Do Patents Stunt Technological Development?

[Tekania]

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.

Perfect example of crap patents making it through an obviously incompetent patent office.

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.

1) TBH, my ignorance of the possible intricacies of contract and antitrust law may be showing, but it isn't at all clear to me that Monsanto's contracts are based on the power of their patents. Nothing in the Vanity Fair article expressly says that. In fact, the Center for Food Safety study the article is based on expressly says that the "technology agreements" are based on Monsanto's market power -- and say nothing about the agreements being tied directly to patents. It sounds like your argument only ties the contracts to the patent system in that Monsanto has developed and patented superior seed technology and then aggressively protected it by contract. (You are correct that this not only isn't on topic, but may be counter to the topic. You may well be complaining about technological development caused by patents.)

2) Except that Monsanto's claim was never to the gene itself, 2 years is not that long for the USPTO to act, outcomes do matter, as do facts, etc ....

3. Dispute all you want. First, the numbers are accurate and aren't mountains. Referring to pre-suit settlements now is both (a) moving the goalposts and (b) referring to an unquantified amount of alleged incidents. Second, not all farmers -- particularly not those named in the lawsuits in question -- are small businessmen. Some are corporate farms. And Vanity Fair may wax eloquently about the burdens of discovery, but what they describe as Herculean burdens is actually pretty typical for litigation -- not just litigation involving a company the size of Monsanto. In sum, you said Monsanto had filed "mountains of false lawsuits." Not mountains. No evidence more than a handful (if that) were "false."

4. One document I linked says in the title it is about patent reform, other than that I don't recall posting anything specific about it. RL calls at the moment. But, as much of what you are calling "patent abuse" has nothing to do with patents, I wouldn't have much to post about reform related to it anyway.

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.

1. Unless you are saying the patent is invalid (which I think is likely), who currently owns the patent has fuck-all to do with whether the inventor made a technological advancement. In fact, that he/she was rewarded by someone buying his/her patent rights shows his/her innovation was rewarded.

2. Has this patent been successfully enforced in a case for patent infringement?

[MisanthropicPopulism]

1. Unless you are saying the patent is invalid (which I think is likely), who currently owns the patent has fuck-all to do with whether the inventor made a technological advancement. In fact, that he/she was rewarded by someone buying his/her patent rights shows his/her innovation was rewarded.

Except they didn't invent anything. They are being rewarded for filing a patent, or rather for writing a patent application that made it sound like they invented the process of purchasing any music at all online.

2. Has this patent been successfully enforced in a case for patent infringement?

No one has taken them to court yet, they made their demands cheaper than the cost to litigate so almost everyone has settled.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

1) TBH, my ignorance of the possible intricacies of contract and antitrust law may be showing, but it isn't at all clear to me that Monsanto's contracts are based on the power of their patents. Nothing in the Vanity Fair article expressly says that. In fact, the Center for Food Safety study the article is based on expressly says that the "technology agreements" are based on Monsanto's market power -- and say nothing about the agreements being tied directly to patents. It sounds like your argument only ties the contracts to the patent system in that Monsanto has developed and patented superior seed technology and then aggressively protected it by contract. (You are correct that this not only isn't on topic, but may be counter to the topic. You may well be complaining about technological development caused by patents.)

2) Except that Monsanto's claim was never to the gene itself, 2 years is not that long for the USPTO to act, outcomes do matter, as do facts, etc ....

3. Dispute all you want. First, the numbers are accurate and aren't mountains. Referring to pre-suit settlements now is both (a) moving the goalposts and (b) referring to an unquantified amount of alleged incidents. Second, not all farmers -- particularly not those named in the lawsuits in question -- are small businessmen. Some are corporate farms. And Vanity Fair may wax eloquently about the burdens of discovery, but what they describe as Herculean burdens is actually pretty typical for litigation -- not just litigation involving a company the size of Monsanto. In sum, you said Monsanto had filed "mountains of false lawsuits." Not mountains. No evidence more than a handful (if that) were "false."

4. One document I linked says in the title it is about patent reform, other than that I don't recall posting anything specific about it. RL calls at the moment. But, as much of what you are calling "patent abuse" has nothing to do with patents, I wouldn't have much to post about reform related to it anyway.

1: The contract agreements between Monsanto and the farmers are only possible due to two factors:

a) Monsanto's GM seed is sufficiently superior that use of it provides a significant competitive advantage, obliging farmers to use the product and creating a de facto monopoly; and
b) The overly wide-ranging nature of the powers granted by the nature of the patent system, specifically the capacity to not only extract a royalty (which I agree with, as incentive to innovate is good) but to levy any and all terms desired for use of the product (Which is what I deplore about the system).

