cheesedog writes "The American Association for the Advancement of Science recently conducted a survey on the effect of patenting on the sciences. The results are frightening: 1/5th or more of all research projects in the United States are being chilled by patent holders. The shear amount of research being canceled because of licensing issues is astounding, but at the same time many of these researchers hold their own patents and therefore contribute to the problem."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='patents,science';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Patents Chilling Effect on Science Log in/Create an Account | Top | 153 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 153 comments 0: 145 comments 1: 110 comments 2: 83 comments 3: 23 comments 4: 15 comments 5: 10 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. So much for patents fostering innovation (Score:4, Insightful) by Trigun (685027) <evil@evilem[ ]e.ath.cx ['pir' in gap]> on Wednesday November 09, @09:52PM (#13994858) (http://evilempire.ath.cx/) So what's the reason we have them again? [ Reply to ThisRe:So much for patents fostering innovation by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:15PM Double Edged Sword (Score:5, Interesting) by queenb**ch (446380) on Wednesday November 09, @10:18PM (#13994998) (http://www.xanga.com/morrighu | Last Journal: Wednesday November 02, @03:46PM) Part of the problem is that patents have been expanded far beyond their original intention. They were originally set up to expire in 17 years with the option for one renewal. That means that knowledge would be locked down for a maximum of 34 years. At that point it was supposed to pass in to the public domain.It was changed because large companies had the habit of offering a pittance for licensing someone's patent. If it wasn't accepted, they would simply wait until the patent expired and then use the technology for free. Many people don't realize that the relatively modern addition of variable speed windshield wipers were invented in the early part of the previous century. I forget the exact year.Now, however, that the patent has expired this is a standard feature on most automobiles.This is simply the pendulum swinging back the other direction. Invention and innovation will be stifled to the point that the companies will start going out of business, strangled on their own patents. They'll be unable to bring new products to market because everything will infringe on someone else's patent. Companies are already buying other companies in order to obtain "the intellectual propery". If its to the point that you buy the whole company just to get their patents, things are desperate indeed.2 cents,Queen B [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Double Edged Sword by InvalidError (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @10:46PMRe:Double Edged Sword by AvitarX (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:48PMRe:Double Edged Sword by queenb**ch (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @11:15PMRe:Double Edged Sword by AvitarX (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @11:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Double Edged Sword by cpt kangarooski (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:10PMTotal UNINFORMED BS by MushMouth (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:44PMRe:So much for patents fostering innovation by fireweaver (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:52PMRe:So much for patents fostering innovation by Trigun (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @11:00PMRe:So much for patents fostering innovation by homeobocks (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:03PMRe:So much for patents fostering innovation by homeobocks (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:05PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Monopolies are always bad (Score:4, Insightful) by dada21 (163177) * <dadacell@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday November 09, @09:54PM (#13994875) Don't most government-endowed monopolies have chilling unintended consequences on the markets they're supposed to protect?Copyright gives incredible power to the top publishers (with a lock on book stores), the recording industry, and the movie distributors.Government's monopoly on violence prevents the average person from defending their property, and use of the monopoly outside of our borders causes anger towards our citizens.Government's monopoly on prescription drugs causes the costs to skyrocket (death sentence for the poor) and useful drugs to be delayed for years.Government's monopoly on patent licensing is no different. The playing field is far from level. Drug companies would initially have to charge more to sell their meds, or sell through doctors groups (where generics might be contractually offlimits for those doctors). Patents don't protect bootlegs anyway, which get more pervasive as the web gets larger.For our society to grow, we need to accept that monopolies are always bad, and only government can create them. There are no natural monopolies. The 4 or 5 times there might have been in the past I'd argue weren't meant to last, but they're gone anyway. [ Reply to ThisRe:Monopolies are always bad by silentbozo (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:09PMRe:Monopolies are always bad by dada21 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:12PM Re:Monopolies are always bad (Score:5, Informative) by mcrbids (148650) on Wednesday November 09, @10:16PM (#13994990) I recommend you read this recent interview of Bob Young, one of the founders of RedHat [newsforge.com] and now heavily involved in lulu.com book publishing [lulu.com]. Specifically, this quote: ...I'm a big fan of both copyrights and patents, the problem was that our legislators didn't recognize the fundamental rule, which is: too much of a good thing no longer is. And so we're seeing things like the DMCA, like the idea that you could patent ideas, not just
