Crowdsourcing and Patents

Crowdsourcing and Patents

In my blog post last week, I discussed patent trolls, or more formally known as non-practicing entities. Patent trolls are companies that make money solely on licensing and litigation from patents; they often buy these patents from other individuals or companies and usually are not even involved in creating it. The dramatic increase of patent troll companies over the past five years has resulted in an increased number of patent cases making it to the court. Many innovators, consumers, and other companies have long seen patent trolls as companies who's practices are unfair. Despite supporters who argue that patent trolling is no more unfair than investing it favorable stocks, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has launched its own attempt at slowing these companies down.

Recently, the USPTO worked with a crowdsourcing Q&A company called Stack Exchange to launch a website called AskPatents.com. The website aims to act "by introducing third party input into the examination process," particularly focusing on a factor known as prior art. Prior art is one of the most important aspects to examine to verify a patent's legitimacy. Prior art, essentially, is "any publicly available evidence that the idea for an invention is not new, and/or is completely obvious." Prior art can be represented in many ways, including "earlier patents, scientific research papers, newspaper articles, webpages, textbooks, or any other publication or available example of an idea." To better assess the subjectivity of declaring something obvious the USPTO says that a patent claim is invalid if it's obvious to a "person having ordinary skill in the art." So how does crowdsourcing come in to play?

Finding prior art is a difficult and time consuming tasks. To make it even harder, patent application examiners are only allowed 22.5 hour per application to discover prior art. By crowdsourcing, people can help the USPTO find prior art faster and more extensively. The system has proved to work since day one. On September 20th, 2012, the day Ask Patents launched, a user posted a thread regarding a newly released Microsoft patent application for the "functionality of smacking a phone to silence it." Within just six hours, another user was able to find evidence of prior art that was "exactly what Microsoft [was] trying to patent, and pre-[dated] Microsoft's filling by two years." The patent was immediately invalidated.

I, and certainly many others, can agree that the patent system as a whole needs reform. Its original design and system is no longer suitable for the growing commercial marketplace we have. There are too many loopholes and ways for companies, like patent trolls, to take unfair advantage of the system, ultimately benefiting no one but themselves. I personally believe that opening the examination process to the public and crowdsourcing is an great step in the right direction. Crowdsourcing has proven to be very successful in many other fields and industries and I think that it would be excellent candidate for improving the patent system. People will be motivated to help examine patents because they are the ones who see the unfairness and are affected by unjust patents.

This blog post concludes the postings for this blog. Thank you to all those who have read and/or commented on this blog.

Source article:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/can-crowdsourcing-save-the-patent-system/

Patent Trolling

Patent Trolling

Non-practicing entities (NPEs) are the more formal names for patent trolls, companies who's incomes rely solely on licensing and litigation from patents; these companies "often [have] no hand in creating" the patents they own. Appearances of patent trolls seems to be becoming ever more ubiquitous in today's tech news. Not surprisingly, this is due to the sudden increase of patent trolling companies. In fact, according to a recent study by Robin Feldman, a law professor and patent-law expert, the number of patent troll companies has doubled in the last five years and as a result, the percentages of patent suits making to the courts has increased from "22% in 2007 to 40% in 2011." This jump is phenomenal and demonstrates the power these newly formed companies have on the industry and market. Although the general public views patent trolling negatively, Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures, a very well know "patent trolling" company, defends the system by saying that the market is "immature" and that "enforcing patents is no more wrong than investing in preferred stock." Nathan continues to defend this practice of business by suggesting that this is simply a capitalistic system in which "people compete" and are driven by the "set of incentives that go around patents." Even though Nathan makes some reasonably valid points, I think that the patent trolling is an inherently unethical and counter-progressive business practice. Even Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, says that patents are "a pain in the ass and it's overhead," agree that the system is broken.

Consumers, innovators, and even the government are angered by the deliberate misuse of the patent system by patent trolls. These companies play an unfair game that benefit no one but themselves: they increase prices of consumer products through licensing and settlements, they hinder innovation, and threaten the integrity of our patent system. Last year, the America Invents Act was passed that opened over 500 patent suits to investigation and added new rules, among them included making it more difficult for "patent monitizers to file complaints against several defendants at once." Many attempts have been made slow the patent trolling business, and one recent attempt aims to improve the patent system as a whole. This new attempt uses crowdsourcing and will the topic of next week's blog post.

