The Honorable First Name Last Name
United States Senate
Washington, DC ZIP+4

Dear Senator Last Name:

Atlas Has Left … Opposition to The Patent Reform Act of 2007

Without equal, America’s patent system is as uniquely American as humankind’s greatest invention, our beloved Democracy. But, come November 1st, the United States Patent & Trademark Office will limit inventors to five (5) inventions. Without an iota of evidence, proponents of these changes, embodied by The Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145), will irreparably damage the value of our collective intellectual property. American strength will suffer. Surely authors should not be limited to five (5) books, nor Senators to five (5) votes. Indeed, what five (5) inventions would Edison have been entitled? At no time has it been as exasperating for this proud American inventor to see the Congress retroactively weaken foundational rights succinctly articulated in The Constitution, Article 1 – The Legislative Branch, Section 8 – Powers of Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” No words are minced, nor is there evidence of spin.

With all due respect, I urge you, the Senate, the “living symbol of our union of states”, not to strengthen the hand of Infringers! It is unconscionable that we have arrived at such a juncture in stark contrast with our Nation’s proud heritage as the leader in the marketplace of ideas. Of my twenty-seven (27) patents (22 issued, 4 allowed and 1 European patent), several embody fundamental techniques for copyright protection. Unselfishly, these inventions should not be accorded any value less than the copyrights being protected. Frankly, a patent for the next encryption algorithm is more invaluable to these United States than a copyright on the movie telling the story of that algorithm. I agree with Mr. Chris Israel, the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement, when he recently stated: “Cases such as this remind us strong enforcement is a significant part of the effort to eliminate piracy, and that we have an effective legal system in the U.S. that enables rights holders to protect their intellectual property. … Piracy impacts many of our most innovative industries, costs American jobs and is a huge threat to our economic competitiveness”. Indeed, the highly unpredictable outcomes of costly patent litigation is emblematic of a last ditch effort to enforce the Individual rights of Entrepreneurs of thought.

Society is clearly enriched by the free flow of ideas competing for the attentions of the day. This Great Nation should encourage vigorous, transparent debate on the economic value attributed to any resulting intellectual property. In fact, even before The Constitution was ratified, twelve States had already determined the rights of inventors to be inviolate. One State preamble read, in part:

As the principal Encouragement such Persons can have to make great and beneficial Exertions of this Nature must exist in the legal Security of the Fruits of their Study and Industry to themselves; and as such Security is one of the natural Rights of all Men, there being no Property more peculiarly a Man’s own than that which is produced by the Labour of his mind.

Reasonably stated, if we knew what would succeed in the marketplace we could simply assign prices to patents, akin to old Soviet fixed-pricing policy. Invisible Hand not needed. Competition not required. To essentially eliminate the strongest incentive to those who invent today what is bought and sold tomorrow is simply un-American. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145) and the new Federal Rules offer no benefit to Society. The very passion of American inventors cannot be harmonized and should never be taken for granted. Please protect our living treasures and reject this inherently flawed bill.

Yours Faithfully,

/Scott Moskowitz/

Scott Moskowitz
Founder & CEO
Blue Spike, Inc.

1. Gov’t agencies, universities, investors and companies expect tangible returns for investments to researchers. Returns are typical viewed as commercialized successes that create jobs and sustainable profits. There is a lot of fear of sharing early in the development process that is alleviated by use of the patent system.
2. Technology’s ‘transferable asset’ is either a trade secret or a patented technology. Without a legally protected vehicle, administering technology transfer beyond an organizational boundary becomes very difficult and protection even more so.
3. Incremental advancements have less value than ‘big step innovations’ that require higher investments with higher risks. While I appreciate #26 long’s statement on each feature’s value, the idea that one incremental feature deserves right to all a product’s profits deserves a healthy legislative review. The Supreme Court’s rulings have already made an impact which is already playing out in the market.
4. Increased learning of how the system works means more inventors, companies and universities were setting themselves up for a potential big win. I agree with #29 Grasping Hands that very few ideas warrant patent protection and commercialization and even less that make it that far become profitable/successful. The PTO is now better equipped to fund itself to staff up to respond in a timely manner (it didn’t have that right until recently).

