US patent laws stifling innovation, canada.com

Canadian innovation choked by U.S. laws Danny Bradbury Nov 17 2003 Lax, outdated U.S. patent laws are stifling innovation in Canada's small technology companies, lawyers warn. And experts say the managers of smaller companies may want to consider whether fighting these laws is worth their time and money. "I spend a lot of my time trying to help Canadian companies deal with large U.S. companies that are accusing them of infringing a broad range of patents," says Richard Mitchell, an Ottawa-based senior partner at patent law firm Marks and Clerk. Large companies have more resources to file and claim patents, putting small businesses at risk; small companies do not always have the cash to fight each claim. .. .. "They'll make broad-based claims where they will throw 10 patents at you. We try to work through them one by one and show that we don't infringe them, and then they'll come back with another 10," .. .. Unlike Europe, where companies must show a concrete technological advantage when filing a patent for a software concept, a software idea can be patented in the United States as long as there are no previous examples of it being used. .. .. Robert Miller, editor-in-chief of Open Source Developer Network (a Web-based publication) says wrangling over intellectual property will kill small technology companies. "All small businesses and individual software developers should stop work immediately, it's not worth their time," he says, adding that intellectual property law stifles innovation, and is not just a U.S. problem anymore. The World Intellectual Property Organization is making it a global issue, says Mr. Miller, who also edits technology Web site Slashdot. "If we keep going as we are, all innovation will be controlled by companies who have large teams of patent lawyers." http://snurl.com/31cw http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=E87B4535-25DC-439C-93C0-28C0E68B38FB

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:58:28 GMT, alt <spamtrap@gwsn.com> wrote: >Daeron wrote: > >> Canadian innovation choked by U.S. laws >> Danny Bradbury Nov 17 2003 >> >> Lax, outdated U.S. patent laws are stifling innovation in Canada's small >> technology companies, lawyers warn. And experts say the managers of >> smaller companies may want to consider whether fighting these laws is >> worth their time and money. > >> >http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=E87B4535-25DC-439C-93C0-28C0E68B38FB > >I would personally be tempted (_very_ tempted) to just not release my >product in the US. Let the US market languish. The world will go on without >them. (No offence inteded to the USians in here). Oh no. I quite agree. A couple of days ago, two economists were on the radio ( one a Nobel prize winner and writer of the book "Roaring 90's" ). I called and asked if the present US tendency to favor big companies over small in issues that were in tension between the two, was in part responsible for the present bad times. The moderator talked about bookstores and whow the big chains were driving out the small family bookstore. Thaet let the wtwo sort of talk around the question, but not really attack it. Patent law is just one of the things. PS: These two were advisors to Clinton and Bush 43. PPS: I'm a hard core Republican, but I realise that small business contribute more than they take and large businesses take more than they contribute. -------------------------------------------------- Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD Think twice, code once.

Daeron wrote: > Canadian innovation choked by U.S. laws > Danny Bradbury Nov 17 2003 > > Lax, outdated U.S. patent laws are stifling innovation in Canada's small > technology companies, lawyers warn. And experts say the managers of > smaller companies may want to consider whether fighting these laws is > worth their time and money. > > "I spend a lot of my time trying to help Canadian companies deal with > large U.S. companies that are accusing them of infringing a broad range > of patents," says Richard Mitchell, an Ottawa-based senior partner at > patent law firm Marks and Clerk. > > Large companies have more resources to file and claim patents, putting > small businesses at risk; small companies do not always have the cash to > fight each claim. > . > . > "They'll make broad-based claims where they will throw 10 patents at > you. We try to work through them one by one and show that we don't > infringe them, and then they'll come back with another 10," > . > . > Unlike Europe, where companies must show a concrete technological > advantage when filing a patent for a software concept, a software idea > can be patented in the United States as long as there are no previous > examples of it being used. > . > . > Robert Miller, editor-in-chief of Open Source Developer Network (a > Web-based publication) says wrangling over intellectual property will > kill small technology companies. > > "All small businesses and individual software developers should stop > work immediately, it's not worth their time," he says, adding that > intellectual property law stifles innovation, and is not just a U.S. > problem anymore. > > The World Intellectual Property Organization is making it a global > issue, says Mr. Miller, who also edits technology Web site Slashdot. "If > we keep going as we are, all innovation will be controlled by companies > who have large teams of patent lawyers." > > http://snurl.com/31cw > http://www.canada.com/technology story.html?id=E87B4535-25DC-439C-93C0-28C0E68B38FB There is nothing particularly revolutionary about these claims. The notion that patents stifle innovation and hurt economic performance, at least patents that can be enforced for more than around 5 to 7 years, is fundamental to much of main stream economics since the late 1950s. There is a great deal of this that comes out of Harvard and Stanford in particular. For those who feel like making their brains dribble out of their ears here is a collection of links to 40+ pieces discussing the issue from a macroeconomic economic perspective: <http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index.en.html> Here is a fluff piece by a Harvard Laureate on an issue that really ticks me off: patenting genes. Heres a free clue for the twits that allowed this. Genes pre-exist, and are already in use. They are not novel products, processes, or creations. Being able to patent them is like being able to patent a given river or landmass on discovery, and then telling the indigenes that they will either have to cough up or move out. <http://hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/fall2002/harrington.php> -- Regards, Jim

alt wrote: > Daeron wrote: > >> Canadian innovation choked by U.S. laws >> Danny Bradbury Nov 17 2003 >> >> Lax, outdated U.S. patent laws are stifling innovation in Canada's small >> technology companies, lawyers warn. And experts say the managers of >> smaller companies may want to consider whether fighting these laws is >> worth their time and money. > >> > http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=E87B4535-25DC-439C-93C0-28C0E68B38FB > > I would personally be tempted (_very_ tempted) to just not release my > product in the US. Let the US market languish. The world will go on > without them. (No offence inteded to the USians in here). > it's quite simple... don't have software patents in your country and refuse to export to those that do. Domestic small software businesses would love you... but the big foreign corporations won't... -- COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!