11.05.08

Gemini version available ♊︎

Ideas Are Not a Property, Devices May Be

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Patents at 9:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“IP is often compared to physical property rights but knowledge is fundamentally different.”

Professor Joseph Stiglitz

ONE of the best writers on the issue of intellectual monopolies, among others like Mike Masnick, is Glyn Moody. He has no mercy when he sees an unjust system and yesterday he published this post in IDG about patents and the notion of “property”.

As long-suffering readers of this blog will have noticed, one of my favourite hobby-horses is that the whole idea of “intellectual property” is a trick, designed to plug into the warm and fuzzy feeling most people have about the idea of property, and aiming to cover up the fact that what we are really dealing with here are intellectual monopolies – of which few people are fans.

Also from Glyn, a prelude to another financial collapse caused by paper-thin monopolies? It seems possible. As pointed out in the comments, however, not patents are involved, but something a little more reasonable in this case.

The fact remains that the system was corrupted to the point where simple abstract ideas can be considered ownership, but this era appears to be ending, eliminating along with it billions of dollars in imaginary assets.

Your Business Method Patent Has Just Been Invalidated

[...]

This ruling raises a ton of questions like that across literally thousands of patents. And it is a good thing too because business-method patents tend to be overly broad and abused.

Dana Blankenhorn puts forth the assessment of Bruce Wieder, who comments on the impact of the Bilski ruling [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

“Because there’s no categorical exclusion of these things they probably ought to look at those individual patents to see if they have any value. But you have to look at it patent by patent.”

That’s the word from Bruce Wieder, who heads the patent practice over at Dow Lohnes PLLC in Washington. As always this new legal decision is really great for lawyers.

So what will they be looking for? According to Wieder the court set a simple test. “Business method patents must be tied to a machine,” one that does real transformations of something. You can’t just patent the idea.

For software it’s the same thing. “You have to look at what the software does.” The court gives the example of a machine that cures rubber. You can patent the machine, but not the software timing the process.

The world is at least moving in the right direction. It has been a long time since that last happened.

WIPO
WIPO (World Intellectual Monopolies
Organisation), Geneva, Switzerland

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

2 Comments

  1. Jose_X said,

    November 5, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Gravatar

    Some patent machine madness and a possible way forward:

    I was going to mention earlier that if general purpose computers with attached peripherals end up being ruled as legit machines depending on the patent, then would it be acceptable to put the thing together on your own if you own the various components already using them for legal uses? Note that the software itself would not be patentable. [See example here http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/30/bilski-decision/#comment-32129 ]

    One argument is that it would be illegal, ie, the combination would be a patent violation, but then that would seem to mock the idea of a patent since a patent would be granting a monopoly to something whose components would be fairly well understood/unprotected “inventions”.

    One ruling recently said you couldn’t put together two obvious items in combination and get something patentable, but what about 3 or 4? If 1 and 1 obvious leads to obvious, then 1 and 1 and 1 is obvious by induction. Ie, 1 and 1 was shown to be obvious, so now that same 1 and 1 together with another obvious 1 would also be obvious, at least it would once the first two were put together.

    This argument might point to how courts might ultimately rule. A combination of 3 obvious items might be non-obvious if no one could find an intermediate obvious use for 2 of these or if such use would have the addition of the 3rd item be non-obvious.

    The value here is that perhaps existing patents can be shown to be “obvious” if we can break down the invention components into a series of steps, all such steps shown to be obvious constructions from the 2 component parts. This would apply to all patents.

    Patent laws are horrible. They kill growth and cleverness in people for the sake of giving the first person to put that combo together (and file for a patent) a monopoly for 17+ years. Imagine if every person coming up with a mathematical theorem patented it so that no one could leverage that theorem in their own future proofs for 17 years. That would kill mathematics and science and much more as we know it. But why not allow it for mathematical algorithms yet then allow “inventors” to gain that huge anit-social power grant when they make some aspect of the invention physical/machine? Why kill technological advancements? Frequently, it’s actually the abstract ideas/algorithms the ones that require the greatest craftiness. So we don’t allow patenting of the truly difficult for the sake of social advancement in math etc, yet we then allow the patenting of the frequently more obvious physical device inventions [though maybe this won't be allowed in the future if we can show a clear "proof" to the courts as indicated in the earlier paragraphs above].

