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."

Comments

you have offended my clock radio sir

[timmarhy]

1. put a clock in an existing product 2. sue when company releases same 3. profit?

Nice idea

[Xeth]

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.

Re:Nice idea

[dgatwood]

This is a good start, but it's a band-aid for a gaping head wound.... Passing a law guaranteeing the right to challenge obvious patents out of court would be a much more useful thing. Then, we could have a patent watchdog group (e.g. the EFF) working to significantly reduce the number of junk patents. Passing a law reducing patent terms in technology-related fields to five years would be another great improvement. A patent lasting two decades in computing is like a patent lasting two centuries in most other fields. It really borders on the absurd....

But this... this bill should not pass. It's a very bad bill. With this bill, existing players can still bludgeon the little guy with their often bogus patents and usually nobody will even notice or care. The only way to truly show how broken the patent system is to actually have an impact on big businesses, and those patent trolls are the only thing that can annoy big business enough to have a chance at real reform that would actually increase innovation. Stopping the patent trolls will thus make it harder to get legitimate reform, and in my mind, that's a bad thing.

Re:Nice idea

[morgan_greywolf]

Okay, let's say Microsoft decides to sue Linus Torvalds over its FAT filesystem patent. In the present system, the court would assess the damages based on the value of the entire operating system. With this, the court would have to determine what the FAT filesystem is worth. Considering it is no longer the default filesystem for any still-in-production Microsoft product, and it's already been implemented by countless vendors (digital cameras, anybody? Mac OS X? Be OS? OS/2?) and Microsoft hasn't sued any of them, the court would probably find that the FAT filesystem isn't worth much to Microsoft, because it doesn't give them a competitive advantage.

How's that for an example?

Re:Nice idea

[c]

> Okay, let's say Microsoft decides to sue Linus Torvalds over its FAT filesystem patent.

Most likely, Linus goes bankrupt during the opening motion practice and/or is forced to settle. The court never gets around to calculating damages.

Messing with the damage formula only benefits large corporations who, up until now, were looking at damages in the hundreds of millions and weren't overly concerned by hundreds of thousands in court costs. Patent trolls won't get as much money, and everyone else is still screwed as soon as the lawsuit is filed.

c.

I don't know about you but..

[mombodog]

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. ;-)

Re:I don't know about you but..

[daeg]

They support it because inevitably their huge products will, at some point, infringe on some ridiculous patent owned by anyone, big or little guy. It's a collective agreement to slowly disarm themselves against themselves. It's a win for everyone -- a step in the right direction. Lawyers will be MUCH more careful to accept infringement lawsuits on a percentage-of-winnings basis.

Re:I don't know about you but..

[evanbd]

It's a collective agreement to slowly disarm themselves

Exactly. The only way to win at Prisoner's Dilemma is to change the rules.

Wow, amazing!

[omnilynx]

Sounds like this is just the sweeping overhaul we need to solve the patent system's problems!

Thanks a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Reform == good. First to file == bad.

[ishmalius]

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.

Big Companies Must Pay Big Bucks for IP Violations

[HermMunster]

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.

First to File

[Molon Lave]

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.

poor

[selfdiscipline]

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.

Re:poor

[Belial6]

No it's not. We just need property tax on this so called intellectual property. We let the "owner" decide it's value. If they claim it is worth a billion dollars, then they pay property taxes on a billion dollars worth of property each year. If they say it is worth $10 to reduce there taxes, then that is what it is worth in the courtroom.

The beauty is it would work with copyright as well.

Re:poor

[KDR_11k]

Not only that but what about not-for-profit IP like freeware, home movies or writing that's not being sold? A GPL project relies on copyright to enforce the GPL, they'd need to be able to claim damages high enough to scare a big company off but they don't have or make any money that could pay the IP tax. Someone who's writing stories as a hobby or in order to possibly become an author later won't be able to keep any protection on his works that may become important later on (e.g. the first novels describing a universe that is later used in a huge selling book but can't be protected because it was written without a budget).

real reform would be...

[blakieto]

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.

Wait a minute

[Tribbin]

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)

Re:Reform == good. First to file == bad.

[k_187]

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.

Re:Eh this may sound silly, but...

[Tribbin]

And then go to the patent-people, hand over the toiletpaper; "I'd like to patent this shit".