I'm no expert on the US IP system, but it seems to me like a big part of the problem is that the USPTO grants patents for ideas which are both obvious and not novel. Some more ridiculous examples are the patents on making toast and the server patent mentioned in "When Patents Attack" where over 5000 patents for "the same thing" were in existence when that one was filed. Even then the patent was invalidated on the basis that the filer failed to mention his co-inventors rather than on the basis of prior art. I'm confused as to how those could ever get through the approval process in the first place, am I missing some finer points here?
Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
31–40 of 47 posts
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.
As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself…
> IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in.
Whether IP should stop you from doing things for yourself is of course a matter of opinion. But the brute fact is that, in the U.S. and most of the rest of the world, IP laws do indeed prohibit you from doing a great many things for yourself, without regard to whether "commerce" is involved. (You may be thinking of the Commerce Clause of article I of the U.S. Constitution, whereas the congressional power to enact patent- and copyright laws derive from a separate provision, the Writings and Discoveries Clause, also in article I.)
For example:
- Patents prohibit you from, among other things, making or using the patented invention, unless you have permission of the patent owner. There are no exceptions for personal use. As a practical matter a patent owner might not bother coming after someone practicing a patent invention "for himself," but your definition of the quoted term might be different from the patent owner's definition.
- Copyright law prohibits you from making or distributing copies of a copyrighted work; from creating "derivative works" based on the original work; and from publicly performing or -displaying the work (among other things). There's an exception for "fair use," but as many college students have expensively learned courtesy of the RIAA, you might not want to roll the dice on that.
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#33Anyone else find it ironic that the article opens with Apple being the victim of a broken patent system, when they have a long history of using the same broken system to their own ends?
Apple is not a non-practicing entity. Regardless of your feelings toward them, they're actually selling products that use many of the technologies they've patented. They're nothing like Intellectual Ventures and their ilk.
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.
Are there really people who feel like the government shouldn't enforce property rights? Aren't those just called anarchists?
You mean on real property or on gov't invented property created through government "interference" and "regulation" over free markets?
I don't see how having gov't create a right around "patents" (non-tangible "property") is any different than any other gov't regulation that libertarians rail against. (Taxes? Those are just GP "government property".)
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#35I'm no expert on the US IP system, but it seems to me like a big part of the problem is that the USPTO grants patents for ideas which are both obvious and not novel. Some more ridiculous examples are the patents on making toast and the server patent mentioned in "When Patents Attack" where over 5000 patents for "the same thing" were in existence when that one was filed. Even then the patent was invalidated on the bas…
The Carmack Reverse is an easy example software developers can understand. Paraphrased: "How can something that can be solved by a week of work by a professional in the field be something that can be patented?" Sure it's novel, but it only took an expert a week to re-invent by following a causal chain of reasoning about the problem.
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.
> I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights. Under some very influential libertarian theories of property (e.g., John Locke's), IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right.
> IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right.
That's ridiculous. Real estate and personal property has natural scarcity, but for "IP" the gov't is enforcing scarcity to make it profitable. A fair comparison would be someone discovering an ocean and then "owning" all oceans around the world. IP rights would arise as natural rights if you never shared your idea with anyone else.
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights. Under some very influential libertarian theories of property (e.g., John Locke's), IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right.
> IP rights arise as natural rights the same way that rights in real estate or personal property arise, and so should be protected by government to the same extent as any other natural property right. That's ridiculous. Real estate and personal property has natural scarcity, but for "IP" the gov't is enforcing scarcity to make it profitable. A fair comparison would be someone discovering an ocean and then "owning" al…
Why do you think scarcity should have anything to do with the vesting of property rights in something? Under most libertarian theories of property rights that I'm familiar with, property rights vest when something is made useful. For instance, property rights in unowned land vest when someone puts the land to productive use.
If you have a farm, and you have such a bountiful harvest that you end up producing so much food that you can't possibly use it or sell it all before it rots, under your theory of property would that excess food no longer be your property, because food is no longer a scarce resource for you?
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#38I'm no expert on the US IP system, but it seems to me like a big part of the problem is that the USPTO grants patents for ideas which are both obvious and not novel. Some more ridiculous examples are the patents on making toast and the server patent mentioned in "When Patents Attack" where over 5000 patents for "the same thing" were in existence when that one was filed. Even then the patent was invalidated on the bas…
The Carmack Reverse is an easy example software developers can understand. Paraphrased: "How can something that can be solved by a week of work by a professional in the field be something that can be patented?" Sure it's novel, but it only took an expert a week to re-invent by following a causal chain of reasoning about the problem.
This of course violates the purpose of patenting in the first place, to create and market something not obvious to those currently working in the field. The fact that the patent system is that broken is pretty chilling.
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#39My vote, get rid of utility and design patents. Those are usually used for trolling and killing innovation.
Having seen quite a few design patents, and copyrighted designs, I'm not even sure where the line is between the two. Utility patents are the traditional patents in question (software and functional objects). I don't think you can get a design patent for software.
I'm all for utility patents, if the patent examining system is changed to get more help or advice from experts in the field, to more quickly find previous pertinent patents that could expedite invalidation of infringing applications, or decide if it's too broad.
Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls
#40as usual, a lot of talking, proposing good stuff but 1% gets done.
It's a start.