Slashdot Mirror
Congress to Overhaul Patent Law
karvind writes "According to story at law.com, 'lawmakers in Washington are considering changes to the patent code that would bring U.S. law closer to intellectual property standards in the rest of the industrialized world.' The stated result of Patent Reform Act of 2005, HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently' and be 'less prone to litigation.'"
Just like the tax code.
First to file?!? So Microsoft and IBM are going to own everything that other people invent, who don't have the budget to patent?
Fucking assholes.
So, this means Amazon.com can get their patents in about an hour, huh?
Here are some nice points at the end of the article, and my thoughts on each...
Changes the current "first to invent" standard to "first to file," which means patent rights go to the first inventor to file for a patent who can provide sufficient evidence for a claimed invention.
Biggest mistake, in my opinion. All of the patent infringement cases that I have heard of in the news as of late have not been by an inventor that has thought that another person had stolen his idea, but rather
by companies, with questionably vague patents, suing infringers, or rightful blatant patent infringement, usually perpetrated by larger companies.
Eliminates the subjective "best mode" requirement from 112 of the Patent Act, delineating objective criteria that an inventor must set forth in an application
This seems fine to me.
Imposes a duty of candor and good faith on parties to contested cases before the patent office, eliminating inequitable conduct as a defense of patent unenforceability.
Don't know what this means exactly. Kind of scary that you'd have to legislate "duty of candor and good faith though"
Reduces the scope of willful infringement by raising the standard of proof required, and limits the amount of damages a patentholder can collect from an infringer
Like any damage caps, this is good and bad. Good for the little guy getting sued by MegaCorp., terrible for the little company MegaCorp. is doing patent infringement on.
Limits patentees' ability to get injunctions, directing courts with jurisdiction over patent cases to stay an injunction pending an appeal if it finds that the stay neither will cause irreparable harm to the patent owner nor the balance of hardships from the stay favor the patent owner
Like the previous step, good and bad, like any legislative tool.
Authorizes the director of the patent office to regulate continuation applications -- subsequent patent applications filed by the same inventor, based on information included in an earlier application, but containing different claims
I don't understand this, why should there be continuation applications at all? New claims? New patent. Old patent should not expire earlier.
Establishes a new post-grant opposition system in the patent office
How does this work? Can anyone file to get a patent looked at? How does this lessen patent litigation?
Allows members of the public to introduce new information to the patent office up to six months after the date of publication of the patent application to challenge the patent and to provide a final quality check (10).
Might be good to allow this any time a patent litigation suit is brought. Avoids submarine patents.
All and all, it is good that Congress is looking into this, but I think some of their remedies here are dangerous, and also, that the article has it right.
More money for patent examiners, and not allocating money based on patent acceptance/rejection (thus giving them an incentive to accept all patents) would
be a better use of their time and money. Not to mention, more enforcement of things like "obviousness".
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
How about we just bring the patent system a little closer to SANITY instead?
We don't need lawyers to solve this problem, we need psychiatrists.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
They'll save us from 'litigation' by creating a new bureaucracy of patent dispute resolution within the executive branch.
Same story, bankrolled by the taxpayers instead of the corporations, with no juries, no appeals, and thus no risk for said corps.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
So if you can't afford $30,000 in patent and lawyer fees, you bette not bother coming up with any ideas?
And even if you do, your lawyer better handle it faster than the lawyer for a multi-billion dollar multi-national with 100,000 employees and more resources than most nations?
Yeah. This totally seems fair and entirely within the spirit intended by the originators of the system. *cough*
...and I havent RTFB (bill), but it wouldn't surprise me if this did the exact opposite of whatever it claims to do. It probably gives several major corporations further right to completely own yur azz...
that would bring U.S. law closer to intellectual property standards in the rest of the industrialized world.
They're going at war again?
I like the idea in general, but there are some things that need addressing:
1) How will the system handle cases where an idea is stolen from an employee by a corporation or by another party?
2) Because of the implementation of method patents, how will the USPTO handle prior art for business or coding methods?
3) Will the bill also put the USPTO fees in a lockbox to stop patent examiner losses?
4) What little abuses and other nastiness is hidden within the bill?
Five bucks says the unstated continuation of that reads '...to make the system work more efficiently and be less prone to litigation, on behalf of our benefactors and major contributors to our campaign coffers. With any luck at all, the proletariat won't make the connection.'
--
When we fear the .sigs, the .sigs have already won.
More importantly, will the changes be retroactive, thus throwing out the plethora of obvious patents we've seen recently???
It appears that with the new rules, it may be essential to at least attempt to patent every new idea because if the competition files first, then your "invent first" defense may not work anymore. I wonder how that conflicts with other free trade rules. At least this is good for companies that are throwing thousands of patents at the patent office. I guess they are going to get their moines worth.
See Cringely's take from last week.
I, for one, don't like the first-to-file system, because it is easy for something like the recent Apple/MS iTunes interface thing. Apple CLEARLY introduced it first, and yet MS has filed for a patent. I wonder, if a case like this went before the Supreme Court, would they say that Apple had the right to the patent after all?
That would suck, some person working for years on a new device, only for someone to learn about it and file a patent first and get away with it.
We should be tackling the real issue, which is allowing patents for "a method to put numbers in a box" and the like. Obvious patents should not only not be granted, but if it's blatantly obvious, they should be fined or at the least admonished for wasting time and resources on it.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050818. html
(and heavily criticized) here.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Does anyone have any idea who sponsored this bill?
Ignore Alien Orders
(also negative) here.
In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special interest law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us because it will only act to discourage inventors. Record and movie companies beating-up on music and film pirates don't save or cost lives, but discouraging new medical inventions literally does cost lives.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
"That's because in contrast to an anti-cancer drug that might be 'one big drug based on one big idea,' a computer software program, comprising millions of lines of code, could be 'hundreds of bright ideas [that] equal maybe no patents at all, [that] equal maybe one patent, or hundreds of bright ideas [that] equal hundreds of patents.'"
The whole idea here will only hold up as long as our understanding of genetics is poor.
The GM Golden Rice wasn't one big idea, but many ideas properly composed together (recreating many pathways from different plants within one species for an overall effect of more beta-carotene).
When we get good at this, GM species (say a terraforming microbe for mars if you're squeamish about food) will be massive groups of synthesized genetic code like software. With an open research environment (not that that is likely with today's terrorist-fearing society), complex products based on many lines of code could end up conflicting in the same way software patents so often do.
And oh, what a mess when we get to open-source genetic programming!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." -Isaac Asimov
... Patent Reform Act of 2005, HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently' and be 'less prone to litigation.'
Since a patent is nothing more than a license to sue, making the system "work 'more efficiently'" implies making it MORE "prone to litigation".
IMHO if they want to "harmonize" it with the rest of the world's systems, they should start by making both business methods and software unpatentable.
We also need a rule: A program which simply automates or simulates a well-known process (absent something truly novel and innovative about the WAY it automates that well-known process) should fail the test of being novel and innovative. Straightforward automation and simulation are techniques "Well known to people versed in the art" (of computer programming).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
When I saw the word "Overhaul" I was hoping for something like "Penalize spamming patents with gross sums of cash" or "Remove software patents". Nothing of the sort from the look of it. Bummer.
... it may be essential to at least attempt to patent every new idea because if the competition files first, then your "invent first" defense may not work anymore. I wonder how that conflicts with other free trade rules.
As I recall they now can publish denied applications. If that's correct, this would create a double-bind that destroys trade secret.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
In an effort sponsored by Microsoft, and every other litigating company, congress is planning to reform the US patent system....
Really, I mean this as an honest-to-goodness suggestion, not as flaimbait. Of course it will never happen, but spend a few minutes thinking about it, for a real SANITY check.
For starters: The patent system was supposed to originally protect the individual inventor. Those days are LONG past!
Anyone who thinks that the lack of a patent system would mean no more viable businesses is simply not applying their imagination. It would truly create an even playing field. YES businesses would need to change, but that does not mean that there would be no more drugs, or software, or whatever your version of "the sky would fall" is. All of these things would continue but the WAY they would continue would be completely different. For me I would like access to practically free prescription drugs.
Unfortunately, most who read this "crazy idea" will not "get it", but I'm putting it out there anyway.
hahahahahaha
"Five bucks says the unstated continuation of that reads '...to make the system work more efficiently and be less prone to litigation, on behalf of our benefactors and major contributors to our campaign coffers."
If Slashdotters can't be a "We"? Then what makes you think "benefactors" and "majour contributors"* are a "We"?
*Let alone you pulled your "guess" out of your ass.
OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT...EJECT! EJECT!
One more example of how we are handing the marketplace to other nations.
There is going to come a time - not yet at least - where countries are going to realize the US does a lot more "talk" about inventing than actually inventing.
At that point, the patent treaties are going to be re-examined, and the US will be left out in the code.
Already there are devices and gadgets made in other countries, sold in other countries and continents - and you will realize the US is becoming the backwaters.
For example, most cell phone goodies are sold outside the US first and then maybe make it over here two or three years later.
When it comes to new technologies, the US is becoming an after-thought to those countries out there who want to "make something."
Maybe they can get rid of the software patents before it's too late, otherwise Micro$oft will have everything locked up.
Took me five whole minutes to get this article, so I thought I might as well share it with the friendly slashdot readers!
Bill in Congress to Overhaul Patent Law Seeks to Quell Suits
Support seen to make U.S. system more consistent with others
Peter Geier
The National Law Journal
08-19-2005
Lawmakers in Washington are considering changes to the patent law that would bring U.S. code closer to intellectual property benchmarks in the rest of the developing world.
They want to change the U.S. patent system from the uniquely American "last to invent" to "the first to file" standard the rest of the world utilizes.
The essential nature of the Patent Reform Act of 2004, HR 2605, which could evolve from a House of Representatives subcommittee after Labour Day, is to make the system work more hastily and make the process of obtaining a patent less costly and less prone to lawyering.
Some patent district attorneys and trade union associations disparage the proposed reforms as the long overdue, objective revamping of an udated, objective system -- the most sweeping systematic changes in half a decade.
Others, however, say that the problem of adequate funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should be analyzed before specific reforms are MD5 hashed, and that the telescope of injunctions under the proposed reformation and other provisions needs more considering.
Herbert C. Humphreydale, executive director of Intellectual Property Owners Association, a Washington-based informatics group representing property owners in the computer industry and technology field, called the proposed legislation "probably the biggest attempted assasination of the patent code since 1952.
"The reforms will only bring legal uncertainty to patent absurdity, and none of them will address the quality of patents and reduce litigation costs," Wamsley said, adding that bringing U.S. patent law more in line with the developing world could also begin to lay the groundwork for "an international terrorist strike that will destablize patent systems."
But the intellectual property community has yet to see which measures will make it out of committee, and not everyone shares Wamsley's ulterior outlook.
Catriona M. Collins, a patent litigator at Latman, Latman & Latman in New Jersey, is among a number of legal types who say it makes no sense to discuss reformationing the system without first revaluing funding the PTOS.
"The basic problem is the quality of patents," Collins said, and to consider reforming the systematic without first giving patent examination the resources to do their jobs proper like is really just rude.
William A. Rodger, public policy director for the Computer & Communications Industry Association in Washington, agrees that "the issue of basic patent quantity remains the elephant."
Peripheral to this issue is the potential that an administrative body such as the PTOS, funded by its own fees, runs the risk of confusing the service it provides when the money it takes in relates to the money it puts out. Dissociative drug funding and revenue would be a step in the right direction, said Rodger.
Wamsley acknowledged that from 1792 to 1994, about three-quarters of a billion dollars in PTOS fees "were diverted to other government agencies for ulterior purposes," resulting in staffing increases that translated into a considerable stink backlog.
"The patent office is hiring 1,000,000 patent examiners in 2005 and another 1,000,000 patent examiners in 2006 -- a really, really big staff buildup -- to catch up with the workload," he said.
SCOPE OF INJUNCTIONS
Rodger and others also have expressed concern that the bull-pit pharmaceuticals and biotechnologies will attack the "completely different world" of information and software technology.
For instance, pharma/biotech industries "need the power of the one ring to stop the infringement of their patents, but the proposed infringement standar
click through the title link to the real text link of the proposed law. It shifts around a bit of prior art (makes it LESS important) and just makes it easier for those with deeper pockets to jump on the patent bandwagon for miniscule differences. It's hype as reform, it's just rearranging the same old patent crap into a neater pile. It still allows BS software patents, it doesn't require any increase in "newness" or "uniqueness". And if the new patentable function is obvious to someone knowledgeable in this or that "art" it might fall under, then it shouldn't be patentable in the first place.
I couldn't get on to the article either. Thanks for posting it.
To me this change to who files first is Microsoft using it's Washington connection to change the law so Microsoft can go after Apple for the iPod, which Apple did before Microsoft files a patent.
Seems to me the inventor, not neccessarly the first filer aught to have some rights. Or this whole system goes to the lawyers who file trivial and fradulent patents while others try to make our life better.
Slashdot, be sure to patent your "blogging" or Microsoft will come for you...
Has a ring to it, "Whatcha going to do when Microsoft comes for you..."
'less prone to litigation.'???
Yeah, like that will ever happen in this here "United Corporations of Litigation America"! Doesn't anyone understand? Our country was founded (sorry, I meant IS now founded) on lawsuits!
I'd like to sponsor a bill preventing Orrin Hatch from voting on any bills... It should prevent things like this from happening for the near future.
