Patents? What are those?

[Magnus Danielson]

>>>>> "BL" == Bill Layer <b.layer at vikingelectronics.com> writes:

 BL> Hi All,

Hi Bill!

 BL> (First post since my questionable question, and it's protracted,
 BL> embarrasing fallout)

 BL> But I've thought this to death, and I'd like to think aloud for a moment
 BL> about patents, intellectual property and moral vs. legalistic defenses.

 BL> With respect to the theft or piracy of computer software, fine art,
 BL> literature or other intellectual properties, what is it that has us most
 BL> offended? Is it the LEGALISTIC notion of theft, as defined under law, or
 BL> the MORAL notion, as defined by society and culture? 

 BL> Because frankly, they do not agree. I've heard folks on this list cite
 BL> patent or copyright expiry as accepable grounds for acquisition of said
 BL> properties. But, just because the scope of law is unable to provide
 BL> perpetual security for the rightful holder, this does not release us of
 BL> moral guilt in taking or using that person's property, does it?

Ah, let me first point out that I make great distinction between using
a expired patent and using up a subtility in law to run away with a
intellectual property. While the later may be (only) morally wrong a
just vaguly (or flagrantly) breaking the law the first isn't.

The hole point about patents is that you get some years of protection
(say 25 years, this varies) to have a legal protection of your
intellectual property so that you can make money of it without
competing with someone that did not originally develope it, but the
price that you pay for this legal protection is that your intellectual
property is being publically available and when the patent expires
anyone may retreive and make legal use of it. This is a way to
actually spread knowledge for the benefit of a larger commercial basis
in the longer run. So when people put up dates on when this and that
patent becomes free they are infact using patents exactly as they
where meant, as a means to make use of others discoverys. We may sit
around waiting for 20 years for a patent to expire and we may fully
understand it, but the legal protection for commercial use is there.

I find that patents is a very good source of knowledge from old and
new times, one can learn a lot of things and also get insight from
what was perceived as the pressing technical points at the time. It is
there to be used, use it! While the patents surely isn't holding all
the truth about how to implement this and that it generally holds many
interesting technical points.

Infact, I have generated a few myself (No, they wount show up at the IBM
patent server).

 BL> What about the legal politics of sample use in the music industry? The
 BL> industry has basically declared (for pratical, legal reasons only) that it
 BL> is essentially legal to steal 10 seconds of someone's song, for your own
 BL> use. This seems fairly reasonable, until you look at situations like MC
 BL> Hammer 'can't touch this' vs. Rick James 'superfreak'. Would any of us
 BL> consider that situation as anything less than outright plagarism? How would
 BL> you feel about creating the ultimate sample, and hearing it one day as the
 BL> bulk of some industry giant's latest 'track'?

 BL> Finally, a word about patents. I'd like to direct your attention to the IBM
 BL> patent library for a look at a recent patent for "Novel implementation of
 BL> Output Transformerless Amplifier" held by Bruce Rozenblit. It's an esoteric
 BL> piece of work, but there is a very curious feature in it: This "output
 BL> transformerless amplifier" seems to, and in fact DOES have an output
 BL> transformer!!! Seems like a bit of an oversight, eh?

Purhaps someone was unable to understand the schematic symbol ;)

 BL> With that level of attention to detail being practiced in the highest
 BL> office in the land, what level of moral respect are these patents really
 BL> due? If any given  patent can consist of naught but *pure* falsehood and
 BL> deception, might some others also be tainted by this? In fact, this patent
 BL> in question makes a disreputable mockery of the whole system.

Well, the use of patents and the quality of patents is varying around
the globe. At some places they just put a stamp on it and on other
places they read it carefully and make good surveys to ensure that it
has some validity. I must say that I am by no means a patent expert,
but with my dealings on the issue I have gotten the feeling that in
the US it is easier to get it protected, but then someone can
challenge it in court... until someone challenge it in court it is
valid, no matter how much bogus it is. This system (and now we are
getting subjective here) is certainly benefitial to the US layers...

 BL> I must go on to tell you, that the holder of this patent is using it's
 BL> existence to declare that he has been issued the only new OTL patent since
 BL> the 1950's, ALSO a *double* lie, as is plainly shown by the *ahem* other
 BL> recent patents you will turn up in your search. Did you find Ralph
 BL> Karsten's famous patent from the early 1980's, for instance? In a complete
 BL> reversal, here we see the immoral shorn up by the legalistic.

Well, did you call his bluff? In a way you did, but you did not make
sure that it was defused. You have certainly shown that his statements
(which is unknown to me, since I haven't done zilch in the OTL
buissness) is hollow and you also shown a way to have others
cross-check your statements (which in a way shows that the
scientifical test and experience yourself method may be applied) makes
it hollow. Thing is, he probably makes buissness with such an act and
until someone really challenge him he can continue to do the act
fairly alone.

 BL> Can anyone extract sense from this? The balanced approach to this situation
 BL> continues to elude... (PS I've tried being a perfectionist, and that
 BL> doesn't work either...)

Well, no... but meanwhile I go around patenting the wheel and claiming
royalties from all of the auto-industry... there is lots of wheels
turning without having some royalty falling into my pocket...

Hmm... how about patenting God? ... or should I go for a Trademark maybe?
The is much money in this God-buissness these days...

Ah! It got to be the new auto-blupp in the upcomming Crapp-o-tronics
monster modular! The auto-blupp goes blupp all by itself... very
usefull you see.

Cheers,
Magnus (on a Manic Monday)