I really really do think that video is the new central app of the web..See the nice little videos, that took almost nothing to produce, and that enjoyably captures two thoughtful people who otherwise would probably not have documented this conversation.

Hats off to IBM Marketing

IBM is perhaps the most sophisticated marketing company in the computer ecosystem.

Being able to sway public and market opinion has always been an IBM
strength. 

Hats off to IBM’s patent licensing business

IBM is also the world’s largest holder of issued US patents.

IBM is the largest patent troll–that is, patent licensing company-on the planet.

So forgive me for being cynical about IBM’s initiatives in “patent reform” when they seek to raise the bar for new patents being issued by the patent office by calling into question the “quality” of the patent office process and the “quality” of issued patents. 

Brad Feld just sent me a link to the following document funded by IBM on the question of patent quality.

This document reflects exactly the sort
of promotional activity that IBM has long done for its strategic
initiatives. 

Pardon me for becoming immediately suspicious when something is so polished.  It means someone spent a lot of money on presentation.  Hmmm. (see my admittedly snarky review of IBM’s “open” marketing campaign in note # 1 below).

But getting beyond slickness, consider the substance:

At first reading, it is hard to fault this IBM intellectual property initiative.  Apple pie and motherhood.

The IBM initiative references the need to create new institutions to help make the market for intellectual property more effective. This is something I am committed to. 

The IBM initiative also acknowledges that intellectual property IS property–something I think is fundamental to promoting innnovation and supporting inventors.

IBM argues for patent quality–something I believe is important. Both Brad and I agree patents should be granted for true innovations–important problems solved in novel ways.

IBM’s red herring, “patent quality”

The problem with IBM’s initiative is that while it pretends to be systematic, balanced and comprehensive, it is not.

Instead, IBM focuses attention on only one small aspect of the patent and intellectual property marketplace challenge.

IBM positions patent quality as the major problem with the patent system–and then proposes a “solution” that transparently favors IBM.

IBM’s careful framing of the “patent quality problem” is a deliberate red herring. 

Patent quality as an output of the patent office is good.  Patent quality as an output of the entire patent value chain is excellent.  Licensed patents, those that matter, are an output of the entire end-to-end patent process–from
submissions, to patent office actions including challenges, to routine
licensing as an element of, say, chips or hardware or services–which
is most of the market, to notification of potential infringers, to
negotiation among parties disputing particular property rights, to
settlements, and to the rare but vital-to-the-total process referrals
to courts of law.

“Patent quality” as IBM defines it is NOT a problem.  While one can
always find examples of dumb patents–out of thousands granted–I have
never in my business experience been stopped or slowed by a stupid
patent.  Never.  Irritated, inconvenienced, but never stopped.  Dumb
patents, as an issue, is a gnat.

We must not allow ourselves to be steamrolled by IBM into making
radical changes in the patent system to address a non-issue. Dumb
patents are irritating, but are not worth profoundly changing the
patent system to protect against.  People argue that Sarbanes is a radical solution that is too expensive for the problem it solves: Enron.  Well, at least Enron-like accounting scandals are a real, recognized problem that has cost investors billions of dollars of lost capital.  Can you say that about “patent quality?” No. “Patent quality” is a made up issue, promoted by IBM and other big companies, supported by a small number of academics who are on the pay (employees or grantees) of the large companies.

The real problem is invention theft

Invention theft:  A real, pressing, day-to-day challenge

While I have never been more than inconvenienced by stupid patents, I have had extensive experience with invention theft.  As recently as two months ago a young entrepreneur took an invention to a company I am invested in, negotiated to sell or license the invention.  After many meetings the CEO told this person that the company had decided it could just copy the invention.  At the next meeting the CEO said that he had just discovered that his company had, unbeknownst to him, “been working on just the same invention for several months before” negotiations had begun with the young entrepreneur.  This seemed rather incredible, but what was the young man to do?