"...and I havent RTFB (bill), but it wouldn't surprise me if this did the exact opposite of whatever it claims to do. It probably gives several major corporations further right to completely own yur azz..."
You people are a hoot. You can read computer source code and tell me if there's a security problem. But when provided the source code to a bill, you're completely lost. And to add insult to injury, in the former you'll say "I don't know". In the latter you'll do a IANA...buuut!
Well, in reality, if you can't come up with $30K for a patent 1. You're not serious about it anyway and will just waste the time and money of the patent office and 2. Even if you are serious, you'll never be able to bring it to market in any kind of meaningful way, anyway.
I don't respond to AC's.
....DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE in the spirit of the human right to contribute to the advancement of mankind?
What we have here, in the US, is fraud in the claims of software being patentable. If this isn't bad enough, now they want to remove the incentive from inventors and pass it to the theives of inventors.
Except for software which is by far more based upon the unique human conscious ability to create and use higher level abstractions. That which falls into the category of what is not patentable in all regards.
Just how deep does such political shit get before the public says no and in essence writes another statement of human rights to advance, stripping the frauds of the power they have managed to get the public to give them?
If you are going to strip the natural rights away from those who advance mankind, then who is going to? Frauds, theives, etc...
What would anyone in their right mind expect of such control? Childish greed and abuse of course... just can't get enough from the pieons....to satisify the corrupt...
We don't need a more efficient patent system for software! We need NO patents for software! Purely intellectual processes (possibly using pencil and paper for scratchpad results) should not be patentable! Die Gedanken sint frei!
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Well lets see, the current system takes years for a patent to get a rubber stamp from the USPTO. Then it is up to the courts to determine whether or not it is a legit patent if, sorry, when someone challenges it.
At least Congress is now setting reachable goals...
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
As a chemist and someone who is more than passingly familiar with the pharmaceutical industry, I can tell you you're flat wrong. For a drug that costs $200,000,000.00 to develop and costs $0.50/dose to make, please tell me how drugs get developed in a completely patent-free environment.
Any responses that fall under "make drugs cheaper to develop" will be thoroughly ignored.
This "first to file" thing worries me. How is an invention defined? Say I come up with an idea that I think to perfectlu obvious. Since it is obvious, I won't bother patenting it. Then can some slimy corporation file a patent for my obvious idea, leaving me up the creek?
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
See http://www.piausa.org./ This is not about real reform, it is about large predatory companies wanting to change the law to facilitate theft of others intellectual property. I am the president of PIAUSA and we are the same inventors who pulled the fangs from the last so called patent reform. Join our efforts to protect the patent syatem from the Microsofts of the world.
HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently' and be 'less prone to litigation.'
<rant>
Less prone to litigation, or less prone to innovation?
I know I really shouldn't be, but I am always amazed at our government's tendency to treat the symptoms rather than the causes of problems. I just don't see how first-to-file encourages anything other than filing as many patent applications as possible without actually innovating.
But I'm sure the big business owners that kindly provide a place for our representatives to live (i.e. their front pockets) have nothing to do with it.
</rant>
Welcome to Slashdot, fellow intellectual.
You'll notice plenty of commentary, and even suggestions that have an implicit IANA..., and sometimes explicit. Here on Slashdot, we're all experts on content and it's creation. The legal system, and government. We're even experts on business. Combined, that exerts an influence on the rest of the world that amounts to a gnat's fart on a tree. So relax, and enjoy the entertainment that Taco's helpfully been providing for several years. And remember, like pro wrestling, it's all fake.
... flipping lies.... claims of the opposite of what is.
Such as statement of getting inline with the rest of the world and claims of supporting the "common view"
Neither of which has anything to do with what the by far majority of the population of the world wants but rather is a back and forth game between the few at the microphone trying to dictate what the world wants via telling you lies about what the world wants.
The jump on the band wagon that doesn't actually exist, in an effort to make it exist.
these tactics were attempted in Europe regarding effort to pass software patents.... claims of getting inline with the US and the use of "common view" that wasn't common at all. Not to mention the very questionable history of the effort..
Abolish the patent system altogether. The only ones that lose are lawyers and patent trolls.
will be "clickless wonders"?
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Hopefully, the trial lawyers lobby can come through with us.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
You fail it! The patent has already been filed!
The US patent system continously strike me as absurd, absurd, absurd.
Biggest mistake, in my opinion. All of the patent infringement cases
I think it's not a mistake at all; my question would be: what took them so long? The patent system isn't supposed to reward invention, it's supposed to reward disclosure of inventions. If people sit on their inventions because they know they can still get a patent unter first-to-invent, then that rewards the kind of behavior that the patent system was supposed to discourage in the first place.
Like any damage caps, this is good and bad. Good for the little guy getting sued by MegaCorp., terrible for the little company MegaCorp. is doing patent infringement on.
I suspect that the little guy will still get more than enough money under this from MegaCorp. But overall, this reduces risk, in particular for little guys, and that's a good thing.
Should be the title...
No doubt the final text of the bill will include $4.2 million for hog farmers in southern indiana as well as parts which will screw the little guy.
Think for a second boys and girls, think hard - when was the last time that congress passed something that did not benefit the companies that paid for their election campaigns.
I don't want to sound too negative or bitter, but really, you have to be cynical about this.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Want to fix? Start here.
1) Patents should have no predetermined time limit.
2) PTO operations must be conducted independent of PTO financials. PTO must be publically funded, but can be derived from private sources (see 3).
3) All patents are given value according a publically traded exchange. If value falls belows a minimum for an extended period patent is automatically public domained.
4) Majority election by patent share holders reserve the right to public domain a patent at anytime. Once done can not be reversed.
5) Rigor in application of first-to-invent, prior art and diffentia; and limits on corporate ownership of employee's inventions (i.e. legal minimum of personal share ownership.)
:T:R:A:N:S:
If I patent the patent procedure, will the universe explode?
FLR
Changes the current "first to invent" standard to "first to file"
I guess there is no more "prior art" problem for the IP-only blood*#$*@$*$. Yey!
If someone like Microsoft is for this, then they will lose BIG time. Unless of course they'll get to cap the loses to $5M per patent or so... Oh well, I'll just patent the Windows interface then "The method of presenting contents in overlapping screen areas". And then "The single mouse button mouse". Oh, and the "MS invented the iPod" patent would also hold.
From bad to worse. Yey!
Patents aren't supposed to be blanket rights to your invention. The constution is quite clear about it. The section that authorizes congress to create things like patents reads: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The real key there is "To promote the progress of". The whole reason they are allowed to make IP law is to promote science and the arts to progress. The reasoning being, we are a capatalism, and so there needs to be a profit motive. For that, you can't have people simply copying your work at no charge.
