|
Apple v. HTC in the ITC - More About Nails in the Road - UPDATE |
|
Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 09:20 AM EST
|
We often hear a comparison between the cold war and the large accumulation of patents and their use in the information technology sector. Terms like "mutually assured destruction," "throw weight," and others have been in vogue for some time. But I have often viewed the actions of some large IT players and their assertions of infringement of trivial patents as being more akin to sprinkling nails on the highway. That is, just like a driver in a race throwing nails on the road to puncture the tires of following competitors, some of these large patent holders sprinkle their trivial (and worthless?) patents around to slow down their technology competitors. That's my view of what Apple has been doing of late, particularly in its action before the International Trade Commission against HTC.
The ITC has ultimately ruled in Apple's favor on exactly two of the Apple patent claims.
TWO!
In my opinion, the ITC saw through Apple's strategy and the triviality of those very same claims. As a result, the ITC, while technically finding for Apple, granted HTC a four-month stay in which to workaround those patents for all newly imported phones and a year in which to "refurbish" existing phones. As we reported earlier in NewPicks, HTC has said it will have no trouble meeting these deadlines. (HTC says solution is ready to address Apple patent violations)
The only thing I remain surprised about is that the ITC and other enforcement bodies don't see through this type of action. You have devices that embody hundreds of different technologies, some protected by patents and others not, and yet the ITC does not see the folly in granting any form of exclusion when the device infringes a couple of trivial patent claims.
Surely, when Steve Job's howled about Google "ripping off the iPhone" and his intent "to go thermonuclear war on this," he had something more in mind than claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent 5,946,647, which read:
1. A computer-based system for detecting structures in data and performing actions on detected structures, comprising:
an input device for receiving data;
an output device for presenting the data;
a memory storing information including program routines including an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected structures;
a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and
an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure; and
a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines.
8. The system recited in claim 1, wherein the user interface highlights detected structures.
Quite frankly, it's hard to believe there isn't prior art for Claim 1. More importantly, it's hard to believe that the survival of Apple depends on these patent claims.
Is this the sort of thing politicians mean when they suggest the future of the United States depends on protecting the intellectual property of U.S. companies?
REALLY?
This strikes me as more a candidate for The Daily Show.
**********
UPDATE
Here is a related article from Dennis Crouch at Patently-O that talks about exclusion orders and the similarities (or lack thereof) with injunctive relief in infringement cases. And here is the New York Times article by Mark Lemley and Colleen Chien that Dennis mentions talking about Patents and the Public Interest.
*************
ITC Notice of Final Determination
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
__________________________________
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PERSONAL DATA AND
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
AND RELATED SOFTWARE
__________________________________
Investigation No. 337-TA-710
NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION’S FINAL DETERMINATION
FINDING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 337;
ISSUANCE OF A LIMITED EXCLUSION ORDER;
TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a
violation of section 337 in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting
importation of infringing personal data and mobile communications devices and related software.
The Commission has determined that exclusion of articles subject to this order shall commence on
April 19, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission=s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
April 6, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Apple Inc., and its subsidiary NeXT Software, Inc.,
both of Cupertino, California (collectively, “Apple”), alleging a violation of section 337 in the
importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain
personal data and mobile communications devices and related software that infringe certain U.S.
patents. 75 Fed. Reg. 17434 (Apr. 6, 2010). The notice of investigation named as respondents
High Tech Computer Corp. of Taoyuan City, Taiwan and its United States subsidiaries HTC
America Inc. of Bellevue, Washington, and Exedia, Inc. of Houston, Texas (collectively, “HTC”).
Several patents that had been asserted by Apple in this investigation were earlier asserted by Apple
in Investigation No. 337-TA-704 against Nokia Corp. of Espoo, Finland and Nokia Inc. of White
Plains, New York (collectively, “Nokia”). On motion by the Commission investigative attorney
(“IA”) in the 704 investigation and by the respondents in both investigations, the Chief ALJ
transferred Apple=s assertion of overlapping patents against Nokia from the 704 investigation into
the 710 investigation. See Inv. No. 337-TA-704, Order No. 5 (Apr. 26, 2010). However, Apple
and Nokia entered a settlement agreement, and on July 21, 2011, the Commission determined not
to review the presiding ALJ’s termination of the investigation as to Nokia in the 710 investigation
based on settlement.