Theft of legitimate inventions, original innovations, is a day-to-day occurrence in the technology ecosystem.  This is the elephant on the table in discussions of patents.  What is needed by true innovators, by creative people, is better protection, not weaker protection.

Honestly, I am angry about this situation.  I am saddened by the stories of young people and young companies whose inventions are stolen by those with the money and the market power to capitalize on these inventions.

IBM seeks to distract us from the much bigger and more immediate problem of theft of intellectual
property by large companies like IBM and Microsoft.  IBM wants us to look away from the terribly
high cost of patent enforcement against infringers such as the
self-same IBM and Microsoft.

Why is IBM so keen to do this?  Because IBM’s traditional business model cannot survive in the Web 2.0 ecosystem as that ecosystem is evolving

IBM’s business is toast unless it can freely source inventions from Web 2.0 entrepreneurs

What terrifies IBM is that it no longer is a primary source of world innovation.  It must beg, borrow, buy or steal inventions in order to continue in business.

The community of Web 2.0 developers is the major source of innovation in the ecosystem. One can argue that this or that Web 2.0 innovation is not of high enough quality to warrent a patent, but one cannot argue with the collective innovation of the Web 2.0 community.  There is no argument that the worldwide Web 2.0 movement, the Web 2.0 swarm, is vastly out-innovating IBM and similar large companies.  And as millions and millions of new inventors come online, in India, China, Africa, the Americas, Russia, the swarm is expanding.

The swarm will kill IBM if it cannot get ready and continuous access to the inventions born of the swarm.

The problem for the Web 2.0 innovators and companies is how to be fairly paid for their innovations.  Other than being acquired for relative pennies by Google, or Microsoft, or Yahoo, or Murdock, or IBM, Web 2.0 companies have found few ways to make money beyond serving Adsense ads.

During the next few years the biggest issue facing the Web 2.0 community will be how to retain its rightful ownership over its valid, high-quality inventions.  The biggest issue facing the Web 2.0 community, and the individuals with the community, will be how to keep their innovations from being freely appropriated–stolen–by large companies like IBM.

The sad news for IBM, and the good news for the community, is that there are a number of law firms and private equity firms that will now help entrepreneurs secure their property rights and enforce them against infringers.  The Web 2.0 ecosystem is becoming sophisticated about property rights.  IBM calls these law firms and investors “trolls” because they represent people like you and me against the likes of IBM. IBM does not like such firms.

The biggest strategic issue facing IBM

The biggest strategic issue facing IBM is how not to overpay for the community-created inventions upon which it is now dependent.

Now do you understand why IBM is spending millions to promote its own version of the open source movement?  To give it preferencial access to community inventions.  “Free software” AS IN “free beer,” for IBM.

Once Web 2.0 inventors wake up to the value of what they are inventing, and once Web 2.0 inventors realize how relatively easy it is to file patents and protect their property, look out IBM.  IBM, now mainly an integrator of other people’s technology, knows and fears this.

The slick look of the IBM anti-patent initiative is directly proportional to the fear you can see in IBM’s eyes.  The funding by IBM of EFF and other so-called “patent reformers” is a direct reflection of the threat of Web 2.0 to the IBM core business.

IBM is campaigning as aggressively as it knows how.  Its survival is at stake.  IBM is determined to raise the bar for new patents, and especially for patents filed by small companies and independent inventors.

IBM fears the Web 2.0 ecosystem.  IBM fears the Web 2.0 developers.

What IBM fears most is that the Web 2.0 developers will soon wake up and claim their rights to the fruits of their hard work. What IBM fears most is that it will no longer be able to create a business based on being a fast-follower, technology-marketer and systems integrator of other people’s inventions.

So let us rise to the call!  Let us band together and claim the fruits of our labors!

————————————————————————–
Note #1:

Hats off to the best public relations money can buy

The IBM document is slick, with terrific graphics and a cool orange
color–the “RSS Orange” to be exact.  IBM gave it a terrific title,
“Building a New IP Markeplace.”  Hard to argue with that. 

The document is credited in the page notes not to IBM, but to a project called “A Global Innovation
Outlook, 2.0 Report.”  The GIO is an IBM-funded, IBM-led lookalike to the World Economic Forum.  Not that IBM would copy another’s invention, but the similarity is striking.

>
• >The future of the enterprise
• >Energy and the environment
• >Transportation and mobility

>

Can you believe it!  Fifteen, count ‘em, “deep dive” sessions!

The booklet opens with a full-page quote in bold, by Jean-Babtiste Sourfron, of the Wikemedia Foundation.

Street cred.  Check.

The IBM document references a fifty-person,
IBM-funded advisory committee. Log rolling?

The mouse print under the list of participants reads: 

Good to know. 8 of them are from IBM itself, by the way.

TechCrunch does its usual excellent job of highlighting a company. In this case one I consider unethical because it benefits itself while it erodes audience trust in the editorial independence of bloggers.

“Spamitorials” ?

Over the past week I have written a number of posts on patents and the Web 2.0 ecosystem.  These posts are not yet organized into a whole.  They were stimulated by what I considered disingenuous posturing and lobbying on IBM’s part, legislation that I regard as aimed at taking rights away from little guys and that is being supported by IBM and Microsoft. 

Eventually I hope to pull all my thoughts, and the thoughts of others–often better than mine–into a longer comprehensive paper.  But for now, here is a reference to my posts, and to particularly good natured, good humored, and thoughtful contributions from Brad Feld and Robert Cringely, both of which were helpful to my thinking.

Thanks much to both and all.  Best, Jim

Web 2.0 Open Technology Values,
Steal My Invention

Cringely on how “patent reform” promotes big company agendas and screws the small guys


Feld on intellectual property rights,

Intellectual property rights,
History of software patents in context,
Provisional patents as affordable 1-year protection  for the small guy,
IBM leads conspiracy to alter patent system in its favor,

Feld on IBM Takes Another Step to Change the Patent Process.

Consider this summary of Cringely’s in-depth article in regard to the current proposed change to patent law being championed by big companies and stealthily pushed through Congress:

The point of all this reform, it seems to me, is to make it harder
for small inventors to make a living. If they are all thieves, maybe
that’s as it should be. But what if they aren’t all thieves? What
if they actually invent most of the stuff we value? Then all of us
are being ill-served by this legislation.

Microsoft loves it, of course. Under the proposed law it is almost
impossible to get the treble damages that are at the core of the
contingency lawyer-client relationship. That, alone, drops
Microsoft’s liability by a factor of three, from around $20 billion
down to $7 billion or so from the dozens of patent infringement cases
currently pending against the company.

Yes, Microsoft may well be a prime target for frivolous patent
infringement suits, but Microsoft historically has also shown itself
to be a consistent and willful patent infringer.

In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special
interest law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us
because it will only act to discourage inventors. Record and movie
companies beating-up on music and film pirates don’t save or cost
lives, but discouraging new medical inventions literally does cost
lives.

That ought to be as obvious as looking up a number in the phone book.

Cringely describes Microsoft’s interests clearly.  Equivalent interests can be exposed with regard to IBM and other large companies who are funding the “reform” effort.

Entrepreneurs need to be aware of a threat to their well-being that is being moved through Congress by Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy.  A bill has been introduced, at the behest of large technology companies, to limit patent rights.  These large companies are afraid of the “disruptive technologies” being spawned by entrepreneurs, and want large company “freedom of action” to clone these technologies and stomp out small pioneering firms.  Does this sound familiar from previous cases against Microsoft, IBM and others?  Of course.  So now these companies are fighting back, in the guise of “patent reform.”

Now Hatch is working on behalf of Microsoft and other large technology companies. Hatch and his clients seek to RADICALLY change patent law in order to lower big company liability in cases where they are found to have infringed on patents of others.

