[mc-motorsports]

Let look at the well trod road of conspiracy's where people say that there are efficient fuel alternatives out there, but these ideas are owned by the fuel giants. They want to exploit their current ways instead of allowing others to make these new ideas. (Weather it is true or not) Is this fair?

I cant help wondering if the world might be better if there weren't patent restrictions.

100% agreed.
But that doesn't solve the fact that Apple wouldn't make a penney off of the iPod if they were not able to patent it. As much as a neat little device it is, it more than likely only cost a couple of bucks to make, it's made in China just like everything else.
Just for instance, there are other MP3 players out there. There are ways around patents, you just have to be careful, more or less who owns the patent and how much are they willing to defend it.
I've had my designs ripped, I've learned that's just the way it is. I could cost $10,000 to apply for a patent and defend a patent, I'd rather just move on to the next thing or one up the people who copy me!
Life is not fair, free trade with China is not fair, gas prices are not fair. Plant a garden, live off the land and build a hydrogen generator and hydrogen engine for your car <=== thought about that one.

[ynneb]

"Lifes not fair" Does that mean we have to accept unfair situations? Cant we canvas for change, instead of putting our hands in the air and accepting whats dished our way?

You speak of Apple as though they deserve to be the sole benefiter's. Why? Why not spread the wealth around to any one who wants to have a go. Surely this environment will spur on inventors to build upon current ideas to make things even better. The acceleration of ideas and technology would be even greater. Yes?

I'm not talking about copyright where you go and copy something word for word or a design, stroke for stroke. But patents even restrict concepts been exploited. I am against this more so than blatant copying of a product.

[mc-motorsports]

like I said, there are ways around it. Apple doens't make the only MP3 player, you just can't make one stoke for stroke like thiers. In one way I totally agree, oil companies hit home with me. But then again, if it was your idea, would you spread the wealth by letting everyone copy your hard work? If i'ts as simple as an idea, I could understand your frustration. If you have $$$ dollors and XXX hours invested, wouln't you want the rights vs. someone just copying what you spent a lifetime perfecting? And yes, the cost of livin may be cheaper without patents, but then again, what if Ford had the patent on cars? No one else could possibly build a car? We would all drive Fords? Screw me! That would be a cold day in hell! There are ways around it.

[ViperTX]

Well, the patent system may not be perfect....if you're in the US you join an independent inventors association and you lobby Congress to modify the patent system. The biggest problem I see is that people like to complain, but few actually take steps to correct or modify whatever they are complaining about in a legal manner.

[307startup]

Well, the patent system may not be perfect....if you're in the US you join an independent inventors association and you lobby Congress to modify the patent system. The biggest problem I see is that people like to complain, but few actually take steps to correct or modify whatever they are complaining about in a legal manner.

The BIGGEST problem is that people think that doing things through the current BROKEN system (political) is going to rectify whatever shortcomings they perceive. How I long for the days when people didn't expect Laws to tell them what they MAY do, but rather, what they aren't ALLOWED to do, legally. I long for the days when people didn't need a GROUP to prop them up while they exercise their God-given rights to free speech. I long for the days when people just rolled up their sleeves and got the job done, while some idiot rambles on about how they "can't" do something. Life is short. Focus on priorities, ignore the rest. If you don't mind, it don't matter.

[ynneb]

The biggest problem I see is that people like to complain, but few actually take steps to correct or modify whatever they are complaining about in a legal manner.

I guess that was aimed at me? I canvass for change all the time. especially in terms of human rights. There are many ways to campeign other than legally. I stir up unrest amongst people and try to build a ground swell so that they can lobby our governments.
In Australia I have lobbied for renewable energy stations to be built as opposed to Nuclear ones. I have 100 members who are also lobbying. The ground swell is growing. I write letters to our governments about all sorts of issues without entering the legal system as you suggest.

[JustSomeGuy]

I have always believed that the best lobbyist in the world is your wallet. If enough people want something, someone will sell it.
Everyone wants to feel good about the environment but few want to pay for it. If a renewable energy source can generate electricity as cheaply as what we have now, I don't think any power company in the world would pass on the chance to grab that market.
Unfortunately, wind farms and solar panels cost a lot more then coal and nuclear. How many of your neighbors would be willing to see their electricity bills go up 50% or 100% ?
Bio fuels are good but now farmers are all rushing in on that and away from growing food crops so one problem is being replaced with another.
Research into making alternative energy economical is costly and no company with the the ability to do that research is willing to do that without some pay back in the end (ie patents).
We all complain about how just about everything is now made in China but we all allow that trend to happen when we buy that stuff. Look on this forum. How many of us own X1/X2/X3 mills or tooling made in China. How many of us are now wearing clothes made in the East, watch TV's, listen to iPods or are using computer components made "over there". Sure Sherlines are made in the US and are nice little machines but it just doesn't suit my needs or my wallet. If a North American company made a mill in the same size as an X2 or X3 at the same price range, I would buy it. The fact of the matter is that when we buy stuff made in China, we are not making a political statement. We are making a financial one.
Patents, good or bad, are here to stay. If they were done away with, the industrialized nations would collapse. The west has already lost most of the manufacturing to the east. If it lost the design and intellectual property rights as well, what would it's economy be???

[sergizmo]

100% agreed.
But that doesn't solve the fact that Apple wouldn't make a penney off of the iPod if they were not able to patent it. As much as a neat little device it is, it more than likely only cost a couple of bucks to make, it's made in China just like everything else.
Just for instance, there are other MP3 players out there. There are ways around patents, you just have to be careful, more or less who owns the patent and how much are they willing to defend it.
I've had my designs ripped, I've learned that's just the way it is. I could cost $10,000 to apply for a patent and defend a patent, I'd rather just move on to the next thing or one up the people who copy me!
Life is not fair, free trade with China is not fair, gas prices are not fair. Plant a garden, live off the land and build a hydrogen generator and hydrogen engine for your car <=== thought about that one.

Apple doesn't sell Ipods because of patentened technology, they sell them because of marketing and the actual look of the device. Think about how many Ipod ads are seen on TV, internet, and in print. Now how many competing MP3 player ads do you see? How many people who buy an MP3 player even look at the other products on the market? Very, very few. That is due to marketing and people wanting to follow the herd, not technology.

The Chinese have no repect for IP, none. Just look at how many knock-offs and clones there are of popular products, and they all come out of China. Patents offer zero protection when it comes to the Chinese.

The patent system is built around lawyers. Like anything with lawyers, it favours the party who has the most money. IP is basically a waste of time for any small/medium sized company, as they can't afford any prolonged legislation. If they have a patented product and a large company uses their patented idea they are better off not suing. Why? Because the large company will bring in their crack legal team and prolong the trial until the smaller company goes broke. It happens time and time again, in many industries.

Are patents needed? Yes. Without them there would be chaos. It is an evil, but a necessary one.

Serge

[307startup]

Apple doesn't sell Ipods because of patentened technology, they sell them because of marketing and the actual look of the device. Think about how many Ipod ads are seen on TV, internet, and in print. Now how many competing MP3 player ads do you see? How many people who buy an MP3 player even look at the other products on the market? Very, very few. That is due to marketing and people wanting to follow the herd, not technology.

The Chinese have no repect for IP, none. Just look at how many knock-offs and clones there are of popular products, and they all come out of China. Patents offer zero protection when it comes to the Chinese.

The patent system is built around lawyers. Like anything with lawyers, it favours the party who has the most money. IP is basically a waste of time for any small/medium sized company, as they can't afford any prolonged legislation. If they have a patented product and a large company uses their patented idea they are better off not suing. Why? Because the large company will bring in their crack legal team and prolong the trial until the smaller company goes broke. It happens time and time again, in many industries.

Are patents needed? Yes. Without them there would be chaos. It is an evil, but a necessary one.

Serge

Why does everyone forget the first maxim in life? Do that which you are able, for as long as you are able.

IF somebody were to break into YOUR house and STEAL from you...would you call the cops before or after you dealt with the problem?

Asking permission to defend yourself makes you powerless. Feeling as though you NEED someone's, anyone's permission (namely an "authority" figure) before you can act, only shows what a mindless, spineless puppet you have become.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The patent system only works because the people who CAN have enforcement FORCED on them, are the subjects of that country enforcing it.

The USPTO cannot, will not, does not, shall not & will never be able to enforce a fine or civil penalty against a foreign enterprise breaking a US patent. The Chinese companies have carte blanche to violate US Patents. They do NOT have carte blanche to violate CH Patents.

Let's move beyond the mindbendingly simplistic xenophobic argument about "them Chinese" and move towards a slightly more sophisticated argument about empowering yourself as a consumer and as a business enterprise.

Vote with your feet. Have some principles. Stick to the morals you say you have. Otherwise keep your mouth shut. Freedom of speech does not apply to background noise. Talking one thing & doing another is hypocritical, dishonest and distasteful. It is also a ploy of every mega-corp, politician and mis/organization.

