Patent Reform Bill Introduced in U.S. House

kanad wrote to mention a ZDNet article covering the introduction of the Patent Reform Act of 2005 to the U.S. House of Representatives. From the article: "Probably the most sweeping change would be the creation of a process to challenge patents after they are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. 'Opposition requests' can be filed up to nine months after a patent is awarded or six months after a legal notice alleging infringement is sent out. The bill is supported by the USPTO and Microsoft who have been recently asking for patent reforms ." More details of the bill are available at the Congressman's website."

Comments

Be suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bill is supported by...Microsoft who have been recently asking for patent reforms."

Everybody should immediatly be very, very suspicious of this bill if that's the case. What do they stand to gain then, exactly? You can bet it isn't immediatly obvious. Has anyone checked all the sub-cluases on this thing yet?

Re:Be suspicious

[malkavian]

The problem MS has with this, is that software patents have been so badly screwed, that people have taken out all kinds of obvious and trivial patents, hoping to screw someone out of some money by holding them up in courts.

Having the ability to challenge the patent/get it closely examined is a step in the right direction.
MS, I think, are a little worried now, after having so many patent suits brought against them, that someone may well have a critical submarine patent that could apply to their core business tucked away somewhere.

Having it enshrined that you can actually challenge the patent before having the patent used to drain you dry could perhaps change the whole IP arena, and make the IP only hoarding companies much more expensive to maintain (no more fishing trips if they really have to pay for each patent they want to apply, and stand the chance of losing their cherished patent at the same time).

Yes, MS get to benefit from this. There again, so does the 'little guy'.
It may not cure all ills, but it stands a good deal more in the right direction.

The limit on time is a very good move also, as it prevents a 'big fish' from holding a valid patent holder in court forever and a day challenging their patent, and making it for all intents and purposes irrelevant.

why big corporations like this

[cinnamon colbert]

altho it may seem strange, patents are very cheap by corp stds - diy for a few Kbucks, and in a well run company, even with the attys, it is 50 Kbuck to file a patent - this is small money for even small companies (think about the cost of hiring 10 programmers, with fringe + office space).

HOwever, if you allow oppositions, then you get into court type appeals, and the cost skyrocktes, so only very large, well heeled companies can afford to do battle. For example, say MS does not like a patent on how to handle wierd fonts. They can afford to fly in experts from all over the world, gets hundreds of hours of video testimony, do studys, etc. How is a small company going to fight that ? not to mention the years of delay, which always work in favor of hte big guy with cashflow.

NOt to say that the patent system isnt full of problems - there are certainly a lot of patents out their that should never have been granted.

HOwever, if you want to do something for the small guy, change the system from date of invention (which requires record keeping to a std to satisfy attorneys) to date of filing, which is obvious. this would really help the small guy

Text of proposed bill

[Anonymous Coward]

can be found at:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/sections/ipse ction/2005_draft-patent-statute.pdf

(would someone like to mirror this?)

Re:No more patents for little guys.

[blueZhift]

Unfortunately, the little guy is already out of luck. Doesn't it cost something on the order of $10K or more to file a patent these days? And in the current round of patent abuse, much of the trouble is being caused by scum sucking companies whose business plan is to gather up patents and then sue everyone who is doing anything remotely related to those patents. Often their first targets are, you guessed it, the little guys. So the new law appears to shift the balance from the scum sucking patent aggregators back to the big "evil" corporations. The little guy is still on the ground being trampled!

Read 2nd Part

[Ironsides]

or six months after a legal notice alleging infringement is sent out.

So if I decide to challenge someone in court after the 9 months are up, anyone can choose to try to kill the patent for the next 6 months. Basically, as long as I don't try to sue anyone, the patent would be able to stand after that 6 months. As soon as I try to sue someone (which is what we really care about) there are 6 months for someone to initiate proceedings against the patent every time I try to sue.

Re:This bill needs to be opposed

[cpt kangarooski]

No, not necessarily. Your invention isn't magically prior art -- it takes a little bit of work for it to be. You can see some of the conditions at 35 USC 102. Generally, it needs to be published, patented, or used, to be prior art.

But rest assured -- this bill will allow BigCompany to get a patent and keep you out, despite your having invented the widget before them. Right now, when there is a dispute about this sort of thing, the PTO has a process called an interference which determines who invented first. This would do away with all that. It's simple, but gets it wrong.

Re:The rest of the world is wrong?

[NigelJohnstone]

"You mean that Europe does not check who invented something first before awarding a patent for it?"

Before the patent officers started screwing around with patents it worked like:

1. You have to keep your invention secret. (NDAs etc.)
2. You have to be the first to file for the patent.
3. If the invention has already been disclosed it cannot be patented, even if you can show you are the inventor.
4. If you don't patent it promptly you can't patent it.

No, you really are about to fuck the patent system

[NigelJohnstone]

"unless they modified 35 USC 102(f), which requires the applicant to, in fact, be the inventor of the subject matter for which the patent is sought."

European company invents "Magic wheel 2000".
US patent scam company comes later to patent office with "Wonder wheel 3000", which they simply designed by looking at Magic Wheel 2000, understanding how it worked and writing a patent.

You have no way of telling that they are NOT the inventor, because you could never know if they read up on the "Magic Wheel 2000" before time. You cannot read minds.

At the moment you have a crude test, the "Invention date", if they can show they invented it first, then they could not have simply copied the Magic Wheel 2000 because time flows forward.

You are about to remove the only test (and it is a piss poor test at that) that the person is the inventor.

Oppose patents BEFORE grant

[Anonymous Coward]

How?
Well the UK Patent Office has just revised their guidelines on how to make third party observations:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2005/3 105.htm
and
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /introduction.htm
You can now make observations by email:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /observations.htm