Discussion on:

Time to eliminate patents altogether? Fed paper urges more open innovation

Joe, good to see you and your two faced employer are both clearly agreed that what intellectual property you create - your software is very protected even to the extent of threats of arrests by the FBI against the bold thieves! The proof of same being clear at the very bottom of this web page to wit:

" 2012 CBS Interactive. All rights reserved."

Sometimes I too produce copyright material but when it is a core new construction of an algorithm, circuit, physical part or collection thereof not just the exact or nearly exact words of an incantation it's called (if novel) an INVENTION. Regardless of the words that describe it it works just well.

Seeing how to create novel things is what I do for living and its something ONLY people not companies can do.

Hey though don't get me wrong before our patent system existed, new things were made and the ways of making them like certain samarai, or toledo swords, and certain violins and many other things ARE completely lost to history. They were not patented and the trade secrets died with the makers. Or in some cases where theft or simple rediscovery was made the conflict between parties was settled shall we say in a permanent manner.

Ya, ya no patents the best way to create a new world by the same people who brought you water torture and the final solution.

There is no way that moneybags will invest in innovation without patent protection. But it is also true that the system is rife with corruption and poised for a failed civilization.

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of investing in intellectual property we could find other ways to treasure and sustain our innovators, creators and inventors? Any ideas?

No the patent laws need to go back to the way they were when I was growing up. design plan and prototype. Tired of seeing what we use to call napkin patents when we would get around at the bar draw out crap on a napkin then take to work and do the real engineering. Not the crap that looks like a idea that has be turned into a flow chart. Because any one can patent anything even if the tech does not has not been made to support it. So I could draw out the plan for a nuclear rocket and wate till some figures out how to do it and sue them .get a life

I've posted a couple other times in this conversation talking about my personal experience starting multiple small businesses. Patents kill small businesses. As a business owner who has put his blood and tears into various products, I have learned much to my surprise that what Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg said is true (and I paraphrase) - anyone can come up with a great idea. Great ideas have no value at all. Actually implementing the idea in a way that it's successful is what is hard and valuable.

Is there any reason all patents need to be for 17 years? If a company invests billions in a new drug, is that not more patent worthy than having rounded corners or pinch to zoom? I think the length of the patent ought to be judged on the relevance of the patent and the amount of money or time that went into developing the product.

Who can judge the value of a patent when our patent office can't even tell when an idea is new or not? A few patents (particularly drugs) have had little value at first, then found to enormous use years later.

Reasonable suggestion. The life of a drug patent begins when the formula is submitted for patenting. After that, the FDA eats up a significant amount of the patent life by requiring exhaustive clinical testing. A setback can restart the testing process. Sometimes, the drug is a dead end and useless. When the drug is finally approved the remaining life of the patent can be too short to recover the development and testing costs without jacking the price of the drug up to hundreds or thousands of dollars per dose or treatment.

In this case, I would suggest that the patent protection begins after acceptance by FDA. This gives the drug manufacture enough time to recoup expenses and also continue R&D. The patent can be pending during the test and approval phases to provide IP protection. This could help reduce the cost of treatment.

under your proposed system what's to stop a copycat from pirating your idea and offering IT up to the fda. admittedly, i can see a long testing or re testing period eating up possible gains. hmm.

SHOULD start when the formula or molecule is found. If one waits until the FDA approves the drug - then the whole idea of intellectual property goes out the window. Once the patent runs out then others can copy the formula/molecule and make money off someone elses work. The main reason generics are cheaper is because those creating the generics are just copying a recipe - partaking in the success of others work. The patent process also protects and documents the R&D process so there is a record of what has been tested - what works and what doesnt. The big expense int he R&D process is not just for the one successful formula/ molecule but for the thousands of molecules patented and researched to find the one success. The ratio is something like 10,000 to 1. 10,000 failures to find the 1 success.

Pinch-to-zoom is significantly more important and more useful than an improved hair re-growth medicine, IMHO.

or you wouldn't think that at all.

If you are just shifting reserve ratios, interest rates and allocating value between tiers of capital for a living, perhaps you don't need patents. Especially if you take the electronic marvels you use for granted. If you want to get just about anything new funded, you need patents, copyrights, mineral rights or some form of IP. Why make a movie or write a book if anyone can freely pirate it?
Without patents, everyone would be standing around waiting to be a 'fast follower' and no one would make the risky investments to go first because it would be financial folly. Try the 'dark ages' for an economic model.
Anyone who has raised capital from investors will tell you that investors are critically interested in understanding the IP of any company they invest in.
When talking about getting rid of patents put the words mineral rights, property rights, copyrights, in place of the word patents and you will quickly see just how absurd this nonsense is.

You do not understand patents at all (comparing a copyright to a patent?), nor do you understand what being an innovator, entrepreneur, and inventor is like. I have personally been doing it for years. I HAVE been heavily involved with investors and funding businesses, and it's very different from what you describe. Bankers and investors care little about if you have a patent unless it has been valued at some amount as an asset. Almost every software engineer hates patents because they constantly stop them from innovating and getting to market. Patents are scaring innovators away.

First off, copyrights are not the same as patents and are very different. One helps the IP owner, one hurts them from creating their IP. In most cases, copyrights should be fulfilling the role of a patent. Our copyright laws work. Our patent laws hurt innovators like me.

Why? Because you can't do anything anymore without getting sued. You literally cannot create a product, no matter how innovative, without getting sued for some obscure and vague patent. This is because there's big money in being a patent troll, and our government has let way too many things become patentable that shouldn't be. As a result, there is no way to design certain products without infringing on one patent or another - there are only so many ways to make something functional! So why isn't literally everyone sued who creates a product? Well, everyone is who creates a successful product. It's a fact of business now. The ones who are not successful don't get sued because there's no money to take. From someone who lives it everyday and has owned and currently owns a small business - someone who knows - patents are a hindrance to innovation, innovators, and small businesses. Should they be completely eliminated? I don't know, but definitely heavily, heavily reformed and reduced.

because you are stopped from using another person's idea to create profit for yourself? hmmmm That kinda proves that the patent system is working. Your argument here is self defeating.

The original idea of a patent was to be a reward to creative individuals...kind of like a Medal of Honor.

The inventor was given "breathing room" to move from idea to production before existing producers could simply take the idea and build first. In exchange, the inventor gave up his secrecy and shared the idea with the world.

What it has turned into is an exchange for buying and selling rents, enforced by the power of centralized government.

A patent is the grant of a limited time, legally sanctioned monopoly right to make, use and sell the patented invention. Patents are issued to encourage inventors to invent and to commercialize their inventions by allowing them access to the market at the full price the market will bear rather than at a price tied, by competition, to the cost of production.

If you want to use something I have invented, you can merry well pay me what it's worth or go do it some other way.

well said

The biggest abuse of the patent system by far is in computers, especially software. When US software patents were first allowed in the 1970s, nobody knew how fast the industry would grow, or that a typical program would use dozens of "patentable" ideas. I remember in college when the field was young there were a few "great ideas" in computer science, and everybody knew who invented them. These days there are so many patentable ideas that nobody even knows where they came from or even when you inadvertently use them.

But there are industries which couldn't survive without patents. In the pharmaceutical industry, it typically costs very little to actually produce a drug. By far most of the money goes into R&D and testing. Since the patent starts when the drug molecule is first synthesized, by the time the drug passes the FDA there are only a few years left on the patent. If there were no patents, nobody would ever spend the money to create a new drug.

we still need Patents to preserved an individual(or a company) rights for an Idea.
and allow said individual (or company) to benefit from the investment.
BUT we need to fix the system to stop Patent trolls,
to stop company to buying the patent to prevent its use by others developing a competitive products thus preventing inovation and competition in its purest form.

we need to change the Patent registry process to prevent patents for a obvious or common sense things to be issued.

a patent for form factor should not exist, that is what copyrights are for.
patent for common word use in the name/trademark should not exist (windows, IAnything etc.) especially if a prior use can be established...
for example Apple did not come up with "iAnything" name by them selfs.
Compaq had an "iPaq" long before Apple. so why do Apple gets all the benefits from the Patent to use "i" in front of their products?

Why do we have a patent granted for something that is simply described in so generic terms that it could be applied to anything
If tried hard enough.

Patent MUST be specific. It MUST be proven with a product prototype at the time of application or at least with in a allotted time period (one or two years) should be more than enough to create a reasonable working model.
If not a Prior-Art Certificate could be issued to allow for proper cataloging and establishing a rights sharing condition if applicable.
No patent should be granted for software of any kind

If I want to patent a drug - say a synthetic opioid - for analgesia, could I just submit an asperin tablet as my prototype, claiming that my invention is a little, white, powdery pill that makes you feel better?

once you show your R&D and formulas and such - you will find someone else already holds the patent.

sometimes that is the problem. IF you create a widget XD1 with iron - someone else could copy everything from your patent except make the border .02 CM larger and make it out of bronze (or anything else except iron) and have a new patent all together. That is what patent trolls do. Either take away any sideways innovation from the patent or buy it out as you say. If the patent is bought out then the original creator gets their profit. That is part of what the patent system all about. Protects the creator. If the creator wants to sell the patent - what is it to you? The patent holder could sell patent but ask for royalties on all product sold from patent etc and still get just rewards.

If you make or build a device or parts which could have a military use your respective government as soon as you apply for patent will take it. You will get NO compensation and the threat of a long prison sentence if you ever tell ANYONE about it. This is also the reason that no antigravity or other devices of free power have never been seen.
Even if you get passed this and spend a small fortune on worldwide patents by doing so giving details of your idea or device to china and others. These counties will take no notice of the patent and go into production on a very large scale, and even if you have patent insurance to sue would ignore any court order and tie you up for many years while they sold the device.
The only way is to build the device yourself with finance from family members and close friends. If you cannot build for technical reasons then you have it made for you buy different companies in parts, each builder not knowing what the finished item will be. Each separate part ( one or thousands) is delivered to the address of one of the financers.
When you have all the parts they are taken to a secret factory location that you have setup and assembled. The finished items are not stored at this location but taken to respective financers homes or storage depending on size. This is in case somebody tries to seize or steal the devices. As you know what your invention will do you can now approach the large companies which are able to market it (unless you form your own) show them a sample and tell tem you can deliver x quantity immediately the cash is in your bank. This way you will have a head start on everybody else and nobody will be able to stop device going on sale. Others will make copies but this will take time and you will have made your fortune.
The explanation above is simplified and has to be carefully thought out an tailored to your needs by trusted people.

no anti gravity? Ever hear of Tesla? LOL Sir - if you do as you say - then you would produce yourself right out of a job. someone would grab your idea long before you get close to end of your diatribe. get your patent - put it together - then go on Shark Tank or some other show and get the support from person with money and resource to go the distance. Get someone big who believes in you and they will prevent other govts or entities from stealing yoru idea. Granted there will always be generics whether you are dealing with drugs or Jeans or potato chips, But the brand names will Always make the money every time.

then keep the receipt and carry on-- by the time some one copies you idea you have already made some money and they cant stop you selling even if they patent some thing the same -- if its good then you will make some money if not the you have not wasted your capital getting a patent