WTF patents

[Zak]

I did not know that. ISTM that copying the device for personal use reduces
the market for the patented device.

Is it allowed to use patented technology for internal research purposes?
I might hope so, but getting proof of infringement might be difficult
anyway.


Thomas

 

[Ken Smith]

Is it allowed to use patented technology for internal research purposes?
I might hope so, but getting proof of infringement might be difficult
anyway.

I think it must be because you can patent an improvement to someone else's
patent thing.

 

[Walter Harley]

Would you still hold the same view if company A was in th USA and B in
China?

US patents don't do anything to prevent non-US companies from doing things
in non-US places. If the non-US company wants to sell in the US, then they
are treated the same as a US-based competitor would be. That's fine with
me.

I think the interesting question is whether there is some sort of inherent
"right" to the exclusive commercial benefits of one's ideas, or whether the
protection of a patent is something that the government confers only because
it results in net benefit. I believe it's the latter -when someone else
uses an idea that I came up with, it's frustrating and annoying and perhaps
hurts my business, but it doesn't violate my rights.

(By contrast, I think I do have an inherent right to reap whatever profits I
can from my idea: if the government forced me to divulge all my ideas, for
instance, or if the government forced me to sign over all patent rights for
my inventions to some governmental agency, that would be a clear violation
of my rights.)

 

[Ian Bell]

US patents don't do anything to prevent non-US companies from doing things
in non-US places. If the non-US company wants to sell in the US, then
they
are treated the same as a US-based competitor would be. That's fine with
me.

That's not answering the question I asked.

Ian

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

[...]
Some argue that patents are necessary to protect investments in R&D even
when the incorporated idea are not novel. I can accept that.

I have a hard time understanding that argument.

Consider a market with several manufacturers selling a roughly-equivalent
product. The question at hand is whether any one of those manufacturers
will do the work to develop a new feature, knowing that the feature may be
copied (sans development cost) by the others as soon as it is released.

I would argue first that it is clearly the case that they *will* add
features, even without protection. People are creative even when they are
not being rewarded; anyone on this forum should be well aware of that. And
if no one is innovating, someone who does will gain customers for at least a
little while, in the same way that oscillators usually start up sooner or
later. Every feature that's ever been added to a product without being
patented is evidence for this.

I think that this is correct. But that doesn't mean that some limited
protection against a competitor copying your work can't be provided.
Something along the lines of a copyright (which is close to what a
design patent gives you, if I understand them correctly).

Second, I would argue that whether or not patents are necessary to protect
investment in R&D is irrelevant to whether the governments should grant
them. There are plenty of things the government could give me that it
doesn't - for instance, money. If the government gave me money, it would
make my life better, and it would make my business more successful. But it
would do so at a cost to whomever it got the money from; it should only do
that if the net result is positive.

That's a valid point. In fact, patents are intended to encourage people
to divulge the results of their R&D so that others can build upon them.
If all you want to do is to keep technology out of the hands of your
competitors, keep your work secret. The moment you patent (or publish),
everyone else can see your work and is immediately brought up to your
technological level. If you keep it to yourself, you can build upon your
own work and create a larger lead over your competition.

So, the government should only help company A by protecting its R&D from
competitor B if the result is positive, on the net, for both. That
criterion may be met when company A is forced to divulge something of value,
that would not otherwise be divulged, to competitor B in return for the
protection. The criterion is not met, when the information being divulged
would have to be revealed in the course of ordinary business. Company A was
helped, certainly, but only at competitor B's expense; there was no net
benefit.

A positive result for one (or both) companies or for consumers as a
whole? The current problem, not so much with patents, but with the way
that they are being used, is that companies with portfolios of patents
are actively colluding in their cross licensing agreements to exclude
other manufacturers, rather than just using their patent rights for gain
through licensing fees. Both companies involved gain, but consumers
suffer.

If the government wishes to support R&D more than the market itself would
support it (and I don't know why it should, except in the case of basic
science), it has non-restrictive ways to do it: for instance, by funding
grants, or by providing R&D tax exemptions. Trying to encourage R&D by
forcing companies to walk the patent-infringement tightrope seems stupid to
me.