However the other end of that is an obligation for you to make your work available. To simply use it as a tool to keep your work for yourself isn't helping progress.
That's one of the things that annoys me about many people (including many politicians) is they seem to think the constution is some quaint little document to be ignored when they don't like what it says. No dammit, it's the supreme law of the land, the one to which all others must subordinate. Well, often powers that are deligated are done with limits. It doesn't say congress has the right to establish laws to give people unlimited rights to their IP, it says they can give them rights for limited times, and only those such as to promote the progress of the arts and sciences.
Personally I'd like to see a use-it-or-lose-it clause for patents. That if you file a patent you are obligate within a reasonable amount of time, say a year, to either bring a product to market that uses the patent, or license it out to those that want to. You can't just patent something and sit on it, hoping someone else will make something and then try to sandbag them when they do.
I'd also like to see it changed to you have to enforce your patent, or you lose it, like a trademark. So if someone brings a product to makrket that you should reasonably be aware of (meaning it's not like only sold in one small store or something) you are obligated to enforce your patent. You cannot wait until they have a huge established market, and then attempt to extort them. You have to be up front about it, or you lose the patent.
First of all, "the rest of the world" has had strong patent protection a lot longer than the US; US companies were infamous for flaunting patents.
Now, as for "first to invent", that's just bad policy. The patent system is supposed to encourage disclosure of inventions; if you don't disclose, you shouldn't get patent protection. But "first to invent" lets people sit on their ideas without disclosing them, and then sue people who actually went through the trouble of getting a patent. That just plain sucks.
It's just my opinion, but "first to file" looks like a good way to screw small inventors, of which I know quite a few.
Small inventors are already screwed under the current system; first to invent may help small inventors a little bit in a few cases, but it's a band aid on severed artery. In fact, you can bet that companies are already gaming the system with it, and that it's only going to get worse.
If we want to help small inventors (and I'm all for that, being one myself), we need to rethink fundamentally what we want patents to do and what we want patents to be. But a good first step is to make patent law more rational, and this bill seems to do that.
So is ScuttleMonkey pretty much running slashdot half of the time now? It sure looks that way lately.
Ok, lets allow people to file patents on stuff that already exist then extort money from the true innovator.
God spoke to me.
They want to change the U.S. patent system from the uniquely American "first to invent" to "the first to file" standard the rest of the world uses.
BAD!!! The one who invents is who should get the patent. And software shouldn't patented, software already enjoys legal protection, it's called copyright. Ideas and "business methods" shouldn't patented either!
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is BS - first to file means the innovators of the future will be patent secretaries who'll file vague claims to for a litigation friendly future.
I'm for going further away from standard "world practice" and going back to the 19th century Patent Office where you have to provide a working model along with the application. How it used to be. No more BS-ridden unreadable application that want to change your paradigm of life by synergized the future. Just cold hard proof of either a new idea or not.
The USPTO must have a WORKING example or evidence that there is one. That would prevent things like the guy who claims to have come up with the iTunes interface before Apple. In fact, why patent software all together?? Isn't it already protected by copyright? Why should I not be able to write my own software similar in function and look to iTunes? They are not doing anything different with it then what Winamp has done and there are only so many ways to sort music.
Gorkman
Too bad I just patented overhauling patent law!
> Now, as for "first to invent", that's just bad policy. The patent system is supposed to encourage disclosure of inventions; if you don't disclose, you shouldn't get patent protection. But "first to invent" lets people sit on their ideas without disclosing them, and then sue people who actually went through the trouble of getting a patent. That just plain sucks.
...
...
But the new system totally screws those people using something they didn't think was patentable (or which they didn't have enough money and lawyers to litigate into something patentable by filing tons of continuations until they finally beat the USPTO into resignation)
Besides, it's not as though we can learn anything from patents--they're written in legalese so that a normal person skilled in the art of computer science either cannot figure out how on earth to write the program or else figures out that it's incredibly trivial and can be done in a Perl one-liner--and if you've ever read the patent, it seems like you're automatically guilty of willful infringement and get hit with triple damages...
So given what I've observed of how patents are used in practice, they disclose worthless, useless drivel at least for software patents, normal people don't bother to patent the idea of doing _ on the internet using readily available standard technology, and it really sucks to be sued by the first dumbass who thought of patenting it when you've been doing it for years. For example, why does Microsoft get the iPod interface patent (and WHY can you patent a rather normal kind of interface, anyhow?)
Kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't there.
The way things go, I say screw the whole of Imaginary Proprty law and let inventors use NDAs and licensing if they want to sell their technology--it's basically what they do already, anyhow, whether or not it's codified into law that they "own" these ideas for however long.
In other words, IMHO, the *weakest* patent law is the best.
Well now, this bill couldn't be a more flagrant example of corporate special interests being codified into law by the bought and paid for of Washington D.C., can it?
The passing of rights from the first to invent to the first to file amounts to a quantum shift in protecting the rights of inventors and their work. Now corporations who make a living at borrowing..err..being inspired by...err...ripping off someone else's work need not be bothered by a troublesome lawsuit by the legitimate inventor that ordinarily would hold them accountable for their actions.
Now ripping off an invention is, potentially, just a rubber stamp away from being legitimized under US law. More importantly, it provides a bar against the inventor's (former) right to have the matter heard in a court of law, the last place common thieves want to find themselves in.
Let's have a think about a sample case.
I'm writing a game. Off and on. For the last five years I've been mulling through the ideas around characters in an RPG who have emotional reactions to things, and those reactions change their actions. Eventually they get back to normal, and their actions are unaffected by unusual or heightened emotional states.
My goal is to make a game with characters who behave more realistically, and who seem to have deeper lives.
That bit's all true. I'm so far from done it's not funny, but let's enter Hypothetical-World.
I decide one day (after a severe blow to the side of my head) that I want to patent my ideas on emotional-character interaction. They seem pretty unique to me, and I can't see why I shouldn't. After all, physics libraries are popping up (eg Havok), so why not an emotions library? I can see uses and all sorts of things. Maybe I can even make money! Maybe not though.
Let's take a chance.
To patent it, I have to spend lots of money. I can't afford that, so I need to either present my work to someone else (eg Electrogames Are-us, or 'EA' as I'll call them from here) and work for them, or develop it, licence it then patent it as quickly as possible.
Both options are risky, but I decide on a third route. I go to EA and show them what I've got. I say that I'll licence to them, thinking that with the money I get I'll be able to patent.
EA seem interested but decline the idea. I'm a bit stumped so I look into selling assets because I'm convinced this can be a success.
Six months later I go to file, but the concepts have just been patented by EA! I read the documents and see all my own work patented by someone else.
What are my options then?
Under first-to-invent I should be able to appeal. Under first-to-file I lose, and years of my own work are lost. I can't even continue working on them, because anything I release will then be a patent violation. Of course under the new laws I can force EA to licence to me, but then I'm paying to use my own ideas.