Absent the second factor (the flaw in patent systems that permits such an imbalance of power to come into being), and Monsanto's abuses would diminish rapidly.

2: No, they were laying claim to the technique of crossbreeding - a technique that has existed, in one form or another, since the dawn of agriculture.

3: My goalposts have not shifted: they are as they were at the beginning, to establish the fact that the current nature of the patent system permits, even encourages, widespread abuse of the legal system. To this case, both the numbers of cases filed and the presence of cases settled pre-trial are relevant, although I withdraw my claim of mountains of false lawsuits filed - "threatened" may have been a better choice of term.

4: Thank you. I did read it, and it was woefully short on specifics, alluding only to some (unspecified) 'changes' in post-grant review systems at the USPTO.

In short, I am still not convinced that the patent system is a) innocent of the charges I have laid against it; or b) up for serious reform under the current Administration.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Unless you are saying the patent is invalid (which I think is likely), who currently owns the patent has fuck-all to do with whether the inventor made a technological advancement. In fact, that he/she was rewarded by someone buying his/her patent rights shows his/her innovation was rewarded.

Except they didn't invent anything. They are being rewarded for filing a patent, or rather for writing a patent application that made it sound like they invented the process of purchasing any music at all online.

2. Has this patent been successfully enforced in a case for patent infringement?

No one has taken them to court yet, they made their demands cheaper than the cost to litigate so almost everyone has settled.

1. The person who allegedly invented something is the person who filed the patent, Bernhard Fritsch. As far as I can tell, he was a legitimate entrepeneur and developer in the digital music industry. It appears he sold his patents to Sharing Sound, LLC. I don't see how that is inherently objectionable. Are you saying patent holders should only be able to profit from patents by personally selling products based on a patent (which Mr. Fritsch tried - see #4)?

2. It now sounds like your complaint is simply that the patent is invalid and shouldn't have issued. This may well be (although I know not the state of the art in 1999, M-CAM seems to show it was rather extensive -- and includes patents owned by the companies being sued for infringing the patent at issue).

3. It is a bit hard to generate a great deal of sympathy for the "victims" here: Apple, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon, Netflix, Sony, Wal-Mart, etc. None of these are capable of defending themselves against a big bad "patent troll" like Sharing Sound, LLC?

4. Given that the actual inventor, Bernard Fritsch, did launch a music service in 1999 based on the patent called MYC.com, I'm not sure this even counts as "patent trolling." It does appear to be true the current patent holder doesn't produce any products.

5. Your complaint about this particular patent is a bit ironic given your feelings about the music industry and distribution of digitial music expressed in prior threads about copyright -- but I fully admit that doesn't effect your "point."

[The Cat-Tribe]

1) TBH, my ignorance of the possible intricacies of contract and antitrust law may be showing, but it isn't at all clear to me that Monsanto's contracts are based on the power of their patents. Nothing in the Vanity Fair article expressly says that. In fact, the Center for Food Safety study the article is based on expressly says that the "technology agreements" are based on Monsanto's market power -- and say nothing about the agreements being tied directly to patents. It sounds like your argument only ties the contracts to the patent system in that Monsanto has developed and patented superior seed technology and then aggressively protected it by contract. (You are correct that this not only isn't on topic, but may be counter to the topic. You may well be complaining about technological development caused by patents.)

2) Except that Monsanto's claim was never to the gene itself, 2 years is not that long for the USPTO to act, outcomes do matter, as do facts, etc ....

3. Dispute all you want. First, the numbers are accurate and aren't mountains. Referring to pre-suit settlements now is both (a) moving the goalposts and (b) referring to an unquantified amount of alleged incidents. Second, not all farmers -- particularly not those named in the lawsuits in question -- are small businessmen. Some are corporate farms. And Vanity Fair may wax eloquently about the burdens of discovery, but what they describe as Herculean burdens is actually pretty typical for litigation -- not just litigation involving a company the size of Monsanto. In sum, you said Monsanto had filed "mountains of false lawsuits." Not mountains. No evidence more than a handful (if that) were "false."

4. One document I linked says in the title it is about patent reform, other than that I don't recall posting anything specific about it. RL calls at the moment. But, as much of what you are calling "patent abuse" has nothing to do with patents, I wouldn't have much to post about reform related to it anyway.

1: The contract agreements between Monsanto and the farmers are only possible due to two factors:

a) Monsanto's GM seed is sufficiently superior that use of it provides a significant competitive advantage, obliging farmers to use the product and creating a de facto monopoly; and
b) The overly wide-ranging nature of the powers granted by the nature of the patent system, specifically the capacity to not only extract a royalty (which I agree with, as incentive to innovate is good) but to levy any and all terms desired for use of the product (Which is what I deplore about the system).
Absent the second factor (the flaw in patent systems that permits such an imbalance of power to come into being), and Monsanto's abuses would diminish rapidly.

2: No, they were laying claim to the technique of crossbreeding - a technique that has existed, in one form or another, since the dawn of agriculture.

3: My goalposts have not shifted: they are as they were at the beginning, to establish the fact that the current nature of the patent system permits, even encourages, widespread abuse of the legal system. To this case, both the numbers of cases filed and the presence of cases settled pre-trial are relevant, although I withdraw my claim of mountains of false lawsuits filed - "threatened" may have been a better choice of term.

4: Thank you. I did read it, and it was woefully short on specifics, alluding only to some (unspecified) 'changes' in post-grant review systems at the USPTO.

In short, I am still not convinced that the patent system is a) innocent of the charges I have laid against it; or b) up for serious reform under the current Administration.

1. Please be so kind as to provide some evidence to support the highlighted statement. I don't believe it is true.

2. They tried unsuccessfully to patent a specific method of crossbreeding, but it was rejected. No harm. No foul.

3. First, you have moved the goalposts. Second, you can't quantify the number of "threatened" lawsuits. Monsanto claims it sells seeds under its "technology agreements" to more than 275,000 farmers a year in the United States. (Other seed companies use similiar agreements.) Monsanto also allegedly spends $26 million per day on new product innovation. Now, compare this to what we can quantify: 90 to 112 successful lawsuits over 14 years is about 8 lawsuits filed per year or less. (Monsanto reports 144 cases since 1997 -- about 13 lawsuits filed per year.) I believe that is one lawsuit filed per year per about 35,000 customers. According to Monsanto, only 9 cases have gone to trial (all decided in Monsanto's favor) and "whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs."

By the way, that horrible Pilot Grove case was settled in 2008. Under the terms of the settlement, Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, Inc., will deposit $275,000 in an account -- and the income from that account will fund scholarships for the Cooper County, Missouri, FFA and 4-H programs. The Pilot Grove Co-op will also develop and adopt a stewardship policy to avoid future patent infringement, and will work with a third-party organization to provide training for employees.

4. I specifically said the type of "abuse" you allege is about the patent system, so it wouldn't be addressed.

[Kiskaanak]

I am really enjoying this thread, btw. and appreciate the fact that while the arguments being made are coming across strongly, they are not veering off into acrimonious.

Please do keep it up! Usually IP discussions are all about copyright, which is interesting enough yes, but patents aren't really understood by many, so this is needed.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

\
1. The person who allegedly invented something is the person who filed the patent, Bernhard Fritsch. As far as I can tell, he was a legitimate entrepeneur and developer in the digital music industry. It appears he sold his patents to Sharing Sound, LLC. I don't see how that is inherently objectionable. Are you saying patent holders should only be able to profit from patents by personally selling products based on a patent (which Mr. Fritsch tried - see #4)?

More or less. At the very least, why couldn't Mr Fritsch have kept the patent and then sued for himself? Because that costs money? I suppose so. However that puts "Sharing Sound" in the position of only being in business in order to sue companies for patent infringement.

2. It now sounds like your complaint is simply that the patent is invalid and shouldn't have issued.

That's one of my complaints here, yes.

3. It is a bit hard to generate a great deal of sympathy for the "victims" here: Apple, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon, Netflix, Sony, Wal-Mart, etc. None of these are capable of defending themselves against a big bad "patent troll" like Sharing Sound, LLC?

Even I will sympathize with pompous pricks like Apple and shady assholes like Rhapsody before I side with a company whose sole business is sitting on patents in order to sue other companies for infringing upon them.

5. Your complaint about this particular patent is a bit ironic given your feelings about the music industry and distribution of digitial music expressed in prior threads about copyright -- but I fully admit that doesn't effect your "point."

Except it's not. This "point" is entirely a red herring.

