"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fc7uj4-luu.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> [snip]
>
> I was just pondering this recently ... not so much the article itself,
> but more the post subject.
>
> Microsoft is often ridiculed for claiming "innovation", when what they
> actually mean is "marketing". The question is not whether Microsoft
> deserve credit for funding, implementing and marketing others ideas, but
> more about their attempts to claim originality, and their subsequent
> attempts to not only dissociate that idea from its true inventor, but
> also enforce their rights to that plagiarised work with grossly
> ill-conceived American laws.
>
> Article 1, Section 8 of The US constitution vows to "promote the
> Progress of Science and useful Arts" with "exclusive rights" for the
> inventors, but the problem is that the designation of "inventor" rests
> upon arbitrary decisions made by the Patent Office, who's criteria
> seems to be weighed heavily by commerce rather than scientific
> discovery. This does not promote scientific progress, it merely promotes
> greed. In fact I fail to see how any form of "exclusion" can be viewed
> as "promoting progress" ... it's an oxymoron.
>
> So when Microsoft and their ilk claim "innovation", I think they truly
> believe what they say, since by the definition of all that is embodied
> in the "American Dream", they *are* "innovating" ... i.e. they are
> harvesting IP, then restricting access to that technology in order to
> form and strengthen a monopoly, just as the American Constitution
> encourages them to.
>
> By the American definition, that is indeed equatable with "innovation",
> but the problem is that the *definition* is wrong. Innovation is
> conception and discovery, not marketing, but American politics deems all
> things to be grounded in commerce, so such thinking is endemic and
> institutional. They've substituted the concept of "inventor" with
> *investor*; it's a travesty.
>
> The divide that exists between Microsoft and the Free World is one of
> semantics and values. Their dream is our nightmare.
The real core problem with the American Patent system (speaking as someone
who ha patents and trademarks in it) is that the decisions of what is and is
not - and what should and should not be - patentable is made by people
without extensive knowledge in the particular science being patented.
When you have a patent office give a software patent for single click links
on the internet, you know that they simply do not understand the underlying
technology or the obviousness of the supposed "invention". The
obviviousmess (a key requirement of new inventions) factor must be decided
by those in the fields that the technology originates in and the field in
which the new invention is to be used.
For now, you could actually get a usability patent by claiming to use a
screwdriver as a "Shark Defensive Device" by using the screwdriver to stab
the shark in the eye - IF nobody has thought of it before, and they do not
consider the use "obvious". For a real example....a man has obtained a
usability patent on Aspirin because when he fed aspirins to hogs (don't ask
me why he would have done this in the first place - maybe they had
headaches) the hogs grew faster and larger. Although he cannot claim a
patent on Apsirin, he does have the patent on its use to grow hogs faster
and larger. (How he'll stop other from doing this too is beyond me -
probably should have just used it and kept his mouth shut instead of having
it printed in a patent release.)
Patents need to be truly innovative (as in "I never would have thought of
that!" not as in "Wow, that's neat!"). And, before a patent is issued,
there should be a 6 month to 1 year wait for others to submit prior artwork
that would refute the patent-claimant's argument that s/he is the sole
inventor of the item in the patent or that the patent is indeed not obvious.
This alone would dramatically drop the number of patents issued.
Patents are needed. They encourage invention and the advancement of science
and technology. But, they must be held to a higher standard of
non-obviousness by people who actually are schooled and experienced in the
backgrounds and potential uses of the technology.
jim
|
|