captin smut
madison stabbin
inventions, like the idea of taking copyright from 20 years to a hundred years with very little public debate on the topic and you sort of realize that it's a little bit like vitamin D -- you know, too little vitamin D and you get a variety of health problems. Too much vitamin D will actually kill you... Don't most government-endowed monopolies have chilling unintended consequences on the markets they're supposed to protect? No. Especially in cases where an overly large capital investment is needed to develop a technology, a temporary monopoly on the resulting deliverable is often needed to encourage or enable the investors in said technology to build it in the first place. Copyright gives incredible power to the top publishers (with a lock on book stores), the recording industry, and the movie distributors. Actually, it gives such power to me too, an independent software engineer. I can (and do) use copyrights to help me ensure that my time gets reasonably and profitably compensated. If this were not so, I would not develop nearly as much software, and that would be bad for all involved. Government's monopoly on violence prevents the average person from defending their property, and use of the monopoly outside of our borders causes anger towards our citizens. In the US, anyone can perform a citizen's arrest as a peace officer. In almost all jurisdictions, citizens have the right to lethal self-defense. (guns, etc.) I'm not sure if you're promoting the idea that US Citizens should be able to wage ware oversees without being part of the military? Your logic gets pretty weak, here. Government's monopoly on prescription drugs causes the costs to skyrocket (death sentence for the poor) and useful drugs to be delayed for years. Government monopolies on prescription drugs keep unsafe, sham products from flooding the marketplace. Take a look at your email inbox if want to see lots of examples of these: names like "Vi4gra" and "p3n15 3nl4rgemint". Temporary monopolies granted by patents allow drug companies to invest huge sums of money (to the tune of 315 million dollars per drug) to research, develop and test (for safety) the numerous and highly beneficial pharmaceuticals available today. By keeping the patent term reasonable, "generic" drugs are available after the drug companies have reaped their profits to then make them affordable to the impoverished. Government's monopoly on patent licensing is no different. The playing field is far from level. Drug companies would initially have to charge more to sell their meds, or sell through doctors groups (where generics might be contractually offlimits for those doctors). Patents don't protect bootlegs anyway, which get more pervasive as the web gets larger. What are you saying here? I can't make heads or tails of it... For our society to grow, we need to accept that monopolies are always bad, and only government can create them. There are no natural monopolies. The 4 or 5 times there might have been in the past I'd argue weren't meant to last, but they're gone anyway. For our society to grow, we need to understand when monopolies are appropriate and when they are simply stupid. Like most GPL software, it's best when it's used for infrastructure (eg: highways, basic telecommunications, etc)Read the rest of this comment... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Monopolies are always bad by RickHunter (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:50PMRe:Monopolies are always bad by AvitarX (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @11:06PMRe:Monopolies are always bad by mcrbids (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:43PMRe:Monopolies are always bad by Oscar_Wilde (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:32AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Hold that thought by dereference (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @10:17PMRe:Hold that thought by mrchaotica (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:11PMCollapse by dereference (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:37PMRe:Monopolies are always bad by LardBrattish (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:42PM China and India (Score:5, Insightful) by xiaomonkey (872442) on Wednesday November 09, @09:58PM (#13994889) This being one of the reasons why up and coming countries like Chine and India will probably surpass their western counterparts in both science and engineering. [ Reply to ThisRe:China and India by dada21 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:01PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Surpass yes, but lead? (Score:5, Insightful) by carlmenezes (204187) on Wednesday November 09, @10:35PM (#13995067) (Last Journal: Friday October 25, @01:28AM) I'm an indian and have lived in India for 28 years. See, the thing is, countries like India and China learn from others' mistakes. The US has had to lead in terms of not just technology, but legislation controlling technology (patents, copyright, trademarks) and everything else associated with it (education, research, the internet). When you lead, there are no guidelines and the outcome is based on your best effort.Throw in a free economy and lobbying into the mix and you end up where the US is today. Other developing countries can see this and analyse it and if they're wise, try to learn from it. This is what India is doing (and I assume what China is too).The question remains however, is what will happen once these countries catch up to the US and overtake it (yes, that WILL happen, just not soon and no, I'm not trying to start a flame war). Then they will be left to their own devices and where they go from there will be based on the strengths of their governmental systems, the level of corruption at that stage, etc etc.In a nutshell, it's hard to lead, but easy to follow.So don't give your country too hard a time for where it is right now. You guys have done a pretty good job (with technology). Ofcourse, its not the fall that matters, but how you get up. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Surpass yes, but lead? by DigiShaman (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:51PMRe:Surpass yes, but lead? by rolfwind (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:56PMRe:Surpass yes, but lead? by darkmeridian (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:10AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Surpass yes, but lead? by jadavis (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:11AMRe:China and India by The Cydonian (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:37PM Times are a changin' (Score:4, Interesting) by max born (739948) on Wednesday November 09, @09:59PM (#13994893) If Newton or Leibniz had invented calculus today they would have incorporated it into a computer program and filed a patent under a method for finding rates of change. [ Reply to ThisRe:Times are a changin' by Trigun (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Money $$$ (Score:3, Insightful) by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Wednesday November 09, @09:59PM (#13994894) Perhaps slashdot geeks are a little different from the rest of the population because we're more motivated by advancing tech first, making money second.Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't think like that. Science and research is only a means to a wealthy end for some people no doubt. [ Reply to This What's the point of research anyway? (Score:1, Funny) by Simon Garlick (104721) on Wednesday November 09, @09:59PM (#13994899) I mean, we don't need to know how stuff works. It just does, because that's how God made it. [ Reply to This inefficient! (Score:1) by alphastryk (929216) on Wednesday November 09, @10:00PM (#13994904) wow...way to be efficient...NOT this is interesting though. thats probably why captain stabbin cabin
captain stabin ass fuckedresearch costs so much and takes so much time...:) [ Reply to ThisRe:inefficient! by proteonic (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:58PM My New Patent (Score:5, Funny) by Guppy06 (410832) <diwancio&earthlink,net> on Wednesday November 09, @10:01PM (#13994909) (Last Journal: Tuesday November 08, @02:08PM) I wish to patent my technique for adding an apostrophe to a noun to make it posessive. For example:Patents' Chilling Effect on Science [ Reply to ThisRe:My New Patent by Evro (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @11:03PM shear? (Score:1) by FreakerSFX (256894) on Wednesday November 09, @10:01PM (#13994910) Baaa. I think it was supposed to be sheer.In any case as someone stated, countries ignoring patents will thrive. Others will begin to suffer. Perhaps a trade war will result - and what will happen when large multinationals lobby powerful governments to crack down on those ignoring their IP rights? [ Reply to This Cease and Desist! (Score:2, Funny) by meta-monkey (321000) on Wednesday November 09, @10:01PM (#13994911) Slashdotters, I warn you that I have a patent covering the discussion of the chilling effects of patents on science. This discussion must end immediately or you will be hearing from my lawyers! [ Reply to This Recent idea (Score:5, Interesting) by MarkEst1973 (769601) on Wednesday November 09, @10:02PM (#13994914) This suddenly hits home for me. I've been thinking for a while about a new software-based product/service and I'm in the steps of developing a business plan in order to raise money.As I step through possible scenarios in my head, patents come up. I believe I would be offering a genuinely new product, and that makes me think I can patent it and gain the entire market. Suddenly, patents don't seem so bad.On the other hand, I understand that a patent would mean there's no competition in any given space, that innovation to reduce the price of said product/service (a net win for consumers everywhere) would never happen.But wouldn't a company earning large profits from the patents expand, grow, create jobs, pay more taxes, and get the wheels of the economy going? Now that I'm in a position to possibly use a patent, they become easy to rationalize.When they were only a theoretical exercise for me, patents seemed like they would have adverse affects on innovation.I suppose the real danger is my unknowing infringement of another's patent and the hilarity that would ensue. [ Reply to ThisRe:Recent idea by wbren (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:11PMTax not Patent by dereference (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:27PMRe:Recent idea by meta-monkey (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:46PMRe:Recent idea by Dun Malg (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:12PMRe:Recent idea by Bad D.N.A. (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:16PMRe:Recent idea by roman_mir (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:29PMRe:Recent idea by meta-monkey (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:45AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Recent idea by harvardian (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:16PMRe:Recent idea (nice try) by Stephen Samuel (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @11:53PMRe:Recent idea (nice try) by Stephen Samuel (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @11:56PMRe:Recent idea (nice try) by