EFF Announces New Patent Reform Project

olsmeister writes "On Tuesday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation announced its 'Defend Innovation' project, which includes seven proposals for software patent reform. These proposals include things like shorter coverage for software patents, and a requirement to demonstrate running code for each claim in the patent."

Comments

How about:

[SuricouRaven]

No more granting patents for the bloody obvious! Things like Amazon's one-click, or Apple's patent for a slide-to-unlock bar. This includes things which may sound arcane and innovative but are actually obvious to anyone working in the field, which in turn means the examiners will need to be better trained.

Or how about a 'fail fee' to discourage companies from fileing thousands of junk patents in the hope that just a few will be approved by luck and can be used to fill their patent chest?

A ban on patents that provide no obvious benefit to mankind, but rather are intended specifically to prevent interoperability with a specific format? Things like filesystems or file formats. I'm thinking specifically of MSs patent on long file names in fat32.

Croudsourced stuffing of obvious idea database

[WaffleMonster]

I think what might be interesting is to develop a database of prior art/ideas. With thousands of people submitting everything they can think of every conceviable obvious aggregation of technologies any patent application would be required to be checked against the database and rejected if someone else already dreamed of it before the application was filed.

The database would be run by the patent office or it would incorporate cryptographic and distributed features allowing timestamps and content to stand up to any challenge.

Companies not wishing to pay the patent tax might seek to use it in a bid to prevent others from filing first and locking up the same blatently obvious ideas for the next 20 years.

Re:Frigging ridiculous

[KermodeBear]

If you can't get what you want, you have to settle for a compromise... With the hope that you can ultimately make it to your final destination at some later point down the road.

The legal system - hell, ANY big system - doesn't like sudden, drastic change. But lots of little baby steps? People won't even notice if you do it correctly.

Not very effective EFF

[reebmmm]

I've said before, in other threads, that I'm a patent attorney. I have my undergrad degree in CS. I have an ill view of many patents that are litigated. That's not to say there's no innovation happening in the software world, or that there's nothing worthy of protection.

Nevertheless, I generally think that the EFF's proposals here are misguided. Taking them one by one:

1. A patent covering software should be shorter: no more than five years from the application date.

Part of the problem in the first place is that it some times takes longer than 5 years to even get a patent. Most of the term of a patent (under this scheme) would be consumed with prosecution. It doesn't account for the Patent Office.

If the patent is invalid or there's no infringement, the trolls should have to pay the legal fees.

On board with this one, but it doesn't go far enough.

We really should be talking about fee shifting more generally in the case of a patent owner that fails to do their own diligence, but rather is seeking to extract nuisance money or impede lawful commercial activity.

Patent applicants should be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent.

This doesn't address the real problem. The real problem is when old claims are read to cover future technologies that they didn't not have possession of at the time the application is filed.

In a non-software example, it would be like a patent claim that covers something no larger than "a micrometer" before "nanometer" manipulation was available.

Infringers should avoid liability if they independently arrive at the patented invention.

There is already a prior user defense baked into the most recent patent reform bill.

Patents and licenses should be public right away. Patent owners should be required to keep their public records up-to-date.

Patents are. Most patent applications are public within 18 months of filing too.

I'm not sure why a license must be public. That's just a contract between two people.

I'm also not sure what public records they're referring to. It could be that patent assignment records aren't "up to date." (http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat). I could get on board with requiring those be up to date.

The law should limit damages so that a patent owner can't collect millions if the patent represented only a tiny fraction of a defendant's product.

That's all relative. Besides, plaintiffs still need to prove damages. Defendants still have an opportunity to rebut those damages.

Congress should commission a study and hold hearings to examine whether software patents actually benefit our economy at all.

I bet you can predict how that'll turn out. In any case, doesn't move the needle much.