[Nobel Hobos]

I've been wondering about the effects of patents on society. I understand that their primary purpose is to ensure the inventor of a new device or technique is properly credited and remunerated for his/her creation by making sure nobody else can make or use said creation without permission, but I see several problems with this kind of system. One, if the inventor is stingy or exceedingly greedy, they may choose to simply withhold their invention. Two, a company may choose to buy the patent and withhold it in order to preserve profits made from an older creation. Three, a patent essentially gives either inventor, whether an individual or a company, a complete monopoly over the technology until the patent expires, restricting it's use.

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?

The traditional media (print, audio recording and even film) did not protect "intellectual credit" of artists and inventors. To get your work distributed, you had to show it to a distributor. Without some independent record that you had written those words or had that idea, creators would be hostage to those they relied on to to commercialize their work or idea (bring it to market) and have no recourse if their work was published under someone else's name. The internet has solved that problem: anyone can publish, and attempts at plagiarism can be easily overturned by the public record implicit in browser caches, server caches and carrier caches. The internet records itself!

The question of whether artists and inventors are fairly remunerated for the contribution their idea makes to the commonwealth is far more difficult. But I have faith that if enough people give away their ideas for free and enough others benefit from those ideas, that some voluntary payment system will evolve. The mass-production of material goods means we can all have physical goods for very little cost ... the necessities of life could easily be provided to every human being though we have political reasons not to do that.

Other "good things" like good ideas and good art are now available very cheaply too, but again with the politics and the morality. We are polarized into "it should be free" and "it should come at whatever price the provider sets". I think the natural price for a song or an essay or a scientific breakthrough is far closer to "free" than "what can be enforced by copyright or patent law" but our politics and our ethical thinking lags what has been made possible by technology as it always does.

There is a fair price for a song, there's a fair price for competent advice, and there is a fair price for ideas which can be implemented to make money. This price may be very low but it will always be kept above zero by this principle: physical goods will always cost money, intangible and freely-copied goods bring benefit to consumers and enterpreneurs and this benefit is directly comparable to the benefit of owning or having use of a physical good.

Micropayments are the key. When we use a free forum or a blog hosting service, we are in bed with a micropayment system: only one in ten posters click on an ad, one in ten of them actually pay money for what is advertised. Only a very small proportion of the profits from such sales are sent to the forum or blog hoster, but it works out because of the sheer scale and the low cost of delivering the service.

Lest I seem to be rambling, I will return to the idea I marked in blue above. Physical goods and ideas provide some value to their consumer, and as long as physical goods are not freely available the consumers will always have the feeling that they "owe" someone something for the idea which pleases them. It's absurd to apply the same standards of "ownership" to intellectual property as to physical property, but the two are related. They differ in that the intellectual property can be received and benefit gained from it without depriving the previous owner of anything, but they are alike in that the recipient gains some benefit from gaining the idea. As long as physical goods have a cost to the consumer, there will always be an impetus in the consumer to pay for freely-copyable goods which also please the consumer.

[Nobel Hobos]

The worst feature of the patent system is something the OP mentioned: to deny others the use of an idea, because and only because one person had that idea before anyone else.

I respect artists and inventors. I respect scientists and innovators and yes, sometimes I even respect entepreneurs who implement someone else's idea.

But patents can be sold, and the common good is NOT served when a patent is bought by a commercial interest who does not license it out, does not use it themselves, and sits on that patent to prevent potential competitors from using that idea. Twenty years or more of denying opportunities to others to implement that idea ... this is obscene in this day and age when a researcher or inventor beats others to it by a matter of months or years at most.

It's also pretty crook how much money it costs to register a patent (even without the legal advice to write that patent up so it holds). Registering a world-wide patent costs thousands of dollars.

[New Chalcedon]

1: The contract agreements between Monsanto and the farmers are only possible due to two factors:

a) Monsanto's GM seed is sufficiently superior that use of it provides a significant competitive advantage, obliging farmers to use the product and creating a de facto monopoly; and
b) The overly wide-ranging nature of the powers granted by the nature of the patent system, specifically the capacity to not only extract a royalty (which I agree with, as incentive to innovate is good) but to levy any and all terms desired for use of the product (Which is what I deplore about the system).
Absent the second factor (the flaw in patent systems that permits such an imbalance of power to come into being), and Monsanto's abuses would diminish rapidly.

2: No, they were laying claim to the technique of crossbreeding - a technique that has existed, in one form or another, since the dawn of agriculture.

