jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (05/29/85)
Can anyone suggest a good (or even mediocre) reason why the feds would want to shut down the canadian patent office? According to the Toronto Star it employs about 200 people and actually produces net revenues on the order of $3,000,000.00 . This is not some sort of privatization that the PCs are so fond of since they say that people will have to use the US patent office. So here we have a government which claims it is trying to reduce the deficit and produce jobs, jobs,jobs... and it is putting two hundred people on UIC and throwing away 3 million in revenues. This doesn't even make good business sense; it seems to me that they ought to be made to take a little heat over this.
shindman@utcs.UUCP (Paul Shindman) (05/30/85)
Sounds a lot like more of the new government's blind enthusiasm to
make themselves look like they're doing something. This decision was
probably made by some bumbling government amateur who arbitrarily
picked it from a list.
Unfortunately we still have to put up with several years of irrational
and illogical (aka stupid) moves by the new feds as they make their
mark known in their respective ministries. The patent office is only
one of a list of very questionable "decisions" made in Ottawa. Recall
that one of the first programs cut when the Tories came to power was
the national census. It was quickly restored after industry screamed and
told the government what it was used for...you'd think that they would find out
first before they cut it...
--
-----------------
Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878
USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman
BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoftrobinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/01/85)
* At least they exercised a bit of common sense in closing down those 100% useless heavy water plants in Cape Breton. (Though I must admit the patent office decision does not appear to be reasonable given what the original article had to say about it) J.B. Robinson
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (06/02/85)
As a lawyer with a fair knowledge of US and Canadian Intellectual
and Industrial Property laws (Copyrights, Patents, Trade Marks and Trade
Secrets), it makes very little sense to me at all. The most I can say
is that the Tories probably picked it because it's an obscure area of law
that not many people know enough about to say something intelligent. As
such, they probably figured a minimum reprisal for their acts.
Another possible reason was that it gave them a chance to kick out
some Liberal appointed civil servants.
As a legal matter, it's my opinion that it's a stupid move. I can't
even try to be polite about it. The US patent law and copyright law are
separated by the US constitution. I've hoped for some time now that we,
in Canada could create a truly unified I & IP law which would end the
problems associated with the current laws. If we accept the US patent
registrations as fixing our own laws, then we will be forever tied to
their deficiencies. As computer people I think everybody 'here' should
be screaming murder. The US patent law has difficulties protecting software.
The US Copyright law has been the main area of protection there. Here,
we are moving in somewhat the same direction, but the differences, such
as a complete lack of a true Industrial Design statute in the US, should
not be overlooked. Do most of the people 'here' know how hard it is to
register a patent in Canada or the US? If software is made subject ot
patent law (as I said, it partly is already) as it currently stands, do
you realize what the implications are? Say the first word processor
package was allowed a patent. The implication would be that even if you
wrote *your own* package you'd be violating an existing patent! It
wouldn't even matter if it was substantially different in approach, if
the patent was granted for a fairly general description of what a word
processor does. Is that what you want to see?
Patent law is not really compatible with current economic and
scientific realities. Here in Canada we *can* produce a better legal
system. In the US they may be able to also, but don't expect it. The
US Constitution is hard to change (for proof of that do a bit of research
on what the Women's movement went through for their unsuccessful attempt
to pass ERA).
There is also the cost of obtaining a patent in the US and enforcing
it here in Canada. Such a situation will only be good for very large
(read that 'probably more expensive') law firms. If I were a Canadian
Patent agent, I would *not* be qualified to practice in the US. You'd
have to hire one in the US, or go to a firm with contacts or practitioners
qualified to practice in the US. You can bet that less than 1/10th of
the current patent firms will be able to do this. What will it cost you
to hire a good US patent agent? I don't know for sure, but studies have
shown that Canadian lawyers make less than US lawyers on average, and I
doubt whether the patent field will prove different. (If they make less,
then they are probably charging less, but that's not an absolute...).
