Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FTC Announces First in Series of Hearings on Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace
The US Federal Trade Commission has announced the
first of a possible series of public hearings to explore the evolving
market for intellectual property (IP). The hearings will be held beginning
on December 5, 2008, in Washington, DC. "The patent system has
experienced significant change since the FTC released its first IP Report
in October 2003, and more changes are under consideration. The courts and
patentees are exploring the full implications of Supreme Court and Federal
Circuit decisions on injunctive relief, patentability, and licensing
issues. Congress has considered sweeping legislative patent reform, and new
debates on the appropriate methods for calculating infringement damages
have engaged the patent community. New business models for buying, selling
and licensing patents have emerged and evolved since 2003. In addition,
there is new learning regarding the operation of the patent system and its
contribution to innovation and competition." (Thanks to David
A. Wheeler)
(Log in to post comments)
FTC Announces First in Series of Hearings on Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace Posted Nov 21, 2008 20:49 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Open any news site, and the winds of change are everywhere. Open lwn.net, and it's the same old stuff. Software patents are still legal. Copyrights enjoy more protection than privacy. How depressing. Is change coming to the digital land?
Change will come only if speak up. Here are some resources that may help you Posted Nov 21, 2008 21:35 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] Change is partly here, with potentially more to come, but these kinds of things take time. The recent Bilski decision began the process to restore balance to the patent laws. This FTC announcement asks the public to tell the FTC what the laws should change to, which is a tacit admission that they might not be working now. To which I say: No kidding; software patents were ALWAYS a bad idea, and the lower courts should never have rewritten the laws to legalize software patents and business method patents.So, if you think software patents are a bad idea, LET THEM KNOW. After all, they're asking for input, so please provide it to them! Here a few URLs that explain why software patents are a terrible idea; if you're trying to explain this to the FTC, these might not be bad places to start:
There are whole sites dedicated to ending software patents, such as:
Obviously, there's no guarantee that they will fix up the patent system. But speaking up is a necessary precondition.
Against Intellectual Monopoly Posted Nov 22, 2008 9:29 UTC (Sat) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] The book Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine makes a good case against all patents. It is also available online.
Against Intellectual Monopoly Posted Nov 24, 2008 23:30 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Thank you very much for this link! An absolute must-read.
Change will come only if speak up. Here are some resources that may help you Posted Nov 24, 2008 22:12 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] And there's the fantastic 2005 review of the USA's patent system by the FTC: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf It's a 315-page review of the whole patent system, but the 153rd to 165th pages of the PDF are about software patents, and it's basically a laundry list of problems they cause. My own bits of info and links are on my software patents page.
NOT NOW? Posted Nov 22, 2008 16:54 UTC (Sat) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link]
wouldn't it be much better to wait until AFTER jan 20 - holding hearings now might result in more pro big business executive orders that will need to be reviewed and over turned.
Big Business doesn't like patents either. Posted Nov 23, 2008 3:56 UTC (Sun) by Ze (subscriber, #54182) [Link]
Big Bussiness has found itself vulnerable to Patent Trolls. The typical way they used to handle patents between themselves was to say if you sued me over patent A , I'll sue you over patent B , this is the Mutually Assured Destruction defence, unfortunately it doesn't work against Patent Trolls because they make no products so thus they can't infringe on any patents.
(Most) Big Business doesn't like patents either? Posted Nov 24, 2008 10:54 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
The biggest proponent of Software Patents inside Microsoft, for example, when I last looked was their head IP lawyer, ie the guy whose departmental empire grows when Microsoft is sued by more patent trolls. If Microsoft keeps someone on board who trumpets a policy which is actively corrosive to their own company's profitability and morale, it must be because they think it's even worse for everyone else in the industry.
(Most) Big Business doesn't like patents either? Posted Nov 24, 2008 14:44 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Isn't it the same in every software company? The only ones in favour of software patents are the legal department.
The last question Posted Nov 27, 2008 20:29 UTC (Thu) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] From February 2005 Questions to USPTO On-LineIt has been nine years since the USPTO updated the Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions ( http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/analysis/computer.html ). Since that time has the USPTO undertaken, commissioned or evaluated any studies on the effects that granting software related patents has had on the progress of science, useful arts and the software industry in general? If no such study has been performed or evaluated, why not? Can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of software related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of science, useful arts and the software industry in general? In a similar vein, can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of business method related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of science, useful arts and industry in general?The questions were again asked via the first post to the Open Source as Prior Art Mailing list which in small part led to the Peer to patent initiative. Also see What anti-software patent advocates want (In answer to Douglas Sorocco) and a paper on software patents.
|
|
||||||||||||