|
Patents: Good for nothing?
|
|
By gibsonfvse, Section Reviews
Posted on Thu May 20, 2004 at 01:19:45 PM MST
|
Are patents good for the homebrew power community? What about for small-time inventors and businesses? Do they help or hurt innovation?
|
 |
This isn't really a rant, per se, but my attempt to gauge member opinions on patents. It's intended to be thought-provoking and will probably come off as a bit controversial, but hopefully it won't come across as entirely inflammatory or ignorant. I'll also try not to generalize too much. In other words, if I misquote, take anything out of context, or otherwise say anything silly, just stick-it-to-me. Well, here goes:
I've been browsing the board for a short time (and have been a registered poster for a much shorter time), but I've already noticed that the homebrew power community is good at coming up with new and great out-of-the-box ideas. Perhaps lack of money and other resources are a reason for this; most people don't have computer-controlled machining tools or piles of carbon fiber in their garages for example. Thus, the natural tendency is to start with what one already has, whether it be a bike tach or a brake drum, and use it for a new purpose. In a slightly different vein, folks wishing to challenge the establishment muse on and sometimes build and test new designs. There's a high level of information-sharing that goes on in this board, and I find this to be encouraging and inspiring.
Some days ago, I found a post by a member requesting help designing a wind turbine (I just looked for the post again but wasn't able to find it). When the person showed a computer drawing with the words "Patent Pending" scrawled into it, a commenter expressed distaste in the closed nature of the project. Granted, this was a rather specific case where the member was asking for community help on something he/she or an associated group intended to patent. This, however, leads me to ask: Does a patent naturally close off a project, limiting the contributions of or value to other community members? I have a couple of thoughts, hopefully not-too-scattered, and note that IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).
1. A patent means disclosure. At least where the USPTO is concerned, people who patent anything essentially disclose details about an invention. Anyone who wants to learn at least a little bit about the thing can go to the source itself and read up on it. Several people have mentioned starting at the USPTO website to gather ideas. I think this is part of the purpose of the patent system, and inventors should use it for this.
2. Ideas should not be patentable. Implementations of ideas should be. The ideal patent should be very specific to a particular creation. Example: "I claim a method of harnessing energy stored in the wind using -blah- number of blades with -blah- chord, -blah- twist, and -blah- method of safety consisting of..." The details should be laid right out on the table. This would not only allow an interested party to possibly build the proposed invention (given sufficient resources), but also allow people to see clear paths to new and better ideas that don't violate the patent. A patent that is not specific enough does not help the community in this way. Of course, "specific" is often in the eye of the reader.
3. Darn near any system can be abused. The much-ballyhoed Amazon.com one-click patent (US #5,960,411), which Richard Stallman claims trumps all over much of e-commerce (the patent with some short commentary from him can be found here), is a possible example of this. Also in the computer industry, small-time companies are springing up to file suit against big companies, claiming infringement of patented technology. The patenting of genes is highly controversial (some pros and cons here). Humans are humans, and not all are altruistic; any system is subject to abuse. There are many bad apples out there, but there are also honest and hardworking individuals who just want credit for their work.
4. A patent means credit. With the speed at which information travels these days, its very easy for someone to be misquoted, taken out of context, or outright robbed upon sharing a great idea. The patent process is -supposedly- intended to help this by giving clear credit where credit is due.
5. A patent doesn't mean automatic riches. Most people like the idea of having more money, but a patent is not an automatic ticket to riches, nor does it have to be at all. Most of you can think of a case where a company has sued an individual or other group for millions claiming infringement. Also, advertisements for the patent process clearly suggest the idea of marketing one's invention after it is patented. Some might even say the patent process is pointless if one isn't going to market the invention. For some, however, just having credit is enough, and sometimes the time and effort required to sell an invention may just not be worth the trouble.
I don't know nearly enough to claim that the patent system is broken; I'm sure there are many smart and hardworking individuals in the USPTO, and all systems have their flaws. In summarizing the numbers up above, patents could possibly help those in the homebrew power community who come up with great ideas and simply want their credit. Considering recent abuses of the system, however (especially in the software industry), the very idea of patents often leaves a sour taste in many mouths. I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts, as I'm still formulating my own.
Some links:
- A very short call for reform: Patent legislation considered helpful
- The USPTO FAQ
- Patent process taking years: U.S. Patent Office Swamped By Backlog
|
|
|
Total Views
|
|
96 Scoop users have viewed this posting.
|
|
