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.

Comments

Who writes this stuff?

[Bryansix]

We need line by line, letter by letter editing comments for bills. I want to know which dumbass sneaked this into the Bill.

Re:Who writes this stuff?

[jd]

Well, controlling zombies is always a good idea. But we should really be sure about how many zombies we're talking about. I propose that Holy Water be added to the sprinkler system, and that the Senators must sit through a ten minute test run. Those who dissolve, mutate into a hideous form, or have their heads spin a full 360 degrees, should be required to declare themselves undead.

Re:Who writes this stuff?

[ClamIAm]

I think this idea is more insightful than funny, even if the mods appear to be 50/50 on either side at the moment. Anyway...

I like this idea. It's pretty much the equivalent of applying CVS to the legislative process. Then people can run 'diff' on all the idiotic parts of bills, and find out who's responsible.

I suppose revolutionary types could then claim "we're not rebelling, we're just a fork!"...

Re:Who writes this stuff?

[Foobar of Borg]

If he's still in office, he's one dedicated zombie

Yeah, he's certainly dedicated considering that zombies need to eat brains. How much nourishment do you think a zombie could possibly get on Capitol Hill?

Re:Who writes this stuff?

[arb phd slp]

Once we add CVS and source control the next thing we need is a compiler that actually turns the bill into a final form so that the "not" and "amended to add..." gets added into the sentences so we can see them in context instead of hundreds of pages away.

The reason no one reads the PATRIOT act is because it's almost all partial-sentence amendments to existing laws that are you can't see in context without access to a law library. Compile the source code of the nation so we can read it!

patent incontestability is so bad

[waterbear]

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-

Second Patent Office

[steveha]

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

Re:Second Patent Office

[afidel]

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.

An oversight unit

[jd]

...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.