Innovation’s speed is increasing, and the means for facilitating discovery, negotiation and partnership as seamlessly as possible should be the goal for inventors and commercializing companies alike. Let’s hope that the tools to ensure the best and brightest see their rewards system get smartly fine tuned and not gamed in the lobbying process.

It’s a beautiful vision, dude, no doubt about it

The only problem with this vision is that it never works in practice…

You see, dude, capitalism has a huge problem: everyone wants to get richer at the espense of somebody else
When it comes to invention this is a terrible thing: nobody has an incentive to invent if any company already in the market can just copy your stuff and save years of R&D plus all the money involved
The Founding Farthers realized this problem when they drafted the original US Constitution asking the Congress to enact some form of a system to protect true creators from copycats

“Imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
In a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…”

Keep dreaming, dude…

Much ignorance in the comments. Thank the transistor for your job, some of you, and thank Thomas Edison for making America the pre-eminent industrial and military power through most of the twentieth century.

Sadly most of the public seem to know intellectual property only from a perspective of the occasional inconvenience of stealing music, or the few lousy software patents.

Software patents were a poor idea, but that is due to the courts who forced them on the PTO, so if we need reform, it is in the courts. Likewise if patent litigation is too expensive, it is because of the American court system, which is ridiculously convoluted. Court reform, not ruination of the patent system.

I don’t know what is in the reform package, but the crowd we have in Washington is so corrupt, pandering, and unintellectual, it can only be for the worse.

“- Do you really believe that if Google had patented blogging, it would let TC continue?”

That’s my point. The small guys in many industries can implement ideas just as rapidly as a large corporation. But the large corporations have more resources to patent ideas and fight patent battles.

@ #16, angry dude

Ouch. I’m just asking that we imagine a world without patents. Instead of insulting me, it would be more interesting to hear why that is such a terrible vision.

In theory, it’s not unreasonable to support software patents for sufficiently novel algorithms: some clever algorithms really do require a large amount of costly-to-acquire expertise along with a large amount of undisturbed time for those experts to devise the solution; this is exactly the sort of situation where a temporary monopoly on the output of that research may stimulate the advancement of a useful art.

In practice, it appears the patent office cannot be trusted to tell the difference between the RSA algorithm and the algorithm that simulates a classical typewriter’s carriage return by scrolling text upwards, starting a new line, and moving my cursor to the beginning of the new line; and, given how long the giving out of crap patents has gone on, there’s no reasonable reason for a disinterested observer to believe that it will ever be possible to trust the patent office to be judicious in the software patents it grants (it’s been two decades of constant cock-ups by my count, I wasn’t paying much attention before then).

Some folks upthread mention the real facts on the ground (particularly true for software, but more-or-less true everywhere):
* big companies can infringe little guy’s patents with impunity
* big companies can hit states of mutually-assured-destruction with each other, hence the large amount of cross-licensing deals; patent lawsuits between large companies that both actually make products are typically just the overture to cross-licensing arrangements…
*big companies can easily shut down little guys b/c of the large number of crap patents they own

So the patents are useless for the little guy going against the big guy, only-sometimes really helpful for big guys going against big guys (ceteris paribus, if the end result is predictably just a cross-licensing pact it’d have been more efficient not to have to negotiate it in the first place), and really, really useful for big guys trying to crush little guys.

Or, in short: little guys are screwed, patent or no. I’m not convinced it’s possible to level the playing field for them without crippling the economy, either: effectively “leveling the playing field” for a little guy going against a big guy will more-or-less have to mean giving out bigger guns to the players, as it were, but then the big guys will have even more tools to work with, too…I’m sure the lawyers would make out just fine, but I’m not sure anyone else would.

