An Innovation and an Apology - Feasibly Fixing the Patent System

Sorry I've been out the past couple weeks - real life has been a bit... hectic. I'm working on rebalancing my obligations, so while I might not post quite so frequently anymore (hey, I'm only one person), I should maintain more regular activity here and with my twitter account.

 

This was a comment I wrote on Techdirt on the unidirectional patent system. The idea has been fermenting and fomenting for quite some time, and it may be a feasible method of appealing to the base economic instincts of the organization in order to modernize and fix a number of issues with the patent process.

 

A way to help balance the USPTO while *ahem* preserving it's business model: create an adversarial patent system:
At present, individuals pay to file and refile and, once granted, hold the patent until it is challenged in court. Since, as has been pointed out several times before, their operating budget is predominantly (if not entirely) derived from their filing fees, the economic incentive is to encourage people to FILE AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE - they make it difficult by rejecting patents, but only artificially so, as you can simply refile a modified patent with a new fee for reconsideration. After a rejection or two, they are likely to approve, since they don't want to DISCOURAGE you from filing at all - that would take away a revenue stream!

What if they instituted the ability to file a counter "anti-patent" displaying prior art and obviousness? Such an system would essentially "crowd source" the entire patent approval process and shift the balance of their incentives. By allowing individuals to submit prior art and obviousness research for a small fee, they can streamline and speedup the entire patent review process (for both new and old patents), lower fees for filing while increasing their revenue, decrease their operating costs (thereby maximizing profits), AND present themselves as "open source, modern government" with maximum transparency!
With this new system, to maximize profit, they must ensure as ROBUST AND PUBLIC DEBATE AS POSSIBLE.
If people can present counter evidence to a patent, then the patent will be reject/'on-hold' by the "reviewer" until the patent seeker files their counter argument against said claim. If they can't, they've lost their bogus patent and no one is worse off (though they may be free to refile, and the process begins again, but with precident from the counter-patent filers...)
"But wait!" (I hear you cry) "If they essentially crowdsource patent applications for us to do THEIR work, why do we need USPTO in the first place?!?"

Patience, Grasshoper. For now, they still are needed to be arbiters of the evidence provided. But one day... One day...

Response from Sarbanes on TPP Protest

Below is the email I got from Congressman Sarbanes as a response to my objections on the heinous TPP, the next vehicle for MAFIAA IP protectionism.
Based on his response, I probably won't be voting for him next election. Analysis to follow...

On the 'Moral Right' to Profit

This was written in response to Kevin Drum for an article in which he posited that " creators have a moral right to profit from their works."
And "I'd hate to live in a world in which authors found it nearly impossible to make money from their works."
Yes. Really a quote.
No. I will NOT justify his idiocy by linking his dogmatic rant.
Thanks to Mike Masnick and Techdirt.com for the to to the article, though.

Explaining the Wireless to the Unwired

I had a very productive day without twitter I took a stand against SOPA and made my voice heard. What I didn't expect (and was enheartened to see) were people whom I emailed who weren't connectedto the tech interests of the day.
My own mother (god bless her) took the time to actually research and respond to my email, and engaged me in a dialogue about SOPA/PIPA and copyright. A fun time was had by all.
Except my wife - writing a 2,000 word detailed response takes a LONG time.
Below is a slightly edited transcript of the conversation - only certain personal responses have been omitted. If anyone sees any factual inaccuracies or logical fallacies, please don't hesitate to contact or correct me - it's the only way I'll ever learn! :-D

An Open Letter Against SOPA and PIPA

Dear Friends and Family,
Most of you know that I am not one to engage in mass emails. They're unproductive, annoying, and rarely get paid attention to. There is, however, something going on right now that has frightening implications for all of us. If you are reading this on the 18th, please immediately open up a new tab (or tabs) and navigate to wikipedia.org and/or google. For those of you who have received this email later, please use this link: https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
Notice anything?
This is not a virus, this is a part of a planned, national demonstration, orchestrated over the past several weeks.
There is legislation being pushed through Congress RIGHT NOW that gives large corporations the power to censor the internet.
I'll let that sink in a bit.

Remixing: It's in our genes.

I found myself inspired by a recent attempt to describe life in three words and this creation myth from Kopimism. The three word description offered was "self-reproduction with variations," or, as I like to say "remixing matter." There. I did it in two. Behold this graphic!

On the Primacy of Culture

I tweeted a thank you to the writer of a Techdirt article the other day by the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, and Rick Falkvinge was kind enough to respond and offer his encouragement.

Today I expound upon my first post - that culture is the natural right of man. In fact, much of this may be seen as related to the recent "creation myth" put forth by the newest recognized religion in Sweden - that sharing and copying are the foundations of life itself and, as I tweeted: "Remixing: it's in our genes."

Culture is the Natural Right of Man

It is a universally acknowledged principal that the fundamental characteristic of humanity is the ability to create and share knowledge, artistic expression, and culture.
We have only lately begun to understand how information is conveyed among members of the animal world. While individuals, remarkable ones, have been discovered with the ability to engage in artistic expression through encouragement and training, direct transmission of art, culture, and wisdom has so far remained absent despite all our observations of our more feral brethren. Humanity can then be summed as the production and perfection of wisdom, art, and culture.
This Trinity is holier than all else - it is the reason for the survival of humanity as a species, the demonstration of our worth, and the vehicle of our evolution. Without the sharing of knowledge, what value are the observations and musings of an Einstein? Absent common understanding, what use are prophecy and legend? With no soul to possess them, the Leonardo's and Picasso's revert to the dust of their pigments, and Shakespeare remains an echo in the cavern of an empty Globe. Without these, Life has no purpose, Liberty no meaning, and Happiness unattainable no matter the method of Pursuit. It is, therefore, imperative that we preserve our birthright to this sacred temple of the Mind and Soul and protect it's foundation.
The most beautiful and remarkable fact in the nature of these Fathers of our inalienable rights is the freedom they inherently possess. Though the body lies bound, a soul cannot be repressed, a thought remains unshackled, and an idea, immortal. The expressions of the soul and the wisdom of the mind are without bound or limit, and their greatest value only apparent when they are shared. I am never a poorer man for my neighbor feeling the world more deeply about himself. On the contrary, it is only by nourishing the root of our collective humanity that Mankind flourishes. As culture, art, and knowledge are elementally open to all who seek them, we claim these as the Natural Right of Man.