I came across this graphical overview of all court cases wich are centered around (smart) mobile phones. What a freaking mess, and the picture is not even complete/correct anymore. We need to add Oracle, Google and Microsoft to this diagram.
Image the progress made when all court efforts could go directly into improving the products of these companies, and some of them really need the improvemt, bad.
Original from 'The New York Times'
16 comments:
Of course! Without IP law, we'll all be as innovative as let's say China, copying products.
If you find nothing wrong with the current state of IP/Patent laws, you clearly have dirt in your eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_patents
in the log entry related to these comments we are dealing with some patents that should have never been a patent. how is using two fingers on a touch screen patentable? it's an idea, not a machine, ... patenting in IT is a whole discussion upon itself, but it's a bad idea, stiffling innovation instead of encouraging it. see above wikipedia article for a link towards the discussion on software patents.
how can the pharma industry patent drugs? we're talking about human lives here, i don't see why one company should own the sole rights to produce cures for diseases. as with above, drugs are chemical formulas (there is an analogie with software, but a healty life is a higher on the scale of human basic needs).
if companies could work together instead of against eachother, image how much further we'd be in the fight against certain Cancers or Aids. Linux Torvalds said it best - Standing on the shoulders of giants. this means that by building upon something somebody else already did you can create something new/better.
sure, china is a viable argument, but more against the IP laws. as you might know, china doesn't care about these laws and ignores them fully, giving them an advantage above all other regions that can't even compete against china because they have to adhere to the laws.
besides, it is basic economics 101, there will always be copiers, innovatiors, followers, etc.
I agree that IP law is far from perfect. In particular, issues such as software patents or biotechnological inventions are quite complicated and moreover treated differently in different jurisdictions. I am not a software patent specialist, I can't really comment on that particular matter. However, I don't agree with your opinion that drugs should not be patentable. These ARE products, not just ideas, as you mentioned. Moreover, it would mean that patenting any product (which is inherently "chemical") is impossible, because you don't even know in advance if a certain product may have a pharmaceutical effect later on. Do you really think that any real life company would invest billions in the development of a pharmaceutical product, if they would not have the exclusive right to it for at least some time (after all the tests etc, it leaves about 5 to 10 years to earn back the investment)? It's a very noble idea, the "standing on the shoulders of giants", but I'm afraid this has little to do with how the (non communist) world works and even less with "economy 101". "Economy 101" is that a company in first instance should be making PROFIT above all things. In this way the company may continue to exist and create jobs, contribute to society, etc.
By the way, if there is so much innovation out there; you do know that anything that has been published before filing a patent application, belongs to the prior art and hence cannot be patented anymore?
The problem i have with the pharma industry is the fact that medecins are used to save lives or improve a persons life. There are countries that can't afford these medicins and ignore the patent (Brazil). I find medecins a basic right for a human being.
There is also a lot of development done in universities for drugs development, shouldn't that work be owned by the 'people' instead of a company?
i'm aware of prior art, but the problem with patents (and i'm mostly talking about software patents), is the patenting of an idea, without actually having anything working or tangible (i also know that in EU this is different, but the US is so dominating, their patent system stiffles the whole world or lowers the chances of EU companies to penetrate the market there). you have these companies patententing things that are not even possible to do today, but maybe in 5, 10, 20 years are. they just sit on the patent and wait for the unlucky to actually invent it (ie. make it work) first.
Economy 101 still stands, to make profit a company should innovate (or differentiate on price, or quality etc) to be profitable. the patent system allows a company to not innovate for so many years while it guarantees a steady incom.
check out this comment from the recent nobel price winner on patents - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101007/full/news.2010.525.html
also these reports from nobel price winners (economics!!) - http://researchoninnovation.org/
I have some further comments :) You mention that a lot of development is also done at universities and you're right. As I stated in my earlier comment, if the university has published this research e.g. in a scientific journal, it cannot be patented anymore after said publication (because it is prior art) and hence, it will "belong to the people".
