5 ms·

This pledge boils down to "shine light on bad actors", but I doubt it will change any behavior. Only rent-seekers [1] want software patents to exist, and you ca

This pledge boils down to "shine light on bad actors", but I doubt it will change any behavior. Only rent-seekers [1] want software patents to exist, and you can't decrease their reputation any more, it's already 0. The S. Ct. already had their big chance in Bilski to dial back software patentability, and they blew it. Our only hope is Congress. (/me shudders hopelessly) And to anyone suggesting we abolish patents completely: they increase societal utility in many sectors, most notably pharmaceuticals. [1] lawyers and trolls.

guelo 15y ago
I'm not so sure pharmaceuticals are an example of good patents. Most of the patented research is actually paid for by taxpayers through the NIH, and then paid for again by patients through exorbitant prices for 15 years. Then there is the problem of people in the third world dying because of the high prices charged by patent monopolies.
- evgen 15y ago
  The pure research funded by taxpayers via the NIH or university research represents a tiny fraction of the cost of getting a new treatment to market. The patents cover the risk of taking raw research through testing and development stages that can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and still not deliver a viable product at the end of the process.
- pjscott 15y ago
  The patent monopolies are partly there to offset the very high costs of getting FDA approval, which are there in order to ensure safety and efficacy, to prevent people from dying from unsafe pharmaceuticals. And this causes people to be unable to afford drugs that could have kept them from dying, because the prices need to be high to pay for the testing. I'm not sure what the right balance is between caution and cost in FDA drug trials, but I think that the procedure should probably be made less rigorous (and long, and expensive) than it is today.
  - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    The U.S. FDA desperately needs to adopt the EPA's window sticker model. You can market an inefficient car, but it has to have a window sticker that tells the customer exactly what they are getting into.
billswift 15y ago
There is a problem with patent thickets in pharmaceuticals and biotech interfering with innovation, see Carlson's book Biology Is Technology for a good discussion of the problems there. A better alternative for pharmaceuticals may be for whoever puts it through trials to get a patent or license since that is by far the most expensive part for drugs. To an extent that is what has been happening with biotech startups inventing possible pharmaceuticals then their being purchased by large companies that develop them further and run the trials. If you are interested in drug development, http://pipeline.corante.com/ http://pipeline.corante.com/ is an interesting blog to follow.
brlewis 15y ago
How exactly did the Supreme Court blow it? They affirmed the Fed Circuit opinion that said to stop using State Street and Alappat as precedent. Those two rogue court decisions were the only reason we have software patents. Aren't we now back to Benson, Flook and Diehr?
- SoftwarePatent 15y ago
  Bilski is ambiguous. At first the patent bar thought the Fed Cir would interpret it as "business as usual" but the Fed Cir has recently been using it to push back slightly against software patents. It's a terrible outcome because everyone wants a clear line on patentability and the S Ct didn't deliver.
  - brlewis 15y ago
    The line drawn in Benson, Flook and Diehr would be adequate to solve virtually all of today's software patent problems. Shouldn't that be where the line is drawn now? Here's what the Fed Circuit said, and the Supreme Court affirmed it: Therefore, we also conclude that the "useful, concrete and tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply. As a result, those portions of our opinions in State Street and AT&T relying solely on a "useful, concrete and tangible result" analysis should no longer be relied on.
    - SoftwarePatent 15y ago
      I wish you were on the Federal Circuit. A majority of judges on that court don't agree with your reading of the cases.

guelo 15y ago

I'm not so sure pharmaceuticals are an example of good patents. Most of the patented research is actually paid for by taxpayers through the NIH, and then paid for again by patients through exorbitant prices for 15 years. Then there is the problem of people in the third world dying because of the high prices charged by patent monopolies.

evgen 15y ago
The pure research funded by taxpayers via the NIH or university research represents a tiny fraction of the cost of getting a new treatment to market. The patents cover the risk of taking raw research through testing and development stages that can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and still not deliver a viable product at the end of the process.
pjscott 15y ago
The patent monopolies are partly there to offset the very high costs of getting FDA approval, which are there in order to ensure safety and efficacy, to prevent people from dying from unsafe pharmaceuticals. And this causes people to be unable to afford drugs that could have kept them from dying, because the prices need to be high to pay for the testing. I'm not sure what the right balance is between caution and cost in FDA drug trials, but I think that the procedure should probably be made less rigorous (and long, and expensive) than it is today.
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  The U.S. FDA desperately needs to adopt the EPA's window sticker model. You can market an inefficient car, but it has to have a window sticker that tells the customer exactly what they are getting into.

billswift 15y ago

There is a problem with patent thickets in pharmaceuticals and biotech interfering with innovation, see Carlson's book Biology Is Technology for a good discussion of the problems there. A better alternative for pharmaceuticals may be for whoever puts it through trials to get a patent or license since that is by far the most expensive part for drugs. To an extent that is what has been happening with biotech startups inventing possible pharmaceuticals then their being purchased by large companies that develop them further and run the trials. If you are interested in drug development, http://pipeline.corante.com/ http://pipeline.corante.com/ is an interesting blog to follow.

brlewis 15y ago

How exactly did the Supreme Court blow it? They affirmed the Fed Circuit opinion that said to stop using State Street and Alappat as precedent. Those two rogue court decisions were the only reason we have software patents. Aren't we now back to Benson, Flook and Diehr?

SoftwarePatent 15y ago
Bilski is ambiguous. At first the patent bar thought the Fed Cir would interpret it as "business as usual" but the Fed Cir has recently been using it to push back slightly against software patents. It's a terrible outcome because everyone wants a clear line on patentability and the S Ct didn't deliver.
- brlewis 15y ago
  The line drawn in Benson, Flook and Diehr would be adequate to solve virtually all of today's software patent problems. Shouldn't that be where the line is drawn now? Here's what the Fed Circuit said, and the Supreme Court affirmed it: Therefore, we also conclude that the "useful, concrete and tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply. As a result, those portions of our opinions in State Street and AT&T relying solely on a "useful, concrete and tangible result" analysis should no longer be relied on.
  - SoftwarePatent 15y ago
    I wish you were on the Federal Circuit. A majority of judges on that court don't agree with your reading of the cases.