One of the problems I often see with US software patents is that the "non-obvious" step looks to be a bit of a joke, many seem completely obvious to someone with any skill in the area. Perhaps a shorter time frame would help ... or maybe different rules on what is obvious or not for software as opposed to other patents.
A few years ago I casually thought of an idea for an e-card website that let multiple people sign a digital card before sending it to the recipient. It popped in my head after receiving a normal paper card signed by some colleagues at work. I thought it was a good idea, so searched the net for anyone doing it and found a press release that Apple had put in a patent application for this "invention" (this is it: http://www.google.com/patents?id=mAqiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false) I'm not sure if this patent was accepted, but this looks to do more to stifle innovation than increase it. I wasn't planning on developing this idea, but it has always struck me that if someone else did, would they have had Apple asking for a cut if it was successful, and does the risk of that happening stop things being developed? Sriram Panyam wrote: > ooops got a bit eager with the send button.. i was just writing that > one of the remedies could be decreasing the lifetime of a software > patent (i cannot talk about other industries/sectors) from 20 years to > somehting less like 5 (id even go as far as saying 2 if not for the > fear of being publicly lynched)... > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Sriram Panyam <sri.pan...@gmail.com > <mailto:sri.pan...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Richard Heycock > <r...@roughage.com.au <mailto:r...@roughage.com.au>> wrote: > > > Excerpts from 1_Place's message of Tue Nov 10 16:05:47 +1100 2009: > > > > My previous rant was after attending "Raising the awareness of > > intellectual property amongst the business community" which > stated: > > "This forum will feature three expert speakers providing their > > perspectives on the topic above"; however, no one seemed to > think that > > there was a problem with Patents & IP nor where there any > suggestions > > that the views such as those reflected by SiliconBeach existed! > > > > My thoughts were that there was an elephant in the room! > > > > Jay - thanks for your thoughts - it should be scalable but > alas, it > > currently is not: the legal costs are so very high to revoke > or defend > > a patent that it often is a game for empowered. Possibly a > Patent > > Court that efficiently resolves patent disputes would be > beneficial? > > or just more red tape? > > > > Patents for small player are valuable as negotiation tools > and can > > lead to a valuable return when pursued (from the matters > that I have > > been involved in it has been worthwhile). Also, as yet I > have not > > worked with a client that has not valued their patent highly > ... but > > this is not the full spectrum of experience. > > > > Richard - thanks also for your thoughts & links (alas, not > read yet > > but I will): > > > > The patent library works for me because: > > 1) it is free: many academic journals you have to pay a > subscription > > for. The contributor pays the costs to enter material into > the patent > > system, not the reader; and > > Are you suggesting that it's free to publish get a patent? Is > it even > free to see all patents (I realise there are some sites that > allow you > to browse patents but is that all patents). > > Actually I think doing a patent yourself should cost around 1000 > bucks (around). But clearly you need help with a good patent > attorney who can help with the prior-art search and get the claims > in the right "language"!! And this is actually necessary because > "vague" language can actually invalidate a patent, wasting the > precious R&D effort and IP. > > > > > 2) it has a set format (objective, background, problem to be > > overcome ...) and is most often translated into English, so > you can > > search it. I know of no other library that has hundreds of > years of > > entry in the same format. > > They may be literally translated into English but I would > argue that > it's not possible for a layman to *understand* them. > > definitely - i have read over a couple of hundred patents and > still have difficulty remembering the difference between > "comprising of" and "consisting of" (hint - one of them is > "atleast one of" and the other is "all of") > > Software patents haven't been around for hundreds of years. > > actually i think they ahve (and that may be the problem!)