[iDC] global rights expropriation in the intersection between theindustrial and the information ages

[Guido Sohne]

On 5/23/07, Andreas Schiffler <aschiffler at ferzkopp.net> wrote:
> Actually this is not correct. You can patent "just ideas" - these are
> called "process patents" and do not have to ever make it into a product
> (they do usually have to be implemented or described in detail usually
> to prove that they make something else better).

I agree that is the case. It should /not/ be the case rather.

> heavy Linux user, twitch. And since I believe, that currently most
> people feel quite indifferent about such behavior or even the details of
> the patent process there is no push by the population who authorizes
> this power-structure (by voting for a government) to change the system.
> Thus is becomes self-perpetuating and self-serving - and creates
> outcrops like the silly IE-Eolas violation lawsuit (Microsoft got milked
> for $100M and IE users suffer silly user interface quirks).

The obvious implication is that the patent regime is out of control
(self perpetuating and self serving, and without democratic influence)
of the people it affects.

> So it comes down to the quality and definition of the service in my
> view. What could change to make it better:
> - broad patents should be ignored (or made to expire soon)
> - expiry should be highly flexible depending on the field of the patent
> (for example in the information technologies, things 'expire' faster)
> - patent ownership should come with more obligations on the part of the
> holders to make use of them
> - give equal resources to the "voiding a patent" police, as compared to
> the "grant the patent" process

And here's where the big disconnect comes. If the patent regime is out
of control, how would you ever be able to reform it to match what you
speak of; where would the impetus for that change appear from? Does
that not make rejecting the system completely, the best chance anyone
has of implementing a better system?

-- G.