What are you opinions on patent trolls? Do you think they are justified? Do you agree with Nathan Myhrovld's views?

Sources

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/09581320679/dark-patent-troll-rises-now-40-all-patent-litigation.shtml

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/30/intellectual-ventures-nathan-myhrvold-defends-patent-trolling/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303292204577514782932390996.html

Patent Harmonization

Patent Harmonization

Last week I talked about international patents and how it is particularly difficult for both companies and individuals to have their patents enforced and honored the same way around the world. I want to thank Sam for bringing the idea of patent harmonization to my attention because patent harmonization is an important part of international patenting that I should have mentioned but never came across in my research.

To reiterate what I talked about last week, one of the major problems with patents nowadays is how international patents are handled. Because each country has differing patent policies, regulations, enforcement, and judicial systems, it is makes filing a patent extremely difficult because rules are not consistent throughout the world. Factors like eligibility, industrial applicability (what is considered "useful"), previous inventions, novelty, obviousness, and frame-of-reference contribute to the differences in patentability throughout the world.

In order to address this, patent harmonization attempts to unify patent laws through treaties and policy agreements. One of the first efforts of patent harmonization was the Paris Convention of 1884 which every industrialized nation except of Taiwan signed. The treaty "allows an inventor in a signatory country to file an application in his or her home country first and then file corresponding applications within one year in any other signatory country." The filing date in of the patent in another country must the first filing date in the home country. This gives time to inventors to ensure that they have the opportunity to file for patents in other countries in a timely manner. Another important treaty was the Patent Cooperation Treaty which directly dealt with the patent prosecutions and laid out standards for prosecution procedures. The significance was that enforcement of patent laws were a step closer to be uniform throughout. Other patent harmonization efforts in history included the World Trade Organization's Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, General Agreements on Tariff and Trade (GATT) patent agreements, North American Free Trade Agreement, and more recently, the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. The European Union has also created several of their own policies as well as has formed the European Patent Office.

I think that patent harmonization is an invaluable aspect of our patent system today. Our world is becoming increasingly connected, and each year international relationships grow even further. So with the growing number of innovations each year, it is critical that we form a unified patenting system so that people around the world will continue to be motivated to invent new things. What do you think of patent harmonization? Are they any disadvantages?

Source article: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/mdd/v04/i01/html/patents.html

International Patents

International Patents

As technology pushes the boundaries of innovation everyday, companies and people will constantly be looking for ways to protect their inventions and intellectual property from others. Patents an essential part of this process, and it is important that the patent holders get their inventions protected not just in their own country but worldwide as well. It would not make sense to only have a patent be protected in a particular region because someone else in the world could simply take the idea that was made public and benefit from it.

One of the major problems with patents is that patent laws are not completely uniform in all parts of the world. As former USPTO chief states, "the solution to the US's patent problems are international." Some lawsuits of patent infringements are won in other countries while others are lost is the result of differing legal systems, legal precedences, and judges in different parts of the world. The same also applies for how verdicts are handled as well. For example, in the United Kingdom, Apple lost the lawsuit battle that attempted to claim that Samsung infringed on Apple's patents. As a result, the U.K. courts ordered Apple to post an apology letter on their website for one month stated that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's patents. In the U.S., if Apple had lost the battle, the courts likely would not have ordered this kind of penalty against Apple.

Having such discrepancies in patents laws throughout the world makes it particularly difficult for companies and individuals to enforce their patents. Even if they can enforce a patent in country it does not mean they can expect the same enforcement in another. Cost is also another factor because companies have to pay litigation and lawyers costs for each individual country; which as you can imagine adds up.

Fortunately, for the most part, there are certain basic international patent and treaty laws in place that allow countries to at least recognize patents from different countries. However, there is nothing that enforces how a judicial system in each country handles litigations. Do you think that there should be a stricter international patent system? Do you think such a system is even possible? Should countries recognize each others' precedences?

Original Article: http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=6c951952-adfe-4185-a446-7ab8e7b5e2d9

Patenting Genes

Patenting Genes

So we've all heard of patents pertaining to physical inventions like phones and computers. But what about something that isn't necessarily man-made? Like genes.

