Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Take Another Shot At Patent Reform
narramissic writes "Patent reform legislation was introduced yesterday (PDF), which, if it passes, would be the first major overhaul of US patent law in more than 50 years. (It should be noted that the new legislation is very similar to the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which died on the Senate floor last year.) The legislation would bring US patent law in line with global laws, and introduce 'reasonable royalty' provisions, which change the way damages are calculated and would reduce the likelihood of massive payouts for some patent holders. Representatives from Google, HP and Intel were quick to say that the changes would cut down on frivolous patent lawsuits. But the Innovation Alliance, a group representing patent-holders that oppose the legislation, said that it would 'devalue all patents, invite infringement — including from companies in China, India and other countries — and generate more litigation that will further strain the courts.'"
...it would 'devalue all patents, invite infringement -- including from companies in China, India and other countries...
Pardon my ignorance, but even if that is true does it matter? These countries, especially China, have a long history of not respecting patents and they don't look set to change that attitude.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The Innovation Alliance, which opposes these patent reforms, include some of the best and brightest in patent/IP trolling. One prominent company is the Canopy Partners, which is famous for its previous ownership of The SCO Group and Tessera, which is suing everyone in the wireless industry right now.
My blog
Do you think the Chinese patent-infringing manufacturers care about US laws?
They do if they want to sell their wares here.
Free Martian Whores!
In pharma, it takes a long time after the patent is granted before you get your product onto the market, because you have to do lots of tests on it to satisfy the regulators that it is safe. Generally they have about five years of sales under patent before the generic manufacturers can move in.
If tech patents lasted 5 years, that would take us back to around the time WIndows XP SP2 was released. I think we could live with that.
I don't need luck - it happened at my last job. We used to make an OBD2 car code scanner.
The Chinese would buy them, disassemble them, reverse engineer them, and then sell clones. Not just patent infringement but blatant theft of IP. They'd copy our units even down to the bugs.
And there are loads of patents in this particular product space. I worked on a team that wrote about half of them.
Good enough?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You do realize, don't you, that all the words Patent Pending do is put people on notice that they may be liable for damages later, if and when the patent is granted? In the US, at least, the phrase has no legal effect whatsoever, and is only used as a warning that borrowing the idea now might lead to trouble later.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The problem with the JPEG patent was it's non enforcement for all those years.
AFAICS the inventor in question was the first to combine RLE+VLC coding and the first to use zigzag scanning of DCT coefficients. Both pretty inventive steps for which I see no real prior art at the time. Nothing at the time could get anywhere close to his results.
Although I'm opposed to software patents in general, I think this one was more deserved than most.
In pharma, you generally get 5 years of sales under patent.
In electronics/tech, you generally get 5-10 years before the tech is "stale." Unless you're like Intel or IBM or some other big company that can get their patent into the "root" of a tech standard and force everyone else to pay for the use of your patent. This is why Sony put DVD drives in the PS2 and Blu-Ray in the PS3, and spent tons of money pushing Blu-Ray on everyone: if they can get their stuff to be "the standard", then they stand to make a mint. They've also managed this with certain other technology (Beta, for instance, survived quite well in the TV production industry where quality mattered more than relative price).
In manufacturing/tech, you can sometimes have the full run of your patent to make money, either by being the "exclusive" provider or (again) by getting people to license it.
What's absurd isn't those limits, but the oddly strange "copyright" limits. If copyright terms were the same as the current patent terms, you'd see a lot less DRM and other foolish bullshit-crap being forced on consumers, because the primary reason for a lot of DRM (think, for example, printer cartridges) is to try to "copyright" what should, at best, be covered under a patent.