Slashdot Mirror
Patent Attorney Breaks Down Impact of the America Invents Act
msmoriarty writes "As you probably heard, on Friday the Obama administration signed the America Invents Act, which changed our system to 'first to file.' Support for the bill itself was split in the tech industry: Microsoft and IBM (among others) supported the act, Google and Apple opposed it. Redmondmag asked a patent attorney to explain in detail the act and what impact he thinks it will have on the tech industry. According to him, there are still many open questions. From the article: 'The Act has not accomplished [first to file] harmonization in a straightforward or unambiguous way. For example, it is not clear whether a prior use or offer for sale of an invention by an inventor or joint inventor within a year of the date of filing would render the invention unpatentable.' He also said that the act clearly favors larger corporations, and he doubts it will speed up the patent process itself, which was one of its intended benefits."
Microsoft supported it, Google opposed it. What more proof do we need that this act is evil? Propably none and even if some then not much. Nevertheless the articles linked in this story even if not bad in content still may be quite hard to follow for anyone who hasn't got an opinion on this matter yet. You can find much more information in the Wikipedia article: Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and even more in the articles linked in the references. I strongly recommend reading it all because otherwise we risk to draw uneducated conclusions from the aspects of this story that may seem obvious but actually are not that obvious for anyone educated in the intellectual property law. Some of the implications of that act would be rather scary so we really need to take some time to fully research the subject and unlike the Redmondmag, the so called "independent voice of the Microsoft IT community", the Wikipedia is actually worth reading.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
We're all fucked.
"the act clearly favors larger corporations"
Well, duh! Isn't that the sole purpose of all acts and reforms? More advantages for larger corporations?
Does it stop patents on life? No
Does it stop software patents? No
Does it work to prevent patent abuse by companies like Monsanto who use it as a weapon? No
Does it stop patents on items that have been in the commons for years or even centuries? No
This is more pro-corporate political theater at the expense of individual liberty, just like every administration since Reagan.
Life goes on. Corps always win in our system as it is. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
SO FOR GODS SAKE PEOPLE STOP THE GRATUITOUS LAMENTING
With all the talk about how the US needs to out-innovate other countries, they throw a wrench like this in the works. With first to file in place, that cool hack you just came up with and put on your web site, without patenting it first, can now be 'discovered' by a patent troll, who then files a patent based on your work, and then can turn around and sue you for using something that you invented.
Most creative people dont have the time or money to mess around with patenting their new ideas. This whole thing is just a bonanza for megacorps to steal all kinds of IP from the little guys who do most of the inventing.
Complete crap
He also said that the act clearly favors larger corporations
Why? He never explained why. I realize they are the boogy-man now, so any time you want to imply something is bad, you imply its good for the big corporations, but the logic seems to be missing. I guess the argument is something like submarine patents will be harder to implement, but ...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
From TFA:
"The Act does contain mechanisms that are supposed to accelerate patent application examination and grant. For example, under the Act, an applicant can obtain Prioritized Examination (already available as a limited pilot program) in which grant could occur within a year or so after filing. The initial cost of requesting Prioritized Examination is $4,800 in addition to the regular filing fees for a small or large entity – to date the Office indicates that a small entity discount is not available for this procedure. I believe large corporations are more likely to regularly use this procedure than small entities or start-ups."
Gee, that sounds fair.
Does anyone have a cost benefit analysis of false patent marking before and after the new act?
Looks like before the act takes effect, false patent marking is pretty business-suicidal, and after the act it seems like little more than an annoyance.
Can we expect that in the future most patent claims will be false, since it will be cheaper to lie than to actually do the paperwork? In other words it'll make more sense economically to stamp "patent pending" on everything and only actually patent one in ten things just to keep copiers "honest"?
I do see the standard american business model trend of find something historically trustworthy (like writing the patent numbers and/or patent pending on a product) then breaking that trust for profit, until the market falls apart and disintegrates... I can clearly see the first step, second is looking kind of fuzzy. How are the megacorps planning to make money off this particular form of dishonesty? If its not to make money for the megacorps, why promote this kind of dishonesty (or rephrased, who's paying for it?)
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I think I'll go out a patent the wheel now. After all, no one else has filed yet.
Sit back, and watch the royalities 'roll' in.
There is no honesty in politics, but can't they be stopped from false advertising? When they name something "Jobs Act" it doesn't mean there will be jobs, but if you are against the act on actual details of the bill, then you'll be labeled as if you are "against jobs".
Same with the Patriot Act - do you think it's easy to be in opposition to a bill named "Patriot Act"? What are you, a terrorist?
"America Invents Act" will only succeed in innovative litigation procedures.
There are 152 PAGES in that bill. (PDF warning)
How about doing something useful to get America 'inventing' again?
How about abolishing the patent system? How about reducing regulations and all other government nonsense and stop standing in the way of inventions and innovations and stop allowing the huge companies from crashing competition with their patents?
