The ten most dangerous patents

[brudus_maximus]

These are the ten most dangerous patents today. The first one in this list directly affects GSP.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,64038-0.html

[Tarryk]

I would so love for that moron to even try.

How on earth any lawsuit on such a patent could even last a half a second in court is astounding. The "transmission of digital media"? Okay, so they hold a patent on the internet itself, since ALL informative data is a form of media, and it's transferred OVER THE INTERNET.

If I see any small internet radio company, GSP or otherwise, take the fall over a patent that stupid, I'm not kidding when I say I will personally take it straight to the supreme court.

Patent and trademark abuses like this are examples of how powerfully weak the american system of capitalist democracy is against truly evil people, and it simply does not work as a system without the ability to adapt, comprimise and renovate the system with a real-time flow to allow for truly idealistic companies to take a stand and be heard without fear of being stepped on by malignant "viral companies" like that Acacia bulls*&#.

They can go ahead and try to sue us. GSP is a company without trademarks or patents, using copyrights only, established through the obviously-underrated concepts of honor and dignity. And dishonorable companies that exist solely for patent warring can go ahead and try to sue us. We don't exist on their petty little squabbling gridwork, and they can kiss my dignified, honorable ass if they think they can squeeze blood from a stone.

[Myz_Lilith]

Hmmm... aren't smoke signals technically digital media? After all, it's transmitting information using a binary on-off system.

Now, I'd love to see that court battle. "Ok, you can keep the land. But we get the internet..."

[Oddysee]

"the transmission and receipt of digital content via the Internet, cable, satellite and other means."

So if I send someone an sms, or call them... These guys can sue me for not paying them first?...

I'm sorry I can't help but laugh... Are you trying to tell me, that this is serious? I mean that a system, so fucked up, actually exists, where this is possible?

This could never happen in europe... Never... I can't even begin to take this seriously. I mean, aren't these guys just a bunch of idiots like all the religious nutters and all the other people starving for attention?... None of this is possible. There's no way you could enforce that. Not in a million years...

So they have it on paper. But there's no way they could ever win a legal battle on this. So what's the deal? I mean. Looser pays the court bills, right? They don't have a case. They'll loose...

Meh, I can't wrap my head around this. But seriously, if this is actually what's going on, and not just some extreme f'ed up single case thing with some (I'm sorry, but no other words will fit, it really is nothing personal) stupid yanks trying for a quick buck, then you need to detonate your nuclear arsenal and get the hell out of there now...

I refuse to believe any part of the world is this stupid. And I mean that in the truest form of the word... Stupid.
There has to be something else to this. There just has to...


Tm

[Gridfan]

This could never happen in europe... Never...

It almost did. Luckily patenting "software" routines is not permitted, they will try again I'm sure.

I'm just baffled that the US Patewnt office allows to patent ideas and concepts.
I really wish someone would only be able to get a patent if they along with the patent application submitted an actual implementation.
(i.e. first to implement and apply gets the patent)

And as for that top 10 list, my first thought on all of them was "prior art".
My second thought was. None of those (except Nintendo one, which is obviously prior art, Nintendo was not the first to make a Nintendo emulator) probably has no actual implementations by those companies.

Secondly, waiting 5+ years before going "hey, you guys are using our patent" should not be permitted.

If a patent holder wait more than a year before they react to (the first) patent breach, then they forfeit their patent since hey did not enforce it.
(would have avoided that whole GIF incident for example)

Max 5 years patent limit, after 5 years the patent goes public domain.
(makes sure 3rd world countries don't lag to far behind the industrial world when it comes to technology, since they normally can't afford license fees)

Technology/ideas/concepts that are comon knowledge and used by more than 50% of consumers should be made public domain.
(this avoids license inflation, any company/developer/consumer can only afford x number of patents until the product becomes too expensive resulting in stripping features or not supporting something at all)


Why can't the US Patent office see such obvious things as my suggestions/views above? (this is just mostly solution I came up right now, a few I've wished for longer though)

So those of you that are US citizens, please feel free to steal my suggestions/views and contact your congressmen/women and let them know you'd like to see the patent office start doing what I suggested.
That entire top ten worst patent list would vanish then, so would thousands of other patents that are equally bad. (I call them greed patents).

The original thought behind patents was to ensure that an inventor
would be secured profit on their invention for a few years after the invention. This does not work as intended any more.
Non-existing inventions are being patended, ideas, concepts,
and the language in patents are so legalese that even lawyers that are experts interpret it differently each time they read it.

I'd like to see the original thought of.
"Inventor: Hey, I invented xxxx see how cool it is?"
"Patent Office: Wow that is awsome, and it's original. Ok, we give you 5 years exlusivity for comercially exploiting this invention."

