Patent Reform Act Proposes Sweeping Changes

Geccie writes "CNet is reporting that Senators Patrick Leahy and Orin Hatch have proposed sweeping changes in the patent system in the form of the Patent Reform Act of 2006. Key features are the ability to challenge (postgrant opposition) with the Senate version being somewhat broader and better than the house version." From the article: "Specifically, it would shift to a 'first to file' method of awarding patents, which is already used in most foreign countries, instead of the existing 'first to invent' standard, which has been criticized as complicated to prove. Such a change has already earned backing from Jon Dudas, chief of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."

Comments

"first to file" issues

[keithmo]

In the current system, a person/company has some fixed amount of time (1 year? 6 months? I don't recall) to file a patent after the invention has been mentioned publicly. Some companies rely on this by shipping the product first, then worrying about filing the patent applications. "First to file" will likely delay many product releases, as the inventor will be required to get the patent application process started before release.

Re:Prior Art?

[Znork]

It mainly affects companies or individuals keeping innovations secret; in first to file, it's the first to file a previously _undisclosed_ invention who gets the patent.

For opensource it's probably slightly better, as it becomes slightly more difficult to submarine patents or futz the invention dates.

However, it doesnt affect the more real issues of overly broad claims, etc. Or the economic validity and usefullness of IP at all.

Re:How about eliminating patents

[Kaktrot]

The patent system doesn't exist to make people rich for sitting around and thinking. That is a means to an end: That John Q. Public will have more useful technology available to him when the patent runs out. It exists only to encourage innovation. As it sits right now, the patent system is buried in bureaucracy, but it still stimulates more innovation than if there were nothing, which leads to better, cheaper products and medicines to the public.

Patents do work, especially in the medical area. Pharmaceuticals would be prohibitive to develop (without direct state involvement) without patent protection.

Re:I consider this bad

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, you file a preliminary patent. This protects you for about a year, in which time you submit a full patent application. Some inventions never get beyond the preliminary patent phase, but if something is really good then it is not hard to persuade someone to pay for the exclusive rights to it.

Re:So you do not want to patent, we got you !

[Znork]

"First to file rather than first to invent means that all pesky open source programmers will have to worry"

It's not a problem for open source; if you've released code as open source that means it's been published, and no patent application filed on a later date could be granted covering any supposed invention in that code.

It's not first to file for a particular invention, it's first to file for a particular _previously undisclosed_ invention.

Replay from 2005

[955301]

An interesting tidbit, this was introduced in 2005 as well by Lamar Smith of Texas:

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/06/patent _reform_p.html

Not sure what the difference is between the two, because I'm still looking for the bill's number. It's almost as if people like to use the fluffy name and never really look at the bill - only reference it from other articles.

Re:How about eliminating patents

[B'Trey]

If you're really interested in the drug companies and patents, here's a reasonably accurate look at how things work:

Of Pills and Profits