Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture
Message-ID: <2317@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 2 Jul 90 14:05:45 GMT
References: <4742@sunquest.UUCP> <63036@sgi.sgi.com> <PLB4MS9@xds13.ferranti.com> <13096@drilex.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 44

In article <13096@drilex.UUCP> dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes:

| Getting back to computer architecture, I agree with several other posters:
| the problem isn't with patents, it's with how long they run.  Seventeen
| years is longer than the life of many ideas these days.  (The attached-
| terminal minicomputer, for example.)  I think something on the order
| of seven to ten years would be more appropriate.

  Probably true, but because it may take years for something to get into
production, a long time is needed. What might be more to the point would
be either to expire the patent after a certain time before and after use
of it. For instance, you could have up to ten years to get a patent into
commercial use, then it goes away. If you get it in use you only get a
five-year monopoly.

  Forcing license after a given time at a limited royaltee is also a
possibility. If a patent doesn't pay off people will go back to trade
secret, and that's another can of worms.

  For human interface I would favor letting anyone patent one for four
(or about that) years, first claim gets it. This would eliminate the
court cases regarding first development. Since most interface ideas
spring forth full blown (and then get implemented) there is not the
need for a demonstrated working model. After all, once you say "let's
put the menu bar on the keyboard and pop the menus up on a 2nd screen
on the mouse" you've got the idea and can get a patent. 

  Again a period of protection before and after commercial use seems
fair. This forces prompt development and deployment of the idea, and
releases it if the original inventor can't make it work. For most human
interfaces the reasonable development period is a lot shorter than the
development of a mechanical product, and therefore some other rules
might be better for the public and even the inventors. 

  With an easier path to a patent, people could get a patent and then
have a few years to find a producer. The vendors could get the idea for
free after three years, but then everyone would have it. This would
remove some of the profit from patenting marginally useful ideas, while
the benefits of having a three or four year exclusive on an interface
would prevent vendors from just ignoring the significant inventions.

-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
            "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me