... my > understanding was they had started in Venice around the 1400s > > > http://www.piperpat.com/IPInformation/Introduction/HistoryofPatents/tabid/88/Default.aspx > > but i am pretty sure they would have undergone a bit of change > since then... > > > Please don't get me wrong I'm not adverse to the concept of a > patent > system, my main problem the current implementation (I'm mainly > talking > about US patent law, I realise that the Australian patents are > slightly > saner) and software patents in general. > > > The Creative Commons license (see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license) > > is for copyright. > > I understand that but surely it's a legally binding document > clearly > stating your idea and under what conditions you can use it. > After all > software is released under a copyright of some description. > > > As for Open Source - I am a great supporter of it. The patent > > database does not stop people putting information into the > public > > domain and is often the means for people adding information > into the > > public domain since the decision to collect a royalty is up > to the > > applicant and the opportunity to collect a royalty is for a > limited > > period of time: > http://1plaw.com/1P/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12 > > So can I add an idea to the patent database for free and put > it in the > public domain without hiring a solicitor? Surely there are > other ways of > putting something into the public domain (I don't really > subscribe to > your view of the patent database as a library)? > > one remedy i can see is decreasing the lifetime of a patent from > 20 years (atleast for software patents) to something less > > rgh > > > Thanks for your thoughts - there is truth in what you are > expressing; > > however, in the circus governing IP policy it seems that > no-one has > > noticed the elephant in the room! > > > > On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, 1_Place <drmichaelba...@gmail.com > <mailto:drmichaelba...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Thanks again > > > > > > I will reply specifically to your thoughts a little later > - I believe > > > there are many things wrong with the patent system at the > moment > > > - however, the governors of the system do not hear the > wisdom of the > > > crowds*: > > > > > > I have just come back from a talk with with IP Australia > and IPTA (the > > > Institute of Patent & Trade mark Attorneys): > > > It seems that the outcome of these talks appeared to focus on: > > > 1) people don't understand IP; > > > 2) a little bit of knowledge is dangerous; and > > > 3) we are doing so much (as we were walked through the > website of > > > these organisations) ... I was dismayed! > > > > > > There was no debate in these talks. Further, the same > talks could have > > > taken place a decade ago. > > > > > > Consequently, change will have to come from the users of > IP, not the > > > directors of it! > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > 1Place > > > *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds > > > > > > On Nov 10, 12:37 pm, Richard Heycock <r...@roughage.com.au > <mailto:r...@roughage.com.au>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excerpts from 1_Place's message of Tue Nov 10 10:04:26 > +1100 2009: > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts: > > > > > > > > There is a lot is anger towards patents which I would > very much like > > > > > to unravel - > > > > > > > > I see the patent system as a library that has a > standard process for > > > > > recording information, for which anyone at anytime can > take > > > > > information from that library - however, in > approximately 8% of cases > > > > > a royalty will have to be paid to the inventor/applicant. > > > > > > > You may well think of the patent system "... as a > library that has a > > > > standard process for recording information ..." but, > surely, a much > > > > better place for such information is journals and > libraries not to > > > > mention the Internet. > > > > > > > The reality is that large companies use it to stifle > innovation and > > > > protect their interests, usually at the cost of the > people using the > > > > software. See: > > > > > > > > http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf > > > > > > > Particularly section III/B. > > > > > > > > If you can describe your invention and you do not want > to seek > > > > > royalties from it you can add it to the library as a > Statutory > > > > > Invention Registration see > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Regist... > > > > > > > Surely putting your invention in the public domain or > publishing it a > > > > using, say, Creative Commons license or the GFDL would > achieve the same > > > > thing? (Caveat INAL!). > > > > > > > > The sharing of knowledge is critically important for > our growth so we > > > > > can "stand on the shoulders of others" from which I > learnt from my > > > > > many years in research. > > > > > > > Absolutely but I do not think putting it into a system > that has been > > > > shown, on numerous occasions, to be open to abuse is a > good idea. > > > > > > > I tend to think "stand on those who threaten our > dominance" might be a > > > > better quote! > > > > > > > rgh > > > > > > > > We need to deconstruct the reason(s) why we "protest > so much" > > > > > > > > Let me build an tool to empirically find out what > causes angst about > > > > > the patent system as an empirical study (less dogma > more karma!) > > > > > > > > "Can we fix it"? Famous words by Bob the builder : ) > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > 1_Place > > > > >www.1p.com.au <http://www.1p.com.au> > > > > > > > > On Nov 10, 8:13 am, TinMan <jtinber...@gmail.com > <mailto:jtinber...