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomurahenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/02/85)
> ... Say the first word processor > package was allowed a patent. The implication would be that even if you > wrote *your own* package you'd be violating an existing patent! It > wouldn't even matter if it was substantially different in approach, if > the patent was granted for a fairly general description of what a word > processor does. Is that what you want to see? My understanding is that this is *exactly* the idea behind patent law, and it's a damn good one: to give the first person to think of a new idea a chance to make some money off it, *without* 10000 ripoff artists jumping in and stealing his market. [flame on] I realize that this is a dirty capitalist notion, and that such people really ought to throw their ideas into the public domain out of the goodness of their heart, for the good of all mankind -- but somehow you don't get nearly as many useful inventions when the inventor is denied the opportunity to profit from his ingenuity. Of course, when we are all living in a happy state of socialist bliss, this is utterly inconsequential, since we all know that our beloved welfare state is the best of all possible worlds and could not possibly be improved (except by the government, of course, from which all blessings flow). [flame off] What we need is a better patent system, not the abolition of the current one. Incidentally, I doubt that the first word processor was patentable, since it involved no leap of invention, just incremental improvements based on things "obvious to one skilled in the art". So you are raising a false bogeyman to frighten us. Try a better case: did anyone grudge Buckminster Fuller his modest royalties on the Geodesic Dome? -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (06/03/85)
> > ... Say the first word processor > > package was allowed a patent. The implication would be that even if you > > wrote *your own* package you'd be violating an existing patent! It > > wouldn't even matter if it was substantially different in approach, if > > the patent was granted for a fairly general description of what a word > > processor does. Is that what you want to see? > > My understanding is that this is *exactly* the idea behind patent law, > and it's a damn good one: to give the first person to think of a new > idea a chance to make some money off it, *without* 10000 ripoff artists > jumping in and stealing his market. [flame on] I realize that this is > a dirty capitalist notion, and that such people really ought to throw > their ideas into the public domain out of the goodness of their heart, > for the good of all mankind -- but somehow you don't get nearly as many > useful inventions when the inventor is denied the opportunity to profit > from his ingenuity. Of course, when we are all living in a happy state > of socialist bliss, this is utterly inconsequential, since we all know > that our beloved welfare state is the best of all possible worlds and > could not possibly be improved (except by the government, of course, > from which all blessings flow). [flame off] ... What would you have patented, Henry, the algorithm for text replacement, the user interface, the printer driver, what? If it had been patented, what would that have done for pc WP software packages (since the US courts have decided that a software package running on general purpose hardware equivalent in function to patentable special purpose hardware is itself patentable [legal beagles please correct me if I'm wrong]). The purpose of patent law is to give the inventor some time to make a reasonable profit from his invention. It is not meant to stifle creativity. This is why patent law expressly forbids the granting of a patent for an idea (read algorithm). Very little software is developed that doesn't embody algorithms developed/conceived of by someone else. >...What we need is a better patent system,not the abolition of the current one. Agreed. But not for software. Both patent law and copyright law had their foundations laid long ago, their authors had no idea of what was to come. It's no surprise that software falls into a gap. What's needed is a new form of protection that recognizes the special qualities and problems of software. > Incidentally, I doubt that the first word processor was patentable, since > it involved no leap of invention, just incremental improvements based on > things "obvious to one skilled in the art". So you are raising a false > bogeyman to frighten us. Try a better case: did anyone grudge Buckminster > Fuller his modest royalties on the Geodesic Dome? > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Perhaps not the word processor, but how about VISICALC? How about SMALLTALK or the software in the XEROX STAR? and a host of others? You've mentioned (from what I have been told) one of the biggest 'gotcha's in Patent law: "obvious to one skilled in the art". What's obvious? What's skilled? Although I have quarrelled with your examples and some of your reasoning, we are in agreement in principle. Software needs better protection. If I were an optimist, I might think that the abolition of the Patent Office was the first step towards a better I & I Property Protection scheme. But I'm not and I don't. -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. {cbosgd, decvax, harpo, ihnp4}!utcs!mnetor!george
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (06/05/85)
Henry, I'm trained in Patent law and you aren't. The fact is
that the breadth of a patent for a word processor *could* have been
that wide. It depended on when it was patented (what the state of the
art was at the time) and who drafted the patent (possibly how good
your lawyer was at the time). This is no false 'bogeyman' but a real
problem that occurs (and often circumvented by other skilled lawyers)
on a fairly regular basis. The related problem is who is a person
'skilled in the art' (and what exactly is the state of the art, with
all the legal restrictions).
