Supreme Court Rules Software Patents Invalid-Without Ever Mentioning Software Once In the Decision
"What this means is that companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Google and others have had the value of their patent portfolios nearly completely erased today. If they wish to remain compliant with Sarbanes Oxley and other laws and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission they will need to level with their shareholders and tell them that their patent portfolios have been decimated."
db is on a plane headed to the Atlas Summit to give a talk about Galt as Inventor. When he gets off the plane, this news will greet him. Imagine a MODERN patent system understanding the manufacturing age but not the information age....
db is on a plane headed to the Atlas Summit to give a talk about Galt as Inventor. When he gets off the plane, this news will greet him. Imagine a MODERN patent system understanding the manufacturing age but not the information age....
Ideally, these patents on generalized functions would not have been issued and we would all be able to innovate, but as it is the only thing that keeps the software industry working is that these spurious patents are only dusted off to use as a targeted assault against a major competitor (we little folk are not worthy of such notice).
It is as if someone had patented 'the idea of a gear shift' or 'the idea of displaying the MPH on the dashboard of a car' - patents that have been issued in the past are for the gears and dashboards of pretty much any gui software. The little slider to the right of the box into which I am typing may represent a patent infringement...
I think that 'copyright' may be a better term to apply to software. Anyone who stole our base code would be stealing our product*; someone who looks at the neat things we can do and then goes off to figure out how to code these things on his own: more power to him! We have no hesitation in demo-ing our product to our competitors, "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" (Shelley)
Jan
*They would go crazy trying to figure it out: "Who steals my [base code] steals [lightly commented complexity]." (Shakespeare - slightly altered, perhaps)
"Ideally, these patents on generalized functions would not have been issued and we would all be able to innovate, but as it is the only thing that keeps the software industry working is that these spurious patents are only dusted off to use as a targeted assault against a major competitor (we little folk are not worthy of such notice). "
jan, what patents are you referring to? You are making broad statements with no support.
"but we are aware that everything we do probably involves infringing on a spurious patent someone else has acquired (such as patents on common GUI functions)"
If in fact you are knowing violating patents, that is against the law. Why would you want to recreate what someone else has invented. Patent searches are relatively simple to do. The information is all out there. Why not do the due diligence first? Could save you lots of valuable time.
It does not matter: One cannot write software without using these common denominators in the user interface - it would mean that your users would have to learn every tool de novo. As it is, when I first came to this forum I already knew how to 'type in a text box' and 'use a slider' and 'push a Reply or Cancel button'.
When you buy a car, you depend on it having 'a steering wheel' and 'some sort of a shift' and 'a MPH display'. If someone had patented these items and every brand of car had to invent a new way of driving it would mean a learning curve was added to each change of car - and you would not have any enduring 'driving reflexes'. Similarly with respect to the software user interface, you need to use the conventional display items so that a new user already knows how to work the tools and just needs to learn the software itself. We cannot care if these items are patented because we must use them whether or not they are. (I speak for pretty much all software developers here, not just our company.)
So it does not matter if these items all have spurious patents (usually held by someone who did NOT develop or premier the use of that item, but by someone who retrospecitvely patented something that was already common): If you want to write marketable software, you must use the commonly understood tools.
The only thing that protects us is, as I mentioned, that these patents are generally used only against major competitors and we - and the plethora of other small software companies - are safely small and obscure.
Jan
yes, these things are all inventions and they change over time. and yes, YOU take them for granted. But people are in the business of developing these things you take for granted and are out there everywhere. What individuals like yourself conveniently ignore is that the cost and time and talent involved in developing those ideas happened first-when you didn't see how simple and obvious it was to driving. All of the time, talent, time and costs are risks to businesses and individuals which are leveraged against the value in intellectual property. This includes all these guis. Someone came up with them and it wasn't spontaneous. Patents are limited.
"We cannot care if these items are patented because we must use them whether or not they are. (I speak for pretty much all software developers here, not just our company.) " jan, this statement sounds eerily like a moocher right out of Atlas Shrugged. If you "must" and it infringes, buy a license! Most are easily done and inexpensive. That's their purpose. Your company cannot "reinvent all wheels" that's the point of a license. That's how inventors make a profession out of what they do.
If you get to have every technological advance in developing your own technology for free-why would someone design them in the first place? A gift to your software company?
Do you think anybody does, or should, pay for the use of the 'concept' of a car's steering wheel? Even if I patented 'circular directional vehicle manipulation device' today, it would not be because I had invented it (no clue who did or when) but because I was trying to sequester the use of a common item by 'gaming' the patent system.
We develop brilliant and original medical software. Our software has to perform the same tasks as all other medical software, however, so there is a lot of convergent evolution evident in the screen display (though the underlying code is completely different). "Show a list of patient names that partially match the entered characters" is something that medical software has to do, whatever its origin. This is a concept, and should not be patentable. We also have to be useable 'out of the box' to our customers, which means using the common tools and look of a gui dashboard. So we use sliders and radio buttons and all of the other conventional display tools.
We are a bootstrap company that has worked our way up from 'a table at the Carl's Jr halfway between our respective homes' to nice offices and a product that is sold around the world. We have worked for everything we have attained, and done it with integrity. I will thank you not to state, nor imply, that we are moochers. We have done nothing but produce excellent laboratory software at reasonable prices. We use the common tools that all software companies use and if this makes us moochers in your book, then you have just excluded from the 'Producer' category all of the software entrepreneurs that are providing products in all industries all over the world.
Jan
Your arguments are based on emotion and expediency. Sure there are bad patents that get through. The vast majority are hard fought and take years to acquire. That's right. think a decade in terms of cell phones. What's obvious to you today was thought up a decade ago or more. All of our inventors say:
"We are a bootstrap company that has worked our way up from[ 'a table at the Carl's Jr] halfway between our respective homes' to nice offices and a product that is sold around the world. We have worked for everything we have attained, and done it with integrity."
I simply responded to your own words. Go re-read what you said. You did not care, because you *needed* it.
The fact that we are a bootstrap company who has worked our way up in the world - as have many other companies, as you point out - indicates that we are producers of a product that we sell for our living. This has nothing to do with whether or not we use a slidebar or radio buttons. It has nothing to do with need. It does have to do with the fact that we are earning our living. We produce a valuable product. Please do not refer to us as moochers.
Jan
The spear and other weapons. (“If you don’t pay my licensing fee, you must hunt wild animals with your bare hands.”)
Cave art. (“I’ve patented this method of creating a representation of a wooly mammoth. Give me my licensing fee.”)
A method for making fire. (“If you don’t pay my licensing fee, you are morally obliged to freeze to death.”)
Money. (“If you want to use it as a medium of exchange, I’ll need my cut.”)
Maybe even the patent system itself. (“I own the patent on patents, so you can’t patent your invention without paying me a patent fee.”)
"A method for making fire. (“If you don’t pay my licensing fee, you are morally obliged to freeze to death.”)" If I do not feed YOU, I am guilty of murder?
Your propaganda is outrageous. Please find the patent on the Wheel from Australia and send it to me. I can assure it does not cover just a wheel. But yes there have been advances on wheels and those were patented. For instance, radial tires, non-air tires, etc.
You are incorrect about these items are patented, but you are good at propagating nonsense. Even if there had been patents on some of these items, they would have been much more specific than you are implying and they would have expired a long time ago.
Please work with facts. For instance, please name a specific spurious patent. You clearly thought Alice was a spurious patent, and you were clearly incorrect.
Who "invented" the Desktop metaphor interface? Apple tried suing MS over it, but then Xerox said, "excuse us..." And I'm pretty sure Xerox hadn't taken out a patent on it.
You shouldn't be able to patent ideas; just implementations of ideas. And that's where the devil enters the details.
This was not a patent on a generalized function. None of the Supreme Court Justices has a technical background, not one the Justices is a patent attorney, not one of them is qualified to be a first year patent attorney. I would add and neither are you.
This patent is not an escrow arrangement, requires very specific process (But because the Supreme Court does not know how to read a patent claim they ignore are the real world limitations), saves people billions of dollars, and did not exist until Alice created it. Note that escrow systems existed for centuries and CLS did not create an escrow system, they decided to steal Alice's technology
Other peoples technology is spurious, but yours is good?????
Other people's property rights are unimportant, but yours are important???
Your statement is completely unprincipled.
(Entirely possible that I missed your point, db.)
As for the GUI etc, it was not 50 years ago but 60 years ago that the development was spectacularly kickstarted. Just refer to Engelbart 's demo in 1968, showing this new paradigm, enabled by raster display, pointing input devices, packet transmissions, etc. The basic idea was and is still the same : reproduce intuitive behaviors. The results are naturally very close to each other precisely because of that.
Now, about your dear "One click" that you introduced and keep putting on top of the stack. Never heard of a cookie ? A cookie is what enables that, it is meant to create persistence on top of an otherwise non persistent protocol. Once you get a persistent session, you don't need to re-authenticate, that's the whole point, and keeping your payment information is an obvious application. That's why that patent should never have been granted in the first place. But of course, lawyers are not programmers, they make money by making gullible people think that an obvious consequence of a functionality can ever be implemented once, preferably by the first thief to come to the patent office with a claim to it.
Oh, and by the way, the Patent Office is far, far from being as efficient is checking claims as you seem to be persuaded of. Just lookup "USPTO staggering incompetence for a recent instance which made it to mainstream media".
I wouldn't want my payment information stored in a cookie. No business that wants to stay in business would store its customer payment information there either.
Either way, I don't use one click. I prefer "Two Clicks." I need a least a second click to confirm that what I'm buying and how I'm paying is correct.
As for the whole idea of "1-click purchase", I agree with you, it's obviously in order to increase profit by skipping another important step : the time it takes for the user to reconsider a sale, therefore taking advantage of a lot more impulse buy moves, knowing that a large part of the customers won't bother to cancel after ordering, if they have a slight buyer's regret. Of course, I too always avoid that button.
