| |||||||||||||
Patently stupidPatently stupidPosted Oct 8, 2012 21:19 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)Parent article: The Patent, Used as a Sword (New York Times) This state of affairs can be seen as good by some people: lawyers, stockholders in large companies, patent office employees and perhaps lawmakers. As long as the set of people that benefit is more powerful (or better organized) than those who stand to lose, the status quo will not change.
(Log in to post comments)
Patently stupid Posted Oct 8, 2012 21:35 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
Absolutely agree. However, the chickens will come home to roost, eventually. Just like building the "prosperity" and "progress" on debt did (well, not quite there yet either, but well on its way).
Patently stupid Posted Oct 8, 2012 21:57 UTC (Mon) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Possibly the thing that changes it will be large chunks of the rest of the world ignoring it, as we already somewhat do with software patents, and gaining a competitive advantage over patent hamstrung US companies. That should focus minds.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 2:52 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] This state of affairs can be seen as good by some people: [...] patent office employees.I think those last are the key. Some years ago, Congress in its infinite wisdom decided that the Patent Office should support itself on patent fees. This is very like a city that supports its police force from traffic-ticket revenue. You don't have to do anything wrong to get skewered.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 16:46 UTC (Tue) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]
Very true, not every essential service can thrive in a free market. I believe it is similar to the health industries. Insurance companies benefit from insuring the healthy and ignoring the sick, thus the need for government enforcements.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 21:16 UTC (Tue) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
I don't understand your point. This is about government-granted monopolies which have totally run out of control. I don't see any connection to the opposite, namely the wild running of companies outside of any regulation.
Patents are over-regaulation at its worst. The total anathema of any free market.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 21:28 UTC (Tue) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]
My point was about the requirement for government funding in certain services that should not be self-funded.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 22:12 UTC (Tue) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
Ah, sorry, that was a comment on dasheshy's comment, where he somehow tried to compare over-regulation to non-regulation.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 22:20 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
This is extremely unclear if this is absolutely true or not.
Unfortunately if it Is true that certain essential services like 'health care' and other tasks can only be properly done by government... then all I can say that we are well and truly screwed because the governments, essentially all governments and especially the USA one, are ran by either evil men and/or incompetent morons. It means that there is no possible solution for the plight we are in right now.
So far, at least in the USA, the best solution they have come up with so far to reduce the price of health care and provide universal coverage is 'Make it illegal not to buy health insurance'. This sort of thing does not fill me with much confidence.
But that is neither here nor there.
The reality is:
The government is destroying technological progress, destroying the profitability of competitive corporations, and strangling innovation through it's use of laws the government says is designed to promote progress, increase profits, and artificially boost the rate of innovation.
There are people in there that ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the problem isn't that the patent system is terrible, but the fact that everybody else in the world is not forced to run under the same system.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 13:26 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"Unfortunately if it Is true that certain essential services like 'health care' and other tasks can only be properly done by government... then all I can say that we are well and truly screwed because the governments, essentially all governments and especially the USA one, are ran by either evil men and/or incompetent morons. It means that there is no possible solution for the plight we are in right now."
Ah, an American. You haven't really travelled much outside the US, have you? Government-run health care works surprisingly well in many countries, though I can only personally vouch for the UK.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 19:02 UTC (Wed) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613) [Link]
I can vouch for Sweden. There are some longish waiting list for some treatments, and the "bed-side-manner" of doctors tend to suck, but no matter what health care you need, you will eventually get it, and you never, ever, have to pay more than SEK 300 (~ €30) for it.
And yes, that includes the € 6'000'000 hearing implant the deaf child needs in order to start hearing. She was on the news as a human interest story recently. The cost was only mentioned in passing, the news wasn't that a girl got an expensive treatment, it was how exalted she was when hearing her mother say her name for the first time.
*That* is what a 32% income tax + 20% VAT buys you...
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 19:05 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
government run healthcare works well enough if you have the option of ignoring it and getting your healthcare someplace that's not govenment run
Patently stupid Posted Oct 11, 2012 10:00 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
That's true in every government-run health service I am aware of -- though of course the government-run health service is much larger than the private ones, so will have more of those rare and difficult cases (and rare equipment) that comes with large scale. This leads to the comical situation in the UK where you pay through the nose to go to a private hospital, and if the problem is really difficult you find yourself being fixed at an NHS specialist hospital because that's the nearest, best (or, sometimes, only) hospital that can fix whatever is wrong with you.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 11, 2012 10:07 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes, and of course you have to pay for public health care even if you are not using it -- you cannot just "ignore it" as dlang suggested. Anyway the price of public health care + private insurance is _much_ lower than paying just for private insurance in places where there is no public service -- and coverage is much better too.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 11, 2012 10:53 UTC (Thu) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
> Yes, and of course you have to pay for public health care even if you are not using it
In Germany at least you can get private health insurance without paying the state organized one. You have to have either private or state organized health care though (or some other options, but that would go too far).
Patently stupid Posted Oct 12, 2012 0:21 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
What happens if you need treatment that your private insurance won't cover?
Patently stupid Posted Oct 12, 2012 3:01 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
you fund it yourself. But you have the option because there are people who will take money to treat you.
In a pure government run system, paying for treatment yourself is not allowed.
That's why I said that government run systems only work when you have the option to not rely on them.
for all that people have been claiming that medical care in the US is a disgrace and behind the rest of the world, when people with money really need treatment, they come to the US to get it (except when the AMA has not blessed the treatment, then the people with money go where the AMA doesn't block new treatments)
This indicates that while the 'health care system' may not be what you want, the medical care available is what you want.
the problem is trying to find a way to solve the problems without loosing the advantages.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 12, 2012 7:58 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Medical care has (strongly) diminishing returns. For a given investment, the return is much higher by investing in those who receive little to no medical care, instead of investing further in those who already have good medical care.
You're saying that in a fully governmental medical system, there's a risk that a few people who get only good care, but could avoid paying out-of-pocket for excellent care, are worse off. Countries with universal healthcare don't typically have any rules prohibiting buying additional care for yourself though, so this is largely a strawman.
I've not seen anyone claim that the medical care available to those with money in USA is a disgrace. The part that is disgraceful is at the other end of the scale.
Universal health care Posted Oct 12, 2012 8:14 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Right. The paradox that nix outlines above is that in countries with universal health care, often it is the public service the one that provides for the most expensive or advanced treatments, while private insurance excels at primary health care.I've not seen anyone claim that the medical care available to those with money in USA is a disgrace. The part that is disgraceful is at the other end of the scale.I have read that the worst part of the spectrum at the USA is not either rich people (who are well cared for) nor poor people (who have Medicaid), but the middle classes.
Universal health care Posted Oct 12, 2012 8:49 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Yes, that's often the case. If you're really poor, you qualify for governmental support in some form, and you're not vulnerable to financial loss because you have essentially nothing to lose anyway.
A lower middle-class person who gets sick with no health-insurance, risks losing the small amount of wealth he has, and to have the income of the family drop to welfare levels. A person with essentially zero wealth, and income which is already at welfare-levels is immune to financial woes of this sort.
According to CNN, medical debt is involved in 60% of the personal bankruptices that occur. I'm guessing that's mainly people who are neither wealthy nor dirt-poor.
Universal health care Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:23 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That is a real shame. I have a brother who received a kidney transplant from the public health care system, and I am aware that my family might have gone bankrupt if it had happened in the US. Having to choose between death and poverty is very sad and a bit dickensian; you need a writer that exposes such a shameful situation to the world, or something.
Universal health care Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:44 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
> If you're really poor, you qualify for governmental support in some form, and you're not vulnerable to financial loss because you have essentially nothing to lose anyway.
You can lose your credit rating! This means you will pay significantly more for any kind of credit for many, many years in the future.
Universal health care Posted Oct 12, 2012 10:18 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
True. But:
A) If you're "really poor", your credit rating is likely to be poor to catastrophic already.
B) It's still a larger loss to loose large fractions of your income, and all of your wealth, and your credit-rating, instead of losing only your credit-rating.
C) If you're "really poor", then there's very few situations where getting credit will help you, it will help short-term, but at a cost of additional pain longer term. The exception is if the short-term cost is for something that gives you additional income longer-term. (say buying a used car, to be able to commute to a new job you got)
Universal health care Posted Oct 13, 2012 0:56 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
The biggest problem for the 'uninsured' is that they get chaged FAR more for the same medical care as someone who is 'insured'
My Insurance gives me a statement for each transaction that shows what the medical provider billed, what the 'negotiated' rate that the Insurance company is actually going to pay based on, and how much of that I owe.
I's very common for the insurance rate to be a 60% or larger discount of the price that an individual would have to pay. I've seen quite a few cases where what the provider accepts as 'payment in full' is a 90% discount off of what they would charge someone without insurance.
And it doesn't matter if the Insurance company is going to pay the bill, or if I am going to have to pay the bill (part of the deductable, past the limit for the year, etc)
If I could pay the same rates that the Insurance companies pay, I would not need to have any insurance beyond a 'catastrophic event' policy that wouldn't kick in without an event over say $10,000
Patently stupid Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:42 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
I asked my question specifically in the context of andresfreund's statement that "In Germany at least you can get private health insurance without paying the state organized one". I would like to know what happens when you opt for private health insurance but then require a treatment that the insurance won't cover (and implicitly that you are unable to afford). The alternative being too horrible to contemplate, I assume that the state steps in and pays for it anyway--in which case, you don't _really_ have the option to go entirely private in the first place. Not that I'm saying that is a bad thing--unless you are loaded then getting ill in the US can bankrupt you at best, and leave you dead and your family bankrupt to boot at worst!
Patently stupid Posted Oct 12, 2012 10:10 UTC (Fri) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
> I would like to know what happens when you opt for private health insurance but then require a treatment that the insurance won't cover
They are required to provide a certain level of care to be allowed to provide the required insurance. There are things the GKV ("Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" - the state organized insurance) provides which the PKVs ("Private Krankenversicherungen" - (partially) profit oriented insurances) don't have to, but I know of none that are life critical. Many of the things not necessarily payed by PKVs are in the somewhat affordable range.
Does that answer the question?
Patently stupid Posted Oct 12, 2012 10:43 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Very informative, thanks :)
Patently stupid Posted Oct 12, 2012 14:23 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Sorry for perpetuating this off-topic thread (remaining relevance to patents: basically nil).In a pure government run system, paying for treatment yourself is not allowed.Are there any such systems in the Western world? I'm not aware of any. For a long time the NHS had a rule that if you augmented NHS treatment with private treatment, you had to get the lot privately. The idea was to ensure a level playing field, but it caused a sufficiently large political storm when the policy came to light that it was revoked shortly afterwards. That's why I said that government run systems only work when you have the option to not rely on them.I don't see how you can come to that conclusion in the absence of any examples of your 'pure government-run systems' in modern economies. You are fighting against a man made not of straw but of vacuum. I might also point out that in the UK at least, most people who can afford private medicine still don't use it because they trust the NHS more. (The NHS is one of the most trusted organizations in the country, certainly far more so than the politicians who are its nominal bosses). In any case, as I mentioned above, particularly serious or complex conditions would probably get bounced to an NHS facility and NHS staff in any case, because only they have the scale to deal with them. The NHS has lots of problems, including perennial shortage of funds, but I don't see how you could say that it only works because of the existence of private facilities. Indeed when the NHS recently tried to rely on private facilities to do some of its more routine surgical work for it, it generally didn't work, with contracts mandating payment for operations whether or not they are ever carried out, a frighteningly high percentage of botched operations, and so forth. (This caused a pretty big scandal and a lot of severely indebted NHS trusts.)
Patently offtopic Posted Oct 12, 2012 22:33 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] To bring back some semblance of relevance to software patents: yes, government-run services can be efficient and work well enough. No, not all government employees (or even politicians) are evil, stupid, greedy or megalomaniacal; many of them just want to do some public good, are hard-working and provide excellent services when allowed to do so.For the two remaining readers let me revisit for a moment drag's nth edition of the libertarian credo: Unfortunately if it Is true that certain essential services like 'health care' and other tasks can only be properly done by government... then all I can say that we are well and truly screwed because the governments, essentially all governments and especially the USA one, are ran by either evil men and/or incompetent morons.The emphasized (by me) sentence is not only untrue, but actively harmful: that there are evil and moronic people in the government should not hide the fact that there are also many hard-working, upright people, and even more important: that evil and moronic people are not a necessary evil. We want good governments, we should fight for them, not give up. I won't tell you how, but there are plenty of obvious solutions; from the easy (voting) to the hardest (devoting your life to politics). The same works for patents: we have fought software patents in Europe successfully before, we should keep doing it (more and better), and spread the word to other not so lucky countries. We have many powerful friends, and we have to fight hard to win. Software patents have done no good to software development, ever; like slavery, half-measures are no good; total abolition is the only way. And now let me roll down my banner and drift away.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 19, 2012 14:32 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
Sorry to dig up such an old thread - I rarely look back at my previous comments, but I have to take issue with this:
"That's true in every government-run health service I am aware of"
This is not a realistic portrayal of the UK NHS. To quote Simon Burns (no, I am no fan of his): "Our latest survey of over 70,000 patients shows that an overwhelming majority - 92% - say that their overall experience of the NHS was good, very good or excellent."
Patently stupid Posted Oct 20, 2012 14:59 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I was trying to say that we have the option of ignoring the NHS and going private if we want to, not that the NHS isn't widely appreciated.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 23, 2012 15:44 UTC (Tue) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
Oh - perhaps I misread your and the parent's comments - do you mean you believe that the existence of a parallel private health care system actually serves to _improve_ the government health system itself?
An interesting view.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 23, 2012 17:41 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
There may be some of that, but I was looking at it from another point of view.
Any health care system that's controlled by a single entity is going to have cases where it fails badly. It may work for many common cases, but if you are in the group that it is failing badly for, you need to have the option of using a different system.
Government run systems are not exceptions to this. They work when people have the option to go elsewhere. If people do not have the option to go elsewhere, you end up with a black market in medical care (or with those with enough money flying to other countries to get care)
In the western world no government has tried to lock things down this tightly, but from stories I've heard In the communist countries things have tended to be far more locked down.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 24, 2012 16:03 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
No, I don't think that. I was arguing against the OP's claim that government healthcare only works if you have the option of taking up private healthcare too, by pointing out that since the converse case (only government healthcare permitted) does not exist anywhere, you cannot argue the point one way or the other.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 11, 2012 12:50 UTC (Thu) by etienne (subscriber, #25256) [Link]
How does it handle the case of these extremely expensive treatments which double your life expectancy when your untreated life expectancy is three months, due to a very bad illness?
Complex and long procedure to get the money? What is the value of one month life?
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 6:13 UTC (Tue) by amtota (guest, #4012) [Link]
I went to a consultation/workshop by the UK government on patents.
At the end of the session, they asked who was in favour or software patents and who was not. The split was about 50/50. Then, on my demand, we separated the responses by trade: the lawyer-types vs IT people.. Then it was more like 90/10 and 10/90. I don't understand why the government was seeing them as being part of the "creative IT industry", when in the vast majority of cases they are just leeching.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 8:39 UTC (Tue) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]
Government is the lawmaker. Since most of the elected members of government have no clue on law, they consult lawyers as experts in subject to form an opinion.
So when a congressperson wonders about IP law, they call an IP lawyer to discuss. Who inevitably will explain how IP law is great, apart for being too lax, and should be extended to cover even more.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 9:31 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That is like asking a fireman about wildfires. I cannot believe the lawmakers are so clueless as to ask a group with such obvious vested interests. Actually I can believe it but it is an amazingly bad idea.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 9:40 UTC (Tue) by kugel (subscriber, #70540) [Link]
Who else would you ask? They are clearly biased, but still have the knowledge about law and you have not.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 12:32 UTC (Tue) by KSteffensen (subscriber, #68295) [Link]
How about asking the people whom the law actually affects on a day to day basis? They must have some knowledge about the law and how to improve it-
Who you know makes a difference. Posted Oct 9, 2012 17:45 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Timothy B. Lee: Social Distance and the Patent System.One has to imagine that if people close to [Judge] Michel—say, a son who was trying to start a software company—were regularly getting hit by frivolous patent lawsuits, he would suddenly take the issue more seriously. But successful software entrepreneurs are a small fraction of the population, and most likely no judges of the Federal Circuit have close relationships with one. In contrast, every judge on the Federal Circuit knows numerous patent attorneys, so they’re well-attuned to the concerns and strongly pro-patent worldview of the patent bar.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 13:11 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] This argument would work for all kinds of laws, since lawyers have the knowledge of the law. However if you are drafting a law to regulate, I don't know, librarians, you don't ask the lawyers; you ask the librarians. Why is "IP" law different? Ask inventors, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the law (at least for patents).In practice, there is no need to ask inventors because of my original argument: the law works well enough for many people, and they are powerful.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 15:28 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
> Ask inventors, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the law (at least for patents).
While this is a common misconception, inventors are not the intended beneficiaries of patent law. Patent law is supposed to benefit the public, by incentivising invention and encouraging inventors to publicize the workings of their inventions. Benefiting inventors is only a side-effect, not the goal.
(How well it accomplishes that goal, and whether the cost in liberty was justifiable in the first place, are debatable; however, that is an argument for another time.)
While inventors may have some input to offer on the effectiveness of any given incentive structure, it is the public which pays the cost of these patent monopolies, ostensibly implemented for their benefit, and which should have the ultimate say regarding both their existence and their form.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 18:36 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] The problem is that almost any group that knows enough to have a well thought-out opinion will be deeply enough involved to be biased. Disinterested experts do sometimes exist, but they're rare on any topic, not just patents. People tend not to form deep, well informed ideas about any topic until they have a strong reason to have them, and the reason is almost always the kind of direct interest in the topic that also introduces bias. The problem that's more specific to patents is that the groups with the loudest voices- the patent office, patent lawyers, and inventors- are almost all on the same side of the issue. Even the big targets of patent trolls, like Google, have something to gain from software patents, because they can be used to shut down potential competitors while they're still small. The people who have the most to lose from software patents are those small players- open source projects, startups, and the like- who don't have their own portfolio that can be used defensively and can be shut out of the market by larger players. Those small players have a hard time making themselves heard, almost by definition.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 20:53 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Change in the patent system will come through empirical, indisputable evidence. E.g. compellingly thorough academic studies (though, exactly why the ones made so far havn't been compelling enough I don't know) of the internal market within a given patent regime, or alternatively by comparison between markets under strong and weak patent regimes. Indeed, the latter might not need a study - competitors from the weak patent regimes might grow to destroy those in the strong patent regimes…
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 5:44 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Indeed, the latter might not need a study - competitors from the weak patent regimes might grow to destroy those in the strong patent regimes… By which time it's too late to fix patents. You can read about chemical industry's involvement with patents in the Against Intellectual Monopoly book. The example is in chapter 9 and the story goes like this:
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 20:58 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] That is like asking a fireman about wildfires. What are you implying here? That firefighters promote wildfires -- which destroy property and often lives -- to retain their jobs? Because although I have re-read your words a number of times I can't see that they can be read any other way. Wrong and offensive conspiracy theory lunacy. LWN used to be better than this.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 22:21 UTC (Tue) by price (subscriber, #59790) [Link]
Rather than reading the comment as suggesting a conspiracy theory (which would indeed be an insane one), I recommend reading it as a confusingly expressed reference to some unknown other thought. As you suggest, that's more like the LWN we know (though a clearly expressed thought would be even more so.)
