Technology Suppression - Patent vs Progress

[Phi for All]

This has always been a sore subject with me, mostly because I'm torn right down the middle: Which is more important, new technology or patent rights?

 

Many huge companies purchase patents on new technology only because it would hurt their business selling the old technology. They buy the rights only to shelve the ideas, never intending to make it available to the public.

 

I just purchased one of James Dyson's clever bagless vacuum cleaners. According to Dyson's biography, his ideas were turned away by the major manufacturers because it threatened the US$500M vacuum cleaner *bag* market. If the Japanese hadn't loved his wonderfully engineered machine Dyson wouldn't have been able to raise the capital to patent and manufacture his design here in the US. Hoover's vice president for Europe, Mike Rutter, said on U.K. national TV, "I do regret that Hoover as a company did not take the product technology off Dyson; it would have lain on the shelf and not been used."

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/dyson.htm

 

Currently, Chevron controls large format NiMH battery technology that could give us a completely electric car with vastly improved range, the only drawback to past examples from Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota. Chevron only allows its subsidiary Cobasys to sell these large format NiMH batteries in gas / electric hybrids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery

 

I realize it's good business to edge out the competition. I also hate the fact that mega-corporations have the finances to buy patents and then do nothing with them. They also have the clout to make sure very little is heard about it if they choose, bypassing the normal power of consumer demand. So where do you stand, with the free market or with the inventors trying to make life better? And is it really a free market if the new technology is being suppressed so established markets can remain past their normal sustainability?

[ecoli]

This is what I don't understand... usually it's the old technology where the competition is the strongest...

Everyone makes gas powered cars. But an efficient electric car is desirable and rare.

 

If the new technology is marketable, and, because it's new, they should have a natural monopoly on the market. Surely it must be more profitable to be a monopoly in an industry that not have to build new infrastructure.

[Daecon]

Every time I read about something like this I slip a little further into Misanthropy...

[iNow]

To me, it comes down to yet another one of those "spirit of the law" versus "letter of the law" issues. Patents were never intended to prevent new and more efficient technology. Also, they were never intended to keep down the lowly inventor with no name, no money, and just a few great ideas and a lot of ambition and industriousness.

 

I think that we have had our collective head's in our collective asses for entirely too long on this, and we need such drastic change as a culture and a society that it's time to revolutionize this outdated and dysfunctional system.

 

 

I also didn't know I felt so strongly about the issue until just now.

[waitforufo]

Patents were invented for two purposes. First, for a short period of time, they grant to the inventor the rights of property to inventive ideas. Initially this short period of time was 17 years (at least in the US). Second, they required the inventor to fully disclose their ideas. This disclosure is intended to be complete enough so that those skilled in the art could produce the patented invention.

 

By setting up the patent process in this way, inventors would benefit near term from the windfall of their inventiveness, and society would benefit long term from technological advancement the patent document full disclosure would provide. After 17 years, anyone could copy every detail of the invention without penalty.

 

Today, the patent process works much like it did when created (By Thomas Jefferson if I recall correctly). The difference today that patents last for 20 years and that period can be extended by paying fees that increase by year. The initial period was extended by international agreement. Why the fee based extensions? You see, governments decided to take advantage of really good proven ideas through taxation. Those fees (taxes) grow quickly year over year so most patent holders drop them after a few years.

 

Many companies and individuals still question the value of patents. The disclosure cost is a high one. Once you disclose, only law can keep someone from copying your ideas. That doesn't work so well in our international business environment. China for example is a huge market and they generally don't prosecute those that violate ideas patented in the US or Europe but not in China. Even if it is patented in China, you have to prove the violation in the Chinese court system. What do the Chinese care if some US or European citizen or corporation gets screwed?

 

Holding your inventiveness as a trade secret may protect ideas better than a patent. Such secrets however don't benefit society, as open patent disclosures do. You see, the patent concept was quite an enlightened egalitarian one.