Anyway, I did not introduce that worthless "1-click" thing in the thread, khalling did and seems to be fond of it, judging by how much he is clinging to it, ignoring everything else I'm writing (he's probably not a programmer, since he obviously does not understand anything to what I'm saying, preferring to utter "you give your opinion, no evidence" instead of popping google up and look up for references).
The fact remains that USPTO rarely assesses properly the validity of patent claims before granting patents, and most software patents, if not all, are simply too obvious and should never have been granted in the first place. The goal of the patenting system was originally to foster innovation by granting a limited monopoly of an original invention, in exchange for the information describing it, therefore ensuring it is not lost, and that others will make it evolve. This system is rapidly becoming dangerous, because it is becoming more rewarding to just rely on secret to keep a monopoly for a some time, while the competition tries to figure out the secret sauce. In case of software systems, the software _is_ the information, therefore patenting it is inadequate for all purposes, except for frivolous lawsuits (a programmer doesn't care whether what he creates has already been created somewhere else, only lawyers will twist facts to make it appears that he somehow magically copied -they use the word "stealed"- someone else). Besides, no software is ever truly original, there is always a whole spectrum of applications emerging in the same general direction, using the same basic algorithms and patterns.
Well said.
"no software is ever truly original..."
That could be claimed for anything ever invented, and sometimes is. But after we gain knowledge, original ideas do come from the mind. Who owns those ideas. The one that has the idea or society?
Some people have attempted to define Novel as creating something from nothing, which is impossible. Just like the AWG people they set an impossible goal and then use this to attack legitimate property rights.
Second of all Alice's had a real invention, it was not done before Alice created it, it save billions of dollars a year, and not CLS did not just use a computer to automate an escrow system. If it had then ALice would not of sued them.
Check your premises.
This is the basis of today's computers and today's software.
You realize that anything done is software can be done in hardware - because it is done by hardware. The reason an electrical engineer decides to implement a solution in software or hardware (or the numerous other choices in between) has to do with a trade between speed versus flexibility.
If you just look at the history of computers, the whole point was to create a flexible way of wiring logic (digital) circuits.
"algorithms, software, and applied mathematics in engineering physics" How does it do this? By changing voltages that change the states of transistors and the voltages on capacitors - electronic circuit.
Wow! This thread has made a lot of waves. I see quite a bit of contention. It is a subject far afield from my expertise so I hesitate to offer an opinion. I will say that my spidey senses alight when I read in the comments section below the linked to article, that the decision is right because the system as previously established "no longer serves the greater good of society."
Isn't the purpose to serve the inventor first for a limited period so as to foster innovation which will later have a byproduct of benefit to society as a whole? As a layman I also wonder what kind of incentive for software developers may be diminished and how this may slow development... right or wrong... I wonder of the expertise and technical knowledge of the SCOTUS. Even in local court cases where colleagues of mine have sued for payment, judges unqualified to judge the efforts and technical aspects of the industrial manufacturing processes have ruled unfairly for deadbeats that did not wish to pay for services rendered because despite monumental efforts on the part of the manufacturers the unique designs were found wanting for the chosen process. If a buyer designs a part to be cast that is a challenge to produce soundly without modification and refuses to allow for deviations in pattern design which could be reversed in secondary machining processes it is not the fault of a casting facility that the parts as designed could not be produced error free. It is a unique condition of a part that has never been attempted before.
Like I said, I am ignorant in such matters and defer to expert opinion. If every layman could do my job I would be without one...
Respectfully,
O.A.
1. Is there anything like this already in your industry?
2. What is the need? and how does your invention address the need
3. If there currently is not a need, how will your invention disrupt your industry or other industries?
4. How will you monetize this invention?
In Alice's case, there was nothing like it out there, it saved clients billions in costs, it was obviously valuable or CLS would not have stolen the technology. The CAFC case revolved around not whether Alice was the inventor but IF the patent covered invention criteria. In other words, was this within the scope of invention (section 35 USC 101-patent statute). Their argument was if you combined computers + communication systems to settle financial transactions it is not in the subject matter of inventions.
It is impossible to logically suggest that something that uses computers and communication systems is NOT in the subject matter of inventions. A computer is NOT an abstract idea. Communication systems exist, are tangible-not abstract. The court has NEVER defined abstract ideas. The court was purposefully vague, because they are unanimous in feeling anti-patent in general. Justice Thomas, probably been the strongest on patents, has referred to patents as "monopolies." This shows inherent bias and an erroneous definition for patent in the first place.
George Mason University School of Law has an intellectual property center pursuing some of these intellectual battles. It may be too late...
I am unqualified to judge on the merits, but it sure sounds like something from AS. Directive 10-289 ... "Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.It sounds as if the government is taking away patents that were previously held just like with Rearden. But, like I said, I am not qualified to judge so I will defer to the experts.
You may be interested in some further comments I shall write to db and to Robbie shortly.
Regards,
O.A.
yes. We already know AR was very deliberate in her writing. It was no accident that Rearden and Galt were both inventors. Directive 10-289 is the literary equivalent to a Supreme Court decision such as Alice's last week. Thanks for reminding us.
Good points. I do not object to comments about patents that are directed to general knowledge (e.g., do patents foster economic growth and they a natural right) but I do object when people who have no expertise in patents start making pronouncements about whether the claims should be held patentable.
This case really was only about whether Alice's described (claimed) something that was an invention. It was not about whether Alice was the inventor (first to create this invention). A computer and communication system that helps settle financial transactions is clearly an invention - it is a human creation with an objective result.
I produce one offs. The tooling I produce is unique, it requires my ingenuity and creativity to produce. My customers go on using it long after I am paid, to produce wealth for themselves, while I receive no royalties. I produce mostly injection molds that may last indefinitely. I am not complaining, because I know what I am getting into in the first place. However sometimes my customers make unreasonable demands upon me and I will not comply. For instance; The other day a customer requested my die designs (CAD files) before proceeding with the build. He had already issued a P.O. and I have been a supplier for many years. This was new and quite disconcerting. I said I would not and he questioned why not? since he was paying for them... I told him to read my customer service policy which clearly states that my designs and data are proprietary and that he did not pay for my software or my designs that he has contracted for a tool and i was going to supply it and nothing more since this has been standard practice in this industry for longer than I can remember and I have in this business in some capacity for forty years. He was satisfied with some screen dumps, and I believe i will maintain their business, but I will not hand over CAD files. They are mine and they exist because of my investment and ingenuity. I could still be producing these dies with paper sketches, a pencil and a trig book of sine, cos, and tan, values. These files I keep are also sales tool and help me with die changes and engineering changes that make it more affordable for my customers to send dies I build back to me. additionally if I supplied the data up-front my customer could nit pick them to death and drive up the cost of the production, or cancel the order and use my files to have another mold-maker build from them.
Not Cool!
Regards,
O.A.
I have also told developers to trade the amount they will charge for the amount of IP they are willing to give up.
In your case, it seems to me that people are probably just trying to avoid paying you.
As an engineer, I learned early in my career to listen to the manuf engineers. Having designed a beautiful bracket that was an impossibility to manufacture and being rather embarrassed by such, it only took one such instance to forever change my behavior.
As a fellow engineer you can appreciate the fact that some designs are not being designed for "manufacturability." Some new designers are enamored with the power of their CAD systems and are not engineers but are designing for pure aesthetics without regard for manufacture. Sometimes some of my customers get a job which I can produce a die/mold for, but they cannot cast with reasonable scrap rates. The parts are marginal as designed for metal flow and casting purposes. They can often be manufactured from billet, but they wish to save costs and try to cast the parts near net shape. If the foundry pays me to build a tool and then finds they cannot produce the casting as designed and the customer will not allow modifications, they occasionally refuse to pay and win in court. A judge will say that my customer did not produce what his customer ordered, end of story... the judge will not care how much effort and different methods my customer tried or how many suggestions of how to make the part more casting friendly, or that I will demand payment because my tooling was not at fault. My customer loses! The judge is ignorant of the process. Each time a new part is cast it is a unique challenge. It is a prototype so to speak the first time and it may not work. My customers are often willing to take on the challenges, the R&D, and will point out the limitations and the possibility that this may not work as designed, only to find out later of the inflexibility of the ultimate purchaser. This is when they lose all around. Some of the companies I serve are small outfits that only generate a few million in sales so an order of an hundred thousand that goes bad can ruin them and this is not an unusual sum. I have even seen when this occurs, that the judge will rule that the foundry must also pay legal fees for the winner who ultimately was a moocher.
Regards,
O.A.
This makes me so angry that I would do something drastic, if I wasn't an old disabled fart.
We do not litigate. We will be counseling our clients on this ruling. We will be informing them of their opportunity costs in filing applications. What do you think? db could tomorrow become part of the "machine" and represent clients(big ones and bad decision makers) fighting against this ruling....who is john galt?
Regardless of one's rules for living, one must always be willing to live with oneself after each decision and be willing to live with the consequences of the decision. I'll call this jbrenner's corollary to A = A.
If you and db "become part of the machine", it will be not a concession to the ways of the world, but rather another step in shrugging.
Indeed, who is John Galt?
If any inventor was doubting about shrugging, this should convince them.
None of the Sup. Ct Justices would make it as a first year associate in patent law.
Another view, the ruling is an understandable reaction to the permitted misuse of patent/intellectual property law which has encouraged mass creation of patents without technical merit and the trading in them, patents which do not describe invention but purportedly predict an invention the patent owner can leech off, a system which does not protect inventors but makes big corporates employ masses of lawyers.
There is no evidence for a mass creation of patents without technical merit. Please provide hard facts not propaganda.
