News Judge moves to dismiss Allen's patent suit

A Seattle judge has moved to dismiss Paul Allen's claims of patent infringement.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/12/13/judge-moves-to-dismiss-allen-suit/1

 

hmmm nice beard.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

Patents and intellectual property rights are crucial to the fundamental workings of our modern economy, so obviously need to be protected from cannibalistic and predatory rivals.

However.

Far too many companies now file huge swathes of bogus, vague, all-encompassing patents - and then sit on them and do precisely nothing. Then, years down the line, attempt to sue other people who have actually spent all their money, time and effort to actually create the technology.

It'd be a bit like Leonardo Da Vinci trying to sue all modern helicopter manufacturers for a royalty because it was his idea - all because he drew some vague, half-arsed pictures before anyone else, yet with absolutely no idea how to make it a working reality.

Which is pretty much what Paul Allen has done. It's fine for the big companies who can afford to fight back, (expensive and time-wasting as it is) but to be sued by a multi-billion dollar company or individual could crush the small companies and individual innovators out there, irrespective of the litigation having no merit.

Patent laws need a serious overhaul: Not least of which I think the burden of proof needs to be changed and the claimant needs to be able to demonstrate themselves to have been actively working on the technology they are suing about - all of which to be demonstrated to the court before the defendant has to lift a finger or spend a single pound, (or dollar) in their own defence...

 

actually i think they should ban people from patenting an idea, lets think about this

if someone patents a device to turn macanicle energy into electrical energy (a generator)

and then someone comes and makes a better one that works in a completly different way the first person is still allowed to sue them becasue aparantly they own it

 

x86 license anyone?

 

The photo looks like Paul Allen was grooming a young Bill Gates. "Let's step on the good foot and do the bad thing William!"

 

So if you're an inventor who has a great idea. Let's call it a game changer like how to store and transfer Hydrogen safely and easily for use in cars. You peddle this to the big car companies and they all say no.

Next thing you know Toyota have a car out that uses the technology you thought of, but couldn't get to market, meaning your idea was stolen by a company who have the funds and expertise to apply it.

That's fair is it??

 

That photo is the sort of thing I would imagine I would see on brass eye

 

I am very unnerved by that photograph... Is Paul Allen the paedophile on the left??

 

+1

This here is why we have patents. It protects the spirit of invention, rather than just production.

You'll notice, shanky, that your proposal effectively limits the possibility of personally held patents on anything larger than a person can make by hand. Without being able to patent an idea, anything which involves outside help for production can instantly be stolen by those producing it. Afterall, they'll have one built and they'll have the resources to build more. Giving you credit for the idea is an optional courtesy at that point.

 

I've had so many cool ideas for inventions but had no way to develop them; years later I see something the same or very similar on the market and think to myself "If only I patented that idea...". Meh.

 

I think his point was more that many companies are getting vague/general patents (such as converting mechanical energy into electrical energy) and then suing those who actually develop the means to do so, because they had the abstract idea. It's not quite the same as the example kempez used, which covered a specific method of doing something.

 

Keep in mind that just because you didn't see it on shelves until years later still doesn't mean that no-one thought of it even before you. It could easily be a case where the inventor thought of it years before you did, then years after you thought of it he/she finally got the means of producing it.

That probably was his intention, but the wording was simply to ban patenting ideas. Kempez and I were just highlighting the risks of such broad solutions which would often have more harm than good.

The problem which he's getting at is more with the quality of patents being allowed. How vague is too vague is hard to write down in stone on patent laws and, like the legal system, is best when let to decide by common practice what is allowable. Unfortunately, common practice has been allowing too much lately. Much like previous court cases are used to determine the right course of action in legal battles we've got a growing stockpile of painfully vague patents being allowed which set the precedent for all new patents.

 

I think the reason it takes such a large process to sort this all out is because it is very situational.

From an accountants point of view, an intangible asset is something that you have the resources to make happen, so if he was patenting ideas that he couldn't have come through on or wasn't trying to then what right does he have to cash in on what others have done.

Its just all very tricky.

 

This already incredibly wealthy individual is just being a tad grasping

 

Too bad the whole patent process is so ungodly expensive that the average person could never afford to get the patent in the first place.