 

Today, most companies file for patents to prevent getting sued for building their own inventions. You see if they don't file a patent, some yahoo comes along and sees what they are selling and files a patent on it. Then he hires his brother in law lawyer to sue the company he has copied. Yes the inventive company can go through the whole court system and win, but in the mean time his production line can be shut down by judicial injunction. So it's generally cheaper to just settle out of court. To keep this from happening, companies and individuals file for patents.

[JohnF]

I'm of the opinion that a patent should only require a third party to pay a royalty for making use of the idea and that the patent holder should not be allowed to prevent the use of the invention. I know it would require a carefully thought out framework to determine royalty fees but at least good ideas would not get buried.

 

After going through the patent process a number of times myself I soon found that some companies really do resist innovation that can have a detrimental effect on their existing products. My last invention was just published on the Internet since I decided that patent and marketing would probably lead nowhere and cost me a fortune. I figured it would be much better to see one of my inventions get used properly; I'm still waiting

[Daecon]

What was the nature of your invention?

[JohnF]

What was the nature of your invention?

 

It's a multi aspect ratio masking method for a projection screen. As the projection screen is lowered past the halfway point the upper mask is raised allowing you to have a screen of any aspect ratio within the limits of the maximum screen height. It's surprisingly simple in it's implementation.

 

You can read more on my site at...

http://www.4tn.net/HomeCinema/HowToDoIt.aspx

 

And there's also a video of the second screen I made here...

http://www.4tn.net/HomeCinema/owlothello.mpg

 

Best to save the video file to your PC and play it locally. Sorry about the auto-focus

[Mr Skeptic]

I like JohnF's idea of making patents royalty only, without the monopoly that would allow someone to bury the idea. However, that also has some issues. Many times, the patent is used as a product protection thing, in which case, the company would not want the technology disclosed if others could then copy it. Secondly, a monopoly makes the new idea more profitable, which would increase the reward to the patent holder, and encourage companies to research new technology.

 

Therefore, I would suggest that the patent holder should be able to have a monopoly, but only if they are actively working on the idea, or producing products with the patent. But if they have the idea sitting on the shelf, anyone who wants to can use the idea and pay royalties.

[Phi for All]

Therefore, I would suggest that the patent holder should be able to have a monopoly, but only if they are actively working on the idea, or producing products with the patent. But if they have the idea sitting on the shelf, anyone who wants to can use the idea and pay royalties.

This seems like a really fair compromise, and one that would actually make patent-squatting (oh please, someone come up with something better) less attractive to the big boys. It also keeps the market fresher, the inventors invigorated (think of all the hopefuls that signed deals to receive royalties on every unit sold, only to have their inventions shelved), and the patent purchaser protected on his ROI.

 

The phrase, "actively working" would need some more refined language. I see a lot of wiggle-room and opportunities for abuse.

 

What about technology that is critical, like the NiMH batteries? Thousands are dying over oil and most everyone is crying out about foreign dependence while technology that could help is being suppressed... by an oil company. It seems almost treasonous and that's where this idea of technology suppression crosses the good business line for me. Is there some way critical technology could be treated differently?

[YT2095]

I`m somewhat forced to look at it from the Inventors side of the argument.

As someone who is sitting on 2 Patentable ideas, one of which has been field tested and received several accolades form Law Enforcement AND a Law court, I simply cannot afford to get these ideas patented!

 

the money involved is horrendous!

 

and so in one way I CAN appreciate an inventor that has a patent selling it to a high bidder and not caring what`s done with it after, if for no other reason but to Simply just recoup the Cash (s)he had to lay out in the 1`st place!

[Phi for All]

and so in one way I CAN appreciate an inventor that has a patent selling it to a high bidder and not caring what`s done with it after, if for no other reason but to Simply just recoup the Cash (s)he had to lay out in the 1`st place!

I have no problem with that either. It's up to the inventors to do what they wish with their ideas. And if they let the $ in their eyes blind them to the fine print in a contract and sign away their invention for royalties that will never materialize because of patent-squatting, that's their own fault. They should have asked for a clause that protects them.

 

I guess it's the idea of corporations so large they can afford to squelch competitive technology and also pay to spin or prevent media reports on new technology that bother me most. These big guys can even lobby for laws to be passed that protect their investments. waitforufo, you mentioned that patent periods and extensions were changed at some point. Do you know when and who and (supposedly) why?

[waitforufo]

I have no problem with that either. It's up to the inventors to do what they wish with their ideas. And if they let the $ in their eyes blind them to the fine print in a contract and sign away their invention for royalties that will never materialize because of patent-squatting, that's their own fault. They should have asked for a clause that protects them.

 

I guess it's the idea of corporations so large they can afford to squelch competitive technology and also pay to spin or prevent media reports on new technology that bother me most. These big guys can even lobby for laws to be passed that protect their investments. waitforufo, you mentioned that patent periods and extensions were changed at some point. Do you know when and who and (supposedly) why?

 

First, I live in the US so my comments will be US centric. My name is on several patents but the various companies I have worked for own all the patent rights. Generally on your fist day of employment with most US companies you sign an agreement with your employer saying that all your inventive ideas developed during your employment are owned by your employer. By the way that includes ideas you had before you came to work for them and ideas that have nothing to do with the business area of your employer. If you don't sign it you don't get the job. So most employed engineers and scientist patent ideas because patents look good on your resume.

 

With regard to squelching competitive technology or preventing media reports on new technology, the patent process was designed to prevent such things. Anyone can go the US patent website, http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html , and search all issued and applied for patents. As I said in my last post, the information found in these documents should be complete enough for anyone skilled in the art to create a copy of the invention. Can a company pay the media to not report on inventive ideas? A media outlet is free to agree not to publish for a fee, but the information is available to anyone at the above site.

 

With regard to changes in patent law, there have been so many changes in the last decade they all can't be cover here. Most of these changes have been driven by world trade and economic globalization. Many of the changes were to increase commonality in law from country to country. For example most countries had patent protection for 20 years while the US used 17 years. The US changed to 20 years to match the majority of countries. In the US, you own your ideas from the time you think of them. If you can prove through notes that you thought of an idea before anyone else, you own it from the date you thought of it. This can be done from dated notebooks. This is why most US engineers use notebooks with numbered pages that are stitched in. In most other countries ideas are not owned until you file for a patent. To align with other countries the US created a new filing type, the provisional patent. This is basically filing your notes. After filing a provisional patent you have one year to file an actual utility patent. The provisional patent was created to provide US inventors earlier filing date protection. US utility patent filings can be more difficult to prepare than patents filed in other countries. These types of changes go on and on.

 

With regard to the cost of patenting, in one country the fees paid to the government patent office are generally not too bad. I don't think you would have to pay more that $5k total. Patent lawyer or patent agent fees are a bigger issue. The really big issue is that you have to file in every country that you want protection. Also, if someone violates your patent you have to sue them. That can really cost you. Imagine an individual suing GM or Exxon. Such things have been done successfully but most can't afford it. There was a successful case of a guy that had a patent on a superior car radiator cap and overflow reservoir. Such cases are rare.

 

The really big issue was permitting companies to extend the period of patent filing by paying fees. My opinion is that this is a bad idea. This is the government permitting companies to extend their ownership by paying a tax. This just allows too much politics in the patent process. US tax law for example has given tax exemptions to specific individuals and specific companies. So your lobbyist can buy you any fee you want.

[Phi for All]

With regard to squelching competitive technology or preventing media reports on new technology, the patent process was designed to prevent such things. Anyone can go the US patent website, http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html , and search all issued and applied for patents. As I said in my last post, the information found in these documents should be complete enough for anyone skilled in the art to create a copy of the invention. Can a company pay the media to not report on inventive ideas? A media outlet is free to agree not to publish for a fee, but the information is available to anyone at the above site.

What I meant by squelching news related to new technology was more general sources of such news. The general public, those people who could hopefully influence their representatives in government, aren't watching the patent office on a regular basis. They rely on media which is more and more in the hands of those who stand to profit by keeping new technology quiet.

 

Many people never heard about the electric car trials conducted in California in an attempt to comply with zero emissions legislation being considered there. Most people never heard about those cars being recalled and scrapped even though the people leasing them loved them and wanted to purchase them.

The really big issue was permitting companies to extend the period of patent filing by paying fees. My opinion is that this is a bad idea. This is the government permitting companies to extend their ownership by paying a tax. This just allows too much politics in the patent process. US tax law for example has given tax exemptions to specific individuals and specific companies. So your lobbyist can buy you any fee you want.

It seems this would be a good place to start if we wanted to change existing patent laws. We would also need provisions so that court cases can't be protracted just because one entity can outspend another.

[Psycho]

 

Therefore, I would suggest that the patent holder should be able to have a monopoly, but only if they are actively working on the idea, or producing products with the patent. But if they have the idea sitting on the shelf, anyone who wants to can use the idea and pay royalties.

 

It would never work, for one you have to prove they are not working on it and then secondly, if they can afford to buy up these patents they aren't going to be bothered with putting a 2 people in an office too "work" on it.

 

I don't agree they should be allowed to do this but that isn't going to solve anything, one way as other people have mentioned is to have other people be allowed to produce the product and pay royalties but of cause you would have to cap the percentage that the royalty would be.

 

In some cases people patent technology so other companies can't use it while they can giving them a competitive advantage and that should be allowed, therefore that wouldn't work either as it would reduce innovation cause once one company has put a lot of money into research another could just take it and pay royalties which may never be enough to recuperate the developers costs.

[tvp45]

I've patented inventions, not patented others, and have made legal "copies" of patented products. In most instances, the patent process does not hinder progress and benefit to mankind.

 

The patent applications must describe how the invention works. Those applications are freely searchable. Any competent engineer, biochemist, or whatever specific technologist is required, should be able to, given a decent lab and budget, be able to understand the original process and then devise an alternative that does not violate the original patent. This is commonly done in industry.

 

There are, of course, exceptions but those are few and far between.

 

The main argument for patents is that an invention is property - no different than any other save that it is intellectual. I might, for example, own a perfectly restored 1953 Buick which the city of Flint wants for a public display. If I refuse to sell, does Flint have the right to simply take my car, paying me a fair price in the process?

 

The central question, then, is what is called eminent domain where private property can be taken in a forced sale when the public good overwhelmingly transcends the private interest. If I were sitting on a cure for AIDS, a government might legitimately seize that invention, paying me a fair price. But, to do that for an improved battery would really be a stretch.

 

But eminent domain will always be fluid and heuristic as conditions and public sentiment change. It's messy, but the lack of law is far more so.

[CaptainPanic]

I know of examples of cheap, clean technology that has been on a shelf for a year, maybe two now... it's not patented, and anyone can use it.

 

http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=29e95a1f-2887-4201-a810-d31e8234ca84〈=en

 

Does anyone use it? No. Why not, you think? Well, anyone going into production of solar boilers is going to make a mistake. Competition will learn from the mistake, and will make a better solar boiler. Nobody wants to be the first!

 

And as soon as anyone actually finds out how to make a good product (overcoming startup problems), the Chinese will step in, and do it twice as cheap.

 

Many companies want to have a technology, but they prefer to have a patent to protect their interests.

 

But I do agree that it's criminal that useful technology is locked up behind a patent! If you buy a patent, it should be mandatory that you use it!!

[Phi for All]

The patent applications must describe how the invention works. Those applications are freely searchable. Any competent engineer, biochemist, or whatever specific technologist is required, should be able to, given a decent lab and budget, be able to understand the original process and then devise an alternative that does not violate the original patent. This is commonly done in industry.

This is possible with design patents. Change enough of the design and you've got a completely different patentable product. Design patents aren't worth much in situations like the ones we're describing.

 

Utility patents are different. They must have many features which make the device unique. Searching for and understanding how a device works may be worthless if you can't change the points on which the utility patent was issued. Most of the time a good utility patent will make it impossible to copy the device without making it worthless in the process.

The main argument for patents is that an invention is property - no different than any other save that it is intellectual. I might, for example, own a perfectly restored 1953 Buick which the city of Flint wants for a public display. If I refuse to sell, does Flint have the right to simply take my car, paying me a fair price in the process?