From InfoWorld - a software industry publication
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated decision in the case of Alice v. CLS today. The case involved an Australian company attempting to enforce patents on software managing risk mitigation in financial transactions; CLS Bank sought a court ruling that the patents were not enforceable. The first court ruled Alice's patents invalid; the Federal Circuit Appeals court reversed that decision; and then the same court, in an en banc hearing, re-ruled that the patents were invalid. The Supreme Court today upheld that ruling.
This is great news for America's software industry: It just became much harder to prove a software patent is valid. In affirming the lower court's en banc decision, the Supreme Court confirmed its previously-devised approach to such matters. It divided the problem into two parts:
◾Is there something Alice is doing that would be patentable without a computer being involved?
◾Does the involvement of a computer transform anything into a patentable subject?
In this case, the answer to both questions was "no." While, characteristically, the court has avoided straying into larger matters (such as the general applicability of software patents), What it did say helps tremendously. First, the court said:
Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
In other words, just slapping a phrase like "a computer that..." in front of something that's not patentable does not magically make it patentable. Secondly, the court said that making it sound all technical is not a magical talisman unlocking patentability.
Read more at: http://www.infoworld.com/t/technology-bu...
I don't know the particulars of the case. What I read is that the "innovation" existed regardless of the computer and that the addition of the computer did not then create an innovation that would be deemed "patentable." If true, then they got it right.
string! let's see. where is she, northern Argentina?
long string.... there are a lot of inventions between
the can-and-string and the computer, all of them
patentable, including software. (code-frozen ideas) -- j
Tin cans and string can't transfer text information onto the internet. My Android phone, my Amiga, or my M100 can, each using very different software to perform the same function.
Infoworld is not a patent attorney. They did not just slap a computer on a general idea. Infoworld is part of the mass propagation of lies surrounding people's property right in their inventions. The fact that you are falling for this Socialist propaganda is surprising to me.
Like I said, I used to read lots of patents for my work. As an engineer, I saw numerous nearly identical implementations of functions. Few of them were truly "novel and unique", yet they received a patent. And often I would run into "blocking" patents by competitors which were written all around a truly novel and unique innovation such that the originator was stifled in other uses of their idea, yet the competitor couldn't use their patents without leasing the original patent. They would crowd out the originator and force them into signing that license because they had no real choice.
I think we need to protect IP. I just don't think the current system does so rationally.
I'm guessing that your response is that he needs to hire a patent attorney, in which case I will respond that that is precisely the problem. It is (like all too much in the area of the law), so complex, arcane, and confusing that a regular person with normal competency cannot fathom it anymore. That is a problem.
On a practical basis: the first step is to search patents for inventions that are in a similar space as your invention. This is something that any competent engineer can do. There are important business reasons for doing this, including not wasting engineering resources reinventing the wheel, avoiding liability, and often learning improvements that you can take advantage of. There are academic papers on point that show a startups that understands the patent space (like marketing space) they live in are much more likely to have a successful exit. If you find a patent that appears close then you hire a patent attorney.
Then, like the tax code, it needs to be simplified.
"You say: “It should make people think twice about trying to patent obvious or non-novel things.”
That wasn’t what the case is about. This case is not about patenting things that are known or obvious. This case was about whether despite something being novel and non-obvious it is still nevertheless patent ineligible. That is the only question under 35 USC 101 to ask and answer. The Supreme Court is clearly conflating 101 with 102/103. That is in direct violation of the requirements of the Patent Statute. So you can celebrate the decision, but the decision is clearly and unambiguously contrary to the law. Of course, at the end of the day the Supreme Court gets the final say, but that doesn’t mean they are right. So now we have a mess. They say one thing and the law says another thing. Under our system of government the law is supposed to be primary unless it is unconstitutional. Since the Supreme Court has not declared the Patent Act unconstitutional it is their duty under our system of government to correctly interpret Acts of Congress. Today they failed. They also failed in Mayo and Myriad as well."
On its face, a 9-0 decision, with the likes of Thomas and Scalia concurring, doesn't seem to me that they got the law wrong. These are two strong private property advocates.
Thomas and Scalia countered their own arguments in Bilski! that's how absurd they have gotten on these cases. The law was clear. They have moved philosophically in a direction to limit what is patent able because it doesn't feel right. Well it is not their job to write laws-only interpret them. When this all settles, the court will come back likely and say "we didn't mean that." but in the meantime, the USPTO examiners will cite Alice and reject most software applications. The cost for applying has just doubled or tripled and the chances of a grant have gone down significantly. Hide your ideas.
what the hell does that even mean? if you are an expert in patent law you are an expert in patent law. do you mean a scholar is only valid if they are not a patent attorney? or if they are a professor? ok, professor Crouch at Patently-O. He is not as negative as we are on this, but he will point out the absurdity of the ruling.
How do you form that opinion? What is your expertise in patent law? Do you know the difference between "comprising" and "consisting of", do you know the doctrine of claim differentiation?
Including after hours trading:
Apple down 0.47% today
Google down 0.05% today
Microsoft up 0.39% today
IBM down 0.54% today
Because you appear to know the implications...
The real effects will not be on big companies, it will be on startups who cannot get funding. Big companies are valued on their existing revenue streams mainly. Startups are valued based on their technology and ownership thereof.
The Justices each have staffs of legal experts who are in turn expected to do the required research. This opens the question of what did they do to find how what else they needed to know rather the matter of whether the Justices are personal experts in patent law.
Advocating for theft, while reprehensible, isn't a form of theft. That is tantamount to guilt by association, which I would think you find objectionable.
While I understand frustration and lashing out with an ad hominem once in a while (as I'm want to do occasionally myself), but making it one's primary method of argument does not reflect positively.
---
Was the talk filmed?
Any program can in principle be implemented directly in hardware (beyond just rigging it to run what is still a general purpose computer), which raises the questions of what kind of circuits employing what kind of logic are patentable and does that then automatically extend to the corresponding software version? It doesn't seem that the layering of software and hardware should make much difference.
A good book for you to read is The Feynman Lectures on Computation, which explains both the physics and mathematics of computers. It does not require prior technical knowledge of these subjects and you would probably get a lot out of it. It shows how the states of a computer are represented and controlled, and how this is implemented in hardware with transistor circuits employing solid state physics.You would only need to read about half the book. His presentation is now decades old, but still captures the fundamentals.
Posted by dbhalling 39 minutes ago
High level software is converted by a compiler into assembly code or other lower level language. This is converted by computer into voltage levels, which set the states of various transistors. This means that you are wiring an electronic circuit.
You realize that anything done is software can be done in hardware - because it is done by hardware. The reason an electrical engineer decides to implement a solution in software or hardware (or the numerous other choices in between) has to do with a trade between speed versus flexibility.
If you just look at the history of computers, the whole point was to create a flexible way of wiring logic (digital) circuits.
"algorithms, software, and applied mathematics in engineering physics" How does it do this? By changing voltages that change the states of transistors and the voltages on capacitors - electronic circuit.
"By decree of the Central Executive Committee of September, 1924, patent laws were established somewhat similar to those in force before the world war. In December, 1924, a Committee on Inventions was created to carry out the provisions of the patent laws and to conduct the business of the Patent Office.
The Soviet patent laws follow the same general lines as those of Germany, and give similar protection to the inventor. The Soviet Union does not belong to the International Patent Convention. It has, however, a special patent agreement with Germany.
Foreigners may obtain patents on equal terms with the citizens of the U.S.S.R. " -- https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/go...
Apparently, all _socialist_ nations have patents. First show me a (truly) capitalist nation; then show me its patent law. Do you know the play _Rossum's Universal Robots_? It coined the word "robot." When the robots revolt and kill all the humans, they spare the engineer because like them, he works. The story is a parable. Socialists wanted to see inventors honored and rewarded, not exploited by evil capitalists and their corporations. It is easy to question their claim, but they do make it. So, your nasty charge that I am pushing socialism is just an ad hominem attack.
That being as it may, you failed to address the more challenging point:
""Dale, you contradict yourself. You said: "You are clearly incorrect about the XOR being known before the patent was filed. If was created years before as part of a CAD computer system." So, the XOR was known even even before AutoCAD used it is its own CAD systems. I believe that this was, indeed, the point of the AutoCAD complaint: they did not invent it; and neither did the patent claimant. Rather than refuting my point, that validates it. You say that this is just one example, an outlier, not representative of patents in general. Perhaps so." "
To me, the case in point was not an outlier, but exemplary, as you admit. All patents are applications of the second law of thermodynamics: "Have one, you have them all." You painted yourself into a corner. I am sorry that you did. I believe in the existence of intellectual property rights. You seem incapable of defining and defending them. I will have to do the work myself. (It will be copyrighted.)
Name an overly broad patent. How do you determine if it is overly broad? Do you know how to read and interpret claims?
There have been many examples of software patents -- whether granted or being argued or fought over -- which would be ridiculous to patent. They are typically routine application of general methods, or ordinary techniques that came out of non-commercial research or obvious applications that almost anyone would do in the course of his work, without thought of patenting it, but which someone claims to have temporal priority over and "proven" only because no one else was bothering to keep records of such an "invention" because no one else thought of it that way or would have thought to exclude others from independently doing the same thing.
I am reacting only to commonly cited examples, some of which we see here on this page, not as someone who would know how to evaluate claims under current law. I'm not opposing intellectual property rights, but rather find that important proper principles defining them for software (except perhaps for copyrights or trade secrets) are not easy, and I can see how not getting it right can violate the property rights for a lot of people excluded from use of their own routine independent work as well as those with legitimate inventions that ought to be patentable.
I have seen several other patents, one I was working on and we let drop, that should not of been issued. Analyzing claims is hard work. People spend years learning to do this. For this reason I am very skeptical of people who make this claim. Most of the people making this claim are not skilled enough to make a qualified legal opinion. Several of the academic studies that attempted to show this (also done by those not skilled in the art) were clearly based on flawed methodologies.