Microsoft, IBM and other large tech companies have launched a concerted public relations campaign to in support of the arguments in this bill.  The large company PR has largely succeeded in redefining “patent reform” to mean weakening patent laws and making them more favorable to large companies who infringe on small companies and individuals (who have been branded in this campaign as “trolls” because they do not have massive businesses like the large companies). 

Hatch also sums up the objections to his bill:

Let us be clear.  Hatch is not correct when he says “the high tech sector” is unified behind eliminating injunctive relief.  But he is correct that the big companies are mostly on this side–and probably contributing to his campaign and to his other causes–because weakening patent law will let large firms retain their power in a world of vastly many independent engineers and technology architects.

As
Robert Cringely has noted, passing this bill would lower Microsoft’s
potential exposure to damages by many billions of dollars.

PBS’ Robert Cringely has commented further on Hatch and Leahy’s bill in a post I have referred to before.  Cringely says it well:

>>Robert Cringely has written a most comprehensive description of recent developments in the perverted patent reform process being funded by Big Companies out to steal your inventions.  I hope I’m not being too blunt about it, but this is a serious matter. Consider the following article, which I have liberally excerpted.  Click on this line to read the entire, excellent article by Robert Cringely, and tp permalink to it.

August 18, 2005

Patently Absurd

Patent Reform Legislation in Congress Amounts to
Little More Than a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card for Microsoft

>By Robert X. Cringely

Late last month, shortly before the U.S. Congress shut down for its
summer recess, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property
subcommittee held an unusual hearing — unusual because the only
committee member attending the hearing was the chairman, Orrin Hatch,
a Republican from Utah. Why would such a prestigious committee hold
a hearing in Washington attended by only one member? To slam through
some controversial legislation, of course. Senator Hatch was trying
to pass a new law “reforming” the U.S. patent system and apparently
felt it would all go much more smoothly without the presence of the
other committee members. And it might have gone smoothly, except
someone in the press noticed the unusual hearing and decided to
attend, essentially scotching the intended markup of the bill a week
later and passage just as an unwary Congress was heading home.

Lord save us from patent reform.

This is another in my occasional series of columns on “innovation,” a
term that — at least when used in the computer and software
industries — generally means “creative theft of ideas by big
companies.”

There are several forms of intellectual property protected by U.S.
law. Among these are patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The goal
of all three forms of protection is to encourage hard work through
the granting of some economic exclusivity, and thereby helping the
nation by growing the economy and through the good works made
possible by new inventions. Trademarks reduce ambiguity in marketing
and promotion. Copyrights protect artistic and intellectual
expression. And patents protect ideas. Of these three categories of
intellectual property, the ones recently subject to reform efforts
are copyrights and patents, and each of these seems to be headed in a
different direction, though for generally the same reason.

Copyright law is being tightened at the behest of big publishers and
especially big record and movie companies. The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, for example, makes it a crime to defeat copy
protection of CDs and DVDs, thus helping to preserve the property
rights of these companies. At the end of some artistic productivity
chain, it is supposed to protect the rest of us, too, most notably by
encouraging the record and movie companies to make more records and
movies, which we will in turn be discouraged from copying illegally.

Patent reform works the other way. Where we are tightening
copyrights to help big companies, we are loosening patents, also to
help big companies. Certainly it isn’t to help you or me.

Do you feel helped by patent reform?

The bill at hand, which will take another shot at passage after the
current Congressional recess, is intended to discourage frivolous
patent lawsuits, which are reportedly ruining the days of big
companies all over America, thus denying the rest of us the fruits of
those patents — new stuff. That would be fine if most of our new
stuff came from big companies, but it doesn’t. Most patents aren’t
issued to big companies, but to smaller companies and to individual
inventors. Patent reform for the most part won’t help those groups
and will, in fact, hurt them.

If patent reform will hurt most of the people who receive patents,
why are we doing it?

Good question.

