Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Bill Gates on software patents

W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Gates wrote in his Challenges and Strategy memo of May 16 1991, If
people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's
ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at
a complete standstill today. The solution ... is patenting as much as
we can ... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced
to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose."

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/guardian-article.html or original at
http://www.bralyn.net/etext/literature/bill.gates/challenges-strategy.txt

Microsoft now has over 4,000 patents and tens of thousands more pending.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com
 
T

Tim Mitchell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield Hill said:
Bill Gates wrote in his Challenges and Strategy memo of May 16 1991, If
people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's
ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at
a complete standstill today. The solution ... is patenting as much as
we can ... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced
to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose."

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/guardian-article.html or original at
http://www.bralyn.net/etext/literature/bill.gates/challenges-strategy.txt

Microsoft now has over 4,000 patents and tens of thousands more pending.
I am designing an LED lighting system for someone (in the UK), but they
are having to pay licence fees to the US company Color Kinetics who have
somehow managed to get US and European patents covering the generation
of multicoloured light using 2 or more colors of LED.

I can't imagine how this patent was granted given that people have been
producing light with LEDs for decades, but there you go. Only a very big
player in the lighting market (and there are a few, such as High End
Systems in the US and Martin Professional in Europe) will have the
resources to challenge this.
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim Mitchell wrote...
I am designing an LED lighting system for someone (in the UK), but they
are having to pay licence fees to the US company Color Kinetics who have
somehow managed to get US and European patents covering the generation
of multicoloured light using 2 or more colors of LED.

I can't imagine how this patent was granted given that people have been
producing light with LEDs for decades, but there you go. Only a very big
player in the lighting market (and there are a few, such as High End
Systems in the US and Martin Professional in Europe) will have the
resources to challenge this.

Tim, can you find the patent number for us? How much is the royalty?

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim, sometimes when a patent is too obviously simplistic it can be challenged.
When someone does challenge patent holders may back away and hope that "not too
many waves" are made about it. Maybe prior art can be shown in this case.

Regards, Joerg.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
In Joerg typed:
Tim, sometimes when a patent is too obviously simplistic it can be
challenged. When someone does challenge patent holders may back away
and hope that "not too many waves" are made about it. Maybe prior art
can be shown in this case.

I can show them prior art. In my junkbox is a tri-color LED I bought at
Radio Shack in 1980.
 
W

Walter Harley

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom Del Rosso said:
In Joerg typed:

I can show them prior art. In my junkbox is a tri-color LED I bought at
Radio Shack in 1980.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were penalties for specious patents, just like
for specious lawsuits? Like, if you could prove that there was obvious
prior art, then not only would the patent be withdrawn, but the patent
holder would be liable for a substantial fine?
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
In Walter Harley typed:
Wouldn't it be nice if there were penalties for specious patents,
just like for specious lawsuits? Like, if you could prove that there
was obvious prior art, then not only would the patent be withdrawn,
but the patent holder would be liable for a substantial fine?

Yeah but it wouldn't be enough, because they wouldn't get the fine
unless your lawyers are better than theirs.

In my view it's another manifestation of the litigious society. The PTO
wants to leave it for the courts to decide. Legislators sometimes shirk
their duty the same way.
 
T

Tim Auton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Walter Harley said:
Wouldn't it be nice if there were penalties for specious patents, just like
for specious lawsuits? Like, if you could prove that there was obvious
prior art, then not only would the patent be withdrawn, but the patent
holder would be liable for a substantial fine?

Shouldn't it be the Patent Office that's in for a big fine? If they
granted me a worthless patent and I spent a load of cash on it, or if
I had to spend a load of cash defending myself against a useless
patent I'd want to sue their asses.


Tim
 
J

JeffM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Wouldn't it be nice if there were penalties for specious patents,
just like for specious lawsuits?
Like, if you could prove that there was obvious prior art,
then not only would the patent be withdrawn,
but the patent holder would be liable for a substantial fine?
Walter Harley

I would be even better if the patent process was more open.
Imagine if this application was put on a USPTO web page
and LED manufacturers could review it and submit reasons why it's crap.
 
