I found the text below on TechDirt. As some of you may know, I have been involved in some patent infringement cases myself so I have first hand knowledge of the issues involved here. IMHO, business process and software patents represent a huge threat to innovation in the software industry. Let’s just say that they shouldn’t exist at all and if we must allow them to exist then the process for attaining one should be EXTREMELY difficult (peer review, default DENY rules by examiners, etc).

—CUT HERE—

1. Add a test for obviousness (beyond prior art). Patents are supposed to be for “non-obvious” ideas, and the test is supposed to be non-obvious to those skilled in the art. That should allow patent reviews to involve input from those skilled in the art for a patent examiner to review.

2. Recognize that if multiple parties have created the same thing independently, than none should get patent protection — since it suggests the change was an obvious next step in the art, rather than a breakthrough that needs protection. Plus, at that point the market should be suitable to reward the better innovation.

3. Set up a system that allows for input from those in the space before a patent is granted, and when a patent is challenged. This means looking at more than just prior patents or journals as prior art. It also means not relying on patent examiners who may not really understand the space.

4. Patents should only be for things that have shown to actually work.

5. Since part of the point of the patent system is disclosure, patents must actually give enough information so that someone else can recreate the invention. If there is no benefit to disclosure (business model patents, for instance) than the patents shouldn’t be valid — as they’re too broad, and clearly don’t serve the purpose of adding to the general knowledge.

6. Shorten the length of patent protection, recognizing that markets change rapidly these days, and any head start is often enough to last long past patent protection.

7. Keep the system as first to invent, not first to file. First to file simply encourages more filing, rather than better filings.

8. Let the patent office (with outside input) review the validity of patents before courts rule on patent cases.

9. Do not fund the patent system from patent application fees (sets up a situation where incentives are in place to have more patents filed).

10. Patent examiners should switch from “when in doubt, accept” to “when in doubt, reject.” Patent examiner bonuses and promotions should not be based on how many patents they get through.

—END CUT—

Click HERE for the original article (read the comments section).

Manly

The following parable was originally penned by a man named Don Dodson of Ft. Worth, Texas. It has been reprinted and shuffled around many times.

He should get the credit

This version was reprinted by the author listed below.

Manly

— CUT HERE —
Understanding Tax Cuts
by: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D

Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; “It’s just a tax cut for the rich!” and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men — the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Click HERE

Thanks Richard.

Manly

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

His adrenaline habit eventually caught up with him.

See this LINK for more info on his life.

Manly

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

At first I thought this was a joke. However, after viewing the whole thing I think he was really serious.

Thanks Richard.
Manly