Patent reform appears to be based primarily on the idea that big
companies invent useful stuff that needs protection while smaller
companies and individual inventors use the patent system to suck
revenue out of big companies through frivolous patents and frivolous
lawsuits. Of course, it isn’t at all clear that this assumption is
correct.

The primary principles of patent reform are switching the U.S. system
from “first to invent” to “first to file” by replacing legal
challenges to patents with a more administrative challenge process,
and by practically eliminating injunctions through which a patent
holder forces an infringer to stop using his intellectual property.

Much of the rest of the world already uses “first to file” patent
systems. Of course, much of the rest of the world also ignores or
gleefully violates patent law. “First to file” gives the advantage
to any organization that has a good administrative system in place.
Absent-minded inventors lose in this system, which also encourages
patenting anything and everything just in case. We can see this in
recent Microsoft patents, for example, like 20050108349 — “Business
inquiries and operations using messaging service” — which seems to
cover looking up a number in the telephone directory. Does this
qualify as “innovation?”

“First to file” is supposed to be good for you and me because it
reduces frivolous lawsuits by people who may think they actually
invented looking up numbers in the phone book before Microsoft
invented it. But, hey, isn’t a patent supposed to be “non-obvious,”
which would make looking up numbers in the phone book unpatentable?

It’s just my opinion, but “first to file” looks like a good way to
screw small inventors, of which I know quite a few.

Moving to an administrative challenge system within the patent
office, rather than just filing a law suit in court, is supposed to
both make patents better and cheaper. It is supposed to make them
better because expensive lawyers are eliminated from the process,
thus allowing more challenges to be filed and improving the overall
quality of issued patents. There are only two problems with this
theory, and those are the false ideas that lawyers will be eliminated,
and that money will be saved.

Big companies with patent departments will continue to staff those
departments with lawyers, whether they are called that or not.
Little companies and individual inventors without patent departments
tend to be represented by lawyers who work on contingency — who
accept the financial risk of pursuing the case in return for a share
of any award the inventor gets in compensation for the infringement.
While there are some lawyers who are the patent equivalents of
ambulance chasers, most lawyers won’t take patent cases they aren’t
pretty darned sure they can win, which would seem to not be frivolous
cases at all.

So moving to an administrative challenge system eliminates lawyers,
yes, but only for small inventors.

Finally there is the elimination of injunctions except under extreme
circumstances. I find this part of the bill especially interesting
because it seems to effectively allow infringement under almost any
circumstance, reducing what is supposed to be a crime into more of a
forced license — forced on the patent holder. If a company
infringes my patent and I can’t get an injunction prohibiting them
from using my intellectual property, that means anyone can use any
patented technology, and all that’s left to be worked out is the
license fee.

I don’t want to be too petty about this, but what if I, as the
inventor, simply don’t like you, the infringer? What if I fear
you’ll be using my very peaceful invention to make weapons of mass
destruction? Can’t I stop you from using my property? Under the
proposed law, I can only do so if your infringement will effectively
put me out of business.

Under this bill, that which doesn’t kill us continues to annoy.

The point of all this reform, it seems to me, is to make it harder
for small inventors to make a living. If they are all thieves, maybe
that’s as it should be. But what if they aren’t all thieves? What
if they actually invent most of the stuff we value? Then all of us
are being ill-served by this legislation.

Microsoft loves it, of course. Under the proposed law it is almost
impossible to get the treble damages that are at the core of the
contingency lawyer-client relationship. That, alone, drops
Microsoft’s liability by a factor of three, from around $20 billion
down to $7 billion or so from the dozens of patent infringement cases
currently pending against the company.

Yes, Microsoft may well be a prime target for frivolous patent
infringement suits, but Microsoft historically has also shown itself
to be a consistent and willful patent infringer.

In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special
interest law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us
because it will only act to discourage inventors. Record and movie
companies beating-up on music and film pirates don’t save or cost
lives, but discouraging new medical inventions literally does cost
lives.