Perhaps the commenter was thinking of the debate and in-recent-decades shift in practices (in the US and possibly other places) from routinely suppressing all fires in large parks to letting small wildfires burn. Or perhaps something else.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 5:28 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes, you are exactly right: it was a confused analogy, but at the moment (and with a rampaging viral infection) I could not come up with anything better. Instead of fireman I should have said "asking an arsonist about fires" -- firemen have a clear duty to control wildfires, while arsonists profit from fire.But there is a better fire-related analogy in History: Crassus (of the first triumvirate with Cesar and Pompey). Whenever there was a fire in Rome he went with his firemen and offered to buy the burning property for a small amount; then they quickly put out the fire. As the fire progressed he lowered the price and he even let the fire consume the building if there was no agreement. That (and the condemnation of at least one innocent man) was the source of his vast fortune. Asking Crassus about firefighting laws would not have been a very good idea.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 5:48 UTC (Wed) by price (subscriber, #59790) [Link]
> Asking Crassus about firefighting laws would not have been a
> very good idea.
Indeed not. And, as with patents today, one suspects that anyone considering a change in firefighting laws would have heard from him very loudly and clearly.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 11, 2012 10:01 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] most of the elected members of government have no clue on lawWhat? By far the most common profession in both the US and UK legislatures is the law.
Government consultation Posted Oct 9, 2012 15:04 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] With regard to the patent/legal profession leeching from the people who actually create the wealth, I pointed this out to one of my MEPs very recently, noting that the patent/legal profession has nothing to lose through advocating the expansion of patents. Are any of these people out of pocket if the patents aren't upheld or are bad? Of course, not: it's all "win" and money in the bank. When someone has nothing to lose and can only profit from policy, the sensible thing is to stop asking them for advice about policy and to start asking the groups who actually stand to lose. Otherwise, the result is blatant profiteering, bordering on the corruption of the legislature. Interestingly, when lawmakers were pushing for software patents in the EU back in 2004 or so, the MEP I contacted previously gave a vague example of how patents on software helped an unnamed company license their "intellectual property" on the very topic of voice recognition. Maybe I should draw their attention to this article. Either way, I recommend that European voters contact their MEPs soon: once again, potentially damaging patent legislation masquerading as "reform" is being drafted, and the risk is that catastrophic self-regulation will be imposed in Europe without even the level of judicial and political scrutiny it has in the USA.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 22:03 UTC (Tue) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
Why would they be in favour of software patents? UK law forbids patents on math; and software is math, provable. Why do they think math should be patentable?
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 10:22 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Pure software isn't patentable in any country signed up to the European Patent Convention. However, many European countries still issue patents on software, apparently because software running on a machine is *not* pure software anymore. Certainly, the UK issues software patents - just have a read through any random issue of the UKIPO journal.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 18:48 UTC (Wed) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613) [Link]
The patent offices in the entire European union *issues* software patents, but so far only courts in Germany, and to a limited extent the United Kingdom, *upholds* them.
In the rest of the Union, the courts summarily find the patents invalid, as software patents don't meet the legal definition of a patent. Of course the patent trolls know this, and only sues corporations that do business in either Germany or the United Kingdoms...
Patently stupid Posted Oct 9, 2012 23:19 UTC (Tue) by Nelson (subscriber, #21712) [Link] Stock holders in small companies tend to like them too. It comes and goes in waves but if you're selling your startup and you've come up with a value and a price, add $1million per patent to that. I'm going to say that patent holders in general don't mind them. I don't particularly mind inventors getting some credit.What are some intelligent ways to start fixing things? These conversations always fail for 2 reasons, 1) the anti-patent folks are only in favor of abolishment and 2) the patent holders see patents as actual property, abolishion would be like the government just taking their property away. In the US, a civil war as fought over one group taking another's perceived property away. There are examples of trolls and there are also examples of companies basically getting going because of some patents. Open up the review process somehow? Maybe start screwing with the length? Perhaps something that requires a product to be marketed? Perhaps some sort of regulation about licensing patents if you hold a certain number of them? What are some intelligent ways to tune the system up? Personally, I'm against trolls and I think if your product is free in cost there are certain classes of patents that you should be able to use, gratis. Seems like that becomes cloudy when your a big service company using free software but that could be worked through. I'd be in favor of some regulations regarding licensing. All these patents are public domain knowledge too... when you patent something, you tell the world how to do it, that's actually useful... Let us not forget SCO, when they pulled their stunt, what move was taken immediately to provide counter leverage? IBM produced a fairly small set of patents which SCO was using and made it clear that SCO were going to have to do somethings some different ways. Sucks to be SCO but without IBM's foot on their neck, things could have turned out differently or taken longer.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 4:26 UTC (Wed) by price (subscriber, #59790) [Link]
> if you're selling your startup and you've come up with a value
> and a price, add $1million per patent to that.
And subtract $10 million per patent held by large companies who have never actually delivered what the patent describes. Bear in mind too that such a patent need only arguably read on your startup's work, and it doesn't matter if there's prior art that ought in principle to invalidate the patent -- litigation is too expensive for you, it can be risky even for an acquirer, and for both reasons a potential acquirer will knock down what they offer you.
So by no means is the patent system uniformly pro-small-company either. Even if it ekes out a few bucks more for some startups at exit, it just as easily devastates the hard-won value of others. I think on balance it remains quite bad for software startups, just as it is for free software and even for big companies' efforts to innovate.
> the patent holders see patents as actual property, abolition would
Interesting analogy. Can this economy endure half patented and half free?
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 6:05 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Thanks for proving Nelson's point. > if you're selling your startup and you've come up with a value Sorry, but no. If you sell your startup at early enough stage for $1 million in capitalization to have significant meaning then it's obviously small enough not to trigger scrutiny of large players. So these mythical "$10 million per patent" will not materialize and thus patens are pure win for you. Sure, later, when startup will grow it'll inevitably hit the patent landmines, but this will happen later. Bear in mind too that such a patent need only arguably read on your startup's work, and it doesn't matter if there's prior art that ought in principle to invalidate the patent -- litigation is too expensive for you, it can be risky even for an acquirer, and for both reasons a potential acquirer will knock down what they offer you. Only if you'll be foolish enough to try to sell your startup to that some "large company". So by no means is the patent system uniformly pro-small-company either. This is not about pro-small-company or against-small-company. This is about local or global optimum. Sure, global optimum may be in a system where patents don't exist. But if they will be abandoned right now, today then many small companies (who already spent time and money getting patents) will be at disadvantage. So why should they support some change which will make their own life worse? Some abstract benefits in the future are not something you can put on your bread loaf today.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 6:34 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Any halfway competent due diligence will find those land mines and bake them into the purchase price. No investor wants to be on the hook for endless lawsuits or useless, patent-encrusted technology.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 7:12 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Sorry, but no. As someone who've seen the process from the inside (I never sold a startup but I participated as an expert in talks) I can attest that investors rarely conduct a patent search. It's just way, way, WAY too expensive.They know there are lots of patents out there and they consider the hypothetical possibility of these landmines, but they have no way to get an accurate measures. And if you have patents of your own for the technology you've developed then the risk is largely mitigated: if your technology is covered by both your patent and someone's else patent then it's very hard to prove that you have no right to use this technology even if that other patent was granted earlier. Patents may be a drag for the economy as whole but they sure are a win for each particular participant. Tragedy of commons and all that. And startups who are trying to do things for the common good first and for their own good second don't usually reach the sale stage at all.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 14:13 UTC (Wed) by price (subscriber, #59790) [Link]
It sounds like you, or anyway the startup(s) you've known, have been fortunate. All I can say is: it doesn't always work out that way. NB that the scrutiny of the large player or the large player being at all involved isn't required -- only the potential acquirers need to know about the patent.