To have a rational discussion of this you have to start with the proper definition of an invention. Note the question of who is the inventor is a separate question (novelty - nonobviousness). All human creations can be divided into those that have an objective result and those that have a subjective result. Objective means repeatable and independent of the observer just like in scientific experiments. All inventions should be eligible for patent protection - property rights in inventions.
Am I to understand you promote patents granted in the manufacturing age but will call abstract inventions of the information age?
The law interpreted here is a mish mash of contradictory statements. how's this for example:
“But if what is new is not eligible, or improves the eligible, the claims as a whole is ineligible.”
All inventions are a combination of known elements
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:
verb |abˈstrakt |
1 consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else:
2 extract or remove (something):
3 make a written summary of (an article or book):
noun |ˈabˌstrakt |
1 a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech:
2 an abstract work of art:
3 ( the abstract ) that which is abstract; the theoretical consideration of something:
Abstract may refer to:
Abstract (law), a summary of a legal document
Abstract (summary), in scientific publishing
Abstract art, artistic works that don't attempt to represent reality or concrete subjects
Abstract object in philosophy
Abstract structure in mathematics
Abstract type in computer science
The property of an abstraction
'By definition an invention is an abstraction,':
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field.
I don't really enjoy getting sucked into a semantics battle. I fully understand what an invention and an abstraction are. With that understanding behind me, my statement previous to this still stands:
'I have no problem with the granting of patents for abstract inventions nor protection for intellectual property as long as it can be adequately demonstrated as something that is new. But I maintain that this case is one that is the exception. It was not a new abstract, it was a long recognized business practice - there was nothing new in the computer or computer system applied to the system or process, and the software was simply a step sequence instruction no different than the step sequence applied by a human performing the same practice, ie. there was no evidence of a new algorithm.'
Sorry, but I still fail to see what was clearly new. I can see and agree that Alice improved the integrity and efficiency of the daily settlement outcome. But if you could, please explain how that was different to any other financial accounting function gaining the improved integrity and efficiency of computerization already existing and being implemented throughout businesses and financial operations.
Try this. Think of an invention and then think of the components at some level you will see that all those components were known before the invention was made. For instances a LASER. Ruby rods were known, Fabry Perot Etalons (mirrors) were known, flash lamps were known, and the MASER existed before the LASER.
In fact there is another part of patent law that requires you to provide a description that one skilled in the art can use to practice the invention. If one of the elements were completely new, it would be unknown to those skilled in the art, which means they could not practice the invention. And therefor should not obtain a patent.
Every invention is a combination of existing, known elements is absolutely true - something you would know if you just thought about conservation of energy and matter.
It's not even clear to me from the articles exactly what this particular patent was specifically claimed to be for, so I don't know what methods claimed to be previously commonly used were involved.
This case was not even about whether Alice's invention was novel, it was about whether it was directed to an invention. The Supreme Court has created an exception to patents for "abstract ideas." But of course they refuse to define what they mean. All inventions are an abstraction of a number of specific instances. So this allows them to invalidate any patent they don't like. In this case they don't like patents on software implemented inventions and they do not like patents in the financial space (protecting Wall Street) and they really don't like the combination.
Is Apple aware of this?
How expert are you and db in software development? How many coding languages do you know, how much software have you written?
That's not a challenge, it's a voir dire.
"Am I to understand you promote patents granted in the manufacturing age but will call abstract inventions of the information age? "
We have a word for abstract inventions of the information age: the word is, "ideas". Isn't it possible to be granted a patent without actually having created anything? Just draw up a set of documents describe a process, or a device, and submit it for patenting, without having even built a prototype? (again, a question to which I don't know the answer, but assume you and db must...)
We use to have a requirement to submit a model of the invention. The problem is how do you submit a model of a nuclear reactor, or a jet engine. In the information age we have the problem of the patent office needing to have the right computer to run your program. Rarely is the invention easily discernible from the code. Sending in a microprocessor as a model would provide no insight. We changed the rules to just require a description of how to make and practice the invention that provides one skilled in the art enough information to do so.
Alice simply tapped into existing information flow, stored and manipulated that information in a computer, then processed that information acting as a third party intermediary to the transaction, and released payment instructions to financial actors. Although the patent application attempted to describe the abstract as a new and not pre-existing process in words not mentioning an escrow arrangement, the facts of what was described in the patent application were nothing more than an escrow arrangement. The idea of applying a computer to complex and large data processing in otherwise common and well known accounting practices was not new, in fact was common throughout business and science. There was no new algorithm created nor described in the patent application.
All I could determine from the application and the court's description of it's findings was that Alice was a common and pre-existing business model using common and pre-existing technology and common and pre-existing step sequence (algorithm) applied to a specific set of financial transactions.
Rather than competing in business relying on better performance, better integrity, better customer relationships, or better costs - Alice attempted to gain business advantage from the coercive force of the government under color of inventive property rights. That to me equals moocher.
Although we might disagree in our understanding of a specific set of facts and the outcome of a law suit, please don't utilize ad hominem attacks such as I don't understand property rights, patents, technology or other such. Maybe pointing out issues or items I might have missed or mis-understood in the application or the court decision might have more of an impact on me.
Patents: Monopoly or Property Right a Testable Hypothesis http://hallingblog.com/patents-monopoly-...
If patents are a monopoly, as some suggest, then it should led to certain outcomes. A close examination shows that none of the supposed monopoly effects result from granting patents.
Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property http://hallingblog.com/monopolyrent-seek....
This post explains the characteristics of a monopoly and a property right and poses three questions to show the difference. Patents fit all the characteristics of a property right and none of a monopoly. Note that professional license, such as a law license has some of the characteristics of a monopoly.
More on the Myth that Patents are Monopolies http://hallingblog.com/more-on-the-myth-....
This post contains a number of quotes from philosophers explaining that patents are not monopolies.
Property Rights, Possession and Objects http://hallingblog.com/property-rights-p...
This post explains the difference in the concepts of property rights, possession, and objects. Most economists and patent detractors confuse these concepts. The origin, definition, and legal basis of property right are explained.
The Myth That Patents are a Monopoly http://hallingblog.com/the-myth-that-pat...
This post compares the definition of a monopoly to the rights obtained with a patent. It shows that the rights obtained with a patent do not confer a monopoly.
Patents are Natural Rights http://hallingblog.com/patents-are-natur...
This post traces the ideas of Locke and William Blackstone to show patents and copyrights are natural rights.
It seems that the answer should be obvious.
Perfect competition is a nonsensical ideal that in fact we would never want. A proper definition of a monopoly can only be defined in terms of Natural Rights. A monopoly is the government interfering in the marketplace in way that infringes peoples' right to contract or property that give one person/company an exclusive access to a market.
The fact is that Alice created a system for settling transactions that saved people billions of dollars a year, had never been done before, and which did not keep CLS from creating a computerized escrow arrangement. We don't disagree about the facts, you don't know the facts. But again you are willing to pontificate and spread socialist lies to destroy property rights.
a government which does not enforce property rights is no government. It is anarchy
'police will not only NOT show up to arrest the robbers but will charge you for the courtesy of looking around and determining-it wasn't your stuff in the first place.'
Coercion is simply the threat of the enforcement understanding that any enforcement action carries with it the ultimate force of government. Men with guns acting with the force of law and sovereign immunity.
I agree that devolving to a medieval state isn't going to work. Yes, I agree that the proper (and most essential) function of government is the protection of the property rights of it's citizens and I also agree that patents are property rights. But I can't imagine that government can or should provide the vigilance.
It becomes a quandary. I read recently somewhere that the cost of patent application and maintenance is something like $100K (?) and that pursuing an infringement suit and action is easily $1M if not settled out of court. It appears that we somehow need to enforce honor and integrity or at least instill them. I wonder why we can't refer an infringement claim to the Patent Office, that they perform the investigation and then prosecute.
Maybe a good candidate for a separate Post.
Litigation is OVER a million if you go through trial. Appeals add more. We are talking well over 5M. Those costs are outrageous. Partly, it is due to rulings such as this one, which has easily doubled the cost of software applications moving forward (according to this article). and partly due to our federal rules of discovery which makes all federal lawsuits ridiculously expensive. db does not litigate, but if he was a litigator representing a client who has been accused of infringement, this ruling (along with others recently) would be very important. If your case will not stand up on your innocence-much better to argue invalidating the patent. Imagine I want to accuse someone of infringement. I have a granted patent. I now take the risk the court will not start with the assumption I have valid property. Is it worth the risk for me to sue? What is the value of getting a patent if that is the case? these kinds of rulings hurt the startups and small inventors the most. The large companies can litigate all day long and do. Trust me, they are VERY happy with this ruling.
We simply disagree on who was the moocher or if there was a proper invention providing for property rights in the instant case. You obviously support Alice's proposition that they invented something - I don't.
I also respect the guidance of those in various specific fields. I must, however, temper that respect with my own judgment, particularly when the rules/rulings that might undercut their own power is challenged and they strike out. That seems to indicate to me that they are reeling not against true injustice, but against their own loss of power. I understand this reaction, but cannot condone it.
My 2 cents, for what it's worth (probably less than 2 cents).
True injustice is reading rulings which are confusing, legally contradictory and the result of which will devalue high tech start up companies' patent portfolios. The ruling has vast implications over thousands of patents and over a trillion dollars. It will take months for the dust to settle on this and the court will attempt to clean up this ruling, but the implications are clear: 1. you are not likely to get patents in financial business methods 2. software inventions will now cost double to write applications, you will argue them longer (10years plus) with examiners who will say straight out that the media publicity on spurious patents is so concerning to the PTO they are unlikely to grant much 3.Litigation wars will increase as infringing companies take on existing patents which were invalidated by this ruling.
