I just finalized the revisions for a patent application -- my first -- and it will be filed by the end of the week. It has been an interesting experience, but at the end of it all I'm not sure if I even want the patent any more. I guess it wouldn't actually be my patent anyway; it is the University's. About the only way that I can forsee the patent potentially affecting me is that it might complicate later research in which I make use of my own invention, because I might have to pay to license my own damn technology. I also can't make heads or tails out of the claims on my patent application. They were prepared by lawyers, in lawyer-speak suitable for the US patent office. What bothers me is that the scientific language in which I originally described the invention was clear enough for lawyers to understand. But the legalese of the final claims in my patent are written in no decipherable human language. It seems the patent process has been in every way stripped away from the control of the actual inventor. As if it weren't bad enough that the document is meaningless, the value of patents in general is being continually diluted by the granting of patents for trivial inventions, and for things that aren't inventions at all. As one of countless recent examples, IBM has received a patent on a method for paying programmers in exchange for work:

IBM patents method for paying open source volunteers: A PATENT IBM was granted last December is for an 'invention' that allows independent programmers who might work together to produce a unified software product. In fact, the patent, 6,658,642 goes further and gives examples such as open source software development such as Linux as the basis for its patent. The patent says that selected module programmers could earn money while those who don't win might get a 'pre-authorised' small payment as an extra incentive. Those payments, it continues, would be awarded to developers that submitted letters of intent and who submit modules that pass the module tests but are not selected. After this vetting, the modules will be integrated into a software package. It adds 'those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced with modification within the spirit and scope of the appended claims'. Well, it may be an ingenious way of paying open source developers and volunteers, Big Blue, but can it really be described as an invention?

I never thought someone would have the genius to patent capitalism itself. I think a pattern is emerging: patents are written in completely unclear language, and are issued for every rediculous thing. The actual patent itself, and its supporting documents, are totally irrelevant except as a ticket to court. Using a patent as a door-opening mechanism, a large company can pour dollars into legal action against a weaker company or individual. Typically the entity with more legal resources will win. The content of the patent is irrelevant. It only serves to enable litigation.