On July 15, 2011, the ALJ issued the final ID. By that time, the investigation had narrowed to
certain claims of four patents: claims 1, 3, 8, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (“the ’647
patent”); claims 1, 2, 24, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263 (“the ’263 patent”); claims 1, 5, and
6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721 (“the ’721 patent”); and claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No.
6,275,983 (“the ’983 patent”). The final ID found a violation of section 337 by HTC by virtue of
the infringement of claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 of the ’647 patent, and claims 1, 2, 24, and 29 of the
’263 patent. The final ID found that claim 3 of the ’647 patent was not infringed. In addition, the
final ID found that Apple had demonstrated neither infringement nor Apple’s own practice (for
purposes of establishing the existence of a domestic industry) of claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ’721
patent and claims 1 and 7 of the ’983 patent. The final ID concluded that HTC had not
demonstrated that any of the asserted patent claims were invalid. The ALJ recommended the
issuance of a limited exclusion order but that zero bond be posted during the Presidential review
period.
HTC, Apple, and the IA each petitioned for review of the final ID. On September 15, 2011, the
Commission determined to review several issues regarding each of the four patents asserted in this
investigation. 76 Fed. Reg. 58,537 (Sept. 21, 2011). The parties filed briefing on the issues
under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. In addition, the following non-parties
submitted comments on the public interest: the Association for Competitive Technology; Google
Inc.; and T-Mobile USA., Inc. (“T-Mobile”).
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and the
aforementioned briefing and comments, the Commission has determined that there is a violation of
section 337 by reason of the importation and sale of articles that infringe claims 1 and 8 of the ’647
patent. The Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding of violation as to claims 15
and 19 of the ’647 patent and as to the asserted claims of the ’263 patent. The Commission
affirms the ALJ’s conclusion that there has been no violation as to the ’721 and ’983 patents.
The Commission has further determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order
prohibiting the entry of personal data and mobile communications devices and related software
that infringe claims 1 or 8 of the ’647 patent. The Commission has also determined that the public
2
interest factors enumerated in section 337(d), 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d), do not preclude the issuance of
the limited exclusion order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission has determined that
based on consideration of competitive conditions in the United States economy, the exclusion of
articles subject to the order shall commence on April 19, 2012 to provide a transition period for
U.S. carriers. In addition, the Commission has determined, based on consideration of the effect of
exclusion on United States consumers, that until December 19, 2013, HTC may import refurbished
handsets to be provided to consumers as replacements under warranty or an insurance contract
(whether the warranty or contract is offered by HTC, a carrier, or by a third party). This
exemption does not permit HTC to call new devices “refurbished” and to import them as
replacements. The Commission has determined not to issue a cease and desist order and that zero
bonding is required during the period of Presidential review, 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j). The
investigation is terminated.
The Commission’s order and opinion were delivered to the President and the United States Trade
Representative on the day of their issuance.
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and in sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. §§ 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
/s/
James R. Holbein
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: December 19, 2011
3
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 09:33 AM EST |
https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesv
aVX
Quote:
Rip Rowan - 12 Oct 2011 (edited) - Public
The best article I've ever read about architecture and the
management of IT.
***UPDATE***
This post was intended to be shared privately and was
accidentally made public. Thanks to +Steve Yegge for
allowing us to keep it out there. It's the sort of writing
people do when they think nobody is watching: honest, clear,
and frank.
The world would be a better place if more people wrote this
sort of internal memoranda, and even better if they were
allowed to write it for the outside world.
Hopefully Steve will not experience any negative
repercussions from Google about this. On the contrary, he
deserves a promotion.
***UPDATE #2***
This post has received a lot of attention. For anyone here
who arrived from The Greater Internet - I stand ready to
remove this post if asked. As I mentioned before, I was
given permission to keep it up.
Google's openness to allow us to keep this message posted on
its own social network is, in my opinion, a far greater
asset than any SaS platform. In the end, a company's
greatest asset is its culture, and here, Google is one of
the strongest companies on the planet.
Steve Yegge originally shared this post:[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 09:38 AM EST |
Why is not an HTTP aware browser where you can click on the links prior art?
Apple claims because they detect a phone number and highlight it as a link its
(think!!) "different" in a patent sense.
But doesn't a computer running a HTTP aware browser analyze and detect a
structure (the link), highlight the link, and then provide an action on the
link.
That's prior art and my recollection says they had this before 1999.
The solution: Don't highlight the telephone number but allow the user to click
on it.
-Anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Prior Art: an HTTP aware browser - Authored by: cpeterson on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:44 AM EST
- Prior Art: an HTTP aware browser - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:52 AM EST
- Prior Art: network management systems? - Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:55 AM EST
- My first thought: file search and filename associations - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:02 AM EST
- Prior Art: an HTTP aware browser - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:03 AM EST
- Prior Art: Sed, Awk, Grep, Perl, PHP... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:43 AM EST
- Even older. Any language sensitive editor - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:59 AM EST
- Prior Art: an HTTP aware browser - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 01:55 PM EST
- Unix MAGIC is a better prior art example - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 06:41 PM EST
- Prior Art: an HTTP aware browser - Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 08:10 PM EST
- Prior Art: xanadu - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 21 2011 @ 09:02 AM EST
- Prior Art: an HTTP aware browser - Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, December 21 2011 @ 10:07 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 09:51 AM EST |
If you don't have your "knights (patents), then you are only a serf, and
will be treated as one.
If the current patent mess created by USPTO (et al) is not seen for the farce it
is, and corrected, then there will be no more companies created in garages to
spur the next wave of innovation.
Instead, those innovators, will be serfs to the only masters left... those huge
corporations, with huge legal budgets, rabid dog lawyers on retainer, and a
congress to create their laws to help them keep all the serfs in line.
Is that a future that is good for humanity?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:12 AM EST |
I dig down into the claims to see what is actually patented. The 647 patent
includes an "analyzer server for detecting structures in the data,"
This is the vital element. Accepting input and presenting a menu of choices are
minor. The patent does not tell how to write the parser. It is a black box
that magically solves the problem. The parser is not a generic off-the-shelf
component like a pump or electrical switch. I know that a programmer could
write a custom parser for particular inputs, based on widely known methods.
Apple would have to claim that the parser is obvious or accept the fact that the
patent is incomplete.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Keith on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:19 AM EST |
I was completely on-board with the prior art claim,
considering how long such features have been part of modern
web browsers. However, it looks like the patent was filed
in 1996, so whatever contemporary equivalents may have
existed at the time would likely not have been web browsers,
which were still in their early stages. (Source:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647)
Even if prior art is not readily found, I still feel that
such a patent should be considered obvious if only for the
reason than it was independently developed multiple times by
other companies, completely unaware of Apple's patent.
Apple has obviously been sitting on this one a long time
without raising awareness or seeking to prevent the use of
this technology in other formats.
At the very least, Apple shouldn't be allowed to collect
damages in a lawsuit (which of course isn't their intent).
However, since this is all taking place through the ITC, the
goal is clearly to obstruct competition rather than actually
seek compensation. I think your analogy about spreading
nails on the highway is very apt.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:29 AM EST |
Dropping nails behind you on a highway doesn't really do very much.
The effective option is caltrops.
Maybe that's an intended part of the analogy?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joef on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:29 AM EST |
How is this different from editors that have been around for a long time?
Certainly vi and emacs in early forms have been
data-structure-aware, and many enhancements over the years have used
highlighting schemes of various types to present the results. Some early
enhancements even permit opening a referenced file by clicking on the
highlighted reference.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:37 AM EST |
Please put Eror -> Error or similar in the Title Block if it
fits.
Thanks!
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:40 AM EST |
For those who have forgotten what we were talking about, or
who have short attentions spans, or who are irremediably
techies...
