7 ms·

White House poised to name patent reform opponent as new head of Patent Office

96 points by rosser 12y ago

tzs 12y ago
Misleading reporting. What he is an opponent of is bad patent reform. What people in software often forget is that patent trolls are almost always using software patents or business method patents. In industries whose patents are not on software or business methods, trolling activity is very low. The patent system in those industries generally is working reasonably well. The major players in those industries are not opposed to reform to deal with the troll problem, but they want it to be aimed narrowly so as to not disturb things in their industries.
- hyperpape 12y ago
  You call it misleading reporting, but don't actually explain what was bad about the legislation he's opposed or how it could hurt industries where the patent system works. Not saying you're wrong, because I don't know the guy's work, but you haven't actually said anything to convince me.
  - tzs 12y ago
    Here's what he submitted to Congress: http://www.patentsmatter.com/issue/pdfs/JohnsonSenateJudiciaryCommitteeStatement20131217.pdf http://www.patentsmatter.com/issue/pdfs/JohnsonSenateJudicia...
- 001sky 12y ago
  "The major players in those industries are not opposed to reform ... but they want it to be aimed narrowly so as to not disturb things in their industries." Non-disturbance of the status quo? I'm sure there is a more original definition of "regulatory capture" somewhere, but this is pretty good starting point. What about Patents in healthcare, drugs, science, universities...there are loads of things where the public is paying money to finance artificial mini-monopolies, especially ones extended beyond their initial term by gaming the current system in various ways.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  Jeff John Roberts is up there with binarybits, techdirt and Joe Mullin (arstechnica) when it comes to misleading reporting on patents.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Sorry, but my experience working on reform for seven years tells me you are simply wrong. They want zero change. They see anything as a threat. Narrow targeting does not being them on board because they don't want to be narrowly targeted themselves in the future
- rayiner 12y ago
  Here's a neat chart describing various patent reform/anti-reform groups: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5661526/grocery-stores-really-want-patent-reform-pharma-really-doesnt http://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5661526/grocery-stores-really-w.... I think very few companies oppose, in principle, shutting down trolls.[1] What they're worried about is collateral damage. Microsoft or IBM don't really care about bond requirements or loser pays, because the cost of patent litigation is a drop in the bucket to them. They do care, however, about measures to make software unpatentable. Companies like Qualcomm have don't just rely on patents on technologies implemented in an ASIC, but also on patents on technologies implemented in software on the baseband processor. Making software unpatentable also raises questions about whether those same algorithms would be unpatentable if implemented in hardware. That said, I think in practice the ideological spectrum above collapses when you're talking about specific reform efforts. The Partnership for American Innovation is cagey about it's specific stance on reform, but it launched just a month before the most recent patent reform effort was killed, and days before published an article extolling the virtues of the existing patent system. Even though companies like Microsoft and Apple may not oppose patent reform in principle, they have nothing to gain from reform, and will in practice oppose any specific reform measure for fear of collateral consequences. [1] Defined as companies that abuse legal process to get settlements for cases they wouldn't win in court.
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
"Patent trolls" are not the main problem of the patent system, but patents with low or no invention height are the main problem. Also software and business models as such should not be patentable at all -- that just over-stretches the system. Some times, I have the impression, that patent trolls are in the mouth of everybody to cover the fact, that they are more of a symptom than a real problem. With bad patent-troll legislation, it could be possible to make things bad for legit inventors. Just think, somebody has invented something and is seeking investors. Now comes a big corporation and steals his invention and builds it. With a patent reform that does ignore such people, he even could be blocked to defend his patent (what is currently difficult enough, because he needs much money to do that).
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > With bad patent-troll legislation, it could be possible to make things bad for legit inventors. Just think, somebody has invented something and is seeking investors. Now comes a big corporation and steals his invention and builds it. With a patent reform that does ignore such people, he even could be blocked to defend his patent (what is currently difficult enough, because he needs much money to do that). The problem with the existing patent system is the other way around. You come up with an invention only to realize that five of the seven components are each individually patented by the incumbents. Which means that if you do anything they don't like, including trying to enforce your patent against them, they can easily destroy you with litigation. It is beyond silly to claim that patent reform would harm small inventors when it is the status quo that harms small inventors.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    >It is beyond silly to claim that patent reform would harm small inventors when it is the status quo that harms small inventors. It might be, that the status quo harms small inventors. But I wanted to give a different perspective on the one thing that is in focus with the last patent reforms. What you describe, has nothing to do with that. The problem is, that the intention of the reform was to prevent parties with no own production to sue other companies because of patent infringements. And such a move would of course block some patent trolls (not all) but also would massively harm small or single person inventors. "It is beyond silly to claim that" any reform will make things better. I have seen so many reforms in other areas, that just made things worse -- I would even say most of the "reforms" I have seen.