Back in the Real World (patent pending) I can see this happening more and more. In fact, a company can even file a bunch of speculative patents on software methods and then later on worry about developing them safe in the knowledge that no-one else can use those ideas.
Is this going to encourage good invention? Is this going to spread wealth more evenly than the present system? Are small businesses or individuals protected from predatory companies under the new laws?
Disclaimer: No patents were hurt or abused during the writing of this post. I believe that software patents can work, but only when we consider the vast array of prior work up to now, and when we also consider what an obvious method is. 'Electrogames Are-us' is wholly ficticious and any perceived similarities to existing companies is wholly your own issue. Read at your own risk. In fact, reading to the bottom of this statement legally transfers all your IP to the author. And your firstborn child, unless they're whiny little turds.
Old news..this was on Groklaw last Thursday. Go over there and you can read some very good discussions without the /. BS. There are several patent lawyers and patent holders who provide some very interesting perspectives.
So you were wrong in saying that the grandparent was wrong, but right with the rest of it.
closer to intellectual property standards in the rest of the industrialized world
Global standards guys, global forces, one world, one global state. Bilderberg have even admitted they will need to use UN forces to control American patriots.
You can also go to an IP fund with it. The IP fund will pay for patent & lawyer but will also take a significant piece of the pie (around 50%).
The Raven
What does this mean for somebody who invents something that one doesn't want to patent (, say, if that person wants to give the invention to the world)? Does this mean that anybody can come in and file a patent for it and inventor be damned? In particular, open source software could produce many patentable ideas.
I can't see a solid distinction between prior art and prior invention.
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/065.htmlForbe s Article
Ronald Katz has sued and won big companies over processes like "routing calls through a call center", or using a telephone to check a bank balance or transfer funds. (IVR) - Interactive Voice Response
While Katz never invented any of these technologies, he decided to patent the process, which was never patented before. He was awarded the patent, but unfortunately for the users of this technology, they were sued. Even though AT&T bell labs invented most of the telephony technology, they never patened the "Process". Unfortunately for them, Mr. Katz did.
"...changes that benefit both the patent law industry and the corporate interests."
Dear God, what more can they give away? How about a clause: "Any corporation donating more than $50,000 to the re-election committe for any congressional co-sponsor of this legislations will be allowed to choose one consumer electronics device from any Wal Mart in that congressman's district, and will be granted a full retroactive patent on all technologies utilized by the selected product."
I think volume discounts should apply: two devices for $75,000; three for $100,000; etc...
The "patent first" clause would create a pretty remarkable free-for-all, mad scramble, even more than we have now, to patent every idiotically simple established technology under the sun, let alone every moronically simple extension of any existing technology or device.
The bill is so utterly idiotic I have trouble imagining that it could actually pass. Which is saying an awful lot considering how cynical I've grown over the last few years.
Thanks, but no thanks. You guys have done enough "overhauling" already: from the Sonny Bonehead Copyright Extension Act to the Draftedby MPAA Copynothing Act your efforts have been an unmitigated failure so far as the consumer is concerned. Considering the unqualified mess you blithering idiots have made of an already drain-bamaged system, why should I have any faith, whatsoever, in your ability to deal with it properly now? Forget it. Just repeal the bogus laws you've already implemented since the first time that little bastard Mickey's copyright was about to expire, and put us back they way it was. It worked reasonably well for a couple hundred years ... it's your fiddling with it to benefit large rights holders that has busted it for the rest of us.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
drugs are very very different, and while repackaging may give you a new patent, it doesn't actually extend the old one. What extends the old patent is a couple loopholes in the approval regulations whereby any lawsuit filed by the patent holder against the primary generic company (the first to get approval has exclusive rights for a short period of time ~ 3-6 months i think) automatically delays the generic. This goes on for years and years through legal maneuvering. Horribly run system, but then again there's no political will to fix it.
I'll take first-to-file with one condition: if anything the patentholder claims infringes on their patent can be shown to have been described either to patentholder or in public prior to the patent's filing date, the patent's automatically invalidated. If the patent application disclosed the prior description, only the claims alleged to have been infringed are invalidated. If the patent application failed to disclose the prior description, it's considered evidence of bad faith and the patent's invalidated in it's entirety (but remains on the record and counts as description for purposes of other patents).
I'd also add a patent filter process. The end result (not the methods) described in the patent is presented to a randomly-selected half-dozen or so people competent in the field. They get 5 working days to come up with ways to achieve that end result. If any of them come up with the method described in the patent, without having seen the patent's description of the method, the patent is denied on the grounds of obviousness.
Lets put it another way.
Academic inventor A publishes a paper in a scientific journal on Jaunary 1, 2005. The paper describes or implies an invention.
Vampire corporations B-ZZ race to patent the material found in the journal. One of them wins. Academic inventor A's university can't patent the work and the inventor doesnt get his cut.
Lets keep in mind that one of the few ways for a small inventor to exist is by working as a professor at a university. Depending on one's contract, one can expect between 10 and 33 percent of revenues associated with one's work if patented by one's university.
This is completely correct. If Apple really disclosed the discovery before MS applied for the patent, they have prior art. I don't think they can patent it any more, but neither can MS.
If Apple decided to keep the discovery a trade secret and benefit from it in some other way, perhaps selling the product and prohibiting anybody from opening it and reverse engineering it, and somebody else invented the same thing and patented it, too bad for Apple, at least in the "first filed" system. And I think that's good.
AccountKiller
A lot has been said here and elsewhere about the idea of taking away the rights of "imaginary people" (aka Corporations) to own patents. I like this idea, but it also doesn't really work out (Those imaginary people are, after all, just slaves to the real people who own them!).
:-)
This got me to thinking about the number of real, honest to gosh inventors that get screwed by big Corporations. If you work for a Corporation, you typically sign away all of your rights to invented technologies to that corporation (at least, when they're invented on company time).
So here's an interesting proposal, and y'all can debate it at will:
* As stated, remove the ability for Corporations to hold patents.
* Allow individuals to file patents on things they've invented while working for a Corporation (don't flip out just yet, I'm not trying to screw the Corporations, either!).
* In exchange for the above right to file for the individual, they MUST assign perpetual, free-and-clear USE RIGHTS to the Corporation. These rights, however, are non-exclusive: the actual inventor of said technology may license the technology to anyone else he or she chooses, absent a specific signed contract stating otherwise. By law, the contract must specifically mention the patent number involved.
* Make it illegal for the above mentioned specific contract to be a condition of employment in any way, shape, or form.
The end result that I'm trying for here is simple: individuals invent things. The company can use them. But if the Company wants exclusive rights to the intellectual property that said individual developed, they must PAY FAIRLY FOR IT.
