3 ms·

Why is it misleading? Patents on basic interfaces of early cars still would have fragmented the industry. Furthermore, the temporary period of 20 years is an et

Why is it misleading? Patents on basic interfaces of early cars still would have fragmented the industry. Furthermore, the temporary period of 20 years is an eternity in the tech world. In my opinion, a 20 year tech patent is roughly as bad as a 100 year automotive patent.

brudgers 14y ago
It is misleading because the counterfactual premise is that patents are of great duration, i.e. that Honda would be bound by patents covering steering wheels or brake pedals. However, the premise of the article's argument is that items such as steering wheels for automobiles are unpatentable or are not commonly patentable. Here are 2300+ patents with "steering wheel" in the title: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=steering+wheel&FIELD1=TI&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PALL http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...
- talmand 14y ago
  But if patents worked then as software patents do now there would be fewer of those patents, quite a bit I would imagine. Because they would have claimed ownership of the method of controlling the direction of the vehicle with no example of how it actually works. Therefore no one could take the first patent and improve on it, or in other words innovate. The first patent would own the outcome. "Yes, I understand that my steering wheel is 'round' and your wheel is 'square' with a completely different mechanical system involved. But I own the patent for steering moving objects, so go away."
  - brudgers 14y ago
    Benz patented a three wheeled car with a tiller. The Ford Model T came out more than 20 years later. You can read about the differences between it's controls and those of contemporary automobiles here: http://www.scvmtfc.org/drivingmodelt.pdf http://www.scvmtfc.org/drivingmodelt.pdf Maybe this time the rules are different and innovation won't occur over the long term. But I wouldn't bet on it.
    - talmand 14y ago
      I'm not sure if I understand your comment fully as it relates to mine so I could be going off in the wrong direction with this, but here we go anyway... I don't think that's a fair comparison. As our technological ability increases then amount of time for innovation and creation decreases. I'm not surprised at the lag of innovation from your Benz to Ford example as part of the issue would have been manufacturing capabilities as well as the economy of the time. I'm not surprised at all that in modern times we get better capable phones about every six months. But for your example. If Benz received a patent for steering a moving vehicle by means of a tiller I would have disagreed with that since all they did was take the idea from a boat. But what I'm describing is if Benz did get such a patent in a manner of today's software patents then Ford would not have been able to use a steering wheel on his Model T without licensing from Benz for their patent on "method to control the direction of a moving object" that failed to describe how that method actually worked. Well, assuming said patent lasted long enough to be an issue for Ford. In general I have no problem with the idea of software patents, as long as they show exactly how it works including code and why it is unique enough to deserve protection.
      - brudgers 14y ago
        Your premise that the pace of technological change is more significant today compared to 100 years ago is not supported by objective data. Furthermore, the differences between contemporary automotive controls and those used by Benz and Ford illustrate just how far today's mobile interfaces probably are from the stable standards of the future - i.e. pinch to zoom may be an improvement on PalmOS, but still equivalent to the Model T's reverse pedal or hand throttle. The premise that Apple's patents are technologically significant to the point that their enforcement is holding back innovation is ludicrous. Android's interface is the antithesis of innovation - that's the basis of Samsung's prior art defense. Having recently used a feature phone to talk to my father because the minutes were about to expire, I question the premise that new generations of smartphones are better as telephones. After several years of smartphones, talking on the feature phone was a far more pleasant experience. It was light weight, and I didn't have a piece of glass up against my cheek for an hour while I talked.

brudgers 14y ago

It is misleading because the counterfactual premise is that patents are of great duration, i.e. that Honda would be bound by patents covering steering wheels or brake pedals. However, the premise of the article's argument is that items such as steering wheels for automobiles are unpatentable or are not commonly patentable. Here are 2300+ patents with "steering wheel" in the title: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=steering+wheel&FIELD1=TI&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PALL http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...

talmand 14y ago
But if patents worked then as software patents do now there would be fewer of those patents, quite a bit I would imagine. Because they would have claimed ownership of the method of controlling the direction of the vehicle with no example of how it actually works. Therefore no one could take the first patent and improve on it, or in other words innovate. The first patent would own the outcome. "Yes, I understand that my steering wheel is 'round' and your wheel is 'square' with a completely different mechanical system involved. But I own the patent for steering moving objects, so go away."
- brudgers 14y ago
  Benz patented a three wheeled car with a tiller. The Ford Model T came out more than 20 years later. You can read about the differences between it's controls and those of contemporary automobiles here: http://www.scvmtfc.org/drivingmodelt.pdf http://www.scvmtfc.org/drivingmodelt.pdf Maybe this time the rules are different and innovation won't occur over the long term. But I wouldn't bet on it.
  - talmand 14y ago
    I'm not sure if I understand your comment fully as it relates to mine so I could be going off in the wrong direction with this, but here we go anyway... I don't think that's a fair comparison. As our technological ability increases then amount of time for innovation and creation decreases. I'm not surprised at the lag of innovation from your Benz to Ford example as part of the issue would have been manufacturing capabilities as well as the economy of the time. I'm not surprised at all that in modern times we get better capable phones about every six months. But for your example. If Benz received a patent for steering a moving vehicle by means of a tiller I would have disagreed with that since all they did was take the idea from a boat. But what I'm describing is if Benz did get such a patent in a manner of today's software patents then Ford would not have been able to use a steering wheel on his Model T without licensing from Benz for their patent on "method to control the direction of a moving object" that failed to describe how that method actually worked. Well, assuming said patent lasted long enough to be an issue for Ford. In general I have no problem with the idea of software patents, as long as they show exactly how it works including code and why it is unique enough to deserve protection.
    - brudgers 14y ago
      Your premise that the pace of technological change is more significant today compared to 100 years ago is not supported by objective data. Furthermore, the differences between contemporary automotive controls and those used by Benz and Ford illustrate just how far today's mobile interfaces probably are from the stable standards of the future - i.e. pinch to zoom may be an improvement on PalmOS, but still equivalent to the Model T's reverse pedal or hand throttle. The premise that Apple's patents are technologically significant to the point that their enforcement is holding back innovation is ludicrous. Android's interface is the antithesis of innovation - that's the basis of Samsung's prior art defense. Having recently used a feature phone to talk to my father because the minutes were about to expire, I question the premise that new generations of smartphones are better as telephones. After several years of smartphones, talking on the feature phone was a far more pleasant experience. It was light weight, and I didn't have a piece of glass up against my cheek for an hour while I talked.