This works, to an extent. But accepting gov't funding can place some
restrictions on a companies ability to restrict subsequent access to the
R&D results by other companies. Unfortunately, given our current
economic environment, many companies place a very high value on
developing monopoly control in their markets. Aside from the (obvious)
Microsoft example, look at how hard Boeing and Lockheed are pushing for
the right to combine their satellite launch businesses. This is a market
in which the 'customer' is (or should be) well informed as to the down
side of having a single source for their needs.

The other side of gov't funding, particularly in the defense industry,
is that the resulting market for that technology can be restricted. If
the R&D is privately funded and conducted by foreign subsidiaries
outside the reach of arms regulations, then it is possible to sell the
resulting products in a much larger market.

 

[Rich Grise]

Is it allowed to use patented technology for internal research purposes?
I might hope so, but getting proof of infringement might be difficult
anyway.


Thomas

Of course you can _use_ it: it's a public document, after all. You just
aren't allowed to make a profit from it unless you make a deal with the
inventor.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Walter Harley]

That's not answering the question I asked.

Okay, I think I see what you're driving at, perhaps. Since the thrust of my
argument is that laws should benefit citizens, then I should be concerned
not with the wellbeing of company A and competitor B, but rather with the
wellbeing of the citizens of the country where A and B are competing. If
R&D protection benefits A (staffed by US citizens) but hurts B (staffed by
Chinese citizens), the question suggests, then I should favor it because on
the net it benefits US citizens.

But as it turns out, I'm not really very nationalistic; I'm more
individualistic. I basically think that if I can figure out how to do
something, then I should be allowed to do it unless there is some very
compelling benefit from preventing me; and likewise everyone else,
regardless of their nationality.

So yes, I would still hold the same view.

-walter

 

[Walter Harley]

[...] The moment you patent (or publish),
everyone else can see your work and is immediately brought up to your
technological level. If you keep it to yourself, you can build upon your
own work and create a larger lead over your competition.

Unless the idea is something that's self-revealing, in which case disclosure
happens as soon as you make the product available to consumers. If someone
comes up with a flat-proof tire rubber, they should be able to patent the
formula for the rubber; but they shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a
flat-proof tire, or even the idea of flat-proof tire rubber.

And indeed I think that's how patents are supposed to work. But it seems
that the patents I've been reading are more about patenting ideas, rather
than mechanisms.

Obviously the line is not well-defined. Is the idea of putting a
rechargeable battery in a musical instrument, and charging it via the same
jack that the signal comes out of, an idea or a mechanism? I'm arguing that
it's an idea; there's nothing difficult about the implementation, anyone on
this forum could design it in under an hour, I expect. What's the "R&D
investment" that's being protected?

Another patent I recently griped about was for an adapter to put a small
pickup in a too-large hole. Literally, they're patenting the idea of a hunk
of plastic shaped like a big hole, with a small hole in it that the small
pickup fits in.

[...]
A positive result for one (or both) companies or for consumers as a
whole?

Quite so. My confusion. See answer to Ian's post.


-w

 

[Joseph2k]

I did not know that. ISTM that copying the device for personal use
reduces the market for the patented device.

Actually it is a bit broader than that, infringing use is any use for
profit.

 

[Robert Baer]

[...] The moment you patent (or publish),
everyone else can see your work and is immediately brought up to your
technological level. If you keep it to yourself, you can build upon your
own work and create a larger lead over your competition.

Unless the idea is something that's self-revealing, in which case disclosure
happens as soon as you make the product available to consumers. If someone
comes up with a flat-proof tire rubber, they should be able to patent the
formula for the rubber; but they shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a
flat-proof tire, or even the idea of flat-proof tire rubber.

And indeed I think that's how patents are supposed to work. But it seems
that the patents I've been reading are more about patenting ideas, rather
than mechanisms.

Obviously the line is not well-defined. Is the idea of putting a
rechargeable battery in a musical instrument, and charging it via the same
jack that the signal comes out of, an idea or a mechanism? I'm arguing that
it's an idea; there's nothing difficult about the implementation, anyone on
this forum could design it in under an hour, I expect. What's the "R&D
investment" that's being protected?

