Slashdot Mirror
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."
Brent O. Hatch is one of SCOs many lawyers. One wonders if any part of the new law would be of any help to SCO grabbing the work on many Linux programmers?
Oh dear God, not Orrin Hatch again! Seriously, this idiot was the man who introduced the DMCA and look how wonderful that piece of legislation was.
As usual, follow the money....
Orrin Hatch received $126,918 from the entertainment industry in this last cycle. Not to be outdone, Leahy received $251,970
By my calculations that means that congressmen can be bought for less than $400K. My, my, my what an insanely great ROI.
America, the best government money can buy®
I agree that this will bring the patent trolls out of the woodwork. However, this could work both ways. Imagine a big company releasing a product or service and not realizing its possible uses. Joe Schmoe patents that function, idea, whatever and turns around and sues the company that released the widget that gave them the idea for the patent in the first place. It happens today all the time, but its usually the big .Inc's that do it to small developers and inventors. They wait for trade shows where people showcase their stuff for VCs, take pics, notes, etc, and then turn over their notes to their developers who rush to beat the original inventor to market. As a matter of fact, that's how PONG was created.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
It's dead obvious that they will. This is the attitude that troubles me the most:
> 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.
Basically, they're saying that since the useful solution that is easy to justify (if you believe in patent theory) is too hard to implement (and causes too many problems), then the obvious thing to do is to pick a useless solution that is impossible to justify (through patent theory) because it's easier and will allow the patent office to process new patents quicker (and cause even more problems).
This reminds me of the old joke. It was midnight at the parking lot and a policeman saw a drunk looking for something near a lamp post. The policeman asked what what the drunk was looking for. The drunk said "I lost my car keys in the dark alley a half a block away, so I'm searching for them here." The police said it didn't make sense. The drunk replied, "It makes perfect sense. It's too hard to find my car keys in the dark, so I'm looking for them where there's some light".
The key difference between the drunk and Congress is that the drunk didn't make the problem worse through his useless solution.
..as two of congress's biggest sock puppets to moneyed interests, so there is no surprise theyre the ones comming up with this, and it's also a slight relief to know this is what some of the worst of the worst are comming up with, because if not this it would be something much much worse.
Anyway, this is designed to "reform" the system by clearing the courts of many cases by simply awarding the sneakiest party. This law would result in the legitimizing of those "patent parasite" firms who snag patents, then ambush companies just as theyre going to market. It would reverse the apple v creative case too. This is definitely at the expense of the inventor, and would also make invalidation of obvious patents much harder, since prior art would no longer apply. In that way it is playing to moneyed interests, but even moneyed interests would incur great expense to these parasites mentioned above.
The hatch/leahy duo are the perfect illustration of how partisan grandstanding only serves as a red herring, and that corruption extends beyond party lines.
In addition to the horizontal axis of left and right, there is a vertical axis nobody in the media or politics wants the public to pay attentin to, moneyed elitists vs populists.
voting one party or the other does not guarantee the politician's position along this vertical axis, and that axis in this nation is the one which is more important.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"as they just keep an eye out for what everyone else is doing"
Technically, that shouldn't work. Anything they can keep an eye out for would have to have been published, and would therefore be unpatentable under first-to-file.
"you can't be locked out of the market just because patent troll X decided to file paperwork before you did."
As long as you're publishing everything you do you cant be out-patented and locked out. Only if you're keeping your work secret and someone else files for a patent on the same thing before you do.
So then the best business stategy would to spy on the competitors, and then quickly create "evidence" of prior R&D to make it look like both companies came up with it first.
In which case, nobody gets the patent. Which is unfair to one inventor. However when an obvious patent is created, it is unfair to every engineer who plans to work in the field for the next two decades.
Under the current system, you still have the incentive to spy and lie, but the payoff is bigger: you not only get to use the inventor's idea, you deny him the use of his own idea.
I think I see the noble ideal you're driving at, unfortunately, I do not believe it to be an achievable one.
On the contrary, I think it is the only practical one. We live under an impractical system now, that only works because people avoid researching prior art: with so many bad patents being issued, you're bound to violate something. It also works because there are so many fish in the pond, hopefully you can grow to a defendable size before a parasite leaches onto you.
The only reason the current system seems "practical" is because we don't know what practical would feel like.
To my way of thinking, having a simple, objective challenge for "obviousness" is the most practical solution conceivable. Sure, people may perjure themselves. That's true under any patent system. But the game itself is much tougher, and therefore less attractive to unscrupulous people out to make a quick buck.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.