Issue 90 Bad Patent law June 3, 2013

Through patent laws we are allowed to make a profit from our ideas before everyone else. However, if patent law is done poorly it can stagnant the flow of new ideas and products. So let’s dissect this problem.

How it used to work: Originally in the United States patents on inventions and discoveries were limited to 14 years. Copy rights were also limited to 14 years with one additional renewal for an additional 14 year monopoly on your ideas. Patent examiners also examined all patent applications to insure that all applicants’ ideas and inventions were actual ideas and inventions. This system allowed for people to profit off their ideas and then once the patent expired would allow the market to use those ideas as they please. Once expired, it was hoped that people would then take these ideas and improve upon them, thus sparking further innovation.

Todays: Today’s patent/copyright laws are longer. Authors now have exclusive rights to there works for their entire life time plus an additional 70 years. Corporations and their works (no actual author) have a 120 year monopoly. Patents only have a 20 year monopoly, but corporations can have such limits extended by lobbying congress for a "special extension". There is also what is known as "nuisance patents" that do not represent any actual new discovery but instead are used as bargaining chips between corporations.

Conclusion: What is needed is a return to the original system. Corporations are not people, but a group of people. As such, they should not be allowed to file a patent. The goal of patents was that of a temporary monopoly for people to profit. Then, once the patent expired, the world was to be allowed free reign to use that idea to spark additional ideas and inventions. Copyrights are only good so long as a book is popular. Most books don’t stay popular for very long and as such to limit the use of that books ideas or even characters for over a hundred years is pointless for most will forget the book even existed. There are exceptions, but those relate to specific works and genres. Then there is the "nuisance patents" which are not actual inventions. The patent office must be much more selective on what ideas pass muster. Why should we go back to being more restrictive you ask? Simple, as these patents are now about cosmetics. When Apple first brought to market the I Phone it was a smash hit. So competitors tried to make their own version. Problem, Apple had established a patent on the overall ascetics of the I Phone and sued. Luckily the judges realized that the products were not the same, both in design and use. As such Apple's lawsuit was overturned. Other similar incidents have occurred as well with other inventions such as with the Android operating system, and even the black berry phones. The suits are based on looks and not functional use or even how it works. This has led some judges to openly express their opinion that patents should not be given out for things like computer programming or the overall look of an item. Well it makes sense to me. So let’s actually go back to when ideas were readily available and there was less law suits. Let’s bring quality back to the patent and copyright system.

Source: Patent Abuse: How Intellectual Property Laws Got Out of Control from June 2013 issue of Popular Mechanics