We have the ability to be well-informed individuals. Never before in history have we had the tools or the wherewithal to scrutinize and examine the "facts" that are being presented to us. And yet, as the anonymous mob, we are largely, blindly, willingly ignorant.

We profess to be "non-judgmental" as individuals, and become vicious mongers in the throes of a shapeless fold. We are a world of hypocrites and liars. Due to social habits, we DO judge. Everyday. We snub and jeer and harangue and ostracize. We claim that we do NOT have the right to judge, because that is the roles of the courts. And yet we DO judge. Everyday. We have confused legal with moral. We worry more about the LEGAL ramifications of our actions, and less about the SOCIAL ramifications of our actions.

We neglect to punish companies who do things we disagree with, illegal or immoral. But we punish with relish the individuals we disagree with. Everyday. Vote with your feet people. Vote with your wallet. Do the most damage with the least effort. Regain your voice. Stop being a hypocrite and liar. Start hurting the companies where it hurts. In sales. Stop being silent and accepting THEIR crimes. All companies, foreign and domestic who willingly violate the USPTO laws when it's convenient to them and follow them when it's in their best interest...crucify them. Put them out of business. NOW. Otherwise you ARE the very same corrupt system you mewl & bawl about. YOU are the ENEMY. You and all the other whiny *****es.

[sergizmo]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Every time I go to buy a product I will research any patent disputes of all companies selling the products, and of their parent companies. And I'll be sure to learn patent law on the side to interpret the whole deal. No problem.

[307startup]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Every time I go to buy a product I will research any patent disputes of all companies selling the products, and of their parent companies. And I'll be sure to learn patent law on the side to interpret the whole deal. No problem.

Technically, as a citizen of every country it is your DUTY & RESPONSIBILITY to know the laws of your country. Every last one. That is why the term "no excuse for ignorance" came into play. That is why "I didn't know" isn't an admissable defense in a court of law.

What ONE man knows, another man can know. What one man does, another man can do.

OR whine. ALOT. That seems to be really effective. I think that whining is what helped the human species attain their dominant position in the heirarchy of living creatures. WHINING is way more effective than putting your energy towards efforts. We obviously should have WHINED our enemies to death in every war we've ever participated in. It would have saved us so much time & blood.

Pathetic. Your attempt at sarcasm just shows how little respect you actually have for yourself. You honestly believe that YOU don't know what's best for you? You honestly believe that CORPORATE COMMERCIALS are going to tell you the truth? You SHOULD be an educated consumer. Just like you SHOULD take better care of your health, put more effort into your life and use the old head for more than a hatrack.

[sergizmo]

Could you lay off on the personal attacks please? My response was sarcastic but saying I have no respect for myself is over the line. You know nothing about me and those personal attacks reveal a lot about your character.

My opinion still stands. It is completely impractical to read up on and research the business pratices and patent history of any company I buy a product from. Just like it's impractical to learn all patent law on the side. Or all laws of Canada and Ontario. I'm pretty sure you don't have all the federal, state and city laws memorized.

I never said I was swayed by advertising. I said a large part of the Ipods success was due to copius amounts of advertising and not due to patented technology. I have no idea how you can try to make this kind of connection. I tend to buy products from smaller companies and prefer the "mom and pop" stores to the big chains. How is this being swayed by advertising?

[307startup]

Could you lay off on the personal attacks please? My response was sarcastic but saying I have no respect for myself is over the line. You know nothing about me and those personal attacks reveal a lot about your character.

My opinion still stands. It is completely impractical to read up on and research the business pratices and patent history of any company I buy a product from. Just like it's impractical to learn all patent law on the side. Or all laws of Canada and Ontario. I'm pretty sure you don't have all the federal, state and city laws memorized.

I never said I was swayed by advertising. I said a large part of the Ipods success was due to copius amounts of advertising and not due to patented technology. I have no idea how you can try to make this kind of connection. I tend to buy products from smaller companies and prefer the "mom and pop" stores to the big chains. How is this being swayed by advertising?

What you know about my character consists of nothing and conjecture. I wasn't attacking you personally. I was making a rebuttal. It was no more personal than when you responded to MY comments. Stop playing the innocent and own up to your own behavior. I wasn't saying that you were bad or what have you, just that when you speak, you become responsible for those words. Law of unintended consequences.

[ynneb]

Hey guys, debating is fine and healthy, but personal bickering is unhelpful in this forum. Its easy to misunderstand each other is text forums. Please hold back even if you think the other guy deserves it.
Keep up the great debating, I am enjoying the read.

[JustSomeGuy]

Whoa... This thread is getting kinda serious...
Think I'll go play somewhere else...

[sergizmo]

Water under the bridge. No problem. We can keep this discussion going.

Does anyone have any experience with prior art? In particular, if companies filing patents fail to produce it upon filing or if the patent office really checks up on it. I have heard of certain companies ommiting prior art that was very relevant to their patent and getting it anyway.

Also, is the patent office over-burdened? Are patents getting through that shouldn't (Too broad, prior art, not innovative) simply because there isn't enough time/employees to process them properly?

Serge

[Geof]

......I cant help wondering if the world might be better if there weren't patent restrictions.

I have seen this sentiment expressed elsewhere, and there is one area where patent protection has had a definite benefical effect I think; that is in pharmaceuticals; drugs, antibiotics, etc.

These are enormously expensive to develop...but in many cases fairly simple to make. If the big drug companies had not been able to protect their investment in developing medicinal drugs I think most of them would not have been developed.

[JustSomeGuy]

I have seen this sentiment expressed elsewhere, and there is one area where patent protection has had a definite benefical effect I think; that is in pharmaceuticals; drugs, antibiotics, etc.

These are enormously expensive to develop...but in many cases fairly simple to make. If the big drug companies had not been able to protect their investment in developing medicinal drugs I think most of them would not have been developed.

I agree for the most part. Drugs have an exceptionally long development and testing cycle and are very simple to reproduce (even at the level of an individual as illustrated by the proliferation of meth and ecstasy labs). The problem with this one example is that most drug companies amortize the cost of development in such a way that they can recover that cost in a fairly short time. That means that many who need possible life saving treatment but do not have sufficient health insurance, are left out. This is not even visiting the issue of patients in other countries with lower standards of living and would never be able to afford either health insurance or drugs that could cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a day.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that anybody who develops something like a life saving drug should be able to profit (or at least recover cost of development) but saving lives and making money should not be exclusive (ok, I may have rose coloured glasses on here).
I don't have a solution to this one as any compromise would seem too socialist or too big business to be acceptable by all.
It is food for thought though. The next time you go to fill a prescription, try to figure out why two drugs, that are equally difficult/simple to make, and were developed years ago have such different prices...

[Geof]

I agree that sometimes one gets the impression that the drug companies 'take undue advantage' of their patent protected position. I am phrasing things carefully enough that I am not likely to stimulate a lawyer's letter?

You are correct about the difficulty of preventing this, but I have had some thoughts on this, and also copyright: Companies that want to enjoy patent protection, which is a privilege bestowed by the government, should be required to demonstrate what their expenses were to develop the patentable item and what their income from it is, and the protection should extend for sufficient time to recoup the initial investment plus an imputed interest rate equal to say twice the prevailing bank rate. If they do not utilize the patented product the patent would lapse, if they stop supporting the product, the patent would lapse. Basically if they want protection they have to show the need, and simply locking something up so it cannot be used would not constitute need.

[JustSomeGuy]

I agree that sometimes one gets the impression that the drug companies 'take undue advantage' of their patent protected position. I am phrasing things carefully enough that I am not likely to stimulate a lawyer's letter?

You are correct about the difficulty of preventing this, but I have had some thoughts on this, and also copyright: Companies that want to enjoy patent protection, which is a privilege bestowed by the government, should be required to demonstrate what their expenses were to develop the patentable item and what their income from it is, and the protection should extend for sufficient time to recoup the initial investment plus an imputed interest rate equal to say twice the prevailing bank rate. If they do not utilize the patented product the patent would lapse, if they stop supporting the product, the patent would lapse. Basically if they want protection they have to show the need, and simply locking something up so it cannot be used would not constitute need.

Ah... Something like domain name campers. Remember in 1999. There were all those people who registered domain names relating to Y2K and were hoping to sell them for a bundle.
I agree with the "Use it or Lose it" thing. Measurable milestones should be easy to put in place to make sure companies comply in bringing something to market. This could prevent companies from putting up excuses for camping on a product that could save lives.
On your point about recouping costs, why not extend the patent protection for a longer period if the company can show that they will amortize expenses over a longer period (this would have to be regulated of course). That way an early user of the drug is not paying an arm, two legs and a liver for a drug treatment that may cost another patient pocket change in 15 years. This is just a thought. I'm not really in favour of extending patent protection but there are a lot of people suffering in the world.