Patent Trolls In Biotechnology 50
GNUman writes "A news story in this week's Nature Journal talks about patent trolls attacking biotech companies. They cite a case in which the U.S. federal court of appeals upheld 'a patent that covered the idea of trying to link infant vaccination with later immune disorders.' The news story also references an interesting article from researchers at Boston University School of Law (Bessen, James E. et al, 2011, 'The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls'), in which they analyze the effect of litigation on the wealth of the defendants via their stock's value before and after litigation, and given that such loss minimally translates into an increment in the wealth of the inventor, they determine that patent litigation harms society and removes incentives for innovation."
Tell me it ain't so... (Score:2)
Patent litigator harm society and remove incentive for innovation?!!! That goes against everything I've ever heard about the patent process!!! Why would our government allow such a thing to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Patent litigator harm society and remove incentive for innovation?!!! That goes against everything I've ever heard about the patent process!!! Why would our government allow such a thing to be?
Well, now; it appears that you fell for that old bit of social propaganda.
Anyone who has actually read any of the many histories about patent (and copyright) law understands quite well that the intent from the start has been to block any profits that might be gained from innovation. Or even better, divert the profits to lawyers and government agencies.
Where did people ever get the silly idea that patents encourage innovation? Why would anyone believe such a claim, when all our experience is the oppos
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are supposed to incentivize inventors to release documentation of their invention to the public domain. Yes, the patent system is horribly broken and in desperate need of real reform, but public knowledge would suffer a severe setback if patents disappeared entirely (replaced by trade secrets, no doubt).
Re:Patents are unnecesary (Score:4, Interesting)
Trade secrets would be preferable. At least then you could use whatever you can learn from reverse-engineering.
Very few trade secrets have ever been kept successfully for long. Some inventions might be locked up indefinitely, but most would probably be re-discovered or reverse-engineered long before a hypothetical patent would have expired.
Re: (Score:3)
So companies wouldn't get sued for patent infringement, but invidual engineers for causing loss of profits by leaking secrets. Expect to see even worse NDA and noncompete clauses in employeed contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about "leaking" trade secrets. Even if everyone adheres to their NDAs, it is still likely that the invention will be rediscovered independently or reverse-engineered by someone with no privileged inside information.
Anyway, NDAs and non-compete clauses are standard even with patents. No one puts all the details in the patent application if they can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, trade secrets would not be preferable. If I must reverse engineer something before I can understand it, then I must first acquire one or more samples of the item I wish to reverse engineer. That may not be much of an obstacle in the case of trinkets and toys - but it could be a severe obstacle if I'm trying to design a better automotive engine, or a better suspension system. And, aviation? I can't afford a single jet engine, let alone an aircraft.
Patents are great - as they existed in the first half
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone designing something expensive, as in your examples, will need the resources to construct prototypes (probably many prototypes) for testing, if the design is to advance beyond the theoretical stage. If you can afford to have prototypes built you can probably afford a model already in production as well. Anyway, it's not like you have to keep the model after you're done studying it—buy it used, and sell it afterward in essentially the same condition.
Not to mention, of course, that people tend not
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever actually been part of a company with something you think is unique and valuable and are trying to protect from reverse engineering?
A much bigger concern than a competitor buying your unit directly is one of your legitimate customers being on friendly terms with a competitor and giving them access to borrow the device for a weekend or send some en
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and no. Every production document that I've ever handled says "confidential" on it. We're not supposed to take pictures at work. There are a lot of "secrets" involved in our production. But - our items are sold across the nation - actually around the world. China actually produces some of our stuff, other things have been produced there, and pulled from there, back to the states. Other items have been produced in Europe, before being sent to us for production.
Whatever "trade secrets" we have, hav
Re: (Score:3)
That implies that trivia reverse engineering should be added to the list of disqualifications on patents. Why should society pay such a hefty price for readily available information. It's like buying gourmet tap water.
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO - as a nation, we DO pay for gourmet tap water! Take a serious look at all the bottles of water sitting on your grocer's shelves, and at the convenience stores. Many of them come from city water supplies.
