For what it's worth: Machine Design editorial - October 6, 2011

[JohnRBaker]

I don't often agree with the editor of 'Machine Design', Leland Teschler, but his editoral this month, "R&D doesn't mean innovation", does provide some 'food-for-thought' so I decided to share:

http://machinedesign.com/article/rd-doesn-t-mean-innovation-1006

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Killing off the patent system entirely would be an overreaction, but dialing it back a decade or two might help.

As I see it, the patent system went off the rails when they started issuing software patents, for two reasons:

1. Software was already adequately protected by copyright.

2. Patents were erroneously granted for some fundamental software or user interface concepts, because they were so old and/or obvious that no one had bothered to file on them until the patent troll plague arrived, and the corps of patent examiners was and remains stupendously underqualified to evaluate, or even comprehend, software.





Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[JohnRBaker]

With respect to the issue of software patents, I tend to agree with you. I've seen it abused and have been on the receiving end, perhaps not personally, but in terms of being asked to investigate how to go about responding to someone who was trying to harm our company over the issue of patents on exactly what you said, stuff that was so old it was hard to believe that anyone would ever think that they could get away with patenting something, but low and behold, they got the patents anyway.

DISCLAIMER: I'm co-inventor on two US patents, not for software, but for machinery used in the baking industry; 3,877,592 and 4,132,320.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[zdas04]

I'm in the last stages of patenting a device (my third patent, but the first one that I've paid for myself, the other two were owned by my employer). I can't believe how expensive this is. We just passed one year and $21k in legal fees.

The process being this expensive is a real barrier to garage innovation, it requires big-time corporate funding. The result is that you get the results described in the article.

The thing that he missed in his article is that innovation is a human concept--a corporation, government, or university simply cannot innovate, invent, or take a crap. People do those things. Another cliche that applies is "genius is where you find it". The next great, world-changing invention (maybe Heinlein's power from lightening bugs?) will come from an unexpected source (either a researcher who is looking for something else or a garage mechanic with a passion), and all the money in the world will not change that.

David

 

[JohnRBaker]

Haven't you heard, the US Supreme Court has ruled that "corporations are people too" %-(

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[TheTick]

Having "R&D" in your job title is like having "cut along dotted line" on your neck when budget cuts come around.

 

[Maui]

Tick, I have lived that scenario. The memories are not good ones.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[zdas04]

John,
You really are a funny guy. I think that Supreme Court decision was the dumbest conclusion I've ever heard of those pedantic old women making. It doesn't work in legislation, it doesn't work in case law, and it damn sure doesn't work in practice.

David

 

[JohnRBaker]

Yes, and the irony is that their ruling goes back to a precedent that never actually existed.

If you really want something to feel bad about, look up the case of 'Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad - 1885'. The headnotes for this case indicated that the court ruled that corporations shared most all of the same rights as does a normal citizen, and has since been sited as one of the primary precedents in virtually all federal cases which have touched on 'corporate personhood'. Unfortunately, the court NEVER EVER SAID THAT. It was just the 'creative wording' of the clerk who transcribed the headnotes from the court proceedings. His choice of words completely reversed what the actual ruling had been, and while this has been noted by virtually every historian and legal scholar who has looked into this, the erroneous 'ruling' has stood unchallenged all these years and has been instrumental in the growing power that corporations have gained as a result of several court cases culminating in the recent Citizens United case.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.