In addition to your "belonging to the people" idea, which sounds very communist to me; who makes the world turn? Universities, which like in Belgium depend heavily on state funding, or companies?
I think your view on the patent system is heavily influenced by political views, views which may still exist in North Korea or Cuba, but which have proven to be ineffective (certainly for "the people"!) and imploded in recent history.
You are of the opinion that the patent system allows a company to not innovate for so many years while it guarantees a steady incom. Well, that was exactly my point in my previous comment, and I quote "Do you really think that any real life company would invest billions in the development of a pharmaceutical product, if they would not have the exclusive right to it for at least some time (after all the tests etc, it leaves about 5 to 10 years to earn back the investment)?" Moreover, the concept of stimulation of innovation in a patent system is that the protected invention has to be published. This means that the knowledge in it, although protected for some time in a certain region, is disclosed to "the people". Any other person or company can thus try to improve, based on said published knowledge, the invention and, hence innovation is stimulated. As I mentioned earlier of course the system is not perfect, but I really don't think that your concepts regarding patent law can fit in in a successful up and running capitalistic system.
Yes, the work of univ might not be patentable, but derivates still are. thus by building on the shoulders of giants they improve but keep the improvents from the public (this compares a lot to the GPL & BSD software licenses).
ofcourse, as soon as you think about the good & the rights of the people you must be a) a commie, b) a socialist or c) all of the above.
my view of the patent system has nothing to do with todays communist states. it's a view shared with many people. see my previous replies for some links to nobel price winners who are _against_ the patent system in todays economy, none of these people come from a communist regime. on the software patent front, there is/was an even bigger following, talking about EU alone. most small EU softare companies join the fight against patents and a lot of OSS developers do to. i guess you were not present during the protest marches against european software patents in Brussels (i sure was).
in a true free market, there would be no 'free-pass' to 'protect' your inventions. by allowing a companies inventions to be protected from the competition you are creating a monopoly for that idea, monopolies are the true opposite of the free market idea.
you can read a patent, innovate on it, but you can't do a thing with your improvements (for x amount of time). how does that bring any benefit to anybody?
part 2 :)
It's true that monopolies are the opposite of the free market idea. But - hey wake up call! - the patent system IS part of the current free market. The concept of free market does not mean that no laws of rules should be in place. In fact, these laws are a prerequisite for the fine functioning of our society in general. Although viewed by some as a hindrance, these are in fact usually the same people breaking them... Do they should the ones telling how things should be run? I don't think so.
I try to approach things from a positive, constructive way (e.g. asking the question what we can do to improve the current system). Your "contribution" seems to be completely negative, merely focusing on abolishing the system. I'm sure it's a lot of fun doing some protest marches, but I don't see how you are actually contributing and achieving anything. I like achieving things in life, not just blindly critising them without making any positive contribution, because in the end that just makes you a grumpy old man.
By the way there is also a major contradiction in your last comment. You said "the work of univ might not be patentable, but derivates still are. Thus by building on the shoulders of giants they improve but keep the improvents from the public." and you also said "you can read a patent, innovate on it, but you can't do a thing with your improvements (for x amount of time). how does that bring any benefit to anybody?". This clearly shows that in fact you don't know what you're talking about! If you read a patent and make a real innovation/improvement, provided it is new, inventive, etc., you will be able to get a patent for it, because it will be a different invention. That's the whole idea! Most patents nowadays are not the big blockbuster breakthrough inventions, but rather small improvements on the state of the art. That is exactly what "standing on the shoulders of giants" means. The patent system provides a legal framework for this noble thought. Of course, it works both ways. If a university came up with something, but it is substantially improved by a company in such a way that the improvement is new, inventive, etc., of course the company can get a patent for it, because it will effectively be a new invention. You can't just copy (=not new), you can't just make a bad copy (= not inventive), but if your "copy" contains new and inventive features it is indeed another invention. That's the spirit of innovation, that's the spirit of disclosing what is known and improving thereon and all this in a legal framework.