And, of those bottlers that actually have a spring(s) or an aquifer or whatever, many of those are in no way superior to common well water.
Damn, you just pointed out how stupid Americans really are!
Re: (Score:2)
They have one major advantage to tap water: they are often available in places where you can't get tap water. If I'm rushing for a train, I can hop into a shop, grab a bottle of water and get on the train. Sadly, my local friendly city authorities have decided that publicly usable taps == evil socialist communism.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "OH THE COINCIDENCE!", really.
Except, ads are targeted, so "OH THE CORRELATION!" is more like it.
Can someone please tell me... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What about universities that do research? Many widely used technologies came from university R&D and most of them have no intention of actually implementing what they're researching. I think the issue is more with what can be patented and how long items can be patented.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What about universities that do research? Many widely used technologies came from university R&D and most of them have no intention of actually implementing what they're researching.
The question then is, would that research otherwise have been done by a company which _was_ intending to make use of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite commonly they become significant stockholders in a new or existing venture to further develop and put the patent into production, so they aren't non-practicing.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't most college and university R&D discoveries released to the public? I always thought that state funded schools discoveries became the property of the people who fund those schools, ie, the taxpayer. Am I living in a dream world, or what?
Re: (Score:3)
Because large corporations are less vulnerable to patent trolls than small organizations. This creates a barrier to entry for that market, entrenching the large corporation. Since our government is wholly owned by large corporations we get the kind of law that benefits large corporations.
Patenting the concept of research.. (Score:1)
I wonder if all those polling companies (Gallup, Rasmussen, etc...) have their ducks in a row, because I'm about to go medieval on their asses.
"Process for the use of inquiry to determine prevailing public opinion on a manner of issues relevant to the interests of various media interests including but not limited to advertisers, news agencies, and political organizations."
Pay up, bitches.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if all those polling companies (Gallup, Rasmussen, etc...) have their ducks in a row, because I'm about to go medieval on their asses.
"Process for the use of inquiry to determine prevailing public opinion on a manner of issues relevant to the interests of various media interests including but not limited to advertisers, news agencies, and political organizations."
Pay up, bitches.
There is prior art for that. Better add "using a communication netwok" or "using a mobile device" to your patent application.
*facedesk* (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Monsanto anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Most notably, Monsanto has sued farmers because their crops (which were not Monsanto seeds) reproduced with pollen blown in from the neighbor's farm. Apparently, patent law trumps laws of nature, at least when it comes to assessing damages, because Monsanto has won those cases.
This despite the farmer's counterpoint that Monsanto's terminator gene was contaminating their crop, quite against the will of the farmer.
Re: (Score:3)
The farmer knowingly selected a desirable trait. Since they did no genetic analysis (and had no ability to do so), they didn't necessarily know it was from Monsanto GM crops (Monsanto did not create the gene from scratch, they just crammed it into the genomes of several food plants). It's noteworthy that the farmers were following all of the laws applying to proprietary hybrid seeds. That is, they are permitted to enjoy the benefit of such hybrids cross pollinating with their own strains (if the hybrid isn
Re: (Score:2)
The terminator gene creates a far more insidious problem. It causes a farmer's crop to mysteriously fail the next year.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean a greater failure rate than simple hybridization.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not really a patent troll - they actually make the stuff they patent.
A patent troll is somebody whose main business model is collecting license fees from things that OTHERS do, largely because they filed a patent on something that is easy to put into words and hard to put into practice.
You don't have to agree with Terminator Genes and all that stuff, but the fact is that they actually do make that stuff and you can buy it from them if you want it.
No, a patent troll is the guy who sues you for playin
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto isn't a troll, but they have a number of troll like trait such as laying claim to seeds they didn't produce and that weren't produced through GM techniques.
Otherwise, their brand of evil has other names.
Immune Disorders (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does it mean to be sued for one's patents?
I hereby patent (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
True, but false (Score:2)
They fi
Federal Circuit case mentioned in TFS (Score:2)
It should be noted that the CAFC case mentioned above was narrowly confined to the issue of patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings concerning enforceability relative to prior art (among other things). The defendant was hoping for a quick and cheap resolution, but it looks like that won't happen in this case.