Another patent I recently griped about was for an adapter to put a small
pickup in a too-large hole. Literally, they're patenting the idea of a hunk
of plastic shaped like a big hole, with a small hole in it that the small
pickup fits in.

******* And that is the case of a "patent" on something that is obvious
even to those *not* skilled in the art.
So by the patent rules, that is an "illegal" patent.

[...]
A positive result for one (or both) companies or for consumers as a
whole?

Quite so. My confusion. See answer to Ian's post.


-w

 

[Paul Burke]

******* And that is the case of a "patent" on something that is obvious
even to those *not* skilled in the art.
So by the patent rules, that is an "illegal" patent.

So all that's needed now is enough money to pay the lawyers while the
case spends 5 years in court proving that the patent is invalid. You'll
get that in costs at the end anyway, assuming the judge knows enough
about small plastic widgets not to decide in their favour, and of course
assuming they aren't bankrupt by then.

Paul Burke

 

[Ian Bell]

Okay, I think I see what you're driving at, perhaps. Since the thrust of
my argument is that laws should benefit citizens, then I should be
concerned not with the wellbeing of company A and competitor B, but rather
with the
wellbeing of the citizens of the country where A and B are competing. If
R&D protection benefits A (staffed by US citizens) but hurts B (staffed by
Chinese citizens), the question suggests, then I should favor it because
on the net it benefits US citizens.

But as it turns out, I'm not really very nationalistic; I'm more
individualistic. I basically think that if I can figure out how to do
something, then I should be allowed to do it unless there is some very
compelling benefit from preventing me; and likewise everyone else,
regardless of their nationality.

So yes, I would still hold the same view.

-walter

That's fine. So you are against DRMA then?

Ian

 

[Walter Harley]

So all that's needed now is enough money to pay the lawyers while the case
spends 5 years in court proving that the patent is invalid. You'll get
that in costs at the end anyway, assuming the judge knows enough about
small plastic widgets not to decide in their favour, and of course
assuming they aren't bankrupt by then.

Bingo. The existence of an infringeable patent, be it obviously flawed or
not, effectively prevents a small business from product development. I'd be
wiped out by a legal battle even if I won it.

 

[Walter Harley]

That's fine. So you are against DRMA then?

Sorry, I don't know what DRMA is?

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

[...] The moment you patent (or publish),
everyone else can see your work and is immediately brought up to your
technological level. If you keep it to yourself, you can build upon your
own work and create a larger lead over your competition.

Unless the idea is something that's self-revealing, in which case disclosure
happens as soon as you make the product available to consumers. If someone
comes up with a flat-proof tire rubber, they should be able to patent the
formula for the rubber; but they shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a
flat-proof tire, or even the idea of flat-proof tire rubber.

And indeed I think that's how patents are supposed to work. But it seems
that the patents I've been reading are more about patenting ideas, rather
than mechanisms.

That's how understood them as well. But that's where software patents
will run into trouble. Software, a.k.a. source code, given sufficiently
intelligent compilers and other tools, may be nothing more than the
expression of an idea. The compiler takes it from there and produces the
executable.

But that's not where we are at presently. Even if working models are not
required, the description of the patented device often is not sufficient
to use as the basis of creating one. Take the 'faster than light
propulsion system patent' (essentially a description of the Star Trek
Warp drive) as a good example of this.

Obviously the line is not well-defined. Is the idea of putting a
rechargeable battery in a musical instrument, and charging it via the same
jack that the signal comes out of, an idea or a mechanism? I'm arguing that
it's an idea; there's nothing difficult about the implementation, anyone on
this forum could design it in under an hour, I expect. What's the "R&D
investment" that's being protected?

The first implementation of this might have been patentable. But once
that's on the market, just replacing the noun 'cell phone' or 'handheld
GPS' with 'musical instrument' doesn't warrant a new patent. I have both
of these devices with the single connector interface that predate the
subject patent. In fact, my brother had a bass guitar that incorporated
an internal battery powered preamp about 25 years ago. It had both a
standard phone jack output, plus a second multipurpose connector that
provided separate signal outputs for each pickup plus a DC power input
(not to recharge the batteries, just as alternate power).