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Elias, > > > > > > > > > I run a small Aussie "start-up", now into our > seventh year. We do > > > > > > SaaS for the facilities management industry. As a > small company we > > > > > > have some very large customers - Mirvac, Goodman, > Spotless ... which > > > > > > makes patent protection all the more important. > (stops the internal > > > > > > IT departments of these companies attempting to > duplicate our > > > > > > solutions). We hold 2 patents, and have 1 pending. > Each one has cost > > > > > > about 5k to 8k to register in Aus. We use Watermark > in North Ryde. > > > > > > > > > I will say that the value of patents is questioned > by VC's and is > > > > > > often more of a cost than an asset. However, it > does make getting the > > > > > > R&D tax rebate easier, and access to other funds. > In the end, you > > > > > > need to be able to back your IP rights and have the > finance to defend > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > My point is they are not just for large companies, > and in our case > > > > > > have proved worth the investment. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > Jon Tinbergwww.valoremsystems.com > <http://Tinbergwww.valoremsystems.com> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 7:26 am, Elias Bizannes > <elias.bizan...@gmail.com <mailto:elias.bizan...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > <rant>Software patents hurt the world. The big > companies all have agreements > > > > > > > with each other where it's a "we won't sue you if > you don't sue us" because > > > > > > > they all inevitably infringe on each others > patents and the rapid innovation > > > > > > > occuring wouldn't happen without such agreements. > All patents are doing are > > > > > > > preventing upstarts from coming into the world, as > the big companies can > > > > > > > shoot them out of the water and entrench their > dominance. The reality is, > > > > > > > most patent cases get thrown out of court due to > particulars, and it's a > > > > > > > matter of who has the most money in the bank to > sustain the fight.</rant> > > > > > > > > > > But kudo's for trying to think differently. I > think the most value service > > > > > > > providers can add is by trying to grow the > ecosystem. If you actively help > > > > > > > companiess starting and growing, they will > ineventiably need services. > > > > > > > Forming the relationships early on is how you > secure future profitability. > > > > > > > It doesn't cost anything to have a coffee with > someone and give them advice. > > > > > > > That in my eyes, is the most value you could add - > and that benefits you > > > > > > > more than it costs. > > > > > > > > > > Elias Bizanneshttp://eliasbizannes.com > <http://eliasbizannes.com> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:15 PM, 1_Place > <drmichaelba...@gmail.com <mailto:drmichaelba...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Silicon Beach > > > > > > > > > > > Reading the LifeGuard paper: > > > > > > > >http://www.siliconbeachaustralia.org/lifeguard/ > > > > > > > > & > <http://www.siliconbeachaustralia.org/lifeguard/%0A&; > <http://www.siliconbeachaustralia.org/lifeguard/%0A&;>> > considering what > > > > > > > > can we do to help, we thought that we would seek > > > > > > > > suggestions from Silicon Beach for ways to > improve start up access to > > > > > > > > legal and patent attorney services. > > > > > > > > > > > Our belief is that there are other obstacles > that prevent starts up > > > > > > > > from having a easy path to success, one of which > is the cost of IP > > > > > > > > protection - and in particular patent protection! > > > > > > > > > > > We would really appreciate any thoughts on how > we can offer legal and > > > > > > > > patent attorney services and still survive > ourselves. Is there a way > > > > > > > > that we could help IT start ups to secure patent > protection for new > > > > > > > > inventions and not go under ourselves? > > > > > > > > > > > One way is to provide help for startups to put > in their own patent > > > > > > > > applications. We have an initial teaching aid > for patents at: > > > > > > > > >http://www.1place.com.au/expert/expert_wizard.php?area_id=12 > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know other ways that we could > change the way legal and > > > > > > > > attorney services are offered to help make > Australia more competitive. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > > > > We are sure that there are good alternative > business models worth > > > > > > > > trying; therefore, we are looking for your input. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > 1p.com.au- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > Blog: http://panyam.wordpress.com > Twitter: @panyam > > > > > -- > Blog: http://panyam.wordpress.com > Twitter: @panyam > > > -- Chris Carpenter Director Digital Carpenter Pty Ltd www.doculicious.com www.digitalcarpenter.com.au phone: +61 2 8850 4039 mobile: +61 402 352 491 twitter: @digitalcarpo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Guidelines on discussion: http://tr.im/ujKF No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself: http://tr.im/ujMm To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