N

nospam

Jan 1, 1970
0
Wouldn't it be nice if there were penalties for specious patents, just like
for specious lawsuits? Like, if you could prove that there was obvious
prior art, then not only would the patent be withdrawn, but the patent
holder would be liable for a substantial fine?

It would be nice if patents had to be filed with a claimed value
representing the effort and expense spent on the 'invention'.

Anyone would be able to buy rights to use (and resell) the invention for no
more than the claimed value.

The patent filer would be open to challenge of the validity of the claimed
value.

The invention of sticking two color LEDs in the same package (which no
doubt has been independently invented by a multitude of engineers during
their coffee breaks) would have a claimed value of about $100 and would not
even be filed while those with multi-million $ research budgets (like the
drug companies) could reasonably file multi-million $ claim values and
have their investment protected.
 
M

Mike

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim Mitchell wrote...

Tim, can you find the patent number for us? How much is the royalty?

Here are a few possibilities:

6,636,003 Apparatus and method for adjusting the color temperature of
white semiconduct or light emitters
6,608,453 Methods and apparatus for controlling devices in a networked
lighting system
6,577,080 Lighting entertainment system
6,528,954 Smart light bulb
6,459,919 Precision illumination methods and systems
6,340,868 Illumination components
6,211,626 Illumination components
6,166,496 Lighting entertainment system
6,150,774 Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus
6,016,038 Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus

I looked briefly at the last one. It's for a system to produce light of
variable color and intensity by combining the output from multiple
separately driven LEDs.

-- Mike --
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
In nospam typed:
It would be nice if patents had to be filed with a claimed value
representing the effort and expense spent on the 'invention'.

But it takes more than effort to assess the value of the patent. The
idea of making transistors integrated could have come on a coffee break
just like the idea of integrating LEDs.
 
N

nospam

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom Del Rosso said:
In nospam typed:

But it takes more than effort to assess the value of the patent. The
idea of making transistors integrated could have come on a coffee break
just like the idea of integrating LEDs.

You miss the point completely.

Why should one coffee break inventor deserve several billion $/minute for
his effort and the other a few hundred?

The patent system is man made and intended for the overall benefit of man.
Read the original post again, as it is currently working (or being
exploited) man would be better off without it.

The revision I propose would make the system work for the benefit of man
again.
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
You miss the point completely.

Why should one coffee break inventor deserve several billion $/minute for
his effort and the other a few hundred?

The patent system is man made and intended for the overall benefit of man.
Read the original post again, as it is currently working (or being
exploited) man would be better off without it.

The revision I propose would make the system work for the benefit of man
again.

Sounds like a socialism/communism idea to me.

VALUE is in the eye of the beholder, and is supply-and-demand driven.

...Jim Thompson
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
nospam said:
Why should one coffee break inventor deserve several billion $/minute for
his effort and the other a few hundred?

Because some minutes are spent more productively than others, even for
the same person at different times.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
Sounds like a socialism/communism idea to me.

VALUE is in the eye of the beholder, and is supply-and-demand driven.

Ditto Rush^H^H^H^HJim.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:14:14 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"

What is ^H supposed to represent?

Control-H, or ASCII 08, or BS. :)
 
N

nospam

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sounds like a socialism/communism idea to me.

The patent system is a socialist idea to start with

Extract from http://www.patentmatics.com/pub2004/pub4d.htm

"All the same it is understood that the patent monopoly (granted for a
limited period) is used only for the purpose for which it is granted. They
are not created in the interest of the inventor per se but in the interest
of the national economy in which the patentee plays a constructive role as
an inventor bringing out new products for use and benefit of the society."

The patent system was intended to benefit society.
VALUE is in the eye of the beholder, and is supply-and-demand driven.

What value has a published invention without a patent system? Zero.

Value is created by the patent system. I suggest this created value should
be limited to something based on the effort that went in to the invention
rather than what can be screwed out of society in its exploitation.
 
Top