Another patent I recently griped about was for an adapter to put a small
pickup in a too-large hole. Literally, they're patenting the idea of a hunk
of plastic shaped like a big hole, with a small hole in it that the small
pickup fits in.

I'd buy that as a design patent, but not a utility patent. If someone
does the research to establish ranges of common hole sizes, for example,
you shouldn't just copy them. But if you measure the hole and make your
own, that shouldn't be an infringement.

[...]
A positive result for one (or both) companies or for consumers as a
whole?

Quite so. My confusion. See answer to Ian's post.

He seemed to be more concerned with differentiating between US and non
US companies (if I got the right post). Not an easy task, IMHO. Do you
differentiate between a company with facilities within our borders but
majority foreign ownership? How exactly do we identify which
multinationals fall into each category? I think that any tests of
economic benefits should look only at the consumer. Corporations are an
artificial creation of the state and certainly shouldn't be granted
rights that compete with individuals on an equal footing. They should
certainly not have rights superior to those of the individual's (the
consumers).

 

[Ian Bell]

Bingo. The existence of an infringeable patent, be it obviously flawed or
not, effectively prevents a small business from product development. I'd
be wiped out by a legal battle even if I won it.

It is certainly true that patent litigation is only for those with deep
pockets. The best way for a small business to profit from this is to offer
their patent to the all the big competitors for it. If it provides true
competitive advantage they will want it, pay well for it and pay for its
protection.

Ian

 

[Ian Bell]

Sorry, I don't know what DRMA is?

Or is it DCMA you know the digital rights management system for digital
music/film etc.

Ian

 

[Don Lancaster]

It is certainly true that patent litigation is only for those with deep
pockets. The best way for a small business to profit from this is to offer
their patent to the all the big competitors for it. If it provides true
competitive advantage they will want it, pay well for it and pay for its
protection.

Ian

http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Winfield Hill]

Don Lancaster wrote...

http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp

Wherein Don argues the $12M to $40M sale territory is a necessary
threshold for an adequate return on a patented product. That's
too high to make a patent approach viable for the "million-dollar"
idea admired by inventors. Perhaps I can address this subject,
having developed over a half-dozen "million-dollar" products at
my company. As I've often stated, my successful products did not
have, not did they need, the benefit of patent protection (while
my name is on a number of patents, that's because clients wanted
it that way -- I didn't patent the inventions I did for myself.)
My products succeeded because of their quality in the field, the
"brand" reputation they developed, and good customer relations,
all of which outweigh patent protection.

WRT Don's $40M threshold, clearly this assumes a court fight, in
which case his numbers may well be too low. So, whatever Don's
critics may have to say about the issue, I think he's certainly
on target with respect to patenting ideas worth under say $100M.
Counter arguments are that a patent still can act as a deterrent,
may be important to other investors, or to potential product or
company buyers, etc. This are issues an inventor can evaluate.

 

[Walter Harley]

Or is it DCMA you know the digital rights management system for digital
music/film etc.

Ah, DMCA, the "digital millennium copyright act". Yes, I think that's
primarily an expression of panic on the part of the traditional record
companies; I certainly don't believe it is in the best interest of the
general public.

But I actually do believe in the idea of copyright - though at least in the
music world I think it is being severely challenged these days by the ease
of copyrighting and the relative difficulty of doing what feels like the
right thing as a consumer. I believe in individual ownership of creative
expression, I think. (I haven't really studied the issue so it's possible
that if I dug deeply enough I'd end up convincing myself otherwise.)

The only thing I'm griping about (in this thread) is patents that attempt to
prevent people from using ideas that are obvious as soon as one sees or
hears of the product being protected. Why is that not a copyrightable idea?
To stick with the example of the patent I'm harping on, if I were to make my
own musical instrument electronics with a rechargeable battery, I don't
think anyone would be able to tell the difference between whether I'd
invented it myself or copied the other fellow's. The idea is too simple; it
does not contain enough features to be identifiably unique.

That criterion of "containing enough features" is why copyright infringement
can be based on a minimum amount of content: it's okay to copy a bar of
someone else's melody, it's not okay to copy eight bars. In fact, you can't
even *tell* if you've copied a bar of someone else's melody; it's virtually
impossible to write a unique bar of listenable notes that someone else
hasn't already written.