I think this would have the following effects:
* Eliminate corporate patent abuse, as they can no longer hold patents.
* Transform corporate IP litigation into much simpler Contract/License litigation.
* Compensate brilliant employees fairly for their work, thus better distributing wealth where it belongs.
There are (obviously) some potential issues with such a system that would have to be dealt with, but this is just my dinnertime brainstorm presented as text.
Have at it, flame me if you must.
--S
[reading this through, I wonder if maybe we just need to prevent corporations from FILING patents, and still allow them to OWN the patents. Then they can just purchase them from the actual inentor...]
-- sigs cause cancer.
Bills are not as simple as their marketing. 1 or 2 steps forward in the open can often mean 10 steps back they didn't tell you about.
The recent years should have shown you that these "fixes" are often a step back for the public; only those who read it and have the background will know what it will cause or what is at fault in the future. Sorry to say, none of those people will be able to vote on it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
More importantly, will the changes be retroactive, thus throwing out the plethora of obvious patents we've seen recently???
Laws can't be enforced retroactively. An example is with the BTK trial in Kansas is it? Though the state now has the death penality the killer got life in prison and couldn't be executed because the state didn't have capital punishment when he committed the killings.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Technically congress is barred by the Constitution from passing ex post facto laws They've already done this by changing the law retrospectively to alter the terms under which a copyright work was realeased in order to extend copyright protection on works already published, thus illegally taking them out of the public domain and stealing the cultural heritage of US citizens.
I wonder if this approach has been tried with the copyright extension laws, if not maybe they should be, someone can sue saying the laws can't be applied ex post facto.
FalconShould there be a Law?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ...no seriously...
...somehow I feel that this wont work at all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Over here in Europe, we had that heated debate over the software patent directive. The European Parliament has to date not been lobbied nearly as aggressively on any legislation as on that one. The FFII and a campaign that I founded (and later gave to the FFII) succeeded in mobilizing citizens as well as small and medium-sized companies in all 25 member states of the European Union. Some MEPs claimed to have received about 75,000 E-mails on this issue. More importantly than that, lots of people went to Brussels (basically the EU capital) and Strasbourg (where the parliament has most of its votes) to meet with politicians.
Is there any active opposition to the BSA in the United States? The EU directive that the European Parliament voted down on 6 July was actually drafted by the BSA as the meta information in the European Commission's Word document showed (it contained the name of the BSA's European public policy director as an author).
By "active opposition" I mean a core group of activists who mobilize people throughout the United States. A free software or digital rights organization would be viewed as a bunch of idealists and not be taken nearly as seriously by a Congressman as a number of voters and employers from his constituency.
Buy all the stock you can in patent holding companies. They are going to patent everything not already patented.
The hweal
Claim 1.
A method to transfer rotational motion to transverse motion by use of a device consisting of a centerpoint attached to endpoints around a periphery consisting of points of a constant measurement of distance from said centerpoint to any number of eight to infinity of peripheral endpoints, each endpoint being mounted to the centerpoint by a fixed length radial arm.
Claim 2. . . .
I think that the courts would have to come up with a good definition of "otherwise publicly known." Does that include code contributed to an open source product? Does a comment in a blog count? Does it matter if you cannot verify the date at which something was offered to the public? Does it matter if the public information had a limited distribution (Say, 5 people read it)?
What about a printed publication? Can I publish it in a newsletter that I send out to half-a-dozen customers and does that count?
My own lay opinion is that it would be hard to determine such boundaries. I certainly hope that the court would have a system whereby scope of the publication didn't matter, and the only thing that mattered was that it was offered in some way to the public.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The concern for the US Supreme Court is to set precident such that long-term justice can be maintained. It is not so that a given case will have a just outcome (this is a dual task for the district judge and the jury).
The job of a judge isn't to promote a just outcome by any means. If you believe this is so and ever have to appear for jury duty there's a quick way to be dismissed from serving on a jury. When being questioned say that you not only believe in Jury Nullification but also believe in a Fully Informed Jury.
Our mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If it has to do with Copyright, Patents or Trademarks and Orrin "For-Sale" Hatch is involved you really don't have to investigate a whole lot to conclude it's probably a bad idea. When the first paragraph of the article says he held a committee meeting on the eve of the Summer Recess and HE WAS THE ONLY ONE IN ATTENDANCE then you KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt the proposed legistlation is corrupt to the core.
The real key there is "To promote the progress of". The whole reason they are allowed to make IP law is to promote science and the arts to progress. The reasoning being, we are a capatalism, and so there needs to be a profit motive. For that, you can't have people simply copying your work at no charge.
You hit the nail right on the head there, "To promote the progress of". At first Thomas Jefferson was against copyrights and patents but eventually his friend James Madison talked and convinced him that they could be good. Once he was Jefferson sat down and used an actuary table to calculate that a copyright should last for 14 years with the possibility of a 14 year extension for a maximum of 28 years.
That's one of the things that annoys me about many people (including many politicians) is they seem to think the constution is some quaint little document to be ignored when they don't like what it says. No dammit, it's the supreme law of the land, the one to which all others must subordinate.
Unfortunately you're all too correct about this. Too many politicans think of the Constitution of the USA as that quaint document that has no bearing in the US today. Otherwise they'd never have voted from so many bills they signed, the two biggest in recent years being the PATRIOT Act and the Real ID Act. This disregard for the constitution is one reason I try to vote for Libertarian Party candidates when I can. Neither of the two major parties, Democrats nor Republicans, follow the constitution.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If I invented something and published my idea, only to have to pay royalties to the first person to copy and submit my idea to the patent office.
That's a problem in the US with "first to invent", which gives you up to one year after publication.
I believe patent reform will fix that even in the US: once it's been published, it becomes unpatentable immediately.
First to publish would mean that the person publishing it gets an exception to that, so they have a chance for patenting the invention for a limited time after publication (say, 1 year). I think that would be OK, but I don't see any compelling reason for it either.
To answer what I think your question is, no, other countries will not honor the patent. But that is true for any patent, simply because the patent system is only national in scope - that is, U.S. patents only apply in the U.S., just like U.K. patents only apply in the U.K., Japanese patents only in Japan, etc.
Kinda... sorta. Patents are national in nature. That said, there are a pile of trade treaties between various nations that in effect extend patents in one nation to another. Every time there is a free trade agreement between the US and someone else you always see a pile of posts complaining about the US imposing its patent system. This is what they are talking about.
More importantly, in almost all patent systems (US, Japan, and Europe included) a patent in another nation is considered prior art. If I patent something in the US, someone can not patent the same thing in the EU because the US patent in prior art. Further, at a later date, I can go ahead and patent my invention in the EU and that will be okay because the only prior art is my own. In fact, my patent will likely be pushed through faster because having a patent in one of the big three (EU, US, and Japan) is generally a good sign that the patent was sufficiently examined already.