That ought to be as obvious as looking up a number in the phone book.

Is the interest of Big Companies in “patent reform” just a little like the interest of
pedofiles in “child welfare?”
Just wondering…

Perverted patent reform?

The
cynic says:  Let’s consider what big IT companies such as IBM,
Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard find attractive in “patent reform:”

1.  Big companies have historically stolen lots inventions, and seldom been caught.

We all know the famous stories, the rare times when companies did get caught, and individuals and small companies either prevailed or at least were heard. 

But what of the thousands of times when the theft was unnoticed, or could not be proved, or where the innovator could not afford to defend his or her claim?

2.  Big companies want to continue to steal ideas at will, and they have a problem with two megatrends: 

A. Most of the innovation in the world of information technology now happens in the world at large, not in their private labs. They do not want to have to license this world-spawned technology.  Indeed, they don’t want to have to keep systematically informed of it.  (Hey, IBM, subscribe to TechCrunch!)

B.  Big companies like IBM now and in the future plan to make most of their money as consultants and systems integrators.  Technology is a “cost of goods” to them.  Technology innovation is a cost of goods to them.  They would like to make the cost of technology as low as possible. They would like to make the cost of innovation, the cost of inventions, and the cost of licensing patents as small as possible.

3.  Big companies have come up with a solution that allows them to continue to steal inventions and deal with the megatrends arrayed against them:

Reduce the protection afforded to small companies and individual inventors under the patent law. 

A.  Make it harder for small inventors to get patents by attacking the patent office for “lack of quality” specifically in IT and software patents.  Note:  Under the “old” “low quality” system IBM already has 32,000 issued patents in its name, and 45,000 it controls in total including patents acquired.  IBM files about 3000 new patents per year, as does Microsoft.

B.  Reduce the damages inventors can collect, thus reducing big company direct exposure to amounts that big companies can easily afford, and reducing the willingness of law firms to take on claims of small inventors because of the limited potential returns on the investment in a lawsuit.

C. Fund–under the table–”patent busting” activities on patents that are seen to potentially stand in the way of large company systems integration business.  In this way IBM and other large firms outsource legal attempts to invalidate others’ patents.  IBM and others are then able to use non-profit talent, they are able to join with other firms in alliances that would otherwise be illegal collusions under anti-trust law, and IBM can “donate” tax free.

There is a good deal of talk on blogs about what Web 2.0 is, and what Enterprise 2.0 is.  I would like to suggest that the Web 2.0 community might find it valuable to consider what our values are with respect to intellectua property rights, in a situation where millions of entrepreneurs are working–and a few companies are aquiring, integrating, and serving ads over the whole.

In Web 2.0 because of the content-centric and service-centric nature of the ecosystem, the conversation often revolves around copyright.  I think it is important that it also address technology inventions and patents.

I think it is also important to note that, as far as promoting innovation, patent and copyright may work in an opposite manner.  When big companies steal content, their theft is obvious and remedies come fast.  When big companies steal technoloy, their theft is hidden deep in the bowels of a platform or service, the theft is often invisible, and discovery, proof of infringement and remedies come slow.

On the other hand, it is easy for millions of consumers to use the web to steal  content from big media companies.  It is hard for millions of consumers to steal technology from large companies.

Big companies know this difference, and this is why they are investing hundreds of millions in lobbying to tighten the copyright laws, and loosen the patent laws.  See note #1 at bottom.

Unfortunately, the “free culture” movement has not caught up with the distinction between content and technology, nor that between copyright and patent.  Thus many folks that are “open” are being sucked by big companies seeking to weaken patent law.  What the open folks don’t realise is that current patent law IS open. 

I have written on this in a number of other posts, and continue to struggle to clarify what is going on, and what makes sense for the open side of the argument–which is my side, which I hope is obvious.

