The Economist on Patent Reform

ar1550 writes "The Economist recently posted an opinion piece on the state of patent systems, describing not just the mess that is the USPTO but flaws present in Europe and Asia. From the article, "In 1998 America introduced so-called 'business-method' patents, granting for the first time patent monopolies simply for new ways of doing business, many of which were not so new. This was a mistake." The article also describes the difficulty of obtaining legitimate patents. "

Comments

Re:One-sided article

[Jumbo Jimbo]

The motivation for allowing business-method patents, described in this paper from Harvard Law School is that innovations were too easy to copy - essentially the same motivation behind the original idea of patents.

It seems that a good idea in principle may have resulted in legislation that is not working in practice because of a flawed framework / companies taking advantage (your choice). Not that I agree with the idea of business-method patents in the first place, but this may make the idea behind them clearer.

Re:One-sided article

[Rude Turnip]

The grandparent post was referring to the reason for business method patents, not patents for real things.

Re:One-sided article

[3StrangeAllies]

The big turning point in Business Method Patents, as someone stated, was State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. - 1998. The key point in this change of attitude was, according to Judge Rich, that "business methods have been, and should have been, subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method" (refering to In Re Schrader, 2 F.3d 290 (Fed.Cir.1994).
Somehow, it makes sense -- the general set of criteria for patentability should apply to most legal subject-matter (not sure that it would be wise to grant a patent to a new process to produce Cocain ;). Hence it is not the business method patentability in itself that seems flawed but the patent prosecution that let stuff go through without the proper checking. Especially regarding the facts in State Street, the mathematical process and business method really showed an innovative process, and it would have been counter-productive to bar this process from patentability...

Just my two €urocents...

Re:Superficial article

[Halo1]

1. It address the European patent policy in one line with the European Parliament. Clearly, the author is unaware of the complete separation between the European Patent Office and the European Union. Therefore, the European Union as such (and even less the European Parliament) can issue any decision with respect to the European Patent Convention.

Since all European patents have to be enforced in national courts under national laws which have to be in line with European directives, it does not make sense for the European Patent Office to grant patents which will obviously not be enforceable. In fact, a representative of the EPO said last Wednesday at a conference organised by the European Internet Foundation that whatever the outcome, the EPO will respect the directive by the EU.

Re:Who wrote it?

[yiangouk]

The Economist

"Articles, which are often heavily opinionated, almost never carry a byline. This means that no specific person or persons can be named as the author. Not even the name of the editor (currently Bill Emmott) is printed in the issue. The author of a piece is named in certain circumstances: when notable persons are invited to contribute opinion pieces; when Economist writers compile surveys; and to highlight a potential conflict of interest over a book review. The names of Economist editors and correspondents can be located, however, via the staff pages of the website."

Re:would this fix the bulk of the problem?

[PMuse]

Basically, keep things as is, but limit the patent term to,say, 5 years. After that patent owner can extend it to the full 17 year term but make the extension EXPENSIVE (say, 40K per patent)...

The system you suggest already exists and has existed for decades, albeit at about 1/10th the costs you propose. It is called Maintenance Fees. See 37 CFR 1.362 et seq. These fees are due at 4, 8, and 12 years after issuance. Big companies are charged higher amounts than small ones.