Maker Pro
Maker Pro

How to stop piracy. Part II

A

Al

Jan 1, 1970
0
I hope I didn't violate anybody's patent by using a Roman Numeral in the
heading ;-)

Here is the text from the Constitution of the United States:
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


Unfortunately, they did not specify what that limited time is. So we
have people, or more correctly, companies that sit on patents and
copyrights for decades. They may never sell anything that is based on
the patent or copyright, but they prevent anyone else from using their
"intellectual property."

It is my belief that the term should be limited to that period during
which the "Authors and Inventors" are acutally making money off their
"Writings and Discoveries." I would suggest that if the author or
inventor did not make any money for about a year, the writing and
discovery should go into the public domain.

This would prevent patent trolls and other parasites from stifling
"..Progress of Science and the useful Art,..."

However, I don't think this will ever happen as the "big boys" would
have too much to lose. As a result, we all lose.

Al
 
K

Keith

Jan 1, 1970
0
I hope I didn't violate anybody's patent by using a Roman Numeral in the
heading ;-)

Here is the text from the Constitution of the United States:



Unfortunately, they did not specify what that limited time is. So we
have people, or more correctly, companies that sit on patents and
copyrights for decades.

Patents have a maximum "life" of 20 years, from the date of filing, which
is not too far from the 17year statute (from date of issue) of a couple of
decades ago. It's not exactly forever.
They may never sell anything that is based on
the patent or copyright, but they prevent anyone else from using their
"intellectual property."

As is their right. Most will license their IP though. It costs money to
keep patents in force. Most companies would like to see a return on
that.
It is my belief that the term should be limited to that period during
which the "Authors and Inventors" are acutally making money off their
"Writings and Discoveries." I would suggest that if the author or
inventor did not make any money for about a year, the writing and
discovery should go into the public domain.

How do you define "making money". Perhaps they're making a *lot* of money
by *not* manufacturing the widget, or perhaps the market isn't ready for
the widget yet. Most new technologies take *years* to bring to the
market, some never make it. You'd strip patent rights for products that
may be five years away?
This would prevent patent trolls and other parasites from stifling
"..Progress of Science and the useful Art,..."
However, I don't think this will ever happen as the "big boys" would
have too much to lose. As a result, we all lose.

No, we all gain from patents. Technology is taught by the patent. Without
patents these companies, you so hate, would simply make everything a trade
secret. They'd still hold the cards but others would not have the
knowledge.
 
A

Al

Jan 1, 1970
0
Keith said:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:57:47 +0000, Al wrote:



Patents have a maximum "life" of 20 years, from the date of filing, which
is not too far from the 17year statute (from date of issue) of a couple of
decades ago. It's not exactly forever.

Nowadays, 20 yrs is "forever." Most products have a lifetime of say 3
yrs.
As is their right. Most will license their IP though. It costs money to
keep patents in force. Most companies would like to see a return on
that.

Yes, they should, but for a limited time.
How do you define "making money". Perhaps they're making a *lot* of money
by *not* manufacturing the widget, or perhaps the market isn't ready for
the widget yet. Most new technologies take *years* to bring to the
market, some never make it. You'd strip patent rights for products that
may be five years away?

I define "making money" as selling the item to the public. If a patent
or a copyright exists and no one is selling, it is not "making money."
Yes, yes development costs and all that. But if you fail to market your
invention because you are incompetent, and someone else has the same
idea and can make a success of it, they should have the right to do so
without your interference.

No, we all gain from patents. Technology is taught by the patent. Without
patents these companies, you so hate, would simply make everything a trade
secret. They'd still hold the cards but others would not have the
knowledge.

I recently read an article where the author has a "patent" that to me is
patently ( ;-) ) ridiculous. His patent is that someone who adds a tip
to a check at a restaurant can use a percentage of the total meal to
give a tip rather than a dollar amount. In my opinion, this should never
have been granted.

I read recently an article that showed us how progress can be made
without patents. On page 6 of the IEEE Life Members Newsletter (4th and
1st quarters 2005-2006) there is a letter entitled "Color Broadcasting
Design" by F W Kieshauer. While working for Sylvania many years ago, he
was doing research on color television. Let me make a couple of quotes
from that letter. I hope I'm not violating someones copyright.

"Within a year Sylvania announced their production of color receivers
available for sale."

"With no color broadcasting yet available, we set priorities for color
broadcasting methods..."

"Our group went to work. We finally designed a....and was adopted into
the industry."

"Sylvania did not want to patent this process and gave Frank Fleming and
me the authorization to capitalize on the design."

