Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Patents, schmatents (was: hi)
 Claude L Bullard wrote: > I know the current results are fouled up. I don't > think we appreciate the depth of how hard it is > to be examiners. I know that most of the serious > people in our field are becoming more acquainted > with IP laws and processes. One thing we can do to "fix" the system is to use it. Frankly, the way people think about patents is, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the patent system. What we've got is a system that might be merely "bad" if we all took it seriously, but is a disaster, because we don't. Think about the current "patent culture": 1. "Real coders don't read patents." The idea is that if you read patents, you'll become "tainted." There is some truth to this since if you are aware of a patent or patent application and later infringe it, the damages you pay can be increased due to "willful infringement" rather than simple infringement. However, those who seek to avoid the higher penalties of willful infringement are paying a great cost -- i.e. increased risk of simple infringement, failure to keep up to date with new technologies, etc. Many bad patents float through the system for years and are used to pick off one company after another simply because so few people keep track of what is being patented. 2. Virtually no one takes advantage of the 60 day window after a patent application is published to challenge the patent by submitting prior art. If we were rational, what we'd have is people posting notes about suspect new patent applications the moment they are published and then discussion of prior art on lists like this one. (Immediately, hundreds of "ignorance is bliss" types said: "Oh, No!".) Nonetheless, the public review period is there but is virtually ignored. 3. There is a process defined for requesting re-examination of patents. It is virtually unused. Also, it has often been noted that re-examination results in massively lower legal fees than result from more traditional trial-oriented legal tactics... 4. There is an excessive focus on defeating patents based on precisely matching prior art. The concepts of what is "obvious" or "useful" or "innovative" have been virtually driven from the patent law system. In part, this is because of legitimate problems with interpretation, but also it is because it is massively easier for lawyers and cheaper for clients to use prior art than to argue the law. For instance, in other notes, I've discussed the idea that we should object to patents that have claims based on specific formats (like HTML or XML) or protocols (like TCP/IP or SIP) when there exists prior art that made the method obvious without use of the specific format and/or protocol. However, virtually any lawyer fighting infringement in such a case is going to look for prior art -- rather than argue the law. The result is that the principles of the system are being slowly lost from disuse. It doesn't help to defeat a single patent when what we should be doing is eliminating a whole class of patents... 5. The lawyers simply don't understand technology. I have some experience with some of the largest US law firms that "specialize" in software patents and are proud that they have "engineers" working for them. Well, the engineers are often folk with civil or electrical engineering backgrounds or something similar who took a programming course in college. Even most of the lawyers who actually studied Computer Science in school haven't risen from the "programmer" level to the "architect" level that is vital to be useful in discussing software patents. Thus, it's easy to convince these guys that something is new and its hard to get them to understand what is obvious. 6. The open source world doesn't understand patents! Supposedly, they think that it would be wrong to claim rights to something that should be open. Often, I hear people ask form something like an "Open Commons Patent"... Well, there *is* a specific process defined in US law to get something like a open patent. It is called a "Statutory Invention Registration. (SIR)" It has all the force of a patent except that it grants no exclusive rights. Thus, you can use it to disclose and protect from patenting anything which is patentable. A SIR explicitly denies all claims to exclusive rights and ensures that they can't be given to anyone else. (You even get a nice document to hang on the wall!). We should be protecting open ideas with open patents. Yes, SIR! 7. Most patent applications are published 18 months after they are filed and prior to their being granted. Very few people read the things. However, even after the 60 day window for public submission of prior art, there are many ways to attack a bad patent before it is granted. (But, every lawyer will tell you to "Wait and see if we get sued...") For instance, an inventor and his agents have a "duty of candor" to report all material information to the patent examiner. Thus, if you send a notice to the inventor, his lawyer, etc. clearly outlining prior art, obviousness, etc. they are compelled to send it to the examiner even though you can't directly. If the patent is granted and you can later prove that the information would have been considered material (but not necessarily conclusive evidence of unpatentablility) yet it wasn't submitted by the inventor to the examiner, you can get the patent thrown out because of the inventor's failure in the "duty of candor." 8. We've got boatloads of righteous idiots who spend all day complaining about the system but don't do squat to even try to fix it, work within it, etc. ... Sure, the system [expletive deleted]. But what [expletive deleted] more is the fact that we let it keep [expletive deleted]. bob wyman 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