lightknight (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:13AMRe:Recent idea by nmos (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:32AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Lawyers are to blame (Score:2, Insightful) by grumpygrodyguy (603716) on Wednesday November 09, @10:03PM (#13994920) Lawyers are destroying this country, heck they practically own it. 90% of congress are lawyers, 9/10 medical suits are frivolous and the 'industry' of medical law is about playing the averages. In my home state of Georgia(USA) medical practioners have their own insurance union, they lose 1 Billion dollars a year defending against frivolous lawsuits. Only 1 in 10 of those suits actually stick...it's practically extortion.Likewise, recent changes to IP are one of the worst things to happen to science and industry. Used correctly IP has its place in prompting innovation, but lawyers are turning IP into something strictly to leverage lawsuits with. That doesn't benefit customers, scientific organizations or industry leaders...but it does syphon mountains of cash to the IP lawyers. [ Reply to This Re:Lawyers are to blame (Score:5, Insightful) by Teckla (630646) on Wednesday November 09, @10:25PM (#13995022) Lawyers are destroying this country, heck they practically own it. 90% of congress are lawyers, 9/10 medical suits are frivolous and the 'industry' of medical law is about playing the averages. In my home state of Georgia(USA) medical practioners have their own insurance union, they lose 1 Billion dollars a year defending against frivolous lawsuits. Only 1 in 10 of those suits actually stick...it's practically extortion. I'd like to see some references to your statistics. They seem too...convenient. 90% this, 9 out of 10 that, $1 billion here, 1 out of 10 there. Likewise, recent changes to IP are one of the worst things to happen to science and industry. Used correctly IP has its place in prompting innovation, but lawyers are turning IP into something strictly to leverage lawsuits with. That doesn't benefit customers, scientific organizations or industry leaders...but it does syphon mountains of cash to the IP lawyers. I know it's popular to hate lawyers, so what I'm about to say will probably burn my karma to cinders. But, the simple truth is, it's not the fault of lawyers. They're working within the system, getting paid by clients to do what they do. You want less patent lawsuits? Reform the patent system. Don't burn lawyers at the stake.Your hate is misplaced. [ Reply to This | ParentPatent System not Patent Lawyers by dereference (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:40PMRe:Patent System not Patent Lawyers by AvitarX (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:14PMTrolling? by dereference (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:52PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Lawyers are to blame by ozmanjusri (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:55PMRe:Lawyers are to blame by Just Some Guy (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:02AMRe:Lawyers are to blame by rolfwind (Score:2) Thursday November 10, @12:08AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Lawyers are to blame by maggard (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:07PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Lawyers are to blame by vanka (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @11:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. We live in a kleptocracy (Score:5, Insightful) by rsborg (111459) on Wednesday November 09, @10:03PM (#13994921) (http://slashdot.org/) The wealthy/landed elites constantly dream up ways to make money of the backs of the innovative and hard working. In this sense, Microsoft and the RIAA Cartels pretty much symbolize the "American spirit"... from a corporation standpoint. None of this will change unless and until we either get corporations to recognize that the US is losing it's ground due to stifling IP/Patent laws... or we vote in people who care.Republican or Democratic, make sure your representative at least knows (and preferrably cares) about the current state of the patent system.Oh, and donate to the EFF [eff.org]. I have. [ Reply to ThisRe:We live in a kleptocracy by dada21 (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:06PMRe:We live in a kleptocracy by rsborg (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:25PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. One must be careful not to overstate statistics (Score:2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, @10:03PM (#13994923) One must be careful about quoting the figures posted in the above article due to the fact that the survey reported only the proportion of researchers affected by patent and licensing issues that were forced to delay change or abandon their research projects.However there were no figures given on the proportion of research projects that were adversely affected by licensing issues.The survey is biased by the fact that those most adversely affected are the most likely to reply to the survey.When you are talking percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the total population is can be a small fraction of the total population. [ Reply to This Yep... (Score:5, Insightful) by vectorian798 (792613) on Wednesday November 09, @10:04PM (#13994927) I am in a robotics research team here at UC Berkeley and we too found that often companies patent random stuff that they haven't even fully developed yet. Because patents can be overly broad (like the one on the hardware 'double-click') this can cause problems especially in cases where there is perhaps only one solution (or one cost-effective and viable one anyways) to a given problem. The solution may be blatantly obvious to the