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
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
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.
which is why IMHO:
1) get rid of software and business method patents
2) in order to patent something, you need to have a working model, or show that you have the means to produce said model within a certain timeframe.
I've had plenty of ideas. Some of them I could have patented. Why didn't I? I had no intention of going through the effort of building any type of prototype. If someone else does all of the work without ever seeing your work, then you should have no right to any type of money from that work, squatter.
Why?
Because "first to invent" encourages the tactics similar to that of submarine patents:
1. Invent something.
2. Wait for others to invent it too and start using it.
3. File for the patent.
4. Sue everyone who had been using your invention.
5. Profit!