Of-course you don't have to stop, but all the inventions and innovations will take place somewhere else, not in America.
The correct way to read names of government bills is to reverse the literal meaning of the names.
This bill can be named: "America Inventing Prevention Act" or "Inventing Anywhere But America Act".
It would be easy to vote against those names.
Get them to give bills numbers and not names and then everybody would have to know the details of what's inside. Stop the false advertising, companies get sued for it, why not governments?
You can't handle the truth.
My particular (large) corporation will be thankful for this change.
As a scientist I have had to record all my findings and notes on a dead-tree lab-book, just in case the attorneys from the US with their first-to-invent system came knocking.
Now I don't, we can record stuff much more efficiently in an electronic format.
Microsoft and IBM (among others) supported the act, Google and Apple opposed it.
I think that says all we need to know about the act. It's a big zero. The old situation was no good and this new act is no good either. Big whoop. The corruptocracy of government in collusion with megacorporations continues ... accelerates, actually. Regardless of which band of thugs is in charge in Washington, or even if neither band has clear control. You know why? It's a big charade. They are all the same band of thugs.
The Comment Subject is my comment.
That congress can take money from it for other things.
THAT'S the root of most problems. If congress would top doing that, they could hire more people for patent review.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
He's saying that patents will be harder to file for smaller corporations, and that a large corporation is more likely to be immune from patent infringement if they internally developed something but did not disclose it before the small corporation filed, and so on.
As far as I am concerned, the fewer patent "traffic" there is and the smaller chance of successful patent lawsuits, the better -- but not for him, since he gets paid more when there is more such traffic.
If anything, I tend to think that a really bad situation got just a little better. And it's still quite bad.
It should be "first to invent", not first to file. This way, a company with a lot of money can look at your work, then patent it, effectively stealing it from you. If you don't have tons of money to patent every statement you write.
Better still, it should be "no patents".
no, I don't have a sig
"Obama administration signed the America Invents Act"
How does an administration sign something?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
we screwed you all through a complex and highly guarded system of think tanks, policy centers, and lobbyists. to those of you who blame us, know that you are powerless and mute in our presence as have you always been. to those of you who blame the black person running the country, your obedience is duly noted. your television is working properly and serving its intended purpose.
regards, The Capitalist Class(c)
P.S. Consume.
Good people go to bed earlier.
From TFA: However, in the majority of cases (e.g., if there is no derivation issue), the America Invents Act implements a "first to file" rule, and I would strongly advise clients to regard the Act in that manner, and to promptly perform a prior art search and, if the invention appears to be patentable, file a patent application before taking any other action, particularly before using, disclosing, selling or offering the invention for sale. Thus, the rule should be "file first" as well as "first to file."
Thus it encourages early filing and disclosure, which helps prevent people keeping ideas secret. Disseminating info to encourage progress is the primary reason for having patents, so changes that encourage disclosure earlier are good. This also helps simplify prior art claims in patent approval because unpublished prior art does not prevent the patent.
The extension of the Prior Use defense is also a net benefit. While it does allow companies to keep information private (partially offsetting the advantages above), as soon as someone else files a patent application for the same idea, the company who kept it private loses the ability to patent it, thus giving them an incentive to apply for a patent rather than keep it secret. It does allow the company to continue to use their method without infringing on the patent since they were using it prior to the patent filing. You no longer have to worry about someone patenting what you're already doing and making you license it from them.
There are other aspect of the overall act that are only beneficial to specific industries, and some that could be a disadvantage to individual inventors or smaller companies, so it not all good news, but first to file is a good change.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
The mainstream patent lawyer's observations miss the forest for the trees, to some extent, and take for granted much of the propaganda surrounding the entire patent system. I will be conducing a webinar this Friday night to discuss policy aspects of the new patent law, as described at http://mises.org/daily/5663/Obamas-Patent-Reform-Improvement-or-Continuing-Calamity
"...which was one of its intended benefits as claimed by proponents of the legislation."
There, fixed that for you...
-- Terry
While there is more to this act than simply bringing the USA in line with the rest of the world in regard to first to file practice, the Canadian experience following a transition in 1989 has been summed up as not fundamentally altering Canadian patent practice. http://www.torys.com/Publications/Documents/Publication%20PDFs/ARTech-19T.pdf
While it will take a while for the US to adjust, the first inventor to file was always considered to have been the first to invent anyway... the later filer would have to prove that they had invented first... no minor obstacle. Like I say, there is more to the act than just "First to File", but that is what seems to attract all the attention. The rest of the world wonders why.
Why don't we just get rid of patents altogether?
Elimination of the one-year "grace period" has always been one of my main points of contention with the new patent reform legislation. I hope that, as time passes and courts start to review these issues, they will equate disclosure and sale, at least under some circumstances. A grace period is vital to an inventor's evaluation of his or her product's potential performance in the marketplace.