Hear hear. I and others have argued this is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not say protect the right to the first one to file and the first to file is not an inventor. Words have meanings.

One of the biggest failures is the "First to File instead of First to invent" The small guys are smashed by the big guys on this one.
Enforcement is the next blunder. They steal your idea, make it, sell it, then when you send them a letter to desist, they just say sue us; we have more money then you, good luck.
There have been several small inventors smashed this way.

as usual, you feint and dodge. FIND MACRO ECONOMIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. Why is software different from other inventions-provide real evidence based on the true nature of software. We personally know hundreds of software engineers who do support patents and software inventions.

well I'm a girl, I can hardly get into a pissing match. I simply asked for evidence to back your arguments. I then asked that you not mis-state Rand. This is straightforward. Enjoy the site.

It is never an ad hominem to discuss someone's ignorance both on Rand and Patents in this case. An ad hominem means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

You were given fair warning that you were misrepresenting Rand.

I mistook your actions for a board level moderator -- which concerned me to the extent that I felt unwelcome here. Since this is not the case I have no desire to get into an extended pissing match. I've said my piece. If you find it of no value you are free to disregard it.

With respectful apologies, I decline to buy into your "all or nothing" view of patents. In general, I strongly support patentability of inventions. However, for reasons presented earlier, I hold that techniques of pure software should not be patentable and that, paradoxically, patentability of software actually stifles innovation. I invite you to find any professional software developer who disagrees with this position.

sigh. I read the first two paragraphs. There was so much dis-information, no scholarly citing of evidence, just bald assertions. The website's title is "endofpatents" How is that not anti-patent??? You are on an Ayn Rand website. you have provided NO evidence. you have been allowed to propagandize on a post where you did not even read the article. On another post you were for net neutrality. Both are anti-Rand and anti-objectivist.

David,

You are not serious. You never answer any questions and you never provide any facts.

The macroeconomic evidence is overwhelming that those countries with the strongest patent systems create most of the new technologies and have the most technology dispersion. The same is true of software.

You are nothing but a spamming troll

Yes our IP laws are in confusion, but you diagnosis of the problem has not lead you to the right treatment.

1) Software is not mathematics, it is a way of wiring an electronic circuit.
2) To be against s/w patents you have to be against all patents on electronic circuits.
3) Our patent laws have been significantly weakened over the last decade and a half by large companies, so that the game is rigged in their favor. The answer is to strengthen our patent laws, including s/w, not weaken them.
4) There is no macroeconomic evidence for you desire to shorten patent lives. Those countries with the strongest patent systems create most of the new technologies and have the most technology dispersion. Actually, the macroeconomic evidence would be to extend the term of patents.

5) Copyright terms may be too long but it was about HARMonizing our copyright laws with the rest of the world.

you have the right to control your own posts as well. I did give fair warning about mis-stating Rand. There are lots of newbies on this site to Rand and Objectivism. If we mis-state what she said, that can influence people. we have plenty of that "out there." You are free to disagree with Rand all you want. People discuss those issues. People on this board will tell you that I am quite stingy with the tools given to us to moderate our posts. I rarely downpoint or hide comments. so if you want to continue to discuss on this post, answer my challenges to you, because the burden of proof rests with you.

sigh. stated above: 1. you have not read the article or commented on it directly 2. You mis-stated Rand not once but twice even after I warned you. 3. You have made bald claims with no evidence to support your claims. 4. therefore, I must conclude you are pushing an anti-patent agenda. If you want to discuss you should cite your claims with proof, address the article in the post-it's my post I get to control the conversation to the subject if I wish, ask questions once your claims have been refuted with evidence and facts.

In fact in our novel, Pendulum of Justice, one of the problems they face is the FDA and the costs of trials. Once the Patent office deep sixes their patent application so cronies can se, they cannot get funding for the FDA trials

I know you'll want to ad-hom your way out of this, arguing that this is an "anti-patent website" but here is a bursting warehouse of evidence of how software patents actually work against the original spirit of patent law: http://endsoftpatents.org/
Note that they do not oppose patents on non-software related inventions, such as anti-lock braking.

I'll conclude by saying that we find ourselves in a possibly irreconcilable disagreement. Upton Sinclair's quote comes to mind: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

You are married to a patent attorney, so you benefit from patentability of software. I am a software inventor, so I benefit from the non-patentability of software. I do hold to the argument, however, that software patenting is actually undermining America's traditional position as an innovation superpower.

I warned about mis-stating Rand. Where did I use ad hominem with you?

It is cronyism for sure

I've been informed that "hiding" comments is not necessarily a moderator level action but can be done by the topic originator. In that case I won't be cancelling my membership.

I misread your question. My response is this. Is it ok to keep a car I bought even though it was stolen? Is it ok to buy from a pawn shop that you know deals in fenced goods? Your argument boils down to the fact that ignorance absolves you of any responsibility. We do avoid companies who make it their policy to steal. That is not the same as someone making a mistake. If you aren 't willing to provide evidence for your many claims on this post or address the points of the article why continue a discussion?

david, I will have db address your question, I appreciate questions. However, I have also asked many questions and asked you to provide evidence for your stance. After all, you are the one making bald assertions and I have patiently addressed most of them. The burden of proof resides with you not me.

The current IP laws ale insane, especially in digital media. They criminalize everyone and make very difficult fully benefiting from full utilization of technology we have access to today. Software patents are especially bad. It is like patenting a mathematical algorithm not only charging rent on using it but prohibiting others from using it at will, even if they discovered it for themselves. They are notoriously written in an overly broad fashion. Large companies seek to make agreements with other large patent portfolio holding companies to get much of anything done. They do not do it as an attack on individual inventors as this piece would lead us to believe.

Copyright for 99 years beyond life of holder is insane. In a world of accelerating change a patent or copyright that can limit the use of others makes no sense imho for a period of more than 5-10 years.

One of the saddest parts of our economy today. Who knows how many life saving or altering products have never come to market because of that exact issue. Unfortunately, I believe a large part of this is intentional. The big boys work with government to make the process so difficult that they don't have to worry much about competition. Crony Capitalism at its finest.

The factor of interest is not just that I don't have time (and we all know, of course, that time is money), but the fact that not a single software engineer seeking to stay competitive has time either. We take steps to avoid visible infringement of the really obvious high-profile software patents such as JPEG graphic encoding, but for all the thousands of little patents, like simple data structures and algorithms, we just press on with the task at hand and deliver what the customer is asking for.

My original challenge remains - explain to me that all technology you are using is 100% non-infringing throughout its value chains, then I will respect your arguments. Plausible deniability is no excuse either.

Our novel Pendulum of Justice deals with the medical device market and the PTO and FDA. Based on real technology that would forever change the stint industry, it languishes due to bureaucracy and the time it took to get an issued patent.

I am sorry for how much you paid. There are attorneys out there who charge flat fees to file and flat fees for Office Actions totally nowhere near to $50K. I don't have enough specifics, but you have a year to file a PCT (foreign filing) from the date of your first US filing (this would include provisionals). Db does not recommend foreign filing for small inventors due to cost and protection value. But it would depend on your industry.

I'm confused by you. First, your "facts" are incorrect, and then you seem to have a vitriolic response to anyone who disagrees with you. I love that I found the gulch because I relish a good debate, and find progress is made in an open dialogue. You seem to just get angry with anyone who has a differing opinion. If I am bothering you, I can certainly take my ball and find a different thread to play on here.
The settlement was reached in March. PA, as the plaintiff, was responsible for filing the proper paperwork. They filed paperwork for a dismissal "with prejudice" when the settlement agreement was for a dismissal "without prejudice", meaning both parties accept no fault and retain all future legal rememdies. It took them until August to file the correct paperwork. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake, your "facts" are incorrect.
You say I am a dupe of a PR scheme, and am only emoting, however I have put forth several salient facts that you have not even acknowledged. The primary fact is that the technology that PA is suing over was not even covered under their patent when Adam Carolla began his show. If I'm wrong there, please cite the technology in the original 96 patent that applied to this suit. I'll tell you, it will be hard to do since PA couldn't even do that in their court filings. They cited the 2009 update application. The patent office should never have approved an update to the patent when the technology the update was to cover had been in wide use as early as 2004 and in the market since 1993. Rhapsody offered suggested playlists based on listening habits, the disputed tech, as early as 2007. In fact, you stated that a simple patent search would have let Carolla know, however the patent update wasn't approved until 2012, so a search when he went into business would not have shown him this. Prior to the approval of the update in 2012, the patent in question did not cover server based episodic content with listening habit recommendations. PA's own filings state that. The patent number used in their filings is the updated patent approved in 2012. The only reason they were able to file at all was because, for some reason, the patent office allowed them to patent new technology as an update to an old patent, hence backdating their rights by 16 years. Is a business supposed to patent search their business every year in perpetuity to make sure someone hasn't patented what they have been doing for years?
The only "facts" I have heard from you is that your husband is a patent attorney, and you spoke to one of the litigants. Those aren't facts. I have not spoken to either litigant, so don't have any primacy bias, and my professional background is in IP law. In that, I am probably less biased since I have no direct relationship to either party. In fact, I have never listened to a single episode of Carolla's show. Can you refute the fact that the patent update cited in the suit wasn't even applied for until 2 weeks after Carolla began his show? And, if not, why should a patent update be approved to retroactively cover existing business practices. One of the two key burdens of a patent application is exclusivity. If Carolla, and thousands of others, were already using this technology when the update was applied for in March of 2009, how did PA prove that they had exclusivity? If they couldn't prove that they had exclusivity in 2009, on what grounds did they file for an update to an old patent to cover this new technology? I don't necessarily blame PA. If the PTO is going to allow deceptive business practices, why not attempt to take advantage. However, as Hank Reardon would tell you, the joy is in creating something no one else can, not in profiting off of other's work.