Slashdot Mirror
House Passes Patent Overhaul Bill
narramissic writes "ITworld reports that the House of Representatives has passed a bill that promises to overhaul the US patent system. 'The Patent Reform Act, supported by several large tech vendors including Microsoft Corp. and IBM Corp., would allow courts to change they way they assess damages in patent infringement cases. Currently, courts generally consider the value of the entire product when a small piece of the product infringes a patent; the bill would allow, but not require, courts to base damages only on the value of the infringing piece."
1. put a clock in an existing product 2. sue when company releases same 3. profit?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
But is there anything that can even remotely approximate this? How much does a touch screen matter for the iPhone? What is such an estimate based on? I realize it's optional, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any situation that is really fair. Identically sized corporations, with similar market testing, and a market loaded with finely-grained differences in features? Even still, I think there's a great deal of random speculation.
While I respect intentions to reform the patent system, I suppose my more cynical side should've known that it'd be either evil or botched. I guess the latter is better than the former.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
I think us little guys just got screwed. "supported by several large tech vendors including Microsoft Corp. and IBM Corp" Nevermind, we have always been screwed. ;-)
Sounds like this is just the sweeping overhaul we need to solve the patent system's problems!
ceci n'est pas une
"Large tech vendors have been pushing for patent reform for close to five years. The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), the Business Software Alliance, and the Computing Technology Industry Association, all praised the House for passing the bill."
"The bill also sets into motion a change in the way patents are awarded, from the first-to-invent system unique to the U.S. to the first-to-file system used by the rest of the world."
Polotition logic: Something must be done. This is something, lets do it.
Changing the system from first to invent to first to file will only help incumbents who already have patent attorneys on staff. The original intention of patents, to give the innovator a head start in business, will be lost.
Boy I hope someone doesn't already hold a patent for reforming the patent system in this way. Then they'd sue the government for using it. You might think I'm joking but theoretically if someone did hold tons of patents for patent reform and sat on them, that would stop anyone from reforming the patent system and invalidating their patents. Ahhh see, it's like one big circle of patent doom lol.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
If you don't make the big companies pay big dollars for the IP violations then they will simply take advantage of all the smaller guys. Small money is all it takes to kill a small company so big companies stealing from a small company harms it not only in the reduced funds necessary to protect itself in court but harms to company's future potential. Small companies violating big companies patents hardly impact them in the same way. A big company stealing from a small company could kill the small company but a small company stealing from a big company generally has a much lighter impact on them.
This is just sad to see big companies trying to take advantage of the system this way. What needs to happen is that they need to focus on protecting the small guy and you don't do so by limiting what they can get in defense of their IP. This simply allows the big dog to tear up the little dogs in a fight.
This is bad news, not good news.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
And it is here in the US Senate that concerns with this first-to-file, regardless of intent to ever invent, versus first-to-invent will have conditions set on it to make such a valid patent.
We all know the patent system is broken with the dawning of the Information Age. However, this first-to-file, on the surface, doesn't appear to keep companies from filing frivolous patents with no intention of ever producing an invention.
The patent system should be set to promote diverse competition and may the winner best their competition through competition and not anti-competitive legal maneuvers.
That was my first thought as well. This bill basically means that the big guys will pay less, and the little guys will still go bankrupt trying to defend against patent claims.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
If anything prior art is weaker in america, because "inventors" could relatively easily manufacture fraudulent records purporting to predate any published prior art, and first-to-invent will give them priority, whereas in the rest of the world, it's simple: if the invention was published before you filed for a patent, you have lost by prior art.
From the rest of the world's perspective, the american first-to-invent system is just considered mad, and europeans regularly accuse american defence companies of pulling that sort of shit.
As a small inventor, I hated the idea of First to File because I was worried that corrupt individuals or companies could quickly patent my invention submissions. But that is easily solved by requiring a NDA before showing anyone your invention. Before, when it was First to Invent, there were more problems. For example, I could patent something and someone could claim they invented it first and manufacture fake logs or a fake journal showing they invented it first. Also don't forget, false witnesses who could swear up and down they saw the other guy working on the invention for years. Now I am in favor of the new way. I can protect my ideas easily by just keeping my mouth shut until I fill out a provisional patent application. I think it will be good for the little guy.
Although your example would apparently benefit Linux and therefore is a positive case scenario, you've overlooked the gist of the problem.
> "isn't worth much to Microsoft".
Maybe it's not, but you're stating the value in wishy-washy terms. The good thing about assessing damages on the value of a full product is that you have a concrete value (price of product * products distributed). A laywer may argue that, since an OS is rather pointless without a filesystem, it's a VERY valuable piece of the OS, and, assuming that FAT is the third most common filesystem in linux installations (I have no idea, really) it would be big damages.
Valuing intellectual property is an insanely difficult prospect, with the only good approximation being what the market will buy. Take that away and you're left with pure speculation.
-------
Incite and flee.
Real reform would to to return to the requirement for a working version of the patent to be submitted with one's patent application. Currently, one can patent an intended innovation before it has been implemented. Researching through awarded patents yields many things that are not yet possible - like Sony's patent for controlling a video game with your thoughts. Now, because of that patent and Sony owning the IP space, any would be innovators in that field are discouraged from seeking a solution in that area.
So if you write FOSS, and some big company sues you for patent infrigement.
If Big Co. wins they get their worth. (lots of money)
If mr. Hobbyist wins he gets his worth. (nothing, since his software is free)
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
The little guys would go bankrupt anyway...this bill doesn't really affect them much.
This bill could mean less patent trolls (if the big $$$ disappears from the market), and hey, people are admitting there's a problem.
No sig today...
No, lets say you come up with something cool. After the first date that you reduce your invention to practice, you have one year to file it with USPTO (assuming no other circumstances). If Big Company X comes along during that period, and creates the same invention, and files before you; your claim of invention will take precedent. However, under a first to file system, in the above scenario; you're screwed. Prior art will still invalidate a patent (although it will arguably not come up during prosecution under first to file). First to file puts extra emphasis on filing as soon as possible.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
And then go to the patent-people, hand over the toiletpaper; "I'd like to patent this shit".
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
It takes more than just showing a judge a notebook and claiming that the date on it is correct. There's a well established practice of sending mail to yourself so you can show the postmark on the unopened envelope and show the court that the USPS attests to the date on it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
With enough laxative, anyone could pass it.
Max.
> All US universities are patent trolls...
I'm not sure whether you were trying to be sarcastic or not.
But yes, many universities are patent trolls, and pretty egregious ones at that. They take public money (and student's tuition) to perform research, and then extort those who try to use it (and whose tax dollars paid for it). They profess to be in the business of disseminating knowledge, and then lock it behind paywalls. They should be in the best position to understand "standing on the shoulder of giants" but instead they insist that nobody can stand on theirs (unless you pay).