briantakita 12y ago
There is no evidence that patents help innovation in any industry. There is evidence that patents harm innovation. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promote-innovation/id=48768/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promot... http://archive.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/ http://archive.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-paten... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0303448024.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0303448024.shtml > Regularly, patent advocates tell me how important patents are for the biotech and life science industries. However, there apparently is academic research in the works that shows that patents actually slow down innovation in biotech. The specific example we discussed was that there is increasing evidence that when a professor or company gets a patent in the field of genetics research, other researchers simply stop doing work in that specific area. As a result, the number of researchers on a particular topic decreases, especially if the patent is broad. It's not hard to theorize that this results in less innovation around this area over time. The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Instead, it is designed to enable entrenched players & the government to control innovation. This means, they can control the market & by adding legal barriers to competition. It's similar to how the mafia carves out territories. If you go into someone's ip territory, you will get the shakedown or whacked. The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents, as patents are holding us all back. However, that would mean removing a branch of government & a slew of other people who's livelihoods would be taken away. Unfortunately, the structures in place will prevent such reform. Another way to have true patent reform is to effectively make patents obsolete. That is why DIY culture & black markets are "dangerous" & necessary ideas. Patents facilitate the transfer of wealth & energy from the creators to the administrators, enforcers, & holders of capital. Is that how we want our civilization to evolve?
- kanzure 12y ago
  > The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Hardly designed at all. The modern patent system goes to the 1600s when some boring king made some annoying promises that he had to compromise on: By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s].... above quote background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law and specifically http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20the%201624%20Statute%20of%20Monopolies%20as%20political%20compromise.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20... > The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents That is an interesting idea, but I can't think of a way to make that work. Alternatively, I wrote a proposal where patents are divorced from science and technology, so that entrenched interests still have something: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb0/jD_TZ8U47b4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...
georgewfraser 12y ago
Interestingly, the current acting director is a patent reform proponent who was installed in the position a year and a half ago. The way she was designated as acting director appears to be a ploy to get around the senate confirmation process. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/12/michelle-lee-director.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/12/michelle-lee-director.ht... http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/fafbc72d-f142-45db-8faa-9e3e1df1b656/Letter%20to%20President%20Obama,%20June%202,%202014.pdf http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/fafbc72d-f14...
mkempe 12y ago
Why is the article titled like that? Who makes decisions in that impersonal "White House"? is this a new taboo?
- rayiner 12y ago
  Using "White House" or "Downing Street" to refer to the office of the U.S. President and U.K. Prime Minister, respectively, is very common.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    And has been for a long time. Some examples, of varying quality: http://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/02/white-house-denies-dimout-on-outside.html http://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/02/white-house-denies-dimout-... http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/29/us/white-house-watching-virginia-senate-race.html http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/29/us/white-house-watching-vi... http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/27/us/white-house-is-silent-as-pressure-grows-for-watt-to-resign.html http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/27/us/white-house-is-silent-a... http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/04/us/white-house-finds-no-pressure-to-launch.html http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/04/us/white-house-finds-no-pr... http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/08/us/white-house-facing-crisis-of-confidence.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/08/us/white-house-facing-cris... http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/19/us/white-house-seeks-policy-to-reduce-infant-deaths.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/19/us/white-house-seeks-polic... http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/04/world/white-house-reaffirms-anti-terrorist-policy-while-taking-steps-to-work-around-it.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/04/world/white-house-reaffirm... http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/23/us/white-house-set-up-drug-buy-in-the-park-for-bush-tv-speech.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/23/us/white-house-set-up-drug... http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/22/arts/white-house-opposes-restrictions-on-arts-grants.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/22/arts/white-house-opposes-r... http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/world/white-house-tutors-kremlin-in-how-a-presidency-works.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/world/white-house-tutors-k... http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/06/us/white-house-spurns-expansion-of-nation-s-anti-poverty-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/06/us/white-house-spurns-expa...
    - 12y ago

