Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Reform Bill Passes Senate

Posted by samzenpus on from the first-to-file dept.

First time accepted submitter nephorm writes "The Senate passed the first major overhaul of the nation's patent law in more than a half century by passing the America Invents Act. The legislation won overwhelming approval in an 89-9 vote. From the article: 'The America Invents Act switches the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file nation. It also sets up a new regime to review patents and gives the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more flexibility to set and spend fees paid for by inventors to get patents and businesses to register trademarks.'"

8 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. I'd like to take this time to patent.... by MasseKid · · Score: 5, Funny

    The first post. I didn't invent it, but I did get here first.

    1. Re:I'd like to take this time to patent.... by Divebus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd like to see the old "first to show the damned thing working" system come back. Ideas are one thing, but there's nothing like a working sample. No ambiguity if you can/can't show it, no pie-in-the-sky "inventions" that lay in wait in patent trolls' filing cabinets.

      The people who have no resources to actually create their idea may be subject to someone else capitalizing on it, but I can see a robust VC or incubator lab market growing out of the need to show the device in action. Contracts would be between the idea person and the VC or lab and won't dirty up the patent system.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    2. Re:I'd like to take this time to patent.... by Sun · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sorry, but this rant is just ignorance of how "first to file" actually works.

      First to invent means, in theory, that you can build something, start selling it, and then file for patent. In practice, however, this allows big corporations to back-date an invention. There is no "chain of evidence" proving that you did, indeed, made the invention as far back as you claim you did.

      With first to file, it is impossible to back-date an invention, as the one providing the time stamp is the (presumably reliable) patent office.

      Now let's take the apocalyptic scenarios you describe and dissect them:

      Now you could invent something, be using it and selling it for 10 years, and then Big Corporation file a $10,000+ patent and steal your invention and sue YOU for selling YOUR invention!

      No, they can't. If you have been selling it on the market, it's prior art. No one can patent it. Even if that's not the case, first-to-file systems generally have "prior use" defenses. I cannot invalidate your patent by proving that I have been using it before you patented it, but I am exempt from licensing it from you.

      since you can no longer prove "I've been using this for XX years!"

      As far as I know, first to invent only goes back one year. That it the most you can back-date an invention. The load on the patent office will not change significantly.

      But it will increase the filing process since they don't have to do any work, they don't have to figure out "Gee, does the wheel already exist? I swear this round thing looks familiar..." they can just do a quick search of their database and go "Nope don't find it here's your patent".

      If it's published, it's prior art whether patented or not. If it's unpublished, then you can patent it. Nothing changes in that regard.

      Shachar

  2. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And just how many international patents do you have to your name? I have 2 and I can tell you that first to invent is a PITA and penalizes small inventors. First to file places a stake in the ground that is not contestable. First to invent is open to intrepretation via courts and unless you have the resources and well documented evidence (such lab books where EACH PAGE is signed by two individuals) you will lose out.

  3. The job is easier now for all by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Assuming that they're doing their job, which conventional wisdom says they haven't been.[*]

    They have not been because it's been an almost impossible task to keep up.

    The new bill helps in two ways:

    1) Since you don't care anymore who thought of an idea first, you only need to see if the idea exists in the market or has already been filed to dismiss. Before even if someone filed earlier it COULD be they thought of it later... or the guy filing thought of the idea before the thing on the market arrived.

    2) I'm weak on this point but basically it allows outside entities to contest bad patents instead of just the patent holder. Now the EFF and the FSF can go to down striking down the evil before us.

    And still won't, unless the bill vastly increases the funding for patent examiners.

    You know what? It actually DOES do that. Because now the patent office gets to keep application fees. They didn't before? Nope, went into the general pool to pay for the growing SS or a new airport in Nowhereville dedicated to the state senator.

    It's just that it's a lot more lucrative for qualified people to work in industry than at the Patent Office.

    Perhaps they can pay examiners more now that they get to keep application fees.

    This is really a decent overhaul, better than we could expect from all the infighting and bickering going on.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  4. Re:It doesn't matter what you would like to see by tragedy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting. I just looked for information on a patent on the hula hoop and found this article with this paragraph in it:

    Melina and Knerr were inspired to develop the Hula-Hoop after they saw a wooden hoop that Australian children twirled around their waists during gym class. Wham-O began producing a plastic version of the hoop, dubbed "Hula" after the hip-gyrating Hawaiian dance of the same name, and demonstrating it on Southern California playgrounds. Hula-Hoop mania took off from there.

    Hurray for patents then. Hurray for intellectual property in general. Stealing ideas from the public domain, staking an unfair claim on them, and profiting from day one.

  5. President of OnLive responds to this bill, against by dizzysoul · · Score: 5, Informative

    Steve Perlman, President & CEO, Rearden, OnLive and MOVA wrote a detailed letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, voicing his extreme disapproval of this bill. It's a good read: (PDF) http://www.rearden.com/public/110301-Steve_Perlman_S.23_Letter_to_Senator_Feinstein.pdf

  6. Re:It doesn't matter what you would like to see by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck you! I do research and invent things.
    I don't patent them, I publish them. And I don't do that for profit, but out of curiosity and interest.

    This belief that people do things for material profit only is a cancer of the mind and needs to die. For the record, removing the incentive of work through higher taxes is a good thing: filters out the greedy bastards and lets through the passionate.