On topic is over there --->
Please change the Title Block
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:42 AM EST |
What options are there for importation of devices with infringing content, even
if trivial infringement? Is the only option the ITC in the US? If HTC were
manufacturing in the US, Apple could have sued in Federal court, potentially
including past and future damages, and possibly an injunction. This way is
obviously slower, as federal court typically runs slower than the ITC, but would
that direction have been an option for Apple for imported devices rather than
manufactured in the US?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:44 AM EST |
A URL would be much appreciated.
An HTML
How-To is available if you want to
spiff up your
message. --- Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Last, but not least....
There are a LOT of documents yet to go.
Are you sure
that the judge and attorneys read all this stuff
?!??
Instructions at the Comes
v. MS link in the
mass of links above. --- Userfriendly on WGA
server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:20 AM EST |
I *am* "skilled in the art" and I can tell you with absolute
certainty that the recited claim is useless, meaningless
nonsense and would receive a failing grade if given in answer to a question on
an exam.
It is appalling that anyone at Apple would apply for a
patent on such a thing. It is even more appalling that the
fools at the patent office would grant it, and astoundingly appalling that
anyone would uphold it as valid. The whole
system has proven itself worthless and corrupt, just a game
to stifle competition and employ lawyers!
What is wrong with these people???????[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nola on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 11:34 AM EST |
Actually, Apple has not been "sitting on" this patent.
This was in wide use in Mac OS X years before the iPhone.
I don't remember how many years but it's quite a few.
One could find out how many by looking for
"Data Detectors" in developer conference presentations.
That was the name for it back then.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 12:12 PM EST |
That has got to be in top 1000 of stupid computer related
patents. It describes just about every other-than-simple
data interface I've ever seen or made.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 12:15 PM EST |
well in front of you and hoping you come out in front once someone else has
cleaned the road up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mosborne on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 12:26 PM EST |
Way back in 1990, I and a co-worker designed and implemented a LIMS
(Laboratory Information Management System). I believe that the analysis
component of that system implemented this.
1. A
computer-based system for detecting structures in data and performing actions on
detected structures, comprising:
an input device for receiving
data;
a computer receiving chromatography data from a GC
(gas chromatograph)
an output device for presenting the
data;
a computer screen
a memory storing
information including program routines including an analyzer server for
detecting structures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected
structures;
a computer with a program which analyzed incoming
input for various structures. Some things detected where "in-" and
"out-of-control" situations and detected peaks. Each pattern detection had
particular actions associated with it. This program analyzed a datastream
provided externally
a user interface enabling the
selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and
The
user was presented with an interface allowing them to perform various actions
based what was detected. For example, detected peaks could be listed and chosen.
an action processor for performing the selected action
linked to the selected structure; and
program code executed the
actions associated with the user choices or in some cases
automatically
a processing unit coupled to the input
device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the
program routines.
This was the computer attached to the GC and
the screen
This system went into live production in
Dec 1991 and was in continuous use until the project ended in late 2003.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 02:06 PM EST |
The patent system has created the conditions for a patent
war just like the prohibition of drugs has created civil war
in Mexico. Both results are the unintended consequence of
legislative reaction to societal problems. As a society we
seem to get tunnel vision about our goals and when our
methods aren't working, we try even harder with them,
oblivious to the damage we're doing elsewhere.
Patents are a failed economic theory and drug prohibition
merely creates a black market and organized crime to run it.
Both results are worse than the problem they attempt to
solve. We need to go back to the beginning and try different
approaches in both cases but I don't see that happening in
the foreseeable future if ever.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 03:42 PM EST |
If people behaved in this dishonest, mean spirited way to
each other socially, they would be pariahs. It is a sad
reflection on the corruption in our society that people feel
that it is OK to behave this way in the name of business.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 09:19 PM EST |
I'd love to see Google go thermonuclear on them.
Apple probably won't. It seems Google has reputation for invalidating trivial
patents.
