Slashdot

How about the companies give us something first - like a push for a global taxation system, so that companies cannot just set up shell offices in tax havens, or threaten to leave a country/state because some other country/state has cheaper taxes?

But that'd be unfair of course. To the companies I mean.

Obviously one system doesn't fit all - unless it's something that benefits the companies.

While we're at it.

- No more than 7 years on a patent. No extensions. No exceptions.
- No patenting of algorithms
- Patents to be awarded to individuals only, not companies

If you reduce software patent terms to 5 years.

The world would be like hell.
I can't understand how you can live with your patent system and please don't export that shit to us other!

Is this because the Canadian firm (i4i) hit it big on an American company (Microsoft) with their patent trolling?

Do they think this is going to make it better? Now its going to be a MASSIVE convoluted state of patents EVERYWHERE and everyone will be stepping on someones toes. The idea of a Patent Law being forced across the ENTIRE PLANET is ridiculous.

We haven't even reached World Peace, how do you expect to enforce Patent Laws in warzones, 3rd world countries, embassies?

Not exactly the most IP-compliant country in the world, and pretty much has the USA over a barrel economically right now from the look of things.

The Pirate Party's opposing it? Well, then, if they're on the case, problem solved. Woohoo!

A unified patent system would actually benefit individual inventors, small businesses, and startups more than established players with deep pockets. Right now if one wants to file for patent protection in every country with a patent system worth the name it costs ~$200,000 in filing fees alone, to say nothing of attorney and translation costs. The lifetime maintenance fees of that single patent will be well into the millions. Even only filing in the 'big three' of the US, Europe, and Japan typically costs well over $100,000 in government fees and attorney fees.

For a big company like Microsoft, that's just the cost of doing business. But that $200,000 is a huge amount of money to a startup, to say nothing of an individual garage inventor. Globalization and the internet mean that an inventor can sell an invention to people all around the world for far less than it would have cost 20 or 30 years ago. Protecting that invention all around the world, however, is often prohibitively expensive for all but the most well-funded, established companies.

It's true that companies like Microsoft would also benefit from lower filing costs, but small companies and individual inventors will benefit much more. It will also mean less money wasted on lawyers, as a single attorney in a single country can handle the whole process instead of having to use attorneys all over the world. And of course it will mean less duplication of effort in government as patent offices share resources. Right now there is an enormous duplication of effort as each application in each country is met with the same prior art, which is overcome with the same arguments. This is a tremendous waste of both government and applicant resources.

Yes, what we need is an international patent cooperation treaty.
You could file an application with an international searching authority, have an optional preliminary examination of your claims there too, and then enjoy streamlined examination in various countries around the world based on the international examination authority's findings.

Oh wait, we already have that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty [wikipedia.org]

Does MS really think its going to get better than that?

I wholeheartedly support a correctly implemented patent system in industrialized nations. Although not all inventions fall into this particular category (and we can go on and on all day about those that don't), a number of very valuable inventions require massive investments of time and money to develop and perfect. Without any assurance of the ability to recover for these investments, people would be hard-pressed to engage in them in the first place. Think, most obviously, pharmaceuticals.

A uniform patent system would require poorer countries to adhere to patent norms that would be inherently contrary to their own interests. If you have nothing to protect, and it is absolutely to your advantage to take, why should you be forced to follow along? It makes no sense to ask developing nations and others with no need for a patent system to obey the restrictions earned elsewhere. And, here's the important thing, these two completely different levels of protection can in fact peacefully co-exist. The market will correct. If a poorer country absolutely needs a particular drug developed which no other country needs, maybe then they would find use in patent or patent-like protections. Until then, it's silly to impose our will on others.

I expect every nation that thinks it is going to host the HQ of any such organisation will be all for it. But not so much when they realise the entire patents system would be controlled by foreign nations. At an individual level, I don't give a shit what is patented in the US. Unless I do something over there, you don't have ANY claim to authority over me. But if my country has chosen to patent that specific thing then OK, I'll respect that, I use my authority as a citizen to grant them that authority over me (by that same token, I quite rightly do not have any say over what is patented in the US).

A patent is an agreement between an "inventor" (sadly, needing to use the term very loosely) and society. The inventor offers details of the invention in return to society granting the inventor specific rights for a specified period of time. Therefore it follows that the society upholding the rights be the one agreeing to it, as closely as practicable.

I see plenty arguments here that favour the inventor, but nothing to restore balance by favouring society - unless you accept "enrich public knowledge" (knowledge that they cannot do much with) or "encourage competition" (competition in submitting patents that is).

Furthermore the national system works quite well in limiting excessive scope. Presently it is only worth an inventor obtaining a patent in a country he has some intention to trade in. With a global system, he would obtain a patent whether he intends to trade there or not.

The problem is that if a global patent system were devised that were more sane than the US system, the US would say "screw you; we won't tolerate this violation of our sovereignty" and continue with it's own broken patent system.

So a global patent system is guaranteed to be no better than the US system, and likely to be worse.