scientifically-inclined, but if someone holds a patent on it, what can you do...I wouldn't complain as much if the patent system hired people halfway-knowledgeable or if they allowed patents only on something very specific (aka ethical to 'patent') and genuinely ingenious. But these concepts of ethics etc. are so hand-wavy that we might as well not even try to 'reform' the system, and instead just get rid of it because otherwise it will be hard to meet the standards we expect.Perhaps another way to go at it is to have a board of scientifically-inclined folks to preside over the patent system and work at it with newer laws on what can and cannot be patented. Over time as new technologies and ways of thinking come about, such a board can continue to refine the laws. My bid for the people to serve on these boards: college professors from a mix of technical majors from various universities.In any case, the other question is why would researchers who face this barrier file patents themselves? To do it before someone else does - it's not like prior art holds weight in today's patent system, so it is a quick solution to making sure you don't face problems in the future.I'll leave you with that. [ Reply to ThisRe:Yep... by JanneM (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:35PMRe:Yep... by cpt kangarooski (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:04PMRe:Yep... by wallitron (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:54PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. I can vouch for this first hand (Score:3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, @10:04PM (#13994933) I'm a graduate student working on a high profile computer engineering project. My advisor (let's call him Prof X) runs the group, and also has a small side company based on his research.I recently experienced just this effect. I needed some realistic multi-threading code to use to test a visualizer I have been working on (actually, it's not a visualizer per se, but the intermediate analysis steps you need to go through before you use the visualizer). I found out that the code I wanted to use is actually owned (patented) by Prof X's company, and that I would not be allowed to see or use it unless I signed an NDA.(Posted anonymously for reasons that should hopefully be obvious) [ Reply to ThisRe:I can vouch for this first hand by afaik_ianal (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:32PMRe:I can vouch for this first hand by calbanese (Score:3) Wednesday November 09, @11:00PMSign the NDA by everphilski (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @10:40PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Science is a waste, we should all be lawyers (Score:2) by walterbyrd (182728) on Wednesday November 09, @10:11PM (#13994971) I predict that in the future, everybody in the USA will earn a living by suing everybody else.Leave that science stuff to other nations, we have better things to do. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Perhaps this could be a good thing (Score:4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, @10:15PM (#13994983) The chilling effect could be quite useful in the areas of superconductor research. [ Reply to This on that same note... (Score:4, Interesting) by drewxhawaii (922388) on Wednesday November 09, @10:21PM (#13995010) (http://www.preschooldays.com/) ... a patent was recently issued for "an anti-gravity device"http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-5942862.html [com.com]apparently you can get a patent on something you haven't developed [ Reply to ThisRe:on that same note... by heiders (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @11:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:on that same note... by qbwiz (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @11:59PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. The whole point of the patent system (Score:1) by aapold (753705) on Wednesday November 09, @10:24PM (#13995018) (Last Journal: Tuesday February 17, @01:38PM) is supposed to be that you would like, have an incentive to do research so that someone else couldn't screw you out of your work.If you don't develop it you should lose it. [ Reply to ThisRe:The whole point of the patent system by drewxhawaii (Score:1) Wednesday November 09, @10:29PM Can't look at just the costs (Score:1) by poppycock (231161) on Wednesday November 09, @10:26PM (#13995026) I agree that the patent system can be improved, but this appears to be just an examination of the costs of the patent system without any discussion of the benefit.In one survey last year, 99% of Americans reported that the ongoing costs of operating their cars impacted their bank account in a negative manner... [ Reply to This The Patent System Is Not Bad (Score:2, Insightful) by MCTFB (863774) on Wednesday November 09, @10:30PM (#13995046) It is the administration of the patent system that is bad.The U.S. Patent Office is underfunded, understaffed, and underqualified. Much of this is intentional on the part of big business and "patent companies" who profit off of a dysfunctional U.S. Patent Office not being able to do its job. The reasons things are so bad are purely intentional. Also, if a patent examiner rejects a patent, then a few phone calls are made and the patent examiner (who is more than likely some kid straight out of college) is in hot shit by his superior. So, since the patent examiners just want to get paid like everyone else, they rarely blow the whistle on companies which have a lot of lobbying influence in Washington.Without the patent system, you would basically have a wild west business climate where the only way to protect your inventions is to hire your own thugs to deal with people who infringe on your monopoly. Of course, someone else could hire their