The exhibit with prior art would make for fun reading.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hyperlink History - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20 2011 @ 10:00 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 21 2011 @ 10:21 AM EST |
"ITC judge: Motorola Mobility infringed Microsoft patent"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16284020
The judge found Motorola violated 1 out of 6 patents. The article states that
one is enough for Microsoft to get other handset makers to pay Microsoft
licensing feeds.
The real danger is not Apple but Microsoft. Microsoft is extracting fees from
Android handset makers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 21 2011 @ 10:52 AM EST |
Patent suits are just par for the course when it comes to complex systems.
Just look at the camera industry. For over 10 years, Canon could not include
distance information from the lens when taking flash shots because of Nikon's
software patent. For years, no one could copy Canon's ring motor design.
For years, no one could copy Nikon's color matrix exposure evaluation
process. It goes tit for tat. But it forced camera companies to come up with
new methods to take better pictures. It goes tit for tat. Patents are
EVERYWHERE in the camera industry.
Sure, patents limit copying. And it forces companies to design differently and
around patented inventions - software or hardware. Sure, people don't like
lawsuits.
But PATENTS WORK. They force people to STOP COPYING and create their
own designs. Or they force people to license the invention if they can.
Patents FORCE creativity. They FORCE new inventions.
It is unfortunate that people expect that they can simply copy what someone
else did. It is easier to steal an invention than to create one's own.
Thus, all these patent lawsuits are just part of the process.
They certainly keep lawyers working. Otherwise, the legal profession simply
sucks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 21 2011 @ 10:13 PM EST |
We will grant you that Steve Jobs was a fabulous marketer and he realized the
potential in products he saw and ruthlessly used it to enhance Apple's line.
OS X was originally written at Carnegie Mellon.
The Mac windowing system and the mouse were stolen from Xerox Parc development.
Cocoa is another name for Objective-C which Apple licensed from StepStone (now
PPI) and is an attempt to give SmallTalk features to C.
Apple ripped off much of the original iPhone technology from Samsung (who did
not complain at the time since they were Apple's largest supplier - note Apple
BUILDS NOTHING, Foxconn actually builds all of this stuff). Go look at the
Samsung F700 some time (a phone Apple assuredly saw in prototype), announced
days after the iPhone, it is by far a better phone (3G, better bluetooth) but a
worse computing device (no 802.11b/g/n, no multi touch, less screen resolution),
they were forced to announce early (operating system was not finished) when
Apple launched the iPhone.
The '721 patent is more of the same, it patents how both SmallTalk and the QNX
operating system work (much less other Xerox and Microsoft projects), both of
which predate the patent by nearly a decade. The patent is a farce and and
should never have been issued.
Really read the Apple patents, they have design patented making things
rectangular and separately making things with rounded corners, both of which had
been done for a decade before Apple tried it.
Note that Apple has been lying to the patent office since they are responsible
for identifying prior art and they haven't even though they had to know it
existed.
Our patent system is really broken when these bogus patents actually get
issued.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2011 @ 09:10 AM EST |
In reference to my post above:
Yes. Patents helps society despite not having a camera with all three features.
This is because patents forces camera manufacturers to INVENT NEW
FEATURES, NEW CAPABILITIES.
Patents force THE EVOLUTION of camera design. It keeps manufacturers from
resting on their laurels. It forces new competition.
Realize that patents do not last forever. They last for a fixed number of
years. They last a much much shorter time than copyrights. They don't last a
lifetime like copyrights.
After they expire, the invention becomes PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Thus, today, one CAN GET ALL THREE FEATURES I CITED in a camera. This
moots your point.
Patents help society by FORCING COMPETITION and FORCING CREATIVITY and
FORCING INVENTION and FORCING ORIGINALITY and FORCING EVOLUTION
and FORCING DIVERSITY. And after the short lifespan of a patent, PATENTS
GIVE BACK TO SOCIETY THE INVENTION AS PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Today, for example, we have a PLETHORA of medications that are generic and
off patent and are inexpensive. Poor people without health insurance can now
afford powerful medications that are now off patent. We would not have
these medications if it were not for patents forcing competition and invention.
All you have to do is wait. Then the public domain gift of patents immensely
benefit society.
Only the impatient ones are against patents.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|