|
|
|
| Authored by: tqft on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT |
I am more concerned that statement by the PTO Director reads like this
"This article is by Kenneth Lustig, the vice president and head of
strategic acquisitions at Intellectual Ventures,"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/02/09/no-the-patent-syste
m-is-not-broken/
"Such histrionics, however, ignore a crucial but little known fact:
Throughout American history, the buying, selling, and litigating of patents has
always been essential to U.S. economic success. Not only that, the truth is that
today’s patent litigation rate is less than half what it was in the
mid-nineteenth century, a period widely recognized as the golden age of American
innovation."
---
anyone got a job good in Brisbane Australia for a problem solver? Currently
under employed in one job.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:40 AM EDT |
The comparison with steam engines is quite apt. Patents were a major factor in
the early progress of steam. The invention of the sun and planet gear to get
around a patent on the crank was an example. You could say it was ingenious,
but should it have been necessary? The crank patent was issued despite having
been in use for hundreds or thousands of years. An XXXX but on a steam engine
type of patent perhaps? My understanding is that the original steam pumping
engines were held back by previous broad patents on 'fire engines' used to pump
water - albeit not a successful design. Even Bolton and Watt themselves, despite
fighting early patent battles used them themselves to prevent competition and
held back further development of the steam engine, especially with respect to
high pressure steam, for a number of years.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:24 AM EDT |
Seems like when it comes to major innovations patents hold back progress.
For example, the steam engine:
From: Mott-Smith, Morton (1964)
[Unabridged and revised version of the book first published by D.
Appleton-Century Company in 1934 under the former title: The Story of Energy].
The Concept of Energy Simply Explained. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.. pp.
13-14. ISBN 0-486-21071-5.
In 1768 the firm of Boulton and
Watt was formed, and by virtue of Watt's basic patents, the duration of which
was extended by Act of Parliament, this firm enjoyed for thirty years a complete
monopoly of the production of power. This proved in the end a hindrance to
progress. The firm, as usually happens, became conservative, crushed all rivals
and opposed all innovations that did not emanate from itself. High pressure had
been proposed, but Boulton and Watt stuck to seven pounds. They even tried to
have a law passed prohibiting the use of a higher pressure, on the ground that
it was dangerous. Perhaps at the time it was. Compound expansion had been
invented and patented by Hornblower in 1781, but since he could not build an
engine without conflicting with Watt's patents, he was completely paralyzed. Yet
high pressure and compounding were precisely the improvements next in order, and
destined ultimately to improve the Watt engine, as much as he had improved the
Newcomen. But they had to await the end of the monopoly of Boulton and Watt in
1802.
Some who have studied this (Against
Intellectual Monopoly, Chapter 1, p. 15) say that Watt's patents retarded
the progress of the Industrial Revolution by 16 years.
I seem to recall
that the United States was not able to build a commercial aviation industry
until almost WWII because competing firms held necessary patents and were
unwilling to cooperate. Ultimately the government stepped in and forced the
firms to cooperate.
The examples seem pretty damming, at least to the
claim that patents always foster innovation.
Karl O. Pinc
<kop@meme.com> [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
Mr. Kappos
Biography as told at the USPTO.
Given:
Before joining the
USPTO, Mr. Kappos served as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for
Intellectual Property at IBM
I don't hold much hope he'll bring any
sanity to software patents.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