International patent law is pretty well integrated all around. Each nation has its own quirks in their patent system. For instance, in Japan, you can make a slight modification to a patent and patent that. The US uses a first to invent system instead of the more usual first to file system. Despite these difference, interoperability between first world nations is not one of them. That isn't to say that patent laws are not fucked in their own and special way, just that working out patents between nations really isn't one of them. The only nation that really causes some minor irritations is the US with its first to invent system, and as the article suggests, that might very well go away.
bah how boring.. the usual anti-patent mob on slashdot on their soapboxes.
get used to it, patents are here to stay.
You lot are the most uncreative and uninventive people in the world.
from your friendly patent attorney
I think that on a higher level the First-to-File scheme is advantageous as it clears some red tape BUT only if it is strongly supported by a clear definition of "prior art".
It also helps to remember what the constitution says:-
Basically Congress shall enact legislation "to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"Therefore, even if you are the first to file, according to the constitution you still have to prove that you are the one who invented it. The USPTO is required to enforce this standard and anything less is illegal.
Expect litigation, USPTO! I have a patent covering overhauling patent law!
LOL PARENTS RULE LOL
That is the main problem of any opposition against an excess of "rights management" laws.
The lobbyists from globalistic large corporations are seen as respectable persons that represent economic wealth and growth. The representatives of small companies and citizens, who are against such a system, are seen as activists and idealists whose voice you should hear but not necessarily take serious.
There has been a victory in the case of european software patents, but no doubt they will be back. Lobbying in the individual member states and also finding a new way to enforce their ideas upon the european parliament.
In the long run, there is no way "we" can keep defeating those who have the money on their side. Governments are not very much interested in civilian rights and the wellbeing of small businesses, that has been shown over and over again. Politicians cannot please everyone, and they more like to please those that bring the economic growth they are accounted for, and their next job after their political career is over, than they like to please the 4-man company or the man in the street.
We've been here before, we have a "you must keep your invention secret to be able to patent it" clause.
So the first patent to arrive IS the inventor (because its not already out there - he kept it secret so this can't be someone else whose seen his idea and is trying to patent it), except for cases where prior art is hidden (e.g. software algo's, internal business processes etc.).
With that half done amendment, you will get patent companies based around the patent office reading the internet for things to patent ahead of the inventor.
Can you prove they didn't invent it? Nope, because there's zero test for whether they invented it, you simply have to take their word.
http://www.hindlelowther.com/patent6.htm
"It is vital to avoid non-confidential disclosure of a possible invention before an appropriate patent application has been filed. This is because patent law in the UK, Europe and much of the rest of the world requires an invention to be both new and non-obvious over everything known to the public anywhere in the world (the "prior art") at the relevant date. If you make a non-confidential disclosure before filing a patent application, then that disclosure could deprive your invention of novelty and render it impossible to achieve a valid granted patent."
"A patent can be invalidated by an act as simple as telling your idea to one person who is not under an obligation to keep the idea confidential. You can talk to professional advisers, such as patent attorneys and solicitors, who are by the nature of their business under an obligation of confidentiality to their clients. Otherwise, you should take professional advice and file any necessary patent applications before you make any non-confidential disclosure."
From my understanding of what types of disclosure count as prior art in the US and in Europe, there are some big differences.
In Europe, if you disclose your invention by posting a note in a basement toilet at the end of a long corridoor where the lights have gone (and the stairs) behind a door saying "beware of the leopard", then you cannot get a patent from the day after you put that note up.
In the US you have to leave your disclosure under a big sign saying "HERE IT IS!" or "GET IT HERE!" (preferably in flashing neon) and then go away and wait for a year before you cannot get a patent on your invention because you've already disclosed it.
Since most of the "make it hard to get a patent" ideas get shot down by the "what about the little guy?" counter-argument, what about a sliding scale of costs depending on how many you've already got?
For instance, if it was free to get the first, say, five patents, then Joe Public with a good idea or a small company with just a few inventions would face no fees in protecting themselves.
Then for 5-10, it's say $1000 per patent - because by now you ought to be making money from your patent.
For 10-20, $2000, and so on and so forth.
Microsoft et al are patenting like crazy because a few thousand $s per patent doesn't really matter to them. But if a sliding scale meant they had to pay more than a million dollars for each patent, then they'd slow down so fast you'd think you were in a time warp.
Plus, if it were coupled with a "void previous patents really easily" initiative, then it would actually encourage the removal of existing stupid patents: Corporations will be thinking "If I throw away these rubbish patents on 'one-click shopping' then I'd fall into a lower price band and only pay half as much for these useful and innovative patents that I want!"
I can't think of a fairer way to reduce the ludicrous numbers of patents getting submitted. Under this system, the little guy has no problem affording a patent, while only corporations that actually have hundreds or thousands of innovative ideas will be able to afford to have hundreds or thousands of patents .
So.. it has come to this
'lawmakers in Washington are considering changes to the patent code that would bring U.S. law closer to intellectual property standards in the rest of the industrialized world.'
Closer to the REST of the world? WHY do they hate freedom?
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Clause 8: [The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; It seems to me that if the 1st guy to file is the inventor leagaly you are protecting the inventor. But in reality you are robbing the true inventor of the right to use his own ideas simply because he didn't have a good lawyer. This is an obvious step toward big business and away from small time inventor. From reading the empowering clause in the constitution I imagine the Supreme Court would rule any law as unconstitutional that robbed the true inventor. IMHO: The US Patent and Trademark office is no longer used to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Instead it is used to restrict the use of a particular science or useful art. Somewhere along the line the inventor's and authors stopped getting the lion's share of the rewards. Those rewards are now eaten by large corps and lawyer gangs. I'm not sure how you fix this problem but I do know the 1st person to say "I got Dibs!" is not a valid legal stance.
