Patent @ MindSay

The American Bar Association (ABA) has made a response to a statement made by China’s State Intellectual Property Organization (SIPO).  The statement, focused on the scope of patent rights, allows patents in these areas: scientific discoveries; rules and methods for mental activities; methods for the diagnosis of or the treatment of diseases; animal and plant varieties; and substances obtained by means of nuclear transformation.

However, the laws do not allow for the patenting of, in the words of the ABA, “any new, useful, and non-obvious non-human multi-cellular organisms, including both plants and non-human animals.”  The Bar Association feels that China should accept these patents for several reasons: making non-human organisms patentable will promote research, encourage investment in said research, and that allowing these patents in America has not led to the patenting of humans.

The first two points dig at one of China’s main concerns, a lack of innovation (see post by China Law Blog).  The third point tries to appease the moral concern behind patenting animals—that the patenting of non-sentient life forms will eventually lead to the patenting of human parts or of genetically engineered humans.

Just to play the devil’s advocate, I have to say that patenting other life forms hasn’t led to the patenting of human life yet.  It could still happen.  On the other hand, being able to patent new varieties of chicken can result in more research.

I’ll be honest, I don't know if patenting animals and other living organisms is a great idea.  Perhaps that's just because I don’t understand the whole argument for adding this type of patent to the law.  Making a better chicken just doesn’t seem all that important to me, and I’ve seen too many movies about the evils of creating life.  Though I do feel that China needs to improve is intellectual property protection, I would personally prefer that SIPO just works harder at enforcing existing laws instead of adding new ones.

Howdy Howdy all, I want to thank the soaptesters who have commented thus far on the soap that I sent them. If you have tested soap and have not yet offered feedback, please see the previous blog to leave your comments and Thanks for your participation.  I went for yet another short walk today with 25 pounds of weigth and it is actually starting to feel kinda natural if that makes any sense at all. Still no pictures but I went to a place that was not so scenic and would have gotten little more than street lights and gas stations at the most or at the least shall I say/write.  I am looking forward to getting better footwear this weekend not to mention a decent back pack (I carried my Pink Floyd/ Dark Side Of The Moon pack). Although fashionable and worthy it was not condusive to hiking with that much weight and started to dig into my shoulders a smidge. I did have enough water this time and that made a heck of a difference! As always ANY and ALL hiking suggestions are encouraged and appreciated.

And now, It is time for our next inventor:

Lewis Howard Latimer (September 4, 1848-December 11, 1928) was an African-American engineer and inventor who was a member of Edison's research team, which was called "Edison's Pioneers." Latimer improved the newly-invented incandescent light bulb by inventing a carbon filament (which he patented in 1881). In 1882, Latimer developed and patented a method of manufacturing his carbon filaments (patent #252,386). Later, the stronger tungsten filament replaced the carbon filament (invented by W. D. Coolidge). Latimer also invented a a threaded wooden socket for light bulbs.

Latimer developed many other inventions, including the first toilet that could be used in trains (1874, patent #147,363 - called "Water closet for railroad cars"), and a forerunner of the air conditioner (we in the south certainly appreciate this) (1886, patent # 334,078 - called "Apparatus for cooling and disinfecting"). In 1890, Latimer published the book Incandescent Electric Lighting, a technical guide for electrical engineers.

And now for the poetry....here goes....

Dedication Poem 9

To stay the floods of sin and shame
   That sweep from shore to shore;
And furl the banners stained with blood,
   ’Till war shall be no more.

Blame not the age, nor think it full
   Of evil and unrest;
But say of every other age,
   “This one shall be the best.”

The age to brighten every path
   By sin and sorrow trod;
For loving hearts to usher in
   The commonwealth of God.--Frances Ellen Watkins Harper

Goddess Bless

I was reading something in GamaSutra today, that was talking about patents. It was written by a couple of patent lawyers, so I guess I should have seen which way the feature would go.

Okay, obviously, I’m going to be against patents, because I’m one little guy, and in my experience, patents protect people like Microsoft, from people like me. Patents cost lots of money, they are even more expensive to defend, and even with a patent, I couldn’t stand up to a Microsoft, Apple, or IBM, if they use my technology. So really, patents are only good for protecting big companies from little individuals with innovative ideas.

So, I knew from the start that I wasn’t going to like this article.

But I swear, they deliberately wrote the article to piss me off. I really think they canvassed my friends, co-workers, school teachers, ex-girlfriends. Then they sat in their little cabal, watching me through their CCTV, reading my e-mails, speculating on which arguments would best upset me. And this is what they came up with.

Here’s a fun excerpt, “You don't have to sue someone to benefit from your patent. Being able to say “this game is protected by a U.S. patent” can do wonders for marketing, attracting investors and financing, and can give your company negotiating credibility, leverage and strength in the marketplace.”

Awesome! So, I don’t have to be cruel to others, I can just keep that cruelty in reserve as a way to show how cool I am!

Here’s another great one:

“Myth 5. The “spirit of innovation” works best when there is a free market of ideas, and consumers are better off if video games are not patented.

A classic argument among those who feel that the entire patent system should be abolished. You might want to make that argument to your representative in Congress, because unless the Constitution is amended to do away with patents, they're here to stay. In drafting the Constitution, our founding fathers recognized that the best way to promote progress in the “useful arts” was to reward inventors who come forward and share their inventions with the public by granting them a limited period of exclusivity in which they can exploit the fruits of their labor. In other words, discouraging slavish copying encourages innovation.

This debate is largely academic - the patent system is here now, and it's here to stay. Most important to the game developer, however, is the fact that there are others in the industry who will inevitably seek more and more patent protection on their own game ideas. The annals of patent history are full of examples of individuals who lost out, in some cases losing out big, to others in the business who took advantage of patent protection. “

So, let me see if I've got this right. If I think that it’s morally wrong to stifle creativity by patenting aspects of my games, I’m just some wide-eyed Pollyanna who’s going to be fleeced by the evil corporations who are not afraid of the patent system. Well, isn’t that happening anyway? I mean, if any large company wants my invention, they’re going to take it whether I patent it or not. I’m not going to be protected because of a patent. And to argue that if I don’t patent these ideas, other people will, is about the same attitude we used to become the largest military force in the world.

“We have to have the Nuke, because if we don’t Hitler will”

“We have to have more Nukes than the Russians, because you know they’re building them”

“We have to have more Nukes than everybody else combined, because you never know when they’ll all attack”

That kind of thinking leads to a charming little theory called Mutual Assured Destruction.

This is the “good fences make good neighbors” thinking that games have been blissfully free of for the last 30 years. Sure, we jealously guard our secrets until our games come out, but after that, they’re fair game. By playing it that way, we have managed to assure that each company is required to innovate with each new game, or suffer the market response of a sequel. After all, Video games make more money than Film, more money than Books, more money than Radio. We are the dominant medium. Do you think that happened because we jealously guarded our ideas through patents? Or do you think that happened because we freely allowed ideas to be re-used, thus raising the bar for all games, and thus, requiring great things from every new game.

The alternative stifles innovation, and only makes money for the lawyers, which may have been the real point of the article after all.