Hard Drive Imports to be Banned? 391
Arathon writes "Apparently the International Trade Commission is beginning an investigation that could lead to the banning of hard drive imports from Western Digital, Seagate, and Toshiba, among others, on the grounds that they fundamentally violate patents held by Steven and Mary Reiber of California. The patent apparently has to do with "dissipative ceramic bonding tips", which are important components of the drives themselves.
Obviously, a ban would be unthinkable, and yet the ITC has 45 days to settle on a fixed date for the end of the investigation. If the patents are found to be violated, and the Reibers do not allow those patents to be bought or otherwise dealt with, the importation of almost all hard drives would actually be ceased."
Re:injunctions aren't required (Score:5, Interesting)
It certainly harms the progress of useful arts to stop sales and/or development. Instead, patent violation should be assessed only in the amount of money owed from one party to another, calculated as a reasonable fraction of the profit earned from goods in violation of the patent.
If the inventor has a great idea, but an incompetent marketing and/or development, the patent should allow others to compete on the basis of marketing and development, using the same idea, but the patentor should get his due in any case.
In other words, I think all licensing of patents should be compulsory. I can't see any argument why any party should disallow any other party from implementing their patents. It seems this is only ever used for anticompetitive purposes, which harms the market and harms consumers, and is illegal when done in other ways.
--Bob
Could be good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:injunctions aren't required (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lead? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll paste a little bit from Wikipedia's entry on the matter. [wikipedia.org]
"According to the European Union Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) and Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS), lead had to be eliminated from electronic systems by July 1, 2006, leading to much interest in lead-free solders. These contain tin, copper, silver, and sometimes bismuth, indium, zinc, antimony, and other metals in varying amounts. The lead-free replacements for conventional Sn60/Pb40 solder have higher melting points, requiring re-engineering of most components and materials used in electronic assemblies."
Fortunately, however, hard drives should not contain any large amounts of lead anymore, even in solder (follow the link if you are curious to know what is exactly in it.) and unless they begin to be marketed as something that children might want to play with, and have occasion to put in their mouthes, they should be safe from any "contains lead" arguments.
Re:useful arts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:useful arts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:useful arts (Score:2, Interesting)
The way the system works right now, someone can mail in an application without ever doing anything tangible, sit on an idea for 20 years and wait for the right victim to come along, then sue them for way too much money thanks to the wonderfully broken legal system we have. Those same quacks would have gotten a fraction of the payout had then been honest from the beginning and sold/licensed their idea. The patent system just gives them too much power.
Prove it (Score:3, Interesting)
One anecdote about patents and MRI invention does not prove this point. The truth is, there are *plenty* of incentives to "innovate" (whatever that means anymore), not the least of which is just for the sheer joy of discovery.
But even with the MRI: their invention did not spring whole cloth from their foreheads. They too stood on the shoulders of giants, and other pithy phrases meaning, "We all work hard for progress." Humans are curious by nature, and desire to learn and discover and expand. Patents do not drive this curiosity.
I'm not saying that patents weren't a good thing in the case of the invention of MRI. They probably were, in that they helped make back R&D costs. This hardly proves that innovation would cease if patents disappeared. I'd say the opposite is more likely true: patents interfere with R&D and commercialization of a product, as everybody has to be careful not to step on a patent landmine.
You can't ignore the harm patents are doing just because they have done good in one or two situations. At some point you have to ask, "Are they doing more harm than good?"
I submit patents have crossed this line.
Re:useful arts (Score:3, Interesting)
To address your (rhetorical) question, the first approximation is that as things stand patent laws do not have to have anything to do with promoting progress in the useful arts. Even if they had to they are not constitutionally bound to be completely successful all the time. A patent regime would only have to be on balance more good than bad. This duality is built into the very concept of a patent: every patent granted retards further progress by discouraging others from taking an idea, incorporating it in their work, and improving on it. On the other hand, it hopefully motivated the patent holder to create the innovation in the first place.
The dual nature of patents leads me to a counterintuitive position. I actually think patents should be weak in fields that enjoy lots of innovation, and strong in fields that lack innovation.
In fields enjoying strong innovation, there is less reason to incent more innovation, and the negative effects of restricting an ideas use are greater. In such fields innovation is driven by a combination of competition and technological opportunity. The software field over the last two decades is an example. Anybody involved in this field knows that patents are at best marginal. People create their copyrighted software, then look to see if they can't guild the lily by getting a patent. By in large most innovations are either not patented, or patents are not enforced. Patents do sometimes play a marginal role in entrepreneurial exit plans, but rarely does everything hinge on them, and in most cases those kinds of startups fizzle out. On the other hand, a patent -- even the possibility of a patent existing -- is more likely to be a disincentive to develop an innovative product.
It's clear to anyone without a vested interest in software patents that they are best ineffective, and are more likely to be amassed as legal armaments than as productive assets.
The automotive field has also been innovative, but innovation is intrinsically harder, and therefore patents have more value. The trend toward spinning off low margin parts of big auto companies probably means that those new companies need patents to incent them to do more than compete on price. If you go further down the scale to some relatively low tech industry, or one that is technologically stable, or one that competes almost entirely on commodity price, there is no negative effect of a patent on future innovations because those innovations are not forthcoming. On the other hand, the prospect of a patent that would seal a competitive advantage for a decade or so has considerable attraction. It could make the difference in taking a risk on an idea, and the time proven measure of plowing that money into courting customers so they'll buy more volume of an average problem at a price/volume that gives you a sliver more margin than average.
I think storage technology is on the software end of the scale, like the automotive industry, but not off th scale like software. Patents do make a real difference in the effort companies put into developing storage technology. Therefore we probably are better off tolerating an occasional situation like this, although much depends on the facts of this case. Still I think that a better patent system would make threatening to bring an entire industry to a halt harder than simply filing a claim. It's too easy in a highly innovative field, and too hard for vendors to avoid in good faith. Perhaps in cases where an invention had not yet been produced under and official license, the law would provide for a reasonable and mandatory license rather than granting injunctive relief.
Re:But do prohibitive prices promote progress? (Score:3, Interesting)
Your reasoning is an example of the fallacy of the broken window.
It isn't really. The "broken window" fallacy argues that there will be economic benefit in breaking a window because it will stimulate spending. It's a fallacy because breaking the window constitutes a loss in value, and replacing that window costs money from somewhere, so there is no economic benefit.
However, needing to solve problems, even "already solved" problems, can be of scientific benefit. There are often many ways to solve the same problem, and the discovery of a new solution adds to the total of scientific and engineering knowledge, even if it's economically inefficient.
Re:useful arts (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone who will have saves millions of dollars on the R&D of previous companies. In fact, the previous company you're talking about got to save millions of dollars on R&D, too, because they didn't have to spend 3 years coming up with a new way to get to where the original patent holder is already without infringing.
The fundamental difference between you and GP is that you think that people should have some sort of entitlement because they have an idea, and GP doesn't, necessarily. There's a lot that goes into being valuable to society. For example:
I have Idea, and want to get it to market. However, I am terrible at implementing Idea. Idea is a great great idea, but my product is not. OtherCo comes by and sees my shitty product on the market, and thinks they can do better. So they take Idea and use their own ideas to create GoodIdea. GoodIdea is a good product, whereas my product is crap. I start seeing losses in sales, because GoodIdea just makes more sense then Idea. So I take GoodIdea, and add a couple things that I learned while supporting Idea, and come up with VeryGoodIdea.
In the above model creates 2 good products, starting from one good idea that turned out to be a bad product. If my original idea had been really good, I could have coasted on it for a long long time, but it wasn't, so I couldn't.
Where's the crime?
Re:useful arts (Score:3, Interesting)
Our medical professionals, the gate-keeps of the plethora of drugs available, deal with patients who walk in and say, "I have [these symptoms] which I think might be [this condition], and I understand that [this drug] can treat me, and I would like it please."
For lots of reasons more numerous to mention here, most doctors will simply say, "Alright," and move on to the next patient.
As for the drug companies, the direct-to-public advertising creates huge returns for the bottom line.
Right now, this is the system we deal with in the States. Should there be change? Maybe. Is change easy? I don't think so.
In the end, most of this doesn't matter. The problem isn't with the publicly-traded drug companies selling their wares. The problem is the stupid person who can't see through the advertising, turn on their brain, and understand that with everything there is a trade-off; in the case of drugs, side-effects.
I believe the real problem is with our draconian method of schooling. We treat our children and students as simple herd animals that must run the guantlet of education. In public school, we emphasize obeying the rules, but our society blatantly ignores logical, critical thinking, big-picture history, and in general, the sciences.
We are stupid selfish sheep^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers that can't think for themselves. This is why TV advertisements work. This is why our society is so self-destructive and is more interested in who is banging whom in Hollywood than actually looking at the needs of others.
Why don't you step away from the glow of electrons, and go do something positive and uplifting for someone else when there isn't any personal motive or potential gain. See what happens within yourself.