At heart I don't mind people making a fair gain on their sweat
(and often dumb luck), but why only the first person who makes it
to the Patent office? Often this is the real criterion. The real
test supposed to be who came up with the idea (the *whole* working
idea and not just a general theory). Often more than one person
is working towards the same goal somewhere else. Through no fault
of his own he gets beaten out. Is this really so fair? I'd rather
that in such a situation, the other person, if he can prove he
worked independently and came up with the same thing at roughly
the same time (or at least there was no way for him to have learned
about the other person working to the same goal) would be able
to share in the riches. This will be a rare case, but is quite
workable. This is the basis of Copyright Law. I can write the
same poem you write, as long as I don't copy your work (unlikely,
but possible--usually the works are just 'similar' in such a
case).
Do you appreciate the fact that if you think of a better way
of doing something than what is already a patented way, you are
*still* barred from proceeding if it's too close to the prior patent?
This is also a *real* restriction which has occured in the real
world. In these times the situation is bound to get worse too.
You know that trick of 'Copyrighting' a printed circuit board?
It looks now like that won't work in Canada (would have been an Industrial
Design and required registration as such anyway, I should add). We
need law to protect circuit boards too. Patents won't help (or *very*
rarely--you'd have to patent the method of making the board or the
materials in some way, although you can usually get around this problem
if it's part of a whole patentable machine). A fully integrated
Industrial and Intellectual Property law should include protection
of circuit boards under a Copyright-like law. This *can* be done
in Canada. You really *can't* do it in the US. The Patent law is
restricted to 'useful' works and Copyright law to 'artistic' works
by what is called the 'parallel reading' doctrine of the relevant
provision of the U.S. Constitution. All our Constitution says, on
the otherhand is that Copyrights and Patents are in the Federal
Jurisdiction and Property and Civil Rights are in the Provincial
sphere. We have no strong basis for rejecting the unification of
the laws.
This is my goal. Better law, rather then no law. The repealing
of Patents (and for that matter even Copyrights) has been suggested
by some scholars on both sides of the boarder at time. I'm *not*
in favour of that. But it's my feeling that we can do better.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomurageorge@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (06/05/85)
Jim meant to post this as a followup but unintentionally replied to me instead so I am posting it on his behalf. > From utcs!lsuc!jimomura Tue Jun 4 23:48:39 1985 > Received: by mnetor.UUCP (4.12/4.7) > id AA23811; Tue, 4 Jun 85 23:48:37 edt > From: utcs!lsuc!jimomura > Received: by utcs.UUCP (4.24/4.7) id AA11464; Tue, 4 Jun 85 23:41:46 edt > Date: Tue, 4 Jun 85 23:41:46 edt > To: utcs!mnetor!george > Subject: Re: Re: patent office closure > Status: R > Newsgroups: can.politics > In-Reply-To: <917@mnetor.UUCP> > References: <1926@watcgl.UUCP>, <656@lsuc.UUCP> <5652@utzoo.UUCP> > Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto > Cc: > Hmmm. I mucked this up again. I thought I was responding in > public, but I hit 'r' instead of 'f'. No matter, I just thought that > I'd like to say that having read your response after entering my own > to Henry, that I realize my own response was covered by yours. In > fact, I like yours better because mine rambled a bit. Also, you > hit the nail on the head with Visicalc. An excellent example of a > probably patentable idea. The result of Copyright law and licencing > was that the Software Arts people had a very good chance to make all > the money that I feel they deserved, and yet other people were able > to write better packages (although a lot weren't in fact better or > even cheaper) at a later date. The net result => Lotus 123 and > arguably Framework. Clearly we would not have such a rich array > of better software to choose from if Software Arts had gotten a patent. > > If you can transfer this to the 'news' system feel free. > > Cheers! -- Jim O. > > -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. {cbosgd, decvax, harpo, ihnp4}!utcs!mnetor!george
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/05/85)
> The purpose of patent law is to give the inventor some time to make a > reasonable profit from his invention. It is not meant to stifle creativity. > This is why patent law expressly forbids the granting of a patent for an idea > (read algorithm). ... What else is an invention, but a novel idea? The whole concept of patents is proprietary rights on ideas, as opposed to the details of how they are expressed (which is copyrights). The problem with software is that patent law does forbid patenting scientific discoveries, e.g. laws of nature, and nobody can quite decide whether algorithms are science or invention. It's definitely a hard problem. > Agreed. But not for software. Both patent law and copyright law had their > foundations laid long ago, their authors had no idea of what was to come. > It's no surprise that software falls into a gap. What's needed is a new form > of protection that recognizes