3: My goalposts have not shifted: they are as they were at the beginning, to establish the fact that the current nature of the patent system permits, even encourages, widespread abuse of the legal system. To this case, both the numbers of cases filed and the presence of cases settled pre-trial are relevant, although I withdraw my claim of mountains of false lawsuits filed - "threatened" may have been a better choice of term.

4: Thank you. I did read it, and it was woefully short on specifics, alluding only to some (unspecified) 'changes' in post-grant review systems at the USPTO.

In short, I am still not convinced that the patent system is a) innocent of the charges I have laid against it; or b) up for serious reform under the current Administration.

1. Please be so kind as to provide some evidence to support the highlighted statement. I don't believe it is true.

2. They tried unsuccessfully to patent a specific method of crossbreeding, but it was rejected. No harm. No foul.

3. First, you have moved the goalposts. Second, you can't quantify the number of "threatened" lawsuits. Monsanto claims it sells seeds under its "technology agreements" to more than 275,000 farmers a year in the United States. (Other seed companies use similiar agreements.) Monsanto also allegedly spends $26 million per day on new product innovation. Now, compare this to what we can quantify: 90 to 112 successful lawsuits over 14 years is about 8 lawsuits filed per year or less. (Monsanto reports 144 cases since 1997 -- about 13 lawsuits filed per year.) I believe that is one lawsuit filed per year per about 35,000 customers. According to Monsanto, only 9 cases have gone to trial (all decided in Monsanto's favor) and "whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs."

By the way, that horrible Pilot Grove case was settled in 2008. Under the terms of the settlement, Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, Inc., will deposit $275,000 in an account -- and the income from that account will fund scholarships for the Cooper County, Missouri, FFA and 4-H programs. The Pilot Grove Co-op will also develop and adopt a stewardship policy to avoid future patent infringement, and will work with a third-party organization to provide training for employees.

4. I specifically said the type of "abuse" you allege is about the patent system, so it wouldn't be addressed.

Apologies about the delayed response, TCT - it was my birthday yesterday, and I didn't spend a lot of time online.

1: http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/rights.html and http://www.ehow.com/about_6075811_paten ... ights.html both reference the exclusionary nature of patents, thus establishing the exclusionary nature of the patent system as a whole. You will note, neither source mandates a royalties system (the notion that the payment of a set royalty entitles one to the use of the invention/process in question) - the patent-holder has every right to attach any and all conditions they wish to the use of the item or process. From the first link above:

Patent law gives to the patent holder the right to exclude all others from making, using, or selling the invention.

Note that Bit Law does not then go on to state that the law places limits on the exclusionary rights of the patent-holder.In short, TCT, I believe that I am in fact correct on this specific point.

2: This is where our views, it would appear, differ. The mere fact that Monsanto tried to - and wasn't thrown out of the Patents Office for such a transparently absurd claim - to me indicates 'foul', even if there was no 'harm'. Particularly since the independence of regulatory bodies generally is under attack from the right. To me, this means that it is a present-time issue, and not a trivial one.

3: As to the substance, I concede: the number of lawsuits filed is relatively low, although I still maintain that the instances of legalistic bullying noted inthe Vanity Fair article still constitutes an abuse of the patents system in its aspect as part of the laws of the land of the United States (albeit not something unique to the patents system - that is part of a larger issue involving the use of lawyers to threaten and intimidate people into doing business one's way). However, as to the bolded, I remind you that Monsanto still gets benefits from donating the monies - tax breaks on their income and good press (which, let's fact it, it needs since the BvGH scandals).

4: The post-grant review system is all about regulating the use (and, where the regulation fails, the abuse) of patents after they are granted, and therefore a discussion on the stringency of the systematic reforms posited in the article you linked is most certainly apropos to the topic at hand, which is the abuse of the patents system.

I'm enjoying this, TCT, and I hope you are too. A most interesting discussion thus far.

On the main topic (relation between patent systems and technological progress), the BitLaw page above does note that copyrights (as distinct from patents) are not exclusionary - one is perfectly free to use copyrighted ideas, just not to reprint/publish/whatever copyrighted material, with some exceptions noted in the law. So I would say that patents - as something concerned specifically with items or processes, and not ideas, would be only marginally involved with holding back technological progress. Ideas are freely transmisible under copyright law, and ideas are the bedrock of technological change, although the denial of machinery/instrumentation and the like could, on occasion, stunt the pursuit of specific new inventions/technologies and the like (consider, for instance, the electron microscope. As a patented item, the denial of it would place microbiology researchers in a rather difficult position).