I'm not questioning if laws should exist at all, ofcourse they must. Does that mean we just need to accept any law? No, that would be foolish and mean you'd have no opion and are just a puppet, it's impossible not to say there are some crazy laws out there.
Our approach is the same, we want to make things better. It just appears to us that to make things better, software patents must go away ( :D ) or be seriously redefined. The marches and letters we wrote did have an effect, if we wouldn't have done those, EU would have the same draconian, lawsuit-happy software patents rules as the US. The ones we have in EU are much more sensible, but as i said before the US is rather dominant and their patent system has an impact on the whole world.
i have just added a new entry to my blog, a short documentary made to demonstrate the problem with patents as they are now. it contains footage from a lot of important people in the free software community that describe the problem perfectly. Listen to what Richard Stallman has to say about 'what if patents applied to music'. at the end of the video this is demonstrated and the result is scary.
you're not seeing the problem on how patents impact everybody. when i say that you cannot use a new invention based on another patented invention, it is true. i cannot use that freely, if i would, i would violate that patent, unless i pay for the rights to use that patent. who know how expensive that may be - it might be impossible for me to purchase said rights and innovation will then not occur. or if i'm able to use the patent and have to chargeback patent costs to my customers, in turn increasing the price of my product, lowering the potential amounts of customers who might be interested.
i'm not against copyright perse, it's just that in some cases it has been perverted by megacorps (what a surprise), who just want a steady stream of cash for doing nothing. i mean - the happy birthday song - is still copyrighted, that should be public domain, for sure, no doubt about that.
trademarks are needed, because they provide brand/product protection. it has nothing to do with patents or copyright, it is a totally different beast. it is in fact a protection mechanism for both corporations and customers, which is a 'good thing' (tm) :P .
It's a bit strange that in your opinion "intellectual work" may be protected using trademarks and copyrights (as long as big companies are not involved of course, man you really ARE a commie, you just don't realise it, so you must be voting "green" :) ), but not using patents. What about copyrights for software instead of patents then?
You say "when i say that you cannot use a new invention based on another patented invention, it is true. i cannot use that freely, if i would, i would violate that patent, unless i pay for the rights to use that patent". Again you don't really see the point. Let's say Subaru has invented "the car" and they have a patent for it. Now you come along and you notice, hey if this thing would have rear view mirrors it would be safer and so on. The mirrors would be your contribution over the prior art, which is the car. Your contribution is new and inventive and hence, you could get a patent claim for the rear view mirrors, no problem. However, if you'd also like to have a patent claim for the car plus the mirrors, obviously you'd have to get some sort of licensing deal with Subaru, since THEY and not you, invented "the car". Sounds pretty fair to me...
Also, I will not start making references to other people's opinions or statements, this is an endless thing. You will always find people who are pro and con. I try to reason using my own knowledge on the subject, making up my own opinion, instead of being a puppet :)
By the way you never really answered by question "Do you really think that any real life company would invest billions in the development of a pharmaceutical product, if they would not have the exclusive right to it for at least some time (after all the tests etc, it leaves about 5 to 10 years to earn back the investment)?" I have your answer for you, R&D of pharmaceuticals should be a state initiative, right? :)
Anyway, in the end it now seems that in fact you're only against US software patents.
copyrights are what makes all those OSS licenses possible. Most people in the community also feel that copyright protection of code is sufficient (surprise, i share this opinion). trademarks are also good, because as i said earlier, they are there to protect both customers and companies from fraud. BUT as always, good things get perverted, and when you trademark things like a color, that is where they are crossing the line (IMO). The same is true for copyright, initial great, but perverted in some instances, like the world famous example of the 'birthday song'.
i really like your idea of the rear view mirror, however you are violating my patent on the mirror. want to settle now, or do you want to meet in court? even with your simple example, you fall into the patent trap (oh, you didn't know i had a mirror patent, sorry, that is not an excuse). hope you get _my_ point.