I believe that *some* small-company shareholders come out modestly pleased with what the patent system did for their pocketbooks, but there are others who come out quite displeased. And I suspect that in net, if you're involved in an early-stage startup and don't yet know how those dice will fall, your expected value from the patent system is negative.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 14:00 UTC (Wed) by Nelson (subscriber, #21712) [Link] Has anyone ever legally attacked a patent holder to invalidate their patents? I don't even know if a court would hear it. Simply owning the patent doesn't put you in to legal fights, in fact it may keep you out of them.If you buy a batch that might be invalid or something, you're not on the hook for legal fights until you pick one. Unless someone can remember a case, I only remember the patent holder projecting their patent into a court room. Subsequently, I would bet money that you could take that batch of possibly bad patents and enter in to pretty far reaching and broad cross-licensing agreements with a lot of other patent holders. Which is very normal, very common and not nearly as news worthy as when Samsung and Apple battle. I'm not a pro-patent shill, I don't want to sound that way but there is a lot more at play. When you buy a company and there might be patents covering their technology but they have their own patents, it's a radically better deal than buying one without patents; you'll simply attempt to enter in to cross-licensing agreements with the other patent holders and continue doing your business. That's why they pay the premiums for the patents, even if they might be invalid.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 14:20 UTC (Wed) by price (subscriber, #59790) [Link]
I think you missed what bronson is referring to -- he means that a potential acquirer will find out about patents a large company holds and might use to attack them if they acquire you (or your own company if they don't.) khim had asserted that they would never find out, which unfortunately isn't true. In the event they do learn of such a patent, they are likely to pay substantially less for the company.
You're right that patents held by the company to be acquired are unlikely to reduce its purchase price, and can augment it.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 5:36 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] IMHO abolition is the only way to go, so we should go for that. I fear that this will not happen as long as people are willing to make compromises. Software patents are a threat to free software and an impediment to software development.All these patents are public domain knowledge too... when you patent something, you tell the world how to do it, that's actually useful...It would be interesting if you could name one example of a software patent that says something useful to the world, and which had not been published independently.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 7:16 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It would be interesting if you could name one example of a software patent that says something useful to the world, and which had not been published independently. This will be useful, sure, but this is not how system is supposed to work and this is not how it works. Usually you publish your achievement in some easy-to-digest form (article in a magazine, software manuals, detailed plans and blueprints, etc) and in a patent form. Noone is supposed to even read the patent (till they will want to prove it's invalid, that is) because it exists solely to protect discovery which is explained in the other piece of work. There are tons of works which were done this way.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 11:40 UTC (Wed) by krake (subscriber, #55996) [Link]
"What are some intelligent ways to start fixing things?"
I think one thing that would at least mostly address the troll problem would be to make patents not transferable.
And maybe limit enforcement of patents to those the patent holder is actually using in at least one of its own products.
Patently stupid Posted Oct 10, 2012 13:59 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
And with that begins the long discussion about tweaking the system that leads absolutely nowhere. That's why abolition is worth aiming for.
And as for the remark about IBM using patents against SCO and the implication that this was a good thing, I regarded this as extremely distasteful at the time and continue to do so. Asserting patents against SCO had nothing to do with the subject of the lawsuit nor added any legitimacy to the eventual outcome.
Unlike all the people punching the air and cheering on IBM unconditionally, that incident leaves a bitter taste behind. It may be human nature to pick a "good guy" and then accept poor behaviour from them if it works in your favour, but the euphoria lasts only until the "good guy" tries the same stunt against you or a cause you care about.
|
|||||||||||||