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.

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.