Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama To Sign 'America Invents Act of 2011' Today

Posted by Soulskill on from the system-and-method-for-inhaling-oxygen dept.

ideonexus writes "President Obama will be signing the 'America Invents Act of 2011' into law today at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va. The bill will transition America from a 'first-to-invent" to a 'first-to-file" country, but critics argue that the bill fails to address the more important problem that 'nobody can tell what a patent covers until they've spent months or years working it out, often in the courts.'"

22 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. America Invents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What kind of title is that? Doublespeak and marketing entering politics.

    1. Re:America Invents? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like the PATRIOT act. The title is an ironic opposite of what the act actually does.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:America Invents? by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clear Skies Act, No Child Left Behind...

    3. Re:America Invents? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First to file.

      Now.

      Raise filing fees and barriers to protect incumbent interests.

      Why not? In Amerika today, money has already become the right to vote, and the right to speech.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:America Invents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This bill is a scam. Included is a provision to bailout a law firm. They missed a patent deadline but with this bill, congress is giving them a pass and applying the patent retro. Its a big win for the law firm who's take from this will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
      And yes, they gave heavily to Obama...

    5. Re:America Invents? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

      He ALSO signed a continuation of Emergency Powers.

      How Nice.

      Funny this little occurrence receives so little attention, when, of these invoked powers, The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:

      Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.

      I guess there wasn't enough NewSpeak in that article for the WT to preserve it from their Memory Hole. Here it is on the Wayback:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20010918184425/www.washtimes.com/national/20010918-1136.htm

      Now, back to Barry's continuation of the legacy:

      Notice of September 9, 2011

      Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

      Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the
      terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

      Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2011. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

      This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

      (Signed, BO)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:America Invents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      What! You must be from the Obama whitewash department. Even NYTimes called him out on it dumbass.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/business/patent-bill-could-save-a-law-firm-millions.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

    7. Re:America Invents? by RenderSeven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually a little Google backs it up. Try HERE

      Looks like Medicines Company would make $65m in fees under the new provisions. Although I cant verify that anyone donated significantly to Obama. They run their own PAC but doesnt look like significant money. Then again, politicians can be bought for nothing these days.

    8. Re:America Invents? by euroq · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are a liar. They are not applying the patent retro. They are clarifying the deadline rules, so that the rules in law (on paper) are explicit to what two judges have already ruled is the case.

      "[The company] had received F.D.A. approval for Angiomax after the customary close of business on a Friday, the 60-day clock should not have started ticking until the next Monday."

      It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. NOTHING THIS BILL DOES IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING FOR THAT LAWFIRM AND COMPANY. It is only going to clarify the rules. (Actually, on second thought, it will remove the threat of APP Pharmaceuticals's appeal)

      Even if this did retroactively give the patent to this company (which is won't), that wouldn't be a bailout - no government money would be given to them (you might have an argument for corruption, but it's not a bailout).

      Finally, the funny thing in the NYT article is that two Republicans want the patent protection for the company to go away because "...the extra patent protection on Angiomax could cost hospitals and consumers $1 billion.". Well, Republicans, that's EXACTLY what you wanted when you opposed "socialized" healthcare! That very argument was the left's argument for the healthcare overhaul. Patents are what help drug companies make lots of money "at the expense of hospitals and consumers", because they will in turn fund new R&D for new medicines.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    9. Re:America Invents? by euroq · · Score: 3, Informative

      No it didn't. The NY Times reported that a Republican called it a bailout. RTFA... it's not.

      It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. This bill is only going to clarify the rules that agrees with the two judges that already said.

      WTF passes for the definition of a "bailout" nowadays? Even if this story was changing the patent filing decisions retroactively, no government money was going to be given to any companies involved either way.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  2. I don't get "First to File" by gameboyhippo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about first to do both. You would have to have an invention before you can file. Otherwise, I'm patenting time travel.

    1. Re:I don't get "First to File" by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about first to do both. You would have to have an invention before you can file. Otherwise, I'm patenting time travel.

      The change is as opposed to the earlier "first to invent" system, in which you could be the second person to file, but still get the patent. Basically, under the old system, say person A conceives of an idea on January 1. They diligently and continuously work to reduce the idea to practice, and file a patent application on December 1. Meanwhile, person B conceived of the idea on June 1, and being quicker, filed a patent application July 1. Even though B filed first, A would get the patent, because A had first possession of the idea.

      Now, that's changed. B filed first, B wins...

      ... unless A published prior to June 1. Under the new rules, if A conceived of the idea on January 1, and posted it on his or her blog on January 2, that counts as prior art against B, but not A (for one year).

