Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reform Could Kill EFF "Patent Busting Project"

Posted by kdawson on from the shooting-the-messenger dept.

netbuzz alerts us to a letter the EFF sent today to Senators Leahy and Specter pointing out a deleterious clause in the current draft of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 — which EFF generally supports. As written, the proposal would kill the EFF's Patent Busting Project. Fine print in the bill would limit the time in which a patent could be challenged, by anyone other than those suffering direct financial harm, to one year after the patent's grant. Since the EFF is non-profit it would have a hard time showing financial harm.

7 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. What about consumers? by Icarus1919 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Couldn't ALL consumers demonstrate financial harm? Stupid patents drive up prices, directly affecting ALL of us.

  2. Second Patent Office by steveha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I suggest that what we really need is a second Patent Office. The first one can go on granting patents as usual. The second one's mission will be to invalidate and throw out as many patents as it can. Patent examiners in the second one will be paid bonuses according to how many patents they manage to invalidate.

    I'm kidding... but only partly. The more I think about this, the more I like it.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Second Patent Office by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I like the idea of a constitutional amendment making all Congressional Bills have an automatic sunset clause of say 10 years and require that all bills be read into law in a Congressional session. That way the legislature has to decide that a bill is still worth the effort to renew. Not only that but it conveniently also limits the size of the law by limiting it to what can be read in x hours. If the founding fathers had any idea how large the federal government would become I'm fairly sure they would have included some similar clause to naturally limit its growth.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. Solution! I got it! by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We should make the patent office liable for damages done and court costs for the bogus patents they issue. They only started rubber-stamping business methods and software patents when they were required to generate revenue. So stop the revenue stream.

  4. An oversight unit by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...would definitely be a good idea. Actually, I'd have two new units, plus the original. You'd then have a pro-active team that actively opposes every patent that is submitted, seeking any possible prior art, any possible flaw, and taking in any filed preliminary challenges in the pre-patent cooling-off time. If the patent makes it through that, it then gets the "gentle" treatment from the regular patent folk. The third unit, the overseers, challenge both subordinate units to prove their points and prove their cases. Anything that gets through the system intact should be entitled to be challenged by anyone, but that challenge may be thrown out without hearing if it's a point already answered within the above chain. Existing patents would then be resubmitted but deemed valid until clearly shown otherwise by the first stage. Historic patents, no longer valid but of major public interest, should periodically be thrown through the same test to see if their granting was actually lawful. Less for any purpose of redress and more as an educational experience.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  5. Re:Who writes this stuff? by taniwha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree - publically accessable source code control with logs on this stuff is a must (same with actual law) - some countries are already going this way

  6. Re:Who writes this stuff? by elsilver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good god, no you don't.

    What you want is bills that are accepted or rejected wholesale, as-is, unmodified.

    The last thing you want is to make it easier for someone to add unrelated ammendments, or insert language that totally changes the meaning of the bill. Line-by-line, letter-by-letter editing would make doing this much easier, than the already easy "I submit an ammendment to prepend section 12, subsection (viii), item Q with the word 'not'".

    Bills should be submitted in a take-it-or-leave it fashion. If you think you've got an improvement, submit a whole bill with that improvement and convince the original submitter to withdraw their bill.

    Enough mucking around with pet causes and unassociated pork-barrelling (now, associated pork-barrelling -- that's good and all).

    Anyhow, what do I know. I'm Canadian. You just go keep running your country the way you want to.

    E.