own thugs and just steal your invention (provided they had the expertise to manage it) as well. Neither situation is good for business or a climate friendly to inventors, so that is why we have patents.I could go on and on about why patents are necessary as well as talk about my real world experience with the system, but I think any sane person would agree patents are a necessary evil to scientific progress in business and industry. Nevertheless, the current patent system is so poorly run and so politicized that it might as well be more of a roadblock to inventors than a safeguard right now.If you want a functioning patent system for the future, maybe you might want to write to your congressmen about how you think it would be wise to reduce social entitlement payouts to retiring old farts in the forms of medicare and social security, and put the money to better use in the U.S. Patent Office where right it is perfectly OK for a patent examiner to work a couple years for the government and then work for a "patent company" or law firm specializing in patents right after that.Until then you get what you pay for. [ Reply to This Yawn! Not new... (Score:5, Interesting) by AB3A (192265) on Wednesday November 09, @10:36PM (#13995070) (http://slashdot.org/~AB3A/journal | Last Journal: Wednesday October 05, @08:52AM) It seems to me that this has happened before. Around the turn of the last century, Lee DeForrest patented a whole bunch of undeveloped ideas and nonsense concerning electron tubes on the theory that something might stick. He really didn't know what he had when he developed the very first triode. But that didn't stop him from trying to patent every conceivable circuit he could imagine.Unfortunately, Armstrong did know what the tube was good for and actually developed some very innovative circuits that lead to the Regenerative receiver. However, DeForrest's lawyers sued him because they thought they had a patent on the circuit before Armstrong did. The court couldn't sort out the details because they didn't understand the technology all that well either. They awarded damages to DeForrest, whose lawyers were well fed...Today, you can look at DeForrest's patents and decide for yourself whether he really had a clue as to what a regenerative receiver was. Most technically literate people agree that his patent was merely a fishing expedition.So here we are today: The AAAS has just realized that there might be a problem with patents. Golly! They're about 100 years too late IMNSHO. This festering heap of a stupid idea called patents began to be a problem when it became apparent that no one person could know all there was to know about science as people could claim in Ben Franklin's day. Today, it's harder and harder to find people who know all there is worth knowing about even a small branch of physics.This concept of patent reform is so overdue that the best thing we can do about it is to junk the whole edifice and start over. It's that bad. We've known it since the last century. Why is it still here? [ Reply to This Government-created problem (Score:2, Insightful) by Venik (915777) on Wednesday November 09, @10:37PM (#13995075) Intellectual property laws are long-overdue for a revision. A while ago I stumbled upon a site collecting information about the most ridiculous patents ever issued. It's hard to believe the kind of nonsense the US Patent Office is creating.Clearly, the problem is not just with the laws, but also with their implementation. Looking at some of the patents one can't help but wonder about the technical skills of people issuing these patents, or, indeed, about their sanity.It's all very funny until you realize that overly restrictive intellectual property laws are hampering scientific and technological progress. These kinds of restrictions give the edge to other countries that exploit our technological achievements while paying little attention to our patent game. It's time we think about this problem in terms of its impact on our economy and national security. [ Reply to This Innovation & patents (Score:2, Insightful) by tiks (791388) on Wednesday November 09, @10:41PM (#13995096) The whole idea behind patents is to make sure that the innovator gets 'credit' for the Idea/Innovation but In my view there are 2 very crucial elements in this process of protection/ownership of innovation, first is the definition of innovation itself & second is the duration of protection. The definition of innovation should come as a measure of new-ness of the idea/innovation i mean what the hell is one click shopping patent for!!.Second is duration of protection, this has become very important in current times because duration of protection is basically a measure of 'how much time can one reasonably expect somebody else to come up with same/similiar idea given the present pace of development in this field'. Any lesser protection & you are screwing the inventor, any more & you are screwing the rest of society. In present times the pace of development has caught up & also the ability to innovate is also increased due to much better availability of information & resources (like computer/os/compiler) so the patent office should adjust the ability acquire patent protection accordingly. It really is as simple as that. Also, in not doing this patent office really is hurting itself because if everything one dreams of is patentable then effectivly the meaning of protection will be lost & it will just become another legal process that a company/institution has to go through ... of course individuals will be screwed as always :-( [ Reply to This Is current patent law unconstitutional? (Score:2, Interesting) by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Wednesday November 09, @10:43PM (#13995109) (Last Journal: Thursday October 27, @10:21PM)