How can you be a lawyer and so frequently substitute ad hominem for argument?
Patents are no more property rights than the 2nd Amendment is gun rights. Patents *protect* existing property rights. For a limited time, they protect your right to the fruits of your inventiveness.
Semi-off-topic... on "American Ride" today, the host pointed out that in 1906 the Wright brothers got received a patent... not for the airplane, or the idea of heavier than air flight, but for their three axis control system. The basis of all flight control systems today.
Just think where we'd be if that patent had remained in effect as a bar to anyone else's attempt at controlling a powered flying machine...
The host also pointed out that during the "gilded age"... 850,000 patents were issued to American inventors.
I may not agree with your views on patents, but that's one hell of an argument for your side.
Speaking purely for myself, I don't support people who literally *steal* the effort of inventors. However, if someone takes someone else's invention, makes changes and improvements on it, applies it where the original inventor never thought to apply it, it seems to me that person is not a moocher, and deserves some benefit, himself.
Any patent which prevents this development is, in my opinion, an impediment to the advancement of civilization, and therefore unacceptable.
You don't have to share your invention with the public, but if you do and someone builds or expands upon it, you got no kick coming.
"when they don't understand railroads, but think they can dictate how they run. "
please explain to me how a knowledge of railroads has anything to do with dictating how they run?
Dictation has to do with power, not technical expertise.
I don't mind having things explained to me that are out of my realm of knowledge, but when the "elites" just tell me to shut up and go away, the "big people" are talking, I take offense.
I'll leave it up to fellow Gulchers to examine the discussion and draw their own conclusions.
Oh, btw, down voting those with a different opinion is petulant. It doesn't really affect me one way or another, but speaks volumes about those who do it.
I am happy to discuss those aspects of patents that do not require expertise, but when you think you can spend 15 minutes reading some article on this and then provide a pronouncement on this patent then you are being absurd. It's like arguing with someone who has no knowledge of EM over the Brewster angle.
Hear are some things that do not require expertise in patents:
1) Are patents property right?
2) Should software be patentable?
I down vote people who don't know what they are talking about, but have strident, unsupported positions. If you don't want to be down voted, either get some expertise in the field or stick to things you actually have the requisite background in.
I am not an expert is software programming. I would not spend 15 minutes reviewing some software you wrote and say it is useless, or tell you how you should have structured the software or tell you what language you should of used. I would not tell a heart surgeon how to best perform heart surgery.
This why President Reagan advocated and passed law creating the Court of Appeals for patent cases. In part, this was in response to a huge anti-patent push in the late 60s and 70s.
The problem is you have been making broad pronouncements that are incorrect and require knowledge about how patents are written and work. So, your conclusions are based on faulty information.
Your opinions can influence. IF people are swayed by incorrect information or incorrect assumptions, that is not good. This happens to be an area rife with mis-information and there is a resurgence of anti-patent sentiment which goes along with anti-property right sentiment. Patent laws are where it always starts.
No and no.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
- Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
Methinks you put too much faith into "experts".
Property rights are based on creation It is the law recognizing the metaphysical fact of creation and who is the creator. Patents are clearly property rights.
From an earlier reply to your comment: 'Define Abstract. By definition an invention is an abstraction, just as the word humans is an abstraction that classifies a number of specific instances.'…
My response: "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field."
If that is not a coherent definition of an invention, then I might suggest that you've spent too much time away from your engineering background being a scrivner.
You specifically wanted to discuss this case not broad categories of what should/should not be patentable. Dale had spent hours researching the Alice patent before meeting the inventor. He did not enter the case with any bias, save some previous bad Supreme Court rulings moving ever closer to anti-patent stances not based on technological or patent law expertise. It was one reason President Regan commissioned the CAFC in the first place-Judges lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject matters. Although not intended by President Reagan, the CAFC court is made up of only half patent attorneys with technical degrees. When the CAFC decision came out, the court was sharply divided with Justice Rader correctly pointing out in his dissenting opinion:
"[I]f all of these claims, including the system claims, are not patent-eligible, this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents."
Those skilled in the art admit prior tests for eligibility are outdated withthe disruptive onset of the information age. Patent prosecutors were looking for strong guidance in these decisions for how to move forward. But both decisions lack substantive direction. IF those who write patent applications daily and deliver Patent opinions cannot know how to move forward with their clients, how is it you are so confident in this case? I think that is the source of ultimate frustration on db's part.
But his personal attacks were unwarranted under any circumstance. There's not a socialist, Marxist bone in this old Objectivist body and I challenge anyone that's a stronger and more dedicated proponent of natural and property rights. And my ability to comprehend patent claims goes back a long number of years with some excellent tutelage from a number of Phd professors and Engineering firms along the way. My early Electrical Engineering education was obtained at the University of Mo - Rolla in a 5yr BS rather than the normal 4yr program offered in most universities, which gave me a shortcut to my MS and work toward a Phd. I was lucky enough in those years to obtain significant experience in applied EE as well as design, project and contract management and later to establish, build, and manage a successful, multi-state business with up to 500 employees.
Secondly, I find in general, that I feel as much intensity in my own opinions of what our system of law in whole has become. Every decision, every lobby, each lawyer politician have all pulled us farther and farther away from the intent of the Founders and the core values of the Enlightenment that the citizen should not be subjected to laws which he could not read and understand with a commonly obtained education. Current law and decisions in nearly every area is so convoluted and semanticized as to be nearly incomprehensible, by even many of it's practitioners. Which is another topic for another day's discussion.
But that said, I'm strongly supportive of the desire I sense from both of you, that Patent cases and law should be written and decided by only those with the acceptable levels of expertise and also that the law needs clarification as it applies to not only software, but intellectual property and business technology as well.
Hope this provides some reduction of the generated heat of this issue.
Where you would find common ground with db, I bet, would be the whole lawyer approach-even in patent law. If you think it got heated in here, imagine db debating lawyers who look at all legal issues pragmatically and completely devoid of moral foundations, firm definitions, logic and reason. It leads to laws which are inconsistent, nonsensical, and contradictory and then opinions (from the lawyers) based on all that nonsense and contradictory thinking. When instead where there is confusion, people should start from the logical foundations and remain consistent. No wonder people look at the legal profession as ridiculous. I agree completely with your comments regarding our current system. Let us know how your research goes.
"My response: "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field."
The laser produces light, but so does a fire. Does that achieve a unique function? An invention does not have to have a unique result actually. Swan invented an incandescent light bulb and so did Edison. Many inventions are different ways of accomplishing something that is already done.
As I understand Edison's first marketable light bulb patent, it was essentially Swan's British patented bulb with an improved carbon on bamboo filament permitting a reduced current (therefor an improvement on Swan's and granted in the US) over that of Swan's which required much larger wiring. Had Swan sued Edison, Swan likely would've won - thus the merger of the two into the Edison - Swan company again utilizing another improvement by Swan of a plasticized cellulose/carbon element.
I've added the above two paragraphs, not to blow wind up your skirt, but to illustrate two patentable examples - the first a unique device, method, and process and second, an improvement on an existing patented device. Though I totally agree that an invention of a different way to accomplish something is also patentable
My understanding of the monopoly situation of the invention/improvement is that the original patent holder can place restrictions on the improvement patent. True?
There is really no such thing as an improvement patent. Every invention is a combination of existing elements, because of conservation of matter and energy and every invention improves on something.
The patent holder has a right to exclude anyone from making, using, selling, importing their invention. It does not place any restrictions on what inventions might build on it. In fact that would defeat one of the purposes of patents. People get patents to secure their property rights so they can commercialize their invention. Almost always you can buy their invention from them and then use it as you wish. The sale of a item that incorporates the patent from the patent holder/licensee comes with a license to use that instance of the invention.
This is the only reference I can find that uses the word monopoly with patents and within the context of the paragraph, she clearly disagrees.
"Reliable application of legal principles underlies the economic incentive purpose of patent law, in turn implementing the benefits to the public of technology-based advances, and the benefits to the nation of industrial activity, employment, and economic growth. Today’s irresolution concerning section 101 affects not only this court and the trial courts, but also the PTO examiners and agency tribunals, and all who invent and invest in new technology. The uncertainty of administrative and judicial outcome and the high cost of resolution are a disincentive to both innovators and competitors."
The judges anticipated this would go to the Supreme Court and were nervous...
"You clearly do not understand property rights and patents. As such your opinion about patents has absolutely no weight."
By what authority do you dictate that his opinion has no weight, simply because you assert that he does not understand property rights?
I submit that you don't understand property rights; therefore your opinion carries no weight. See? Anyone can make such an assertion. Isn't language fun?
Actually, I would tend to think that most patent attorneys, lawyers in general, and politicians, and in particular "experts" in the field of property rights don't understand property rights. As evidence I submit the current state of the United States with regard to property rights.
Gosh, you're fun to play with.
As an IT guy of 20+ years, I really don't think this ruling is the death-knell for software patents that khalling thinks, but rather a breath of fresh air to and industry long held hostage by the hoarding of IP.
please give examples. This affects your industry. You stand to gain by this ruling to the deficit of inventors honestly inventing
The problem is using the broad brush of "inventing" and applying it to everything written in code. Programming is problem-solving, but not much coming out of software development is "new and novel" - it's trying to figure out a way to get something done.
The problem I have is that there are a whole plethora of patents on methods for getting something done that aren't a novel practice at all. Do I support software copyrights? Sure. But I think people have confused copyrights with patents - see the Novell vs Microsoft case. You also have so much blatant pirating ("Pirates of Silicon Valley" anyone?) and such a slow legal system for resolving anything that much of it becomes a moot point (Internet Explorer anyone?)