96 points by rosser 12y ago

tzs 12y ago

Misleading reporting. What he is an opponent of is bad patent reform. What people in software often forget is that patent trolls are almost always using software patents or business method patents. In industries whose patents are not on software or business methods, trolling activity is very low. The patent system in those industries generally is working reasonably well. The major players in those industries are not opposed to reform to deal with the troll problem, but they want it to be aimed narrowly so as to not disturb things in their industries.

hyperpape 12y ago
You call it misleading reporting, but don't actually explain what was bad about the legislation he's opposed or how it could hurt industries where the patent system works. Not saying you're wrong, because I don't know the guy's work, but you haven't actually said anything to convince me.
- tzs 12y ago
  Here's what he submitted to Congress: http://www.patentsmatter.com/issue/pdfs/JohnsonSenateJudiciaryCommitteeStatement20131217.pdf http://www.patentsmatter.com/issue/pdfs/JohnsonSenateJudicia...
001sky 12y ago
"The major players in those industries are not opposed to reform ... but they want it to be aimed narrowly so as to not disturb things in their industries." Non-disturbance of the status quo? I'm sure there is a more original definition of "regulatory capture" somewhere, but this is pretty good starting point. What about Patents in healthcare, drugs, science, universities...there are loads of things where the public is paying money to finance artificial mini-monopolies, especially ones extended beyond their initial term by gaming the current system in various ways.
throwawaykf05 12y ago
Jeff John Roberts is up there with binarybits, techdirt and Joe Mullin (arstechnica) when it comes to misleading reporting on patents.
DannyBee 12y ago
Sorry, but my experience working on reform for seven years tells me you are simply wrong. They want zero change. They see anything as a threat. Narrow targeting does not being them on board because they don't want to be narrowly targeted themselves in the future
rayiner 12y ago
Here's a neat chart describing various patent reform/anti-reform groups: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5661526/grocery-stores-really-want-patent-reform-pharma-really-doesnt http://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5661526/grocery-stores-really-w.... I think very few companies oppose, in principle, shutting down trolls.[1] What they're worried about is collateral damage. Microsoft or IBM don't really care about bond requirements or loser pays, because the cost of patent litigation is a drop in the bucket to them. They do care, however, about measures to make software unpatentable. Companies like Qualcomm have don't just rely on patents on technologies implemented in an ASIC, but also on patents on technologies implemented in software on the baseband processor. Making software unpatentable also raises questions about whether those same algorithms would be unpatentable if implemented in hardware. That said, I think in practice the ideological spectrum above collapses when you're talking about specific reform efforts. The Partnership for American Innovation is cagey about it's specific stance on reform, but it launched just a month before the most recent patent reform effort was killed, and days before published an article extolling the virtues of the existing patent system. Even though companies like Microsoft and Apple may not oppose patent reform in principle, they have nothing to gain from reform, and will in practice oppose any specific reform measure for fear of collateral consequences. [1] Defined as companies that abuse legal process to get settlements for cases they wouldn't win in court.

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

"Patent trolls" are not the main problem of the patent system, but patents with low or no invention height are the main problem. Also software and business models as such should not be patentable at all -- that just over-stretches the system. Some times, I have the impression, that patent trolls are in the mouth of everybody to cover the fact, that they are more of a symptom than a real problem. With bad patent-troll legislation, it could be possible to make things bad for legit inventors. Just think, somebody has invented something and is seeking investors. Now comes a big corporation and steals his invention and builds it. With a patent reform that does ignore such people, he even could be blocked to defend his patent (what is currently difficult enough, because he needs much money to do that).

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> With bad patent-troll legislation, it could be possible to make things bad for legit inventors. Just think, somebody has invented something and is seeking investors. Now comes a big corporation and steals his invention and builds it. With a patent reform that does ignore such people, he even could be blocked to defend his patent (what is currently difficult enough, because he needs much money to do that). The problem with the existing patent system is the other way around. You come up with an invention only to realize that five of the seven components are each individually patented by the incumbents. Which means that if you do anything they don't like, including trying to enforce your patent against them, they can easily destroy you with litigation. It is beyond silly to claim that patent reform would harm small inventors when it is the status quo that harms small inventors.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  >It is beyond silly to claim that patent reform would harm small inventors when it is the status quo that harms small inventors. It might be, that the status quo harms small inventors. But I wanted to give a different perspective on the one thing that is in focus with the last patent reforms. What you describe, has nothing to do with that. The problem is, that the intention of the reform was to prevent parties with no own production to sue other companies because of patent infringements. And such a move would of course block some patent trolls (not all) but also would massively harm small or single person inventors. "It is beyond silly to claim that" any reform will make things better. I have seen so many reforms in other areas, that just made things worse -- I would even say most of the "reforms" I have seen.