The law sees no difference between a patent and any other property, you're right there. This would need to be addressed before any changes in patent law can occur. Intent is the key, imo. Suppression should not be part of what the patent office helps inventors do.

The central question, then, is what is called eminent domain where private property can be taken in a forced sale when the public good overwhelmingly transcends the private interest. If I were sitting on a cure for AIDS, a government might legitimately seize that invention, paying me a fair price. But, to do that for an improved battery would really be a stretch.

An improved battery that would limit our dependence on foreign oil and improve our energy infrastructure? Not such a stretch really. It could even seem like it was in the interest of national security to some.

But eminent domain will always be fluid and heuristic as conditions and public sentiment change. It's messy, but the lack of law is far more so.

A special provision in the patent laws seems necessary, one which preserves the rights of the inventor while making it impossible for a company with the resources to suppress or shelve technology just to protect an investment. Let everyone protect their investments through competition and ingenuity, not by suppressing competition and ingenuity.

[tvp45]

This is possible with design patents. Change enough of the design and you've got a completely different patentable product. Design patents aren't worth much in situations like the ones we're describing.

 

Utility patents are different. They must have many features which make the device unique. Searching for and understanding how a device works may be worthless if you can't change the points on which the utility patent was issued. Most of the time a good utility patent will make it impossible to copy the device without making it worthless in the process.

The law sees no difference between a patent and any other property, you're right there. This would need to be addressed before any changes in patent law can occur. Intent is the key, imo. Suppression should not be part of what the patent office helps inventors do.

An improved battery that would limit our dependence on foreign oil and improve our energy infrastructure? Not such a stretch really. It could even seem like it was in the interest of national security to some.

A special provision in the patent laws seems necessary, one which preserves the rights of the inventor while making it impossible for a company with the resources to suppress or shelve technology just to protect an investment. Let everyone protect their investments through competition and ingenuity, not by suppressing competition and ingenuity.

 

Actually, I was talking about utility patents. I wouldn't even bother to muck with a design patent - that's for people with industrial design expertise.

[Resha Caner]

An interesting topic. I hold three patents, and will probably get a few more before my career is over. I was really excited about the first one. It's sort of like a rite of passage. But, the business side of things dampened my enthusiasm after awhile.

 

Speaking for the side of the big corporation (which is how I got mine), there are many sharks swimming in the water selling bad science and stealing good ideas. A defensive strategy is not all bad. I helped my company form a strategy in China to protect our technology. The U.S. is pretty law-abiding compared to much of the world. Look at what has happened to the music industry in Asia.

 

But, I do understand how tough it is for the small guy with an idea to be heard. The only advice I can give is not to expect to be "discovered". Work hard, and work your way into a company that has the clout to make your ideas happen.

[padren]

Here's a philosophical take on the question:

 

Is the inventor the "creator" of an idea, or the "discoverer" of an idea?

 

Given enough time, any invention anyone alive today comes up with, even if they "protect" it by not sharing it with a single soul or patent attorney, it will be rediscovered by someone else.

 

In this way, an "idea" is different than a person's 53 Buick.

 

 

At the same time, you deserve to profit from your "discovery" and there should be commercial incentive to discover new techniques and technologies....but lets not loose sight of an important fact:

 

When you share your idea with the world, only Law stops others from using it themselves - which is a specific and subjective social contract. You can choose to bury the idea without telling anyone or patenting it, or you can choose to share it with the world via one of the various social contracts available to you, which whether long or short, is ultimately a road to the public domain.

 

What bothers me, is that the world is really a harsh and difficult place, and the means we rise above the natural hazards and elements is through discovery and progress - most notably through the rise of new technologies.

 

No matter how far we go, there is still suffering, and more progress does help mitigate that suffering. To bury a patent as a means for profit really bothers me, because it both ignores this truth, and I personally find it disrespectful to the very nature of "discovery" in general.

 

Once a patent is filed, an idea is shared with the world - it may be protected, but it is shared, and it is by social contract alone that others respect the "owner" of that discovery. To then bury it is to disrespect those who honor that social contract in good faith.