Things I think should apply for software patents: linked lists, the RDBMS, sort algorithms, new programming languages, protocols (sometimes), etc. Interfaces? That's a very long shot. I'm not going to say no, but something pretty close.
I want to see it get back to where it should be: patents should be for novel and useful ideas - not just anything someone is willing to pay a lawyer for. No offense, but that's how I see it.
You believe that sort algorithms should be patentable? Abstract algorithms of that kind also include every algorithm of numerical analysis, from Gauss quadrature to splines, wavelets, the finite element method, solution of integer programming problems with branch and cut, finite state machines, boolean minimization with prime implicants, and on and on for entire libraries of books and journals. All of it is theoretical knowledge. Is that what you meant to include?
Your argument appears to be that Novel means creating something from nothing which is impossible. But thanks for spewing socialist propaganda designed to destroy property rights.
The question is WHERE the line gets drawn, and the Supreme Court ruled that the bar needed to be much higher to justify a patent. You seem to be taking the angle that there will no longer be ANY patents - an absurd notion.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as an emotional diatribe not characteristic of your normal level of intellect and rationale.
There is a difference between standard engineering and inventions. A suspension bridge is an invention. Engineering a suspension bridge for a specific case, such as to cross a river, is not an invention.
Where do you see the problems arising from the limitations now established by the Supreme Court? Please cite specific instances so that I can better follow you.
1) The Sup Ct. has failed to define what they mean by an abstract idea. This means the standard is arbitrary and just an excuse to steal people's property rights.
2) No where did Alice say "do it with a computer", so this rhetoric is going to be used to invalidate (steal inventions) patents.
3) This is going to eliminate investment software companies that create financial products, further entrenching big banks and Wall Street.
4) The Court has revived the discredited and logically incorrect idea that you can look to each element of a claim and if they are all known then the patent can be invalidated. This violates conservation of energy and matter.
5) This is just the start of the problems this decision will create
Socialist like this formulation because it sets up a metaphysical impossibility destroying peoples' ability to think.
The metaphysical basis for this would be conservation of matter and energy. cell phones do not appear out of thin air. They are made up of prior inventions.
This is the reference to black magic. You cannot create something from nothing. All new inventions come from known elements. so if the court looks at individual elements of a process or method and tries to invalidate the result based on the fact an element was well-known, that would mean there would never be any new inventions. Their language implies this. They have already back-tracked on previous cases regarding this by simply responding "we didn't mean that." But their decisions have consequences. We know this. Think the Patriot Act. On a good day many parts of the law are used to protect citizens from terrorism. On a bad day or how the government would most broadly interpret their powers under the act-it is used against the citizens it was intended to protect. Simply saying that was not the intent of the law should make no one comfortable. There are thousands of software patents out there which were just invalidated by this ruling. In the end, this ruling will hurt the start-up/small inventor and strengthen the large corporation. The large corp was just given more incentive to infringe on patents which were weakened by this ruling. Over time it will stifle the invention process. Why go through the risky, time-consuming, expensive process of R&D if there is no guarantee you can secure a patent (property right ) to that labor?
I would just add this: If you do not understand the subject matter, I would advise against attempting to describe why or why it doesn't qualify as novel until you do.
1) How does one define an abstract idea at all? It is the process of turning the abstract into the concrete that creates a standard, is it not?
2) Invariably there are going to be a lot of patents which are going to get invalidated. You make the dubious assumption that those patents were correctly granted in the first place. And the invalidation process doesn't happen automatically - the challenger still has the uphill battle to prove that the patent was awarded incorrectly. I think you are taking an extreme view of this. Note that I do not dispute that this will make obtaining a new patent on software more difficult.
3) Why don't you track how many of these companies exist and how many go out of business due to patent-invalidation to explore your hypothesis. I'm personally very skeptical of such a claim, having had two brothers and a brother-in-law that worked in that exact field.
4) What does conservation of matter have to do with organization or manifestation of matter in a particular form? This claim makes absolutely zero sense. And the other part of your claim is of a similarly dubious nature as the definition of a patent includes the novel use of a system (of parts).
1) every invention can be an abstraction. The concept of human being is an abstraction. This is why the Supreme Court ruling in this case, citing Alice's invention as ineligible due to abstraction is absurd. It gives no distinction or guidance against any invention moving forward. Just because you can bank online does not mean your bank account is not real and tangible. But there is no vault at your bank holding the physical cash balance in your name.
This is just one shining example of how SCOTUS does not understand patent law, inventions, or technology.
3) db runs a blog that tracks this closely. http://www.hallingblog.com. Fighting this intellectual battle is one reason why we "shrugged." Individuals refuse to use logic and reason on the subject of patents, anti-patent groups (such as von MIses-btw Benthum who was tasked by the von mises group to define property rights is a self-proclaimed socialist) exploit limited government thinkers like yourself to their side with specious claims and untruths. We try to be a voice for that person, inventor, who wants to make a livelihood inventing. It is their right to pursue it. But sentiments such as yours, based on false information and illogical threaten those livelihoods.
You do not understand property rights, you do not know how to read a claim, you do not know how patents work, you have not read the patent in the case.
Your like a college freshman pontificating on quantum mechanics.
I can understand and even sympathize with your frustration, but ad hominem is not argument.
It's new, and it's a novel...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_I...
How does he know?
There are a LOT of software companies out there; some of them are nothing more than a handful of people.
Somehow you're proposing that software companies are paragons of virtue who would never, ever lie to their lawyers or keep secrets.
And the legal issues regarding computer-related patents are only going to get murkier as computers continue to become more powerful and produce inventions of their own without direct human intervention.
You also do not seem to understand what software and computers are. Software is a way of wiring an electronic circuit. A computer is a electronic circuit that can be wired to accomplish a specific task.
That's the problem with attempting to define software as circuits. It is better labeled the instructions used to manipulate the circuits - not the circuits themselves.
O.o
I have never
in my life
seen a better example
of oversimplification ad absurdum.
You do not wire circuits with code. Most people don't wire circuits anymore; they etch them.
Java is a high level software language.
It does not rewire circuits. It executes other, existing, software instructions. Nowadays there are many such programming languages, such as Python and Lua.
Most software is designed to accomplish more than one specific task.
Most code, including machine code, are instructions, not "wiring". they are instructions telling the cpu and/or associated co-processors what functions to perform, in what order, upon which data. We have a word for this, even when it's binary numbers; "language".
Tell me, Mr. Owl, is there a subject about which you do not feel a God-like omniscience?
As a computer programmer for 33 years, I'm well aware of what computers are capable of. Check out neural networks, genetic algorithms, and agent-based models. Computers are becoming more and more powerful and more and more capable of mimicking aspects of human thought processes, discovering relationships and finding more efficient ways of performing physical and mental tasks.
I'll say it again: The legal issues regarding computer-related patents are only going to get murkier as computers continue to become more powerful and produce inventions of their own without direct human intervention.
You don't understand the purpose of a preamble. A preamble is not limiting in law, it is merely descriptive. In this case of one of the outcomes of protecting inventor's rights is promoting science and the useful arts and all macroeconomic evidence shows they are right.
Not all the founding fathers endorsed patents as natural rights. Benjamin Franklin, one of America's most prolific inventors, refused to patent his inventions on principle: http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobi...
Thomas Jefferson did not subscribe to the theory of patents as natural rights either: http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.n... and http://www.theamericanconservative.com/j...
Welcome to Galt's Gulch
The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie "Collective"
The Producers of the movies hang out in here pretty regularly so don't hesitate to engage and ask real questions or bring some real commentary.
We're very much looking forward to giving you as much behind-the-scenes access as possible and hearing from you along the way. We'll be reading everything so, be good.
OUR PURPOSE:
1.We have movies to promote - Atlas Shrugged Part II is now out on DVD and Blu-ray and, Part III will soon be in theaters. We need to get the word out and we want to employ your help.
2.We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their progress by engaging in some inspired conversation.
3.We have connections to facilitate - Have you ever wished you lived in the Gulch and could conduct value-for-value exchanges exclusively with like minded individuals? Us too. Let's.
=============
Nowhere there do I see that this is an Objectivist site. It does say that "we," that means all of us on the site, have ideas to spread. If you cannot accept that there are members here in the Gulch with their own ideas, then I'd advise you to find another O collective (and I mean that in the collectivist spirit as I find those sites a true bastion of collectivism). There are several of them out there.
To disseminate information
To gather information for my own edification.
Why are you here?
Said the Pope of Objectivism....
Of course it's a Chinese menu. To swallow everything Ayn Rand said, without question, without applying real world experience and thoughts and ideas from other minds makes one a robot, and the ideal acolyte of most any religion.
Ayn Rand came up with a good philosophy in Objectivism. But she wasn't, in fact, God, and therefore she didn't have all the answer, and she didn't get it all right. So the search for truth continues.
How do I know she didn't get it all right? Because nobody can get it all right. Nobody can get it all right because people are individuals, and individuals have different values, wants, needs, goals. No one, pristine philosophy can cover all of them, without forced indoctrination from infancy. And probably not even then.
And once again we're back to the example that got me sent to Coventry <sigh>
That sounds like a "purist" argument one might find in a Christian cult. "We're the only *real* Christians because we're the only ones who believe and obey every letter of the Bible".
If Objectivists reject all mysticism... why do so many of you worship at the feet of AR?
Let me elaborate on that, for you...
If one is unwilling to concede the possibility that AR is wrong about something... then one must logically have some mystical view of her as some godlike creature; certainly superior to the rest of us who are fallible most of the time.
If one is willing to concede that AR is wrong about something... then AR *could* be wrong about God.
"...those who do believe in what you term "mysticism" don't belong on a site devoted to "Objectivism."'
I have never said this on this site. I would not use the term "devoted" in speaking about Objectivism. I did use the word "promote." There is a huge difference. This site definitely promotes the ideas of Objectivism and Capitalism.