    Presumably a just reason for granting patent monopolies would be that further advancement along those lines would not be likely in the short term (17 years) and we would want to help subsidize the investments that led to such a discovery/invention. I think this would make some sense for some of the inventions that have been patented over the years. But then this fails horribly for sw patents for the most part (if not in all cases) because the sw industry has shown that basic inventions and inventions supported by past inventions happen frequently — lead to better products for end users frequently. Meanwhile, FOSS has shown these inventions have real value to users/society and to businesses (eg, Red Hat) at *nominal costs* to those contributing to the development.

    A basis for granting any patents should be that it could not be used to restrict products if those products could be shown to be derivable and mass produced at a low investment by those (eg, inventors) taking part. For example, if they came up with the invention pretty much on their own (and can show clear progression of evolution of ideas) and at an affordable cost and could then get it into the hands of users also affordably.

    I think future arguments before the courts (and before Congress, if laws need to be adjusted) should focus on the unaffordability condition and on the lack of a clear recipe understandable by many practitioners as two prerequisites for granting a patent and for validating a granted patent. Perhaps, based on the recipe and cost functions, if a threshold was met and the patent was granted/upheld, a suitable monopoly period and potential royalty conditions would be determined by the PTO/courts ..or perhaps these limits and allowance would only be determined by the courts (not the PTO), once a challenge was filed, in order to help relive the PTO of such burden for each patent granted.

  2. Jose_X said,

    November 5, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    Gravatar

    I added a bit more explanation within a comment titled “Affordability or having been broken into clear recipes should trump patent rights” here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542#comments

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Links 8/12/2021: FreeBSD 12.3, EasyOS 3.1.13, and WordPress 5.9 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  2. [Meme] EU Assurances

    The EPO‘s staff cannot be blamed for losing patience as elected public representatives completely fail to do their job (with few exceptions)



  3. Clare Daly (GUE/NGL) Does What Every Public Official in Europe Should Have Done About EPO Shenanigans

    There’s another (new) push to hold the EPO accountable, seeing that the overseers clearly do not do their job and instead cover up the abuses



  4. Links 7/12/2021: Firefox 96 Beta and Fedora 37 Abandons ARMv7

    Links for the day



  5. Links 7/12/2021: Plasma Mobile Gear 21.12 and Tails 4.25

    Links for the day



  6. All IRC Logs Now Available as GemText Over Gemini Protocol

    Today we've completed the transition from plain text over gemini:// to GemText over gemini:// for IRC logs



  7. IRC Proceedings: Monday, December 06, 2021

    IRC logs for Monday, December 06, 2021



  8. [Meme] Rowing to the Bottom of the Ocean

    The EPO‘s Steve Rowan (VP1) is failing EPO staff and sort of “firing” workers during times of crisis (not at all a crisis to the EPO’s coffers)



  9. EPO Gradually Reduced to 'Fee Collection Agency' Which Eliminates Its Very Own Staff

    Mr. Redundancies and Mr. Cloud are outsourcing EPO jobs to Microsoft and Serco as if the EPO is an American corporation, providing no comfort to long-serving EPO staff



  10. Linux Foundation 2021 Annual Report Made on an Apple Mac Using Proprietary Software

    Yes, you’re reading this correctly. They still reject both “Linux” and “Open Source” (no dogfooding). This annual report is badly compressed; each page of the PDF is, on average, almost a megabyte in size (58.8 MB for a report of this scale is unreasonable and discriminates against people in countries with slow Internet connections); notice how they’re milking the brand in the first page (straight after the cover page, the 1991 ‘creation myth’, ignoring GNU); remember that this foundation is named after a trademark which is not even its own!



  11. Links 7/12/2021: OpenIndiana Hipster 2021.10 and AppStream 0.15

    Links for the day



  12. Microsoft “Defender” Pretender Attacks Random Software That Uses NSIS for installation; “Super Duper Secure Mode” for Edge is a Laugh

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  13. Links 6/12/2021: LibreOffice Maintenance Releases, Firefox 95 Finalised

    Links for the day



  14. “Wintel” “Secure” uEFI Firmware Used to Store Persistent Malware, and Security Theater Boot is Worthless

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  15. No Linux Foundation IRS Disclosures Since 2018

    The publicly-available records or IRS information about the Linux Foundation is suspiciously behind; compared to other organisations with a "tax-exempt" status the Linux Foundation is one year behind already



  16. Jim Zemlin Has Deleted All of His Tweets

    The Linux Foundation‘s Jim Zemlin seems to have become rather publicity-shy (screenshots above are self-explanatory; latest snapshot), but years ago he could not contain his excitement about Microsoft, which he said was "loved" by what it was attacking. Days ago it became apparent that Microsoft’s patent troll is still attacking Linux with patents and Zemlin’s decision to appoint Microsoft as the At-Large Director (in effect bossing Linus Torvalds) at the ‘Linux’ Foundation’s Board of Directors is already backfiring. She not only gets her whole salary from Microsoft but also allegedly protects sexual predators who assault women… by hiring them despite repeated warnings; if the leadership of the ‘Linux’ Foundation protects sexual predators who strangle women (even paying them a salary and giving them management positions), how can the ‘Linux’ Foundation ever claim to represent inclusion and diversity?



  17. Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part IX — Microsoft's Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot Sought to be Arrested One Day After Techrights Article About Him

    Balabhadra (Alex) Graveley has warrant for his arrest, albeit only after a lot of harm and damage had already been done (to multiple people) and Microsoft started paying him



  18. The Committee on Patent Law (PLC) Informed About Overlooked Issues “Which Might Have a Bearing on the Validity of EPO Patents.”

    In a publication circulated or prepared last week the Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO explains a situation never explored in so-called 'media' (the very little that's left of it)



  19. Links 6/12/2021: HowTos and Patents

    Links for the day



  20. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, December 05, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, December 05, 2021



  21. Gemini Space/Protocol: Taking IRC Logs to the Next Level

    Tonight we begin the migration to GemText for our daily IRC logs, having already made them available over gemini://



  22. Links 6/12/2021: Gnuastro 0.16 and Linux 5.16 RC4

    Links for the day



  23. Links 5/12/2021: Touchpad Gestures in XWayland

    Links for the day



  24. Society Needs to Take Back Computing, Data, and Networks

    Why GemText needs to become 'the new HTML' (but remain very simple) in order for cyberspace to be taken away from state-connected and military-funded corporations that spy on people and abuse society at large



  25. [Meme] Meanwhile in Austria...

    With lobbyists-led leadership one might be led to believe that a treaty strictly requiring ratification by the UK is somehow feasible (even if technically and legally it's moot already)



  26. The EPO's Web Site is a Parade of Endless Lies and Celebration of Gross Violations of the Law

    The EPO's noise site (formerly it had a "news" section, but it has not been honest for about a decade) is a torrent of lies, cover-up, and promotion of crimes; maybe the lies are obvious for everybody to see (at least EPO insiders), but nevertheless a rebuttal seems necessary



  27. The Letter EPO Management Does Not Want Applicants to See (or Respond to)

    A letter from the Munich Staff Committee at the EPO highlights the worrying extent of neglect of patent quality under Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos; the management of the EPO did not even bother replying to that letter (instead it was busy outsourcing the EPO to Microsoft)



  28. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, December 04, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, December 04, 2021



  29. EPO-Bribed IAM 'Media' Has Praised Quality, Which Even EPO Staff (Examiners) Does Not Praise

    It's easy to see something is terribly wrong when the people who do the actual work do not agree with the media's praise of their work (a praise motivated by a nefarious, alternate agenda)



  30. Tux Machines is 17.5 Years Old Today

    Tux Machines -- our 'sister site' for GNU/Linux news -- started in 2004. We're soon entering 2022.


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts