4 ms·

Really, we should be free to invent. Option B should be that if an inventor can show a clean history of evolving an idea, it should be allowed to freely enter

by jonmc12 15y ago

Really, we should be free to invent. Option B should be that if an inventor can show a clean history of evolving an idea, it should be allowed to freely enter the market. Ideas evolve over time, and the originate from something. Perhaps if inventors were willing to register their invention documents through a set of steps mapping to something like the Technology Readiness Level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level), then they could be eligible for immunity against patent based litigation. But lets say this certified patent wants to protect its IP on the market through litigation. In this case, the inventor could first request certification of the invention in question before any further legal action occurred. If we could create a certification process that is less than $2000 or so (about the cost of a provisional patent including attorney fees), it seems feasible. This system would seek to encourage a regulated invention process that filters new inventions from even being eligible for litigation. This allows for inventor insurance in a sense - keeping a capped cost for protecting certifiably original ideas while encouraging original invention and discouraging the incentive behind patent lawsuits.

Cushman 15y ago
I love the idea of a "show your work" patent system, but could it possibly work in real life? Does anyone do anything like this currently?
- saulrh 15y ago
  Scientists do something similar, in that they have to log absolutely everything they do and publish the important parts. Biologists and psychologists are even more on the hook, since they have to demonstrate compliance with experimental ethics regulations. It's a bureaucratic hassle, but it works pretty well.
- DaniFong 15y ago
  While you're right that there are some practical issues with this sort of system, one should also recognize that the patent system doesn't current scale well either. You have to check the claims against every publication in existence. Since this isn't possible, this ultimately has to be fought out in court -- yet a granted patent still carries with it a presumption that the patent rights should be upheld. One could, however, have a system where if two separate teams file patents before either are published, they should not have to license it.
- AppSec 15y ago
  It actually doesn't work, since the only thing required for a patent is the ability for it to be executed. The patent applicant doesn't need to be the one doing it or need to be working with it. All the applicant needs is the knowledge that an expert in the industry believes it can be implemented.
extension 15y ago
1) What stops me from "cleanly inventing" something that is already patented? There's no way to prove that I derived my work from the patent. 2) How do I know which things need to be certified as inventions? Software patents are so vague that even simple applications can infringe hundreds of them. iOS apps are being sued just for having in-app upgrades. 3) Anything that requires more beurocracy or litigation is only going to make things worse because small players can't even afford to make use of the system, especially when they are fighting against dedicated full-time lawyers. The only alternative to solving that underlying problem is eliminating the ways it can be exploited.
- jonmc12 15y ago
  1) Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc. Disclose all sources of information involved during the various phases of invention - specifically reviewing hard drives, mobile and other storage. The inventor should take care to keep logs of all research. In original invention, the trail from research to the idea should be evident if it meets the right patterns - I'm not sure exactly what these patterns would be, but I do think there is a definition that is meaningful enough to considerably aid the situation. 2) Eligible inventions would include anything that a customer pays for - as in the exchange of value designates the scope of invention from a patent enforcement perspective. From a patent defense perspective, as long as the invention logs show no use of another patent (when the attacking inventor requests certification at their own expense). This would also focus invention on creation of value instead of creation of legal IP. 3) I disagree, this proposal is an attempt to let people opt out of a broken system by certifying invention through at least one adopted methodology of original design. Again, think of it like buying insurance - every complex industry requires some sort of overhead to deal with subjective enforcement of laws. The capping of costs reduces the average overhead so much vs the current system where anyone who succeeds in the market pays a big, unpredictable legal tax.
  - foobarbazoo 15y ago
    "Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc." Seriously? Who the fuck has time...

by jonmc12 15y ago

Cushman 15y ago

I love the idea of a "show your work" patent system, but could it possibly work in real life? Does anyone do anything like this currently?

saulrh 15y ago
Scientists do something similar, in that they have to log absolutely everything they do and publish the important parts. Biologists and psychologists are even more on the hook, since they have to demonstrate compliance with experimental ethics regulations. It's a bureaucratic hassle, but it works pretty well.
DaniFong 15y ago
While you're right that there are some practical issues with this sort of system, one should also recognize that the patent system doesn't current scale well either. You have to check the claims against every publication in existence. Since this isn't possible, this ultimately has to be fought out in court -- yet a granted patent still carries with it a presumption that the patent rights should be upheld. One could, however, have a system where if two separate teams file patents before either are published, they should not have to license it.
AppSec 15y ago
It actually doesn't work, since the only thing required for a patent is the ability for it to be executed. The patent applicant doesn't need to be the one doing it or need to be working with it. All the applicant needs is the knowledge that an expert in the industry believes it can be implemented.

extension 15y ago

1) What stops me from "cleanly inventing" something that is already patented? There's no way to prove that I derived my work from the patent. 2) How do I know which things need to be certified as inventions? Software patents are so vague that even simple applications can infringe hundreds of them. iOS apps are being sued just for having in-app upgrades. 3) Anything that requires more beurocracy or litigation is only going to make things worse because small players can't even afford to make use of the system, especially when they are fighting against dedicated full-time lawyers. The only alternative to solving that underlying problem is eliminating the ways it can be exploited.

jonmc12 15y ago
1) Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc. Disclose all sources of information involved during the various phases of invention - specifically reviewing hard drives, mobile and other storage. The inventor should take care to keep logs of all research. In original invention, the trail from research to the idea should be evident if it meets the right patterns - I'm not sure exactly what these patterns would be, but I do think there is a definition that is meaningful enough to considerably aid the situation. 2) Eligible inventions would include anything that a customer pays for - as in the exchange of value designates the scope of invention from a patent enforcement perspective. From a patent defense perspective, as long as the invention logs show no use of another patent (when the attacking inventor requests certification at their own expense). This would also focus invention on creation of value instead of creation of legal IP. 3) I disagree, this proposal is an attempt to let people opt out of a broken system by certifying invention through at least one adopted methodology of original design. Again, think of it like buying insurance - every complex industry requires some sort of overhead to deal with subjective enforcement of laws. The capping of costs reduces the average overhead so much vs the current system where anyone who succeeds in the market pays a big, unpredictable legal tax.
- foobarbazoo 15y ago
  "Keep logs of any and all materials read, communications, etc." Seriously? Who the fuck has time...