In the world of biotechnology, an ongoing controversy over whether or not genes can be patented has generated much concern not only among companies but also individuals. So what does it really mean to patent genes? Well, what it boils down to is the DNA sequence that comprises a gene that has known function. Companies have an invested interest in patenting genes because if they own the patent to a particular gene, no other biotechnology company can use or sell what they produce with that gene. This certainly makes sense since companies and their investors may put millions of dollars of research into one gene. Currently, genes that can be patented are those that are artificially created and are not found in nature. This makes sense because if you engineer a gene that serves a particular function (such as "eating oil") and that gene is not natural, it should considered man-made and therefore patent protectable. The real controversial debate comes from whether or not you can patent natural genes, particularly those of human genes.

Recently, the Supreme Court overruled a ruling that human genes can be patented. Myraid Genetics Inc. a biotechnology company located in Salt Lake City, owned a patent for "two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer" for over a decade ago. Myraid Genetics Inc., since then, has been the only company allowed to conduct research and issue diagnostics (which can cost over $3000) on these genes, an issue that many believe is unfair. Courts had to decide "whether or not isolated genes are products of nature or man-made inventions." A CBS news anchor also stated, "we shouldn't be limited to something as basic as our own DNA. The human genome still holds secrets that can save lives and you can't put a price tag, or a patent, on that." Now that the Supreme Court has denied the ability for companies to patent human genes, a precedence will be set that will certainly affect many new biotechnology research in the future.

I think that patents on genes should not be allowed because it raises an ethical issue. Say a company did a diagnostics on you and found a gene that they wanted to own, does that company now own a part of you? Without patents however, companies may find it too risky to invest that much time and money in research if they can't own rights to what they end up discovering. What do you think of gene patents? Do you think that companies should have the right to own human genes?

Article and Image Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/human-genes-patent-supreme-court_n_1380990.html

Software Patents

Software Patents

When we think of patents, we usually think of physical inventions being patented by their inventor(s). But what about something slightly less concrete, like software?

Right now, the United States Patent and Trademark Office doesn't see software as anything different from regular a invention. In fact there is nothing that "specifically delineates between hardware and software." In the past, many software patents have been rejected by the Patent Office because they believe that "software is ultimately just the automated expression of various algorithms and math..." And since you can't patent math, many software patents have been rejected. There is a fine line between the boundaries of "just math" and a "patentable invention."

This patent system is flawed in this sense because you could say that any invention can be considered an extension of "math." Take of example the TurboTap beer nozzle, invented by a student at the University of Wisconsin. The device allows beer to be poured faster with less foam because of its long shape and internal structure. One could argue that his invention is just a "clever application of fluid dynamics." The argument is still in the air, are software patents truly legitimate and patentable patents? According to The Verge, "The problem isn't software patents - the problem is that software patents don't actually exist."

As a developer, I think the answer is controversial because much of computer science has been built on collaborative and shared ideas. However if a company spends millions in developing complex algorithms, that company should certainly own some rights to it. If someone patents software, what would it mean for someone else to use a similar method of programming? How would it be enforced?

What do you think about patenting software? Do you think the argument that any physical invention could just be considered an application of math?

Original Article: http://www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/

Patents Hinder Innovation

Patents Hinder Innovation

The patent system was established in 1790 as a way to protect inventors and their inventions. The idea of the patent system was more or less simple, you surrender your idea to the public (basically letting everyone know) and in return you own rights that protect your idea from being used by otherwise without your permission. Sounds like a pretty good idea right?

Unfortunately, that system no longer works as well as it used it. Today, technology grows, innovates, and improves on so many existing inventions that makes it hard to tell whether or not the original patent holder of something fundamental in technology can sue everyone who uses it. Furthermore, some patents in technology are so broad and ambiguous that it makes arguing certain ideas and innovations even more difficult. And to make things even worse, there are now plenty of firms whose businesses are to buy up patents, then sue people who they think are possibly infringing on them. Otherwise known as "patent trolls," these companies are truly abusing the patent system.

I think that the patent system now hinders innovation rather than protecting or helping it because of those flaws. Patents aren't cheap either, an inventor looking to patent his or her idea may find themselves deep in patent and layer fees; which ultimately detracts from the innovation (i.e. money being spent on issuing patents could be used to develop the innovation). Even worse are new innovations that are destroyed because a patent troll decides to sue over some idea they believe they own. Not only is money being misused, innovators are intimidated and hesitant when coming up with a new idea because the possibility of infringing on someone's ideas can result in huge and, more often than not, unreasonable costs.

What are your thoughts on the patent system? Do you think that the patent system should be remodeled? Do patent trolls really have the ethical rights to do sue just for the purpose of money?

Image and article source: www.eff.org