 

 

The biggest problem I think, is we are really in the infancy of intellectual property rights and surrounding laws, and in ways its bound to be as ugly as anything else as young. The industrial revolution was horribly ugly in terms of worker's rights, with children working in conditions that destroyed their health or were exceptionally dangerous. Industrial workers laws were in their infancy, and that age had its share of vultures as well. It'll take some time before we hit a balance.

 

Out of curiosity, are there any groups that are basically technology advancement advocates, that call out companies for such tactics? Granted, people can be pretty apathetic on the whole, but there really should be some watch dog groups out there....I am sure there are but if I haven't heard of em, chances are low they are on the public radar, which should change, imo.

[Resha Caner]

Your little dissertation doesn't really go with your question.

 

As far as "burying" a patent, that isn't really possible. A patent is in the public record, so a company takes a risk by filing. They are sharing their idea, and if someone steals it, the company must spend money on massive legal fees to protect it. The government doesn't bring patent suits. The company who holds the patent must do that.

 

Plus, most companys are willing to sell patents. So, if you see something you like, you can buy it.

 

Even further, patents expire. Unless a company is willing to pay for a continuation (which ain't cheap), expiration means something in the public record becomes owned by the public domain.

 

So, if it's a good idea, it will eventually make it's way into the market place. I don't think there is a patent buried in some company somewhere that would result in world peace. That's kind of an unrealistic "Area 51" paranoia.

 

It sounds a bit like jealousy to me.

 

- - -

 

OK, to your question. Are you aware of Plato's Forms? Your question seems similar to the philosophical questions surrounding that idea. Things like: Does the number 2 exist as an entity in and of itself or is it merely a device of the human mind?

 

My answer is: it depends. You'd have to give me a specific patent. If you're talking about a simple electric circuit, I'd say it was "discovered" because electricity flows in nature regardless of what people do. If you're talking about a computer, I would say it was "created" because they don't occur naturally.

[tvp45]

Your little dissertation doesn't really go with your question.

 

As far as "burying" a patent, that isn't really possible. A patent is in the public record, so a company takes a risk by filing. They are sharing their idea, and if someone steals it, the company must spend money on massive legal fees to protect it. The government doesn't bring patent suits. The company who holds the patent must do that.

 

Plus, most companys are willing to sell patents. So, if you see something you like, you can buy it.

 

Even further, patents expire. Unless a company is willing to pay for a continuation (which ain't cheap), expiration means something in the public record becomes owned by the public domain.

 

So, if it's a good idea, it will eventually make it's way into the market place. I don't think there is a patent buried in some company somewhere that would result in world peace. That's kind of an unrealistic "Area 51" paranoia.

 

It sounds a bit like jealousy to me.

 

- - -

 

OK, to your question. Are you aware of Plato's Forms? Your question seems similar to the philosophical questions surrounding that idea. Things like: Does the number 2 exist as an entity in and of itself or is it merely a device of the human mind?

 

My answer is: it depends. You'd have to give me a specific patent. If you're talking about a simple electric circuit, I'd say it was "discovered" because electricity flows in nature regardless of what people do. If you're talking about a computer, I would say it was "created" because they don't occur naturally.

 

Resha,

Your comments jogged my neuron (down to 1) into a supporting thought. A portfolio of undeveloped patents would make a company ripe for a hostile takeover since those patents would not affect the share price, yet would have tremendous potential for the raider. Of course, a privately held company would be immune, but those would rarely have such a portfolio IMHO.

[Resha Caner]

tvp45, an interesting observation.

[Phi for All]

So, if it's a good idea, it will eventually make it's way into the market place.

In the case of Chevron and large format NiMH batteries, do you think what they're doing is an ethical use of the patent laws?

I don't think there is a patent buried in some company somewhere that would result in world peace. That's kind of an unrealistic "Area 51" paranoia.

 

It sounds a bit like jealousy to me.

Who are you assigning this jealousy to? I missed the part where anyone mentioned a patent that would result in world peace.