Patent Laws

Vecha · 2012-06-27, 02:32 AM

I'm curious to hear what you guys think about patent laws.

I've research only a little on this issue, but what I've found is disturbing.

Watched a couple documentaries on Lyme Disease as well as documentaries on where our food comes from.

Really disturbs me how we, anyone, are able to patent life...and I feel it not only stop progress, but has the potential to really fuck up our future.

Anyone heard of the Monsanto suicide/terminator seeds? They have gone back and forth saying that won't commercialize it...and then later saying they are working on it. Really disturbing.

Vecha · 2012-06-27, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by elfailo

With Monsanto in mind it's clear what it can lead to, though I don't think you can disallow patenting GMO's.

I think we can...or at least should. At least any that could pose severe harm to the future of our society.

Changing something that reverse's what Nature intended, at least similar to the termination pills, is asinine.

Though, I'm sure I seem extreme to that company, their shareholders, and many others

Sirisian · 2012-06-27, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by elfailo

Worldwide a lot of these laws are almost a century old (as with copyright). They obviously couldn't anticipate on computers, the internet and GMO's back then, so it's very drastically time for some reshaping. I don't have a clue where to begin though.

Honestly software patents are the ones that bother me. It's such an old discussion that it's basically brain dead obvious they shouldn't exist. The best case is H264 with its 97 pages of patents and 2027 date for expiration. (Remember software patents only last like 20 years in the US, so do the math, when the last patent was filed). This is the last piece of news we got from the government regarding the issue. There is so much money behind keeping software patents alive it's insane.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-27, 05:37 AM

Meh.

Vecha · 2012-06-27, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by elfailo

Nature has no intentions at all dude. If nature was almighty and we weren't supposed to unlock the genetic codes, then why did it happen?

I'm not saying it is "almighty" alive, conscious, etc. It was a metaphor.

I'm just saying its unnatural, disturbing, etc.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. There should be a limit. I draw that line at "Manufacturing seeds that fucking kill themselves."

I guess it doesn't matter. More than half of this country probably can't identify many fruits and vegetables.

p0intman · 2012-06-27, 02:32 PM

Good idea in theory, but in practice, it goes way beyond what it should.

Vecha · 2012-06-27, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

Good idea in theory, but in practice, it goes way beyond what it should.

Agreed. It definitely needs an overhaul.

Sirisian · 2012-06-27, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Don't be evil my ass.

I'm actually fine with google doing that. As a major software based place they are paranoid about being sued. This is what software patents become. A huge "no one will think this is obvious and someone else will patent it". There are massive amounts of obvious patents based on this idea.

Neurotoxin · 2012-06-27, 03:11 PM

Kinda hate them. The advancement of medicine, technology, education, and industrial production is significantly hindered by patents, because it means multiple organizations are going to train and pay multiple researchers to research the same damn thing. Under the profit-demanding system of Capitalism, proprietary access to information comes at a cost, and that cost goes towards funding the research. No money, no research completed, no outside access to information.

Think of all the smartphones, all the televisions, all the graphics cards... Suppose for a moment that companies weren't competing, but instead collaborating. How long would it have taken to go from 2003 technology to today's technology? 3 years? 5 years maybe? If Apple, Samsung, LG, Sony, and all the major display device developers were working together rather than trying to defeat each other on the market, the cost of research and production would plummet, making it profitable for the alliance of device manufacturers to sell the devices for maybe 1/3 what they have to sell for now.

Same with medicine. Instead of 50 competing medicines, combining research so that it can be reduced to maybe 12 similar medicines that work differently based on the patient's physiology. Not only does that reduce the amount of crap medicine being produced (which opens up more production of medicine that has proven effective) but it also means that medicine that IS being produced is the best stuff possible based on continuous research.

I can understand a company's desires to keep complete control over their intellectual property. Disney likes to sue children's day care centers for illegally painting the likeness of Mickey Mouse on the wall outside. They also don't want independent artists to be allowed to make and profit off their established brand and property.

Somehow this still boils down to Capitalism as a system of profit, and using markets to distribute goods and services...

Vecha · 2012-06-27, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

Somehow this still boils down to Capitalism as a system of profit, and using markets to distribute goods and services...

I respect your POV on the negatives on Capitalism.

I agree that the system needs some regulation, but I don't think we should throw capitalism out the door.

Competition can be good. It creates the need to do better.

With that said, it shouldn't be allowed to curb progression, harm others.

The patents shouldn't last for years upon years. If they are worried about the next income stream, they should be inventing the next best thing...not trying to protect what has already lined their pockets.

Vecha · 2012-06-28, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

On a related note the patent laws in the US changed either last year or this year.

It used to be, if you could prove it was your idea you win patent. Now it is whoever files the patent first, is the patent holder.

So if you have a super-duper idea that you haven't patented, careful, since anyone can just take it and file first.

This has always been the case with copyright, like if you found music that said "copyright" but no copyright was ever officially filed with the U.S. Copyright Office. You could copyright it yourself. Dick move. I knew a dick who made a comfortable living being that dick.

That is really fucked up.

Someone told me you could copyright something written by mailing it to yourself...as it proved you invented it first.

I guess that is null and void if they actually filed first?

That is really fucked up.

Sirisian · 2012-06-28, 02:02 AM

DjEclipse is trolling.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

It used to be, if you could prove it was your idea you win patent. Now it is whoever files the patent first, is the patent holder.

Wouldn't work. Any prior art for a patent typically nullifies any meaning behind a patent. Read this.

Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness.

Specifically the concept of "novel".

In U.S. patent law, anticipation occurs when one prior art reference or event discloses all the features of a claim and enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention; the claim is then said to lack novelty. The term "features" in this context refers to the elements of the claim or its limitations.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

This has always been the case with copyright, like if you found music that said "copyright" but no copyright was ever officially filed with the U.S. Copyright Office. You could copyright it yourself.

Copyright is automatic for any produced work. You don't even have to say it's copyrighted.

Originally Posted by Vecha

Someone told me you could copyright something written by mailing it to yourself...as it proved you invented it first.

That's more an old concept that federal mail can't be opened... blah blah. If you want to protect a copyright and show that you created it first simply register your copyright. Simple to do and there's a government website to handle it.

CutterJohn · 2012-06-28, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

With Monsanto in mind it's clear what it can lead to, though I don't think you can disallow patenting GMO's. You need to stop them from suing farmers for something a bee or the wind did though.

Please provide a citation for them suing farmers for something a bee or the wind did.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?

Because that registration serves as proof in a legal battle. Without it, you'll have to have some other form of proof, and are more likely to lose.

Copyright exists at the moment of creation.