*sigh* and hoping a UN Patent office will be made is too much to hope for,
and I doubt they'd be much better than a US one...

I just wonder. How the hell are we supposed to explore space and settle on new worlds, if we keep being so greedy like people in that top 10 list?

EDIT: a slight variant of this post was just now posted at my journal http://emsai.net/

[Myz_Lilith]

I think the trouble is that if it's compulsary for people to enforce any patents they hold you end up with an even bigger litigious tangle, as anybody with a patent would HAVE to sue anybody that infringed even a little on their patent, even if it was no threat to them whatsoever, or risk losing that patent. And you jusy know there's be teams of lawyers ready to pounce, and particularly big companies with big teams of lawyer whose only job was to look for patents whose holders had been a little lax in their protection, and to pounce on them.

I can remember exactly, but I think that's what happens with copyright law, in the West at least - not that I think big studios particularly NEED a reason to clamp down on anybody illegally using their characters... but even if it's something that is well made, isn't harmful to their business and even helps promote it they have to nix it or risk their copyright.

(I don't think it's quite that black and white. but I never looked into it properly - it was something I picked up from a manga site, explaining that you get a lot more officially published fanfic and slashfic based on popular mainstream manga in Japan, because the copyright laws are different and it's a lot easier to turn a blind eye to that kind of thing without creating a legal precendent for the peopel that are just going for a straight rip-off.)

Also, having the firstt to implicate a patent to own the rights would have a massive bias towards big business, who can churn something out quickly, and against the individual or small company. To some extent, the whole idea of a patent is so that an individual who has an idea they aren't capable of developing themselves can get some protection, so that when they approach banks, funds, maufacturers, whoever, they don't just get "Thanks for the idea. Close the door on your way out."

I used to work with start-up hi tech businesses and one of the big points was making sure all the patents were in place before talking to investors etc. These were graduate students, professors, even people off the street. And trust me, 5 years is not always enough time to go from the initial filing of an idea to full commercial development - it can take half of that time just to get somewhere near a viable business preposition, and that's before you even start looking at getting in funding, building prototypes, securing research and testing... Especially for people that have to work full time alongside developing and promoting their invention because while it might be big in 10 years time, it's not putting food on the table now.

Trouble is, a lot of the rules that are being abused by the big guys are actually there to protect the little guys (and when applied that way are still useful and generally for the good). And any rule you can think of to combat the excesses of the sharks is at some point going to be turned around and used to take advantage of the hard working scientist / researcher / developer / inventor.

[Gridfan]

Good points, but I'd rather have a few companies (small or big or even individuals) hurting a little than the world at large hurting a lot.

These patents stack up (think AO stacking exploits from a few years back)
so that certain software (or even hardware) may have to juggle over a houndred patents what company can afford to pay that many licenses, and what consumers could afford to buy such products? Because in the end it is the consumer that carry the costs of the company through the product price.

And 3rd world countries can in no way afford this, neither companies nor consumers as currency in such countries are so low that a years income for a company would only cover a month or just a few weeks worth of licenses.

Now if you are worried that 5 years is too little for the small guys,
then maybe some clause is needed for the small guys.
So that smaller patent holders/companies get a longer time while big companies get a shorter one.
But I still find the 5 years suggestion I made a valid one,
it will ensure that the world as a whole will never lag behind more than max 5 years when it comes to technology.

And I still find 5 years plenty of time to get a tech into the consumer or industrial market.
Remember, after those 5 years the inventor still has copyright on the implementation so nobody can steal it anyway.
But after 5 years the patent holder will have to compete with others in bringing the best implementation.
And if they m,anaged to make good use of those 5 years, they should have up to 5 years head start on the implementation,
and even Microsoft with all it's resources would have one helluva time catching up to 5 years of development.

And if they secretly had been working on it (while knowing a patent existed) then this could be concluded as patent breach as they would have been developing it during the patent's 5 year grace period.
I.e. only after the 5 years would others be allowed to start development.

I didn't point this out previously in my suggestion as I assumed it was a rather obvious conclusion but...
Wait 5 years and then develop the same tech, or contact the patent holder and get 5 years head start on other competitors.
Obviously if the patent holder refuse to license or sell things would be more difficult and one would be forced to wait 5 years.
However after those 5 years the whole world can use it.

Currently there is many companies (and individuals and organizations) that aquire patents but has no intention of licensing it, nor exploiting it.
The only reason they patent it is to ensure nobody can enforce licensing.
(they basicaly patent it on the behalf of the world and let the world use it license free)
This in itself shows how messed up the patent system is when people need to get patents to ensure tech can be used freely. I.e. to protect against morons like those in that top 10 list.