Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Your Patent Reform Ideas

Yesterday, we highlighted some of the best ideas we've come across for meaningful patent reform. What ideas did we miss? Do you have an idea for fixing the patent system that you'd like to see enacted? Post it here in the comments section. We'll invite the best submittals to write a full-fledged posting on the front page in the coming weeks.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about, abolish patents completely?

6:04 PM  
Anonymous George said...

Shorten patent terms. 3 years ought to be plenty, even for the drug companies. If they don't like that, too bad. Go out of business, bastards.

7:12 PM  
Anonymous fifteenfifty4 said...

You guys are nuts. Without patents, there would be no television, no radio, no pizza, no donuts, no fire, no wheel, no houses, no space ships, no encryption, no medicine, no art, no books, no nothing. We'd go back to living in caves like the damn cavemen. Without patents all of Western civilization would crumble and fall into the middle east, and we'd eat crude oil for dinner and make our clothes out of sand. If we could even figure out what sand is. Without patents none of it is possible. Morons.

7:14 PM  
Blogger Joe Williams said...

Strike down software patents.

They stifle innovation far more than they encourage it.

8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and business method patents. Strike them down, too.

9:37 AM  
Blogger kenny said...

Pure Software and Business Method patents both cover abstract processes, and thus both can be expressed as algorithms, and thus both can be implemented in software. We can eliminate both with a simple test:

If the claims of the patent can be expressed as a piece of software, the patent is invalid. If only a subset of the claims can be expressed as software, only those claims are invalid.

A patent application would therefore need to anticipate trivial software being written to invalidate the claims. As long as the claims can't be reduced to a simple algorithm run by a computer, the patent would be okay.

This test would eliminate most business method and software patents in one fell swoop.

10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, you people are foolish to try to reform the patent system. It is very nearly perfect in its present form. There aren't any problems. All the articles you read to the contrary are written by the liberal media or by a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Everything is good good good good. Patents rule!

10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The articles they read are coming directly from big corporate patent infringer's PR departments.

When you read the true story of e.g. NTP inventor, some of you might just change your mind about patents.
Patent system works as intended!!!!

8:32 PM  
Blogger Matt Crouch said...

I have a quick question about patents. My brother, a med school student, said "The drug companies don't actually own
patents - they own licenses from the federal government (if the drug was researched with any government money). If the board decides that one company is overpricing or underproducing to keep profits up, they extend
the license to other companies". Is this true? Has anyone else heard of this?

4:24 AM  
Anonymous george said...

Matt, your med-school brother is wrong. Not only do the pharmaceuticals own patents and maintain their idea monopolies with fervor, they also are allowed to buy patents from publicly funded research institutions, creating 20-year monopolies on research that was done with your tax dollars.

8:32 PM  
Anonymous george said...

someone above said, "Patent system works as intended!!!!"

I guess I'd agree, if by "as intended" you mean that it stifles innovation, punishes the little guy, takes away our right to create new things from the labor of our own hands and minds, and allows those with no contribution to hold all of society hostage. Yeah. It works great.

8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

peer review patents!

Right now patents validity is determined by patent examiners who normally are in no position to judge either novelty or non-obviousness of highly-technical inventions

If a patent dispute gets to the court than it gets much worse: an average jury member simply does not have a required background and will be heavily misled by 'experts for hire'..

So why not to maintain a database of independent experts and draw 3-5 of them to review any patent where validity is questioned?

The challenger would have to pay review cost. But if a patent is deemed either non-novel or obvious then the patent holder would have to repay for review and pay a fine.

Yes there are problems with potential conflicts of interest. But that seems like a small fish.

7:30 PM  
Blogger Ryan Baker said...

I've got a few, thought I'm a bit late to this post.

Try "Why national governments should buy patents" and "Why we need a multi-tiered patent system."

9:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home