And, finally, a word for the casual reader about the psychology of the “little guy” inventors. After spending the greater part of 3 decades in and around that milieu, I have to say that the best analogy is to something like what happens in popular music:
* there is a tiny group of smash-successes (.001%) (rockstars, pop stars, one-hit wonders) who, by dint of cleverness, luck, and timing, make millions from their work and become celebrities
* there’s a huge sea of failures and wannabees (99%), chasing the dream of striking it big but spending much more than they’ll ever make from the endeavor (spending it directly, and spending it indirectly in opportunity cost)
* there’s a small set of folks (.999%) making a very modest living from their output, typically just enough to maintain or augment a typical middle-class lifestyle

if you asked a budding teenage rockstar, they’d agree with the basic proportion of outcomes I just outlined, but they’re not really making a “rational” calculation — they’re chasing a dream! It’s typically only the dreamers who have the dedication to stay in the game long enough to make it, but it’s also the dreamers who never give up the dream — long after it’s obvious it probably won’t happen — that keep that 99% pool so large and so dedicated.

And, for those who are in the 99% pool and haven’t quit, every tiny hint of success and every tiny scent of a reward only renews their faith in their dream (like gambling addicts winning $20 after spending $50 on lottery tickets — it keeps alive their hope in the possibility of winning, even though they’re plainly losing).

I strongly suspect that the major contribution of the patent system to innovation in this country has NOT been that it really does that great a job of rewarding the small inventor, but because the kind of person who tends to become a “small inventor” also tends to believe the patent system will reward them for their innovation; just like kids really think they might become a rock star, these closet nerds (I use the term affectionately here) really, really believe they might strike it rich off of some invention.

What a seasoned observer tends to see as some very rare, exceptional cases they tend to see as likely, just a little reduced in size of payout — and some aren’t even that modest in their beliefs.

The point of this psychological detour is that once you start debating patent reform with one of them, it’s like telling a wanna-be rockstar that there’s probably no money in music for them in another 20 years: even if they wanted to address your arguments at a rational level, you’re also killing their dreams, and killing someone’s dreams is often going to bring out an irrational reaction and redoubling of belief in their dreams — this is psychology 101.

So, even if they were never going to be a rockstar — or, equivalently, even if the big guys were always going to screw them — telling them there may not be rockstars in the future, or that some kinds of patents may go away is not going to engender a rational response, because they’re basically hearing their dreams evaporate; what you hear in their responses is the sound of someone trying not to let a dream deflate.

I they knew the above outcome
If there’s not a reason to believe the patent office can be reformed to only high quality software patents, then I see no reason to grant it the ability to award patents in that field; whatever extra incentive it’s offering — above and over the usual incentives to solve hard problems phd candidates experience — aren’t worth the devaluation a slew of weak patents engenders for the rest of the patent system; leaving open a wide invitation to rent-seekers seems unlikely to promote the progress of the useful arts.

And, in general, I suspect that “America’s patent system” has driven innovation not in any direct sense, but simply because it is publicly perceived as making it possible for a small inventor to make good; the dynamic looks similar to what happens in popular music:

There’s a good invention magazine with helpful articles available here:
http://www.inventorsdigest.com/

There are also many inventor groups in most areas around the country. An active one in Silicon Valley is:
http://www.inventorsalliance.org/

You missed the news — the PTO has already significantly tightened up its standards in the technological areas that you’re concerned about. (Biotech and pharmaceutical examiners were already doing a pretty good job.)

See this chart — the allowance rate is down about 20% from its peak in 2000.

http://www.patentlyo.com/paten.....wance.html

patents today are not about implementation. if you have tens of millions of dollars, you can patent any abstract idea, have your lawyers put in THE most vague language and patent everything under the sun.

smaller companies do not have the budget so they focus on the one product/feature that is helping them pay the bills for now.

- Do you really believe that if Google had patented blogging, it would let TC continue?

The amazon 1-click ordering patent is the one i find most ridiculous in the world. so, since amazon has it, no one can offer 1-click shopping experience. no other retailer can dare offer it without striking a deal with amazon.

so much for your small businesses can do it.

Having seen the patent situation in a couple different industries, I would say that the primary problem is that the USPTO is issuing too many trivial, crap, and even redundant patents. Frivolous patents make up the bulk of patent filings in all fields of endeavour, not just computer science. The bar needs to be raised a bit. I am of the general position on patents that I do not care what the policy ultimately is so long as it is consistent. Treating “hardware” and “software” patents as different is fundamentally inconsistent on many levels, and the technology has evolved to the point where such inconsistencies have started to become obvious. If you are going to eliminate some patents then all patents should be eliminated, and vice versa. Creating political distinctions where none exist in theory is just begging for the system to be gamed and manipulated.

Any settlement takes place in the shadow of what a court would decide.

good comment, but unfortunately ignorance has no limits
And I don’t even mean not knowing patent laws (which are quite a mess I should say, after all those SCOTUS patent decisions passed during last 3 years)

People here just don’t understand the very basic fact that software is 100% equivalent to hardware
They’ve never heard about Turing machine etc.
They don’t know how semiconductor chips are designed (tools like Verilog etc.)

heck, the majority of people in the open source crowd don’t even have a slightest idea about the subject of “software vs. harware”
To them software is just a text, much like a book…
Then they apply some stupid analogies like “Free Speech” etc.

Heck, like I sad: knowledge has limits, but ignorance is virtually unlimited…

Of course Software should be patentable (once embedded on a physical medium);
As we all know software is a series of one or more algorithms that dictate the way a computer processes information. Embedded on a physical medium, it is a mechanical device, a CPU with discrete states of switching elements to differentiate between and change these states. Hello World! Devices are patentable.
Want another analogy? What is a chemical compound? It is a series of discrete switching elements, 92 natural occurring elements that dictate the functionality of the compound. It too is an algorithm.
Of course Software is patentable if claimed as a series of steps;
A NOVEL algorithm is a series of steps. Come on people. Engineering is the discipline of acquiring and applying scientific and technical knowledge to the design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes. Algorithms are the work product of Engineers, whether it be Financial, Computer, or Chemical… Hello World! Methods are patentable.
Don’t count of polls to determine patent policy. Only a small, very small, percentage of us are creative, the rest work further down the production line and always ready for a free lunch. Never met anyone who could pass on a FREE LUNCH.

Of course Software should be patentable (once embedded on a physical medium);
As we all know software is a series of one or more algorithms that dictate the way a computer processes information. Embedded on a physical medium, it is a mechanical device, a CPU with discrete states of switching elements to differentiate between and change these states. Hello World! Devices are patentable.
Want another analogy? What a chemical compound? It is a series of discrete switching elements, 92 natural occurring elements that dictate the functionality of the compound. It too is an algorithm.
Of course Software is patentable if claimed as a series of steps;
A NOVEL algorithm is a series of steps. Come on people.. Engineering is the discipline of acquiring and applying scientific and technical knowledge to the design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes. Algorithms is the work product of Engineers, whether it be Financial, Computer, or Chemical… Hello World! Methods are patentable.
Financial Engineers, Logistics Engineers, All Novel series of steps
Don’t count of polls to determine patent policy. Only a small, very small, percentage of us are creative, the rest work further down the production line and always ready for a free lunch. Never met anyone who could pass on a FREE LUNCH.

please go get your GED first before posting your thoughtful comments here

When you do get your GED don’t forget to update your Facebook profile

Err… one more thing: stop reading techdirt asap - it will make your braindead

he-He-he
double helix structure of DNA, steam engine and *Facebook* all in the same category ???

Maybe it’s already too late for you, bro

1) It’s a drain on American businesses. We spend tremendous resources (money) fighting among ourselves, which makes us less competitive globally.

2) Ideas are a dime a dozen, so forget trying to claim them. Usually there are many people/companies discovering the same idea or innovation at the same time (e.g. double helix structure of DNA, steam engine, Facebook, etc.)

3) The real work is in the execution, development, implementation, marketing, etc. If you come up with a concept and can’t build and sell it as well or as fast as others with the same or similar concepts, you lose.

3) Startups and small businesses have just as much ability to implement an idea as big corporations. Take this blog as an example.

I would like to see the USPO introduce the following:

You have to demo the IP as the final step for a technology patent to a panel of former industry experts in the field. They have to agree on the following; it’s not obvious and it is a complete implementation of the IP.