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.'"
See Cringely's take from last week.
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
This is common in the medical field. You invent a drug patent it, right before it goes out of patent, you repackage the same drug as doing something slightly different and your patent has just been extended by 20 years. (I'm not sure if people can now sell generics under your old claim or not.. anyone care to clarify?)
(and heavily criticized) here.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Bottom line. Bad. Bad. Bad.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
This is not what a continuation application is. A continuation application is method that is used to continue the prosecution of a patent after a final rejection has been issued by the Patent Office. By paying some extra money, you get the opportunity to keep on going back and forth with the patent office to get your patent application into a patentable state. Continuation applications were the way that submarine patents were prosecuted. Because the filing date is the date of importance in determining priority of patents and prior art, inventors like Lemelson would keep their patents in the USPTO using continuation applications, and then finally amend them into an allowable state after the technology that the patent covered became prominant in industry. The change of patent terms to be 20 years after filing as opposed to 17 years after issueance helped fix that problem.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
This seems to be covered. In light of the possibility of an enterprising soul who invents a way to feed the world, and that souls decision not to patent it, either through lack of funds for a patent attourney or through goodwill, they have introduced the "first to file" rule. Now, SuperMegaCorp can merely file their application first and get the patent.
Since any administrative review process will natrually be unnavigable by any person with a normal, full time job, the only real way to protest under the new 6 month administrative review period is to hire a patent lawyer. But since our altruistic (or just plain poor) inventer didn't have the cash or time to file in the first place, he/she won't have the cash/time to contest after the fact.
It's like IP, served on a silver platter to the paying (Washington, D.C.) guests. How can we lose?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Lamar Smith [TX-21] sponsored the bill, introduced 6/8/05.
Co-sponsors:
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 6/8/2005 Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 6/8/2005 Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 6/8/2005 Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 7/28/2005 Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/8/2005 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 6/8/2005 Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 6/8/2005 Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 6/8/2005 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 6/8/2005 Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 7/28/2005 Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 6/8/2005
Word in DC is that major changes are expected before this even makes it out of committee -- look for changes that benefit both the patent law industry and the corporate interests.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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
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.
While true, continuations are not solely used for that purpose. In broadest terms, a continuation application allows an inventor to claim aspects of the invention that were disclosed, but not claimed, in the parent application. A continuation application must be filed while the parent application is still pending (i.e., before allowance).
Please read section 101 & 102 of HR2795, patent claims are still invalidated by prior art.
Re: Duty of Candor and Good Faith:
This section mostly relates to the duty of the applicant to disclose relevant information in the application (e.g., possible prior art, dates of research, etc.). Willful failure to disclose can lead to unenforceability of the patent, and/or sanctions against the filer (up to $1 million per infraction).
Of note, a motion to oppose a patent claim (post-grant or not) is also subject to the duty of candor.
The duty of Candor and Good Faith exists to keep patent fraud suits out of the courts and in the hands of the patent system.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Totally and completely wrong.
There seems to be a misconception on this site over what the terms "first to file" and "first to invent" actually mean. I'll clear it up.
Let's say there are two inventors. Inventor A invents his product on January 1, 2005. Inventor B invents the exact same product on January 10, 2005. Inventor B gets a patent application filed on February 1, 2005. Inventor A incurs a slight delay and files a patent application on March 1, 2005.
In a "first to file" country, the question of who invented the product is simple--whoever files the application first is the inventor. Therefore, Inventor B obtains the Patent and Inventor A is SOL.
In a "first to invent" country, circumstances are different. The patent office will tell Inventor A that Inventor B invented it first because he filed the application first. But if Inventor A can prove that he actually invented it first, Inventor A gets the patent, not Inventor B.
These two terms have absolutely nothing to do with prior art. If inventor Z invented the same device on December 1, 2004, but chose not to file a patent application, he can still show that neither Inventor A nor Inventor B deserve the patent because Inventor Z is the actual inventor of the product.
1st to file means no more interference practice at the USPTO - 2 companies no longer get to argue about "who invented it first."
The US is one of the few (if only) remaining countries that uses a "first to invent" system.
It does NOT mean 1st to file gets awarded a patent in spite of prior art. You can still invalidate a patent issued to the "first person to file." But once a first person files, no one else can get a patent for that same invention even if they invented it first, since they were not "first to file."
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.
So the work done by Inventor A would be by definition prior art, so how is prior art unchanged if Inventor B is granted a patent merely by filing first?
Only if A published the invention. The whole system is supposed to encourage publishing of inventions. If you invent something and you don't care about making money, simply publish the invention without patenting it. Nobody else can patent it after that since you have prior art. If you want to make money, patent it (by which act you also automatically publish it). If somebody invented the same thing years ago without publishing it or patenting it, just sitting on it and waiting, tough luck for them.
I thing this new system does what it is supposed to do much better than the old one. The problems I can see are:
1) what does it mean "publish"? If I describe my invention in some totally obscure journal that nobody who works in the field is ever likely to read, does it count?
2) Filing patent application is supposed to publish the invention, however nowdays there are so many application being filed that it is easy for an individual invention to get lost in the noise, especially if the invention is intentionally described in some obscure way.
Are these two things somehow addressed?
AccountKiller
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.
Prior art is not affected by first-to-file. You can still invalidate any patent with prior art under a first-to-file system. The bill (at least in the version I read) also allows unrelated third party prior art challenges, which weren't allowed before.
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin