From: phil osborn (philosborn@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 26 1999 - 21:52:30 MST
>From: Ken Clements <Ken@Innovation-On-Demand.com>
>Subject: Re: Patents
>Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 18:58:57 -0800
>
>Sasha Chislenko wrote:
>
> > Now, what if you publish something
> > in a limited edition, or create a system incorporating the technology
> > and make sure you'll be able to prove later its status as "prior art"?
> > That would give you protection from other people's patents later
> > (though not a monopoly guaranteed by your own patent), while not
> > disclosing anything too early.
>
>In the old U.S. system, yes, but now we are going to a world patent system
>in which you do not have to invent something first, you just need to be the
>first to file a patent application for an undisclosed idea. So now, proof
>that you thought of it long ago does you no good. If you publish in a very
>limited way, the courts may rule that the idea was not accessible to the
>public, so the other guy's patent would stand. In any case, the patent
>office will not be aware of your work, so they will issue the patent, and
>you have an up hill path from there.
>
>-Ken
>
I have spoken publicly and in print on this issue for many years. For a
long time, I was a champion of intellectual property as it stood, ignoring
the clear problems in favor of focussing on the results of a lack of
protection for ideas. Now I am leaning the other way. I still believe that
intellectual property is a viable concept, but not as supported by the
current patent/copyright framework.
For example, as I have mentioned before, the radio/electronics industry, in
the 1920's began a competition to grab all the possible patents. Hundreds
of engineers were hired to design every conceivable circuit, on the
assumption that some of them would turn out to by actually useful and make
money on the royalties. Meanwhile, the independent inventor had to worrry
about violating 50 patents with every thing he produced, and when the
patents ran out, as they did 17 years later, no one could maintain any
intellectual property in the original idea, even if it had simply been
shelved or used to freeze out competition for the entire period.
At the same time, truly independent creative geniuses, like Farnsworth, the
inventor of television, found themselves unable under the current system to
succesfully defend their intellectual property against corporate legal
teams. (Farnsworth was legally vindicated finally, but by then his patent
had almost run out and he never made a penny off it.)
I.e., the currrent system is not working very well at all and has not worked
well in the past. If fact, I think it likely that Microsoft's next move -
more likely, their current behind the scenes move - will be to directly or
indirectly via other companies owned or controlled by Microsoft patent key
software technologies that will be predictably needed by Linux or any other
possible contender. This is merely an extension of their ongoing practices,
such as buying up innovative companies and gutting them, using only such
pieces as fit their currrent needs. Thus, no matter what happens to
Microsoft itself, Gates will end up running the show - under the current
system...
My short-to-intermediate term answer is to suggest establishing a public
idea registry and invite all those people who have really cool ideas for
which they can't find a backer or don't have the time to implement to log on
and publish to the world! Then let MS or anyone else try to patent them. I
think this would be a worthwhile project for Extropians.
Think of all the neat concepts that might flow in, and then, if the thing
worked reasonably well in attracting patentable ideas, it could snowball, as
the companies working in various domains, and the patent lawyers, etc.,
would all have to start checking that site before proceeding with developing
something with the idea of patenting it. (Next, they would probably start
contacting the innovators and offering them money to go to them first - next
time.)
This could shortcircuit the entire MicroSoft strategy in and of itself.
However, there are further possibilities....
Assume for a moment that we plan on making intellectual property agreements
part of a universal contract. Not a contract backed by state courts and
police, but a purely market mechanism backed only by the possibility of
higher access costs or outlawry on the net and all the people and companies
who would be signatories. I will let the reader think about that one before
I proceed. (and now all the Mensans can leap into the foray and explain why
it can't work - like they told me that a universal worldwide electronic
information system couldn't work 20 years ago.) ;)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:12 MST