial usage, including open source, educational and scientific, or similar usage.
There are plenty of examples on TechDirt where artists have successfully embraced free as part of their business model.
Just because most creators/artists haven't tried it doesn't mean that is doesn't (or cannot) work as a sustainable career.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by FairGlow.
Re: "figuring out ways to help provide the public what they want."
There has been plenty of studies on that topic and you will find several if you search Techdirt. Most consumers, but not all, will pay if there is a convenient legal service. The problem is that in many cases the available legal services do not even try to give the customers what they want. They all lack in content, usability, features, convenience, price and/or quality. Each of which may be enough to force potential customers away from the legal services and on to other alternatives.
Stop treating the customers as criminals by annoying and limiting them and give them what they want. Then you'll find that most will gladly pay.
Also, if you refuse to sell to a particular audience, don't come back claiming you lost any money, when they use other alternatives.
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 15th, 2013 @ 1:43am (as Fairglow)
Give them bonus for the number of denied applications! Of course the denial must be properly motivated
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 15th, 2013 @ 1:43am (as Fairglow)
Give them bonus for the number of denied applications! Of course the denial must be properly motivated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never heard of anyone including the source code in the patent. The text typically generalize the idea (specific method) into uselessness to cover as much ground as possible.
Re: Re: Re:
What is happening in your brain is only concrete to you, and only the conscious parts at that. It is not "concrete reality" to the rest of the world.
Re: Re: Re:
The idea is still abstract. All you have is an instance of the idea applied on paper.
> I could carve it into a length of wood and hit you over the head with it, it's THAT REAL.
You are hitting with a piece wood, whether carved or not.
> an algorithm that can be implemented is by definition NOT abstract. Just because you say it is does not change that fact.
The implementation is just an instance of the idea. The idea may be implemented in many different forms due to the different physical limitations of the operating environment.
The patent is typically on the idea and not on the implementation, because the latter is much more narrow and easily circumvented.
Re: Re:
As many (all?) studies have shown, people are perfectly willing to pay if they can get what they want in a way that the like it. So, all I read from the reasons stated is that the respondents are dissatisfied with the legally available options. And they provide a good summary of what needs to be addressed in order to get them to pay.
Re: Tech Dirt Display Ignorance of Patent System
Maybe you should compare to the the BRIC countries, which the fastest growing markets right now and see if they really have stronger patent legislation.
2) Where does trolls fit in this? They are neither inventors, nor manufacturers.
3) I agree, "People get patents because they want to protect their investment". This is contradictory to (1), where you hold that patent lead to more innovation, rather than simply protecting what has been.
4) Patents are nothing like property rights. You cannot have any property rights over my property, even if I copied yours. That is what copyright or patents are for. You might argue that it is an extension of property rights, but then you should really look it up in the history books and see where all those rights originate from. I think that will prove most enlightening.
Re: Re:
For what it's worth, here are a few suggestions of my own, for the things I see as the most problematic areas:
5. Require usable documentation.
6. Require utilization.
7. Patent Office licensing.
The actual usage of the patent should be described in such detail that others can reproduce the result. The scope of the patent is in how it is actually utilized and all other uses are non-infringing, and may be patented separately by the one using it in that way. Therefore non-practicing entities cannot hold patents.
Licensing terms (including cost) and conditions should be determined by the patent office and not the patent holder, so that anyone can reasonably make use of the patent. This should include provisions for non-commercial usage, including open source, educational and scientific, or similar usage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not theft
Just because most creators/artists haven't tried it doesn't mean that is doesn't (or cannot) work as a sustainable career.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by FairGlow.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt