5 ms·

The sewing machine patents

19 points by 10ren 18y ago

chaostheory 18y ago
Just to make sure I didn't read it incorrectly - is this the summary? Patent pools can overcome patent trolls, and that there's no need to change the patent system even with the advent of technology such as biotech and software The paper's topic seemed really interesting, but the blog post didn't really give a summary of the paper's major points. all it did was quote three paragraphs from the paper's conclusion
- decode 18y ago
  You can download a PDF of the full paper that is referenced here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 Click "Download" at the top and then click the SSRN link. Doesn't require registration.
- lacker 18y ago
  It's not that there's "no need to change the patent system", it's more that it's been this way for a long time.
dougp 18y ago
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1240849478.shtml http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1240849478.shtml is a better link. The content is really in those 3 links at the bottom. His basic point as I understand it is that there never really was the good old days of the patent system and that it has been broken since long before computers. People have always had to pool patents to make progress.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
natch 18y ago
I went to a talk once where the presenter made the case (very well) that there was just one single patent that enabled Singer to sew up, so to speak, the market. Even more elegant, it came down to just one claim. The claim was for a sewing device in which the thread went through a hole that was positioned near the sharp tip of the needle (unlike on a hand sewing needle, where the hole is on the other end). Simple, and very hard to get around.
- jcl 18y ago
  According to the article, your presenter was wrong. Singer's patent was an improvement on an existing machine that already had an eye-pointed needle (an improvement which had been invented over a century earlier).

19 points by 10ren 18y ago

Just to make sure I didn't read it incorrectly - is this the summary? Patent pools can overcome patent trolls, and that there's no need to change the patent system even with the advent of technology such as biotech and software The paper's topic seemed really interesting, but the blog post didn't really give a summary of the paper's major points. all it did was quote three paragraphs from the paper's conclusion

decode 18y ago
You can download a PDF of the full paper that is referenced here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 Click "Download" at the top and then click the SSRN link. Doesn't require registration.
lacker 18y ago
It's not that there's "no need to change the patent system", it's more that it's been this way for a long time.

dougp 18y ago

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1240849478.shtml http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1240849478.shtml is a better link. The content is really in those 3 links at the bottom. His basic point as I understand it is that there never really was the good old days of the patent system and that it has been broken since long before computers. People have always had to pool patents to make progress.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

natch 18y ago

I went to a talk once where the presenter made the case (very well) that there was just one single patent that enabled Singer to sew up, so to speak, the market. Even more elegant, it came down to just one claim. The claim was for a sewing device in which the thread went through a hole that was positioned near the sharp tip of the needle (unlike on a hand sewing needle, where the hole is on the other end). Simple, and very hard to get around.

jcl 18y ago
According to the article, your presenter was wrong. Singer's patent was an improvement on an existing machine that already had an eye-pointed needle (an improvement which had been invented over a century earlier).