the special qualities and problems of software. I agree that there are problems with software, particularly in the area of copyrights, but I think patent protection on new ways of doing things in software remains a valid concept. Why should a new way of (say) drawing lines on a display be any less worthy of protection than a new way of cutting gear teeth? In the absence of effective patent law (and our patent system has been getting less effective all the time), the result is that people keep new ideas secret instead. There are probably some nifty ideas, things that would benefit mankind, in the Quickdraw package that does the Macintosh's graphics. Nobody's gonna know for quite a while. This is precisely what patents are supposed to prevent! > Perhaps not the word processor, but how about VISICALC? How about SMALLTALK > or the software in the XEROX STAR? and a host of others? I am actually quite surprised that the authors of Visicalc didn't try for patent protection; it would have made sense. What could possibly be wrong with paying them a small royalty when you sell your spreadsheet program, which is based on their leap of creativity? (I agree that there is a problem with patent holders getting greedy and stifling licensing, and this is one of the areas that needs work before patent law can become realistic again.) > You've mentioned (from what I have been told) one of the biggest 'gotcha's > in Patent law: "obvious to one skilled in the art". What's obvious? What's > skilled? That and "prior art" are indeed sticky points. I don't know quite how to solve some of the problems there, but I don't think the problems justify abandoning the whole concept. And, sigh, I fully agree with you that the latest doings of our wonderful government have nothing to do with improving intellectual-property protection, by either your route or mine. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/05/85)
> Henry, I'm trained in Patent law and you aren't. The fact is > that the breadth of a patent for a word processor *could* have been > that wide. It depended on when it was patented (what the state of the > art was at the time) and who drafted the patent (possibly how good > your lawyer was at the time)... Guilty. I should have made it clear that I was criticizing your specific example (the evolution of text processing has been too gradual, it seems to me, to justify a far-reaching patent claim) rather than the seriousness of the general problem. > The related problem is who is a person > 'skilled in the art' (and what exactly is the state of the art, with > all the legal restrictions). This and "prior art" are obviously sticky problems. One of the flaws in our current patent system is that almost any patent can be invalidated if you hire enough lawyers and dig hard enough for vaguely-similar things mentioned in the past. I'm not sure how to solve this, although I would speculate that the basic "new under the sun" criterion is the source of the problem, and that a workable approach might be found by broadening the rules to make ignored-and-forgotten ideas patentable even if they are not new. Maybe. > At heart I don't mind people making a fair gain on their sweat > (and often dumb luck), but why only the first person who makes it > to the Patent office? Often this is the real criterion... > ... Often more than one person > is working towards the same goal somewhere else. Through no fault > of his own he gets beaten out. Is this really so fair? ... My understanding of the origin of patent law is that it had nothing to do with being "fair" to inventors. The idea was not giving the first inventor of a concept proprietary rights because he somehow deserved them, but because it is in the interests of mankind that such ideas be published rather than kept secret. Practical ripoff protection requires either secrecy or some sort of proprietary rights; guess which method is used more and more as our patent system has become less and less effective. I would dearly love to see readable descriptions of the graphics algorithms inside Apple's Quickdraw package, and wide publication of these ideas would probably benefit mankind. Fat chance, because Apple can't patent them and therefore cannot protect them except by keeping them secret. Is this really fair to the rest of us? I agree that simultaneous invention needs better handling in patent law. In fact, current patent law is badly in need of improvement to make it effective again; it's virtually useless in its current state. Several of the issues you mention do need addressing, and could be given attention at the same time. I do not see that any of them invalidates the basic concept: limited-term proprietary rights over an idea (not just its expression) in return for full disclosure of the idea. > You know that trick of 'Copyrighting' a printed circuit board? > It looks now like that won't work in Canada (would have been an Industrial > Design and required registration as such anyway, I should add). We > need law to protect circuit boards too. Patents won't help... They won't help protect Isaac Asimov's novels, either. I never said that patents were the answer to everything! Finally, as should be clear from the above, I have no quarrel with your last point: the current system badly needs overhauling. I do feel that there is a place for patents, or something like them, in a revised scheme. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry