Slashdot Mirror
Reform Could Kill EFF "Patent Busting Project"
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.
Couldn't ALL consumers demonstrate financial harm? Stupid patents drive up prices, directly affecting ALL of us.
We need line by line, letter by letter editing comments for bills. I want to know which dumbass sneaked this into the Bill.
Simple: The EFF buy one copy of software from someone who has had to pay patent extortion. The price that the EFF paid was presumably higher than it would have been if the software house did not have to pay patent dues ... thus the EFF has suffered financially.
Play these parasites at their own game!
The last thing the world needs is incontestable rights that were wrongly granted in the first place.
I can just hear the bill's defenders saying 'but this limitation would not be incontestability'. But patents are rights that can be asserted against the public generally. So this limitation on who can contest them, would be incontestability by a large section of the persons affected by the rights.
-wb-
The problem is that the standard is not, as the summary claims " anyone... suffering direct financial harm." Instead, the law is about third-party challenges. In other words, the only way after one year to challenge a patent would as a defense once sued over said patent.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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
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.
...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)