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.
...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
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.'
These guys really need a new PR firm. Vague insinuations about the threat of SEAsia and clogged courts is soooo pre-9/11. It's all about child porn and terrorism now, guys - get with the program.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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.
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
Arguably, a problem with the patent system is that all technologies are treated the same. This is, of course, necessary because of treaties obliging member states to treat all technology the same, but it causes problems with incentives. We need long patents in regulated industries (namely, bio and pharma). We don't need long patents in EE industries where changing technology makes patented technology obsolete more quickly. This, however, is a hard issue to address. We're mired in international treaties that protect the status quo.
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
Yeah, because our American patent system has certainly stopped China and India from infringing thus far! Are these people nuts? Why the hell should these countries obey our patent laws regardless of whatever they happened to be? We're not the law there!
And another thing while I'm at it:
The legislation would bring U.S. patent law in line with global laws
This legislation would have the best chance for getting China and India to respect our patents, since we'd be adhering to a global standard and not a local one.
So this Innovation Alliance is, as far as I can tell - arguing against the very legislation that would have the best chance of supporting its agenda. In other words - yeah. They're nuts.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Ok, so no one should be patenting "genes" period. It's a separate discussion the list of things that may be considered patentable that shouldn't be.
His point is valid, patents are intended to promote innovation. In many industries they're actually retarding it, particularly in many EE/CS/ME areas. Investment in these areas is pretty cheap, and the innovation alone is its own reward in most cases. The real issue is that these patents are often obvious enough and essential and trivial such that they really shouldn't have ever been granted. The right thing would be to toss them out a window...
In bio/pharm, I'm still not sure 17 years or whatever it is, is the right number, it seems awfully long for the way things are today... but it does cost a crapload of money to research and test and create the new ideas. Patents are still needed to keep companies interested in R&D.
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.
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.
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.