briantakita 12y ago

There is no evidence that patents help innovation in any industry. There is evidence that patents harm innovation. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promote-innovation/id=48768/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promot... http://archive.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/ http://archive.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-paten... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0303448024.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0303448024.shtml > Regularly, patent advocates tell me how important patents are for the biotech and life science industries. However, there apparently is academic research in the works that shows that patents actually slow down innovation in biotech. The specific example we discussed was that there is increasing evidence that when a professor or company gets a patent in the field of genetics research, other researchers simply stop doing work in that specific area. As a result, the number of researchers on a particular topic decreases, especially if the patent is broad. It's not hard to theorize that this results in less innovation around this area over time. The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Instead, it is designed to enable entrenched players & the government to control innovation. This means, they can control the market & by adding legal barriers to competition. It's similar to how the mafia carves out territories. If you go into someone's ip territory, you will get the shakedown or whacked. The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents, as patents are holding us all back. However, that would mean removing a branch of government & a slew of other people who's livelihoods would be taken away. Unfortunately, the structures in place will prevent such reform. Another way to have true patent reform is to effectively make patents obsolete. That is why DIY culture & black markets are "dangerous" & necessary ideas. Patents facilitate the transfer of wealth & energy from the creators to the administrators, enforcers, & holders of capital. Is that how we want our civilization to evolve?

kanzure 12y ago
> The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Hardly designed at all. The modern patent system goes to the 1600s when some boring king made some annoying promises that he had to compromise on: By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s].... above quote background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law and specifically http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20the%201624%20Statute%20of%20Monopolies%20as%20political%20compromise.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20... > The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents That is an interesting idea, but I can't think of a way to make that work. Alternatively, I wrote a proposal where patents are divorced from science and technology, so that entrenched interests still have something: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb0/jD_TZ8U47b4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...

georgewfraser 12y ago

Interestingly, the current acting director is a patent reform proponent who was installed in the position a year and a half ago. The way she was designated as acting director appears to be a ploy to get around the senate confirmation process. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/12/michelle-lee-director.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/12/michelle-lee-director.ht... http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/fafbc72d-f142-45db-8faa-9e3e1df1b656/Letter%20to%20President%20Obama,%20June%202,%202014.pdf http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/fafbc72d-f14...

mkempe 12y ago

Why is the article titled like that? Who makes decisions in that impersonal "White House"? is this a new taboo?

rayiner 12y ago
Using "White House" or "Downing Street" to refer to the office of the U.S. President and U.K. Prime Minister, respectively, is very common.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  And has been for a long time. Some examples, of varying quality: http://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/02/white-house-denies-dimout-on-outside.html http://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/02/white-house-denies-dimout-... http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/29/us/white-house-watching-virginia-senate-race.html http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/29/us/white-house-watching-vi... http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/27/us/white-house-is-silent-as-pressure-grows-for-watt-to-resign.html http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/27/us/white-house-is-silent-a... http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/04/us/white-house-finds-no-pressure-to-launch.html http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/04/us/white-house-finds-no-pr... http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/08/us/white-house-facing-crisis-of-confidence.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/08/us/white-house-facing-cris... http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/19/us/white-house-seeks-policy-to-reduce-infant-deaths.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/19/us/white-house-seeks-polic... http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/04/world/white-house-reaffirms-anti-terrorist-policy-while-taking-steps-to-work-around-it.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/04/world/white-house-reaffirm... http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/23/us/white-house-set-up-drug-buy-in-the-park-for-bush-tv-speech.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/23/us/white-house-set-up-drug... http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/22/arts/white-house-opposes-restrictions-on-arts-grants.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/22/arts/white-house-opposes-r... http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/world/white-house-tutors-kremlin-in-how-a-presidency-works.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/world/white-house-tutors-k... http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/06/us/white-house-spurns-expansion-of-nation-s-anti-poverty-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/06/us/white-house-spurns-expa...
  - 12y ago