4 ms·
I don't think this is a trivial and non-important problem. It is very likely that we a might enter an era of billion dollar, years-long investment to develop t
by robomartin 7y ago
I don't think this is a trivial and non-important problem. It is very likely that we a might enter an era of billion dollar, years-long investment to develop truly capable AI software. The fundamental idea behind patent is to provide inventors with a way to take risks, investing time and money, to develop innovative solutions to problems and have the opportunity to have a return on that investment.
That said, I absolutely abhor nonsense patents, of which there are probably millions at this stage. I don't have a problem with software or the general case for utility patents. I have a huge problem with the apparent incompetence of a system that has been granting patents for things that are not even close to inventions.
One of my favorite examples of this (of the many possible examples) was the rash of patents granted years ago for the use of PWM to control LED intensity in order to use multicolor LED's to mix new colors. These patents were nothing even close to invention. My head exploded when I learned about how this company, Color Kinetics, had been amassing an inventory of related patents. They were then going around suing anyone who dared do anything with LED's. The culmination of this embarrassing episode was that Philips bought them out and pretty much shelved the patents. The patent office did a ton of damage and they are never held accountable for any of it.
The other one that truly angers me is a patent (or series of them, I forget) on a device that uses buttons with pictures to allow people with speech issues to communicate. Yes, a button with a picture of a dog that when you press it emits the sound "dog". F'ck me!
I learned about this when I, at the request of a local school, became interested in authoring a bunch of free iPad apps to help the Special Needs programs. One of the solutions envisioned was an app with icons the teachers could load pictures and sound into. Touch the "food" icon and the iPad says "food". Touch the "bathroom" icon and the device says "bathroom".
Well, our IP search revealed this patent. It also revealed a company (forgot the name) that was making these physical devices with a bunch of pictorial buttons on them. They owned the patents. The devices sold for thousands of dollars each. Thousands. As in $8,000 or thereabouts. This was ridiculous beyond comprehension. And it was only made possible because they were granted patents they should not have been able to even file. As a side thought, these devices were paid for by various insurance, State and federal programs. This means that they made healthcare that much more expensive for everyone else, unnecessarily so.
Anyhow, tough topic. It has exactly zero political value. Nobody in government has any interest in doing the right thing. If it doesn't help them get reelected they won't bother.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago> Anyhow, tough topic. It has exactly zero political value. Nobody in government has any interest in doing the right thing. If it doesn't help them get reelected they won't bother. The Supreme Court seems to be bothering...
- robomartin 7y agoThey should have bothered 50 years ago, before the damage was done. Also, the US Supreme Court does not have the power to structurally modify the way the USPTO works and how patents are evaluated. It stands to reason that the rate of real invention should approach some kind of an asymptotic limit with time. In other words, real invention is far more difficult with time...because we have learned so much already. The example of the LED PWM control patents demonstrates this well. PWM control of, well, everything, had been known, applied and taught in schools for decades before these patents were ever penned. Anyone with an electrical engineering background who read these patent applications would kick the applicants out the door with a "Nice try! Get the hell out of here!". Not the USPTO. They took the money and granted several patents. And with that they caused damage to the industry. The only way further damage to innovation was prevented was when a mega corporation took these criminals out by paying them off. That's just terrible. Our patent system should not create such situations. The damage done to innovation is incalculable.
- robomartin 7y agoAnother example: MIT was granted a patent for a "Series Elastic Actuator" many years ago. The thing was a complete scam. The application should have been rejected outright. I have robots, dating back to the early '80's and before, that use "series elastic" actuators. The idea of inserting an elastic element between a motor and a load to control force and dynamics predates that application by at least a few decades. Yet the USPTO accepted the application and granted it. The world of technology patents is filled with these kinds of "inventions" that should have never been given USPTO protection. Sadly it can cost millions of dollars to do the right thing and invalidate even one of them. Perhaps what should be done is to put in place a free patent challenge process. If you don't have a real invention it should cost you money to defend against people calling you out for filing fake inventions. One of the side effects of this might very well be that people and companies will think twice before engaging in patent application carpet bombing in order to gain a lock on a market based on a non-invention. We all lose when bullshit patents are granted. We all win when patents (software or hardware) cover real invention, because it is likely someone invested real resources and found real insight with which to solve a real problem. They deserve to benefit from their efforts and insight for a reasonable amount of time, after which the new knowledge becomes public.