On 10/18/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 17, 2007, at 22:47, Greg Rundlett wrote: > > > Due to the patent system, the world is limited to basically two large > > consumer products companies that sell coffee. Why? because canisters > > come in round or square shapes (triangular being rather impractical -- > > although maybe there is an idea I should patent). Those shapes are > > patented and so nobody else can package coffee in a canister without > > violating a patent. Proctor and Gamble (or Procter & Gamble depending > > on how they want to hide similar patents) has the patent on round [1] > > (think Folgers coffee.), and Kraft has the patent on square (think > > Maxwell House coffee). Why does society need to increase the cost of > > innovation and discovery so that there can be monopolies on the shape > > of a coffee canister? Actually, they own the design of the container > > for any purpose -- not just coffee. This is just a simple example; > > you could get a lot more serious on the topic. > > > > [1] http://www.google.com/patents?id=N3QOAAAAEBAJ&dq=patent:D480312 > > Is this the patent you meant to link to? Because: > > * it's from 2003, > * it's for a round plastic container with a molded-in handle > * I'm unaware of any coffee companies that have gone out of business > since 2003 because of it > * I buy coffee from other companies that use round metal containers > (aka coffee cans) > * there's a century or more of prior art on 'food in cans' > * the minced garlic I buy comes in a square plastic container with > molded-in handle > > Either I'm misunderstanding or your example is completely invalid. :) >
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people or companies with patents. I'm just pointing out how ridiculously broken the system is, to the point where it doesn't even benefit the biggest and most powerful companies commensurate with the money and resources put into the system. That you can patent a canister with a molded-in handle when there is a century of prior art, and it's a natural and obvious consequence of building canisters with plastic instead of metal is just one example. I don't know either if some company has 'gone out of business because of the patent' but the whole system has a chilling effect when they could sue you out of business if you needed to offer your product in an ergonomic container. The latest story to chronicle how broken the system is from the Washington Post / Slashdot http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701199_pf.html The good news is that large companies such as IBM, Eli LIlly, and Proctor and Gamble are now recognizing that the tremendous money that they pour into IP portfolios, R&D, Patent litigation etc. is better spent on opening their organizational borders and forming 'ideagoras' (from Wikinomics [1]) where they can collaborate and innovate together. I think this is a great development and signals that the marketplace is reshaping into one where smaller companies can effectively participate and prosper. As the liquidity of ideas and technologies improves, the volume and participation by 'investors' goes up -- just like in the stock market. [On topic] This is a good thing for Linux, Open Source and Free Software companies who tend to be agile, intelligent and well-connected to the information economy. [1] http://wikinomics.com/ _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
