I'll respond in one post to your many...
iMan said:
So, we live in a globalized environment, producing goods in any country that can do it cheaper, and selling to anyone willing to pay. But patents does only apply certain places? Why does people still innovate then, since if you patent something in the US, someone is still free to copy and sell any other place in the world?
Because marketing your invention worldwide is extremely hard and cost prohibitive. If it costs you 20k total to get a US patent and most of your customers are in the US, then you get a US patent. If the same patent in Germany costs 10k (assuming you reuse the same application), but none of your customers are in Germany, why waste the 10k on the off chance that someone may copy it?
As for cost, it is <getting ready to duck> mainly dependent on lawyers fees. Some small patent boutiques charge 5k-10k, some larger firms charge 15-20k. Why the discrepancy? Well, theoretically all the really really smart people work at big firms so the patent lawyer you get will be top notch versus the fairly decent person you get at a smaller boutique. That is a theory and a stereotype, so I really can't lend any credence to the validity or invalidity of that statement. I can, however, direct everyone to the
costs that the PTO charges charges (note, for small entities, like single inventors or small companies less than 500 employees, the gov't halves many of the fees). The fees also just changed in December hence all the "before December 8th" and "after December 8" stuff.
iMan said:
And there IS a lot of incentives to spend on R&D - just as Apple uses a lot and Dell next to nothing in comparison. Patents does not make a difference.
Apple is very patent oriented. I'm not seeing your point.
iMan said:
Well, I CAN in fact prove that development and innovation definitely occur without a patent system. The mere fact that someone invented the patent system in the first place is one argument, the next one: was there no inventing before this?
I didn't say that inventing didn't occur without patents, I was rebutting your assertion that patenting PREVENTED invention. I say it doesn't and that it fosters innovation. You showing that inventions were invented before the patent system proves nothing, only than inventiveness can exist both with and without patent systems. You said patents stifle innovation, yet the patent system is actually in the Constitution, so it's not really a modern idea. Turning your reasoning against you: did people stop inventing once the patent system was in place (i.e., 1787)?
iMan said:
Commercial success is not an indication that anything NEW and NOVEL has emerged.
From the Manual of Patent Examiner Procedures (what patent examiners refer to when determining if a patent application is new or non-obvious):
716.01(a)
Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSIDERED WHENEVER PRESENT
Affidavits or
declarations containing evidence of criticality or unexpected results,
commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, etc.,
must be considered by the examiner in determining the issue of obviousness of claims for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983) that "evidence rising out of the so-called `secondary considerations' must always when present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness." Such evidence might give light to circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.
As indicia of obviousness or unobviousness, such evidence may have relevancy. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966); In re Palmer, 451 F.2d 1100, 172 USPQ 126 (CCPA 1971); In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973).
You and the law appear to disagree.
iMan said:
One of my points is exactly how other inventions are based on prior ones. That is called development and evolution. To restrict this by patenting (and possibly prohibiting the use of) certain components does not promote development.
No it doesn't. It gives you an incentive to find a different solution. That's innovation!
iMan said:
And I really mean it by saying patents does not benefit the public: lets think that Apple had patented the GUI, mouse - or even iPhoto with any possibility to show digital photos on a computer. ...but how is this approach of benefit to the general public?
Because once the patent runs out, ANYONE will know how to make that stuff. Apple is giving them a recipe to do it. Ideally one skilled in the art can pick up the patent and make the invention (once the patent has expired). That is the benefit.
iMan said:
Penicillin was a trick, because as you say there are even doubts that this "invention" would classify as novelty
I never said that.
iMan said:
(whether it was an "accident" does not really matter does it?)
It does when you used it as an argument that great things were "invented" without the trying to design around a patent. Pennicilin wasn't discovered trying to design around because it was dicovered by accident. Flemming didn't "invent" it because he was naturally curious; he was forgetful and left some mold on petri dishes and came back to see that the bacteria in the dishes were all dead/gone.
iMan said:
the fact is it medically has had quite an impact on healthcare AND are commercially available and developed does indicate that not patenting does not cancel either development nor innovation.
You are completely misunderstanding/misconstruing what I have said. Let's rewind.
You: patents stifle innovation and no innovation can occur with patents around
Me: Not true. Designing around a patent forces you to find new ways of solving a problem
You: No, plenty of inventions occured without being patented or desinging around a patent. Car, pennicilin, etc.
Me: penniclin was an accident so you can't use it to show that innovation occurs without the patent system because I never said it didn't. Cars have thousands of patents
You: Inventions happened before the patent system, therefore patents stifle innovation
Me: N is for float? <MST3K reference loosely translated to: wtf???>
And here we are.
-p-
