Patent Pirates vs. Patent Trolls

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Russell Nelson <nelson () crynwr com>
Date: February 15, 2006 2:35:54 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: RJR () PIAUSA org
Subject: Re: [IP] Patent Pirates vs. Patent Trolls

> My first post on this topic is to expose the myth of patent trolls,
> for those enforcement entities which patent pirates like to call
> trolls are really angles riding to the rescue of inventors who are
> being abused by patent pirates.

Dave, I've seen what happens when a patent thief steals from the
public domain.  Innocent victims like myself, who put their patentable
ideas into the public domain, find their ideas stolen and put into
somebody's pocket.

I invented the idea of putting a web browser and web pages onto a
CDROM and shipping the CDROM as a cache.  I didn't patent the idea.
Somebody else did, though.  They sold that idea to a set of patent
trolls who then proceeded to demand a toll from everyone crossing
"their" bridge.  This included folks like Symantec and Electronic
Arts.

I'm sorry, but in order to not be a patent troll, first you have to
invent something that wasn't invented before.  Unfortunately, the US
Patent and Trademark Office has very little incentive to say "sorry,
you can keep your money because your idea has already been invented."
Much easier and profitable for them to simply take people's money and
let them steal from the public domain.

For example, the current standard for "invention" is "anything not
already patented".  They don't do a search for prior art anymore.
They only search their own database of patents, and if somebody hasn't
already patented the idea, then it must be patentable.

Similarly, the concept of "obviousness" is no longer applicable.  The
English patent system didn't have this concept, and somebody patented
the crank.  So for the life of that patent, people had to invent all
sorts of monkey-motion devices to convert between rotary motion and
linear motion.  Right now, in the US, nothing is ever too obvious to
patent.

You don't even need to prove to the USPTO that your invention is
functional.  It may rely on technology which doesn't exist yet -- but
when it does, you'll have a valid patent on your improvement to that
idea.

I must note that this isn't particularly the USPTO's fault.  The
public benefits from an effective patent system which keeps public
ideas public and yet protects actual inventions.  Yet the USPTO isn't
given sufficient public funding to pursue that mission.

It's possible that the members of the Professional Inventors Alliance
are actual inventors of new devices.  However, given the quality of
patents being issued today, mere ownership of a patent is not proof of
having invented anything.  It's just as likely to be a bill of sale
for a device that "fell off the back of a truck."  From my perspective
as a victim, the Professional Inventors Alliance looks more like a
Professional Burglars Alliance.

If Ronald Riley wants more respect for his organization, he should be
in favor of making the US patent system more respectable.  Patent
reform should be his golden child, not his bastard stepson.

--  
--my blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | A computer without  
Python is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | like a CPU without  
memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | it runs, but you  
can't do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | anything useful  
with it.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/