      So, now, rather than just a race to the patent office, we actually have a race to make a public disclosure, which is a good thing.

    2. Re:I don't get "First to File" by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If that disclosure thing is correct, and the courts actually see it that way, then this system is much better. First-disclosed is much better for the community than first-invented or first-filed. It's an incentive to actually report new inventions, so that everyone can eventually benefit from them.

      Agreed... There's one slight wrinkle, however...

      In the US, you now have that encouragement to disclose your new invention immediately, to prevent anyone else from filing a patent application on it. You still have one year to file your patent application. HOWEVER, there's no one-year grace period in Europe under the EPO rules: as soon as you disclose your new invention, that disclosure is prior art to any patent application of yours, even if you file the following week. So Europe actually discourages disclosure prior to filing (and so do some other countries).

      So, say you're Nokia, with manufacturing in Europe and a major market in the US... What do you do? Disclose then file, or wait to disclose until you file? The former destroys your rights in Europe, while the latter makes it possible for others to file first and block your application.

  3. America by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Invents a better way to screw Americans.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. You still have to have invented it by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    The old way: You have to have invented the product or process and reduced it to practice, you have to file a patent application, and you have to have invented before other inventors.
    The new way: You have to have invented the product or process and reduced it to practice, you have to file a patent application, and you have to have filed before other inventors.

    The purported advantage of the new way is that it's a lot easier to prove having filed first than to prove having reduced it to practice first.

  5. Honesty in naming by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Again, I just posted on this in the previous story.

    HONESTY IN NAMING. Give that bill's number, make them read it. Of-course this will do nothing for Obama's reelection, but this "America Invents Act" will do nothing for inventions in America.

    There are 152 PAGES in that bill. (PDF warning)

    152 pages. You'd think to have America "inventing" you wouldn't need that. What you'd need is to stop punishing people for investments with inflation, taxes, regulations and insane spending, like that on wars. How about ABOLISHING the patent system altogether and abolishing all patents and refunding those that are pending by the way? Having a freer society, so that people could ACTUALLY INVENT AND INNOVATE without FEAR of being SUED?

    You think they'll stop wars in that bill? You think they'll stop inflation and encourage underconsumption, savings and investments?

    Please. It's about dates of filing, it's about law suits. It's about more government protections given to large corporations. It's about lawyers.

    The only 'innovation' that will be promoted by this bill will be lawyer innovation, innovative ways to file MORE LAWSUITS.

    That's all this is going to do - more lawsuits and actually less innovation and fewer inventions, as always the exact opposite of what the bill is named.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  6. Make sure you patent everything by Scootin159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... otherwise someone could easily steal your design, write up a patent for it, and beat you to the patent office. Now you're out of business unless you pay royalties to them because they beat you to the office first.

    Makes me wonder what FOSS software hasn't been patented yet, seems like all you need to do now is file a patent and you can claim ownership over a project that you had nothing to do with.

  7. Best Suggestion EVAR by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was listening to a TWiT tech podcast, don't remember which one or who said this, but... They asked for one thing in a software patent... working demonstration code.

    Immediately, light bulbs were going off for me. Finally, that might solve some abandon-ware problems. Forces companies to actually make a practical use idea (rather than, "two taps does a different action than one tap" patent, and yes, that's a real patent). And, above all, satisfies what patents were originally intended for. Protecting innovation, but also, sharing that idea with others who can improve it... and a significant improvement on someone's patent is itself, patentable.

    More than anything, this would also expose frivolous patents. You have to actually MAKE the product or at least a demo before you can patent it. And, code can be checked with an algorithm to see if it already exists. That would be a fabulous tool for dev shops who could check all sorts of software, and get an immediate response with a quick code search.

    --
    I8-D
  8. so begins the whining.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The defense against it is simple. Do your research and publish it ALL to the public. Release it and get it out there Creative commons licensing eliminates the possibility of your idea being patented and stolen from you.

    Stop being selfish asshats. Invent and release it to the wild.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. a.k.a "The Lawyer Bailout Bill" by sanzibar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/business/patent-bill-could-save-a-law-firm-millions.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y smoke and mirrors....

  10. First-to-file doesn't affect novelty at all by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    First-to-file doesn't affect novelty at all. Published prior art that disqualifies an invention under first-to-invent also disqualifies an invention under first-to-file. Furthermore, I've read that the Act makes it easier to challenge a questionable patent, so you'll have an easier time of getting your open source project into the USPTO examiner's hands.

  11. Re:Screw the developer by S-100 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, but that happened in the past as well. Read about JMRI vs. Katzer: http://jmri.org/k/Recent.shtml#2010-02-17 The troll was eventually defeated, but only after years in court and $100,000's spent.