Yikes, what a forward looking company. Since receivers were available,
but no transmitters were available, the company released the technology
to the public so there could be progress.

Yes, they made money on selling TVs. But they did not stifle innovation
by trying monopolize the situation.

If you consider color television progess, part of it was done without a
patent.

Al
 
R

Rene Tschaggelar

Jan 1, 1970
0
Keith wrote:

No, we all gain from patents. Technology is taught by the patent. Without
patents these companies, you so hate, would simply make everything a trade
secret. They'd still hold the cards but others would not have the
knowledge.


Not really. At least 99% of the patents have
zero invention height. They are there for :
1) hassle the competition
2) make the patent lawyers rich

Rene
 
K

Ken Taylor

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rene Tschaggelar said:
Keith wrote:




Not really. At least 99% of the patents have
zero invention height. They are there for :
1) hassle the competition
2) make the patent lawyers rich

Rene
--
You forget:
3) Because a loon thinks he's developed the first (insert inane idea here).

We had a guy rock up at work wanting to sell us (for a mere $1 Million) his
'patent' for his 'idea', which consisted of making up the term "satellite
cellular internet timer". No, there were no other details involved. He had a
letter from the patent office saying have a nice day, and one from Motorola
which quite beautifully said the same worse without saying it, and adding
that they weren't interested either. (I should have kept a copy.) Plus a
letter from another company which suggested medical help.

Ken
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken said:
You forget:
3) Because a loon thinks he's developed the first (insert inane idea here).

We had a guy rock up at work wanting to sell us (for a mere $1 Million) his
'patent' for his 'idea', which consisted of making up the term "satellite
cellular internet timer". No, there were no other details involved. He had a
letter from the patent office saying have a nice day, and one from Motorola
which quite beautifully said the same worse without saying it, and adding
that they weren't interested either. (I should have kept a copy.) Plus a
letter from another company which suggested medical help.

Ken


A lobotomy, or an enema? ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
K

Ken Taylor

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Terrell said:
A lobotomy, or an enema? ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I have a feeling neither would have gone astray. :)

Ken
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken said:
I have a feeling neither would have gone astray. :)

Ken


Are you saying that he needed a "twofer"?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not really. At least 99% of the patents have
zero invention height. They are there for :
1) hassle the competition
2) make the patent lawyers rich

Speaking of lawyers, wasn't it Shakespeare who said, "First, we kill all
the lawyers", or was it Plato or Socrates or somebody? I wonder what
percentage of the 3000 or so victims of the 9/11 disaster were lawyers or
in the employ of lawyers? I'd bet a paycheck that more than 50% of them
had law degrees, and it's a sure bet that better than 90% of them were
rich and white.

I wonder if Der Fuehrer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHomeland Security will
start monitoring my on-line stuff now. ;-P

Cheers!
Rich
 
Al said:
I read recently an article that showed us how progress can be made
without patents.

A good example of this is doing war time, the government doesn't
abolish patents but sometimes greatly restricts them, as everyone knows
much progess is made during war time, the Wright brothers patent on
aircraft control and WWI is a good example as any

http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/WrightUSPatent/WrightPatent.html



"The Wright Brothers held several key patents on the airplane, and
rightly so. Another inventor by the name of Glenn Curtiss (who
coincidentally, was backed by Alexander Graham Bell) held patents on
some additional aeronautic technology including ailerons, empennage,
and a new engine. The Wrights wouldn't license their patents to
Curtiss. Curtiss tried to build planes faster than the Wrights could
litigate, and tried to invalidate some of their claims based on prior
art from Langely and others. Years and years were wasted as these guys
battled it out. Others also tried to build planes using the Wright
innovations, but were largely stymied by the Wrights' demand for very
high royalties. Meanwhile, Europe was progressing to flight at a rapid
pace. Then WWI broke out.

:
The United States government finally put an end to the patent strife in
1917. Mindful of the impending war, it insisted that the rival parties
form a patent pool - in effect, removing patent barriers to creating
new airplane designs. Together with the war, the patent pool inspired a
golden age of American aviation. The pool stayed in effect until 1975;
companies who wanted to preserve a competitive advantage did so using
trade secrets (such as Boeing's secret recipe for hanging jet engines
under an airliner wing).

(excerpt from the web site
http://righttocreate.blogspot.com/2005/11/wright-brothers-blackberry.html)
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken said:
Let's just say if he bent over and said "Fix my brain." you wouldn't know
which end to start at. Nor would it matter all that much.


Sounds like a job for a six foot "Diversibit" ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
Top