Comments on: Politicos mull action against patent system abusers

Lawmakers continue to consider new rules aimed at discouraging "patent trolls."

[hadaso]

It's not who holds the patent and it's not "quality"

It's not who holds the patent and it's not "quality" of the patent.

The real problem is the word "obvious". Isn't it obvious that ANYTHING can be done with computers? The universality of computers is their defining property. So now we hear that someone sues over "storing and forwarding video". Someone else over "network based telephony". Isn't it obvious that ANY KIND OF DATA can be sent over a digital network?

So perhaps it's not whether it's obvoius or not, but whether there was some effort or investment in determining the details? Amazon spent money on redesigning it's website all those shopping cart icons. Doesn't it deserve a monopoly on "website that sells and does not display a shopping cart"? It was not "obvious" to others that you can design a website that works like a european department store and not like an American supermarket...

The problem is the word "obvious". It should be replaced by something else. Perhaps "straightforward". Perhaps something else. There might be a lot of development work involved in making something happen. It doesn't mean that it innovative in any way, even if no one else has done it before. If it's done in a straightforward way that others trying to do the same thing could have followed, i.e., if it doesn't require any kind of ingenious idea to make it work, it should not be patentable. Even if it's a very complex system. In a complex world you get complex solutions. That doesn't mean they deserve the protection of a monopoly. E.g., sending video over the internet should not be patentable, since it's just sending data over the internet, everyone knows it's possible to send data over the internet, and the rest of it is sorting out the details. On the other hand, a radical new way to reduce the size of the video data being sent might deserve a patent, if it's not just reshuffling of existing compression methods to obtain a slightly better compression ratio. Redesigning an online store to work "without a shoping cart" is just copying the way many brick and mortar establishments work, and since all online commerce is just copying of brick and mortar commerce to the web (using additional functionality that the web obviously makes possible) there's nothing in it that should make it patentable.

[Possibilliam-20000913113191555]

It's about being 1ST (and 1st software should not be "patented")

of course the obvious is sometimes obvious to many people before someone patents a way to do it. What difference does it make if you're the first one to think of something or not? Aren't patents supposed to be about rewarding the first one to come up with a WAY TO DO IT, the first shot at profiting from their innovation? But, this has nothing to do with software.

Software is writing. Unique writing is covered under Copyright and Trademark law. There's nothing patentable about the written word. However, if you "invent" a new language in which to write, now you might want to try for the 'twenty' year or so patented exclusive right to YOUR language and either put out all of your writtings in your new language yourself, or, license others to also write things in your language. `Capishski`?

[hadaso]

It's not who holds the patent and it's not "quality"

It's not who holds the patent and it's not "quality" of the patent.

The real problem is the word "obvious". Isn't it obvious that ANYTHING can be done with computers? The universality of computers is their defining property. So now we hear that someone sues over "storing and forwarding video". Someone else over "network based telephony". Isn't it obvious that ANY KIND OF DATA can be sent over a digital network?

So perhaps it's not whether it's obvoius or not, but whether there was some effort or investment in determining the details? Amazon spent money on redesigning it's website all those shopping cart icons. Doesn't it deserve a monopoly on "website that sells and does not display a shopping cart"? It was not "obvious" to others that you can design a website that works like a european department store and not like an American supermarket...

The problem is the word "obvious". It should be replaced by something else. Perhaps "straightforward". Perhaps something else. There might be a lot of development work involved in making something happen. It doesn't mean that it innovative in any way, even if no one else has done it before. If it's done in a straightforward way that others trying to do the same thing could have followed, i.e., if it doesn't require any kind of ingenious idea to make it work, it should not be patentable. Even if it's a very complex system. In a complex world you get complex solutions. That doesn't mean they deserve the protection of a monopoly. E.g., sending video over the internet should not be patentable, since it's just sending data over the internet, everyone knows it's possible to send data over the internet, and the rest of it is sorting out the details. On the other hand, a radical new way to reduce the size of the video data being sent might deserve a patent, if it's not just reshuffling of existing compression methods to obtain a slightly better compression ratio. Redesigning an online store to work "without a shoping cart" is just copying the way many brick and mortar establishments work, and since all online commerce is just copying of brick and mortar commerce to the web (using additional functionality that the web obviously makes possible) there's nothing in it that should make it patentable.

[Possibilliam-20000913113191555]

It's about being 1ST (and 1st software should not be "patented")

of course the obvious is sometimes obvious to many people before someone patents a way to do it. What difference does it make if you're the first one to think of something or not? Aren't patents supposed to be about rewarding the first one to come up with a WAY TO DO IT, the first shot at profiting from their innovation? But, this has nothing to do with software.

Software is writing. Unique writing is covered under Copyright and Trademark law. There's nothing patentable about the written word. However, if you "invent" a new language in which to write, now you might want to try for the 'twenty' year or so patented exclusive right to YOUR language and either put out all of your writtings in your new language yourself, or, license others to also write things in your language. `Capishski`?

[gggg sssss]

lawyers

what do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

[aabcdefghij987654321]

A small start

n/c

[gggg sssss]

lawyers

what do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

[aabcdefghij987654321]

A small start

n/c

[stevewr]

trolls...aka inventors

All this talk about patent trolls is not what it seems. Rather than promoting the public?s interest these handful of multinational tech firms who continually whine about this are simply looking for ways to legalize theft. They can?t innovate so they steal. Their objective is not to fix the patent system, but kill it. They would rather compete on size alone so they don?t have to worry about the next great invention marginalizing their businesses.

Sadly, some legislators and other parties have been duped by these slick firms and their well greased lawyers, lobbyists (some disguised as trade or public interest groups), and stealth PR firms. Don?t be surprised to find the Washington lobbyist scandal spreading into the patent deform proceedings.

Where do trolls come from? Take a look and you will be enlightened. The game works this way. A lone inventor or small company develops a new technology or process. They take it to a large firm to try to sell it or get it funded. The big company isn?t interested. Guess what? A year or two later to the consternation of the inventor the big company is using the invention they said they weren?t interested in! Surprised? You shouldn?t be. It happens all the time.

At that point the inventor is ticked, but he doesn?t have the money to do anything about it. What does he do? He signs an agreement with an investor who puts up the cash to go after the big company and hold their feet to the fire. So tell me, what in blazes has the inventor or the investor done wrong? Nothing! Rather, by going after these crooks they are defending American ingenuity and progress.

[stevewr]

trolls...aka inventors

All this talk about patent trolls is not what it seems. Rather than promoting the public?s interest these handful of multinational tech firms who continually whine about this are simply looking for ways to legalize theft. They can?t innovate so they steal. Their objective is not to fix the patent system, but kill it. They would rather compete on size alone so they don?t have to worry about the next great invention marginalizing their businesses.

Sadly, some legislators and other parties have been duped by these slick firms and their well greased lawyers, lobbyists (some disguised as trade or public interest groups), and stealth PR firms. Don?t be surprised to find the Washington lobbyist scandal spreading into the patent deform proceedings.

Where do trolls come from? Take a look and you will be enlightened. The game works this way. A lone inventor or small company develops a new technology or process. They take it to a large firm to try to sell it or get it funded. The big company isn?t interested. Guess what? A year or two later to the consternation of the inventor the big company is using the invention they said they weren?t interested in! Surprised? You shouldn?t be. It happens all the time.

At that point the inventor is ticked, but he doesn?t have the money to do anything about it. What does he do? He signs an agreement with an investor who puts up the cash to go after the big company and hold their feet to the fire. So tell me, what in blazes has the inventor or the investor done wrong? Nothing! Rather, by going after these crooks they are defending American ingenuity and progress.