Do Patents Stunt Technological Development?

[Jello Biafra]

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

And who decides how much? Is the paperclip trampoline worth as much as a portable fusion generator? If not, who decides?

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

So, who's going to evaluate the value of his invention? What happens if said invention suddenly increases in worth long after the initial creation? What ensures that the reward is greater than the expenses incurrred, possibly after a long period fo slow development?

You're replacing a simple and elegant system of ownership of concept with a kludge.

Why is the decision the market makes better than a one-size-fits-all decision? How is it correct?

Yes.



What matters is what is best at motivating people to invest time, and often a great deal of money (often many small time inventors have to mortgage their house to see it through) to create new products or find new solutions to problems that will be of value to many individuals, allowing jobs and wealth to be created.

But some people may be more quick to develop useful applications for the technology than the original inventor. I'm of the opinion that a technology will be integrated and developed by society faster if the technology is available to everyone right off the bat.

Why should an inventor care about how quickly society integrates and develops the technology?

[Dododecapod]

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

So, who's going to evaluate the value of his invention? What happens if said invention suddenly increases in worth long after the initial creation? What ensures that the reward is greater than the expenses incurrred, possibly after a long period fo slow development?

You're replacing a simple and elegant system of ownership of concept with a kludge.

Why is the decision the market makes better than a one-size-fits-all decision? How is it correct?

[/quote]

Bexcause it will, almost invariably, be closer to the actual value (it's worth to the society and economy in which it was developed) than a one-size-fits-all decision. A one-size-fits-all decision makes the old error of assuming all labour is equally valuable - the actuality is that some inventors create gold, and some make dreck. Just because something is new does not make it useful or valuable.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Well, let's say I independently with no fore-knowledge of CM's patent arrive at the same Cold Fusion reactor design simply applying physics knowledge... This should be grounds to invalidate PowerCo's purchased patents as being non-original and intuitive, and therefore patentable.

Why "should" it be proof of obviousness? What does "applying physics knowledge" mean, anyway? Did Einstein merely "apply physics knowledge"? Certainly, all the facts he worked from were well known at the time...

This type of thing happens very frequently with software patents.

Software patents are generally a steaming pile* and fortunately are very different from the rest of what's patented. Also fortunately, the USPTO has opened software patent applications to public comment on prior art to try to weed out some of the real junk.

*: mine, of course, are truly novel.

[Tekania]

Well, let's say I independently with no fore-knowledge of CM's patent arrive at the same Cold Fusion reactor design simply applying physics knowledge... This should be grounds to invalidate PowerCo's purchased patents as being non-original and intuitive, and therefore patentable.

Why "should" it be proof of obviousness? What does "applying physics knowledge" mean, anyway? Did Einstein merely "apply physics knowledge"? Certainly, all the facts he worked from were well known at the time...

This type of thing happens very frequently with software patents.

Software patents are generally a steaming pile* and fortunately are very different from the rest of what's patented. Also fortunately, the USPTO has opened software patent applications to public comment on prior art to try to weed out some of the real junk.

*: mine, of course, are truly novel.

Yes, he did simply apply physics knowledge. Scientific theorems are not supposed to be patentable. Ideas are not supposed to be patentable (and during Einstein's time they were indeed not). For quite some time you could not get a patent off of simply having an idea, or developing a theory about something; that is a recent, novel and stupid application which has risen. Our generally problem at present is that in some cases our patent office has indeed allowed people to patent ideas. Any patent on an idea should simply be invalidated if someone else independently comes up with it (intuits it) based on the same conditions, and actually designs equipment to utilize that idea.

[Jello Biafra]

Why is the decision the market makes better than a one-size-fits-all decision? How is it correct?

Bexcause it will, almost invariably, be closer to the actual value (it's worth to the society and economy in which it was developed) than a one-size-fits-all decision. A one-size-fits-all decision makes the old error of assuming all labour is equally valuable - the actuality is that some inventors create gold, and some make dreck. Just because something is new does not make it useful or valuable.

So how do we objectively determine which is which?

[Baptisia]

In my view the proper purpose of a patent is to allow the inventor, be it an individual or a company, to benefit (i.e. make a profit) from their own invention, in preference to everyone else. With that in mind, I would prefer to reform the patent system such that it works like this...

Patents are allowed for any unique invention (including software patents), but the patent is only valid for a period of 5 years, and cannot be renewed. This will allow the original inventor to be first-to-market with a product using their patent, but also prevents the technology market from being stifled after that first-to-market period has elapsed.

The obvious problem with this solution of course is that the 5 year period is basically a number picked out of the air, and may not necessarily be suitable for all industries. But I believe the principle is sound.

[New Chalcedon]

and how they work.

For example:
1. Patents are all made public. That is part of the whole point. There is no keeping the invention secret.
2. One can freely improve upon the patent and in doing so create a new product not covered by the patent.
3. Thus, technological development is encouraged by the patent process.

I don't have the time or patience to argue with people about whether patents are a good idea and/or explain the various erroneous statements made so far about patents.

NOTE: I am the last person to say the U.S. (or any other) patent system is perfect, some patents (and even categories of patents) are abused/absurd, that there isn't room for improvement, etc.

Here is some good background material on patents:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/do ... .html#faqs
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/do ... lawpat.pdf (14p pdf re patent law)
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Patent
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/patent.htm

Here are some sources (some good, some dubious) on why patents are/may be good:http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/migrated/Patent_Reform-paper.pdf (11p pdf)
http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2010 ... speech.jsp
Intellectual Property: A Power Tool for Economic Growth (20p pdf)
THE ECONOMICS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (230p pdf)
INTERNATIONAL PATENT SYSTEM: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS (67p pdf)
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/ind ... ort_en.pdf (127p pdf)
http://www.patent-innovations.com/docum ... terest.pdf
http://www.nutechventures.org/blog/why- ... ood-thing/
http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009Dec9.jsp

TCT, that's all well and good. However, abuse of the patent system has gotten to and past the point where some serious reform is needed. To support my statement, I append the following: Monsanto. Speficically, Monsanto's contract conditions regarding its genetically altered seeds (farmers are prohibited from saving any seed from one season to plant in the next (which, naturally, vastly increases the farmer's dependency on Monsanto's good graces), and Monsanto has sued in US courts on that point - see, for instance, Monsanto v. Ralph (2003)), their attempted patenting of naturally-occuring genes in pigs, and their (to say the least) aggressive tactics regarding their profitable BvGH market, in which they have attempted to prohibit people who don't use their BvGH genes from advertising the fact. Then there's their mountains of false lawsuits, which amount to legalistic Mafiosi tactics, which simply cross any imaginable moral, ethical or legal border. And Monsanto is hardly the only offender, just the worst one I could think of off the top of my head - don't imagine that DuPont is much better, if any.

The short version: I agree with your basic premise: when it's working properly, a patent system regarding IP encourages innovation and invention, while making the knowledge available to the wider public to further build upon. However, IMO, the abuses of today's system mean that we should - to state it simplistically - tear the whole corrupt edifice down and start over, as the negatives of the current system outweigh the positives. Do you agree/disagree, or have any ideas as to what to do?

[Dododecapod]

Bexcause it will, almost invariably, be closer to the actual value (it's worth to the society and economy in which it was developed) than a one-size-fits-all decision. A one-size-fits-all decision makes the old error of assuming all labour is equally valuable - the actuality is that some inventors create gold, and some make dreck. Just because something is new does not make it useful or valuable.

So how do we objectively determine which is which?

That's the beauty of leaving it to the market: we don't have to. Any system of "valuing" something "objectively" is going to rely on a bunch of assumptions that may or may not fit every situation. Letting each invention sink or swim on it's merits as a marketable item eliminates assumption - the item's applicability to almost any situation will be tested in the name of profit.

[Kiskaanak]

and how they work.

*snip*

Thank you. The first page alone (conflating patents with copyright) made me want to bash my head into the corner of my desk. I'm glad I didn't jump the gun, because my explanation would have been more profane and less sourcey.

[Kiskaanak]

*snip confusion*

A classic case is that of the abbreviation WWF. The World Wrestling Federation and the World WIldlife Fund came out at the same time.*snip confusion*

And now we are also throwing trademarks into the mix.

[Norstal]

Wouldn't it be better for the inventor to be recognized for his/her invention as well as receiving a monetary reward in exchange for having the invention placed under public domain so that anybody can develop and utilize it?

If everyone copies my code for a program, what incentive do I have to make more codes? Or, better yet, What incentive do they have to improve upon my code?

[Kiskaanak]

The short version: I agree with your basic premise: when it's working properly, a patent system regarding IP encourages innovation and invention, while making the knowledge available to the wider public to further build upon. However, IMO, the abuses of today's system mean that we should - to state it simplistically - tear the whole corrupt edifice down and start over, as the negatives of the current system outweigh the positives. Do you agree/disagree, or have any ideas as to what to do?

Welcome to reality, where regulatory regimes do not get torn down and rebuilt.

You might want to instead turn your mind to how the present regimes could be improved upon, as your former suggestion will never, ever come to pass.

You would probably be very interested in reading:

Marden et al., "Genomics and Intellectual Property: Considering Alternatives to Traditional Patenting" (2008) 17 Health L. Rev. No. 1, 12 - 20.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

How patents stunt technological development is fairly easily illuminated by the fact that patent trolling is a successful business in and of itself.

[Kiskaanak]

How patents stunt technological development is fairly easily illuminated by the fact that patent trolling is a successful business in and of itself.

And I could just as easily say that the ability to 'design around' is proof that patenting encourages technological development.

Designing around is enabled by the fact that patents are published.

[The Cat-Tribe]

and how they work.

For example:
1. Patents are all made public. That is part of the whole point. There is no keeping the invention secret.
2. One can freely improve upon the patent and in doing so create a new product not covered by the patent.
3. Thus, technological development is encouraged by the patent process.

I don't have the time or patience to argue with people about whether patents are a good idea and/or explain the various erroneous statements made so far about patents.

NOTE: I am the last person to say the U.S. (or any other) patent system is perfect, some patents (and even categories of patents) are abused/absurd, that there isn't room for improvement, etc.

Here is some good background material on patents:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/do ... .html#faqs
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/do ... lawpat.pdf (14p pdf re patent law)
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Patent
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/patent.htm

Here are some sources (some good, some dubious) on why patents are/may be good:http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/migrated/Patent_Reform-paper.pdf (11p pdf)
http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2010 ... speech.jsp
Intellectual Property: A Power Tool for Economic Growth (20p pdf)
THE ECONOMICS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (230p pdf)
INTERNATIONAL PATENT SYSTEM: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS (67p pdf)
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/ind ... ort_en.pdf (127p pdf)
http://www.patent-innovations.com/docum ... terest.pdf
http://www.nutechventures.org/blog/why- ... ood-thing/
http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009Dec9.jsp

TCT, that's all well and good. However, abuse of the patent system has gotten to and past the point where some serious reform is needed. To support my statement, I append the following: Monsanto. Speficically, Monsanto's contract conditions regarding its genetically altered seeds (farmers are prohibited from saving any seed from one season to plant in the next (which, naturally, vastly increases the farmer's dependency on Monsanto's good graces), and Monsanto has sued in US courts on that point - see, for instance, Monsanto v. Ralph (2003)), their attempted patenting of naturally-occuring genes in pigs, and their (to say the least) aggressive tactics regarding their profitable BvGH market, in which they have attempted to prohibit people who don't use their BvGH genes from advertising the fact. Then there's their mountains of false lawsuits, which amount to legalistic Mafiosi tactics, which simply cross any imaginable moral, ethical or legal border. And Monsanto is hardly the only offender, just the worst one I could think of off the top of my head - don't imagine that DuPont is much better, if any.

The short version: I agree with your basic premise: when it's working properly, a patent system regarding IP encourages innovation and invention, while making the knowledge available to the wider public to further build upon. However, IMO, the abuses of today's system mean that we should - to state it simplistically - tear the whole corrupt edifice down and start over, as the negatives of the current system outweigh the positives. Do you agree/disagree, or have any ideas as to what to do?

That's all very bad and awful about Monsanto (which has done some "good," but much "evil" over the last century), but almost none of it has to do with patent law.

The first example you give (which the bulk of the Vanity Fair article is about and Monsanto v. Ralph was primarily about) is a contract and, hence, a matter of contract law, not patent law.

The accusation about patenting genes in pigs isn't particularly accurate, the closest thing to it was rejected by the USPTO, and Monsanto sold its pig breeding business and related intellectual property in 2007.

Monsanto's alleged "aggresive tactics" regarding the BvGH market, again, have nothing to do with patent law. (And Monsanto sold this business in 2008).

Next, the "mountains of false lawsuits" is actually about 90 to 112 lawsuits since 1996 (Vanity Fair says 112, but the study it cites says 90). These include contract, patent, and other lawsuits. It also includes lawsuits filed for declaratory judgment by farmers against Monsanto to prevent enforcement of its contracts or patents. Nor are Monsanto's lawsuits all "false." To the contrary, Monsanto either won or have settled in their favor almost all of the lawsuits on the study's list. Looking through the list of lawsuits in the study, I didn't see any where Monsanto's lawsuit was simply dismissed on the merits, Monsanto's action was treated as frivilious, etc.-- although I saw one where Monsanto's lawsuit was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in the court where it was filed.

Finally, although there is much, much, much to criticize about Monsanto, especially as it has gotten bigger and more bully-like, its history of techological development from 1901 to the present is hardly a good example of (going back to the topic) how patents stunt technological development.

In short, although there are many problems with our patent system, many are being actively reformed as we speak and have been being worked on in recent years. (For example, people keep complaining about software patents, but the government -- Congress, USPTO, Executive branch, and judiciary -- have all been cracking down on those.) I strongly disagree that the system is so broken we need to start over.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

How patents stunt technological development is fairly easily illuminated by the fact that patent trolling is a successful business in and of itself.

And I could just as easily say that the ability to 'design around' is proof that patenting encourages technological development.

Designing around is enabled by the fact that patents are published.

How are you going to design around "Selling music via an online interface" or "Activating an application by touching a screen" or any other number of patents that do exist and no one designs around. Being able to bypass a patent in theory does not make it bypassable in fact.

And indeed, patents are published. In theory you could find the one you might be impossible infringing upon. In theory.

[Baptisia]

I would be really interested in people's views on my patent solution:

In my view the proper purpose of a patent is to allow the inventor, be it an individual or a company, to benefit (i.e. make a profit) from their own invention, in preference to everyone else. With that in mind, I would prefer to reform the patent system such that it works like this...

Patents are allowed for any unique invention (including software patents), but the patent is only valid for a period of 5 years, and cannot be renewed. This will allow the original inventor to be first-to-market with a product using their patent, but also prevents the technology market from being stifled after that first-to-market period has elapsed.

The obvious problem with this solution of course is that the 5 year period is basically a number picked out of the air, and may not necessarily be suitable for all industries. But I believe the principle is sound.

[The Cat-Tribe]

How patents stunt technological development is fairly easily illuminated by the fact that patent trolling is a successful business in and of itself.

Beyond being a non sequitur, this is simply false. See, e.g., Debunking the 'Patent Troll' Myth; James F. McDonough, "The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy." Emory Law Journal, Vol. 56, p. 189, 2006 (40p pdf); Hooray for the Patent Troll!.

I'm not necessarily saying (regardless of my citations) that so-called "patent trolling" is good or harmless, but it is not at clear that "patent trolling" stunts technological development -- let alone that the existence of "patent trolling" "fairly easily illuminate[s]" that the entire patent system stunts technological development overall.

[New Chalcedon]

TCT, that's all well and good. However, abuse of the patent system has gotten to and past the point where some serious reform is needed. To support my statement, I append the following: Monsanto. Speficically, Monsanto's contract conditions regarding its genetically altered seeds (farmers are prohibited from saving any seed from one season to plant in the next (which, naturally, vastly increases the farmer's dependency on Monsanto's good graces), and Monsanto has sued in US courts on that point - see, for instance, Monsanto v. Ralph (2003)), their attempted patenting of naturally-occuring genes in pigs, and their (to say the least) aggressive tactics regarding their profitable BvGH market, in which they have attempted to prohibit people who don't use their BvGH genes from advertising the fact. Then there's their mountains of false lawsuits, which amount to legalistic Mafiosi tactics, which simply cross any imaginable moral, ethical or legal border. And Monsanto is hardly the only offender, just the worst one I could think of off the top of my head - don't imagine that DuPont is much better, if any.

The short version: I agree with your basic premise: when it's working properly, a patent system regarding IP encourages innovation and invention, while making the knowledge available to the wider public to further build upon. However, IMO, the abuses of today's system mean that we should - to state it simplistically - tear the whole corrupt edifice down and start over, as the negatives of the current system outweigh the positives. Do you agree/disagree, or have any ideas as to what to do?

That's all very bad and awful about Monsanto (which has done some "good," but much "evil" over the last century), but almost none of it has to do with patent law.

The first example you give (which the bulk of the Vanity Fair article is about and Monsanto v. Ralph was primarily about) is a contract and, hence, a matter of contract law, not patent law.

The accusation about patenting genes in pigs isn't particularly accurate, the closest thing to it was rejected by the USPTO, and Monsanto sold its pig breeding business and related intellectual property in 2007.

Monsanto's alleged "aggresive tactics" regarding the BvGH market, again, have nothing to do with patent law. (And Monsanto sold this business in 2008).

Next, the "mountains of false lawsuits" is actually about 90 to 112 lawsuits since 1996 (Vanity Fair says 112, but the study it cites says 90). These include contract, patent, and other lawsuits. It also includes lawsuits filed for declaratory judgment by farmers against Monsanto to prevent enforcement of its contracts or patents. [b]Nor are Monsanto's lawsuits all "false." To the contrary, Monsanto either won or have settled in their favor almost all of the lawsuits on the study's list. Looking through the list of lawsuits in the study, I didn't see any where Monsanto's lawsuit was simply dismissed on the merits, Monsanto's action was treated as frivilious, etc.-- although I saw one where Monsanto's lawsuit was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in the court where it was filed.[/b]

Finally, although there is much, much, much to criticize about Monsanto, especially as it has gotten bigger and more bully-like, its history of techological development from 1901 to the present is hardly a good example of (going back to the topic) how patents stunt technological development.

In short, although there are many problems with our patent system, many are being actively reformed as we speak and have been being worked on in recent years. (For example, people keep complaining about software patents, but the government -- Congress, USPTO, Executive branch, and judiciary -- have all been cracking down on those.) I strongly disagree that the system is so broken we need to start over.

First, TCT, I appreciate the civil tone of your discourse, and will endeavour to respond in kind. Having said this, I disagree with your statement, especially the bolded, which I will address in order.

1) Monsanto was only able to demand that contract because patent law, instead of merely stipulating a set percentage to be paid as royalties, allows unlimited monopoly power over the use of the patented product: this includes the patent-holder to set any terms they wish. I contend that the terms demanded by Monsanto re: genetically-altered seeds are the product of the patent system in that this you-beaut product comes along such that any farmer who has it will trump any farmer who doesn't, and MS gets to siphon off 95% of the profits therefrom, as a classic example of abuse of market power, which the patent system gives far too much of to the patent-holders by allowing them the right to exclude all others from any use of the patented product. I know this doesn't address the core point of the OP directly, but the counter-point I'm making is that some technological progress isn't worth the ancillary price we pay.

2) The specific outcome is irrelevant: the fact of the matter is that Monsanto could make a serious claim in the first place, even if they were eventually rejected. And the fact that it took the USPTO at least two years to reject the claim is a very bad sign.....

3) I dispute your characterisation of the lawsuits. Sure, they were settled. Why? Because the victims defendants couldn't spend the resources on endless litigation that Monsanto can and does - I reference you to Pilot Grove (MO) as one example of Monsanto's bullying tactics. Additionally, those are just the ones that formally get to court - again, as the article notes, a majority of the targets simply pay out rather than face mountains of legal paperwork, hundreds of thousands in fees, and public humiliation in order to re-enact David v. Goliath (this time without divine inspiration).

Finally, some evidence that the government is actively addressing these abuses would be appreciated. If such was in your first post, simply tell me which links they were and I'll go back to them.

[Kiskaanak]

How are you going to design around "Selling music via an online interface" or "Activating an application by touching a screen" or any other number of patents that do exist and no one designs around. Being able to bypass a patent in theory does not make it bypassable in fact.

That lawsuits exist based on these patents is not determinative. This are of the law is basically 'under construction'. Until Amazon.com, Inc. v The Attorney General of Canada [2010] FC 1011, (that's this year), you could not patent a business method here in Canada. The US has not had the same restrictions, nonetheless, the restrictions that do exist have been struggling to keep up with the emerging technology.

Pointing to a very narrow field of patent law and claiming this invalidates the rest of a huge area is not a great argument.

And indeed, patents are published. In theory you could find the one you might be impossible infringing upon. In theory.

In theory you can find the business name you might be trying to register. In theory.

Of course, if you don't, and you apply to register that name anyway, you're out the filing fee.

And this is why you pay someone to run a thorough NUANS search FIRST.

If you're designing a product, you pay someone to search to see if you're infringing on a patent. Hell, you could also just google what you're designing. It's not super difficult to check patents.

[Kiskaanak]

I would be really interested in people's views on my patent solution:

In my view the proper purpose of a patent is to allow the inventor, be it an individual or a company, to benefit (i.e. make a profit) from their own invention, in preference to everyone else. With that in mind, I would prefer to reform the patent system such that it works like this...

Patents are allowed for any unique invention (including software patents), but the patent is only valid for a period of 5 years, and cannot be renewed. This will allow the original inventor to be first-to-market with a product using their patent, but also prevents the technology market from being stifled after that first-to-market period has elapsed.

The obvious problem with this solution of course is that the 5 year period is basically a number picked out of the air, and may not necessarily be suitable for all industries. But I believe the principle is sound.

Five years is inappropriate to a great many situations, where R&D time along exceeds the patented period, and the cost of R&D by far exceeds any possible recompense in such a short time.

[The Cat-Tribe]

And I could just as easily say that the ability to 'design around' is proof that patenting encourages technological development.

Designing around is enabled by the fact that patents are published.

How are you going to design around "Selling music via an online interface" or "Activating an application by touching a screen" or any other number of patents that do exist and no one designs around. Being able to bypass a patent in theory does not make it bypassable in fact.

And indeed, patents are published. In theory you could find the one you might be impossible infringing upon. In theory.

You are making a number of rather odd assumptions.

I will take you at your word that those patents exist (although their titles are not the same as their precise claims -- which actual define the scope of the patent) and are unassailably valid. I will assume for the sake of argument that no one can design around these patents.

Was not the invention of said technological development itself significant advancement?

How exactly has the existence of said patents prevented other technological development?

Why is it impossible to improve on said patents?

EDIT: Having looked for those patents in the U.S., are they Canadian?

[MisanthropicPopulism]

How patents stunt technological development is fairly easily illuminated by the fact that patent trolling is a successful business in and of itself.

Beyond being a non sequitur, this is simply false. See, e.g., Debunking the 'Patent Troll' Myth; James F. McDonough, "The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy." Emory Law Journal, Vol. 56, p. 189, 2006 (40p pdf); Hooray for the Patent Troll!.

I'm not necessarily saying (regardless of my citations) that so-called "patent trolling" is good or harmless, but it is not at clear that "patent trolling" stunts technological development -- let alone that the existence of "patent trolling" "fairly easily illuminate[s]" that the entire patent system stunts technological development overall.

Those articles all deal with the theory of patent trolling and the ideal conditions where it might arise. And were it to actually happen like that all the time, they may have points. But it doesn't. The only one of those articles to actually address anything is the third, quite ironically.

What trolls have in common is that they do not commercialize products relating to the patents they own. Yet patent law is silent on whether a patent must be commercialized in order to be enforceable; a patent simply affords an inventor the right to exclude others from exploiting the invention defined in the patent’s claims.

Therein lies the problem. Rather, therein lies my issue with the patent system as a whole.

[Kiskaanak]

EDIT: Having looked for those patents in the U.S., are they Canadian?

I found this article which led me to this article, which led me to this patent.

This might be the other one, or at least close enough.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

I will take you at your word that those patents exist (although their titles are not the same as their precise claims -- which actual define the scope of the patent) and are unassailably valid. I will assume for the sake of argument that no one can design around these patents.

I paraphrased somewhat.

Was not the invention of said technological development itself significant advancement?

Considering neither were first employed by the company holding said patent nor was the process developed by the patent holder (as the filer of the patent, not purchaser of some one els's), no, it wasn't.

Why is it impossible to improve on said patents?

How would you improve upon this: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6233682.html

are they Canadian?

Pretty sure they aren't. The patent office has not kept up very well with technological development. The laymen distributing patents for generic processes issue was especially egregious in the late 90s and early 2000s.