The Curse of The-So-Called PATENT

[LVUER]

I'm quite confused at what title should I use for this topic. Is the title appropriate for the topic? Suggestion will be accepted.

I just watched the news that some motive (ORIGINAL motive) that are used by our (my country) local silver artist has been patented by a US citizen. Of course all the local artists are surprised since suddenly they have to pay to use the motive (OUR motive) in their art merchandises.

Lots of things already stolen from my country, like traditional food, fish, natural resources, valuables data, lands, oil, forest, even traditional culture heritage.. and now it's traditional handycraft.

Ironically, patent law that should protect us actually do us more harm. Who is US in this term. The creator, people who usually, in this case, don't understand complicated things like laws, including PATENT. And who harms us? Not the law or patent, but person who steal things from us using the powerful patent system.

Too bad that usually, people that steal things using patent are people who understand how patent works more than us. People from far-more-developed countries like Japan, US, etc.

Why we don't patent the motive in the first place? First, as people from developing countries, most of us don't understand complicated things like patent. And we aren't used to use things like that either.
Second, having a patent is very expensive (at least in here), very time consuming, and very difficult. And most of the time, not worth the effort (cough, piracy, cough...)

AND....
it also makes me think how if this kind of things happens to us. May be if we make an indie product and suddenly some rich man patent our products and sue us for using his "product".

Lucky for "some" of us though, since the moment we publish products (arts, VN, etc) in internet, we are protected by some degree of law, right?

But how if we make it as a real product? Like in CD or print them in paper or something?

[Mikan]

... do you mean motif? Motive is like uh.. why one does something.

[LVUER]

... do you mean motif? Motive is like uh.. why one does something.

Whoops... perhaps you're right. The motif or pattern.

[Samu-kun]

Which patent are you exactly talking about? Is it a certain metallurgical process used to make a certain type of silverwork or is it just a certain type of pattern? That's pretty important, because uhh... motifs and patterns can't be patented. Patents only apply to a certain invention (like the schematics of a certain machine that refines silver a particular way) and can't be applied to a certain decorative pattern.

Patents shouldn't really concern any of the works we make here, since none of our works are industrially applicable inventions in the first place. Since we're mostly making creative fiction, it'd be copyrights that we're mostly concerned with, and since we automatically get a copyright on our works the instant we release it, it shouldn't be a problem. Also, it's not that ridiculously expensive to purchase an official copyright in case you're planning to go commercial and you want to go the extra distance to make sure that your property is protected.

[LVUER]

I see, so I mix it up between patent and copyright. I'm not used to this kind of things.

May be that guy (who patented the motif) patented the way (or process that involved) on how to make certain pattern?

[Jake]

I had been reading 'motive' as 'technique' all through the original post, it's a common mistake for non-English-speakers to make.
("Motive" doesn't always mean "reason for doing something", but also - as in "motive force" - it means something more like "movement-related".)

Patents cover techniques (methods for doing things), copyrights cover creations (the things which are produced). Really, whether your local artists are under any threat depends on your local intellectual property laws, not those in the US; while there are international conventions which allow for intellectual property to be recognised outside of the country it's registered/created in, it's possible for local law to trump it. For example, IIRC in the US, it's possible to patent busines processes; in Europe it's not, so all those US business process patents are invalid and unenforcable in Europe. In the UK someone who loses a lawsuit typically pays all fees, so a patent infringement case for a flimsy obviously-not-valid patent isn't likely to happen in the UK; in the US loser-pays doesn't seem to be the norm for some inexplicable and bizarre reason, so patent trolls could still sit on such a patent with the knowledge that traditional artisans don't have the funds to fight them in court.

So, really, it depends how your legal system's set up as to whether it's a problem. I'm fairly sure that if it were a US patent for a traditional UK method which had been around for generations, then the UK artisans would be perfectly fine just to ignore it, on the grounds that it was silly and couldn't hurt them - it would just be insulting.



(And as it goes... one does not "purchase" an "official copyright"; one "registers" an existing copyright with the relevant government office, at least in the US. (I'm not sure it's even possible in the UK, off the top of my head.) Copyright is automatically granted when you create something, all you pay for is for an official record to be made that you had copyrighted this thing by a certain date, so no claims later than that date will be upheld. And it might be trivial and relatively cheap in the US, but that's not necessarily the case in all countries.)

[PunkDaddy]

Copyright laws also do not protect work that is not the work of the copyright holder. In other words, if the local artists can prove that they have been using the motif well before the copyright was filed, they should be able to overturn the copyright in court (and probably, in the US, have their legal fees recovered as well).

This does not take into account the usual problems one might run into such as bribed officials, etc...

[Aenakume]

I just watched the news that some motive (ORIGINAL motive) that are used by our (my country) local silver artist has been patented by a US citizen. Of course all the local artists are surprised since suddenly they have to pay to use the motive (OUR motive) in their art merchandises.

Lots of things already stolen from my country, like traditional food, fish, natural resources, valuables data, lands, oil, forest, even traditional culture heritage.. and now it's traditional handycraft.

Ironically, patent law that should protect us actually do us more harm. Who is US in this term. The creator, people who usually, in this case, don't understand complicated things like laws, including PATENT. And who harms us? Not the law or patent, but person who steal things from us using the powerful patent system.

Relax ^_^: in patent law there is a clause called "prior art", which means the patent isn't recognized if you can show that it was common practice before the patent was filed. Otherwise i could go and file a patent for the process of making babies tomorrow, and then charge everyone a nickel every time they have sex.

If it's as you say, and all the local artists are using the method, then it's public knowledge and the case is no contest, so the US dude just wasted the money to file the patent (they probly didn't know it was common knowledge somewhere).

Incidentally: instead of screaming with outrage over the whole affair, it seems to me the logical thing to do would be to make it a political issue. Talk to your representatives and point out that by making it so hard to get a patent, they run the risk of having the inventions of local people "stolen" by richer countries... which means a pointless loss to your country's economy (and pride). If they say no, point out how unpopular they'll get if you publicize the fact that they're basically screwing both the national economy and the little guy. Appeal to their wallets and their fear of losing power: that is the way to control politics.

[tigerrenko]

It's not so light a topic. Many of the Cuban folk songs for example are copyrighted by US citizens and many traditional songs can't be published...

Cheers
TR

[Aenakume]

It's not so light a topic. Many of the Cuban folk songs for example are copyrighted by US citizens and many traditional songs can't be published...

Copyright ≠ patent

Traditional songs and folk songs can't be copyrighted. It is impossible to copyright something if you are not the first person who has written it. If someone has tried, all you have to do is show the song existed before the copyright date, whether it was published or not. At best, their version might be copyrighted... but the song itself is public domain.

It's not so easy with patents. It is possible to patent something if you weren't the first person to invent it. But the patent won't hold if the process was public (note the stress) knowledge. If LVUER's silver-working process was public knowledge before the patent, the patent is no good. If it was private knowledge, then the patent applies. But a traditional handicraft method is surely public knowledge.

[LVUER]

Is that so? That's ... really calms me. I'm glad knowing that, thanks a lot.

So basically I just need to let people know that the pattern/motif was a common/public knowledge before the patent was made?

But I want to know, could a country claim a traditional art and music instrument as theirs and make a patent from it? Since it happened too, although I'm lost the newest information about this one.

[Aenakume]

Is that so? That's ... really calms me. I'm glad knowing that, thanks a lot.

Yes. ^_^ These things really are designed with openness of information in mind - more so patents than copyright. Even if that US dude had patented your silver-working process, the patent would only last like 15-20 years (not like 100 years like in copyrights).

So basically I just need to let people know that the pattern/motif was a common/public knowledge before the patent was made?

Yup, if you can show the technique was public knowledge before the date of the patent, it doesn't fly... but that's just in Canada, hm? Different countries have different patent laws, but i remember they were mostly similar in spirit.

But I want to know, could a country claim a traditional art and music instrument as theirs and make a patent from it? Since it happened too, although I'm lost the newest information about this one.

Countries can't, but individuals and/or companies can. A country could simply make a company to do it, i guess.

But art and music doesn't come under patents. Patents only cover processes and techniques, and copyright covers instances or implementations... which is hard to explain without the fancy words. But, try to think of it like this... if you write a new algorithm to generate super fast rotating images, the algorithm can be patented, but not the code... and the code can be copyrighted, but not the algorithm. So if i wrote my own code that does the exact same thing yours does, i am not violating copyright, but i am violating patent. But if i copied your code and just left a copy on my hard-drive, without using it, i am not not violating patent, but i am violating copyright. The algorithm is a technique - it is a way to do something - so it can be patented, and anyone that does things the same way will be breaking patent, even if they don't copy your code (or even if they never see your code). The code is an implementation - it is a specific created thing - so it can be copyrighted, and anyone that copies it is breaking copyright, even if they don't use it.

i guess you could say patents are for ideas, and copyright is for creations.

But anyway, no, no one can copyright traditional music or art, and no one can patent traditional instruments. If you tried to copyright traditional art or music, then the copyright wouldn't be enforceable - i'd just ignore it, and you couldn't touch me. If you tried to patent traditional instruments, the patent office will (should) reject your patent.

Patents aren't like copyrights - copyrights cost nothing to get or maintain, and they last for a freaking lifetime or two. Patents cost thousands and thousands of dollars, and they only last a couple years. Hell, i've let at least half a dozen expire just cause i didn't want to have to pay thousands of dollars a year every year just to keep the fucking patent alive... and the amount you have to pay each year gets higher and higher every year! Screw that.

[yummy]

Isn't a patent used for inventions and innovations ?
IIRC, it covers industrial processes, software engineering, pharmaceutical results, material processing...

I thought that only something that comes from the mind (songs, art, writings) could be copyrighted, but not patented.

Anyway, at least where I live, only innovations can be patented (if you can prove it's an innovation). For example, you can't patent something that's already patented (naturally), something that is nearly the same as something that already exists (a wheel is still a wheel whatever its shape) or something that already exists in other countries (because of international patents).
But everything can be copyrighted... Even traditional songs but only because it's your interpretation that is copyrighted.

I didn't know about software patents and copyrights and it sure gives me headaches.

[Showsni]

Patents shouldn't really concern any of the works we make here, since none of our works are industrially applicable inventions in the first place.

How about if one of us came up with a totally new style of game, or way to interface with the computer, or something? Like the way windows uses windows, or similar. Not that's it's all that likely...

[ficedula]

How about if one of us came up with a totally new style of game, or way to interface with the computer, or something? Like the way windows uses windows, or similar. Not that's it's all that likely...

If you came up with a new and innovative hardware interface - like the Wiimote, perhaps - then yes, that could be patented. Although obviously anything similar to the Wiimote couldn't be, Nintendo got there first.

If you came up with a new software design or technique, it'd be patentable in the US, and probably not in Europe.

In all cases, though, patents are (unfortunately) nowadays more of a legal weapon than anything else. Particularly in the technological sector. So yeah; don't worry about them in relation to writing your magnum opus of a VN.