Here, for what its worth, is my attempt at a statement of  open, community-oriented values, that expresses how I see the current US patent system as supporting these values.  This list is a work in progress and any comments will be appreciated.  Your thoughts are best delivered on your blog for maximum transparency, needless to say.  Have at it.

We want to promote innovation and innovators. 

We respect the true inventors–whether of steam engines or of  software–who take on a hard task and do it well.

We
believe that inventors own the fruits of their own labors,
whether those fruits are the result of making physical machines or making logical machines in software and hardward.

We believe in property rights.  We recognize that
people have many different options in terms of their property:  They
can let others use it, they can give it away, they can lease or sell
it, and they can hold on to it.

The legal system has evolved
to maintain workable markets for particular types of property that have
proven subject to theft, arguments over ownership, and so on:  cars
(title, license), realestate (special courts, title, title insurance),
investment securities (Securities and Exchange Commission, insider
trading prohibitions, Sarbanes, etc.), and intellectual property
(patent, trademarke, and copyright). Each of these sorts of propery are
different in the “market failures” that have been experienced over
time, and the protections that have evolved. 

The intellectual
property market needs to facilitate owners accomplishing a wide range
of market outcomes, including giving away or donating part or all of
their property.  Creative Commons provides an excellent method for
donating to others the non-commercial and the commercial property
rights to a particular work.  BTW this entire blog can be licensed
through Creative Commons. 

If folks want to license their work
to others and get paid for it, that is fine as well.  It is good for
society when creative people can quit their day jobs and labor on their
deepest contributions.  One way to do this is to start a lab and
license your inventions.  The central problem in running a lab is how
not to get ripped off when you disclose your inventions to prospective
buyers.  The best protection system yet invented is a
govenment-certified property right.  But in order to not clog up the
innovation landscape, those rights expire after a limited period.

The current US patent system has been specifically created and improved over the decades to help make a workable market for innovation. 

The
biggest problem in the intellectual property markets, historically, has
been theft of inventions.  There is a long history of theft by big economic bullies
from small companies and independent inventors.  Big companies steal lots of ideas, and seldom get caught. 

The patent
system helps combat theft by granting a publicly registered property
right–like land title.  This registered right provides a basis for
preventing the theft of ideas, by helping inventors prove their
ownership in court.

The patent system recognizes the need for
open disclosure in order to promote innovation across the community of
innovators. The US patent system is historically the first open source
movement.   It forces inventors to disclose of the essence of an
invention so that others can learn from that invention and try to go it
one better.

The patent system recognizes the need for
intellectual property rights to expire, in order to clear the decks for
new inventions–including those that use old ideas in new ways.  Thus
the intellectual property right is unique in that it is designed to
expire.  Real estate title does not expire (though it can be taken by
the state in eminent domain cases), and car titles do not expire (cars,
unfortunately, do expire).  Patents expire 20 years after the
underlying property right was first claimed. 

The effective
term of patent has been held the same or lessened, as US law now allows
20 years after claim, where it used to allow 17 years after the patent
issued.  In many cases it take longer than three years after claim–the
difference from the old law to the new–for a patent to issue. 
[Unfortunately, the copyright term has now been made almost
non-expiring, due to lobbying by Disney and others.  There is no
similar effort underway in regard to patents, fortunately.]

————————————————————-
Note 1:  Robert Cringely on how copyright and patent lobbying by big companies is pushing in opposite directions:

Copyright law is being tightened at the behest of big publishers and
especially big record and movie companies. The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, for example, makes it a crime to defeat copy
protection of CDs and DVDs, thus helping to preserve the property
rights of these companies. At the end of some artistic productivity
chain, it is supposed to protect the rest of us, too, most notably by
encouraging the record and movie companies to make more records and
movies, which we will in turn be discouraged from copying illegally.

Patent reform works the other way. Where we are tightening
copyrights to help big companies, we are loosening patents, also to
help big companies. Certainly it isn’t to help you or me.

Do you feel helped by patent reform?