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.'"
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*
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.
No, just with one click.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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.
Monopoly IP profits was never intended to be the primary goal of the patent system.
There is a natural tendency for powers to become increasingly concentrated and self-destructive. Fortunately, such power systems finally break down. Unfortunately, the breakdowns are often disruptive, and sometimes even violent.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
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.
OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT...EJECT! EJECT!
Patents are supposed to encourage innovation, but they are now used mostly in negative ways to block and control innovation.
Wrong. Patents were supposed to encourage disclosure of innovation so that others can build on it. A blanket "encourage innovation" idea has been used to argue that it should provide control for people to make a lot of money which was not the goal.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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."
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.
Whether "first to file" or "first to invent" is better is not exactly the problem as much as it is the wording of the "Prior-Art" section of TFA.
Because of the wording (ex: "the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or otherwise publicly known") you aren't really doing anymore than making bad patents more ironclad.
For example, if I were to invent a new type of object banking (for a distributed system, a decentralized version of something like CORBA... if that makes any sense to you) and then proceed to use it in an application, I would have to have either patented it first or published in some type of journal (ACM, IEEE, etc). Uh... problem there professor! Half of the "software patents" are just on things that the inventor never thought to patent. He may have been first but it seemed like an obvious thing. If you don't think that is the case, then ask yourself "How does Amazon have a patent on one click shopping?" Then some company [cough] Kodak [cough] (read the Sun case here) buys the patent and gets rights to my product (so I have to pay them).
This introduces a sort of stranglehold on innovation because I can't just make something, I have to wade through thousands of patents to see if one matches my idea, and if not, patent it! Due to the flexible nature of software design, software patents hurt innovation and ultimately the United States as a whole. I don't think they need to be abolished (software patents), but if you are going to offer them, you need to be sure that they are worth it! Perhaps that is the flaw of patent law in general, failed engineers who become patent lawyers miss the obvious differences...
Politicans are ruining the U.S: