[8534] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Patents, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Sun Nov 21 23:04:16 1993
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 23:03:47 -0500
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: 0005066432@mcimail.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company"'s message of Sun, 21 Nov 1993 07:51:51 -0500 (EST) <0119931121075100/0005066432NA1EM-c100000@MCIMAIL.COM>
>From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
>> The amount of damage that's been caused by some patents issued
>> over the past several years and what has been done with them
>> (in more than a few cases their merely being turned over to
>> law firms for exploitation with no hi-tech company or attempt
>> at development at all) is more than enough to justify a hue
>> and cry.
>
>Then perhaps you need to argue either for compulsory licensing or
>mandatory use clauses.
That is one possible compromise, perhaps applicable in at least some
cases. I don't think it's a universal solution. Some patents simply
shouldn't be awarded, they should be recognized as representing
unpatentable ideas for all the same reasons patents have been rejected
in the past.
I don't think Compton's patenting of any method involving the storage
and retrieval of pictures and text (etc) on one media is readily be
solved with oh, ok, we'll just pay Compton's a compulsory license fee
and everything is thereby ducky.
I think they should be given the bronx cheer and the bum's rush.
>From what I've seen most large companies tend to ignore intellectual
>property claims anyway.
Even if I find the statement ridiculous and unfounded it's not
relevant unless one's concerns are limited to "large companies".
Sure, moderate and small sized companies make easier targets, they
can't fight back as easily.
And, in fact, large companies have an interest in absurd intellectual
property laws. They can generally pay off, trade or come to compromise
with specific cases (or tie *them* up in court if they won't be
"reasonable".)
Compton's is asking for one to three percent of net from companies
utilizing multimedia (that's not net related to the multimedia
products, that's just one to three of net.)
Well, it only takes 100 patents like that applying to you and you're
up to 100% of net and hey, why bother getting out of bed in the
morning?
Or 34 of the 3% kind (anyone after 6/30/94.) 34 isn't a whole lot of
patents, and if they're granting such broad patents as anything
related to multimedia it isn't going to be long before there will be
34 patents demanding 3% of net each. I mean, what next? Anyone putting
data onto a cable? Anyone using data routing? Color? It's hard to
tell, this is so absurd that we can't discount anything.
But the real point, in response to your comment, is when I see Warner
or IBM or AT&T handing over 1% of their net to Compton's I'll believe
it. But that isn't going to be what happens, they'll get some other
deal which they can live with, and it's going to be the guy with the
modest sized business that's going to have to pay protection (which is
really what it is.)
Anyhow, if the intent of the USPTO is to destroy the patent system
they're doing a great job, couldn't have done better myself.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