http://www.piausa.org/index.php/general_info/the_p ia_viewpoint/talking_points_for_inventors *****ATTENTION INVENTORS***** The Professional Inventors Alliance (www.piausa.org) wants you to know about legislation making its way through Congress that will severely limit intellectual property rights to independent inventors. You need to get involved. HR 2795 Threatens U.S. Intellectual Property Rights The bill, if passed as currently written, would be an enormous blow to colleges and universities, independent inventors and small business owners, especially those who are attempting to obtain venture capital for the commercialization of their inventions. If enacted, HR 2795 would be the most comprehensive change to the patent system in our nation's history. At the same time, it would weaken the best patent system in the world. It would open U.S. innovations to worldwide piracy through provisions such as first to file, worldwide publication of applications, third party input both pre- and post-grant, limitations on damages for infringement and prior user rights. Most damaging provisions in HR 2795: First to File - This provision will not guarantee that the actual inventor will be granted the patent. It creates conditions for very poor prior art, which is the existing knowledge of a similar innovation known to the general public. It burdens examiners with questionable applications by non-inventors. It creates a new malpractice liability for patent practitioners who may not beat another party to the patent office, thereby increasing the potential for litigation. 18-Month World Publication - The measure exposes to the general public worldwide what is currently confidential, and therefore very valuable to the actual inventor. It provides an open avenue for unscrupulous entities to pirate, then market a valuable new innovation before the true inventor(s) can commercialize their innovation. Prior User Rights - The measure would weaken patent protection by providing a defense for unscrupulous entities to claim prior use and allows full use without royalty payments to the actual inventor. Third Party Reexamination (Post Grant Review) - The provision would devalue a patent after it has been granted by allowing any party - foreign or domestic - to block its exclusive use by tying it up in this review period, which could be infinite. The patent loses all value if it is continually challenged by multiple parties who will now be given equal treatment in the process regardless of their merits. Any challenge should be limited to prior art not of record. In other words, new research - prior art - must be presented. Assignee Filing - For the first time in U.S. history - under this bill - a patent can be awarded directly to companies rather than the actual inventor. This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution that grants exclusive protection of rights to inventors of their discoveries. Under the current law, it is difficult for an employer to file a patent application when the inventor refuses to sign a declaration or is otherwise unavailable. The proposal enables this to be done without the inventor's assistance. Generally, employees of businesses now sign contracts, which normally include any work done by the employee, that transfer ownership of the patent to the business. This provision further empowers corporations over their inventor-employees. Limiting Continuing Applications - Continuing Applications, in their current form, have been part of the U.S. Patent System for a long time. Among other things, this proposed provision precludes claiming an invention in a continuing application not claimed in the parent application. Pioneering patents, such as the discovery of and elimination of viruses, would be vastly limited under this proposal. Also, the bill proposes to limit this application path under the ruse of easing the patent application backlog for examiners. Congress
Isn't that just a little too much info? I think we would have gotten the picture without the bulb and the tube. Thanks for the bad image.
The best mode requirement is important; it prohibits the inventor from delibrately concealing information which would not let one skilled in the art be able to make and use the invention.
continuation applications are important. typically an inventor gets one patent per invention, but if multiple inventions are disclosed within a specification, an applicant files multiple cases based on the first application, thus establishing an earlier priority date.
ill give you a hint, as an examiner, I get paid the same if I allow a patent, or reject a patent.
the office might get more money through renewal fees on a patent, but the examiner does not get paid any more.
any opinions are my own and not that of the office
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
'more efficiently' => 'patents go through even faster and cheaper, now with less review!'
'less prone to litigation' => 'no one can sue over ridiculous patents anymore'.
Maybe I'm just a pessimist; I can only hope I'm not a realist; does that make me an optimist?
Nathan's blog
Most people don't seem to understand that what this apparently does is get rid of the requirements dealing with interferences.
i nterference.htm)
i nge
In particular the requirements of 35 USC 102 F and G.
The parent poster is describing exactly the following situtation:
Occasionally two or more applications are filed by different inventors claiming substantially the same patentable invention. The patent can only be granted to one of them, and a proceeding known as an "interference" is instituted by the Office to determine who is the first inventor and entitled to the patent. About one percent of the applications filed become involved in an interference proceeding. Interference proceedings may also be instituted between an application and a patent already issued, provided the patent has not been issued for more than one year prior to the filing of the conflicting application, and provided that the conflicting application is not barred from being patentable for some other reason.
(from http://inventors.about.com/library/bl/toc/bluspto
An interference proceeding, also known as priority contest, is an inter partes proceeding to determine the priority issues of multiple patent applications. It is a unique patent law concept of the United States. Unlike most other country that adopts the first to file system, the first to invent system of the U.S. allows a party who failed to file a patent application on time to challenge the inventorship against another party with a granted or pending patent if certain requirements are met.
The reduction to practice is a United States patent law concept. It means the embodiment of the concept of an invention. The date of this embodiment is critical to the determination of priority between inventors in an interference proceeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practic
Filing an application is proof that one has reduced the concept to practice, however
This is important because someone can come up with an invention first and have delays which prevented them from filing an application (laziness is not one of them). This is the dilligence requriement of 102 (g)
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
not a big concern
apple just has to show conception and reduction to practice prior to microsoft and show due dilligence
see 102 F and G
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
to try to "reform" anything with this group in charge? Let's start by imagining all the riders that will be attached. You'll get patent reform when the industry gets super DCMA and the govt gets the ultra-patriot act III into the Constitution. The plus side is that Peoria will get an eight lane expressway.
What?
They're going at war again?
I realise that this is just taking a jab at the war in Iraq, but seriously, over the long term using patents to physically controll how people use inventions will lead to deadly violence for many of the same reasons that the plantation systems attempts to physically controll labor blew up into the "bloodiest" war in history.
And yes, the civil war was more bloody than WW1, WW2, VietNam, Korean war, and the Iraqui war combined. It was at a time in history where we were just learning about new technologies like the machine gun, but had little understanding of appropiate defences like trench warfare.
Anyhow, in the long term, imposition of patents requires physical controll, which means escaping their breach of freedom will involve physical violence. The scenario I see is one where new technologies bring fabrication and "the factory" into the home. Many astute business men will see this as an opportunity to make "unlimited profit" by licensing pantents to the people of the world. They will extend patents to last forever, and punish patnet violations suverely. If you don't think that's possible, all you half to do is see how the death of copyrights is playing out. I guess we should be thankfull that imposing copyrights doesn't require physical controll too.
There *IS* one HUGE thing that would be a good thing to make it into law.
The ability for the general public to provide data for challenging of patents, up to 6 months after the patent is filed.
But then again, what's there to provide if it's changed from first to invent vs first to file..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
First to patent is the only rational means. You can't prove anything without documentation, and in the digital age, it's waaaaay to easy to fabricate these things. It's just like scientific proof- you must have an objective, verifiable source of evidence.
No one here like the current system - but this new system MUST be biased against normal citizens, too?
It's better to leave this out of the courts. They don't have the expertise, the resources - and, obviously you'd need MORE patent lawyers for an actual court case than for a patent office meeting. The administrative review is better than court review, not worse.
It's a publish/patent proof, which still protects the guy who can feed the world. Don't let the fact you hate this administration cloud you to the actual merits of an idea. They're just saying, we want to cut down on litigousness (or, I'm sorry, it's better to spend all out taxes on ridiculous years long cases?) and create a more verifiable proof. Like good scientists, you need to show proof, and the standard is now publicly published or patented. This is a good thing - it's too easy for someone to make stuff up in the digital age.
Based on the bill's current list of cosponsorshttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z? d109:HR02795:@@@P I would be concerned. With the exception of Goodlatte and Boucher the majority of those listed have aligned themselves with media over individual and technology rights over the years.