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.'"
0. Any patent not being sold in a current product line shall pass into public domain.
Might as well add this to copyright reform too.
This is a good first step. The US *should* be on a first to file system. Venue for patent suits *should* be restricted to venues that make sense (rarely ED TX).
But some provisions go too far. Damages should be linked to some market definition - NOT what the trial court thinks is reasonable. Also, we need a change to the laws that provide incentive for innovation in regulated industries. Patents are most valuable in the life sciences. We need reform here. We need to better align value with innovation. We've still a long way to go.
Patents should reward putting your invention out in the open. Having a huge period in which to do secret development is the anti-thesis to what patents should reward.
The only problem with first to file is that there is no grace period.
Lawyers hate grace periods, because if a paper without a million of legalese claims holds any value in court that diminishes their contribution to patents ... they see the exact wording of those legalese claims as somehow more important than the subject covered. Which is ridiculous ... in the areas I'm an expert I can recognize the innovative parts of a paper better than a lawyer can capture it in claims.
I think the first to file vs first to invent difference is just being played up by lawyers to disguise the fact that the real thing they want to get rid of is the grace period.
And you are showing your naivete. China knows there is no way to enforce this.
Examples, you ask? Sure.
Here is the family of devices I worked on.
Here is an absolutely infringing device being sold. It is as blatant of a ripoff as you could possibly get. They didn't even change the freaking color of the unit.
They reverse engineered our unit and built clones. We know this because we bought one and used it. It duplicates subtle bugs in our unit. It is absolutely 100% certainly an illegal copy. And the patent space in the OBD2 market is carved up VERY tightly, so they are certainly breaking patent law by selling this unit. Not to mention the whole "theft of IP" issues.
And you'll notice that nobody is kicking down any doors to get these people to stop.
Face it - this sort of thing is absolutely unenforceable. It's naive to think otherwise.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.