Why is it important to make the distinction? Because there are from time to time contributors on this site who attempt to hide ideas they are actually promoting. Anarchism is one area I find dangerous. To be perfectly honest, I find it
more dangerous in how anarchists try to hide that agenda by getting people to buy into sloppy utilitarianism ignoring important philosophical foundations.
As far as Christianity goes, I do not find it dangerous-just illogical and mystical. I've never met a Christian on this site yet, trying to hide Christian values. Christians openly promote their beliefs. That's straightforward and honest. Many Anarchists, especially anti-patent crowd, purposely distort facts and outright lie to push their agenda. I will always point out that Objectivism supports all property rights, including intellectual property. I will continue to point out that in Atlas Shrugged intellectual property and patents are discussed around 200 times. Including a very important discussion between Cheryl and James Taggert regarding Rearden metal.
No harm, no foul.
Blood pressure reducing yet from the SCOTUS ruling?
"Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie 'Collective.' Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online."
"Like-minded" does not mean your spreading any ideas you feel like in your religious hatred for Ayn Rand's philosophy.
"Collective" in the definition statement, included in quotes, is a joke, throwing it back in your face.
"The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Denial of intellectual property rights on principle is a form of anarchy in one sphere, not necessarily across the board, but the same a-philosophical "libertarian" mentality seems to often show up in both.
:)
"Like-minded" does not mean your spreading any ideas you feel like in your religious hatred for Ayn Rand's philosophy.
What some "seem to believe" about anarchy and religion does not make them coherent positions, let alone compatible with their opposite in Ayn Rand's philosophy.
I have been at this for 30 years writing about "property rights in cyberspace" and similar topics. I do not have a lot of answers, either. It is a difficult problem, at least for me. Perhaps you are smarter and have some answers. So far, you have not even offered a cogent question on intellectual property and US Patent Law but only defend the status quo.
... and I am not an anarchist...
"He just says what is already the case and never recommends an objective basis for an objective application."
When those things lead to physical things, then the physical things can be patented. But not the ideas. The idea of controlled, powered flight can't, and shouldn't, be patented. The implementation of it via the three-axis controller can be.
Quick, who invented the waterbed? Who invented the communication satellite?
Patent ideas, and there would have been no Star Trek, or Star Wars, or Battlestar Galactica...
---
...What?
We spent a lot of time on this in another post. The anarcho people propose private entities to enforce contracts and other rules. This either makes them a vigilante or a government. Competing enforcement organizations are still organizations allowed to use force and therefor still governments.
You are impervious to logic. An invention is a human creation with an objective result (repeatable). An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are based on creation. Thus patents are property right that recognized the inventor's creation of an invention, just like all property rights. That is OBJECTIVE AND RATIONAL
I do not perceive a problem. I perceive moochers. I understand that patent law must have a place in the information age. stick in the manufacturing age.
Because you apparently miss a basic tenet of Objectivism which even I get; respect for the rights of others.
It is famous that America's competitive textile mills were built by Samuel Slater who brought the plans from England in his head. That story is known to hackers such as Joey Paris who rhymed:
"The source is the source,
of course of course
and no one can copy the source
of course
unless the source
can be carried in your head."
Three-fifths votes for slaves was also "integral to the Constitution." So what? You have offered only an appeal to authority not a fact independent from it.
It's true that the Constitution is not the philosophical justification for the laws, but it was based on better ideas than those in Venice, feudualism and merchantilism.
Most of the effort in formulating the Constitution went into devising a political implementation with limits on growth of power, based on already accepted ideas of individualism.
("3/5 votes for slaves" was the politically feasible alternative to eliminating slavery at the time; that principle for computing representation in Washington -- not literally discounting votes for slaves -- served to limit the power of the slave states.)
Patents are not a monopoly. Venice patents only covered a small number of people. If you were at all interested in the evidence you would see that every bit of income you earn above subsistence is because of property rights inventions - PATENTS.
Patents most certainly ARE monopolistic. When you obtain a patent, you are gaining exclusive rights to the use of a particular invention or process until the expiration of the patent, at which point it becomes general knowledge. In order for someone else to LEGALLY use your patent, they MUST obtain an agreement from you as to their use and/or resale of your ideas and those who do not have such an agreement are prosecuted in Federal court.
That sounds pretty much like the definition of a monopoly to me - and a government-sponsored one to boot.
"What Rights Does A Patent Grant?
The grant confers "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States" and its territories and possessions for which the term of the patent shall be 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or (if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed patent application) from the date of the earliest such application was filed. "
So, if not technically a monopoly, the ability to prohibit others from using the IP without a licensure agreement certainly has the effect of a monopoly.
I am trying to point out the absolute absurdity and incongruity of your position.
If you own yourself, you own the products of your mind, your labor. That is the moral justification for the right to a patent.
Monopoly tests:
1. does not grant you exclusive access to a market
2. does not grant you a right to produce or manufacture a product
3. freely alienable (you can sell it, buy it, with no prejudice)
4. anyone can get one
Blarman, I am no longer on this post going to argue patents as monopolies. You are not choosing to apply logic to the objective arguments
mo·nop·o·ly noun \mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē\
1: complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market
2: exclusive possession or control
3: a commodity controlled by one party
What I have been trying to point out to you all along is that you are using a definition that is incorrect when you assert that a patent is NOT a monopoly. The dictionary very clearly disagrees with you - as do I. The fundamental disagreement is not a logical one, it is a definitional one. Logic is extrapolation based on definition. One must assert A before one can assert A -> B. You are asserting A and I am pointing out that your assertion of A is fundamentally fallacious - that you are not accurately describing A.
1.patents do not grant the owner complete control of an entire supply-in fact they do not allow the owner to even make the good much less "control" a market.
2. a patent does not give the owner exclusive possession or control. (Swan vs. Edison)
3. a patent is not a commodity
On this post, db gave you 5 articles explaining in great detail the differences between the two. It is exhausting to repeat again and again what is objectively known. We're done. Move on to another argument.
Ad hominem attack is example of logical fallacy
Use of logical fallacy = abrogation of logical process
Accusation of opponent failing to abide by process of logical discovery immediately after violating process of logical discovery through ad hominem attack = blatant hypocrisy.
You do not understand what a monopoly is. 1st of all a patent does not even give you the right to make or sell your own invention, so it cannot be a monopoly. Property rights can never be a monopoly.
All property rights are government sponsored. You either have not thought about this or you are being intellectually dishonest.
Property rights exist independent of the government. Government RECOGNIZES rights and enforces penalties on those who abrogate others' rights, but it neither creates nor grants rights.
A patent is a recognition of a property right and its exclusive use.
Monopoly
1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
Monopoly. A. Identity.
Exclusivity. B. Identity.
Monopoly = Exclusivity. A = B. Definition.
A patent grants exclusivity. C -> A. Definition.
Hence C -> B: a patent grants a monopoly. Transitive use.
My point was not to make a religious one, but to illustrate the absurdity of your argument by arguing an extreme case of your own supposition. I am not arguing that one does not have primacy of use of one's own body - I am arguing that placing the government as the determiner of such primacy is inherently fallacious. The government recognizes rights, however, it does NOT grant them.
When you register a patent, you are applying for official recognition for your efforts in the form of monopolistic or exclusive use. You are staking a claim to a particular idea or process and requesting legal recognition and enforcement. But it is NOT the government that grants those rights. It can not unless it is the originator of those rights, which it is not. You are confusing rights with recognition of rights. The rights exist independently of any governmental presence; what the government provides is an enforcement mechanism for the recognition of rights. That is all I have been saying all along.
Then after 20 years or whatever the government takes your property away from you for the public good.
"Ordinarily there is nothing which prohibits a patentee from making, using, offering for sale, or selling, or importing his/her own invention, unless he/she thereby infringes another’s patent which is still in force."
Blarman, myself, and others who have joined in this discussion do so mostly from a lay perspective. Taking obscure and very narrow technicalities and generalizing them to a point that you say totally disproves the point is dishonest and not worthy of the level of discourse expected on the board. The use of such tactics undercuts your own authority of the subject.
I am not being technical I am talking about facts. If we were discussing Global Warming and I did not know the basic facts I would expect and I know you would oblige in correcting me. If I persisted in obvious mistakes, I doubt your patience would last as long as mine has.
Let's start with basics:
1) you do know what a property right is
2) you throw around the idea that patents are monopoly, which shows you do not understand 1. You accept the Socialist definition of monopolies which were designed to attack all property rights.
3) You have professed knowledge of whether Alice's invention is patentable. But you don't know how patent law works, you don't know how to read claims, but then you complain that I point out your ignorance. That is just whining.
4) Finally your position is advocating theft. Sorry I am not patient with people who advocate theft and mooching.
It is I that should be offended by you and blarman. If I comment on something in which I do not have expertise, I am careful and try to not over reach. For instance, there was an extensive discussion of new Nuclear Reactor designs. I did comment, but made sure that I did not over reach my knowledge.
How do you identify that I have no idea as to what property rights are?
How is it that you believe that I cannot follow or present a logical argument?
Dale, you have been illogical, have not presented a coherent and logical argument. And continue to attack using merely ad hominems. That is the mind of one who doesn't have logic or facts on their side. I've tried to be honest and rational in this discussion, but you don't reply with a like respect.
Patent: a property right. A patent does not interfere with other property rights. A patent does not give you a right to make or sell your invention. an example: if I were to invent the micro-controller and someone had the patent on the integrated circuit, then I could not produce my micro-controller without violating another's patent on an integrated circuit.
One is a property right the other is an interference with people's natural rights. Please study the differences because your opinion has influence and this is an intellectual war we have to win on moral foundations.
How is this ANY different than owning a patent? Does not the government enforce the rights of a patent by declaring the terms of unlawful use? Do you not have to grant permission in order for others to lawfully use your patented ideas?
The fact that you and you alone determine who can legally use that idea is by very definition monopolistic use. There can be no other interpretation that passes muster.
You do not understand what a monopoly is. Go read up on the Statute of Monopolies. It is about the government granting a exclusive right to a market. A patent and a property right do not do this.
Blarman, you are not serious, you are not interested in logic and evidence, and you are not advancing the discussion.
Cheers
Just because someone likes your car, it does not give them the tight to steal it.
Cheers
If your logic is supreme, it will be its own evidence, will it not? If your position is so fundamentally sound that it can not be breached, you would have no need to deflect or call names or imply inferiority in others. All such are emotive claims, are they not? I understand that this ruling affects your livelihood and you feel threatened by it. That is no excuse to project your insecurities onto us and claim that we are the ones who can't remain objective. Shame on you.
Now.
Can there be multiple parties who claim primacy of use of property - or even secondary use? There frequently are. That is the reason why people apply for patents in the first place: to secure primacy of use of intellectual property. It is the reason people file property transfer agreements with their local governmental offices when they purchase a lot of land. They seek the enforcement of primacy of use in a government-recognized monopoly. A breach of this primacy of use can be named trespassing (in the case of land), copyright- or patent-infringement in the case of IP, etc. Are the terms of every property recognition identical? No, and no one is arguing otherwise. But definitionally, property rights concern primacy of use, duration of use, and the degree of exclusivity of such use. The government is only a recognizer and arbiter of such (aside from frequently inserting itself as a claimant) - however it is not a grantor.
Further, though a market may be inferred based on the concepts embodied in the patent for suitability of use, there is nowhere in the patent application or subsequent grant that designates a market of use - that is entirely up to the holder of the patent to determine. The claim that the government grants a right to a market should immediately offend any true Objectivist because it is an assertion that the government has the right to create and/or control such markets in the first place!
Advancing the discussion is seeking for the reality or truth of a matter. It begins with an agreement upon definitions, which has not yet been accomplished. It absolutely precludes the use of ad hominem or other attacks on participating parties. When you are in the courtroom, you don't call the opposing lawyer an imbecile - you treat them with respect. You are invited to do the same here. And as lawyers, I am surprised that you do not recognize that we are still in discovery - we haven't even moved to trial, let alone judgment. To declare that the case is closed falls outside your jurisdiction.
The market isn't tied to the property right.
"The claim that the government grants a right to a market should immediately offend any true Objectivist because it is an assertion that the government has the right to create and/or control such markets in the first place! "
THERE is the difference between property rights and Monopoly. In a patent, the government does NOT grant an exclusive right in a market. The government does NOT even grant a right to sell the invention.
We are using standard legal definitions for these terms of property right and monopoly. Are you?
You want to call that rational? You want to set yourself up as the paragon of logic while simultaneously violating the very principles of such with the very basest of logical fallacies? And then you want to claim that I am not "advancing the discussion" simply because I have a fundamental disagreement on the definition which happens to represent the cornerstone of your argument?
Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.
And I'll likely get the down vote and ad hominem attack for writing common sense. So be it.
The first commercially successful true engine, in that it could generate power and transmit it to a machine, was the atmospheric engine, invented by Thomas Newcomen around 1712.[18][19] It made use of technologies discovered by Savery and Papin. Newcomen's engine was relatively inefficient, and in most cases was used for pumping water. It worked by creating a partial vacuum by condensing steam under a piston within a cylinder. It was employed for draining mine workings at depths hitherto impossible, and also for providing a reusable water supply for driving waterwheels at factories sited away from a suitable "head". Water that had passed over the wheel was pumped back up into a storage reservoir above the wheel.[20]
In 1720 Jacob Leupold described a two-cylinder high-pressure steam engine.[21] The invention was published in his major work "Theatri Machinarum Hydraulicarum".[22] The engine used two lead-weighted pistons providing a continuous motion to a water pump. Each piston was raised by the steam pressure and returned to its original position by gravity. The two pistons shared a common four way rotary valve connected directly to a steam boiler.
On the Cotton Gin - and the failure of its patents:
"The invention solved an economic problem for the south by making the crop worth the effort to grow it for the textile market in New England. Whitney and Miller formed a partnership and in June 1793, Whitney returned to New Haven to take out his patent and to begin manufacturing the gins.
The cotton gin did not bring the partners the expected fortune, however. Whitney’s idea soon leaked out and pirated machines were quickly produced in Southern workshops. A patent was obtained but the problems of getting the gins into production allowed competing gin makers to beat him to the planters.
[...]
"The contested patent fight would last until 1807, involving about 60 lawsuits. Finally Whitney was established as the inventor of the cotton gin and would collect $90,000 from the suits. However, the time and money spent on the suits meant little profit on the invention."
-- http://www.eliwhitney.org/museum/about-e...
(If you read that site, you will find lacking any large list of patents even though Whitney did a lot of inventing:
"He invented the filing jig, which guided the workmen’s file and designed stencils with up to a dozen holes that helped to bore in the exact places. Whitney fixed mechanical stops to his lathe, which prevented the worker from turning the piece too far or not enough. As well as fashioning the dies and molds for various parts, Whitney was busy arranging for ..."
Many patents did come from Whitney's Workshop, mostly from Alfred C. Gilbert and mostly for toys:
http://www.eliwhitney.org/museum/-gilber...
excuse me, I need a cold shower, after all that...
If patents protect the creations of the mind...
Why wasn't Gone With the Wind patented?
(for that matter, why isn't Pinnacle of Justice patented?)
So you're saying that the universe is the figment of some person's imagination?
I've said it before, I'll say it again... gosh you're fun to play with...
I agree that they are a fundamental aspect of property rights, but as a sub-set, not the primacy, is all.
My concept of “ownership” does not include forbidding someone else from doing something because I claim to have thought of it first. A person has the fundamental right to promote his/her own well-being by the application of knowledge obtained from others (unless constrained by voluntary contract, such as those protecting trade secrets), as well as from original thought and experience.
I’ll leave it for others to decide whether this makes me an “anarchist”.
I'm in favor of strong copyright and trademark protection, but not any form of patent protection. The difference, to my mind, is between protecting content (such as a literary work or trademark design) and granting an exclusive right to perform a process (such as a method for creating fire). There can be overlap between the two, but for the most part the division between content and process is clear, and should be reflected in the laws of a free society.
Your argument seems to parallel and echo President Obama's "You didn't build that." which itself echoed centuries of moochers railing against the fact that Nature makes some humans more intelligent, creative, and productive than others and tries to compensate for this deficit by hobbling their betters. I am curious why no one applies this to athletes who can run faster or jump higher but, readily, does so in the intellectual realm.
Ownership and exclusivity are not the same thing, though they can overlap. Parents don’t own their children just because they brought them into existence. Likewise, inventors don’t “own” methods or processes just because they happened to think of them first (or claim they did).
Your concept of ownership also runs head-on into the “second to invent” problem – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_di... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mul... .
Patents force the legal system to base its decisions on inherently subjective criteria such as “novelty” and “nonobviousness”. Not good building blocks for a system of objective law.
Finally, attempting to malign those who don’t agree with you as “moochers” or “looters” does not strengthen your arguments. We recognize that inventors have property rights, we simply contend that patents extend those property rights way beyond their appropriate boundaries.
Patents are not inherently based on subjective criteria. An invention is a human creation with a objective result. An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are the law recognizing that creation. Patents are just property rights in inventions. This is objective and logical.
Non-obviousness is subjective, has nothing to do with patents and was one of the first examples of Judicial activism. You want to make patents objective get rid of the non-obviousness requirement.
You are asserting "You didn't invent this, someone else made it happen." You are advocating for the theft of intellectual property by denying the right of ownership to the creative geniuses amongst us.
"Parents don’t own their children just because they brought them into existence.".
What does parenthood have to do with patents?
A moocher or a looter is someone who wants something they haven't earned. If the shoe fits...
To reiterate: My concept of “ownership” does not include forbidding someone else from doing something because I claim to have thought of it first. A person has the fundamental right to promote his/her own well-being by the application of knowledge obtained from others (unless constrained by voluntary contract, such as those protecting trade secrets), as well as from original thought and experience.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." --Thomas Jefferson
And that henceforth he has no right to manufacture Rearden Metal without first obtaining permission from the patent holder.
cbj thinks patents should be completely abolished. If the intent is NOT to steal, then why the desire to destroy a property right based on natural rights? How is that different from removing your right to bear arms? It clearly shows that you advocate picking and choosing which property rights people can have. I can argue all day with socialists on this point. Frustrating I have to do it on this site
2) Advocating for something doesn't make you one, even though I find it disingenuous
3) You make a passionate argument for your case. But you discount the case made by others out of hand. For example, I believe in protection for IP as fundamental property rights, but don't believe that the current system does so rationally or justly. Yet, you and Dale rail against me calling me illogical and immoral.
2) Advocating for theft is a form of theft. They are just a more careful criminal who wants less risk for themselves at great harm to others who are productive.
1) addressed in 2. I have been basically gone from the gulch for 10 days while travelling. my posts are lit up with anarcho bullshit all of a sudden. where was your vigilence? oh, you were supporting them on my patent post. check out my walmart post.
"As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition." Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Clearly in Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand has established that Rearden Metal is a product of Hank Rearden’s effort. This holds true whether or not anyone else has invented the same or a similar thing, and whether or not Rearden is the first person to arrive at the Patent Office. This being the case, Rearden has the moral right to produce and market Rearden Metal.
Glad to see that the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had such strong patent systems.
NO KIDDING?
No, you could have traded something else you bought. Wal-mart doesn't create, it trades existing goods.
Load more comments...