the same process used in the OSS world could benefit the pharma industry. the OSS world is more efficient(vs propritairy) because people are able to reuse eachothers code. in propritairy software each vendor has to develop the same old thing over and over again, although all those other companies have already done the same. all that time they invested in reinventing the wheel, could have been invested in advancing what we already have & know, freely. development in the pharma industry like this will never happen, i know. just remember that we're talking about human lives here. profit means that some rare deseases have no medication because, hey, there is no profit to be made - who cares if somebody dies because of it? (btw - my wife is a doctor, in case you didn't know)
my view of patents on medicins still stands, they are chemical formulas and those should not be patentable. depending on your views/beliefs, the prior art is either with nature or your god of choice.
There is no patent trap... If a patent exists on a mirror, maybe some parts of your car rear view mirror (which will have many different features compared to a normal mirror, "use for", "suitability", etc.) will need licensing, obviously, since you then didn't invent "the mirror", right? However, you will still be able to get a patent for a car rear view mirror I tell you (btw - I work as a patent examiner, in case you didn't know). Also don't forget that after 20 years, the knowledge (with full disclosure!) is not protected anymore. It is based on the same concept as your standing on the shoulders of giants idea, you don't need to reinvent the wheel, because a patent application gives full disclosure. The only difference is that there is a protection of the intellectual property for a limited amount of time, to earn back the investment made or to just earn money from your invention, since you've made a contribution over the art. What's wrong with earning money anyway?
You also shouldn't forget that patents are not there to block things. I know in practice there are examples of this. Again, I am of the opinion: let's improve the thing, instead of abolishing it, and what will take its place anyway? An applicant usually has invested a lot of time, work and money to make his invention and let's not forget to get his patent. It is certainly not a free pass to protect your invention, as you've mentioned earlier. The application has to meet the stringent EPC requirements (in Europe) and the applicant has to pay fees. There are not a lot of applicants who happily do all of this work and spend all this money, to in the end do nothing with the patent.
In my opinion, without patents (note that also universities own patents, it's not just a "company thing"), there would not have been this advancement as we've seen over the last decades. Don't forget that pharmaceuticals ARE NOT chemical formulas (that's merely a model that humans use in order to be able to work with nature) (btw - I am Master in applied biological sciences, specialised in biotechnology and economics, "Ir." in Belgium, in case you didn't know - and what are you actually?). They are PRODUCTS. Any product has a chemical formula, so in your view, effectively, patenting anything would be impossible...
But hey, there's no arguing with beliefs. A belief, like the Islam or Catholicism, is something which blocks people's mind from reason. Anyway, in this quantum version of the universe, you loose, because patents rule! :p
If you're not seeing the trap, then i give up (on that part of the discussion). And yes, i'm aware of the 20 year period you refer to as a 'limited amount of time'. 20 years, in this day and age, that is insane! Certainly in IT, i'll invite you to use only 20 year old software & computers for a day.
There is nothing wrong with earning money, it's great! Just can't stand greed and systems like patents (and copyright, etc.) get abused by greed (see patent troll - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll).
I want to disagree with you on the 'do nothing with patents' part. In this day and age, you have no choice but to have patents of your own as a defence mechanism for other companies who might sue you with their patents, it's a necessary evil. There are some IT companies, like RedHat who are actually against (software)patents, but have no other choice to file some of their own out of protection, at the same time they vow not to sue anybody else with their patents.
My opinion is that we made these great advancements in technology the last decades _despite_ having patents. The greatest advancements are those which were open to all, they grew and became popular because everybody could take it, build upon it and improve it. Dear god, imagine the http protocol being patented back in 1995, we wouldn't have the internet as it is now and we would still be waiting for 5 years before the revolution could start!
I do know you're a patent examiner, so i don't expect you to suddenly see things through my eyes (neither should you expect the same from me ;) ).
Amen! :)
I believe it is Linus Torvalds, not Linux Torvalds ;)
typo :D
Post a Comment